FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
Considering the Market for Pythons now, Colt will probably price them at that price or higher because they can.
"colt is back"
- Thread starter 303 hunter
- Start date
- Status
Considering the Market for Pythons now, Colt will probably price them at that price or higher because they can.
When I make my comments on the Colt DA situation, I do so as one who has worked with a Freedom Arms gun, owned a Python, currently owns an unfired Trooper .357 & an unfired Official Police, along with three Detective Specials, one of which I carried as an off-duty gun back in the early 1980s.
I also have two Bowenized Ruger Reds.
I have three Colt Peacemakers substantially re-worked by Peacemaker Specialists.
I saw the Smiths outselling the Colts by a wide margin as far back as the 1970s.
I've talked to Colt people about the DA revolvers.
I do fully understand the appeal & utility of a premium-grade revolver.
That said, I also understand that those willing to spend that kind of money truly ARE a relatively small market segment.
The primary driving force in the handgun industry today is self defense/concealed carry.
By far the greatest majority of those buyers are looking for small, light, and fairly cheap.
Beyond that you have the hunting segment, the "range shooting" segment, and a splinter collector group.
The Python can't compete in any numbers at all in the concealed carry area, it can do a little better among the range plinker segment (with those who can afford such an expensive gun purely to use at the range), few people would take a $2000 Python hunting, and most of the true collectors are more interested in older guns.
The revolver is largely dead as a police duty gun, and in the security services arena where it's still seen in some uniform holsters no company is going to provide Pythons to its personnel when a Ruger or Taurus can be had for less than a third of the cost, and considering the comparatively low salaries of most security personnel they're not going to buy in volume on their own.
As mentioned before, newbies & the younger generation don't know about the Python & few would spend the money as a starter gun, or even a second or third acquisition.
(There ARE exceptions to the above, of course, but we're looking at majority numbers.)
That pretty much leaves the new Python market to older people and people with a little more experience and a little more discretionary income to blow on firearms.
Even out of that bunch who knows the Python & appreciates it, there would still be many who'd pass up that $2000 price tag.
Yes, Colt could sell SOME, but not enough.
When this subject comes up, people don't take into consideration the "below the waterline" factors involved in bringing the Python, or any V-Spring DA revolver, back.
Totally new CAD/CAM CNC programs would have to be worked out.
Either new CNC centers would have to be bought or production would have to be inserted into current production schedules on existing machinery which would slow down availability of other models (and people are already griping that "I can't find a Colt anywhere!").
A totally new vendor system would have to be developed, since Colt outsources many of their parts. Remember there are NO Python parts interchangeable with any existing model Colt currently produces, so that means Colt would have to decide which of the larger ones they'd make in-house (barrels, cylinders, maybe a couple others) and which they'd contract for (frames from an outside forging house, hammers, triggers, screws, grips, springs, sight parts, etc. from other vendors).
Another separate parts inventory system for the gun would have to be developed & maintained. That includes ordering, stocking space, and computer inventory tracking.
New personnel would have to be hired and trained. The V-Springs are not simple to work on, which is why you can't find truly competent gunsmiths able to repair them very easily.
That would ALL run into hundreds of thousands of dollars in initial R&D outlay and setup. Yes, Colt already has the design patterns & specs, but there are still all of the above costs to consider in bringing out what's essentially a brand new model from startup. Colt would just save some time & money at the developmental drawing board stage. Some of which would still involve translating older drawings & machining methods to CNC pathways.
Breaking it down into a simplified pattern, in the US gun world, like many other products, you can go either of two ways. You can sell low volume at high prices, or you can sell high volume at relatively low prices.
There's always a market (assuming decent quality) for either approach, but the market size is one major determining factor in how successful your company will be at either approach.
Wilson (apples vs oranges, by the way, since high-end autos as a class are more popular today than high-end revolvers) has a small operation that began life catering to the people who understand the difference and are willing to pay for it.
Colt began, and pretty much continues, as an "everyman's" gunmaker. They've done high-end handguns & high-end rifles over the years, but their core market has always been closer to the working guy's income level, and the Colt name was built on a combination of good quality at affordable prices. (Yeah, I know- quality has varied and prices have gone up, but I'm talking about the broad picture.)
Because of Colt's size (bigger'n Wilson, Baer, Freedom Arms, and so on), their ownership structure, their physical manufacturing capability, their financial situation, their union affiliation, and their current location, they simply can't afford to bring out what in actuality remains a totally new gun from the manufacturing standpoint that would not sell in sufficient volume to recoup startup costs, much less turn a longterm profit.
It's far more than a matter of just hiring a couple more guys to turn a couple hundred Pythons a year (if that) out of the already busy custom shop.
Initial demand from those who WOULD be willing to spend two grand on a new one would decline as those buyers were satisfied, the used market would most likely be at least slightly depressed, and the initial demand level is highly unlikely to be sustainable after the first year or three.
As mentioned, Colt COULD sell new Pythons, but not enough to bother.
And I won't even waste time addressing the Philipino "Colts".
Denis
I also have two Bowenized Ruger Reds.
I have three Colt Peacemakers substantially re-worked by Peacemaker Specialists.
I saw the Smiths outselling the Colts by a wide margin as far back as the 1970s.
I've talked to Colt people about the DA revolvers.
I do fully understand the appeal & utility of a premium-grade revolver.
That said, I also understand that those willing to spend that kind of money truly ARE a relatively small market segment.
The primary driving force in the handgun industry today is self defense/concealed carry.
By far the greatest majority of those buyers are looking for small, light, and fairly cheap.
Beyond that you have the hunting segment, the "range shooting" segment, and a splinter collector group.
The Python can't compete in any numbers at all in the concealed carry area, it can do a little better among the range plinker segment (with those who can afford such an expensive gun purely to use at the range), few people would take a $2000 Python hunting, and most of the true collectors are more interested in older guns.
The revolver is largely dead as a police duty gun, and in the security services arena where it's still seen in some uniform holsters no company is going to provide Pythons to its personnel when a Ruger or Taurus can be had for less than a third of the cost, and considering the comparatively low salaries of most security personnel they're not going to buy in volume on their own.
As mentioned before, newbies & the younger generation don't know about the Python & few would spend the money as a starter gun, or even a second or third acquisition.
(There ARE exceptions to the above, of course, but we're looking at majority numbers.)
That pretty much leaves the new Python market to older people and people with a little more experience and a little more discretionary income to blow on firearms.
Even out of that bunch who knows the Python & appreciates it, there would still be many who'd pass up that $2000 price tag.
Yes, Colt could sell SOME, but not enough.
When this subject comes up, people don't take into consideration the "below the waterline" factors involved in bringing the Python, or any V-Spring DA revolver, back.
Totally new CAD/CAM CNC programs would have to be worked out.
Either new CNC centers would have to be bought or production would have to be inserted into current production schedules on existing machinery which would slow down availability of other models (and people are already griping that "I can't find a Colt anywhere!").
A totally new vendor system would have to be developed, since Colt outsources many of their parts. Remember there are NO Python parts interchangeable with any existing model Colt currently produces, so that means Colt would have to decide which of the larger ones they'd make in-house (barrels, cylinders, maybe a couple others) and which they'd contract for (frames from an outside forging house, hammers, triggers, screws, grips, springs, sight parts, etc. from other vendors).
Another separate parts inventory system for the gun would have to be developed & maintained. That includes ordering, stocking space, and computer inventory tracking.
New personnel would have to be hired and trained. The V-Springs are not simple to work on, which is why you can't find truly competent gunsmiths able to repair them very easily.
That would ALL run into hundreds of thousands of dollars in initial R&D outlay and setup. Yes, Colt already has the design patterns & specs, but there are still all of the above costs to consider in bringing out what's essentially a brand new model from startup. Colt would just save some time & money at the developmental drawing board stage. Some of which would still involve translating older drawings & machining methods to CNC pathways.
Breaking it down into a simplified pattern, in the US gun world, like many other products, you can go either of two ways. You can sell low volume at high prices, or you can sell high volume at relatively low prices.
There's always a market (assuming decent quality) for either approach, but the market size is one major determining factor in how successful your company will be at either approach.
Wilson (apples vs oranges, by the way, since high-end autos as a class are more popular today than high-end revolvers) has a small operation that began life catering to the people who understand the difference and are willing to pay for it.
Colt began, and pretty much continues, as an "everyman's" gunmaker. They've done high-end handguns & high-end rifles over the years, but their core market has always been closer to the working guy's income level, and the Colt name was built on a combination of good quality at affordable prices. (Yeah, I know- quality has varied and prices have gone up, but I'm talking about the broad picture.)
Because of Colt's size (bigger'n Wilson, Baer, Freedom Arms, and so on), their ownership structure, their physical manufacturing capability, their financial situation, their union affiliation, and their current location, they simply can't afford to bring out what in actuality remains a totally new gun from the manufacturing standpoint that would not sell in sufficient volume to recoup startup costs, much less turn a longterm profit.
It's far more than a matter of just hiring a couple more guys to turn a couple hundred Pythons a year (if that) out of the already busy custom shop.
Initial demand from those who WOULD be willing to spend two grand on a new one would decline as those buyers were satisfied, the used market would most likely be at least slightly depressed, and the initial demand level is highly unlikely to be sustainable after the first year or three.
As mentioned, Colt COULD sell new Pythons, but not enough to bother.
And I won't even waste time addressing the Philipino "Colts".
Denis
Ash
Member
And, yet, Colt designs are made today and sold in America by Rock Island Arsenal. It can be done. The Japanese also did it. I will waste time mentioning it if only because it can be done. The hurdles are not so high as implied. The reasons, therefore, MUST lie elsewhere.
Cocked & Locked
Member
I've not seen a RIA/Armscor revolver yet that looks like a Colt. The cylinder latch looks like it works like a Colt's...similarity stops there for me.
Anybody got a pic of one of these 'Phillipine Colts' THAT EVEN LOOKS LIKE A COLT?
Anybody got a pic of one of these 'Phillipine Colts' THAT EVEN LOOKS LIKE A COLT?
Nobody makes a Python or Detective Special today.
The Armscor guns are Filipino & NOT the same thing.
Like buying a Brazillian Taurus & saying Smith & Wesson designs are made today & sold in America (by somebody other'n S&W), so it CAN be done cheaper.
Not the same thing.
OK, let's lay that stuff to rest.
Not to knock the Philipines or its citizens, but you're talking about a totally different nation & living standard as far as wages go.
How do you think the average wage compares between a Filipino factory worker and a Colt factory worker with unionized salary & benefits package?
Do you seriously think the Filipino factory is capable of turning out Python or DS quality in terms of materials, hand-fitting, polish, and overall workmanship?
Go buy a Filipino lookalike & go buy a minty DS. Compare them side by side.
Then tell me "It can be done" elsewhere, so why not here?
The comparison, and the idea, are both ludicrous.
If Colt resurrected a V-Spring revolver & built it to Armscor standards, the project would be dead in the water before it ever left the shipping dock.
The bulk of the market would not tolerate a Python that was a Python in name only. If Colt were to bring it back, it would have to be the same gun, not some cheaper version that just looked sorta like a Python.
Not a generic "Colt design", not a "Python II", not a cheaply made and clunky-looking also-ran.
Denis
The Armscor guns are Filipino & NOT the same thing.
Like buying a Brazillian Taurus & saying Smith & Wesson designs are made today & sold in America (by somebody other'n S&W), so it CAN be done cheaper.
Not the same thing.
OK, let's lay that stuff to rest.
Not to knock the Philipines or its citizens, but you're talking about a totally different nation & living standard as far as wages go.
How do you think the average wage compares between a Filipino factory worker and a Colt factory worker with unionized salary & benefits package?
Do you seriously think the Filipino factory is capable of turning out Python or DS quality in terms of materials, hand-fitting, polish, and overall workmanship?
Go buy a Filipino lookalike & go buy a minty DS. Compare them side by side.
Then tell me "It can be done" elsewhere, so why not here?
The comparison, and the idea, are both ludicrous.
If Colt resurrected a V-Spring revolver & built it to Armscor standards, the project would be dead in the water before it ever left the shipping dock.
The bulk of the market would not tolerate a Python that was a Python in name only. If Colt were to bring it back, it would have to be the same gun, not some cheaper version that just looked sorta like a Python.
Not a generic "Colt design", not a "Python II", not a cheaply made and clunky-looking also-ran.
Denis
Ash
Member
Odd, that the 1911 is made there and turns out to be very popular here. Odd, that Armscor is a Tanfoglio-licensed manufactured in Asia and churns out large number of Tanfoglio guns.
Your argument makes no sense. If they are impoverished, then the amount of time and detail would be no problem. Yet, you then say that they cannot produce anything of the level of a Colt in some kind of ethnocentric proclamation. Can they produce the same quality? Of course they can. It is ludicrous to assume otherwise.
A Python can indeed be made today. The same components can be used. CNC design and machining can eliminate the needless hand-fitting that Colt allowed. The reality is that tolerance specs were so broad in parts manufacturing that making them all work together required the master smith. But the Colt lock work is not inherently impossible to CNC manufacture. A Trooper Mk V-based revolver is even easier to accomplish. It is absurd to believe otherwise.
Your argument makes no sense. If they are impoverished, then the amount of time and detail would be no problem. Yet, you then say that they cannot produce anything of the level of a Colt in some kind of ethnocentric proclamation. Can they produce the same quality? Of course they can. It is ludicrous to assume otherwise.
A Python can indeed be made today. The same components can be used. CNC design and machining can eliminate the needless hand-fitting that Colt allowed. The reality is that tolerance specs were so broad in parts manufacturing that making them all work together required the master smith. But the Colt lock work is not inherently impossible to CNC manufacture. A Trooper Mk V-based revolver is even easier to accomplish. It is absurd to believe otherwise.
I'll back DPris because we both know Colt - as a company - for somewhat the same reasons.
Today the company has absolutely no interest in reviving their old revolver lines. They proved it about two years ago when they auctioned off their archival collection. It went back to before World War Two, and contained among other things the prototype and patent models for the many handguns they considered but didn't bring to production. Some of them would have caused most pony fans to gasp! Then there were pilot models of special issues and commemoratives. Last but not least were selected examples of various regular handguns that would be necessary if they were retooled "exactly as was" and returned to production. They all hit the auction block because getting money now was more important then history later.
It was Colt's way of saying, "These are gone now, and they ain't coming back." Wishful thinking of a relatively few fanboys isn't going to change a thing. Whatever the future holds, they will look forward - not backward - if they look at all.
So if you treasure those old Colt's (as I do) look to the used gun market, and do it before everything is priced way beyond affordable.
Today the company has absolutely no interest in reviving their old revolver lines. They proved it about two years ago when they auctioned off their archival collection. It went back to before World War Two, and contained among other things the prototype and patent models for the many handguns they considered but didn't bring to production. Some of them would have caused most pony fans to gasp! Then there were pilot models of special issues and commemoratives. Last but not least were selected examples of various regular handguns that would be necessary if they were retooled "exactly as was" and returned to production. They all hit the auction block because getting money now was more important then history later.
It was Colt's way of saying, "These are gone now, and they ain't coming back." Wishful thinking of a relatively few fanboys isn't going to change a thing. Whatever the future holds, they will look forward - not backward - if they look at all.
So if you treasure those old Colt's (as I do) look to the used gun market, and do it before everything is priced way beyond affordable.
Peter M. Eick
Member
As much as I would like it to be the other way, I agree with Old Fuff. When you sell the archives the rest of the story is already written. I saw that with my company. We sold the company run crews and all of the related hardware. We will never go back to running them again as much as I would like them too. You can't turn back the hands of time so to speak.
Ash:
You and others simply don't get it! The folks that run the handgun division are well aware of what Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Taurus have done, and how much money and market share they have gained as handgun sales in general have gone through the roof.
But the gents in the top office that run things don't give a hoot!!! They would gladly sell the Handgun Division, but no one will pay them what they want to get.
The issue is not, what Colt's handgun people could do, but rather what they are allowed to do. To make a real comeback the corporation would have to spend some serious money, and they aren't interested or willing to do it.
Now do you understand?
You and others simply don't get it! The folks that run the handgun division are well aware of what Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Taurus have done, and how much money and market share they have gained as handgun sales in general have gone through the roof.
But the gents in the top office that run things don't give a hoot!!! They would gladly sell the Handgun Division, but no one will pay them what they want to get.
The issue is not, what Colt's handgun people could do, but rather what they are allowed to do. To make a real comeback the corporation would have to spend some serious money, and they aren't interested or willing to do it.
Now do you understand?
Ash
Member
It has nothing to do with understanding. Some say it can't be done. I say it can if Colt wanted to. There is nothing about the design that prevents this. I also said, if you read, that Colt probably wouldn't do it because of market demand.
But it still can be done, regardless of what some folks think and regardless of whether or not Colt would likely do it.
Do you understand now?
But it still can be done, regardless of what some folks think and regardless of whether or not Colt would likely do it.
Do you understand now?
Ash,
No, what's odd is that you equate the 1911 and the Python in your apparent and erroneous impression that manufacturing the two totally dis-similar patterns is equal in complexity, and further that you think CNC machines can replace the level of hand-fitting required by the Python's design.
When I mentioned a $2000 sales price for a new Python, that's based at least partly on a talk with a longtime Colt VP about four years ago on the subject.
Their estimate at the time was no less than $1500 per, and today I can't see that being feasible.
This was, incidentally, using modern manufacturing methods, NOT the way Colt used to produce the guns on long-gone machinery with long-gone skilled people.
That V-Spring action is not simple, either to manufacture, set up properly, or to maintain when it wears over its lifetime. The polishing itself also requires a master, and no CNC machine can duplicate it. The gun was simply expensive to produce & still would be today, even with CNC.
Comparing a Python to a 1911 is very much like comparing a Maserati to a skateboard.
Both provide the same basic purpose (transportation), both can be largely produced using individual parts fabricated on automated machinery (but the quality & complexity of the parts differ greatly), just about anybody can work on a skateboard, but how many assembly-line workers does it take to slap parts together on a Maserati (none) and how many corner repair shops can keep one going (MAYBE five truly competent shops across the nation)?
Truly odd that anybody would even try to mention Armscor and Tanfoglio in the same post as a Colt Python, much less use Amscor & Tanfoglio as examples of how Colt classic DA revolvers "could" be made in the US.
And if you think the market would buy a foreign Python, forget it.
Likewise with a Trooper MKV-based "Python".
A pseudo-Python would not sell to Python fans.
Colt MAY bring out a DA revolver, but it won't be a V-Spring if they ever do, it won't be a Python, and it will be built to compete with the other three makers now in the DA revolver market.
My "ethno-centric" remarks were made to say that you can't get Colt quality on a "Python" out of the Philipines & you can't get Armscor pricing on a real Python out of the US.
The wage example was one of several factors that contribute to the production cost & later sales tag differences.
Denis
No, what's odd is that you equate the 1911 and the Python in your apparent and erroneous impression that manufacturing the two totally dis-similar patterns is equal in complexity, and further that you think CNC machines can replace the level of hand-fitting required by the Python's design.
When I mentioned a $2000 sales price for a new Python, that's based at least partly on a talk with a longtime Colt VP about four years ago on the subject.
Their estimate at the time was no less than $1500 per, and today I can't see that being feasible.
This was, incidentally, using modern manufacturing methods, NOT the way Colt used to produce the guns on long-gone machinery with long-gone skilled people.
That V-Spring action is not simple, either to manufacture, set up properly, or to maintain when it wears over its lifetime. The polishing itself also requires a master, and no CNC machine can duplicate it. The gun was simply expensive to produce & still would be today, even with CNC.
Comparing a Python to a 1911 is very much like comparing a Maserati to a skateboard.
Both provide the same basic purpose (transportation), both can be largely produced using individual parts fabricated on automated machinery (but the quality & complexity of the parts differ greatly), just about anybody can work on a skateboard, but how many assembly-line workers does it take to slap parts together on a Maserati (none) and how many corner repair shops can keep one going (MAYBE five truly competent shops across the nation)?
Truly odd that anybody would even try to mention Armscor and Tanfoglio in the same post as a Colt Python, much less use Amscor & Tanfoglio as examples of how Colt classic DA revolvers "could" be made in the US.
And if you think the market would buy a foreign Python, forget it.
Likewise with a Trooper MKV-based "Python".
A pseudo-Python would not sell to Python fans.
Colt MAY bring out a DA revolver, but it won't be a V-Spring if they ever do, it won't be a Python, and it will be built to compete with the other three makers now in the DA revolver market.
My "ethno-centric" remarks were made to say that you can't get Colt quality on a "Python" out of the Philipines & you can't get Armscor pricing on a real Python out of the US.
The wage example was one of several factors that contribute to the production cost & later sales tag differences.
Denis
click clack
Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2010
- Messages
- 187
I've always wondered why they haven't jumped back in the revolver game.. I never owned one but I've shot a DS and a python and they were SWEET!.... I certainly hope they start making more again!
Can't put it any plainer than this: Won't happen!
As Fuff & I both mentioned, it's a total money issue.
Colt wants to keep its market viability going & will produce what they either know they can sell, or feel fairly confident they can sell. They do want you to like 'em, but on the Python & DS revolver thing it's purely a business matter, not making a low-numbers gun that they'd lose money on just to keep a comparatively small DA fanbase happy.
Fuff's right on the part about selling the handgun division. It's actually been up for sale more than once, but the asking price & the trademark entanglements have kept it where it is now.
Denis
As Fuff & I both mentioned, it's a total money issue.
Colt wants to keep its market viability going & will produce what they either know they can sell, or feel fairly confident they can sell. They do want you to like 'em, but on the Python & DS revolver thing it's purely a business matter, not making a low-numbers gun that they'd lose money on just to keep a comparatively small DA fanbase happy.
Fuff's right on the part about selling the handgun division. It's actually been up for sale more than once, but the asking price & the trademark entanglements have kept it where it is now.
Denis
Ash
Member
Can't put it any plainer - I know the differences. Condescending aside, you still make no point. I own Colt revolvers, though no Python. I do own a 1917, a standard New Service, Trooper Mk III, as well as an original 1849 Pocket Pistol carried by my Great Great Grandfather. I have worked on them in addition to owning them. I have fitted parts that go on a Trooper, as have I fitted parts that go on a Nagant revolver.
There is nothing at all inherent in a leaf spring revolver that precludes modern manufacturing techniques. Nothing at all. Coil springs are cheaper to assemble and manufacture, but nothing of what you have written establishes anything other than an opinion. That Colt established tolerances in manufacture of parts that allowed parts to be manufactured in such a way as to require extensive finish work has nothing to do with what can actually be done with a Python, or other, design. Nothing at all.
Yes, I know the Python required hand-fitting. Modern manufacturing methods (you know, the ones that make intricate parts for Ruger, CZ, Smith & Wesson, and even Colt firearms) can be employed with the Python design. Yes, they can. There is nothing magic about it.
And, evidently you believe lesser individuals across the world incapable of making things as well as in Connecticut. However, my point was not that a Python, Trooper, or even a toilet brush, need be made in Asia. My point was that it can be done there, so it can be done here and that it does not by definition mean that a master artisan would be required to make it. Smith and Wesson, Ruger, Dan Wesson, and others, seem to get by just fine. Yes, I know the lock works are different. That makes no difference if the machining is properly set up.
Yes, I know Colt is not likely going to do it. I'm just fine with that.
There is nothing at all inherent in a leaf spring revolver that precludes modern manufacturing techniques. Nothing at all. Coil springs are cheaper to assemble and manufacture, but nothing of what you have written establishes anything other than an opinion. That Colt established tolerances in manufacture of parts that allowed parts to be manufactured in such a way as to require extensive finish work has nothing to do with what can actually be done with a Python, or other, design. Nothing at all.
Yes, I know the Python required hand-fitting. Modern manufacturing methods (you know, the ones that make intricate parts for Ruger, CZ, Smith & Wesson, and even Colt firearms) can be employed with the Python design. Yes, they can. There is nothing magic about it.
And, evidently you believe lesser individuals across the world incapable of making things as well as in Connecticut. However, my point was not that a Python, Trooper, or even a toilet brush, need be made in Asia. My point was that it can be done there, so it can be done here and that it does not by definition mean that a master artisan would be required to make it. Smith and Wesson, Ruger, Dan Wesson, and others, seem to get by just fine. Yes, I know the lock works are different. That makes no difference if the machining is properly set up.
Yes, I know Colt is not likely going to do it. I'm just fine with that.
Ash,
I can't explain it any better or more plainly.
Colt certainly COULD build the guns here, but not at prices that could sustain it.
No condescension involved, the old V-Springs ARE that much more complicated & the reason why Colt dropped 'em.
If they couldn't keep 'em going 10 & 20 years ago at the tail end of the waning revolver-is-king era, what makes you think they could now?
I don't think you do understand what'd be involved, and you're still ignoring the ancillary start-up costs I mentioned above.
This wouldn't happen overnight, it's not a matter of just punching a GO button on a CNC center & popping out a finished gun, and it could not happen without extensive investment.
If Colt COULD make money on it, don't you think a company struggling to keep its head above water for over 20 years WOULD be doing it?
Denis
I can't explain it any better or more plainly.
Colt certainly COULD build the guns here, but not at prices that could sustain it.
No condescension involved, the old V-Springs ARE that much more complicated & the reason why Colt dropped 'em.
If they couldn't keep 'em going 10 & 20 years ago at the tail end of the waning revolver-is-king era, what makes you think they could now?
I don't think you do understand what'd be involved, and you're still ignoring the ancillary start-up costs I mentioned above.
This wouldn't happen overnight, it's not a matter of just punching a GO button on a CNC center & popping out a finished gun, and it could not happen without extensive investment.
If Colt COULD make money on it, don't you think a company struggling to keep its head above water for over 20 years WOULD be doing it?
Denis
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
Others have pointed it out more than once. Yes Colt or someone else could produce a Detective Special, an Officers Model or a New Service today on modern machinery but there is little to no market for them at the prices they could be produced at.
Dan Wesson is owned by CZ and has not produced wheelguns for some time. CZ acquired them a a route into the 1911 market and they are doing well there.
Smith and Wesson can no longer produce guns to the same quality that they have in the past. They do produce recreations of many of their classic guns. But the difference between the fit, finish, materials, and overall look are visible at a glance. They can no longer make the originals and are not inclined to. They would be too expensive to manufacture. Why would S&W produce a modern version of the 5 screw, 6 groove backstrapped, Registered Magnum at $2,000. or close to it when relatively few would sell? Wheelgunners, the young especially and those who carry a revolver for self defense, look for an 8 shot, snubby N frame with hi-viz night sites a new version of the RM would be an odd curiosity.
Do the Philippine makers make a revolver good enough to compare with the Colt Cobra, etc? Not yet. They have not yet made a 1911 that yet compares with an off the line Colt of today, that I have seen. Though they have made some reliable guns the fit and finish are not there yet.
tipoc
Dan Wesson is owned by CZ and has not produced wheelguns for some time. CZ acquired them a a route into the 1911 market and they are doing well there.
Smith and Wesson can no longer produce guns to the same quality that they have in the past. They do produce recreations of many of their classic guns. But the difference between the fit, finish, materials, and overall look are visible at a glance. They can no longer make the originals and are not inclined to. They would be too expensive to manufacture. Why would S&W produce a modern version of the 5 screw, 6 groove backstrapped, Registered Magnum at $2,000. or close to it when relatively few would sell? Wheelgunners, the young especially and those who carry a revolver for self defense, look for an 8 shot, snubby N frame with hi-viz night sites a new version of the RM would be an odd curiosity.
Do the Philippine makers make a revolver good enough to compare with the Colt Cobra, etc? Not yet. They have not yet made a 1911 that yet compares with an off the line Colt of today, that I have seen. Though they have made some reliable guns the fit and finish are not there yet.
tipoc
Armed012002
Member.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 279
I'm thinking more along the lines of Troopers, King Cobras, and Anacondas than Pythons.
With less expensive revolvers selling, Colt could produce a few Pythons from time-to-time. A lot like how Colt sells a lot of 1991s while selling expensive Special Combat Governments from time-to-time. Perhaps TALO would buy up a small run of Pythons if Colt reintroduces the King Cobra and Anaconda.
Colt could even redesign the King Cobra and Anaconda to make the lockwork easier to mass produce. Perhaps make a few parts with MIM
The .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum are still very popular cartridges. Colts are the best looking double action revolvers in my not so humble opinion There's a market for some of the Colt revolvers if not the Python.
Also, why is a Colt SSA more marketable than a Trooper or King Cobra or Anaconda?
With less expensive revolvers selling, Colt could produce a few Pythons from time-to-time. A lot like how Colt sells a lot of 1991s while selling expensive Special Combat Governments from time-to-time. Perhaps TALO would buy up a small run of Pythons if Colt reintroduces the King Cobra and Anaconda.
Colt could even redesign the King Cobra and Anaconda to make the lockwork easier to mass produce. Perhaps make a few parts with MIM
The .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum are still very popular cartridges. Colts are the best looking double action revolvers in my not so humble opinion
There's a market for some of the Colt revolvers if not the Python.Also, why is a Colt SSA more marketable than a Trooper or King Cobra or Anaconda?
But the issue is (I think); Is Colt coming back in the sense they will sometime in the future reintroduce their line of classic revolvers? We all know which ones we want, and the answer is, NO!
It is not because it can't be done. It's because those that own and control the company have no interest in putting up the money that would be necessary to do it. They would rather invest in products that better fit today's manufacturing methods and makets.
Might someone else do it? I doubt it, but if they did it wouldn't be a Colt, it would be a "Colt clone," or a "Colt reproduction," and because it wasn't a "real Colt" relatively few would pay the considerable price to own one. Instead they would shop the used market to buy a "real Colt" for the same or less money.
Colt management knows all this, and if they were to introduce an entirely new line of handguns they would likely be a striker-fired pistol with a polymer frame. Why? Because it would probably sell well at a price vs. production costs where they could make money.
Yes, I do indeed love those old revolvers, and they are "sweet," but we are not going to see any more new ones - identical to the old ones - and made by Colt. Unless of course one of you fans is willing to buy the company's handgun division.
It is not because it can't be done. It's because those that own and control the company have no interest in putting up the money that would be necessary to do it. They would rather invest in products that better fit today's manufacturing methods and makets.
Might someone else do it? I doubt it, but if they did it wouldn't be a Colt, it would be a "Colt clone," or a "Colt reproduction," and because it wasn't a "real Colt" relatively few would pay the considerable price to own one. Instead they would shop the used market to buy a "real Colt" for the same or less money.
Colt management knows all this, and if they were to introduce an entirely new line of handguns they would likely be a striker-fired pistol with a polymer frame. Why? Because it would probably sell well at a price vs. production costs where they could make money.
Yes, I do indeed love those old revolvers, and they are "sweet," but we are not going to see any more new ones - identical to the old ones - and made by Colt. Unless of course one of you fans is willing to buy the company's handgun division.
Nope, that's the thing that's hard for some to understand: Colt COULDN'T produce a "few" Pythons from time to time.
IF they gear up, remembering all the startup costs, they'd have to sell in volume.
A "few" here & there couldn't possibly return on investment, much less make a forward-going profit.
Colt can offer all sorts of variations on 1911s now because the gun's already in production & has been forever. Same to a slightly lesser extent with the Peacemakers.
Basic manufacturing methods for 1911 variants are in place, the equipment has been staged in, employees are trained & up to producing the 1911, vendor networks are already in place, and inventory control is already in place.
Using a host of common parts, or parts with minor variations, Colt can do limited runs of specific models that vary from the norm. It's why they've been able to do it with the 1911 & Model P variants all these years.
Far different from the process required to build a completely different gun.
You have NONE of that with the Python.
Bringing back the Anacondas, King Cobras & Trooper Vs would make no difference whatever in Python production since no parts would have commonality.
You couldn't order two thousand hammers, stick 'em in a bin, and draw from that bin interchangeably to assemble a Python and the other three models.
Speccing a part with a vendor is not a simple thing. I've been discussing that with Colt on a couple Python parts. Drawings (even CAD) have to be done, the vendor has to tool up, the first samples have to be verified in spec & corrected if not, money has to change hands for that and a bulk order. Multiply that by EVERY SINGLE PART in a Python not fabricated in-house by Colt (which would be most), and the process is huge.
You just don't do that to put out a "few" guns now & then.
As we've said- any DA Colt introduction will be designed for much less expensive production methods & costs, along the lines of the MKV.
The V-Spring guns have simply obsoleted themselves in today's market.
Denis
IF they gear up, remembering all the startup costs, they'd have to sell in volume.
A "few" here & there couldn't possibly return on investment, much less make a forward-going profit.
Colt can offer all sorts of variations on 1911s now because the gun's already in production & has been forever. Same to a slightly lesser extent with the Peacemakers.
Basic manufacturing methods for 1911 variants are in place, the equipment has been staged in, employees are trained & up to producing the 1911, vendor networks are already in place, and inventory control is already in place.
Using a host of common parts, or parts with minor variations, Colt can do limited runs of specific models that vary from the norm. It's why they've been able to do it with the 1911 & Model P variants all these years.
Far different from the process required to build a completely different gun.
You have NONE of that with the Python.
Bringing back the Anacondas, King Cobras & Trooper Vs would make no difference whatever in Python production since no parts would have commonality.
You couldn't order two thousand hammers, stick 'em in a bin, and draw from that bin interchangeably to assemble a Python and the other three models.
Speccing a part with a vendor is not a simple thing. I've been discussing that with Colt on a couple Python parts. Drawings (even CAD) have to be done, the vendor has to tool up, the first samples have to be verified in spec & corrected if not, money has to change hands for that and a bulk order. Multiply that by EVERY SINGLE PART in a Python not fabricated in-house by Colt (which would be most), and the process is huge.
You just don't do that to put out a "few" guns now & then.
As we've said- any DA Colt introduction will be designed for much less expensive production methods & costs, along the lines of the MKV.
The V-Spring guns have simply obsoleted themselves in today's market.
Denis
Last edited:
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Even the replacement for the forged V-Spring has obsoleted them on todays market.
You can figure it isn't economically feasible when even the big parts vendors can't get anyone to make those forged V-springs again.
The market is certainly there, but not at $100 bucks a spring or so.
rc
You can figure it isn't economically feasible when even the big parts vendors can't get anyone to make those forged V-springs again.
The market is certainly there, but not at $100 bucks a spring or so.
rc
Trad Archer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 274
I have both Colts and Rugers. Love them all.
I can't say that about Kimber.
Revolvers are just better guns.
I can't say that about Kimber.
Revolvers are just better guns.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Of those arguing for Colt to resurrect the Python, how many do you own now? How many would you buy if they were reintroduced at a $2000 price tag? What's keeping you from buying existing Pythons?
And getting smaller all the time. Let's face it, those of us willing to pay a premium price for a premium revolver are a small minority. Most shooters and especially most new shooters, would rather have a sackful of Glocks or AR's than one Python or one SAA or one New Frontier. I love premium sixguns and am willing to pay for them. I wish the asking price of the new New Frontier was a little lower but it won't keep me from buying one. My next custom Ruger will probably cost me $3000-$4000 to build. However, I would not even consider a $2000 Python for myriad reasons. Or even an $800 Python for that matter. So even those of us who love premium revolvers, don't automatically love Pythons.
Coal Dragger
member
In a perfect world Colt's could bring back some of their double action revolvers on a limited basis, but this is not a perfect world so it is a moot argument.
My view of Colt's in their heyday was a company that was forward looking and made quality working guns for a modern market, not one resting on their laurels relying on their name brand alone to sell limited edition guns.
Hopefully they get back there someday.
My view of Colt's in their heyday was a company that was forward looking and made quality working guns for a modern market, not one resting on their laurels relying on their name brand alone to sell limited edition guns.
Hopefully they get back there someday.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
To a degree. It's all personal preference in the end. I'm starting to play around with the idea of trading my XD-40 for a .357 revolver though but still unsure.
- Status