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

[Vern Humphrey]

The problem is, Colt has already tried all those strategies. They updated and modernized their line, changing lockwork, using coil springs. They gave traditional guns a face-lift (for example, adding underlugs to the DS and similar guns.) They brought out a .44 Magnum (the Anaconda.)

And they still failed.

I think Colt management is the disease, not the cure. New management would move operations to a more friendly state.

 

[Confederate]

Having seen Colt go down and come back up, only to go down again, I have my doubts. With Ruger SP101s going for $450-$500, some nut job is going to decide to make "the best" forged guns on the planet, and they'll go right back down in flames again.

If greedy Colt execs try to captialize on the Colt name for a hefty premium instead of putting out an accurate, strong, and reasonably priced line of handguns, they're doomed before they begin. Colt will NEVER want to directly compete with Ruger and Smith & Wesson, not to mention the third tier guns made by Taurus.

Their best bet is to use Bill Ruger's mindset. Start with a fresh sheet of paper, use a modular design and a solid frame. Don't make gun repairs something that only Norse trolls can do in the fiery pits of the Earth for ridiculous amounts of money and a long turn-around time. Instead, make parts simple and easly to replace.

 

[Hawk]

Don't make gun repairs something that only Norse trolls can do in the fiery pits of the Earth for ridiculous amounts of money and a long turn-around time. Instead, make parts simple and easly to replace.

Hear hear!

One of the more ironic statements I've seen recently assert that Pythons aren't "delicate", they merely require maintenance that can't be obtained. That, I would submit, is a distinction without a difference.

The market for a high end revolver that can't be shot with confidence that maintenance is available would, I expect, be limited.

Just because it's made by hand doesn't mean it's "The Best". It just means it is made via old and out dated, inefficient methods that introduce more human error than any other method. Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it's better.

The above was in a thread on Korth, but I don't see Colt, past present or future, being exempt from the same observation.

 

[Feanaro]

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...

IF Colt wants to succeed (big IF), come out with guns that are pretty much as they were back then

Can't have it both ways. The Colts people always say they want never were that affordable. The Python was priced at $125 in 1955. That's almost a thousand 2007 bucks. (The prices are higher than that now, of course, but it doesn't make the old price cheap) The affordable guns like the Woodmans rarely make the list.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The affordable guns like the Woodmans rarely make the list.

Actually, the Woodsman came in many grades -- and was a better shooter than either the Ruger or Browning, guns with the lion's share of the market today.

 

[Hawk]

Woodsman - never had one, always wanted one.

I wonder if this is / turned out to be / vaporware?
http://www.usfirearms.com/pages/woodsman_press_release.asp

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if somebody else "resurrected it first". I have less than no clue what status of patents, trademarks and the like would be for those older items.

IANAL, but "Woodsman" would seem not generic in the way that "M4" might be considered to be. I like to tell myself that folks making high end shootable nostalgia are probably gentlemen enough that such things wouldn't get ugly but that's not only speculation on my part, it's probably naive speculation.

 

[Feanaro]

The Woodsman name and design have been around quite a while. Entirely possible all intellectual rights to it have expired.

Actually, the Woodsman came in many grades

Too many for me to keep track of, so I don't. I was thinking of the... Sportsman model in this case, which retailed for the equivalent of $550 or so dollars back in the 60's.

and was a better shooter than either the Ruger or Browning, guns with the lion's share of the market today.

Better looking, anyways.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I love my Woodsman -- made in 1938, with an after-market Micro sight.

 

[Rover 'n Rugers]

"The problem is, Colt has already tried all those strategies. They updated and modernized their line, changing lockwork, using coil springs. They gave traditional guns a face-lift (for example, adding underlugs to the DS and similar guns.) They brought out a .44 Magnum (the Anaconda.)".

I would say they "half tried". Some models such as the Anaconda arrived about 10 years after Ruger and Wesson and others began offering .44 DAs. The .357 Mag Carry was a number of years late, too. I lived in a large metro area with quite a few stores and never did see a Mag Carry in the case. When I bought mine I had to order on the basis of gun magazine writeups. From time to time I did see new Anacondas but only very rarely. For the average person it is hard to buy something one does not know about or see. Even if one does know about a particular model how many will buy one without first seeing and touching it in person? About the only Colts I ever saw in the stores were the 1911s. Perhaps someone will buy a Korth or Manurhin sight unseen but this, I suspect, is a very limited subset of the gun buying population. Probably Colt waited for the orders to roll in before manufacturing a batch of many of the models to save having money tied up in inventory. By the late 1990's advertising seemed to taper off, too. I would have bought a 5" Anaconda if I knew about it but only found out about them years later as a case in point.

I imagine Colt found the revolver market not profitable. I suspect what they had were models with low profit margin made in low volume in a high risk business requiring a high rate of return. They also did not have the financial resources for building in larger quantities and making them attractive to dealers to stock (create demand through advertising).

 

[TimboKhan]

"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?

Sure they might. How many new shooters do we see on here whose first gun is an $1100 dollar Kimber or something similar? It's not like Regular Joes spend all their money on Hi-Point. A Regular Joe now might go out and buy a Thunder Ranch S&W simply because they want to emulate famous gun writer/trainer Clint Smith. It's all in how it's marketed. I would argue that if Colt was still a relevant company in terms of new handguns, many Regular Joes would buy them as a first or second gun based on name and percieved quality alone.

 

[18DAI]

That famous writer/trainer Clint Smith, doesen't have an internal lock on HIS Thunder Ranch revolver.

He was given a pre production prototype by S&W that is lock free.

There apparently were photos of it printed in American Handgunner. There were also several threads over on the S&W forum. The general concensus of those threads being, that as preachy as Mr Smith is, about the locks "not being an issue", it was hypocritical for him not to have it on HIS Thunder Ranch revolver.

If S&W would make a lock free Thunder Ranch for me, I'll emulate him too.