What happened to Colt?

[gym]

Now that makes more sense. They didn't want to, because there was more money eleseware. Remember when you couldn't get a certain model car, and you said "i don't get this, everyone wants one and they won't make enough to satisty the demand". It's one of thos instances, somone will geta license to produce those old guns sooner or later. I agree with the prior post, people will buy them, just like we waited 2 years to get a 32 seacamp for a thousand dollars, now you can't give them away for $400.00. I knew 5 guys who had "paid in advance" for them and eventually either got it right before the 380 came out, or took their deposit and bought a North American arms, back then.
You have to strike while the iron is hot, and maybe right now they don't need the money with guns selling out everyware. But as soon as the market slows down, "and it always does", I bet you see Colt, find some lost tools. maybe a truck or boatload on the way to Taurus, got stashed some placeIf I remember Taurus bought a lot of Colts machinery. S&W's classic series is selling, way to much money like many mentioned, a thousand and up for a $100 dollar gun, but folks have to have one. and we know the QC is no longer there. But i still would take a model 29 if it shot true.

 

[orionengnr]

We worked on the lunar module when subbing work from republic and Grumman, back in the day, we can make spaceships but not handguns. It sounds strange to me, pardon my lack of knowledge of the revolver, but it's a machine like any other.

Yep, but the government was paying the bills. I'm sure you are familiar with "cost overruns". That scam has been going on for a while, and is more prevalent today than ever.
If the taxpayers are paying...all good.
If the shareholders are paying...different story.

 

[Old Fuff]

Current products from Smith & Wesson, Ruger and even Taurus show that an "acceptable" revolver can be made using today's manufacturing technologies, but if you handle some of the earlier guns made by the same makers, including Colt, you will notice a difference.

Skilled craftsmen used techniques such as "selective selection" of parts and individual hand fitting to get next-to-zero tolerance adjustments that translated into a special smoothness in they’re actions. Now the idea is to have total interchangeability of parts that can be assembled on a drop-in basis with no fitting. Perfection has been replaced by “good enough.”

High polish finishes are out, replaced by bead blasting or a wire brush affect.

Checkered walnut or other hardwood stocks, individually fitted and serial numbered to each frame are mostly gone, replaced by molded wrap-around rubber or plastic.

If you are satisfied with something that is little more then a functional tool that is one thing, but if you desire more then that you're out of luck unless you are willing to spend big bucks or find an older gun at a decent price - which is getting harder to do as each day passes.

As we go forward, more and more buyers are willing to spend an exceptional amount of cash to acquire mint/like new, examples of these older, hand crafted guns. The main reason can be summed up in two words.

Extraordinary elegance.

 

[gym]

I completely understand that. It make the most sense. So if you were to purchase a gun like the one you described, you then would spend another thousand dollars replating it and having the custom touches that were on the original guns. That explanation makes complete sense. thank you,
I would think that the general public, would not know the difference, having never seen the real thing. In which case they would probablly still sell a lot of guns. Although not as nice as the originals, similar to what Smith has done with thw Classic series.
I would think that there would still be a market for this when the timing is better for a change in styles again. As we have seen they usually lag what we discuss in here by 6-12 months. As we all were questioning why the heck no one would make a small 380 other than seacamp, "you must give Larry seacamp credit" he developed a market and caught them all sleeping. Other than pocket light. pony's, mustangs, colt 380's the market had gone by the wayside until Ruger stepped up and knocked it out of the park. Now the 9 single stack is back, the more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[leadcounsel]

Hand fitting isn't nearly as important today as it was 3 decades ago. Laser cutting, computers, CNC, machines.. these make incredibly precise measurements and cuts. I can't believe that a new Python couldn't be made for under $800 with quality materials and no shortcuts. The materials themselves are relatively cheap and I don't see how it requires that much labor to polish and assemble a few precision made parts. I have a relative that stands in front of a machine all day and does polishing for Harley Davidson and other big companies. He polishes steel and chrome parts. Believe me, professional polishing is NOT expensive for companies.

After reading the article in the link it appears that Colt failed because they hired a bunch of anti-gun businessmen to run a gun company. That's a model for failure.

They wrongly predicted what consumers wanted and invested huge resources in the wrong directions, and donated to anti-gun Democrats and sided with anti-gun organizations. MORONS.

For any company to succeed, the leadership needs to be passionate about the product.

 

[Old Fuff]

I bet you see Colt, find some lost tools.

Nope. They were largely junked because they were badly worn, and if they did make parts they would still require the kind of hand fitting that is no longer done - by anybody.

They also couldn't be used in the kind of machinery they have today.

Last but not least, they auctioned off their collection of prototypes and production samples that would be the basis of returning any of the double-action revolvers in they're original configuration.

In other words, they were absolutely DONE, DONE, DONE!!!!

 

[Old Fuff]

I would think that the general public, would not know the difference, having never seen the real thing. In which case they would probablly still sell a lot of guns. Although not as nice as the originals, similar to what Smith has done with thw Classic series.

Again we have problems...

The overall market is turning toward pistols and the revolver market (excluding small snubbies and copies of Colt's 1873 Model Single Action) is shrinking, and considerably so.

Smith & Wesson's Classic Series has not been particularly successful, largely because of the cost, and the fact that the targeted market is made up of consumers that are very well experienced in what the original guns are and were like. At least S&W is able to build their "classics" on current platforms which allow some cost savings. Colt would have to start from scratch, and they've made it very clear they're not going to.

 

[gym]

So do you feel that Ruger and Taurus will have the field of play with respect to revolvers to themselves, with S&W being a bit on the high side for the average person?

 

[DPris]

It's not that Colt CAN'T build a revover, they can.

But, there never were "molds" used in the Pythons, and whatever molds were used in the cheaper models in production at the end for small parts are long gone. As is the production equipment for them.

The V-Spring action is not simple, it's fairly complicated, which is why you can't find a qualified gunsmith who can competently work on one at every gunshop.

Starting new gun production from scratch is an expensive process, and there has to be good projections of return to justify the investment.

People need to just understand that it's economics, the V-Springs WILL NOT BE COMING BACK AT COLT, they CAN"T BE MADE CHEAPLY and retain previous quality levels, and accept the fact that if Colt does bring out a new DA revolver, it'll be a mix of forged, cast, MIM, and rubber, just like everybody else is doing now.
99% of the people here would spend entire days griping about "those damned cheap new Colts".

And you can't take a guy who polishes Harley parts & plop him down with Python barrels & frames.

The market wasn't there for Colt revolvers when they were phased out, and it's highly questionable if it's there now.
It certainly isn't for the Pythons & Detective Specials.

Like it or not, that's just the way it is.
A relative handful of people on this forum willing to pay two grand for a Python is not representative of the market at large. Neither are the high prices and demand driven by the collector market. When it was selling for half that, Colt had a hard time moving them at the end.

People also need to stop comparing Colt with S&W.
Apples & cumquats.
Denis

 

[Old Fuff]

So do you feel that Ruger and Taurus will have the field of play with respect to revolvers to themselves, with S&W being a bit on the high side for the average person?

Because of name recognition Smith & Wesson remains “the” major player in the revolver market. But most of the profit is in snubbies and with new introductions (Ruger) and lower prices (Taurus) I think they have lost some market share. Colt is completely out of the picture of course, and I don’t see the present corporate management bringing them back.

The big problem for these "Big Three" revolver makers is that it is far less expensive to make a polymer frame pistol with a CNC machined slide and barrel with MIM and/or punch press stamped lockwork. They offer a much better profit margin on one hand, while they are becoming more popular on the other.

 

[DPris]

What incentive is there for today's average 30-year-old just considering the snub market to spend over a grand on a Colt .38 snub when he can buy two from either S&W or Taurus for that same money, and he doesn't know the difference?

I'll tell you- it ain't S&W's fanciest models that are flying out their doors right now, either.
Think plastic & aluminum, and think $400-$500.....
Denis

 

[gym]

I just miss the DS i had in 1972, it was my first carry gun. I should just break down and get another one. I sold my last revolver, a titanium Taurus, made for one year. I think it was 11 ozs, and actually I felt safer with that gun than my pocket pistols.Let it go to a gent at a gun show, he had one and wanted a second for his wife. , funny that now I have all auto pistols.
I have on several occasions been lured by a model 19, just because they just look so great, and feel good to shoot. But the dilusion of needing more rounds finally affected me too, even though I used to laugh about it.
We picked up a taurus for cheap, $259, at a gun show, shoot straight had their usual sale. My buddy was a Marine sniper, but defers to me on pistols. The guy has one or two of everything. So we get it home after me checking the lock up etc, and the cylinder wouldn't turn with ammo in the gun. It was cutting into the frame, brand new gun, "and I chose it" because it was nice and tight.
So tight it wouln't turn. they gave him another, next day, but it showed me how you get what you pay for, $259 for a stainless 357, is just too cheap, for anything,not made by monkeys.

 

[C0untZer0]

Colt had to lose their DA revolver products before they ever could have modernized production. Management mistakes aside, union leadership routinely looks at their total job numbers/total payroll and if management wants to modernize plant equipment they have to do it without cutting any union jobs, any union hours or salaries - they basically had to do it without ever reaping a benefit in lowering labor costs.

There are many reasons for modernizing equipment, but if your union contract or your union situation precludes you from having a cost saving benefits - why are you going to make a huge capital outlay with no return on investment?

I'll bet the unions at Colt would love to see the new machinery set to re-introduce the Python and the Anaconda, even though that machinery now would only add a few machinist jobs. But it's too late now - no one is going to invest millions in the brand-new machinery to produce those top-notch revolvers, knowing that the market just is not there to pay for the equipment in any reasonable amount of time.

I loved the S&W 585. When I saw that S&W had reintroduced it, I was excited. When I saw the price tag I just thought "Eh... not that excited".

Alfa-Proj can make the same basic design and even after transportation costs, and import costs, they can sell a pistol very similar to the 586 for about $475.00

 

[zenner22]

It seems that the main interference with modern production is the trigger system Colt used on its revolvers. If that is the main thing interfering with production, I know I would not be upset with a new trigger system that requires less (or no?) hand polishing. Triggers can be very good and still not be labot intensive. A different feeling Colt trigger may turn some off but if that is what it took for Colt to manufacture revolvers again I'd be for it.

If they could produce a Python with the polished blue and a new trigger system for $800-900 I'd be in for one. They would need to keep the looks of the old model for it to work (for me anyway).

But didn't the Cobra series hava a different trigger system? Is that one good enough to use in today's revolver (if Colt so chose?)

 

[Old Fuff]

Colt might or might not be able to produce a modern Python for $800, but I doubt that much of the potential market would be satisfied with it.

As a manufacturer they have to look at design, development, tooling, manufacturing and marketing costs - and these days the numbers required to introduce an entirely new line or model isn't cheap.

To work they have to sell those particular guns by the thousands, and keep doing so for the long term.

Ask any of them and you'll learn that none of them believe that luxury-level revolvers meet that description.

A bigger problem is that Colt doesn’t have the money anyway. If they did it would go for something like a new service or pocket pistol, with a polymer frame, CNC machined slide and barrel, with MIM molded or punch press stamped internals. These - if accepted - would sell by the thousands and have a profit margin much greater the any revolver they might come up with.

Face it!! While there is some evidence to the contrary, The Colt Company is in business not to make guns, but to make guns that make them money.

Take a hard look at S&W, Ruger and Taurus (who are making money) and see where most of they're new product development money is being spent.

The handgun market is filled with others making clones or copies of Colt’s 1911 pistol platform, replicas of the old 1873 Six-Shooter, and AR-15 rifles. But absolutely no one is interested in duplicating the double-action revolver line.

Cuz there ain’t no money in it. :banghead:

 

[zenner22]

Colt did recently purchase property in Florida with rumors tagging along that it may be for the manufacture of new revolvers. Who knows what they will do with it but they are planning on making something down there.

 

[gym]

Looking at colt, it seems at first glance to be a private company. Perhaps the answer lies in going public, raising enough money to allow their brand to fourish again as it once did. Perhaps by the turnaround experts who do this sort of thing.
the name alone has so much clout behind it that perhaps a substancial amount of cash injection is needed to turn it back to the glory days of old.
If money were not a problem, then the production lines could again be installed to make those great old guns the way they should be made.I think the talent is out there but not being used.Also designing a new weapon for the armed forces "which Obama stopped" might be a major breakthrough" we need to start making things again. The prototypes have been made for so many advanced weapons that just got sidelined for lack of interest or government approval, that it seems like a conspiracy sometimes. Isn't it time to replace the AR platform after 3 or 4 decades?
Why aren't companys making innotive new weapons?

 

[DPris]

Gym,
Colt's financial situation has been convoluted for several years & remains so. Not a simple matter of "going public".

"Substantial amount of cash injection"?
Colt's been scrambling for money for nearly two decades.

They've been lucky to pull off two major factory upgrades in equipment in the past ten years.
Once for the military side (rifles), and more recently for the "civilian" side (handguns).

On both occasions the millions were spent on increasing capability to produce existing models (with some minor spillover on limited R&D).
In other words- when Colt is able to put the money together, it doesn't go on resurrecting obsolete models that can't sell enough, or in developing abortions like a Python II that'd die a quick death.

I'm seeing thoughts that "updated Colts" could sell. But I'm not seeing any real reason for them to sell. They'd be no better than anybody else's current DA revolvers, and they wouldn't be the old classics that everybody here clamors to see return.

So, what's the big deal?
It almost appears that it's entirely a brand thing. Doesn't matter what it is, as long as it's a DA revolver that says "Colt" on it?
Denis

 

[HankB]

My take on Colt's downfall:

1. Colt's revolvers like the Python were nicely finished . . . but there are reasons other than cost that S&W revolvers dominated the revolver games like PPC: durability and quality of the action. S&W's kept time better over the long haul, and when worked over by a good 'smith, the actions were better on balance than even a custom Python.

2. Military sales dominated civilian, to the point that Colt's simply didn't care about the civilian market. They put out LOTS of garbage like my Mk IV Series 70 Government Model Jammamatic, and then they simply didn't honor their warranty and FIX the <expletive> thing.

3. They monkeyed with a successful design (AR15) and in the version sold to civilians did things like assembling it with non-standard pins, a trigger block in the lower, and did away with that all-important bayonet lug when companies like Bushmaster, Armalite, and others were putting out very good AR's of their own.

4. Unions. 'Nuff said.

 

[Iramo94]

They've basically become the American H&K.

Because you suck, and we hate you.
That really is what they've done.

 

[C0untZer0]

Don't forget the Colt 2000

A woman I knew asked me to teach her how to shoot. We started out on my Ruger std, to cover basics. She wanted to be able to fire the gun her mom had purchased for her - the Colt 2000.

The trigger was so horrible on that thing I couldn't shoot it accurately and it was really messing her up. I advised her to get a .22 to learn on.

But those things have become collectors items now, worth way more as a collector peice than they ever could possibly be worth as a gun.

 

[gym]

Some investors should come in and buy the civilion side of Colt firearms, for a inexpensive price, I is probablly undervalued",and go back to making the guns that made Colt a household name 40to 50 years ago. It's done all the time, and if the company shows no interest in being a part of the civilian shooters portion of the market, it can probablly be bought for a low price. Of course low in the realm of multi million or billion dollar companys, But if that end of their business is hemmoraging that badlly, they might be in a receptive mood for a buyout. The problem is always having an investor with enough interest to rebuild the business back from the ground up. That would be a labor of love. But might pay off big down the road.
Some of the most sucessful turnaround stories were very simlar to what this sounds like. A lack of interest in the business. I hope that a savy investor like a Jamie Diamond or a Buffett sees a broken brand that could be made whole again with a bit of restructuring. It's a shame to allow a piece of americana to fall by the wayside as it appears is happening here. Thanks to all who spent time explaining what happend to this iconic American Company.

 

[DPris]

Gym,
I'm aware of one attempt to buy part of Colt's civilian side & two attempts to sell it in the past 15 years.

The first time the company declined to sell. The second & third occasions fell apart because a price couldn't be agreed on when the company WANTED to sell, complicated by an entanglement of branding & who'd-own-what concerns in the third.

Colt also is not owned by one entity, complicating things further.
It's just not as simple as you think it is, and you're not listening.

Nobody can return to the Colts that made Colt a household name 50 years ago. Not Colt, not nobody else.
Too expensive, too little market.

The guns would have to go one of two ways- low volume/high price, or low price/high volume.
There's not enough demand to go either way on those older designs.
Denis

 

[atomd]

My take on Colt's downfall:

1. Colt's revolvers like the Python were nicely finished . . . but there are reasons other than cost that S&W revolvers dominated the revolver games like PPC: durability and quality of the action. S&W's kept time better over the long haul, and when worked over by a good 'smith, the actions were better on balance than even a custom Python.

2. Military sales dominated civilian, to the point that Colt's simply didn't care about the civilian market. They put out LOTS of garbage like my Mk IV Series 70 Government Model Jammamatic, and then they simply didn't honor their warranty and FIX the <expletive> thing.

3. They monkeyed with a successful design (AR15) and in the version sold to civilians did things like assembling it with non-standard pins, a trigger block in the lower, and did away with that all-important bayonet lug when companies like Bushmaster, Armalite, and others were putting out very good AR's of their own.

4. Unions. 'Nuff said.

This sums it all up. Great post. For years if you put "www.colt.com" into your browser you would pull up a different military/leo only colt website. You had to go to an entirely different site to see their consumer products. They've changed it since then but that kind of summed it up.

 

[gym]

D, I am listeing, you don't know my background, anything can be done as shown in the mergers and acquisitions end of many of the worlds largers investment banks. guys like Jamie Diamond and Ed Conrad, and Eddie Lambert, make their lifes work restructuring major companys like Pennys ,Sears, GM etc. it can be done if one of them saw something in the company that they felt would make it worthwile, just as back when the property alone was worth the price of the stock, Like "Alexanders" but that's another discussion for another time, surelly not here. Company like Sears, were in the same kind of complicated mess as Colt. Just because we share a common interest in guns, dosen't mean that business isn't a major part of my life. I just like to understand things better before I go further, and thanks to guys like "old fluff" I now have a better understanding of what happened to create this mess in the first place.
I traded a few large accounts, and it all comes down to dollars and cents. and righht now you will see many mergers/acquisitions/buyouts ect. take place in many a household name, because of the economy, and forces beyond out control.But back to guns. One thing we all learn here is you never know who you 're speaking to, and take nothing for granted, treat everyone with courtesy and don't assume that you know what the other fella does did, or knows.
Sometimes a "brand" is worth more than the balance sheet.A good friend had told me a similar story about S&W, when their QC, had started to slip 30 yrs or so ago,he was an FFL at the time in Buffalo, and swore he would buy no more S&W guns, they were all having problems, and he dropped the line for Taurus.
And yes it sounded strange to me also until I remembered my deceased uncle Mike tell me the same story about S&W when I was 30'ish. So this has happened before and probablly will again. The longer we are around the more we learn. I like to hear the stories from the gentlemen who were around when these things occured.