What happened to the Colt double action?
- Thread starter TNBulldog
- Start date
- Status
CannonFodder
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 218
I would counter that when your back is against the wall and things are as dire as you say, that's a signal to start thinking about taking risks. The "sure thing" will keep you afloat, but it'll never get you to grow - and growth is the only truely successful method of survival.
Colt had taken the risks. They redesigned the MkV and came up with the KC. Every bit the equal of the M686 and the GP-100 (some say even better than them) but it didn't have the sales. They created the Anaconda, but it couldn't keep pace with the Smiths or Rugers. They redesigned the DS, but it also didn't sell very well. Finally they created the Magnum Carry and no one had and still don't have a small frame 6 shot .357 magnum, but quess what.........still no sales. So in less than 10 years they had covered the field. They made a good big bore fully capable of hunting, a sturdy service revolver, and 2 models for the growing concealment crowd. All the models were high quality products but they didn't get a return in their investments and all the funds for DA revolvers were depleted. Good business sense is to drop the line otherwise you will start to bleed the products (the SAA and 1911) you are selling.
22-rimfire
Member
Colt made such excellent revolvers and pistols that it was difficult to introduce something that reflected a "cheaper model" that would sell well. The diehard Colt fans all said... i'll just get a used Python, Officers Model, Diamondback, Detective Special, New Frontier, Peacemaker or Woodsman.... you hear the same thing with Smith & Wesson with new gun prices. I said the same thing when they brought out the Mark III and later the Mark V lines. They were still selling the old models and I was willing to spend a little more for one of them. I suspect I was not in the minority of handgun buyers. The problem of course is that good guns don't wear out for the typical shooter.
Colt did introduce the Cadet; changed the name to the Colt 22, and introduced the Target version. I like many didn't buy one. Dpris, you say they didn't sell... probably true, but there were other problems with the Cadet along the lines of patent infringement and so forth. Good guns are expensive and most can't buy a new one every month. I would venture to say that most gun buyers don't buy more than a new handgun every 6 months or a year. There are competing firearms for the firearm dollar... rifles, shotguns, and now the wave of buying the AK's, AR's and so forth. One of the reasons AK's and SKS's are popular is because they are cheap and they function reliably. Fills a big niche in the market.
Colt sold lots of their 22 single actions. They were quite successful in the market. Colt pulled the New Frontier and Peacemaker 22 lines off the shelf because of polictical and legal concerns. It took them something like 6 years to bring the guns back with a cross-bolt safety device. It was too late. By the mid 1980's, the firearm market was changing toward more double action centerfire semi-autos. Colt didn't have one. They were so dang worried about developing smart gun technology that they ignored the market for pistols. The political climate at the time was certainly pushing manfactures toward frame locks (etc.) and higher techology for safety reasons. People had more money to spend, personal protection concepts were moving to a wider gun buying audience and they were buying centerfire handguns.
Now ammunition is increasing in price and folks are starting to look at prices again. This won't change anytime soon. It is time for Colt to re-introduce the 22 Target model 22 pistol. Dpris, you said yourself that folks are buying Buckmarks as fast as Browning is making them. There will always be a Ruger around and you have a certain segment of the gun buying population that will always go for the cheapest thing they can find. How many threads do we see here where someone wants a new 22 for $300. Doesn't happen in a revolver that is made as well as Colts were and Smiths are now. But you can find a semi-auto 22 below $400 new.
Again, I think it may be time (past time as usual) for Colt to reintroduce a couple of 22's. You will always have a certain group who will always buy used which is one of the reason Colt and Smith & Wesson prices on revolvers have been climbing quickly. Collectors are another issue, but they won't buy them all. Let collectors play their games in speculation on what firearm is going to be more popular and rise in value. The money is in selling used guns, not buying as-new used guns and sitting on them for years and years.
Colt made the right decision to stop producing the revolvers. They made the wrong decision to get rid of the tooling for most of their revolvers. Things change. The gun buying public is affected by fads just like kids buying a new Xbox or Barbie doll. Revolvers have made a comeback and Colt has missed the boat again. Why? Money of course. Smith was already positioned in the revolver market to take advantage of the fads.... 500 and 460 are probably fads for the average gun buyer. It did not take much of a soothsayer to see that revolvers were becoming more popular again around 2000. Colt made some of the best.
Oh well, Colt RIP. I won't likely be buying one of your AR's soon. I doubt Colt can produce a double action revolver that sells sufficiently well and competes well with Smith & Wesson. In case you have not noticed, Ruger double action revolvers are not close to what I would call "cheap" these days. Always just a bit less than a Smith. Competition... don't you love it.
Colt did introduce the Cadet; changed the name to the Colt 22, and introduced the Target version. I like many didn't buy one. Dpris, you say they didn't sell... probably true, but there were other problems with the Cadet along the lines of patent infringement and so forth. Good guns are expensive and most can't buy a new one every month. I would venture to say that most gun buyers don't buy more than a new handgun every 6 months or a year. There are competing firearms for the firearm dollar... rifles, shotguns, and now the wave of buying the AK's, AR's and so forth. One of the reasons AK's and SKS's are popular is because they are cheap and they function reliably. Fills a big niche in the market.
Colt sold lots of their 22 single actions. They were quite successful in the market. Colt pulled the New Frontier and Peacemaker 22 lines off the shelf because of polictical and legal concerns. It took them something like 6 years to bring the guns back with a cross-bolt safety device. It was too late. By the mid 1980's, the firearm market was changing toward more double action centerfire semi-autos. Colt didn't have one. They were so dang worried about developing smart gun technology that they ignored the market for pistols. The political climate at the time was certainly pushing manfactures toward frame locks (etc.) and higher techology for safety reasons. People had more money to spend, personal protection concepts were moving to a wider gun buying audience and they were buying centerfire handguns.
Now ammunition is increasing in price and folks are starting to look at prices again. This won't change anytime soon. It is time for Colt to re-introduce the 22 Target model 22 pistol. Dpris, you said yourself that folks are buying Buckmarks as fast as Browning is making them. There will always be a Ruger around and you have a certain segment of the gun buying population that will always go for the cheapest thing they can find. How many threads do we see here where someone wants a new 22 for $300. Doesn't happen in a revolver that is made as well as Colts were and Smiths are now. But you can find a semi-auto 22 below $400 new.
Again, I think it may be time (past time as usual) for Colt to reintroduce a couple of 22's. You will always have a certain group who will always buy used which is one of the reason Colt and Smith & Wesson prices on revolvers have been climbing quickly. Collectors are another issue, but they won't buy them all. Let collectors play their games in speculation on what firearm is going to be more popular and rise in value. The money is in selling used guns, not buying as-new used guns and sitting on them for years and years.
Colt made the right decision to stop producing the revolvers. They made the wrong decision to get rid of the tooling for most of their revolvers. Things change. The gun buying public is affected by fads just like kids buying a new Xbox or Barbie doll. Revolvers have made a comeback and Colt has missed the boat again. Why? Money of course. Smith was already positioned in the revolver market to take advantage of the fads.... 500 and 460 are probably fads for the average gun buyer. It did not take much of a soothsayer to see that revolvers were becoming more popular again around 2000. Colt made some of the best.
Oh well, Colt RIP. I won't likely be buying one of your AR's soon. I doubt Colt can produce a double action revolver that sells sufficiently well and competes well with Smith & Wesson. In case you have not noticed, Ruger double action revolvers are not close to what I would call "cheap" these days. Always just a bit less than a Smith. Competition... don't you love it.
Last edited:
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
Colt Defense, the military side, bought in 2005 the Logistics and Defense Division of Diemaco of Canada. Colt is now the major supplier of the Canadian version of the M16 and the M4 to the Canadian military and many law enforcement agencies there. It also supplies many NATO countries. Colt reinvested heavily in new machinery and technology for this side of it's operations.
It's important to remember that these are legally two seperate companies, Colt Defense and Colt's Manufacturing. Funds from one can't just flow into the other.
The civilian side here has less than 100 employees. The strategy was to retrench into the 1911 and the single action. Colt does sell about all of these guns that it makes.
When the U.S. switched to the M9 no U.S. manufacturer really stepped up to the plate. S&W came the closest. But the story of Colt reps throwing a gun on the table, etc. aren't quite acurate.
Important to remember as well that Colt takes a good deal of unjustified bad mouthing. It also earned some of it.
tipoc
It's important to remember that these are legally two seperate companies, Colt Defense and Colt's Manufacturing. Funds from one can't just flow into the other.
The civilian side here has less than 100 employees. The strategy was to retrench into the 1911 and the single action. Colt does sell about all of these guns that it makes.
When the U.S. switched to the M9 no U.S. manufacturer really stepped up to the plate. S&W came the closest. But the story of Colt reps throwing a gun on the table, etc. aren't quite acurate.
Important to remember as well that Colt takes a good deal of unjustified bad mouthing. It also earned some of it.
tipoc
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
Just for perspective, balance maybe, while we are looking at steps, good and bad, that Colt has made and missing their DA revolvers...
Name any other U.S. manufacturer of small arms that has stepped up to the plate to provide these arms for the U.S. military and it's allies like Colt has. S&W has come closest but it's second place to Colt. From the 1873 to the New Service, the 1911, 1903, to the M16 family alot there. The Colt made M4s are the most trusted carbine in Iraq today. Colt has also done this longer than anyone else.
I mention this not to excuse idiot moves at Colt but because this also is part of the picture.
tipoc
Name any other U.S. manufacturer of small arms that has stepped up to the plate to provide these arms for the U.S. military and it's allies like Colt has. S&W has come closest but it's second place to Colt. From the 1873 to the New Service, the 1911, 1903, to the M16 family alot there. The Colt made M4s are the most trusted carbine in Iraq today. Colt has also done this longer than anyone else.
I mention this not to excuse idiot moves at Colt but because this also is part of the picture.
tipoc
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
I may have mis remembered. Justin Moon of Kahr sued Colt and won for patent infringement for an offset barrel lug on the Pocket 9. IIRC that gun was produced for only a year or so. This was a part of the reason Colt discontinued this line of carry pistols. All the thinking on Colt's part for dropping the whole line I'm not sure of, didn't seem wise to me at the time and I still can't make complete sense of it today other than money and the factors I mentioned in my earlier posts. If you figure the time lines Colt was in a hard place financially at the time.
tipoc
22,
The "infringement" issue with the Cadet was over the name more than the mechanics. That's why it was later changed. It just did not sell.
Today, to produce ANY revolver other than the Peacemaker would require Colt to spend money they don't have on brand new tooling & equipment, starting from scratch. Projected sales would have to justify that. Based on past performance, they don't. Therefor, the money goes where sales figures do justify it.
Colt is a much smaller operation than people realize, and they've had to streamline as many operations as possible, including outsourcing a substantial percentage of their parts. They can & do buy frames & so on from outside vendors, but they'd still have to buy the equipment to do the assembly & final work.
The Colt .22 SAs certainly did sell, for a while. Like most of the other Colt revolvers, dwindling sales eventually killed it. Time to introduce a new .22 pistol? Unless it offered some spectacular advantage over the already entrenched Ruger, Browning, and to a lesser extent S&W, guns and sold for the same price, it would be a gamble at best, and Colt has no money to gamble with.
The reason the Browning pistols are selling so well is because people like 'em, not because Colt doesn't make a .22 auto.
You'd most likely be looking at a polymer-framed rimfire auto, and aside from the Colt name (which has questionable value in the modern handgun gun world) and curiosity, there wouldn't be much reason for massive numbers of buyers to flock to it.
And, again- if Colt were to bring out a DA revolver or a .22 (pistol or revolver) the guns would not be the great classics of the past, they'd be built to compete with Ruger & Taurus & S&W guns in production right now. The reason why the older guns mentioned are gone is that they couldn't.
Denis
The "infringement" issue with the Cadet was over the name more than the mechanics. That's why it was later changed. It just did not sell.
Today, to produce ANY revolver other than the Peacemaker would require Colt to spend money they don't have on brand new tooling & equipment, starting from scratch. Projected sales would have to justify that. Based on past performance, they don't. Therefor, the money goes where sales figures do justify it.
Colt is a much smaller operation than people realize, and they've had to streamline as many operations as possible, including outsourcing a substantial percentage of their parts. They can & do buy frames & so on from outside vendors, but they'd still have to buy the equipment to do the assembly & final work.
The Colt .22 SAs certainly did sell, for a while. Like most of the other Colt revolvers, dwindling sales eventually killed it. Time to introduce a new .22 pistol? Unless it offered some spectacular advantage over the already entrenched Ruger, Browning, and to a lesser extent S&W, guns and sold for the same price, it would be a gamble at best, and Colt has no money to gamble with.
The reason the Browning pistols are selling so well is because people like 'em, not because Colt doesn't make a .22 auto.
You'd most likely be looking at a polymer-framed rimfire auto, and aside from the Colt name (which has questionable value in the modern handgun gun world) and curiosity, there wouldn't be much reason for massive numbers of buyers to flock to it.And, again- if Colt were to bring out a DA revolver or a .22 (pistol or revolver) the guns would not be the great classics of the past, they'd be built to compete with Ruger & Taurus & S&W guns in production right now. The reason why the older guns mentioned are gone is that they couldn't.
Denis
22-rimfire
Member
I often wonder just how many guns it takes to make a model profitable typically with the normal markups over cost? If I had to guess, I'd would say something like 10,000. Smith came out with their X-frame guns and they certainly aren't for the everyday shooter. Sales can't be that massive. Ruger introduced the Super Redhawk (SRH) in their 480 Ruger cartridge. As I recall, the 454 version came out a bit later. Taurus had problems making a safe 480 Ruger in their Raging Bull line. They were introduced and then pulled off the shelves and then brought back again. Ruger has now dropped the 480 from their caliber availabiliy for the SRH because I assume low sales in comparision to the 454 Casull version. The market is driven by profit whether or not gun buyers like it or not. Look at the guns offered in 45-70.
The Cadet (Colt 22 Auto) was introduced when Colt was gasping for market share in the civilian market and profitability. The split between the two companies makes it tough to introduce anything other than a sure thing in the civilian market. Yes, they would have to earn a new market share with the re-introduction of a 22 pistol. The Colt name is still significant. Ruger and Browning sell their 22 pistols like crazy. I recommend them often enough for someone wanting to buy a 22 pistol. I still believe Colt could pull it off and get back into the game.
The Cadet (Colt 22 Auto) was introduced when Colt was gasping for market share in the civilian market and profitability. The split between the two companies makes it tough to introduce anything other than a sure thing in the civilian market. Yes, they would have to earn a new market share with the re-introduction of a 22 pistol. The Colt name is still significant. Ruger and Browning sell their 22 pistols like crazy. I recommend them often enough for someone wanting to buy a 22 pistol. I still believe Colt could pull it off and get back into the game.
22,
Those other companies have both a substantial market presence and a sufficiently stable financial base to allow gambling. Colt simply does not.
Those other companies also have the manufacturing capability already established to absorb at least some of the costs involved in producing their "fringe" guns.
Ruger can use the basic Super Redhawk frame & just play around with different barrels & cylinders, Colt has nothing to do that with. S&W can use standard hammers, triggers, and so on even in the big X-Frame, and save a buck here & there. Colt has nothing to build on, period. Their revolver machinery is gone, other than what's required for the Peacemaker.
You can't compare Colt with S&W, Ruger, or Taurus in that respect. There is NO money & NO equipment left to work with.
Colt is literally a shell of what the company used to be, it's no giant, and it's having a hard enough time just hanging on with the situation it's in, without trying to bring out new civilian guns.
Yes, the Colt name is still worth something, but nowhere near what it was 50 years ago.
Those other companies have both a substantial market presence and a sufficiently stable financial base to allow gambling. Colt simply does not.
Those other companies also have the manufacturing capability already established to absorb at least some of the costs involved in producing their "fringe" guns.
Ruger can use the basic Super Redhawk frame & just play around with different barrels & cylinders, Colt has nothing to do that with. S&W can use standard hammers, triggers, and so on even in the big X-Frame, and save a buck here & there. Colt has nothing to build on, period. Their revolver machinery is gone, other than what's required for the Peacemaker.
You can't compare Colt with S&W, Ruger, or Taurus in that respect. There is NO money & NO equipment left to work with.
Colt is literally a shell of what the company used to be, it's no giant, and it's having a hard enough time just hanging on with the situation it's in, without trying to bring out new civilian guns.
Yes, the Colt name is still worth something, but nowhere near what it was 50 years ago.
22-rimfire
Member
So, what you are saying is that Colt would have to completely re-tool for any new firearm other than perhaps an ACE (which I don't recommend). They were always too expensive and weren't very accurate. On top of that, they have no employees, so they would be starting from scratch and taking a HUGE risk. So, all they have is a building and a trademarked name.
Colt created the mold on the Woodsman and then threw it away. All this Colt talk had given me the itch to find one of the newer target 22's that they made in the 1990's.
Colt created the mold on the Woodsman and then threw it away. All this Colt talk had given me the itch to find one of the newer target 22's that they made in the 1990's.
Absolutely. Colt can do variants on their 1911s because they're set up for 1911s. They could do more with the Peacemakers, such as calibers, finishes, barrels, etc, but choose not to.
There is no tooling left for anything other than those & the AR plarform.
Interesting to note that Colt actually "made more money" by scrapping the old tooling than by selling it. Tax benefits outweighed sale.
They do have a building (with unused floor space), some employees, and a name.
Denis
There is no tooling left for anything other than those & the AR plarform.
Interesting to note that Colt actually "made more money" by scrapping the old tooling than by selling it. Tax benefits outweighed sale.
They do have a building (with unused floor space), some employees, and a name.
Denis
Deanimator
Member
People don't seem to mind the quality of all of the Colt SAA clones, virtually everyone of which is Italian made.
I can't believe that it would be HARDER to make a copy of the classic Official Police than it is to make a copy of the S&W New Model Russian. I hardly think the market demand would be less.
De,
People looking to get a replica that shoots, and looks like a Colt Peacemaker, for $450 are buying a gun that shoots, and looks like a Colt Peacemaker. They are not buying Colt quality, they are not buying Colt value, they are not buying Colt performance, and they are not buying Colt specs. Besides which, the current Italian replica SA market has been fueled almost entirely by the cowboy shooters, and indications are that market is peaking. You are pretty much comparing apples to oranges.
The people who buy those replicas, in general, are neither demanding nor expecting the level of quality that Colt put into their Detective Specials. Nor are they buying the guns for serious defensive use, which was the primary purpose of the Dick Special. Most Italian single-actions are currently being bought as toys. And, they're largely being produced as toys by their makers.
It's also interesting to hear the stories some of the importers have to tell about the Italian view of the US replica market, and of dealing with the Italians on QC issues. It tends to elevate blood pressures & get hair torn out. The story of the Armi San Marco break-top .45 is a great example. Some here may remember how well that went.
Another factor is that, while the Peacemaker frame is a relatively complicated one to produce, the old Colt double-action mechanism requires a thorough understanding both to build and to correctly set up & time. You find very few qualified gunsmiths in this country today who can work on them, what would lead you to believe the Italians would produce a DS even close to being the equal of the real thing?
It would be harder to produce a GOOD copy of the Official Police than the old S&W Russian, whether you believe it or not.
Honest, those old Colts were in a class of their own, and classic though they may be, there's a reason why they're not around anymore.
Denis
People looking to get a replica that shoots, and looks like a Colt Peacemaker, for $450 are buying a gun that shoots, and looks like a Colt Peacemaker. They are not buying Colt quality, they are not buying Colt value, they are not buying Colt performance, and they are not buying Colt specs. Besides which, the current Italian replica SA market has been fueled almost entirely by the cowboy shooters, and indications are that market is peaking. You are pretty much comparing apples to oranges.
The people who buy those replicas, in general, are neither demanding nor expecting the level of quality that Colt put into their Detective Specials. Nor are they buying the guns for serious defensive use, which was the primary purpose of the Dick Special. Most Italian single-actions are currently being bought as toys. And, they're largely being produced as toys by their makers.
It's also interesting to hear the stories some of the importers have to tell about the Italian view of the US replica market, and of dealing with the Italians on QC issues. It tends to elevate blood pressures & get hair torn out. The story of the Armi San Marco break-top .45 is a great example. Some here may remember how well that went.
Another factor is that, while the Peacemaker frame is a relatively complicated one to produce, the old Colt double-action mechanism requires a thorough understanding both to build and to correctly set up & time. You find very few qualified gunsmiths in this country today who can work on them, what would lead you to believe the Italians would produce a DS even close to being the equal of the real thing?
It would be harder to produce a GOOD copy of the Official Police than the old S&W Russian, whether you believe it or not.
Honest, those old Colts were in a class of their own, and classic though they may be, there's a reason why they're not around anymore.
Denis
22-rimfire
Member
That's why knowledgable gun buyers are picking them up. Colt revolvers were classics and for me, none were better for the money. Unfortunately, I have been buying Smiths lately as I can't afford the Colts anymore unless it is something special or the price is "can't pass it up and I'll find the money, good." But I have been quite pleased that I have finally acquired Smith Model 17 and an 18 this year. Both of which I had never owned although friends loved them. I shot my Colts and they shot their Smiths. It makes for a little healthy competition between friends.
22,
Again, I agree completely.
I have a mintish Colt .357 that's waiting to visit Cunningham if & when he accepts work again. Two Dick Specials (one of which I used to carry, the other of which Grant just did some work on this summer), a Python, an OP, two Model Ps, and so on. If I had the cash, there'd be more classic Colt revolvers in the vault, believe me!
Take nothing I've said here to indicate I'm a Colt basher.
Denis
Again, I agree completely.
I have a mintish Colt .357 that's waiting to visit Cunningham if & when he accepts work again. Two Dick Specials (one of which I used to carry, the other of which Grant just did some work on this summer), a Python, an OP, two Model Ps, and so on. If I had the cash, there'd be more classic Colt revolvers in the vault, believe me!
Take nothing I've said here to indicate I'm a Colt basher.
Denis
SouthpawShootr
Member
The catalyst for the Kahr lawsuit was the Pony. They duplicated the offset barrel lug as you said. Plain and simple. That spelled the end of a design that could have made colt a bunch of money. I don't know if they tried to get a licensing agreement. The Mustang was a sort of redesign of Colt's (slightly) larger .380 Government. The Pony was the only pocket auto Colt made at the time that wasn't single action.
- Status
