AP story this morning...

I perfectly happy with my AR and 1911 "clones." Karma.

From Colt's own website:

Despite Colt’s storied history, we know that our legacy for the 21st Century will rest on our continuing responsiveness to customer needs and the same inventiveness, innovation and commitment to quality and excellence that made Colt firearms famous 150 years ago. Accordingly, while we continue to offer classic model Colt pistols, we are proud to offer new pistol models designed to meet all the needs and to exceed the highest expectations of the most demanding customers.

Click to expand...

Colt has never really been known for R&D and innovation - they tend to build one model then tweak it and sell the "variations" (i.e. - 1911 Government Model, then the Commander, the Officer's Model, Gold Cup, etc). Most of their most famous firearms were designs purchased from the original creators.

The only rifle they have currently is the AR-15 platform - it's been decades since they put out a bolt action (the last was a colaberation with Sauer in the 1980s, IIRC).

If they lose the .gov contract, I doubt they have the wearwithall to survive. The brand name will continue, but the actual firearms manufacturing were probably disappear.

I hope they have contigency plans in place. Bit I am not hopeful. It is a tough business.

Hasn't Remington established itself in the sporting market for AR rifles while Colt focussed on military contracts? (Don't have my fingers on any pulses, just my impression.)

In WWI Marlin focussed on military contracts as Marlin-Rockwell, and ended up on the auction block in the 1920s once the military contracts were over.

For a major gunmaker to concentrate on military contracts, and ignore or slight the civilian sport, self-defense and police markets is a mistake that has been repeated over and over.

Put all your eggs in one basket,,,

A blue and wood Python, would be nice for the collection.

SaxonPig said:

Might Colt find itself in need of some Python and Diamondback sales to keep stockholders happy?

Click to expand...

Since the craftsmen are gone, the machinery is either gone or outdated and the massive expense of investing in modern equipment to produce a low volume product to sell at a cost that is prohibitive to most potential customers, I think not. Wishful thinking maybe, but even if they did reintroduce them, they would never be the guns they were. I think this scenario is more likely.........

statelineblues said:

If they lose the .gov contract, I doubt they have the wearwithall to survive. The brand name will continue, but the actual firearms manufacturing were probably disappear.

Click to expand...

Since Colt just redid their equipment for producing their 1911s and they are selling well, I see that continuing till the demand falls or the equipment fails. This may be with the company as we know it now or after the name is bought by a investment conglomerate. Anything not profitable for the stockholders will be dropped.......this includes the great customer service Colt is known for.

What is wrong with the rifles they've issued to the military that cause the military to want to switch guns? That was my biggest question from reading the article.

Are they looking for a new rifle or just a new supplier?

They want what's cheapest so they reup the contract every now and then is my guess

New rifle one can hope.

It's more than just what's cheap. Government contracts are limited in scope & duration. Federal law requires them to recompete regularly to get the best value. They can select a more expensive gun if it's more durable or reliable. If you want to see where our tax dollars go, check out fedbizopps.gov. a search there will tell if it's the same gun or something new.

I own a Colt LE model AR-15 and am quite happy with it. I also added that slide-fire stock, and that's even more fun.

22-rimfire said:

I hope they have contigency plans in place. Bit I am not hopeful. It is a tough business.

Click to expand...

They do. http://www.defensereview.com/dr-exclusive-scar-who-meet-the-colt-cm901-modular-multi-caliber-7-62mm-nato5-56mm-nato-battle-carbinesbrrifle-for-u-s-military-special-operations-forces-sof-and-general-infantry-forces-gif/

i dont think colt makes all their guns anyway...my cousin just got back from afghanistan with the marines and he said his m16 was made by FN

I'm all for our fighting men and women having the best possible weapons with which to defend themselves. If Colt can no longer provide that then the armed services need to find a rifle/supplier that can.

pikid89 said:

i dont think colt makes all their guns anyway...my cousin just got back from afghanistan with the marines and he said his m16 was made by FN

Click to expand...

Yep.

What Colt has is the Technical Data Package, which is the "Spec" in "Mil-Spec." Colt owns it and it is copywritten (or trademarked or patented or whatever) information. Only Colt can make a truly "Mil-Spec" rifle because only Colt really knows what that means.

Except a couple of years ago, the DoD told Colt, "Show the data to FN so they can make us some rifles."

Actually the specs are given to the manufacturer by the govt. And the manufacturer has to make the product to that spec or it don't get bought.

Actually the specs are given to the manufacturer by the govt. And the manufacturer has to make the product to that spec or it don't get bought.

Click to expand...

+1.

In the 90s, FN underbid Colt on the contract to produce M16s for the military, and started cranking them out of their factory in South Carolina. Colt was basically tossed the bone of the then-minor M4 contract to keep them from tanking at the time. They got lucky that the M4 subsequently went on to become the preferred US Army standard, but that wasn't the plan or intent when the contract was given to the Colt.

What was wrong with the Garand in 1954? Or the M14 in 1962? Progress demands innovation and superior models come along making the old ones obsolete. I am hearing renewed complaints regarding the the M16 (M4... same thing) and the 5.56mm cartridge. I suspect the next Army rifle will be in a larger caliber. Maybe a 6x45?

Click to expand...

The contract parameters are such that while a new caliber could be submitted, it is effectively discouraged, so don't expect to see anything but 5.56x45. Actually, I'll be surprised if anything out there beats the M4 under the released parameters, since cost effectiveness is the primary consideration. The whole thing will ultimately prove to be squandered and wasted tax payer money, like Big Army's attempt to replace the M9 several years back, etc.

Kaeto said:

Actually the specs are given to the manufacturer by the govt. And the manufacturer has to make the product to that spec or it don't get bought.

Click to expand...

The TDP is owned by Colt (sort of.) The TDP is all of the information required to manufacture the rifle to the Government specifications. Colt owns the TDP, but apparently the Gov can give it to anyone they want if they pay Colt a royalty.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=251061

And

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/07/09/colts-exclusive-m4-production-right-ends/

Or not pay a royalty like the govt. did with the jeep. The Bantam Motor Car Co. came up with the design beating out Ford and Willys in the procurement. And then the govt. decided Bantam wasn't big enough to produce the numbers needed so they gave Bantams design to Ford and Willys. As a bone to Bantam the govt. let them build the small trailer that was often towed behind jeeps.

All the parts in my AR are mil-spec, improved by hand fitting. Nothing was made by Colt.
Mil-spec has to do with things like materials/hardness/durability/etc, not who makes it.

If uncle changes rifles/ammo, I hope they have the sense to go back to a .30 cal.

If Colt goes back to civilian sales, don't be surprised if it's just the nameplate on a chinese gun.

Hasn't the patent on the M-16/AR-15 design expired by now? Everybody and their brother makes one just like they all make a version of the 100 year old 1911 design which is now in the public domain.