Colt: The Continued Soap Opera.
- Thread starter Old Fuff
- Start date
- Status
2ndAmendmentNut
Member
I was under the impression the SAA parts all come from Uberti (or some other Italian manufacturer) and Colt simply assembles them. I would be happy to pay a premium for a "Colt" stamped Italian gun much like many prefer Cimarron's or Taylor's but at twice the price that makes everyone but collectors walk away.
Last edited:
2ndAmendmentNut
Member
Answer: 978
Not an expert, but that number seems way to low to make any money off of no matter what your profit margin is.
I think that you and I, and maybe DPris are in agreement on this point.
Some other numbers concerning yearly production of any handguns is far from impressive during past years prior to 2013. But it must be remembered that Colt's top management starved the handgun division to place what resources they had into AR15/M16 production - and of course enrich themselves.
Aragon
member
How do you know?
horsemen61
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,756
Imho I feel like colt has really missed a huge chunk of the market in the fact they haven't stayed competive in the ccw market i mean the mustang didnt seem like a hit from what iv seen
2nd,
Your impression is completely erroneous.
Colt does outsource certain parts & processes, but NONE FROM ITALY.
Major components & machining are done in-house.
ALL major makers do at least SOME outsourcing, it keeps costs down.
I don't know why this totally false Italian source myth still propagates.
Aragon,
I started dealing with a succession of Colt people in several aspects of operations (PR reps, traveling reps, VPs, production people, engineers, and consultants) well over 20 years ago.
At one point, during an internal audit some years back, it was discovered that Colt was actually LOSING money on the Peacemaker.
That resulted in a price hike that generated complaints.
The Peacemaker is not a money tree for Colt & can't be.
The company keeps it going simply as THE Colt icon.
It's not directed at the everyday shooter or the everyday market.
If they take the price down any farther, it'll leave them with two options: Drop quality or drop the model entirely.
Which would you prefer- High pricing/high quality, low pricing/low quality, or gone altogether?
Denis
Your impression is completely erroneous.
Colt does outsource certain parts & processes, but NONE FROM ITALY.
Major components & machining are done in-house.
ALL major makers do at least SOME outsourcing, it keeps costs down.
I don't know why this totally false Italian source myth still propagates.
Aragon,
I started dealing with a succession of Colt people in several aspects of operations (PR reps, traveling reps, VPs, production people, engineers, and consultants) well over 20 years ago.
At one point, during an internal audit some years back, it was discovered that Colt was actually LOSING money on the Peacemaker.
That resulted in a price hike that generated complaints.
The Peacemaker is not a money tree for Colt & can't be.
The company keeps it going simply as THE Colt icon.
It's not directed at the everyday shooter or the everyday market.
If they take the price down any farther, it'll leave them with two options: Drop quality or drop the model entirely.
Which would you prefer- High pricing/high quality, low pricing/low quality, or gone altogether?
Denis
To add:
Little over 15 years ago, the guy who started American Western Arms tried to buy the Peacemaker from Colt.
The company regards it somewhat as the "face" of Colt, a "living" symbol of the company's history, and told him the Peacemaker's built in Hartford & always will be.
They know they don't make any real money off the model, but that's why they keep it.
Denis
Little over 15 years ago, the guy who started American Western Arms tried to buy the Peacemaker from Colt.
The company regards it somewhat as the "face" of Colt, a "living" symbol of the company's history, and told him the Peacemaker's built in Hartford & always will be.
They know they don't make any real money off the model, but that's why they keep it.
Denis
horsemen61
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,756
Dpris as someone who seem's to be very knowledgeable of colt, I ask you why do you think colt hasn't tried to get into the ccw market more. I just feel like every body else jumped on the bandwagon and colt said no thanks. 
In 2013 (latest statistics available) they made 12,515 Mustangs. That's a bit better then 1000/month.
Now that they have a more price competitive version with a polymer frame they may do better. But I think that S&W, Ruger, Glock and Taurus - not to mention others, will continue to stomp on them. But we shall see...
Colt's top management/owners didn't believe that the commercial handgun business had any future because over time federal legislation would destroy it. They did however keep the business "sort of" going because they hoped someone would buy it.
On the handgun side, without money they couldn't design, develop produce and sell additional products.
The owners did indeed make a big mistake, but they had all their eggs in a basket labeled "Government Contracts."
Horse,
Management decisions missed the trend.
Colt simply failed to respond to a changing market & address the CCW boom.
Elsewhere, as repeatedly stated, Colt dropped the DA revolvers in general because they were not selling & concentrated on the military contracts (worldwide, not just domestic) in turn because that's where the real money was at the time.
Remember- Colt's financial situation has been very shaky for a very long time.
Certain decisions were made in view of using limited financing & limited resources to best advantage.
Denis
Management decisions missed the trend.
Colt simply failed to respond to a changing market & address the CCW boom.
Elsewhere, as repeatedly stated, Colt dropped the DA revolvers in general because they were not selling & concentrated on the military contracts (worldwide, not just domestic) in turn because that's where the real money was at the time.
Remember- Colt's financial situation has been very shaky for a very long time.
Certain decisions were made in view of using limited financing & limited resources to best advantage.
Denis
Another thought- Colt is not the only maker who can mis-judge a market.
It took the death of William B. Ruger to bring his company into the concealed carry market.
He was not interested.
Major difference between Colt & Ruger there is that Ruger had enough of a diversified product line to take up the slack elsewhere & stay highly profitable, whereas Colt didn't.
(Another major difference between the two companies was management & finances, but those have been addressed elsewhere.)
Denis
It took the death of William B. Ruger to bring his company into the concealed carry market.
He was not interested.
Major difference between Colt & Ruger there is that Ruger had enough of a diversified product line to take up the slack elsewhere & stay highly profitable, whereas Colt didn't.
(Another major difference between the two companies was management & finances, but those have been addressed elsewhere.)
Denis
Colt earned it at least. I know that the Colt Blackpowder series of pistols were made from Italian parts. I talked with the factory guys, they did not, for example, drill or rifle the barrels or cylinders. The major parts were Italian, at least that was verified, and I assume, so were the little parts. The parts were in a rough enough condition that after assembling and polishing Colt could meet content laws and claim the guns were "American Made".
Colt charged a big premium on those pistols. Colt is a Corporate Entity, if they can maximize profit by assembling centerfire single actions out of Italian parts, I would not put it past them. And how would be know, because Gunwriters told us?
Still, in the future, gunwriters will be extolling the virtues of Colt branded, Chinese made, Colt SAA revolvers. Probably M1911's too.
Aragon
member
I asked a question. All you did was pop-off.
If Colt made less than a thousand of just about any firearm, the revenue wouldn't be significant. However no one here knows how much Colt is making per SAA sold however and that's my question.
The Colt 2nd Gen percussions were initially made (finished, assembled, fitted) in Colt's factory using Uberti parts.
Successive "Colt" percussions were done with Uberti parts under license by the Imperatos.
ONLY those percussions were done using Italian parts, what- 25 years ago? But people still have it in their heads that ALL Colt single-actions are done with Italian parts, and that's an unfounded leap of associative mis-connect.
The Peacemaker has never been manufactured using foreign parts.
Denis
Successive "Colt" percussions were done with Uberti parts under license by the Imperatos.
ONLY those percussions were done using Italian parts, what- 25 years ago? But people still have it in their heads that ALL Colt single-actions are done with Italian parts, and that's an unfounded leap of associative mis-connect.
The Peacemaker has never been manufactured using foreign parts.
Denis
Aragon
member
You keep beating this drum and you couldn't be more wrong. Just how much do you think it takes to develop a new practical tactical pistol? S&W developed new models when they were on their backsides financially.
A small fraction of the $$$ "looted" from Colt would have more than funded new product development -- IF upper management had made a decision to invest in that area.
This isn't a matter of no money being available. It's about decisions on where to spend the money.
Aragon
member
The Colt 2nd Gen percussions were initially made (finished, assembled, fitted) in Colt's factory using Uberti parts.
Successive "Colt" percussions were done with Uberti parts under license by the Imperatos.
ONLY those percussions were done using Italian parts, what- 25 years ago? But people still have it in their heads that ALL Colt single-actions are done with Italian parts, and that's an unfounded leap of associative mis-connect.
The Peacemaker has never been manufactured using foreign parts.
Denis
I wonder how Uberti and Pedersoli can do this in Italy -- which is in no way an inexpensive place to manufacture something? Although Uberti is owned by Beretta, Davide Pedersoli as far as I know is a fairly small, family-owned business. Rather amazed at the number of products they are able to build and sell.
JRH6856
Member
Yes, and if the decision is to spend it on consulting fees, etc., the money won't be available for anything else. And if the decision is to borrow the money to spend on consulting fees, it still won't be available.
I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your posts here other than trolling.
Aragon,
It's a matter of no money being available AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL.
I was told by a Colt guy years ago that the plant could make money, if the people at the top would let it.
The statement that there was no money to R&D total ground-ups refers to the people who actually do the work, not the people at the ownership level.
And, it was true.
If Colt makes it through this mess, there are plans for additional product offerings, but the company has to get past the circus first.
It's ALL a wait'n see.
Denis
It's a matter of no money being available AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL.
I was told by a Colt guy years ago that the plant could make money, if the people at the top would let it.
The statement that there was no money to R&D total ground-ups refers to the people who actually do the work, not the people at the ownership level.
And, it was true.
If Colt makes it through this mess, there are plans for additional product offerings, but the company has to get past the circus first.
It's ALL a wait'n see.
Denis
Well for one thing, Uberti investment casts many of the parts. For that matter so does Ruger. But Ruger's are designed from ground up to take advantage of the technology.
Smith & Wesson, under previous ownership, attempted to break into the striker-fired/polymer frame pistol business by copying Glock so closely that some key parts were interchangeable. Glock sued - and won. Thereafter S&W had to pay a royalty to Glock for each Sigma pistol they sold. This proved to be a very expensive way to sidestep doing their own R&D work.
Most of Smith & Wesson's many offerings in revolvers are variations based on 5 basic platforms, these being the J, K, L, N and X frames. An examination of exploded-view drawings and part lists will show they often share a surprising number of common parts.
Aragon
member
Look though this thread...
Some are trying to paint the picture that there never was money available to develop new products. That's simply not true. I suspect even right now, if those in control were open to new products and if some within Colt had some good ideas, new products could be developed from a financial standpoint.
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.
Others continually infer that Colt has product quality issues, which it certainly doesn't seem to.
Not "trolling" (what an insult.) Simply not agreeing with some comments I have read on this tread.
Are you "trolling"?
Aragon
member
So? Colt could as well -- or have Ruger's Pine Tree Casting do it for them (as they do for other gun companies.) You didn't answer my question.
Again, so? After the Sigma (of which few were produced) S&W went on to develop new products in all their product likes -- polymer semi-auto pistols, DA revolvers, modern sporting rifles, etc.
I don't think S&W copied Glock to "sidestep doing their own R&D work" -- as it would have been easy enough to create something that didn't impinge on Glock's design. I think S&W copied Glock because S&W upper management demanded they do so.
In any event in today's world, there's not a lot of enforceable patents that would be in the way of manufacturing world-class polymer semi-auto pistols based on existing designs.
Not true. S&W offers a plethora of polymer rim/centerfire semi-auto pistols and rim/centerfire modern sporting rifles.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
