When did Colt lose its status as King of the AR?

[uzimon]

When people discovered they could build what they wanted for themselves. For me, when I was in the Army and was issued an H&R-made AR.

They can build it but good luck reselling it.
The colt will sell for double next panic

 

[Speedo66]

About when PSA started selling "blems". lol

 

[MarshallDodge]

Colt has been shut down, re-organized, re-acquired and re-invented more times in the past 50 years than I can count. Some people put part of this over the years on the unions but in all honesty I’m sure that not more than a hand full of people really know the truth. My opinion, from a distance and based on what I read over the years in the gun rags, is that their decline was likely due to three root causes: Poor management, the inability to deliver quality products at a price point that was competitive in the market and employee apathy. Employee apathy was a key factor in the demise of US Repeating Arms (The Winchester brand at one time). These types of employees could care less about what they were making...door knobs or guns, it was all the about the same to them. When Colt came back in the market a few years ago and started making the 1911s again I was hopeful that an American icon had been revived and would once again take its rightful place of prominence in the industry. Their most recent introduction of their revolver line looked promising as well.

Then a few weeks ago they announced that they would no longer be offering their AR 15 rifles to the civilian market because they determined that there were more manufacturers than the market could support and they wanted to focus on filling their military contracts. What a wonderful piece of Madison Avenue, carefully spun, line of TOTAL B.S.! Colt is very carefully playing politics and bowing to the pressure of the liberals on the gun control issue so that they can suck up to what they think will be the next liberal POTUS in the White House! This is the exact move that nearly put Smith & Wesson out of business when they knuckled under to the Clinton Administration. Remember that? Mandatory locks on their handguns and none of their dealers could go direct with Smith & Wesson if they sold assault rifles. I had the privilege of being in a sporting goods store in Bradenton, Florida when a Smith & Wesson factory rep told the owner he would have to stop selling assault rifles and prohibit children from coming in his store. The response from the store owner could not be printed on this forum without being deleted by the moderator, but it sure did my heart good! Time to send a message Colt folks. Boycott them. Talk to Colt through their wallet. They no longer deserve our business or support. Perhaps the next corporation that acquires Colt will have the balls to stand up to the liberals in Washington.

Colt cares about military and LE contracts...not about someone standing in a gunshop looking for something to have fun with or defend their household against tyranny or the predator.

 

[DustyGmt]

Colt cares about military and LE contracts...not about someone standing in a gunshop looking for something to have fun with or defend their household against tyranny or the predator.

I dont know if Colt "cares" about the civilian market or not or if they are even in a position to exercise political influence. I think if the market were thriving and they were hitting their marks, they would stay in the business of providing AR's to the civilian market.

I'm pretty sure anybody familiar with Colts history would know that it's feast or famine with them. The company is hostage to military contracts and some years they do ok, other years not so much. I dont know if its political, I think they've tried to play PC politics in the past and it didnt work out for them. I think they are doing whatever they can, restructuring to avoid going under and selling completely out.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

I'd say the version 1 of the M&P sport was kind of the beginning of the end for Colt.

Back before then, low end manufacturers like Olympic and Vulcan earned their poor reputation by taking shortcuts we can't even fathom today: cast receivers, LPKs literally scrounged from used Vietnam M16s, etc. There were some real crappy guns coming out. So you could pay $1200+ for the pony or you could take your chances with the low end stuff for $700ish. It was a premium that made some sense.

Then Smith came out with a Sport that could do everything a range warrior needed doing for $600-$700. Was it as good as a Colt, nope, but it was nearly half the cost. Cue 500,000 internet battles about "pony tax" vs Colt superiority. But now there was a viable low-end alternative to the 6920.

Now we're at the point where PSA will sell you a $350 AR kit that's just as good or better than a $700 Olympic from years past. For the plinkers out there, Colt's no longer even in the conversation. For the real operators, BCM, DD, and Noveske simply make better rifles than Colt (aided greatly by Colt's refusal to make anything besides an A2-style carbine). So Colt's pretty much been squeezed out of a market.

Although Colt does take part of the blame, I don't think it's a pony issue so much as a mid-range AR issue. The low-end guns improved so much in quality that they've basically eliminated that market segment. Colt got hammered, but you don't see any of the mid-range stalwarts like Stag or RRA selling many rifles either.

 

[Slamfire]

Colt was using its profits from military sales to sue competitors out of business. At the Springfield Armory pavilion on commercial row I asked the SA representative why SA had not brought out a AR15. He told me that in the 1970's (?) Springfield Armory had, and the ad was in some publication that I don't remember. He claimed SA brought out the first non Colt AR15 and was immediately received from Colt a cease and desist letter. Springfield Armory was a small business and Colt was a huge manufacturer chock full of taxpayer money and could afford to frivolous lawsuit competitors into bankruptcy. So SA signed an agreement not to make AR15's.

So this is what Colt was doing. Now I don't know, and I looked, but Bushmaster took on Colt and won. Before the M4 lawsuit that Colt brought against Bushmaster. Which Bushmaster also won. We owe a lot to Bushmaster because by breaking the Colt monopoly in court, others could join in and make AR15 rifles, parts, components. I think this occurred in the late 1980's, but I don't know for sure. The M4 lawsuit was around 2004.

Competition in the civilian marketplace became a real turning point for Colt. Colt continued its Government Military sales monopoly, since the early 1960's the Army was Colt's bitch. Colt had built a constituency within DoD, and the Government. High ranking military officers were looking for lucrative lobbying jobs for Colt, or consulting jobs, Army procurement agencies had their power base and were not interested in upsetting Congress, and Colt owned influential Congressmen. It really does not take a lot of money to own these characters, but it takes money. But when a sufficient number of other manufacturers of AR's were established, and selling their AR's to law enforcement, military groups, foreign militaries, questions began to be asked "is the Army was wedded to Colt?". It was, Colt had the Army in a French maid's outfit and high heels. That became scandalous and in time, competition for the M4 contract allowed other manufacturer's to bid, and win. Colt had its hooks deep into the Army, there were all sorts of Army agreements that made competition with Colt impossible, and royalties was one issue I remember, but in time, other manufacturer's were able to win contracts and build military M4's. And that loss of its Government monopoly really hurt Colt. Colt had walked away from the civilian market, and now, they have an AR15 that has the Pony, from what I heard, mostly subcontracted out like everyone else's AR15. And Colt's AR15 is expensive. Colt was always non responsive to the commercial market, adopting what the market wanted years and years late.