What if you owned Colt and, wanted to make revolvers again?

[Vern Humphrey]

When an industry settles in a state, they bring in far more than taxes -- every dollar in the plant equals five or more dollars on the outside.

The idea that businesses pay taxes is false -- they just pass on the tax to the already-overtaxed consumer.

If a state wants business, jobs, economic activity, they need to offer tax incentives.

 

[Deanimator]

1. Go after Ruger and Taurus with a reasonably priced new revolver design that's easier to manufacture than the older guns. Actually talk to shooters about what they want. Perhaps cooperate with CZ/Dan Wesson on an interchangeable barrel system.

2. Start making the Python again. New guns would probably still be cheaper than what sellers are getting for used guns. Maintain the quality. Charge what you need to do this. They'll still sell, especially compared to the drek that S&W sells these days.

3. POINTEDLY advertise that NONE of your guns have VISIBLE locking mechanisms, and that if they DO have locks, they ONLY lock by a user turning a key. If you have a locking system, make it optional.

4. Make limited runs of classic guns, such as the Official Police, Police Positive, New Service and Detective Special. If necessary, farm the basic construction out to the Italians and do the assembly and finish work in-house.

You couldn't give me what S&W makes these days. You'd better believe that I'd be interested in a new Official Police or New Service.

 

[Deanimator]

As for the Python, with all the work required to properly tune the things (think expensive labor), the prices would have to be pretty high. Maybe a Diamondback .22??????

People would still line up to buy a "Python II", especially if it had a slick action. People want a good revolver. It doesn't necessarily have to be an OLD revolver.

 

[TimboKhan]

3. POINTEDLY advertise that NONE of your guns have VISIBLE locking mechanisms, and that if they DO have locks, they ONLY lock by a user turning a key. If you have a locking system, make it optional.

This will appeal to gunnies, but not to regular joes. Like it or not, locks are here to stay.

 

[Deanimator]

This will appeal to gunnies, but not to regular joes. Like it or not, locks are here to stay.

"Regular joes" don't buy $800 revolvers. If "locks are here to stay", why are they OPTIONAL on S&W semi-autos, and NONEXISTENT on most other firearms?

Locks are totally unnecessary. INCOMPETENTLY DESIGNED locks are an abomination. A spider monkey with Down's Syndrome could have designed a better lock and made it FAR less esthetically hideous than Safe-T Hammer's joke.

 

[SWC Bonfire]

People would still line up to buy a "Python II", especially if it had a slick action. People want a good revolver. It doesn't necessarily have to be an OLD revolver.

Agreed. People want a good revolver that is inexpensive to fix, too.

 

[Hawk]

My speculative leap of the day is that the S&W lock doesn't amount to much overall. They made around 185,000 revolvers in '06 all of which had a lock (assuming the retro lemon squeezer wasn't shipping yet).

Even given a significant number of people noting that they won't buy a revolver with a lock it's a minor percentage of 185K.

We forget that a number of those in the "no lock" camp have also stated a disinclination to purchase MIM parts, 2-piece barrels, matt finishes or angular styling. That crowd will likely never buy a gun made after 2003. A mainstream Colt sans lock would still likely include MIM or something else that an afficiando would derive offense from.

The afficianado market is a niche market - probably better served by Freedom Arms or USFA taking the double action plunge. USFA has had considerable practice "out-Colting" Colt and are already well past FA in production. So if we're putting together a fantasy team not needing the consent of the participants, I'll nominate USFA to produce the Olde Style Python. It'll likely run 2K, so brace for impact, Mr. Spock.

Heck, since I'm indulging a little free-wheeling speculation, convince STI there's money in SSR competition and maybe they'll convince their CT supplier to start making round race guns of the double action persausion - they'll probably get less resistance than I expect they'll see from the CAS crowd. At least in double action race guns they're not competing against Colt as they are with single actions. I don't pay much attention to competitive shooting - is bowling pin shooting still active? I seem to recall some Pythons in that arena.

 

[Master Blaster]

Try rapid firing a python in double action a couple thousand times, and let me know if it still times up.

There is a reason why all of the revolver speed shooters use smiths going back to Skeeter Skelton.

 

[Hawk]

[continuing speculation]

Well, there goes STI's interest in the enterprise. Unless they could transplant whatever gave the Smith longer times between overhaul while still being "Python-ish".

What would cause two DA designs to go out of time at markedly different rates?

 

[crebralfix]

I would prefer that Colt would do a few production runs of the Python. I'd certainly shell out $1000-1500 for a really nice one.

 

[Virginian]

slzy, why would you say no tax abatement for a new business in your area? I don't know of many localities that won't do that anymore to get businesses/payrolls.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Some would have us believe that high taxes are good for us!!

In North Little Rock there was a squabble over giving Cabelas a tax break, and some group had a billboard overlooking the Interstate, saying, "Cabelas is welcome in North Little Rock if they pay their fair share."

My response, if I was running Cabelas, would be to put up another billboard next to that one saying, "We agree -- and our share is $0, because we're setting up our new store in Cabot."

 

[Confederate]

If I were running Colt, I'd switch to investment casting and solid-frame designs, concentrating on what makes revolvers accurate. I would keep the "look and feel" of the older guns as much as possible, but re-contour the grips to fit human hands.

There's nothing special about forged steel guns; they don't add to longevity or accuracy, plus it's cheaper. I'd keep tolerances tight, put big, fat forcing cones on them and big extracting rods instead of the piddley little ones. I'd keep the graduated vent on top and offer revolvers in both standard and full underlug barrels.

I'd also like to see ammunition companies come out with a .357 magnum +P with souped up power for hunters and hikers made primarily for my guns, Rugers and large Smiths.

 

[Feanaro]

What if you owned Colt and, wanted to make revolvers?

I'd sell the company to someone with brains and go work for Smith and Wesson. "The way it used to be" mindset is too firmly lodged into the brains of Colt fans to be shaken by any power on this earth. As for attracting new people, "Smith," "Wesson," and "Revolver" are pretty well fused together in popular culture. If Joe Schmoe associates "Colt" with a revolver, it'll be the SAA. Smith and Wesson is firmly entrenched, Colt is not.

 

[CK]

As much as I love Python, Anaconda, and the large frame offerings.

I would say, bring a new type and reworked "Detective Special", priced out around $450, or maybe less a little bit. Reason is, rather than going for a collector`s market, Colt should aim for a more profitable ccw market. Generate a stable income first, then perhaps, a later offering of a more expensive model.

 

[Hunter0924]

Colt has begun purchasing and setting up CNC machinery at the factory.
I spoke with General Keys about this at the SHOT show and he invited me back to Colt to check out the new set up.
I toured the factory last year and it looks like I will get another when I can make it back to Connecticut.

 

[JohnBT]

That's good news. I've been thinking about how to answer the question since the thread was posted. I have a Python, a WWI Repro, etc. and like Colts. Here's my answer.

I'd buy a fully functioning gun company that had the equipment and the knowledge base in place and slowly reintroduce some of the older models and custom shop work. That would allow time for training selected workers to build Colts the way they deserve to be built.

If I owned Colt most of my money would be invested elsewhere. It would have to be more of a hobby type of investment.

John

 

[Master Blaster]

Sell To Cerberus.

 

[Flame Red]

I think that Colt could not compete with the Taurus and Smiths. Colt would have to do what they have been successfully doing with their SAA - be a 'boutique' manufacture. They just cannot compete with the others in price. Only us relover nuts that demand 'old American Craftsmanship' will be willing to pay the price for them. That means no foreign made parts, no MIM - all forged. All assembled by AMERICAN craftsman that care.

A Python II would be a wonderful product and it would sell if they could get 'craftsmen' (not assemblers) to put them together in the old way and make the 'Royal Blue' finish like they did in the old days. Those would sell out completely I think with a limited production of a couple of thousand guns a year.

Once they saw how quick they sell out a run, I think they could expand the lineup.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If Colt wants to be competitive, they should set up their CNC machinery in a non-union state.

 

[Hawk]

I think that Colt could not compete with the Taurus and Smiths. Colt would have to do what they have been successfully doing with their SAA - be a 'boutique' manufacture. They just cannot compete with the others in price. Only us relover nuts that demand 'old American Craftsmanship' will be willing to pay the price for them. That means no foreign made parts, no MIM - all forged. All assembled by AMERICAN craftsman that care.

Sticking with the SAA formula carries its own set of risks, such as a remote chance of being "out-boutiqued". They're no longer the "high priced spread" and face competition from American craftsman using top shelf parts - at Turnbull/USFA and STI's CT partner, among others.

I wonder how that will turn out - Colt has tradition on their side but the market is small and seems driven by one group of dedicated shooters. Strange things would happen, I suspect, if CAS started to stagnate. USFA has cozied up to Acusport and my dealer is suddenly getting his calls returned. STI was backordered 4 months last I knew so they're not an immediate threat, I would assume.

"But it's not a Colt" used to mean that one had the top dog with the best quality, best construction and carried the highest price. Now it just means "my gun has a picture of a horse". That still carries a lot of currency with a lot of folks but the ones that were buying Colt because it was the best (or even the highest priced) are up for grabs.

A "Python II", if successful, might be little more than blood in the water - it might inspire S&W to bring back the 27 in all its former glory, bereft of lock, or USFA might decide a double action is in their future.

I'd rather like a Python II myself but would prefer that normal mortals could work on it. Not neccessarily me, but my S&W gunsmith should be able overhaul the thing - won't happen if it stays handfit with each being a unique snowflake unto itself. I'd suspect the number of people that would buy a new version to not shoot it would be limited.

 

[Hutch]

They should try to be more innovative. I don't have any Taurus revolvers, but you have to admire their willingness to try new things. Small revolvers in .45 Colt, tiny revolvers in 9mmP, and so forth.

 

[BattleChimp Potemkin]

Bring out guns that people want. Face it, most folks that want a Colt cant get one (too expensive). Most of the folks that want "granddaddys or daddys" old python or 1911 cant do it b/c of cost. Think about the reason Rock Island is so popular. An old GI 1911 for under 400 bucks. Can you do that with a reasonable condition Colt? Heck no, not in cost. If Colt wants to be successful, stop this "custom" or "signature" stuff. Go back to the old Colt: a darn good gun at a reasonable price. Most of the folks with Colts today are getting rid of them (older folks that fought in the wars of history) or are being pawned off by relatives of dead folks. It sickens me in regards to "collectability" of firearms. If a mass produced item is "collectable" and in the numbers Colt produced, then why is my old high school car (87 Tercel) not a collectable? Demand? GIBBERISH! I say, let the folks that own the weapons determine value (sunny days with granddad at the range, shooting, having a first sip of beer as a kid after the range, spending time learning what a man is). Let the owners determine value of weapons, not "market conditions". If we are to attach a price to everything (including the air we breathe and time with our family), we all would be broke several times over.

IF Colt wants to succeed (big IF), come out with guns that are pretty much as they were back then (bring back the Python, etc...), to heck with collectors and get over themselves in regards to price. I owned a Python in .357 at one time. I liked it, but in my mind it was little different than the S&W 13 or model 14 I have too. Just the name. Compete with other companies? Not sure if Colt can do that now-adays. Cost will kill them.

What would I like to see? Reasonably priced reproductions of older designs. S&W makes the Lemon squeezer and model 27 and so on (though a little pricey for the weapon). Ruger makes reproductions (not exact but nice guns) of single actions. Make reproductions of the Colt Police Positive (.38 Special of course, not Long Colt or S&W), WW1 and 2 reproduction 1911s, single actions, etc... But not at custom shop pricing.

Just my 2cents, too much rambling, but Colt always gets my fur up when people talk about collectors or value of thier guns. Guns are for protection and recreation. Maybe people are shooting up malls or similar b/c we arent spending time with our kids, shooting with them and letting them handle guns of history (I hope my son/daughter one day will get to fire my grandfathers model 10 from when he was in the OSI in the Air Force).

 

[BigG]

an SAA at an affordable price that uses CNC machining to compete with Ruger?

Sorry, but Colt and Ruger should not be used in the same sentence. There is no need to build a gun down to a price. There are low end revolvers available already. Colt is a premium brand and should not cheapen its reputation.

 

[Rover 'n Rugers]

The first thing is to decide where they are going to compete in the price spectrum. Then, what will they make. Market research should show where the money is to be made and what niches to focus upon. Profits are a function of margin times production volume so one either has to have a high margin, low volume solution or high volume, low margin design. The design must focus on a design to price once the strategy above is decided.

I believe a traditional exterior appearance should be maintained but have a modern lockwork to reduce cost. I suspect the first market would be concealed carry. A modern D frame or DS II frame would be in order perhaps with all coil springs that would be the basis for a .22 LR revolver and have it strong enough to have a 6 shot .357 version either in a 2" Det. Sp. format or Diamondback. In designing the lockwork I would give a lot of attention to the ability to obtain a nice, light trigger pull. Perhaps consider a roller action double action sear or hammer strut. Otherwise, one gives up a competitive point to S&W and perhaps Ruger. As with DW and Ruger provide for a solid front lockup of the cylinder.

If one achieves success here move on to a large frame .44 mag/.45 revolver. Perhaps, design it to even contain the .454 and .480 in 5 shot versions. Offer all of the above with vent rib barrels and the adjustable sighted ones with a decent, durable rear target blade on the order of Bowen's rear sights. Also, consider removeable front sights as on many of the Rugers and DW's.

My understanding is that most of the tooling for manufacture of previous revolvers no longer exists so it is a chance for a clean slate with a traditional look.

As others have noted move to a more friendly production environment.