Aragon
member
Colt's not suffering from product quality issues as far as I can tell. Their current production appears to be excellent...
Colt: The Continued Soap Opera.
- Thread starter Old Fuff
- Start date
- Status
Colt's not suffering from product quality issues as far as I can tell. Their current production appears to be excellent...
Aragon
member
An M1911 or a Colt Python is neither an automobile or a satellite. While not trivial to manufacture, neither is exactly super-demanding manufacturing.
That doesn't mean the Colt name is quite valuable because it attracts buyers of its products.
Before you buy it, be aware that some have a serious headspace problem. Inspect the lugs on the barrel and matching grooves in the slide very carefully. If they're is any evidence of peening pass on it. Ideally it should have the headspace checked if you can find a 'smith that has a set of gauges.
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
Unfortunately production quality has little to do with the financial restructuring of the company. I have worked with numerous enterprises with best of class products that simply could not pull it all back together again after a reorg. The immediate future direction of Colt has more to do with the intentions of the owners and creditors than the quality of the product line.
Deanimator
Member
I used to have one (which I had to sell a couple of Christmases ago to pay the rent: LOVE the economic "recovery").
The major components were first rate, in fact better than what I was seeing coming out of Colt in the late '80s and early '90s. The minor parts on the other hand, were garbage. When I pulled the mainspring housing, the leaf spring was BRIGHT red with rust. There had never been a speck of blueing, parkerizing or anything else on it from the day it left the factory. Still the cost to have my smith get it working 100% came NOWHERE close to the difference in price between it and a Colt, Kimber or any other big name brand.
I recently bought a Citadel 3.5 CS to replace the Norinco and so far have been VERY impressed by it. The Philippinos make a very nice M1911.
If you don't want to spend more for a decent M1911 than I did for my first car, Asian is the way to go.
Aragon
member
I was responding to an inference (there have been a number of similar ones on this thread) that Colt's is experiencing product quality issues.
Simply put, it's not as far as I can see...
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,300
Deanimator
Not to create a thread drift but I worked on a friend's RIA 1911 and the overall fit and finish, both inside and out, were extremely good. He wanted a beavertail grip safety and round hammer installed, along with a trigger job, and there was no problem swapping out and installing the new parts. By contrast an older AMT Hardballer that he owned was a constant fixer upper, showing almost no handfitting of parts or quality control in it's construction.
Back on topic: I have several newer Colts and all are of a better quality than a lot of the ones I bought 30 and 40 years ago. Besides their enormous financial problems though I think the fact that the market is flooded with so many other manufacturers who also produce quality 1911s and ARs that Colt, no matter how good a product they make now, for the long-term won't be able to have enough of a market share to keep them viable in the firearms business.
Not to create a thread drift but I worked on a friend's RIA 1911 and the overall fit and finish, both inside and out, were extremely good. He wanted a beavertail grip safety and round hammer installed, along with a trigger job, and there was no problem swapping out and installing the new parts. By contrast an older AMT Hardballer that he owned was a constant fixer upper, showing almost no handfitting of parts or quality control in it's construction.
Back on topic: I have several newer Colts and all are of a better quality than a lot of the ones I bought 30 and 40 years ago. Besides their enormous financial problems though I think the fact that the market is flooded with so many other manufacturers who also produce quality 1911s and ARs that Colt, no matter how good a product they make now, for the long-term won't be able to have enough of a market share to keep them viable in the firearms business.
Colt doesn't own their building any more because Sciens transferred ownership from Colt to another one of Sciens' companies after they purchased Colt. It is just another example of Sciens' raiding Colt's assets.
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
Kinda. Colt (owned by Sciens) moved to a leased facility, that is owned by another company that happense to be 30% held by Sciens.
And the decision to buy vs. lease industrial space can vary a lot for businesses depending on their requirements, geographic location, etc. So, leasing in and of itself is not necessarily a bad move. For Sciens the owner, essentially leasing back from oneself, is not a bad move either financially.
For those hoping Sciens can be sent packing from Colt, this was not the best move.
Aragon
member
Very true. In fact some companies who could afford to buy a building choose not to so as not to tie-up cash that could earn more elsewhere.
You keep making assertions and then backing them up with claims of "common sense" or "logic", but sense isn't actually all that common, and logic only works if the situation is completely understood and properly defined.
Back in the 'old' machine days it was in fact extremely common for tooling to be adjusted during production without updating the documents, because updating blueprints by hand was extremely expensive and time-consuming. When Packard were setting up to make the V-1650, Rolls-Royce provided them with a complete set of engineering drawings and a sample current-production engine. The two didn't match. Packard and Rolls had to work through and not only convert the drawings to US norms for layout, but incorporate several years of production-line tweaks. The other famous example is the Savage 99 rotary magazine, which ceased to exist because a few bits of tooling disappeared, no specs existed, and no-one could face the cost of recreating them.
Why do you think there is such a huge deal made about "mil-spec" 1911, AR15 etc? It's because the military long since lost patience with these sort of manufacturer shenanigans and demanded ownership of the final product specifications (not necessarily the manufacturing process, but the product). And in several cases when the US military came knocking and demanded specifications, they got red faces and bluster because no accurate specs of the current production items existed. So they were either quickly created or Uncle Sam took his business elsewhere.
For these platforms there is by definition no reverse-engineering required. If they have the US military spec for a 1911, anyone can use any technology that suits them to manufacture it, and provided they produce it to the required dimensions, hardness, toughness etc. it will be functionally indistinguishable from a GI pistol and interchange parts with any other GI pistol. That's the whole point of the mil-spec. And it means that of the two most valuable "Colts" by current sales (1911 and AR15) the only unique value that Colt can add is by putting their logo on them - the design is public property.
AR-15Nutt
Member
speaking of Colt, has anyone watched the "Colt vs S&W" B.S. on the History CH. ?
talk about a waste of one hour, that had to be #1 for me. when it comes to TV viewing.
talk about a waste of one hour, that had to be #1 for me. when it comes to TV viewing.
Very true and also still true today. I've been involved with 3 manufacturing companies within the past 5 years that didn't have current product drawings or work instructions. The manufacturing process was passed down from older workers to new workers and that worked OK for a while. However, when production was moved to a new facility and none of the original workers made the move, chaos rained! It took months to get things straightened out.
CoalTrain49
Member
Thanks for that clarification.
I was assuming that the Chinese didn't have any military specs but you never know for sure. The Norinco seems to be made from better steel with a heat treating process that makes it harder. A better 20th century 1911 gov't in every way except finish.
The two leading gun companies in the US, Ruger and S&W, have developed new manufacturing processes in house and use MIM and polymer extensively in their products. I'm not saying MIM and polymer is better for some things but it reduces the cost of a gun substantially, which sells guns. I have a sneaking suspicion that Colt purchased it's MIM parts from outside sources and one of the reasons they had to charge more for the same 1911 that those other companies were cranking out. The same holds true for their AR's, parts purchased from others with their name stamped on it.
You made my point a lot better than I did.
I don't know for sure either, but given the number of private companies in the US who seem to have the specs, they either have them or a good-enough equivalent.
A quick search didn't turn up official spec documents, but if you want to make a 1911 this looks good enough (warning! huge file!) http://brlcad.org/design/drafting/M1911-A1_REDUX.pdf
No idea how current this particular version is or if it really is official, but here is a sample of some of the enormous amounts of M16/AR15 drawings floating around http://imgur.com/a/u8lNZ
Now, who fancies trying to create something similar for any of the classic colts that people are allegedly lining up round the block to buy?
SSN Vet
Member
Folks not having experience in manufacturing may not realize that documentation of product geometry & specifications, tooling geometry and specifications, and manufacturing process specifications are three different critters, and are historically done by different departments within an organization, or subbed out to entirely different organizations.
Machine shop tooling (work holding fixtures to hold parts in milling machines or lathes) is typically designed by machinists or tooling engineers who used to be machinist.
It's not uncommon at all for molds to be subbed out and if possession of the documentation is not clearly defined in the purchase order conditions, the mold maker will balk at turning over documentation, as he wants to ensure that he gets the follow on business for servicing and modifying the molds. It's also not unheard of for production tooling to be mysteriously damaged, when pulled from one subcontractor and transferred to another.
Manufacturing processes are often developed, tweaked and improved by supervisors "by the seat of their pants", in smaller companies that lack manufacturing engineers.
I always call this "tribal knowledge" and it runs rampant, even in larger organizations.
The bottom line is that documentation costs money, both to create and maintain. Even with solid modeling, CAD, CNC machining and 3D printing, you still have a lot of program tweaks, work holding tweaks, process sequence tweaks, supplier process changes, etc....
You really want to complicate things, transfer part of your operations overseas (or even to FL) and try to stand up a modern manufacturing process from the ground up. It's expensive and time consuming and you lose control of certain aspects of the gig.
If Colt gets sold, or shut down and then re-opened, it will be a major headache and expense for whoever the lucky one is, and you can expect problems negatively affecting the end product along the way.
Sciens has raped Colt of much of the companies value and saddled it up very heavy with debt. I suspect bagging the bond holders was part of their "lap top MBA", (ala Jack Welch) strategic plan since day one and they could really give a crap about the company, the product, the employees, or the customers. Corporate piracy at it's worst.
Aragon
member
Sure it is. The stuff is worth $$$. It's logical that it would be retained or sold -- and not trashed as some suggest (and cannot substantiate.)
I call hogwash. While I'm sure they're been plenty instances of "making it work" (or "hand fitting" as some like to call it) out on the shop floor (due to individual parts not meeting print, etc.), but to actually make an engineering change and then not document it is just sloppy -- back then or today.
The difficulties with RR and Packard differ largely due to completely different manufacturing systems. After Ford demonstrated they couldn't build the engine, the contract went to Packard. Had Packard been equipped the same as RR the transfer would have gone a lot smoother.
The M1911 predates WWII...
There's a "big deal" about milspec AR-15s because the design was easily reverse engineered and because as a highly modular product, it's ideally suited for cloning (or near cloning) causing an explosion in production.
The Technical Design Package (TDP) hasn't been released for either one to my knowledge. Even if they have (it would have been fairly recent), the flood of clones for each were reverse engineered from the originals.
Have you ever worked in a manufacturing facility? I've spent 17 years in factories and every single place I have worked has made changes without updating the documentation. Some places are a lot better than others but even in the best some changes go undocumented.
A number of sources have offered copies of the U.S. Army's blueprints of the 1911A1 pistol, because they are available in the public domain.
These should not be confused with Colt Company drawings, to whatever degree they might exist, and undoubtedly do because they are necessary for current day production technologies. That said they may, or may not have prints for parts purchased from sub-contractors that are made to the supplier's prints and specifications. At one time everything in a Colt handgun was made inside the factory. Today that's far from true.
Anyway, the last time Colt made any .45 pistols for Uncle Sam was 1945. They did however sell the military services some spare parts. These had to meet the government's blueprint, material, and heat treating specifications that were current at the time.
After 1945 the Army continued to make print revisions to insure that components obtained from any contractor would interchange and work in any pistol, regardless of when the pistol (really meaning the frame) was made by any of the World War Two contractors.
Should any of today's 1911 pistol/platform makers desire to exactly duplicate the pistol as it was made (or refurbished up to 1982) they can easily do so.
But very few if any want to. Today's customers want the gun to be tighter, which the military services didn't. Also preferences in design of some parts (such as grip safety's, hammers, triggers and sights have changed over time.
So for them the USGI prints are only a departure point, and Colt's drawings - such as they may be - are not publically available.
These should not be confused with Colt Company drawings, to whatever degree they might exist, and undoubtedly do because they are necessary for current day production technologies. That said they may, or may not have prints for parts purchased from sub-contractors that are made to the supplier's prints and specifications. At one time everything in a Colt handgun was made inside the factory. Today that's far from true.
Anyway, the last time Colt made any .45 pistols for Uncle Sam was 1945. They did however sell the military services some spare parts. These had to meet the government's blueprint, material, and heat treating specifications that were current at the time.
After 1945 the Army continued to make print revisions to insure that components obtained from any contractor would interchange and work in any pistol, regardless of when the pistol (really meaning the frame) was made by any of the World War Two contractors.
Should any of today's 1911 pistol/platform makers desire to exactly duplicate the pistol as it was made (or refurbished up to 1982) they can easily do so.
But very few if any want to. Today's customers want the gun to be tighter, which the military services didn't. Also preferences in design of some parts (such as grip safety's, hammers, triggers and sights have changed over time.
So for them the USGI prints are only a departure point, and Colt's drawings - such as they may be - are not publically available.
Aragon
member
That doesn't address the assertion that product design engineering changes (not tooling, work instructions, etc.) aren't documented. If they're not documented, there's no change! It's nothing more than people "trying to make it work" out on the shop floor.
Some companies might work that way but it's sloppy, incredibly bad-practice manufacturing.
The "bottom line" is that not documenting engineering changes can be horrifically expensive.
I'll also point out that documentation for product, tooling, work instructions, etc. are often discrete document control databases.
Aragon
member
For over 30 years.
I've had the pleasure of working for top-notch companies -- perhaps that's the difference?
I've certainly seen situations where subcontractors for parts were changed and problems arose because the parts changed -- while still meeting print. When that happens the situation is investigated and design changes implemented if necessary so that anyone capable can make a part that will work.
One example that comes to mind was a sheet metal part. A long time vendor who helped develop the part also produced it in quantity. Their first step was to grain the sheet metal (certainly allowed but not specified in this instance) as part of their standard shop practice for just about any part they make.
When we let a contract to another vendor in addition to the above company, they made parts to print but they didn't grain their metal. That caused major production problems -- and ultimately led to a design change -- both for graining and the direction of the graining with regard to the part.
If someone choose not to document such a change, there would have been hell to pay in each instance. Unofficially burnishing each part on the line with some crocus cloth would have been sloppy, shade tree production that's simply not tolerated.
lysanderxiii
Member
That's not true.
First, Rolls-Royce's drawing were complete and accurate. Second, it was not Packard, but Ford (UK Ford).
Some time in mid 1939, the UK Air Ministry asked Ford (UK) if they could make the Merlin after showing them Rolls-Royce's drawings in a meeting with the AM and RR. They said "no, those drawing are not to your standards."
The problem was not that the drawing were incomplete or lacking information. They had numerous places were things were noted as "FILE TO FIT" or "HAND LAP". Ford felt that improved tolerancing callout would improve interchangeability and speed production. Ford (UK) redrew the drawing along with RR engineers the establish good production tolerances and simplified a few areas for mass production.
Those were the drawing that were given to Packard. Packard may have redrawn them to meet their needs, but the heavy lifting was already done, and the Merlin was produced at Packard without much difficulty. They were given the plans in Sept 1940, and the first Merlin XX rolled off the line in August 1941. That's pretty good.
Six or 8 years ago, while a certain company was taking a hard look at a certain .223 semi-auto rifle manufactured back East, in terms of a systematic analysis of the model as it then stood, I talked to one of the senior people involved.
I was told that over the years since 1975 when that non-AR-15 was introduced, various minor aspects had been allowed to deviate slightly from the original drawings & specs.
Nothing official, nothing deliberate, just a few thousandths of this, a few thousandths of that, a tweak here, a minor mod there.
Nothing documented.
Nothing written down.
Just what I'd loosely call "pattern drift".
Attributed to a lack of supervision, perceived "better way" adaptations by machinists, spec wander, and so on.
The end result, according to an internal company process audit, was that the model had wandered quite a bit.
After analysis & evaluation, the model was OFFICIALLY updated in key areas, and processes adjusted to hold to the new drawings & specs.
As another example, the situation we all saw with Marlin illustrated the "tribal knowledge" idea (GREAT term) very clearly.
There WERE no drawings by the time the company was moved to Ilion under Remington.
The old specs & machines had been handed down literally through generations of Marlin workers who "knew" them, without having any drawings (original or updated) at all.
That was the biggest problem with the leverguns; the experienced "tribe" did not go along with the move, leaving the new workers to guess & re-engineer the guns with only the guns as patterns.
Marlin's spent a bundle in getting new drawings done for the levers.
In a semi-related note, yesterday spent an hour on the phone with an acquaintance at another manufacturer located between East & West coasts.
Much re-organization going on, which has resulted in loss of older engineers & process people.
Much tribal knowledge is also gone there, and operations are being affected to some degree while new engineers are brought up to speed.
Re the simple suggestion that so many make for Colt's survival: Just MOVE!!!!!
It ain't that easy.
Setting up new production facilities, new vendors, new vendor supply pathways, and training new workers to replace older experienced personnel who chose not to be uprooted & stayed behind, is a major deal.
Should Colt try to do that, product quality & availability could suffer for up to three years or more.
Denis
I was told that over the years since 1975 when that non-AR-15 was introduced, various minor aspects had been allowed to deviate slightly from the original drawings & specs.
Nothing official, nothing deliberate, just a few thousandths of this, a few thousandths of that, a tweak here, a minor mod there.
Nothing documented.
Nothing written down.
Just what I'd loosely call "pattern drift".
Attributed to a lack of supervision, perceived "better way" adaptations by machinists, spec wander, and so on.
The end result, according to an internal company process audit, was that the model had wandered quite a bit.
After analysis & evaluation, the model was OFFICIALLY updated in key areas, and processes adjusted to hold to the new drawings & specs.
As another example, the situation we all saw with Marlin illustrated the "tribal knowledge" idea (GREAT term) very clearly.
There WERE no drawings by the time the company was moved to Ilion under Remington.
The old specs & machines had been handed down literally through generations of Marlin workers who "knew" them, without having any drawings (original or updated) at all.
That was the biggest problem with the leverguns; the experienced "tribe" did not go along with the move, leaving the new workers to guess & re-engineer the guns with only the guns as patterns.
Marlin's spent a bundle in getting new drawings done for the levers.
In a semi-related note, yesterday spent an hour on the phone with an acquaintance at another manufacturer located between East & West coasts.
Much re-organization going on, which has resulted in loss of older engineers & process people.
Much tribal knowledge is also gone there, and operations are being affected to some degree while new engineers are brought up to speed.
Re the simple suggestion that so many make for Colt's survival: Just MOVE!!!!!
It ain't that easy.
Setting up new production facilities, new vendors, new vendor supply pathways, and training new workers to replace older experienced personnel who chose not to be uprooted & stayed behind, is a major deal.
Should Colt try to do that, product quality & availability could suffer for up to three years or more.
Denis
No doubt that is a lot of it. I've worked for some top notch companies and some pretty poor ones.
I got a big surprise when I first started at my latest company. A production worker brought me a part that was out of spec and asked me if it was OK. I measured it, looked at the print, looked at the print from the mating part and said, yes, it will work. Let me fill out a product deviation form, we will have to do a corrective action to keep the machining error from happening again, and I'll submit a change request to update the drawing to change the tolerance. The guy just looked at me dumbfounded. All the current engineers would just say yes, or no without any documentation. When I took the product deviation form to the area supervisor he asked what it was. In the 2 years he had worked for the company he had never seen one! This was a publically traded company with 2015 sales of $3.8 Billion!
So if Colt is like the companies you have worked for all the paperwork will be in order. If it is like the company I most recently worked for, all bets are off.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
