COLT I don't understand.

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

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.

 

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)

 

Imitation Colts are still that.

 

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.

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)

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

Gentlemen can we please remember the name of this forum, agree to disagree, and take the high road?

 

Lighten up people.

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.

 

Simple 1911 question

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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(

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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..