What happened to cause Colt to drop double action's off there line? What was the motivation to now only do single action revolvers in cowboy action cartridges? Were sales of these guns that bad? Colt has a long tradition of making great double action guns, I was surprised when I visited there website the other day to see they were no more.
What happened to the Colt double action?
- Thread starter TNBulldog
- Start date
- Status
nicholst55
Member
I think another factor was that the older employees who knew how to: A) polish them for that legendary high gloss Colt Royal Blue, and B) assemble them properly, had all died and/or retired. That, combined with declining revolver sales was the death knell of the Colt DA revolver.
redneckrepairs
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,117
Colt double actions required a lot of hand work to time ect.. Colt workers are UAW members . Gunbuyers as a rule will buy a smith if cheaper .. nuff said ??
Deanimator
Member
I've also heard that their production machinery for revolvers was old and worn out and they couldn't afford to replace it.
It's a wretched shame, because without competition from Colt, S&W's going down some wrong roads, and showing it's butt to its customers (HUD agreement, locks, etc.).
It's a wretched shame, because without competition from Colt, S&W's going down some wrong roads, and showing it's butt to its customers (HUD agreement, locks, etc.).
Colt has suffered from horrible management for the past 30 years or so and has effectively dropped out of the handgun market. All they offer are variations of the 1911, a few SAAs, and maybe the Python from "The Custom Shop." They decided to essentially pull out of the civilian market and concentrate on AR and M16 sales to military and police. Then the U.S. military contracted with FN to supply Army guns. Oooops.
Used Diamondbacks are selling for $1,200 but Colt can't make a new one cheaply enough to turn a profit? Pitiful.
Used Diamondbacks are selling for $1,200 but Colt can't make a new one cheaply enough to turn a profit? Pitiful.
351 WINCHESTER
Member
Colt could not make their revolvers the way they were supposed to be made. They tried some shortcuts to save money, but their quality had slipped so much that they couldn't keep up with the competion.
At one point, Colt management, having sewed up (they thought) the military contracts for the M16, made a deliberate and conscious decision to ignore the civilian market. Their sales people even stated openly that civilian (non-police) sales were of no interest to them.
Colt did develop an action that required little fitting (the so-called Mk III action) but never really promoted it or pushed for civilian sales. When police went to 9mm autos, Colt had nothing but the Commander to offer. Their AA2000 was a design abortion and a costly failure.
Colt has had a long history of going the opposite direction from the market. They were slow in introducing double action to begin with. Then they dropped the SAA and were poorly positioned to take advantage of the first "cowboy" craze. Then, just as CCW was becoming legal again, Colt stopped production of their small frame revolvers. At one time, they had a management team that actually wanted to bankrupt the company and pocket the money from anything they could sell.
It is too bad that a great old company has failed so badly in doing what it was founded to do.
Jim
Colt did develop an action that required little fitting (the so-called Mk III action) but never really promoted it or pushed for civilian sales. When police went to 9mm autos, Colt had nothing but the Commander to offer. Their AA2000 was a design abortion and a costly failure.
Colt has had a long history of going the opposite direction from the market. They were slow in introducing double action to begin with. Then they dropped the SAA and were poorly positioned to take advantage of the first "cowboy" craze. Then, just as CCW was becoming legal again, Colt stopped production of their small frame revolvers. At one time, they had a management team that actually wanted to bankrupt the company and pocket the money from anything they could sell.
It is too bad that a great old company has failed so badly in doing what it was founded to do.
Jim
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,306
Jim Keenan
It really is a shame because some of their designs were really great and filled a number of market niches that still exist today. Their .380 line, including the Mustang, the PocketLite, and the Pony, were some of the most concealable semi-autos out there, along with the best 6 shot snubbie ever produced, the Detective Special. Why they didn't concentrate on their core products and reinvest in new tooling and equipment to keep up with the marketplace, is beyond my comprehension. And for them to turn their collective back to a loyal civilian buyer base, in the misguided attempt to latch onto the Pentagon gravy train, is just to add more injury to insult. It's like they deliberately set out to put themselves out of business. What a pitiful end to a fine old company.
It really is a shame because some of their designs were really great and filled a number of market niches that still exist today. Their .380 line, including the Mustang, the PocketLite, and the Pony, were some of the most concealable semi-autos out there, along with the best 6 shot snubbie ever produced, the Detective Special. Why they didn't concentrate on their core products and reinvest in new tooling and equipment to keep up with the marketplace, is beyond my comprehension. And for them to turn their collective back to a loyal civilian buyer base, in the misguided attempt to latch onto the Pentagon gravy train, is just to add more injury to insult. It's like they deliberately set out to put themselves out of business. What a pitiful end to a fine old company.
They rolled over and died to the civilian market, and their premium revolvers were too expensive to make. Their latest and cheaper models of double action revolvers came too late as the revolvers were dying in the LEO market.
The death knell, IMHO, was when they declared they were not interested in the civilian market, just as Jim said. I decided, "screw them," and sold off my customized Colt "Combat Elite" 1911 and bought a nice 1911 to replace it from an upstart little company called "Kimber" that was just starting to make waves by doing what Colt had chosen not to do.
Time marches on . . . and Colt has made a lot of bad decisions. They are consistent too!!!
The death knell, IMHO, was when they declared they were not interested in the civilian market, just as Jim said. I decided, "screw them," and sold off my customized Colt "Combat Elite" 1911 and bought a nice 1911 to replace it from an upstart little company called "Kimber" that was just starting to make waves by doing what Colt had chosen not to do.
Time marches on . . . and Colt has made a lot of bad decisions. They are consistent too!!!
It's not quite as simplistic as some are making it out to be.
Yes, many years of bad management & arrogance.
But, General Keyes & the military side are THE ONLY THINGS that have kept Colt in business within the past few years.
Colt had limited financing & resources, and made a business decision to pursue a path that would keep the name afloat.
At that point, Colt revolvers were not carrying their own weight, and in the choice between dumping money on civilian models that might or might not sell, or putting the money into military sales that very definitely WOULD sell (and have), they actually chose a realistic path.
Disappointed as many of us are (me included), we all have to realize that Colt IS a business, and not a club to keep us happy. Money is the bottom line.
Without the military side, Colt as a firearms entity would have sunk entirely.
And, as I've said before- it ain't ALL US military sales. The world is gearing up for war, and Colt is selling military product offshore, too.
There are other factors involved, such as location & union presence, but the gist of the matter is as stated. It's not as simple as it sounds.
Denis
Yes, many years of bad management & arrogance.
But, General Keyes & the military side are THE ONLY THINGS that have kept Colt in business within the past few years.
Colt had limited financing & resources, and made a business decision to pursue a path that would keep the name afloat.
At that point, Colt revolvers were not carrying their own weight, and in the choice between dumping money on civilian models that might or might not sell, or putting the money into military sales that very definitely WOULD sell (and have), they actually chose a realistic path.
Disappointed as many of us are (me included), we all have to realize that Colt IS a business, and not a club to keep us happy. Money is the bottom line.
Without the military side, Colt as a firearms entity would have sunk entirely.
And, as I've said before- it ain't ALL US military sales. The world is gearing up for war, and Colt is selling military product offshore, too.
There are other factors involved, such as location & union presence, but the gist of the matter is as stated. It's not as simple as it sounds.
Denis
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,306
DPris
That may well be the case, but I really don't care about Colt, the military supplier. Does it really matter if while they're making money with their military contracts, they're still not putting anything back into the civilian side of production. That being the case, I really don't care if the Colt name lives on through military contracts; the point is moot to me, if they're not producing Colt designed handguns that I can buy on the civilian market. And I certainly don't think of Colt as a "club", in business only to keep me happy. I would much prefer it as a successful business entity that could stay competitive in today's civilian market, making the type of guns that are still in great demand today. It seems like the powers that be at Colt have taken exactly the opposite approach in their business decisions, and what we have now is the net result of those decisions. And nothing is ever as simple as it sounds, but sometimes, what you see is what you get.
That may well be the case, but I really don't care about Colt, the military supplier. Does it really matter if while they're making money with their military contracts, they're still not putting anything back into the civilian side of production. That being the case, I really don't care if the Colt name lives on through military contracts; the point is moot to me, if they're not producing Colt designed handguns that I can buy on the civilian market. And I certainly don't think of Colt as a "club", in business only to keep me happy. I would much prefer it as a successful business entity that could stay competitive in today's civilian market, making the type of guns that are still in great demand today. It seems like the powers that be at Colt have taken exactly the opposite approach in their business decisions, and what we have now is the net result of those decisions. And nothing is ever as simple as it sounds, but sometimes, what you see is what you get.
Ban,
I understand you don't care about the military side, but what you care about is irrelevant to the particular corporation under discussion, in this regard.
Colt did not drop their revolver line just to piss people off, or as a bad business decision.
What many Colt fans don't understand is that, as things stood, there WAS no money to put into both sides of the company, and Colt took the route that would, not might, get money coming in.
Keyes has done exactly what his owners hired him to do- keep the business afloat. The fact that it didn't go in the direction you or I would prefer it to simply is not a factor.
Colt exists as a corporate entity to make money & owes you & me exactly nothing. By the time the revolvers were dropped, the doors were on the verge of closing. Keyes made the right decision, under the circumstances & with the resources he had at the time. At that point, the damage had already been done.
I was attempting to address the question of "...why they didn't concentrate on their core products and re-invest in new tooling and equipment to keep up with the marketplace..." Their core products simply were not selling well enough to justify the type of expense involved in doing that. Colt did not turn its "collective back to a loyal civilian buyer base", that buyer base was not buying enough product to keep those production lines going. Smiths and Rugers were eating Colt alive in the revolver market. The decision to invest 5 million dollars in expanded production on the military side was no "misguided" attempt to woo the Pentagon. Colt had orders from our government & others, and those orders & sales have kept them alive.
From the viewpoint of Colt revolver fans, it wasn't the best way to go, but from the owners' and investors' viewpoints, it was.
It's very much a case of which direction do we take- try to bandage a sinking business with limited sales to keep longtime customers happy, or show additional potential investors a new portfolio that'll both generate more cash to invest in equipment and bring in enough return on it to actually remain in business by going down a different path?
It's not just a matter of Colt turning its back on loyal customers, it's a matter of survival. Had Colt not put those resources into the military side, they'd be gone now. Whether or not you care is unimportant, it is important to Colt's owners & investors.
I'm not defending the poor management that led up to the mess that Keyes inherited, but I am trying to explain why Colt is out of the revolver game.
Denis
I understand you don't care about the military side, but what you care about is irrelevant to the particular corporation under discussion, in this regard.
Colt did not drop their revolver line just to piss people off, or as a bad business decision.
What many Colt fans don't understand is that, as things stood, there WAS no money to put into both sides of the company, and Colt took the route that would, not might, get money coming in.
Keyes has done exactly what his owners hired him to do- keep the business afloat. The fact that it didn't go in the direction you or I would prefer it to simply is not a factor.
Colt exists as a corporate entity to make money & owes you & me exactly nothing. By the time the revolvers were dropped, the doors were on the verge of closing. Keyes made the right decision, under the circumstances & with the resources he had at the time. At that point, the damage had already been done.
I was attempting to address the question of "...why they didn't concentrate on their core products and re-invest in new tooling and equipment to keep up with the marketplace..." Their core products simply were not selling well enough to justify the type of expense involved in doing that. Colt did not turn its "collective back to a loyal civilian buyer base", that buyer base was not buying enough product to keep those production lines going. Smiths and Rugers were eating Colt alive in the revolver market. The decision to invest 5 million dollars in expanded production on the military side was no "misguided" attempt to woo the Pentagon. Colt had orders from our government & others, and those orders & sales have kept them alive.
From the viewpoint of Colt revolver fans, it wasn't the best way to go, but from the owners' and investors' viewpoints, it was.
It's very much a case of which direction do we take- try to bandage a sinking business with limited sales to keep longtime customers happy, or show additional potential investors a new portfolio that'll both generate more cash to invest in equipment and bring in enough return on it to actually remain in business by going down a different path?
It's not just a matter of Colt turning its back on loyal customers, it's a matter of survival. Had Colt not put those resources into the military side, they'd be gone now. Whether or not you care is unimportant, it is important to Colt's owners & investors.
I'm not defending the poor management that led up to the mess that Keyes inherited, but I am trying to explain why Colt is out of the revolver game.
Denis
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,306
DPris
I realize what you're saying and I appreciate your insight into this matter. My point is that for years preceding this financial dilemma, Colt really did nothing to keep up with the changing times with their core product line, not just revolvers. Colt seemed to be the last one to the party when it came to new innovations to the 1911 design. This had to be their core product in terms of the civilian market. Why didn't Colt ramp up production when it was obvious that demand far outpaced supply, allowing other manufacturers like Springfield Armory, to take away a large portion of market share. Why was Colt so late in bringing out stainless steel models, when just about every other gun maker already had them out there? Did Colt really need to waste time, money, and effort on marginal designs like the Double Eagle, the Delta Elite, and the All American 2000? Could that money have been better spent on updating other lines within the company?
I understand that Colt had severe labor problems for a number of years while all this was taking place, and I also understand that market conditions change very rapidly in todays marketplace. What's so frustating to see, is that while other firearms manufacturers have adapted or even taken new approaches to these changes, Colt, one the greatest entities and innovators in the firearms industry, somehow managed to get itself kicked to the curb and left far behind.
I realize what you're saying and I appreciate your insight into this matter. My point is that for years preceding this financial dilemma, Colt really did nothing to keep up with the changing times with their core product line, not just revolvers. Colt seemed to be the last one to the party when it came to new innovations to the 1911 design. This had to be their core product in terms of the civilian market. Why didn't Colt ramp up production when it was obvious that demand far outpaced supply, allowing other manufacturers like Springfield Armory, to take away a large portion of market share. Why was Colt so late in bringing out stainless steel models, when just about every other gun maker already had them out there? Did Colt really need to waste time, money, and effort on marginal designs like the Double Eagle, the Delta Elite, and the All American 2000? Could that money have been better spent on updating other lines within the company?
I understand that Colt had severe labor problems for a number of years while all this was taking place, and I also understand that market conditions change very rapidly in todays marketplace. What's so frustating to see, is that while other firearms manufacturers have adapted or even taken new approaches to these changes, Colt, one the greatest entities and innovators in the firearms industry, somehow managed to get itself kicked to the curb and left far behind.
Ban,
I couldn't agree more. As I said, there were decades of arrogance & bad management. Colt essentially gave away the 1911 market, the AR-15 market, the Peacemaker market, and the DA revolver market. They also missed the boat on the concealment market.
But, I'm just addressing the loss of the DA revolvers that was the culmination of all those years, and trying to say that it wasn't a capricious decision or a deliberate slap in the face to dwindling numbers of Colt revolver fans.
Denis
I couldn't agree more. As I said, there were decades of arrogance & bad management. Colt essentially gave away the 1911 market, the AR-15 market, the Peacemaker market, and the DA revolver market. They also missed the boat on the concealment market.
But, I'm just addressing the loss of the DA revolvers that was the culmination of all those years, and trying to say that it wasn't a capricious decision or a deliberate slap in the face to dwindling numbers of Colt revolver fans.
Denis
Deanimator
Member
Cimarron needs to get somebody in Italy to start making the Detective Special, the Police Positive, the Official Police and the New Service.
jad0110
Member
Interesting idea. I wonder who owns the designs ... Colt I assume.
Deanimator
Member
Wouldn't the patents have lapsed by now?
Colt came out of WWII in pretty fair shape, but they made a number of disastrous mistakes. Their DA revolver line was a downward spiral. The designs were old and expensive to make and few sold, so they didn't have the money for updating the product line, so fewer sold so they had less money, and so on. We all know the bottom line to that. At one time, S&W was outselling Colt in DA revolvers by 10 to 1; only a few die-hard Colt fans were still buying Colts. They had chosen, for what looked like good reasons at the time, not to rebuild the worn out SA tooling after WWII, and were caught flat-footed by the first "cowboy" craze. The demand was met by outfits like Hy Hunter Herters, and, later, Ruger. Colt, the "name" in SA revolvers, was nowhere until years later when the "craze" was over.
I know nothing about Gen. Keyes as a military leader, but IMHO he is nothing but a figurehead who seems to have no knowledge of guns or the gun market. He is probably one of the many gun company executives Bill Ruger mentioned who knew nothing about guns and spent their time on the golf course.
Guns are one of the few consumer products with a "fan" base (cars are another), and those supporters are essential. Not only do they buy the product, but they tout products they like and denounce those they don't like. There is no similar "fandom" for chain saws or electric fry pans; people buy what is available at the best price.
Want another example of Colt stupidity? Maryland has a law requiring a fired cartridge case be included with new guns shipped to the state. (No, I don't like the law, but it IS the law.) Almost every other company complies, either working the cost into normal expenses or charging a bit extra on guns sent to MD. Colt refuses to comply, and refuses to give any reason. Principle? Nonsense! As has been said, they are in business to make money, so why write off any sales, even in a relatively small state. Their decision was deliberate and simply unreasonable. So new Colts cannot be sold in MD; never fear, the 1911 market is well taken care of by S&W, Taurus, Springfield, and other companies, while USFA, Ruger, Uberti, and others keep the CASS folks well supplied.
Jim
I know nothing about Gen. Keyes as a military leader, but IMHO he is nothing but a figurehead who seems to have no knowledge of guns or the gun market. He is probably one of the many gun company executives Bill Ruger mentioned who knew nothing about guns and spent their time on the golf course.
Guns are one of the few consumer products with a "fan" base (cars are another), and those supporters are essential. Not only do they buy the product, but they tout products they like and denounce those they don't like. There is no similar "fandom" for chain saws or electric fry pans; people buy what is available at the best price.
Want another example of Colt stupidity? Maryland has a law requiring a fired cartridge case be included with new guns shipped to the state. (No, I don't like the law, but it IS the law.) Almost every other company complies, either working the cost into normal expenses or charging a bit extra on guns sent to MD. Colt refuses to comply, and refuses to give any reason. Principle? Nonsense! As has been said, they are in business to make money, so why write off any sales, even in a relatively small state. Their decision was deliberate and simply unreasonable. So new Colts cannot be sold in MD; never fear, the 1911 market is well taken care of by S&W, Taurus, Springfield, and other companies, while USFA, Ruger, Uberti, and others keep the CASS folks well supplied.
Jim
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
Colt, OK let's look back. I'll keep it brief as I can and try not to repeat what others have said.
In the 1980s a new managment team took over at Colt. It took a blow when the M9 replaced the 1911 as the service sidearm. While no new guns had been produced for the military for decades they did produce parts. A strike was provoked in 1986 (provoked is the correct word and evan a couple of courts used the word in describing Colt's actions against a veteran workforce) which lasted four years. In 88 they lost the M16 contract. In 1990 on the verge of bankruptcy Colt was sold to a coalition that included the union and the state of Connecticut. An outfit known as the Zilkha group was part of the coalition and held the major share of control.
The Zilkha Group brought in a new CEO who decided to thin out the revolver line (which had been losing market share) and did so cutting out a number of guns. The CEO had no gun experience he came over from the auto industry.They spent a good deal of money, a lot in fact, investing in a proprietary gun that would fire only when the owner held it via an electronic sensor or some such. When criticized for this by gun owners the CEO replied that he didn't care what a bunch of "gun nuts" thought. This provoked a very effective boycott of Colt which again brought them to bankruptcy in 1992. The wonder gun never appeared.
In 1994 the Zilkha & Co. bought Colt outright and has been running it since. You can Google them to learn more about them.
Colt DA revolvers were not selling.
In 2002 the military and the civilian side were split into two different companies, Colt's Defense and Colt's Manufacturing. Keys, who is a gun guy, heads up the latter though he may be leaving soon.
Colt's Defense did lose the AR contract but they retain the contract for the M4. They produce the M16 for the international market. This side makes a good deal of cash and is successful and has been expanding.
Not evan the Python was selling in da revolvers and the last one was produced about a year ago. There are no plans to reintroduce a da revolver at present. They lost the Mustang, etc. due to a patent infringement with Kahr some years back. They have pulled back to the 1911 and teh SAA.
That's it. A lot of dunderheaded stuff. But DPris is right. Colt DAs were simply not selling. 15 years ago no one was buying the MKIIIs and the Mk Vs. Now they are sought after. Same is true for the Python, the Kodiak, the King Cobra, the Anaconda, etc. They were not selling then but are sought after now.
tipoc
In the 1980s a new managment team took over at Colt. It took a blow when the M9 replaced the 1911 as the service sidearm. While no new guns had been produced for the military for decades they did produce parts. A strike was provoked in 1986 (provoked is the correct word and evan a couple of courts used the word in describing Colt's actions against a veteran workforce) which lasted four years. In 88 they lost the M16 contract. In 1990 on the verge of bankruptcy Colt was sold to a coalition that included the union and the state of Connecticut. An outfit known as the Zilkha group was part of the coalition and held the major share of control.
The Zilkha Group brought in a new CEO who decided to thin out the revolver line (which had been losing market share) and did so cutting out a number of guns. The CEO had no gun experience he came over from the auto industry.They spent a good deal of money, a lot in fact, investing in a proprietary gun that would fire only when the owner held it via an electronic sensor or some such. When criticized for this by gun owners the CEO replied that he didn't care what a bunch of "gun nuts" thought. This provoked a very effective boycott of Colt which again brought them to bankruptcy in 1992. The wonder gun never appeared.
In 1994 the Zilkha & Co. bought Colt outright and has been running it since. You can Google them to learn more about them.
Colt DA revolvers were not selling.
In 2002 the military and the civilian side were split into two different companies, Colt's Defense and Colt's Manufacturing. Keys, who is a gun guy, heads up the latter though he may be leaving soon.
Colt's Defense did lose the AR contract but they retain the contract for the M4. They produce the M16 for the international market. This side makes a good deal of cash and is successful and has been expanding.
Not evan the Python was selling in da revolvers and the last one was produced about a year ago. There are no plans to reintroduce a da revolver at present. They lost the Mustang, etc. due to a patent infringement with Kahr some years back. They have pulled back to the 1911 and teh SAA.
That's it. A lot of dunderheaded stuff. But DPris is right. Colt DAs were simply not selling. 15 years ago no one was buying the MKIIIs and the Mk Vs. Now they are sought after. Same is true for the Python, the Kodiak, the King Cobra, the Anaconda, etc. They were not selling then but are sought after now.
tipoc
And, trust me- an Italian copy of a classic Colt DA design would be a poor substitute indeed.
Neither the materials nor the workmanship would be the same. That older Colt action DEMANDED much hand fitting, and low-priced foreign replicas would not be built with the same methods, or by people who understand those designs. There are only a handful of gunsmiths today who are genuinely qualified & understand how to work on those guns. Doing it right was both labor & time intensive, which is what priced them out of the market.
Looking at the checkered history of the Italian replica market, I see nothing that convinces me an Italian Detective Special would be anything I'd want to own. They're getting better with the single-actions & some rifles (depending on the maker), but still.....
Denis
Neither the materials nor the workmanship would be the same. That older Colt action DEMANDED much hand fitting, and low-priced foreign replicas would not be built with the same methods, or by people who understand those designs. There are only a handful of gunsmiths today who are genuinely qualified & understand how to work on those guns. Doing it right was both labor & time intensive, which is what priced them out of the market.
Looking at the checkered history of the Italian replica market, I see nothing that convinces me an Italian Detective Special would be anything I'd want to own. They're getting better with the single-actions & some rifles (depending on the maker), but still.....
Denis
Archer1945
Member
From what I've heard one of the reasons Colt lost out when the military went to the 9mm was the very poor presentation they made. What's worse it was to people who wanted to give Colt the contract.
As I understand it the Colt people walked in tossed a pistol on the table and said "It's a COLT, enough said". Even for those wanting Colt to have the contract this was a bit much and we all know what the result was.
Don't know if this is true but it would fit in with the number of bad management decisions they have made over the last 30 years or so.
As I understand it the Colt people walked in tossed a pistol on the table and said "It's a COLT, enough said". Even for those wanting Colt to have the contract this was a bit much and we all know what the result was.
Don't know if this is true but it would fit in with the number of bad management decisions they have made over the last 30 years or so.
22-rimfire
Member
I think Colt could manufacture a modest 22 semi-auto pistol such as was previously introduced that would compete well with Smith and Browning. I also think there are enough people that know quality that a New Frontier 22/22WMR would sell as well. Neither would instantly be a hit, but give them 5 years, and I believe they would make a good niche in the present market. I would make the single action with a barrel for 22LR and one for the combination gun, 22LR/22 WMR in order to achieve the accuracy that people want and expect from Colt.
I doubt that Colt could produce a double aciton revolver that would sell sufficiently to justify the tooling to make them. If they did, it would be something along the line of the King Cobra (Mark V action).
I doubt that Colt could produce a double aciton revolver that would sell sufficiently to justify the tooling to make them. If they did, it would be something along the line of the King Cobra (Mark V action).
Colt did manufacture a modest .22 auto pistol. It also never sold well enough to stay in production.
The problem with new development is that Colt doesn't have the money to let a new product build. It either has to hit the ground running, or it's a loss.
Colt would have to compete with the very successful Ruger & Browning Buck Mark series, and that would require both something extraordinary, and something competitively priced. The two are not likely to meet.
Browning tells me they're selling the Buck Marks as fast as the factory can crank 'em out, I had to wait a few weeks to get a test sample very recently because of the high demand. Ruger is so well established in the market that .22 Auto Pistol is almost synonymous with the brand for two generations of American shooters. Colt would have a very hard upstream swim to be successful there.
The .22 single-actions? Those were not a huge seller for Colt, either. In 1976 when a buddy & I both bought brand new .22 SA revolvers, he bought a shiny new Colt for $125 and I (being more economically disadvantaged) bought a new Ruger for $95. Guess who sold more .22 SA revolvers in those days.
Bottom line, really, is that many decry the loss of those Colt guns, but people just weren't buying them back when they were being produced. Believe me, if each & every one of those discontinued models had been profitable, they'd still be on your dealer shelves in new boxes today.
No business, gun or otherwise, can keep the doors open with products that don't sell.
Guys, the finances at Colt were so tight ten years ago that they fired people left & right. For quite a while, they literally did not have people to answer the phones while doing their other jobs. How long has it been since you saw a Colt ad anywhere? They have no advertising budget. 18 months ago they had two people in the entire marketing department, and one of those left. And, their VP of marketing just left to go to USFA about two months ago. Things are coming back slowly now, but it's still extremely tight.
When you are desperate, as Colt is, you put your money into a sure thing, and right now that sure thing is military sales.
Denis
The problem with new development is that Colt doesn't have the money to let a new product build. It either has to hit the ground running, or it's a loss.
Colt would have to compete with the very successful Ruger & Browning Buck Mark series, and that would require both something extraordinary, and something competitively priced. The two are not likely to meet.
Browning tells me they're selling the Buck Marks as fast as the factory can crank 'em out, I had to wait a few weeks to get a test sample very recently because of the high demand. Ruger is so well established in the market that .22 Auto Pistol is almost synonymous with the brand for two generations of American shooters. Colt would have a very hard upstream swim to be successful there.
The .22 single-actions? Those were not a huge seller for Colt, either. In 1976 when a buddy & I both bought brand new .22 SA revolvers, he bought a shiny new Colt for $125 and I (being more economically disadvantaged) bought a new Ruger for $95. Guess who sold more .22 SA revolvers in those days.
Bottom line, really, is that many decry the loss of those Colt guns, but people just weren't buying them back when they were being produced. Believe me, if each & every one of those discontinued models had been profitable, they'd still be on your dealer shelves in new boxes today.
No business, gun or otherwise, can keep the doors open with products that don't sell.
Guys, the finances at Colt were so tight ten years ago that they fired people left & right. For quite a while, they literally did not have people to answer the phones while doing their other jobs. How long has it been since you saw a Colt ad anywhere? They have no advertising budget. 18 months ago they had two people in the entire marketing department, and one of those left. And, their VP of marketing just left to go to USFA about two months ago. Things are coming back slowly now, but it's still extremely tight.
When you are desperate, as Colt is, you put your money into a sure thing, and right now that sure thing is military sales.
Denis
- Status
