This one is out there and I am prepared for the consequences....

[earlthegoat2]

Since Colt has recently expired on its military contract for the M4 rifle and there are going to be a new hoard of bids put in for it.......

Hypothetically lets say Smith and Wesson gets it.

What do you think will happen to the company in the wake of never having to worry about the civilian market for awhile?

Will they go the way of Colt and quit making DA revolvers over time as they become less and less important to profits?

I never really though about this until I heard someone at the LGS bring it up saying he hoped Smith and Wesson got the contract. I immediately said I hoped they did not out of pure reactive instinct because I do not want to see them go the way of Colt.

I know this is all hypothetical here but, well, come on..

 

[Big_E]

Hmm, that is a good point. If S&W does get the contract hopefully they learn from the mistakes of Colt.

I would actually prefer a company that focus' on M4/M16 and AR-15's such as Bushmaster, RRA, CMMG, LMT, etc... will get it.

 

[travellingJeff]

*off topic*

Doesn't FN make the M16 series of rifles, as well as some of the M240/9 machine guns?



*sorry

 

[9mm+]

It's an interesting hypothetical situation, but I doubt that S&W would let their legacy in DA revolvers slide. I am sure they were good observers of the Colt debacle. If there is one thing that S&W is *best* known for, it's revolvers. It's their legacy and quite possibly their future, military contract or not. Afterall, Harry Calahan was holding a Model 629 and not an M4...

 

[Vonderek]

Colt's manufacturing of revolvers was labor-intensive and archaic. They had no new designs. S&W "made its bones" with revolvers. They have an extensive lineup and are constantly innovating with new designs and materials. All their guns are built on modern CNC machining. You don't think they'd let their huge investment in R&D and tooling go to waste do you?

 

[fastbolt]

Some folks might be amazed at the millions of dollars that S&W has invested in machinery & equipment over the last several years.

I was told they're also buying their own Magnetic Particle testing equipment for M&P 15 production.

Then there's the fact that they operate a respectably large heat treating facility on the East Coast.

They have a respectable forging capability, as well.

The also know how to outsource as needed.

I'm wondering what wealth of designs are going to surface as submissions for the proposed battle rifle/carbine program for the next 50 years, but it for some wild reason it were to go to S&W for the same sort of AR15 design as we've used for almost the last 50 years I wouldn't expect the handgun production model lines to appreciably fade away.

It seems likely that Colt's problems were sort of unique to their circumstances and style of management & decision making.

 

[stoveboltgunnut]

I thought that new m16's and variants were made by FN?

 

[Big_E]

Yes, FN does have the contract for M16's but Colt HAD it for the M4. So FN will continue making M16's but who will make the M4's is up for grabs.

 

[Trebor]

While the military has the right to seek a second source for any future M-4 purchases, under the contract they would still have to pay Colt a 5% royalty on every rifle for the next few years. Of course, having to pay a royalty would make rifles bought from any other bidder more expensive and it's likely that Colt would continue to get the contract.

If the military went with anyone but Colt, it would be FN, no doubt. They have already shown interest in making M-4's and since they already make M-16A2's for the .mil, they've shown they can deliver. They are also the largest arms manufacturer in the world.

My bet? Any future contracts will either stay with Colt or be splint between Colt and FN.

 

[kansas coyote]

It seems H&K is making quite a mark in this race to develope the replacement for the m4 I watched a show on history about it seems we taxpayer gave them 10 million to develope a replacement that does no have the heat limitations the m4 has under auto fire. They also showed it being submirged in mud and water picked up and shot as soon as it was picked up with no pressure issues due to holes in the receiver to allow water and mud to excape. Sorry I cant spell tonight one of those tired cant sleep nights. So I will shut up now while I still make some since .

 

[HK G3]

I believe you're referring to the H&K 416 demoed on Future Weapons, among other places?

 

[cyclopsshooter]

HA watch, it will be Taurus

 

[RP88]

assuming that there will ever be another contract for the M4 carbine, five bucks says that FN will be the ones to get it. They can seemingly under-bid pretty much everyone but China, and we sure as hell aren't going to have them making our weapons.

And as for the HK416...I've heard ups and downs about it. Besides, it's too early into the 'looking for a replacement' stage to guess what may replace anything. Our military is looking for the next big leap, and it doesn't look like one is coming up anytime soon - so the M16/M4 in some shape or form may be what we are still using in 2030 for all we know.

 

[SaxonPig]

Well, what happened to Colt when it decided to rely solely on military contracts and screw the civilian market? They made some guns for a while for the military and now they've lost that deal and since they stopped making 90% of the civilian guns they once made they have little to offer for sale.

Can you say... stupid, short-sighted, idiot management?

 

[Hk91-762mm]

COLT and Winchester have been beaten to death by unions .. If they would leave the communist Northeast and move to right to work states -Id be a much happier consumer of there products..

 

[Mike J]

Why is it anytime a company is run into the ground by bad management decisions someone blames the unions? Blame is never reality, unions might increase labor cost but that is a very small portion of the costs to manufacture anything & has nothing to do with incompetent management such as has been exhibited by the airlines & the automakers.

 

[Tommygunn]

I dunno .... unions have shut down airlines do to their excessive greed. They used to be necessary 100 years ago but today they're all too often their own worst enemy.

 

[Mike J]

As far as the OP's question I believe it would be insane for Smith & Wesson to let the revolver market go. They are just too well established in it. As for the union issue-remember free thought, question what you are told, don't take anyones propaganda as gospel whether they be labeled conservative, liberal or whatever. Politicians, talk radio personalites & mainstream media all have their own agenda & I don't believe it is the common good of the American people. Although I started to respond further I will not because this is supposed to be a firearms forum & I don't need to make this thread veer that far but if you would like to discuss this issue with me feel free to PM me.

 

[Old Fuff]

If or when Smith & Wesson eliminates revolvers from their product mix it will be for economic reasons and have little or nothing to do with government contracts for other firearms.

By virtue of its basic design, revolvers are more expensive to make then pistols, even when using the best of modern manufacturing technology. In addition the market is becoming far more focused on pistols over revolvers – especially for concealed carry.

On the other hand revolvers often have a distinct advantage of being able to handle more powerful cartridges, and are generally more accurate and reliable, as they do not depend on the cartridge to function.

As market share continues to declines, as it will, revolvers will become more of a specialty item, often offered on a custom or semi-custom basis. I doubt that they will disappear, at least during this century, but they’re numbers will be much less.

No one needs to worry to much, we have a huge and viable used gun marketplace that’s filled with excellent revolvers.

 

[TexasRifleman]

While the military has the right to seek a second source for any future M-4 purchases, under the contract they would still have to pay Colt a 5% royalty on every rifle for the next few years.

I thought Colt lost claim to the M4 trademark when they lost the case to Bushmaster. The judge ruled that "M4" was in the public domain as a military specification, not a Colt trademark.

Or is there another clause in the contract?

 

[Trebor]

I thought Colt lost claim to the M4 trademark when they lost the case to Bushmaster. The judge ruled that "M4" was in the public domain as a military specification, not a Colt trademark.

Or is there another clause in the contract?

You are confusing a couple different things here.

The "M-4 trademark" case was when Colt tried to claim that it held the rights to the *name* M-4 and Bushmaster infringed on those rights. Colt lost as the court ruled that the M-4 *name* is a military specification and not a protected trademark.

That has nothing to do with Colt's rights to the M-4 "Technical Data Package" which is the engineering info and manufacturing specifications needed to produce a military compliant M-4 for the government contract. Colt owns the rights to the M-4 TDP as part of their contract with the military.

There's a huge difference between a trademark as to what a rifle is named and the actual specifications in the TDP to make a rifle.

What changed is that now the military has the right to seek a second source of production for the M-4. They now have the right to share that TDP with other manufacturers, so Colt has lost the exclusive rights to the TDP.

 

[testosterone]

Based on nothing at all except perception, my feeling is any manufacturer that has extensive LEO or Military contracts hates you and doesn't give a rats behind about civilian sales.

We are a rounding error to their bottom lin.

 

[Werewolf]

Why is it anytime a company is run into the ground by bad management decisions someone blames the unions? Blame is never reality, unions might increase labor cost but that is a very small portion of the costs to manufacture anything & has nothing to do with incompetent management such as has been exhibited by the airlines & the automakers.

Spoken by someone who obviously knows nothing about manufacturing costs.

I worked in accounting as both an account, accounting manager and manufacturing manager and eventually director for 4 International Mfg Firms. Seagate, Hitachi, Organon Teknika and MD Products. I bet you've heard of at least 2 of them. Long story short labor is not a small portion of the manufacturing costs. Depending on the product labor at each of the 4 accounted for 1/3 to 2/3 of the total manufacturing costs. At the 4th labor accounted for 75% of the total manufacturing costs.

Lots of products are highly labor intensive and at some firms labor costs can be as high as 90% or more.

NOTE: Manufacturing costs are not the total cost of running a business. Below line costs usually run less than 20% but I've seen them as high as 50% in some industries.

Long story short - labor is never a small portion of costs and can be a very large portion of total costs. It all depends on the industry and the products manufactured.

 

[earlthegoat2]

The thing to remember though is companies like Glock use the LEO contracts they get to garner more civialian sales. That is how they can run a company selling their guns at a really low profit to the agencies and still make stupid bucks from the civilian sales.

 

[danprkr]

unions might increase labor cost but that is a very small portion of the costs to manufacture anything & has nothing to do with incompetent management such as has been exhibited by the airlines & the automakers.

Guess again, labor is (95% of the time) the number one cost of any company. Ant hat includes manufacturing. And, any company that let's that cost get out of hand is doomed. I don't know the specifics of the Colt situation, but it's definitely what killed the auto companies.

They did and promised the unions the world, and anything else they had to keep the cars coming off the line, and now they can't afford to keep the promises they made. So, now the you and I (in the form of the the federal government) own them, and will prop up the unions for the foreseeable future at the expense of the future generations.