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.
The Peacemaker, done the way Colt does it, is simply an expensive gun to manufacture, and Colt doesn't make much profit off the model as it is.
They can't compete with the Italians.
They tried, with the cheaper-all-round Cowboy & the market wasn't interested enough to keep that model going.
The DAs have been discussed ad nauseaum; the market wasn't buying those in enough volume to keep 'em going.
Colt does need to be more competitive, but in other areas besides mere pricing.
Denis
How do you know?
I mean the Mustang didn't seem like a hit from what I've seen
I just feel like every body else jumped on the bandwagon and colt said no thanks.
I don't know why this totally false Italian source myth still propagates.
Why do you think he doesn't know? Do you have any particular expertise from working within the firearms industry?
Other industries don't count.
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."
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
This isn't a matter of no money being available. It's about decisions on where to spend the money.
I wonder how Uberti and Pedersoli can do this in Italy
S&W developed new models when they were on their backsides financially.
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.
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.