COLT I don't understand.


PDA






Walking Dead
August 6, 2011, 11:10 AM
I just don't understand why one of the greatest American gun manufactures in history has not seemed to make any advancements in technology in a 100 years or so. I know the 1911's are brilliant and the cowboy style revolvers are works of art but what about the rest of the market. Why are they not doing anything else?

If you enjoyed reading about "COLT I don't understand." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Broker
August 6, 2011, 11:17 AM
Poorly run company that seems to stay on the edge of bankruptcy. An unsuccessful attempt at a new firearm would probably put them out of business. They seem to refuse to change with the times.

GEM
August 6, 2011, 11:40 AM
They tried with the Colt 2000 fiasco and then pushed for smart guns.

The former didn't run and the latter was an attempt to jump on a gungrabber's ploy. Only safe guns. Taurus also was big into that. I know a guy who worked on a grant from Taurus to do such.

Safe guns were:

1. An infringement of the RKBA as they would be mandated.
2. Made some sense for police retention but they never worked and police rejected them.
3. Made a touch of marketing sense as Colt supposedly found in surveys that there were folks who would buy a smart gun but not a standard handgun.

There were also some other semi handguns that tried to cater to new trends but weren't successful. DA only, etc.

SlamFire1
August 6, 2011, 12:31 PM
After the turn of the century I was squadded in the pitts at Camp Perry next to a man who had been offered the job of either President or plant manager at Colt. Something like that. It was a very high position.

After visiting Colt, he declined the position. He said the entire problem with Colt were the owners. They did not care about firearms, were in fact anti gun, the only thing they were interested in was sucking the maximum amount of profit from the corporation.

He took the manufacturing managers to a modern machine shop with all the CNC and they just shook their heads. Colt management would not fund modern machinery and what Colt was using were old, very old machinery.

Colt got fat and happy with its monopoly on the US service rifle. For decades, the US Army has been wedded to Colt with retired General Officer's retiring to Colt and lobbying their buds to stay the course. It is very interesting to read how the Army maneuvered to maintain a sole source status for Colt. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289 You could call this “regulatory capture” This is not unique to Colt, just look at the fight over the Air Force Tanker contract award to Boeing. Every Defense Industry Corporation lobbies to be a perpetual sole source for the Government as the taxpayer will pay, and pay, and pay. Colt made huge profits with the M4 carbine when they were sole source contractor. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Colt-M4-Data-Rights-The-Individual-Carbine-Competition-06942/#more-6942

They are in a great position in the current M4 contract bid. Anyone who makes M4’s for the Government cannot build and sell them to foreign countries as the TDP is proprietary to Colt, maintaining Colt’s monopoly of source.

You can expect Colt to continue its focus on the very profitable defense sector and to ignore the private section.

They also have a huge patent base and sue the heck out of anyone, suppressing competition and innovation in the US market.

I think the best thing that could happen is for Colt to go away.

Guillermo
August 6, 2011, 12:52 PM
I think the best thing that could happen is for Colt to go away

I do not see where they are having any effect.

All of their patents are long expired.

As a retail consumer is there anything that Colt sells that you cannot buy from another source?

DPris
August 6, 2011, 12:56 PM
Well....
Colt did not get "fat and happy" on the US service rifle. Government sales, domestic & foreign, DID keep Colt afloat.

Colt's TDP was given out some time back.

Colt is not ignoring the civilian sector.

The military side was the first to get heavy CNC upgrading, since that's where sales were (and are).
The other side got CNC later on, but Colt has put millions into upgrading both companies.

Colt has not invested heavily in new designs largely because they've had limited funds to play with.
The company is no longer what it used to be, but I disagree strongly that Colt going away is the best thing that could happen.

They build quality ARs for public consumption, and the same with the Peacemaker and 1911 variants.
Why you'd want to toss those out of the market merely because Colt doesn't come up with New & Exciting is beyond me.
Denis

jimmygrish
August 6, 2011, 01:06 PM
I just don't understand why one of the greatest American gun manufactures in history has not seemed to make any advancements in technology in a 100 years or so. I know the 1911's are brilliant and the cowboy style revolvers are works of art but what about the rest of the market. Why are they not doing anything else?
They never could compete against S&W for or in the private market and Glock ate their lunch worse than Government Contract cancellations. The 1911 contract was terminated back in 1949 and if it was not for Richard Stoner and the AR 15 design they would have been belly up back in the 60's.

EddieNFL
August 6, 2011, 01:43 PM
They build quality ARs for public consumption, and the same with the Peacemaker and 1911 variants. Why you'd want to toss those out of the market merely because Colt doesn't come up with New & Exciting is beyond me.

I don't wish them out of business, but I am a little on the apathetic side. Also, they don't make anything I'm interested in that cannot be had for, in many cases, less money and with the same or better quality. It will be interesting to see what the future brings.

Guillermo
August 6, 2011, 01:46 PM
I am a little on the apathetic side

Me too

Same thing with Smith & Clinton

They are a parts company

Standing Wolf
August 6, 2011, 04:12 PM
According to my old pal Jim, gone now these sixteen years, it's hard to achieve goals if you don't have them.

Companies that don't innovate, even in old-fashioned industries with lots of tradition, get left behind. I'm every inch a Python guy, which is why I'll tell you it's groovy new 1955 technology.

JohnBT
August 6, 2011, 04:36 PM
"As a retail consumer is there anything that Colt sells that you cannot buy from another source?"

A Colt.

buck460XVR
August 6, 2011, 05:09 PM
I think the best thing that could happen is for Colt to go away.


Colt's stock(up till the last few days of course) has been doing very well. Try to find one of their 1911s in stock anywhere. Doubt if they are going to disappear anytime soon.

Guillermo
August 6, 2011, 05:15 PM
A Colt

funny

But you can draw a horsey on the side of you Rock River and have a better gun.

Lots of cowboy guns out there of better quality.

1911s...a gazillion better guns out there.


Note...I am a huge fan of old Colt revolvers.
4 Diamondbacks, 1 Python, 1 Cobra, 1 Officer's Target.

So I sip the Blue Kool Aid...but I prefer mine aged. (1970 or older)

Guillermo
August 6, 2011, 05:16 PM
Try to find one of their 1911s in stock anywhere

A- that they are not stocked is not indicative to success.

B- Why bother?

cacoltguy
August 6, 2011, 05:21 PM
If it ain't broke dont fix it. After 100 years, 1911's are still the being manufactured and purchased like mad. IMO, Colt happens to make some of the best non-custom 1911's on the market with quality components. (Unlike some 1911 manufacturers who blow all their money on multi-page ads in every gun magazine and then pack the internals of their firearms with cheap crap components)

And besides, modern advancement in firearms technology seems to consist of rolling out another mall-ninja AR design in a different caliber with 35 picatinny rails instead of 34. I'll pass

Guillermo
August 6, 2011, 05:33 PM
If it ain't broke dont fix it

Colt is one of the most broken companies in existence.

The government bailed them out...they attempted and failed many things. (including the "smart gun")

They have been passed around like a $2 ho when the fleet comes in. They have been run by scum like Steven Sliwa, and Ron Stewart.

Nobody loves their Colts as much as I do. But the company that now calls itself Colt is pretty much a welfare queen.

EddieNFL
August 6, 2011, 05:41 PM
"As a retail consumer is there anything that Colt sells that you cannot buy from another source?"

A Colt.
That's equivalent to saying only Dodge sells pickups.

eazyrider
August 6, 2011, 06:06 PM
Colt is and forever will be my favorite gun company. I love my Snakes and I do believe that my Python is one of the best handguns ever made. With that being said, it saddens me to think of Colt as just scrapping by offering the same old stuff, good as it might be. I would love to see them re-open the DA revolver line but I know that it would not work. As much as I would love the new revolver's and I would buy one, how many others would? They would be priced very high and would not sell. I hold out hope that my favorite gun company will on day rise to prominence again.

Magno
August 6, 2011, 06:11 PM
And besides, modern advancement in firearms technology seems to consist of rolling out another mall-ninja AR design in a different caliber with 35 picatinny rails instead of 34. I'll pass

Amen to that.

If they just started making Pythons again I would be satisfied

DPris
August 6, 2011, 06:14 PM
Guill,
Once again, I have to totally disagree with you.

No Rock River 1911 pattern pistol ever built is or was "better" than a Colt.
There are emphatically NOT "lots" of cowboy guns out there of "better" quality.
There is certainly not a "gazillion" better 1911s out there.

Colt isn't perfect, but that's a very ill-informed statement that bears no relation to reality.
If you genuinely believe your assertions, you use a different set of criteria than most of the rest of us do in determing "better".
Denis

Guillermo
August 6, 2011, 06:18 PM
Colt's idea of modern advancement in arms seems to be the Stoner design from 1957.

Or there was the Double Eagle and the Colt "All American 2000" (which led to bankruptcy).

No wonder they are afraid of new designs...they really suck at it.

Guillermo
August 6, 2011, 06:21 PM
No Rock River 1911 pattern pistol ever built is or was "better" than a Colt.

I was thinking of the ARs...not the 1911

Guillermo
August 6, 2011, 06:25 PM
As to the assertion that there are a lot of better 1911's...that is easy.

Charles Daly, Kahr Arms, Kimber, Les Baer, Para-Ordanance, Springfield STI, Wilson

The list goes on and on

As to the cowboy guns...I will defer to you. I only know what I read. Have not shot a single action revolver in years.

EddieNFL
August 6, 2011, 06:26 PM
I was thinking of the ARs...not the 1911
Their 1911s were as good as their ARs.

SlamFire1
August 6, 2011, 06:33 PM
In May, when I bought my SIGP220, I asked to see the new Colt M1911's. I had read John Taffin articles about how the new Colts were better built than ever, heard Colt fans say the same thing. I asked the store manager about this and he shook his head and handed me two factory new Colts when I asked to examine them.

They were as loose as my series 80's M1911's from the 80's. The manager then put the cheapest Springfield Armory M1911, I think it was the GI model on the table. This pistol was half to 2/3rds the price of a Colt. And it was tight, amazingly tight. I mean as tight as the old NM pistols.

Colt, I ain't paying extra for the name, they have to give me value for the money.

DPris
August 6, 2011, 07:06 PM
Guil,
I have had two experiences with Rock River .223 products. Neither functioned.
I've discussed the RRs with gunsmiths whose opinions I respect.
In no way is a Rock River AR superior to a Colt AR.

Of your 1911 list, I'd agree on Baer & Wilson. And only those two.
In the custom arena, of course you'll find "better" than a stock Colt. In comparable packages, there are still not a "gazillion" better 1911s.

As to the cowboy guns, NO foreign-made Peacemaker clone is even the equal of the genuine Colt, much less better.
Domestically, the USFAs can be roughly comparable, and the never-seen STI Texican MAY actually be better, but it's pretty much...never seen.

My comments are based on personal experience, and discussions with people who work on and with these guns, not on something I've read.
Denis

DPris
August 6, 2011, 07:08 PM
Slam,
As mentioned before when you brought this up, tight fit is not an absolute sign of quality, and many of us prefer the looser Colt Rattle.
One of the reasons I sold my Baer was that it was just too tight.
Denis

TexasBill
August 6, 2011, 09:22 PM
I was never a cowboy gun fan and there are autoloaders I like better than the 1911. However, I always liked Colt's DA revolvers and was sorry to see them go. Especially guns like the Police Positive and the Lawman, which were among my favorite wheelguns back in the day. Of course, I also miss the old Python and Diamondback.

Sadly, it's not likely a good business case could be made for bringing back any of those, except perhaps the D-frames given the fairly strong market for small revolvers. I have no idea how much a real Python would have to sell for these days, but a grand probably wouldn't touch it.

Even so, I would hate to see the Colt name disappear. If I were ever to buy another M1911-style pistol, it would be a Colt, plain vanilla, no beavertail. And if I ever had the desire for a single-action revolver, it would have to be a Colt Single Action Army. I've had Rugers, and they are great guns, and I have heard good things about other brands, but whoever heard of a tale from the Old West where the gunslingers slapped leather for a Beretta?;)

tipoc
August 6, 2011, 10:11 PM
A good many folks detest Colt for a number of different reasons. Some of these reasons are based on Colt's own past practices. Some others dislike seems to be based on lack of knowledge or understanding or just flat out prejudice, sorry to say.

Despite the many knuckleheaded decisions that Colt management has made over the decades the company (companies these days) survives and makes products that are sold all over the globe.

In 2002 Colt divided into two separate companies with separate facilities, officers, financial structure, etc. The largest section with over 1000 employees in a number of plants in the U.S. and Canada is...

Colt Defense...http://colt.com/

The section which produces guns for the civilian market and has around 100 workers, is...

Colt Manufacturing...http://www.coltsmfg.com/

I encourage folks to click on the links to see what they actually produce and learn a bit more about them. Both sections are profitable.

Colt will never again make the beautiful and strong da revolvers that it made decades ago. The Python was the last to bite the dust and it fell because no one was buying them. Colt may again make a da revolver but it will not be like those of the past. S&W no longer makes wheelguns like it used to either.

Colt still makes excellent firearms. The U.S. military relies on them and has for decades. The 1911s that it makes are also good, solid guns on the whole. This is indisputable. They may not be to one fellas taste but they do suit plenty.

tipoc

orionengnr
August 6, 2011, 11:35 PM
I was born and raised in The Constitution State, and the first handgun I ever fired was my dad's WWII Colt 1911. He took me to the Colt factory as a teenager, as well as Plymouth Rock, West Point, the Groton Sub Base and a variety of other historically significant sites in New England.

The Colt factory back in the early 70s was like a lot of other factories in New England. Big brick building, rather poorly lit inside, kind of run-down-looking, with a lot of antiquated machinery. Since I was embarking upon machinist training, I got a look at a lot of similar facilities in the next five years.

I left CT in 1977, and have been back only a handful of times since. But I have driven by the Colt factory in Hartford a few times, and it looks just the same from the outside as it did back then.

I imagine some things have changed inside, but my ownership experiences with Colt firearms over the years have been frustrating, and have done nothing to reinforce that notion.

Point is, I was raised to be a Colt fan. I am still a 1911 fan, but it's been about four years since my last Colt, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

cacoltguy
August 6, 2011, 11:37 PM
They have been passed around like a $2 ho when the fleet comes in. They have been run by scum like Steven Sliwa, and Ron Stewart

Name an American Firearms company that hasn't been passed around by multiple owners over the course of it's existence. I also seem to remember some guy named Bill Ruger not exactly being the most "pro-gun" owner of a firearms company.

As to the assertion that there are a lot of better 1911's...that is easy.

Charles Daly, Kahr Arms, Kimber, Les Baer, Para-Ordanance, Springfield STI, Wilson

The list goes on and on

Really??? Charles Daly?? Para Ordnance??????!!! Kimber? Last time I checked, Charles Daly wasn't doing so well and was just a branding name that never actually made any of their own products anyway. Para Ordnance had laughable reliability and quality control after their recent relocation from Canada to the U.S. I wouldn't take three of their double stack hunks of junk and a $1000 check for my Colt 1911. Thirdly, you can't look at a 1911 forum lately without someone complaining about their brand new Kimber being a total hunk of crap.

As far as Wilson combat and Les Baer, well yeah I would sure hope that semi-custom guns costing 2-3 grand would be nicer than an $800-$1100 Colt. Guess which normal production gun consists almost entirely of forged parts just like Wilson Combat and Les Baer? The answer is Colt. That is something none of the firearms companies you mentioned can claim.

orionengnr
August 7, 2011, 12:15 AM
Really??? Charles Daly?? Para Ordnance??????!!! Kimber?
I take it that your experience entails more than reading internet postings. Or maybe not.

I have owned at least 25 1911s in the last 25 years, including three Colts. Two of three were sub-standard, and the factory was zero help.

I had one Charles Daly, and was not at all impressed with it. Again, their CS was a joke.

Paras? I had difficulty with my first, a 3" steel C6, bought used. When I posted my difficulties on a 1911 forum, I was contacted by George Wedge, head of QC. He had been trolling internet boards. He offered to fix my C6, even though I was not the original owner. That is CS. I have owned three other Paras, and never had a bit of trouble with any of them. There are better 1911s out there, but there are a lot worse.

Kimber? Ah, yes. :) A friend of mine has a Kimber Eclipse Pro II 1911. He and I went to the range one day a number of years ago. It was hard not to note that he was shooting exceptionally well. However, I attributed that to the fact that he is a former Army Special Forces guy. When he offered to let me shoot the Kimber, after the first mag through, I knew that was going to be an expensive lesson. That gun made me look ridiculously good.

I bought my first less than a month later. It worked perfectly from round #1, and made me look pretty good shooting it.

Since then I have owned quite a few other 1911s, and eightof them have been Kimbers in 3", 4", 5"...alloy and steel frames. Each has worked perfectly. I currently own one 4" steel framed Eclipse Pro II, which is my EDC. I own a 5" steel Classic Stainless LE. I own a 3" alloy framed Ultra CDP and a 3" alloy Stainless Ultra Carry II. The wife has a 3" Ultra CDP II.

I will put any of these Kimbers up against any mass produced 1911s with regard to reliability, accuracy, etc.

I also own 1911s by Dan Wesson and Les Baer, but I carry my Kimber every day.

There is a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with price. I carry the one that I shoot the best and that I trust implicitly to work, every time I press the trigger.

cacoltguy
August 7, 2011, 12:29 AM
Yes it includes my experiences shooting Colt's, Kimbers and a Para-Ordnace owned by my neighbor. The constant theorizing about the health of Colt manufacturing however, seems to be based more on internet forums than anything. The Para Ordnace I shot had a flaking finish after 3 months, would not reliably feed more than 3 magazines in a row and was sold for $300 by my neighbor after owning it for less than a year. After seeing this first hand, I have also read similar reports about Para products after relocating their manufacturing plant. I had good luck with the Kimbers I shot but like it or not there have been alot of rumblings about Kimber QC under their new leadership the last year or so.

The bottom line is that people have been whining and rumbling about Colt for years, claiming the company is going under, making inferior products, etc....

I'm just saying that no firearms company is immune to the same criticism being thrown at Colt and all too often we fail to realize that they often have faired much worse.

As for Colt existing due to Corporate Welfare by way of the DOD, welcome to the reality of every U.S. defense contractor in the U.S. At least Colt is making battle rifles being used by our troops on the ground and not billion dollar flying flops that are crashing, over-budget, and years behind schedule.

DPris
August 7, 2011, 12:58 AM
You must not have been by the Colt factory in Hartford anytime recently.
Colt's been out of that building for several years, located now in a much more modern facility in West Hartford.
Denis

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 01:44 AM
Name an American Firearms company that hasn't been passed around by multiple owners over the course of it's existence

Ruger, Kahr come to mind without a second thought. Have Para, Wilson, STI been traded?

In no way is a Rock River AR superior to a Colt AR

I know mechanics that love the S10 over the Tacoma...but that is because they make more money fixing them.
Rock River makes an outstanding AR...Colt is pretty much middle of the road.

Hey...if you want to hang your hat on the modern version of Colt...go for it. You can pretend that they are a great company.

It is okay...they have people that believe that the MIM, IL, 2 piece, crush-fit barreled Smith revolvers are the best they have ever been.

tipoc
August 7, 2011, 03:03 AM
Name an American Firearms company that hasn't been passed around by multiple owners over the course of it's existence

and reply from Guillermo...

Ruger, Kahr come to mind without a second thought. Have Para, Wilson, STI been traded?

S&W, Winchester, Savage, Remington, Marlin, and Colt are American gun manufacturers who have all been bought and sold a few times. Some have been into and out of bankruptcy or close to it, been taken over by the government, shipped production overseas, etc. They are none of them what they were in 1899 or 1940 or 1980. But they all exist still. Many others do not. Ruger is just over 50 years old and has done well. The others Guillermo mentioned are young still.

A fella may not like Colt's 1911s, it's fortunate for us that there are many alternatives. But it is an odd tack to denounce them as terrible guns when so many experienced shooters like them and seek them out. For many they are still the best platform on which to build a custom gun and many look for them for just that reason.

Also strikes me as odd to wish their demise. Why?

Does Colt make the best AR, or M4 or 1911? Maybe and maybe not, folks can debate that all they want and the intimate details of it. In a way it is besides the point. The point is, they do make them and they are used and sold around the world. So Colt is going not going away any time soon.

tipoc

DPris
August 7, 2011, 03:22 AM
Guil,
Sorry, but the RR AR does not rate higher than a Colt. In saying that I'm not knocking RR's guns, just placing things in perspective.

I'm not saying Colt is the absolute best in everything they produce, and I've already said the company isn't what it used to be.
But- Colt is very far from putting out a middle of the road AR.

I don't know where you're getting your ideas from, but they're more than a bit off kilter.

And, as pointed out above, America's oldest gunmakers have all been sold & "passed around" over the years.
Ruger itself is no longer family operated, and it's only a matter of time before it'll be bought by somebody else, too.
The other names you mention are too young, but they'll be sold, too. You think Bill Wilson will own & run his outfit till he dies? Not hardly.

In any business, once the founder dies or gets tired of it, it does one of two things: it either goes out of business or it gets sold. Subsequent buyers always have the option of doing business the same way, or altering practices for various reasons.
Just a fact of business life.
You make it sound like Colt's unique in its multiple ownership history. Not quite.
Denis

EddieNFL
August 7, 2011, 08:35 AM
I have had two experiences with Rock River .223 products. Neither functioned.
I've discussed the RRs with gunsmiths whose opinions I respect.
In no way is a Rock River AR superior to a Colt AR.


Since we're posted personal experiences. Own four RRA ARs and own or have owned six Colt ARs. All have proven reliable, but the Rocks shoot rings around the Colts.

Of your 1911 list, I'd agree on Baer & Wilson. And only those two.

The last two Colt 1911s I bought (Gold Cup and Combat Elite) required professional attention to run. I have a (GASP!) Kimber that was flawless out of the box. Owned two other Kimbers; one required a bit of work to run and the other an extractor tweak, but both were more accurate than any of the stock Colts I have owned.

Lots of folks have die hard loyalty. My Dad was a GM man 'til the day he died.

EddieNFL
August 7, 2011, 08:45 AM
In any business, once the founder dies or gets tired of it, it does one of two things: it either goes out of business or it gets sold. Subsequent buyers always have the option of doing business the same way, or altering practices for various reasons.

And consumers have the option of moving on.

I think defenders and detractors generally are products of different generations, so to speak. Some here were Colt fans in their heyday and others came along later when they were not so stellar. Time goes by and another generation comes along and finds theiy're the greatest thing since the wheel.

I own 1911s from half a dozen different makers. Some I have vowed to never buy again. Who knows, in 20 years Kimber may be the absolute best 1911 on the market (that could mean they just won't suck as badly as everyone else ;))

357 Terms
August 7, 2011, 08:58 AM
Bonehead decisions! plain and simple. They got out of the DA revolver market, for whatever reason, and they marketed poor ideas ( the 2000 series ) and missed the boat on some of their own designs! how many Sig 238's have been sold since Colt scrapped the Mustang? Colt 1911's are good but not great or special. I see Colt as a minor player in the civilian market, if they dissapeared most people wouldn't notice.

Pilot
August 7, 2011, 09:33 AM
I have limited experience with Colts. I do own an older Python and Diamondback, but they are not the issue here. The issue is the new Colt.

Right before production ceased of the 01918 WWI Repros in Black Oxide, I purchased two for $899 each, New In Box. One to shoot and one to keep in the safe for a rainy day. I did not have the opportunity to view them prior to purchase as it was on line from a Colt dealer/gun store.

I received two incredibly well finished, well built 1911's as true to the original WWI design as can be had with modern methods, and equipment for a reasonable price. The one I shoot has been 100% reliable from the beginning, and extremly tight and very accurate. I could easily carry this gun for SD, and do sometimes use it as a nightstand gun for home defense. It is reliable with FMJ and JHP. It is just a beautiful sight to behold and my favorite pistol of many I own. Colt got this one right. I have been eyeing the S70 Repros as well, as they seem to be a well made, honest 1911 for under $1K.

This is just my experience. I really don't care who owns them, what there business model is, nor if they ever make a polymer .40 S&W to compete with the plethora of unispired offerings from Glock, Springfield, or S&W. Let the kids and gunstore salesman have them. I'll keep the Colt, and pistols like my BHP, CZ's and older HK's.

MtnSpur
August 7, 2011, 10:06 AM
The adage: "They just don't build them/make them (if you will) like they used to" applies. Owning a few Colts, Smiths, Winchesters and Remingtons from the days when those weapons were made by master gunsmiths one sees a big difference in quality control. Now there is CNC machining and bins of parts and assembly lines of folks putting guns together. Not like it used to be done. We're seeing quality issues from every manufacturer. Pressed barrel fits that are canted, the evil locks that malfunction and finish issues. This issue doesn't exist only in weapon manufacturing, it exists in all manufacturing. The days of hand fitted parts are over unless you order custom shop or are lucky enough to find a master "old time" gunsmith. Offered IMHO folks.

Mtn

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 11:13 AM
You make it sound like Colt's unique in its multiple ownership history

No...but the mismanagement is pretty unique. And the CEOs that call for gun registration is pretty unique too.

As a former 1911 guy (used to be all I would shoot/carry etc) I would say that the Colt 1911 (of today) is a decent product and the price is not too skewed for what you get. (They are all too damned expensive)

U r certainly honest enough to admit that Colt is just another AR these days. Whether brand A is better or not really doesn't matter. You can go into any gun store or for that matter, Academy...and walk out with a quality AR. If Colts were not available, your life would be unaffected.

My initial point was that there is nothing that Colt makes that you can't buy from another place. If you want to pay more for the horsey...go for it!

As to the assertion that I was wishing for their demise, you should read back. Slamfire was saying that they should "go away". I was saying that they are not particularly relevant so they are not hurting anything.

Old Fuff
August 7, 2011, 11:32 AM
Lets say that a large automobile company (Ford, to pick an example) decides to follow the Colt handgun division business model, and discontinue everything they make except two basic lines. What's left is well made, but they have lost a substantial amount of product, and what is left can (and is) being duplicated by other car manufacturers - domestic and foreign.

What would their next quarter, and those thereafter, financial reports look like?

Go back and look at the product line-up in 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970 catalogs and you should quickly see why Colt is no longer an important factor in the U.S. handgun business, and the major mistakes made by incompetent management will become clear. You do not grow a business by discontinuing product and not introducing replacements.

buck460XVR
August 7, 2011, 11:35 AM
A- that they are not stocked is not indicative to success.

It is around here G-man. Not just out of stock at retailers, but at the wholesale warehouses. Not because they don't want them, but because they can't get them.......because of the demand. Even a 6th grade economics student knows that when demand exceeds supply, it's a sign of success.

B- Why bother?

Because they still produce a great 1911 for the price. Ever their entry level autos are still one of the most reliable out the box 1911s produced, besides being a great base for a custom gun. They generally appreciate in value and are backed by great CS. Does Charles Daly even have CS anymore?

SlamFire1
August 7, 2011, 11:37 AM
Slam,
As mentioned before when you brought this up, tight fit is not an absolute sign of quality, and many of us prefer the looser Colt Rattle.
One of the reasons I sold my Baer was that it was just too tight.
Denis
I associate tight fit with quality and accuracy. The tight M1911’s I own are superbly accurate. One rattly Colt I sent to Wilson Arms for a bunch of modifications, one of which was slide/frame tightening. That pistol now shoots more accurately than before. Having service from both, I am of the opinion that the Wilson Arms gunsmiths know more about M1911's than Colt customer service. My rattlly series 80 stainless, it functions fine, not as accurate as my tight M1911’s, but it is fine for a combat pistol.

I am more of a paper puncher type and I want accuracy that is above the needs of a combat weapon. When I called Colt in the 80's, their accuracy criteria for my Combat Elite and their standard M1911's was 3.5 inches at 25 yards. As I recall the Gold Cup was around 3.0 inches.

All Les Baer pistols come with a guarantee of at least 3" accuracy at 50 yards with an optional extra cost guarantee of 1.5" at the same distance.

Any time you find a Baer that is too tight for you, I will be happy to offer less than what you paid for the thing. :D

This Les Baer wadcutter is extremely tight and the most accurate M1911 I own. I paid extra for the optional guarantee of 1.5" at 50 yards. The red dot sights help, I can aim inside the bull whereas with irons I have to aim at the bull.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Pistols%20various/ReducedLesBauer.jpg

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 11:42 AM
because they can't get them.......because of the demand

Why don't they make more?

SSN Vet
August 7, 2011, 12:07 PM
My S80 Commander cost me $740 NIB and runs like a top.... Very well built.



My brother says his Kimber is the most accurate pistol he's ever owned.

Colt is what it is. All the to do comes when one fan boy slams another fan boys team.

Yawn!

I'll tip my hat to Colt, if for no other reason, they've managed to survive, and haven't outsourced the show off shore, or been gobbled up by capital management.

Old Fuff
August 7, 2011, 12:10 PM
Why don't they make more?

Which is a good question. I see a number of posts from folks who say they would buy (for example) more 1911 platform Colt's, but they can't because what ever they want isn't available. This lack of supply is seen as evidence that the company is successful because they are selling all they can make.

Returning to the automobile manufacturer (Ford) that I used in a previous post, if they had a particular line of cars that was, over time, consistantly backordered, with market demand exceeding supply - what would they do?

I suspect they would make more to satisfy the unfilled demand.

So why doesn't Colt?

SSN Vet
August 7, 2011, 12:12 PM
Why don't they make more?

Ever ran a manufacturing business? Scaling up production isn't cheap or easy. Colt has apparently found a business model that has turned the company around and at the fundamental level works (see my previous post) and would do well to be very careful about tinkering with it.

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 12:24 PM
Ever ran a manufacturing business?

Yes

I understand the challenges all too well.

But I sincerely doubt they are running at capacity. With overtime and second and third shifts, they could surely produce more product.

So assuming that this is the case (a good bet) why don't they?

A-The answer is either demand is not what some people think?
B-The union won't let them.
C-They don't have enough money to pay the OT or buy more raw materials

My guess is C.
But unless a Colt insider comes along...we will never know

buck460XVR
August 7, 2011, 12:48 PM
I'm bettin' Colt has the monies to pay overtime(considering their stock figures), but I'll bet they don't want to. Doesn't paying overtime reduce profit and/or increase the price of the product? The demand for Colt 1911s has been temporarily influenced by the Obama scare two years ago and the 100th Anniversary this year. Does it make good business sense to retool, add expensive new machinery and increase employees with our economy in the toilet, just to deal with what may be a temporary situation? Wouldn't most folks wait a month for a new Colt than pay $100 more for it?

I like what I like and I appreciate what other like. Unlike others here, I don't feel the need to trash their choices in material things to make me feel better or to justify my choices. Opinions and likes are subjective. Whether a business is successful or not financially is not. All one needs to do is look at their annual report and balance sheet.

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 01:01 PM
Between the Union and the Connecticut Development Authority deal, they may not be allowed to do a second shift.

BTW, Buck...I can't imagine caring what you like or buy. This is, or at least recently was, America. You can buy a pink Charter Arms with a bayonet, wear a "Obama 2012" t shirt and put 22' spinners on your Chevy Volt. It does not have any effect on me so go for it. And if you were to do so it would not change my opinion of my choices.

My point was that there is nothing that Colt does that is remarkable. If they evaporated tomorrow, except folks that worship the prancing pony, no new gun buyers would be affected.

My personal opinion is that I hope they stick around. They will still service the fine old revolvers they used to produce. If the Pony Worshipers help make that happen, I will tip my hat and say thank you.

EddieNFL
August 7, 2011, 01:21 PM
Any time you find a Baer that is too tight for you, I will be happy to offer less than what you paid for the thing.

Amen Brother.

I have a Concept V that is absolutely the tightest fit handgun I have ever felt. Don't even try to remove the barrel bushing without unlocking the slide. I've heard many remark that Kimbers are tightly fitted...maybe compared to a pre-war version.

DPris
August 7, 2011, 01:21 PM
Guil,
Your original point about being able to buy a SIMILAR version of anything Colt sells is largely, but not entirely, true, but my original counter is that SIMILAR isn't necessarily the same quality.

Colt doesn't "make more", because they don't have the resources (money) to do so. Making more requires spending more, and money is loosening up over the past 10 years, but still tight.
Nothing whatever to do with the "Union won't let them."

Slam,
I do not associate tight fit with quality.
You & I have different criteria, and mine are not based on holes in paper. A "loose" pistol can & does shoot quite well without having a super-tight frame/slide fit.
It also will tend to be more forgiving of built up gunk internally.

I say that as a current owner of 6 "loose" Colts & a former owner of a Baer TRS.
The Baer was very nicely built, but it didn't shoot THAT much better for me than a well-set-up Colt, and manipulating it by hand was something of a chore.

Your Wilson accuracy improvement was just as likely due to a better barrel, better barrel fit, tighter bushing, or a combination.
I'd buy your attribution of increased accuracy to the frame/slide tightening, IF that was the only thing they did to it. Otherwise, no.

I'm not saying Colt is the only place to go for a 1911 or an AR, and this is not a brand war. It's been an attempt to address the original poster's question.
I am saying just because an AR looks like one of Colt's models, a 1911 looks like a 1911, or a single-action clone looks like a Peacemaker, that doesn't mean quality is equal.

On the ARs, Colt takes the same parts out of the same bins (where applicable) for both their military M16s and their civilian AR-15s.
That means a known mil-spec quality level, something you can't always get with another make.

I base my definition of quality on the parts & performance, not on the additional features a competitor may include on a model.
I'd much prefer a mil-spec basic Colt to a tricked-out non-mil-spec version by another maker.
Give me a sound core that's dependable over the long run, and I can tweak later on with sights, a different grip, handguard, whatever.

I fully realize there's a bunch of RR ARs out there in happy shooters' hands, and I'm not advocating buying a Colt over an RR. I'm just saying the RR product is not "better" than a Colt AR, which has been a known standard for decades. You'll find far more Colts in cop cars than RRs (or other makes), not to mention standards demanded by militaries here & abroad. There's a reason for that.

By all means, buy whatever you want.
Denis

FIVETWOSEVEN
August 7, 2011, 01:29 PM
That's equivalent to saying only Dodge sells pickups.

No other company makes Colts, they make whatever they make. Only Colt makes Colts. Unless you're reffering to a gun that Colt makes like the SAA as a Colt or the 1911 as a Colt.

antiquus
August 7, 2011, 01:34 PM
A company is like a plant, an animal, an employee, a farm, a relationship, a lake or a planet.

If all you think about is your own short term needs, squeezing all the value out of it and never investing in it, running it for only your benefit without thought it might need some care and growth itself, then you end up with a husk of it's former self. The surest way to do this is allow the accountants to run the company.

The car companies almost did this in the 80's but managed to pry the accountant's hand's from the wheel and take over while their was time to correct. Companies that care for their people, and their infrastructure, thrive. Companies like Wallmart, no longer with Sam Wall's vision have an arcing trajectory, but are headed down, and no vision to change the course.

So with Colt.

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 01:35 PM
Denis,

Obviously you have an opinion concerning Colt's AR's. They are not the only Mil-Spec.

That cops carry them more often than other brands (if this is true...I have no way of knowing) means little. Glocks are the most carried sidearm. (Let's not go there!!:eek:)

As to why Colt does not make more firearms, a non Colt insider will probably never know.

I have not read the union agreement. My guess (yes...guess) is that they are working one shift only.
Their only options are

A- OT (increasing the already high labor cost, shrinking profit margins).
or

B- Hire new people. With the cost of training and high union labor costs, they don't see a dependable enough market to chance it. And unlike in right-to-work states, they can't simply adjust their workforce as needed. They are married to their employees.

Of course it could be that the demand is not as great as people say either.

DPris
August 7, 2011, 01:44 PM
Guil,
I'm not a Colt insider, but I talk to people who are. Along with others in the industry.
The reason for Colt's current production levels is the one I gave you.
The reasons behind my statements are partly because of talks with Colt, talks with others, personal experience, and 21 years of involvement in the Industry.

I'm also aware that Colt is not the only mil-spec option.
This is degenerating to the point of silliness.
Denis

buck460XVR
August 7, 2011, 01:50 PM
buy a pink Charter Arms with a bayonet, wear a "Obama 2012" t shirt and put 22' spinners on your Chevy Volt.


graspin' at straws now , eh?:neener:

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 01:56 PM
The reason for Colt's current production levels is the one I gave you
which is precisely one of the reasons that I offered

(FYI, regarding the meaningless and unprovable statement concerning what brand of AR is most likely to ride in cop cars ...according to out local cop shop, GT distributors, S&W ARs sold to more cops than any other brand. YMMV)

This is degenerating to the point of silliness
I could not agree more.

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 01:57 PM
graspin' at straws now

Trying to make a point but perhaps by trying to be outrageous I hit too close to home.

If such is the case I apologize. :neener:

buck460XVR
August 7, 2011, 02:52 PM
Trying to make a point but perhaps by trying to be outrageous I hit too close to home.

If such is the case I apologize. :neener:

No...you were just being condescending, just as you intended. As I said before, some folk feel the need to belittle others to make themselves feel good. These are the same folks that feel the need to resort to name calling like "fanboys" and "Pony Worshipers" when they lose an argument based on facts. :D

carbuncle
August 7, 2011, 03:02 PM
In my time shooting I've never seen a Colt product that wasn't available in a more attractive offering, price and quality-wise, from a competing manufacturer. It's a historic name, but they don't have anything I'm interested in.

EddieNFL
August 7, 2011, 03:19 PM
Many other companies make superior versions of just about everything in Colt's catalog.

"It's not a Colt" has zero value to me. I'm sure it does to some.

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 04:11 PM
No...you were just being condescending, just as you intended

oh really...mind reader too?!?!?! you are amazing!!!!


lighten up francis

SSN Vet
August 7, 2011, 04:44 PM
. All one needs to do is look at their annual report and balance sheet.

According to my buddy the #2 bean counter for a fortune 500 companies nearby plant, cooking the books is rampant. Every EOQ, he works buko OT, while the GM and #1 bean counter execute creative accounting.

Every stock I've ever owned that tanked, was followed a year later by an invitation to join the class action law suit against the management for fraud.

SSN Vet
August 7, 2011, 04:51 PM
With overtime and second and third shifts, they could surely produce more product.


Every time we add shifts we have the same problem.... Supervision!

Unless you are actively training and developing you people ($$$) you wind up with week supervisors on the added shifts, which usually translates into low productivity and quality problems.

DenaliPark
August 7, 2011, 05:46 PM
Do you understand this?

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 06:28 PM
Unless you are actively training and developing you people ($$$) you wind up with week supervisors on the added shifts, which usually translates into low productivity and quality problems

And with their giraffe ass high union labor costs, they probably can't afford to.

My guess is that through mismanagement, the union and the deal they made w the state to bail them out...treading water is the best they can do.

DPris
August 7, 2011, 06:37 PM
Guil,
My final comment in this thread will be that your continual uniformed guessing adds nothing of value to either the subject or your credibility.
And with that I'm done. :)
Denis

SlamFire1
August 7, 2011, 06:37 PM
Your Wilson accuracy improvement was just as likely due to a better barrel, better barrel fit, tighter bushing, or a combination.
I'd buy your attribution of increased accuracy to the frame/slide tightening, IF that was the only thing they did to it. Otherwise, no.

I paid Wilson Arms about double the purchase price in work to finally get a decent M1911.

Wilson Arms put in a new barrel, new bushing, Bomar sights, beavertail, tightened slide to frame, probably some other stuff.

And it does shoot better.

A combat pistol does not need 3 inch accuracy 50 yards. But it is great to own a pistol that shoots like a laser beam. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Pistols%20various/DSCN0747ColtCombatreduced.jpg

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 06:52 PM
Denis,

I have always enjoyed reading your comments and have (and do) find you a valuable member of THR.

It is true that I extrapolate from things that I know, and qualify them for what they are. I find this much more accurate than listening to "industry rumors". That you do it your business. That said..."industry insiders" have spoken of a return of the Python for years.

There are several things that we know.
Colt has been severely mismanaged.
The union has ruled in contract agreements.
The bail out w the state came with huge strings attached.
Colt has a poor record for innovation.

You like the prancing pony on your guns...great.
As I mentioned before...I am glad.

llwsgn
August 7, 2011, 06:59 PM
bah, i like my colts! combat elite never has hung up, and with her i clean off iron at 50m quite well, and out to 100m well enough. detective special outshots my smith snubbies. model 357 outshoots any other handgun that i own. i'm happy with my new frontier. i guess that i'm good with all of that. sorry.

JohnBT
August 7, 2011, 07:34 PM
"funny"

But true. The rest of your opinions are, well, your opinions.

buck460XVR
August 7, 2011, 08:28 PM
lighten up francis


Again....with the name calling? Really High Road of you Guillermo. I gotta agree with D. Pris.....

Guil,
My final comment in this thread will be that your continual uniformed guessing adds nothing of value to either the subject or your credibility.
And with that I'm done. :)
Denis

It's hard to have an intelligent discussion when some folks insist on using the debatical tactics of a third grader. I too am outta this one.

EddieNFL
August 7, 2011, 09:04 PM
It's hard to have an intelligent discussion when some folks insist on using the debatical tactics of a third grader.

Oh, the irony!

Guillermo
August 7, 2011, 09:22 PM
Oh, the irony!
LOL

Don't worry

Some people are looking to be insulted.

Take it for the humorous thing

(the "name calling" thing was too funny for words. I have one of "my kids" over doing some computer word. He said "government school education is my guess". By that definition "play it again Sam" is name calling)

harvester
August 7, 2011, 10:53 PM
Imitation Colts are still that.

TennJed
August 7, 2011, 11:11 PM
Colt got lucky early on with the Single Action Army and military contracts. )The Smith and Wesson #3 top break was a better gun and if Wesson wasn't so hard headed the #3 would have been the classic old west gun. The Single Action Army would have faded into the night.... and Colt wouldn't have made it as long as they have.

And to top it off Bill Ruger made a much better SA than colt ever could.;):D:neener::p

Okay, i say all that to ruffle a few feathers and kid around, I actually stole all that from Gun Stories on the Outdoor Channel.

But I think there may be some truth to it. If the S&W #3 had become the more popular "old West" gun how much affect would it have had on modern colt. (opinions and guesses of course)

tipoc
August 8, 2011, 12:30 AM
Just a couple of points about Colt history. Colt has been, from it's inception, a major supplier of firearms to the U.S. government. It has been a defense contractor for a long time with all that that entails (cost plus billing for example).

In the 1960s and 70s Colt was the major supplier of a number of firearms to the government. Especially following the closure of Springfield Armory by the Defense Department in 1968. This was lucrative business for Colt. Colt though was reeling in the civilian market as some boneheaded decisions they had made left them wide open to increased competition from S&W and the upstart firm of Ruger (a small and nimble company making what civilians wanted and no military contracts). Colt management made the decisions to bank on the military contracts and spend less effort on the civilian market.

During the years that Colt engineers were refining the the M-16 into the battle rifle that has a longer service life than any other before it, Colt lost it's share of the law enforcement revolver market to S&W. It soon found that the careful handfitting required for their revolvers was also not cost effective. Over the next decade or so they tried some innovation (various versions of "The Lawman" for instance, the Anaconda, etc.). Some sold well but as a whole they were loosing money in this arena.

Now every American handgun manufacturer was caught flatfooted by the transition from revolvers to semis in law enforcement (of all of them only S&W was in a position to make a move) and none were able to compete effectively with Sig or Berretta for the military contract that Berretta won. But Colt was more flatfooted than the others. The end of the Cold War also hurt them in the military market.

Colt management in the mid 1980s provoked a strike with it's workers. The union lost the strike on the picket line (replacement workers, or scabs, continued production in the plant) but won it in the courts 4 years later when they were able to show that Colt managements cost cutting measures had helped provoke the strike and the company did not bargain in good faith. At any rate many of the most experienced workers left. Colt quality declined.

By the late 1980s Colt was set to close it's doors in bankruptcy. The union, the state of Connecticut, and a group of investors (led by an outfit called the Zilkha Group by the way) put together a deal to keep the company open. The union in a idiot move put it's pension funds on the line to keep the place open and has signed deep concession contracts ever since. This deal was encouraged by the Defense Department which did not want a critical military supplier to disappear.

New management came in, a new CEO came over from General Motors IIRC (recommended by the Zilkha Group) which proceeded to make a number of boneheaded decisions and moves (which provoked one boycott) and within a few years Colt was again on the ropes.

In 1994 or so Colt was bought out by one of it's previous investors the Zilkha Group. This outfit has owned it since. Since then there has been no direct financial partnership with the union or with the state of Connecticut.

Over the years it's revolver line was phased out. Some guns like the Mustang sold well but production was stopped after Kahr firearms filed suit for patent infringement over a similarity of the firing mechanisms design, if I recall correctly, with one of their designs. Beginning in the 90s Kimber and Springfield (small and nimble companies with no military or leo contracts at that time) stole a march on Colt in the 1911 market and showed that there was a deep and wide market for upgraded 1911s above and beyond what Colt offered. Something shooters had been telling Colt for years.

Custom and Semi custom makers like Baer, Wilson and others proved that their is also a market for higher end and more expensive 1911s which Colt does not produce and which it has nothing to compare with.

Today Colt produces 1911s on a par and price point with Springfield, Kimber, S&W and Ruger. Many folks prefer these others. None of those others are Colts though. This may make no difference to some. It makes a good deal of difference to millions though around the world who think of Colt and S&W handguns as the essence of American firearms.

tipoc

cacoltguy
August 8, 2011, 12:39 AM
Guilermo, your credibility is deteriorating fast with every ridiculous post you are making. Quit while you you still have an ounce of dignity. You don't like Colt, great we get it. You say that don't make anything remarkable, fine that's great. However, your statements about the health of the company and its manufacturing are completely and 100% theoretical and based on some bizarre animosity you have against Colt. Look, Colt 1911's are priced very reasonable considering the amount of durable forged parts they contain. That is the reason many custom pistol-smiths will only work with either Colt's or guns of their own design. Maybe Colt should just go the Kimber/Para route: 1) tack a bunch of custom gun lookalike features on the outside (3-hole triggers, skeletonized hammers, front slide serrations) 2) proceed to stuff the gun full of cheap MIM parts and charge as much or more than a comparable Colt so you can afford to buy 4 pages of glossy advertising in every gun Mag to attract the easily influenced masses. Would you be happy then?

Guillermo
August 8, 2011, 12:55 AM
cacoltguy

obviously you are a fan boy as evidenced by your screen name.

with your silly assertions that are not based in fact (example : Your statements about the health of the company and its manufacturing are completely and 100% theoretical and based on some bizarre animosity you have against Colt.)

It is okay.

You have let everyone know where your loyalty lies.

You must attack anyone that does not pray to the same firearm god...and I dare to be a heathen.

Marx called his blind followers "useful idiots".

What does William Keys call his blind followers?

He is a polite guy. Probably calls you guys "loyal customers".

It is getting late so I am going to unstrap the Colt from my hip (it is a gun I love despite my "bizarre animosity") and get ready for a long week.

THE DRILL INSTRUCTOR
August 8, 2011, 01:14 AM
Gentlemen can we please remember the name of this forum, agree to disagree, and take the high road?

Armed012002
August 8, 2011, 01:22 AM
Lighten up people.

It's just a brand name not a religion.

Guillermo
August 8, 2011, 01:29 AM
It's just a brand name not a religion

not to some people

but keep it in perspective.

Sometimes people over reacting about their favorite brand is kind of funny. :p

ExecutiveCarry
August 8, 2011, 05:58 AM
I'm looking for another 1911. I also prefer pistols that hold their initial value better than other brands. Shall I go with the Colt .... or a Springfield 1911 ....:uhoh: for around 1K.
Also, I've been debating a 3" for carry. Should I stay with the proven 4" barrel, or venture into the temperamental world of the micro .45

eazyrider
August 8, 2011, 07:19 AM
I am a Colt "fanboy" but I also realize that other companies have caught and in some cases passed them. That is not to say that Colt cannot come back, but I don't think that is likely. I love Colt because I was raised around Colt. I will put my snakes up against any revolver because I believe in them. But my snakes were built a long time ago. Today I would gladly buy a Colt with confidence, but I also understand that there are other brands that are just as good.

cacoltguy
August 8, 2011, 02:43 PM
obviously you are a fan boy as evidenced by your screen name.

Not really. I prefer polymer pistols for everyday carry and 1911's for range fun. I actually happen to think that 1911's suffer from more than a few reliability snafus compared to modern glocks, H&K's etc. However, I like shooting 1911's and of the 1911 manufacturers, I happen to think Colt gives you a pretty good pistol for the money. Most of what you said about Colt has been effectively rebutted and now your final arguments revolve around labels, name-calling and juvenile responses.

FYI: Throwing in clever little quotes from historical figures doesn't necessarily lend credence to your opinion.

SlamFire1
August 8, 2011, 03:03 PM
I'm looking for another 1911. I also prefer pistols that hold their initial value better than other brands. Shall I go with the Colt .... or a Springfield 1911 .... for around 1K.
Also, I've been debating a 3" for carry. Should I stay with the proven 4" barrel, or venture into the temperamental world of the micro .45

Go to the gun store and handle a few brands. Do you like the feel, the trigger, sights, intangibles?

In terms of keepings its value, you see there are a bunch of Colt fans, they love the pony and will pay extra for it. That sort of fan loyalty will help an item keep its value. There are also Kimber fanatics. I encourage Kimber fanaticism as I have a Clackamus Kimber and that is as close as you can get to the Holy Grail for a Kimber fanatic. :neener:

I do not recommend anything but the full scale 5" barrel M1911. I have seen too many shorter versions malfunction. Snub nose M1911's seem to be picky about ammo and sensitive about everything. Maybe their noses are too close to their face.

Guillermo
August 8, 2011, 04:25 PM
cacoltguy,

Your reading comprehension and grasp of reality are both pretty poor.

But this is the internet. You can pop on and make asinine statements with no basis in fact with the same ease that a learned man with much experience and education can make his point.

I bet that when you discuss things in person you think that the loudest person wins.

Hopefully your loudness helps your ego because there is little else that you seem to have to offer.

Well you have certainly showed us what you are.

Sadly you are probably happy about it.

I am just glad you are in California. Please stay there.

Moderator...I respectfully suggest that you close this thread.
The child has fouled this one and it is not worthy of cleaning.

wheelgunslinger
August 8, 2011, 05:23 PM
I can tell you that Colt doesn't even enter into my mind as a choice when I'm shopping for a new firearm.
When I see their old stuff in a case, I take notice.

Nushif
August 8, 2011, 05:42 PM
I do think Colt still has some pretty good products.

I personally like the fact that they offer some very nice baseline 1911 models.
What I don't like is paying the price they ask.
there is nothing wrong with being *the* baseline 1911 provider, as there is always a market for a baseline gun. But I do think it is strategically unsound to ask the price of a gun with a lot more features that does the same thing for it. When I go shopping for a baseline 1911 (which is all I really want at this point) ... I do think Colt first. Then I look at my wallet and think RIA or SA first. Sadface. 8(

ol' scratch
August 8, 2011, 05:56 PM
I won't own a new Colt due to their push against private gun owners. Colt, remember, did the whole large hole uppers and lowers thing. I have seen a few beautiful 1911's made by Colt. They can stay where they are as far as I am concerned. The only Colt I may purchase would be an older Colt on the surplus market.

EddieNFL
August 8, 2011, 06:55 PM
I actually happen to think that 1911's suffer from more than a few reliability snafus compared to modern glocks, H&K's etc.

I felt the same after purchasing my last two Colts. Not so much since I moved on to other brands.

Armed012002
August 8, 2011, 06:59 PM
What I don't like is paying the price they ask.
there is nothing wrong with being *the* baseline 1911 provider, as there is always a market for a baseline gun. But I do think it is strategically unsound to ask the price of a gun with a lot more features that does the same thing for it. When I go shopping for a baseline 1911 (which is all I really want at this point) ... I do think Colt first. Then I look at my wallet and think RIA or SA first. Sadface. 8(

You can't have a discussion about Colt and the price of a Colt without talking about Metal Injection Molding.

While MIM doesn't necessarily equate to less reliable parts, it's a cost cutting manufacturing technique that adds no value to the consumer other than a cheaper gun. MIM is "almost as strong" as forged or machined barstock parts and "good enough" depending on who you talk to.

Personally, I would rather have forged and machined barstock parts than almost as strong, but good enough MIM parts.

A Colt 1911 will have higher quality forged and machined barstock parts than the comparable RIA or Springfield.

The only MIM parts in a Colt 1911 are the sear, disconnector, and magazine catch. Compare that to RIA and Springfield which are full of MIM parts.

m.p.driver
August 8, 2011, 06:59 PM
Always been a fan of Colt,have numerous New Services,Official police,Commando,1911's.But the last Colt that i bought was a magnum
carry.The barrel unscrewed as i shot it,i actually took it off the frame,needless to say it went back for a refund.After shooting a friends
stainless national match,with godawful machining marks,and ftf-fte with 230 round ball,i decided that their quality control was a thing of the
past.

Nushif
August 8, 2011, 07:06 PM
A Colt 1911 will have higher quality forged and machined barstock parts than the comparable RIA or Springfield.

But does a BASELINE gun *need* to be completely forged or machined? Not to mention that while talking about MIM parts while some people don't agree with the philosophy behind them, few people can even remotely objectively argue that they break even a passable gun design.

Remember this magic word ... baseline ... good enough ... almost as strong ... that's exactly what baseline is. It is good enough for casual use and recreational shooting. Unless baseline somehow translates into "high end." In which case I hate to say it, but please notify the translator that he should brush up on his adjectives.

Armed012002
August 8, 2011, 08:04 PM
That all depends on your opinion on what a high end 1911 is.

Some think a Colt 1911 is high end.

Personally, I think a Colt 1911 is a baseline.

Ed Brown or Wilson Combat are high end 1911s.

The 1911 earned its reputation as a reliable combat pistol because of the design and materials used in its construction. It's an old design and a complex gun. It has a lot of parts that need to be fitted together. That translates to expensive to produce.

Colt caters to a different consumer. The consumer who cannot afford an Ed Brown or Wilson Combat, but wants a 1911 closer to John Browning's reliable combat pistol. Of course, there's also the consumer that just wants the name "Colt" on their gun.

Kimber, Springfield, RIA, etc. does a great job catering to consumers who want the look and ergonomics of the 1911. They're not John Browning's reliable combat pistol, but for people who shoot less than 1,000 rounds per year, they probably won't notice.

Springfield has great customer service, so when those good enough MIM parts snap in half, they'll replace them with new good enough MIM parts.

Colt, Kimber, and Springfield all make forged frames and slides. To save money, many people will customize their guns with Ed Brown or Wilson Combat forged and machined barstock parts.

However, if you bought a Colt, it already has a machined barstock slide stop, barrel bushing, barrel link, extractor, ejector, hammer, etc. There's less parts to replace on a Colt.

The choice is yours. If MIM parts don't bother you, then by all means, buy a Kimber, Springfield, RIA, etc.

Nicodemus38
August 8, 2011, 08:28 PM
colt made 1911s have been the status symbol. just feels right to have a 1911 that says colt. nothing says colt more then the generic gi issue style 1911.

people love to get old colts cheap and use them to create a high end 1911 from. when the package on the part says "made for all colt 1911s for super duper fit" they know the colt will be correct size.

people will pay kimber for their 2000 dollar 1911. the issue is, they dont want to buy that from colt because that much alteration at the coltfactory would become an abomination to the purist fan.

so to be blunt.

1. what they make is good
2. people buy it
3. no one wanted to purchase sufficient numbers of the double eagle or colt 2000 to make it cost effective to produce.
4. those guns from no 3 are now sought after since discountinuation. they now have status for collectors who original considered them junkified abomonations when they were produced..

EddieNFL
August 8, 2011, 08:51 PM
colt made 1911s have been the status symbol. just feels right to have a 1911 that says colt.

There you have it.

1. what they make is good
2. people buy it
3. no one wanted to purchase sufficient numbers of the double eagle or colt 2000 to make it cost effective to produce.
4. those guns from no 3 are now sought after since discountinuation. they now have status for collectors who original considered them junkified abomonations when they were produced..

To be blunt...

1. Sometimes.
2. "Some" people buy them.
3. Wonder why? (rhetorical question)
4. Some people collect string.

ColtPythonElite
August 8, 2011, 09:02 PM
Colts suck. You all quit buying them...Leaves more for me...LOL.

Art Eatman
August 8, 2011, 09:14 PM
Not perzackly in the same vicinity with the opening post...

If you enjoyed reading about "COLT I don't understand." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!