Colt: The Continued Soap Opera.

[Old Fuff]

Some are suggesting that Colt threw away its engineering drawings, process specifications, etc. That's utter nonsense -- much like suggesting that engineering drawings weren't important before the advent of automated production.

If (as has generally established) those who controlled the company were not interested in expanding handgun production, while being focused of military contracts - domestic and foreign - for rifles...

Why would they be concerned about drawings and process specifications for past discontinued products that couldn't be produced at prices the market would accept, and they had no perceived interest in reintroducing them?

Even more so when sales and production data for most showed that consumer demand was declining across the board?

You may be knowledgeable about practices and procedures in other manufacturing companies, but I don't think you know zip about firearms in general, or handguns in particular.

 

[barnbwt]

"Some are suggesting that Colt threw away its engineering drawings, process specifications, etc. That's utter nonsense"
I think intentional destruction is unlikely, simply because organizations never decide to get rid of any documentation, it seems. More likely, there was simply enough 'tribal knowledge' required to maintain the documents, read them, use them, and also to say nothing of the same issues with the mechanical production side of things, that it simply is no longer worth the effort to re-learn how to make those products that way. Much easier to reverse-engineer with fancy technology, make new drawings tailored for current processes and standards, and produce a close facsimile. Even easier to produce something more profitable than that facsimile (at 1000 guns a year, I am amazed they even bothered as long as they have; part of me wonders if that branch was maintained for the purpose of having gifts/rewards on hand for executives and customers, who would be impressed by such things)

TCB

 

[Aragon]

If (as has generally established) those who controlled the company were not interested in expanding handgun production, while being focused of military contracts - domestic and foreign - for rifles...

Why would they be concerned about drawings and process specifications for past discontinued products that couldn't be produced at prices the market would accept, and they had no perceived interest in reintroducing them?

Even more so when sales and production data for most showed that consumer demand was declining across the board?

You may be knowledgeable about practices and procedures in other manufacturing companies, but I don't think you know zip about firearms in general, or handguns in particular.

Once again, at the very least, the original engineering drawings are worth $$$ if nothing more at collector's items.

 

[Aragon]

If (as has generally established) those who controlled the company were not interested in expanding handgun production, while being focused of military contracts - domestic and foreign - for rifles...

Why would they be concerned about drawings and process specifications for past discontinued products that couldn't be produced at prices the market would accept, and they had no perceived interest in reintroducing them?

Even more so when sales and production data for most showed that consumer demand was declining across the board?

You may be knowledgeable about practices and procedures in other manufacturing companies, but I don't think you know zip about firearms in general, or handguns in particular.

Once more, because at the very least, original Colt engineering drawings are worth $$$ at auction and if nothing else, Donald Zilkha and crew are greedy. Your belief that they were "trashed" is unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Keep in mind I'm not suggesting they were sold. I'm sure they're still part of Colt's official document control system and gauging system.

I suspect your confusion stems from the fact that Colt did scrap much of the (antiquated) machinery and tooling used to make many of their products no longer in production. That's a world away though from "trashing" engineering drawings, process documentation and master gauging.

Your comment (on posting #245 of this thread) made me realize you clearly don't have a background in product design and/or manufacturing:

...Drawings didn't become critical until automated machine technology was adopted during the latter 1960's/early 1970's.

And even if they did exist they would be out-of-date for the manufacturing technologies and machinery currently used today...

Both assertions are absolutely absurd.

 

[Aragon]

...there was simply enough 'tribal knowledge' required to maintain the documents, read them, use them, and also to say nothing of the same issues with the mechanical production side of things, that it simply is no longer worth the effort to re-learn how to make those products that way...

I'm not sure what you're talking about?

Much easier to reverse-engineer with fancy technology, make new drawings tailored for current processes and standards, and produce a close facsimile. Even easier to produce something more profitable than that facsimile (at 1000 guns a year, I am amazed they even bothered as long as they have; part of me wonders if that branch was maintained for the purpose of having gifts/rewards on hand for executives and customers, who would be impressed by such things)

TCB

The original engineering drawings and process instructions would be invaluable in the "reverse engineering" process. Basic dimensions, tolerances, bluing processes, etc. would be valuable to know about without having to recreate them. The RE process needs to begin somewhere and measuring Fred's 1967 Python alone ain't gonna do it...

Further, in reveres engineering a classic Colt, they would have to be careful not too change the original design too much in order to accommodate new manufacturing processes.

 

[sequins]

Would they have to be careful? Current 1911s sure aren't 1944 colt GI s.

I can't wait to buy an Umarex Colt 1911-22.

 

[Aragon]

Would they have to be careful? Current 1911s sure aren't 1944 colt GI s.

I can't wait to buy an Umarex Colt 1911-22.

I think they would have to be. Some would prefer "new and improved" (and cost reduced) Pythons. Others would want something to match the originals. Sort of like a Ruger SA revolver and one from Pedersoli.

Current M1911s might not be those built for WWII, but they have build very similar models in fairly recent times.

Colt would be extremely foolish to license their name to Umarex so that they could build 22s,,,

 

[HexHead]

Colt would be extremely foolish to license their name to Umarex so that they could build 22s,,,

That horse has already left the barn. Have you not seen that piece of crap 1911 .22 with the the Colt name on it? And who do you think makes their .22 AR?

They should be horse whipped for putting their name on that crap.

 

[barnbwt]

"I'm not sure what you're talking about?" (tribal knowledge for using documents)
-"Dang, all these are on microfiche and we dumped that machine decades ago"
-"What building were the revisions stored in?"
-"This dimension is obviously a mistake, what have we been doing instead?"
-"What do you mean Scruffy was the only guy that could read these old prints?"
-"This part is only machined to the nearest .05" amd fitted the rest of the way. Worthless"
-"What the heck does 'chrome steel' mean as far as alloy?"
-"What do you mean the document storage wasn't climate controlled?"

Lots of things change. Drawings from another era might as well be in a different language, and there are many ways to lose key information in the interim. I agree they could be useful to reverse engineers, but everything will need to be validated.

TCB

 

[Robert]

After 14 pages this has long since run its course. Too much bickering and talking past each other to let this stay open.