B!ngoFuelUSN
Member
The bigger problem is that Colt (and the 'New Colt' should it occur) needs fewer products, built at low cost for the mass market. That is the only sensible way to compete today.The "big mistake" in my view was when Colt & the West Hartford CT plant let the skilled labor force/trained tool workers-machinists/engineers trail off or retire rather than plan for new Colt staff or laborers to replace them.
Colt could have been widely known for the Pythons, D/Det Special .38spl/Anaconda .44/etc as well as the popular 1911a1 .45acp models.
Colt tucked their tail & let the anti-gunners & handgun control crowd scare them off.
I'm sure many US gun owners would still purchase Colt Pythons or a D series .38spl snub well into the 1990s or early 2000s.
Colt just didn't or wouldn't make the efforts.
Low cost means automated construction - multi-axis CAD powered machines that turn out precise parts at very low cost. These types of parts do not required historically skilled gunsmiths to perform assembly. Just ask Glock and others.
And the Pythons and Anaconda's are not suitable for big revenue and big margin. They are costly to produce, require highly skilled labor to assemble, and would be selling in to a market that is increasingly happy to buy products that are 'good enough'. That said, like a Ford GT, Colt resuming the building of a modernized Python would be a great halo product. A low volume high cost product that informs the market that Colt is the place for excellence. But you don't build a halo product before you have something 'to crown'.
So it is a loss of course to see your skilled labor retire without replacement. But a company that depends on a high percentage of skilled labor is likely not in the mass market. And in the gun business, without that focus, they will fail. Again.
B