Lets talk about this wonderful piece of equipment. "COLT"

[SwampWolf]

You might argue it is not indicative of the quality of other Colt products but if the company has made agreements to put their name on it then it is a Colt plain and simple.

I absolutely agree with this statement and the other posters who are calling a Colt a Colt. If you choose to prostitute your reputation by agreeing to have your good name stamped on an obviously inferior product in order to make a quick profit, you deserve to find your name next to Umarex and other shoddy companies in the trash barrel of compromise.

 

[Extremely Pro Gun]

I'm glad there are some people on the same page as me. Imagine if you got this gun home,all exited about your new gun and accidently drop it and bust it in half. You can't bring it back to Academy they don't accept returns on firearms. You have to send it to the very company that ok'd this gun to come to the asembly line.

 

[HB]

This doesn't really surprise me. They feel and look very solid but the metal is just crap. It seems weird that it broke there and not at the stock though.

 

[Uncle Mike]

I told you so.....!

 

[kwelz]

I am sorry guys but you really need to read up on how licensing works. I agree the gun is Crap, I agree that it is a bad move by Colt to license thier name without having more say in the final product. but that does not make it a Colt Rifle in anything but name.

 

[everallm]

If Colt says it's a Colt in name, then it's a Colt in fact.

They even say so right on the site....

"Colt....Quality makes it a Colt"

http://www.colt22rimfire.com/

 

[MissouriCrowinMass]

You girls really get your panties in a bunch over these plastic cap guns. I spent a delightful week cleaning, oiling and fixing up the stock on a Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk.1 sporter that I got for $250. It was made in the Maltby, ROF in 1942. It has a #1 bolt head and looks like it hasn't seen many .303 cartridges. Going to try it out in 1/2 hr. I do hope that I never drop it on my floor as I think that the receiver will surely damage my concrete.

 

[knights_armorer]

First of all, longtime visitor, first time poster, nice to meet you all. I have been thoroughly impressed by the knowledge base by many here. (and as with any site, there are a few that tarnish that knowledge base, but i find that ratio to be excellent here)

Yes, it is a colt.

The lengths that some will go to to defend them borders on comical.

That rifle is as much a colt as any other product with that logo. I realize they did not manufacter the rifle, but they are not the original source for many of their products that some would claim as "true colt".

Unfortunately, colts are selling many rifles on reputation more-so than on actual quality.

I suppose if it says colt and it works well, then and then only is it a true colt?

 

[Uncle Mike]

geeeez...they are not Colts...they are Umarex.

Yes, Colt did slap their name on it...more corporate greed...get rich quick stuff.

Yes, they (Umarex .22LR rifle) are total junk....

But, if Colt indeed machined these things, you can bet they would not be turds as they are now.

Does nobody fondle and inspect before they buy anymore? I mean you can just 'look' at one of these things and see the mold lines, misfit...I could go on...I mean on a cheap airgun, yes...but a 22, never!

 

[dom1104]

Hmm.

No one will say this would happen to a colt AR-15, or really any ar-15 from a reputable maker.


Am I willing to pay the "Pony Premium?" for anything that is made by hundreds of other companies? nope.

Are the Umarex products getting a terrible reputation? yep.

And last and most obviously, people defend Colt because they paid a premium, and must at all costs justify that in their minds.

On the other hand... saying that this has any bearing on products made by their ACTUALL company vs ones they liscensed... is silly and stupid.

Dont bash, search for the truth.

 

[saturno_v]

If it has the Colt name on it, it is a Colt..period.

I know how licensing work but that is beside the point.

As a final user, I do not care who made it, who did the design, QC and what else....I paid the premium Colt price and I expect Colt quality..end of the story.

Licensing a product without doing your homework and exercising poor supervision is more reflective of the corporate culture....so a story like this would definitely make me aware that current Colt products may have quality issues.

Companies are made of people...people change

GM used to built great cars, Japanese automobile and electronics were junk and IBM was one of the greatest company to work for......40 years ago....

Granted, I'm not an expert on Colts..as far as I know they built great firearms and I admired the craftmanship, for example, of an old Colt Python which command a premium in the used revolver market.

But, as we should painfully remember in corporate America recent history, you need only few bad apples at the top to ruin a company...

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Now that HK has contracted Umarex to make .22 clones of some of their guns I bet they'll turn out to be equally as crappy as all the other Umarex guns

I would doubt it, HK is anal about qualtiy, unlike "Colt!" "Colt!" HK will probably have some after production QC they will go through, will they be expensive, yes, will they break if you drop it, no.

 

[iiibdsiil]

If you put your name on it, it's your product. I don't know what's so hard to understand.

It's Colt, I never expect anything to be their fault. They are all holy and powerful. Or as I call my dog: "Perfect and precious and beautiful."

 

[Hawk]

I am sorry guys but you really need to read up on how licensing works. I agree the gun is Crap, I agree that it is a bad move by Colt to license thier name without having more say in the final product. but that does not make it a Colt Rifle in anything but name.

Well, let's consider this proposition.

Browning and Weatherby don't make any of their stuff. Therefor, there are no Brownings or Weatherbys? That should come as a surprise to many. Or perhaps theirs is just licensing done right?

People trust brands.

I can overlook crappy knives, second rate ball caps, non-stellar bicycles, average polo shirts and run of the mill beer koozies. However, this .22 thing is a firearm of sorts. It has the Colt name complete with snakey-looking "C" and a prancing pony.

Does nobody fondle and inspect before they buy anymore? I mean you can just 'look' at one of these things and see the mold lines, misfit...I could go on...I mean on a cheap airgun, yes...but a 22, never!

There was a time when a significant portion of the buying public would see "Colt" emblazoned on a box and take it as an assurance of quality. But you're right - those days are gone or, at a minimum, deserve to be gone.

When Beretta licenses their name to Galco for a shell holder I expect - and get - a pretty nice shell holder. Too bad an American icon can't be relied upon to police their brand as well as the Italian.

There's an old piece of wisdom cluttering up the handgun forums here - something along the lines of "If it doesn't have the prancing pony, it's just a copy". Seems it might be a copy even if it has the pony. The worth of the pony as a mark of quality has taken it in the shorts.

 

[dom1104]

If you put your name on it, it's your product.

thats just simply not true.

A 'product' is your if you 'produced' it. Which they did not. It was produced by a completly different company / factory / country.

This is patently silly to me, that people think otherwise.

I dont care whos name is on it, I care about what reality is.

 

[SwampWolf]

I dont care whos name is on it, I care about what reality is.

While you may not care about whose name is on a product, if a "name" means anything at all than the reality is that the product that bears the maker's (or their surrogate's) name is, in fact, the entity accountable for said product's assets or deficiencies. The rifle in question is a product of Colt (it says so, right on the receiver along with the fabled prancing pony) and nobody else.

 

[General Geoff]

thats just simply not true.

A 'product' is your if you 'produced' it. Which they did not. It was produced by a completly different company / factory / country.

Wrong. The name is everything. The name says who profits from it, the name says who services it, and the name says who's marketting it.

People have every right to bash Colt for putting their name on an inferior product. It doesn't matter that it was built by someone else; just that Colt officially endorsed it by putting their name on it.

As others have pointed out, very few companies actually manufacture their own products anymore. The only thing that matters from a reputation perspective is the name on the product.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Ok drop an SW ar-22 off a 2nd level shelf and see if it breaks.

I'd be pretty pissed if that was my rifle.

 

[everallm]

For the Colt defenders who trust by saying "It's made by Umarex" enough times it will absolve Colt, please feel free to remember that the weapon is NOT made by Umarex, its imported by them and made by Walther in Germany.

 

[taliv]

is a mercedes c280 still a "mercedes"? yeah, i guess so. was it a bad decision? maybe. does the fact they made a crappy budget model somehow detract from the engineering in their top-of-line cars? no.

Some of you seem to be making an argument equivalent to:
Mercedes made the c280.
The c280 is overpriced crap.
Therefore, my toyota corolla is better than your SL600.



i've never claimed colt makes only quality stuff. in fact, i don't really have a particularly high opinion of ANY of colt's stuff except their 6920 and some models of their 1911s.

so they're trying to bring a budget model to the market. it's a friggin 22lr! anyone who expects it to be held to the same quality as their Law Enforcement carbines or the M4s they sell to the military, is just delusional.

 

[JN01]

On the plus side, you can probably get that one for HALF-OFF

 

[knights_armorer]

Lol.

After reading some other "ar suggestions" threads, Im shocked that not only did the colt rollmark fail preventing the unfortunate fracture, but make the little rifle feed, fire, extract and eject flawlessly for the life of its next three owners!!!!

Some of you seem to be making an argument equivalent to:
Mercedes made the c280.
The c280 is overpriced crap.
Therefore, my toyota corolla is better than your SL600.

I tend to agree, for the most part.

And if the typical AR15 opinions and selection tactics were used in selecting your corolla some might suggest that the toyota will be fine as long as you dont use it as your SHTF car, in which case only the sl600 could be used.

 

[dom1104]

Ok I'n out on this one. Its completly rediculous to say all that matters is the brand, and who actually made it is irellevent. That boggles my mind. I hope more people don't start subscribing to that, or we will have a lot more outsourced products. Chinese made SIG 226? Who cares it has SIGs name on it! Bogus.

 

[saturno_v]

is a mercedes c280 still a "mercedes"? yeah, i guess so. was it a bad decision? maybe. does the fact they made a crappy budget model somehow detract from the engineering in their top-of-line cars? no.

Some of you seem to be making an argument equivalent to:
Mercedes made the c280.
The c280 is overpriced crap.
Therefore, my toyota corolla is better than your SL600.

I tend to agree, for the most part.

And if the typical AR15 opinions and selection tactics were used in selecting your corolla some might suggest that the toyota will be fine as long as you dont use it as your SHTF car, in which case only the sl600 could be used.

Apples and oranges

You guys confuse luxury with quality.....actually Toyota build, on average, better quality cars than Mercedes...quality under many aspects...quality of engineering and design, assembly, reliability and durability.

Put it in another way...if SHTF would you rather have a Toyota or a Lincoln or a Jaguar??...luxury and quality do not always match.

Nowdays I definitely trust more a Corolla than an SL600...Again, things change with time....30 years ago Mercedes built probably the most reliable cars in the world...no longer the case.

On a final note, personally, with many exceptions, on average I do not tend to buy domestic products...nothing is wrong with the American worker, they can do magic but unfortunately I'm very familiar with the mentality at the top of many US corporations...we went to far in becoming a nation of too many "managers" and paper shufflers.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

If you put your name on it, it's your product.

thats just simply not true.

No, it most certainly is 100% true. That's the very definition of what a product is - something that bears your company's brand name.

A 'product' is your if you 'produced' it. Which they did not. It was produced by a completly different company / factory / country.

Define "produced". They DID in fact produce it, in a sense. They CAUSED it to be produced. Produced is a vague, nebulous term in the complicated world of outsourcing and branding/licensing. Under your definition of produce, Browning and Weatherby don't produce ANYTHING, right? So then what are they doing in business, if they don't produce anything?

I dont care whos name is on it, I care about what reality is.

That's the point - people should have (and did in the past have) a right to feel confident that the REALITY would be that they were a high quality product from the NAME of the BRAND alone, without more, on the justifiable assumption that no matter where actually manufactured, Colt would inspect it and quality control it. It's patently silly to ME, that people apparently think otherwise.

Same thing happened when I bought a Chinese-made Beeman that turned out crappy - they just diluted their brand, and now I wouldn't be a German-made Beeman either, for that reason - cannot trust them anymore.