Why did Colt quit on the Python and Anaconda, etc.
- Thread starter jvik
- Start date
- Status
RNB65
Member
They weren't selling enough revolvers and were losing too much money on them. Colt Firearms tried to hang onto the revolver market way too long as it dried up in the late 80's when everyone began switching to the wonder nines.
Colt tried to jump on the 9mm bandwagon with the All American 2000, but it was a piece of junk. They just waited too long and wound up declaring bankruptcy in 1992 (a business school case study would say that Colt senior management failed to recognize and adapt to rapidly changing market conditions). A four year labor strike by their worker's union in the late 1980's also cost the company dearly as their quality slipped badly and they lost a lot of their core business (military contracts) to other companies.
What was left of the bankrupt and dead Colt Firearms company was eventually purchased by a private financial group and resumed operations under the name Colt Manufacturing making civilian weapons (1911 handguns, SAA revolvers, AR style rifles). A separate company, Colt Defense, was also created to manufacture military weapons.
Colt tried to jump on the 9mm bandwagon with the All American 2000, but it was a piece of junk. They just waited too long and wound up declaring bankruptcy in 1992 (a business school case study would say that Colt senior management failed to recognize and adapt to rapidly changing market conditions). A four year labor strike by their worker's union in the late 1980's also cost the company dearly as their quality slipped badly and they lost a lot of their core business (military contracts) to other companies.
What was left of the bankrupt and dead Colt Firearms company was eventually purchased by a private financial group and resumed operations under the name Colt Manufacturing making civilian weapons (1911 handguns, SAA revolvers, AR style rifles). A separate company, Colt Defense, was also created to manufacture military weapons.
dfariswheel
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 6,657
In 2000 Colt was in extreme financial trouble, and they had to trim the line to guns with higher sales at a better profit margin.
The revolvers, especially the Python were very expensive to make, and were the top of the market in retail price.
They discontinued the Python, the Anaconda, the King Cobra, the Magnum Carry, the Officer's Model ACP, and the .380 autos.
They kept the 1911 series, the single action Army, and the AR-15.
The revolvers, especially the Python were very expensive to make, and were the top of the market in retail price.
They discontinued the Python, the Anaconda, the King Cobra, the Magnum Carry, the Officer's Model ACP, and the .380 autos.
They kept the 1911 series, the single action Army, and the AR-15.
Nightcrawler
Member
I wish they would've sold the machines, tooling, and manufacturing rights to someone else. I'd love to see, say, US Firearms Company, begin production of the Anaconda, King Cobra, etc.
Damned shame about Colt. The name is synonomous with American firearms manufacturing and they've just driven themselves into the ground.
Damned shame about Colt. The name is synonomous with American firearms manufacturing and they've just driven themselves into the ground.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
The boss (I work at a rather large gun shop) tells me that the Colt "snake" revolvers are still available - only as a custom shop order item though. On the one hand I agree with 'Crawler in that I think a company like USFA would be great at making them. On the other hand Colt's recent and current 1911 production quality is way up from what it was just a few years ago; and the 70 series reintroduction, WWI Reproduction, and WWII Reproduction 1911s have sold very well. I have still have hope that the current ownership is turning things around and will continue to do so.
Nightcrawler
Member
There are two Colts. Colt Defense (M4 carbines, etc.) and Colt's Manufacturing (Government Model pistols). Colt Defense has an attitude akin to HK. Colt's Mfg., well, how many police departments are ordering M1911s? Not very many. They just don't produce many guns.
As I understand it, not only are their revolvers no longer in production, they've scrapped the tooling, so they're gone forever.
I'm sorry, but your Boss is incorrect.
They are gone for good. You can no longer order them, not even through the custom shop.
The last Python was fully engraved and Gold inlaid for the 50th Anniversary of the Python and is NOT for sale. It's a beauty and it's a fitting end to a Historical weapon.
RIP
Jeff (GUNKWAZY)
SouthpawShootr
Member
Corporate stupidity. Seems to be genetic in Colt's case. This company has a long and storied history of major missteps. Current management talks alot but does little.
sterling180
Member
They should have continued those two revolvers.They were absolute classics like the 1911A1.Perhaps Colt should rethink,their actions carefully?
I am at a loss to understand why people think that Colt (or any company) should make and sell guns when they lose money on each sale.
Colt and all of the others don't make guns as a hobby. At the end of the day they still have to pay the bills. Winchester/USRA was in the same boat. They made excellent guns, but lost money on each one. As a result they aren't with us anymore.
The day of classic revolvers is coming to a close - except for those with very deep pockets who can afford custom work. Labor and other overhead costs dictate that the future will be polymer-framed pistols, like it or not.
That's why classic revolvers are such great buys on the used market these days. They are way underpriced for what they represent in fine craftsmenship. However enough people know this to cause prices to move up, and continue going that way.
tinygnat219
Member
It's simple, Colt has had historical "staying profitable" problems.
tinygnat219
Member
Nightcrawler,
USFA is what Colt should be. I'd say give it time and if there is a market for the revolvers to justify the CNC machine cost, they will be done.
They've been resurrected more times than Jesus and it's simply poor business sense and a lack of innovation that has killed them.
USFA is what Colt should be. I'd say give it time and if there is a market for the revolvers to justify the CNC machine cost, they will be done.
They've been resurrected more times than Jesus and it's simply poor business sense and a lack of innovation that has killed them.
454c
Member
I still think it was bad time to drop the revolver line up. Smith was the closest competition and they wasn't exactly in customers good graces.
Hunter0924
Member
Jesus has only been resurrected once. Colt does what they must to stay in business.
Have you seen what USAF gets for their pistols? For what they put out they are way out of line.
The revolver does not have the popularity it once did and with all the other companies putting out cheap pistols made from cheap parts assembled not fitted I would rather see the Python and Anaconda fade than become a cheap imitation of what they once were.
There are folks who continue to find fault with Colt and how they operate. If you believe that is the only large cooperation that has made mistakes then you are lying to yourself. It is easy to sit aside and judge them and if you decide not to like Colt for what ever reason that is fine but there is no denying that they are ingrained in America's firearm heritage and make some of the finest Government Models on the market.
I will be the first to admit Colt has had trouble and still does from time to time but that is the nature of the beast. Of the folks I know at Colt they are some of the most professional folks in the industry and are always willing to listen and help.
Have you seen what USAF gets for their pistols? For what they put out they are way out of line.
The revolver does not have the popularity it once did and with all the other companies putting out cheap pistols made from cheap parts assembled not fitted I would rather see the Python and Anaconda fade than become a cheap imitation of what they once were.
There are folks who continue to find fault with Colt and how they operate. If you believe that is the only large cooperation that has made mistakes then you are lying to yourself. It is easy to sit aside and judge them and if you decide not to like Colt for what ever reason that is fine but there is no denying that they are ingrained in America's firearm heritage and make some of the finest Government Models on the market.
I will be the first to admit Colt has had trouble and still does from time to time but that is the nature of the beast. Of the folks I know at Colt they are some of the most professional folks in the industry and are always willing to listen and help.
Hawk
Member
I'm rather new to revolvers but it seems that Python pricing is an enigma.
If somebody started making the things, wouldn't they have to sell for at least 1,600.00? Few seem particularly appalled that Baer, Brown, Wilson, Nighthawk, STI et al get 2K for a firearm and I gather that the Python required even more hand fitting (?).
So, I guess my question is, if USFA started making the things, wouldn't they run 2K for a garden variety 6" in Royal Blue and if they ran 2K, would anybody buy them?
If the market imposes a 1,500.00 max on the thing in 2007 dollars, and it costs the same to produce as a Baer stinger, it's doomed. T'ain't never comin' back.
I may well be missing a number of things, but it seems that the market:
1. Never accepted the notion that a top-end revolver should command the same prices as a top-end bottom-feeder.
2. A top-end revolver costs as much or more to produce than a top-end pistol.
That would not be a happy combination.
If somebody started making the things, wouldn't they have to sell for at least 1,600.00? Few seem particularly appalled that Baer, Brown, Wilson, Nighthawk, STI et al get 2K for a firearm and I gather that the Python required even more hand fitting (?).
So, I guess my question is, if USFA started making the things, wouldn't they run 2K for a garden variety 6" in Royal Blue and if they ran 2K, would anybody buy them?
If the market imposes a 1,500.00 max on the thing in 2007 dollars, and it costs the same to produce as a Baer stinger, it's doomed. T'ain't never comin' back.
I may well be missing a number of things, but it seems that the market:
1. Never accepted the notion that a top-end revolver should command the same prices as a top-end bottom-feeder.
2. A top-end revolver costs as much or more to produce than a top-end pistol.
That would not be a happy combination.
Troutman
member
<<The day of classic revolvers is coming to a close - except for those with very deep pockets who can afford custom work. >>
There is still the cowboy action shooter (SASS). I don’t know how the market is for that though? It’s not only a sport. It’s a way of life (keeping traditions) the way I take it.
Colt still makes single actions. Single action army. But, at $1,300.00 (new) at Cabalas’, that I have seen. I would have to think long and hard about buying one. Are they even worth it for cowboy shooters? Over-priced at 1,300.00? For anything but that?
<<Labor and other overhead costs dictate that the future will be polymer-framed pistols, like it or not. >>
Colt had the technology at the time? with the AR-15/M-16. The stock and fore-end were. That was a firearm ahead of its time (early 60’s). They had it right in their hands. When plastics were not popular. Remember….”The graduate (67)”. Where a line was referred to "Plastics”. I believe in those days plastics were not popular for things of durability? Except toys….even the M-16 was referred to as the “Mattel toy”. But look today.
<<That's why classic revolvers are such great buys on the used market these days. They are way underpriced for what they represent in fine craftsmenship. However enough people know this to cause prices to move up, and continue going that way.>>
I have seen this for the last couple years. Used one, the good ones, goes for as much, if not more, than the new ones. It’s hard to get the ones in B (depending how you do the rating), condition. One has to really search and grab those. The flip side, one can pick up some that are just about given away. Those don’t interest me.
The shapes of those are like, when I was single, when I went out with woman after an all night-err.
Me, waking up and looking and saying: Man! I’m in the wrong hotel room……! Those women looked in better shape. Glade I never claimed they were mine!
There is still the cowboy action shooter (SASS). I don’t know how the market is for that though? It’s not only a sport. It’s a way of life (keeping traditions) the way I take it.
Colt still makes single actions. Single action army. But, at $1,300.00 (new) at Cabalas’, that I have seen. I would have to think long and hard about buying one. Are they even worth it for cowboy shooters? Over-priced at 1,300.00? For anything but that?
<<Labor and other overhead costs dictate that the future will be polymer-framed pistols, like it or not. >>
Colt had the technology at the time? with the AR-15/M-16. The stock and fore-end were. That was a firearm ahead of its time (early 60’s). They had it right in their hands. When plastics were not popular. Remember….”The graduate (67)”. Where a line was referred to "Plastics”. I believe in those days plastics were not popular for things of durability? Except toys….even the M-16 was referred to as the “Mattel toy”. But look today.
<<That's why classic revolvers are such great buys on the used market these days. They are way underpriced for what they represent in fine craftsmenship. However enough people know this to cause prices to move up, and continue going that way.>>
I have seen this for the last couple years. Used one, the good ones, goes for as much, if not more, than the new ones. It’s hard to get the ones in B (depending how you do the rating), condition. One has to really search and grab those. The flip side, one can pick up some that are just about given away. Those don’t interest me.
The shapes of those are like, when I was single, when I went out with woman after an all night-err.
Me, waking up and looking and saying: Man! I’m in the wrong hotel room……! Those women looked in better shape. Glade I never claimed they were mine!
YosemiteSam357
Member
The pool of people willing to spend $1500 to $3500 on a pistol (STI, USFA, Freedom Arms, Wilson, Ed Brown, etc) is relatively small. Add to that the fact that there are no "mass" sales (PDs, military, etc) and the numbers produced are tiny, in the grand scheme of things.
A small company can get by on relatively few sales on high dollar items. There's no way a large manufacturer can sustain production on something that they don't sell "thousands" (if not "hundreds of thousands") of.
A small company could probably pull it off, if they got market penetration.
-- Sam
A small company can get by on relatively few sales on high dollar items. There's no way a large manufacturer can sustain production on something that they don't sell "thousands" (if not "hundreds of thousands") of.
A small company could probably pull it off, if they got market penetration.
-- Sam
Alphazulu6
member
Exactly. The cost to produce is also very expensive for these companys. Some are due to the parts, craftsmanship, research/development, and alot of it is missmanagement of the company internally. Many firearm manufacturers have failed not from making a bad end product (like the Anaconda) but from not being able to make money at what they do.
Glock, HK, Sig are all high quality (no matter what your preference or bias) and that cannot be disputed. They OWN their market share. But they are affordable because they are also high volume manufacturers/sellers and work directly with LEO outfits, military, para-military, in addition to a world market civilian customer base. This allows them to keep prices competitive because they only need to make 3% profit per gun instead of 15% per 1911 that Wilson cranks out to stay in business. The savings from HK, Glock, Sig are passed on by default competition and I for one take advantage of it.
Colt lost their edge when they couldnt manage their company in a changing era. They failed to adapt and even though their revolver line-up was THE BEST they couldnt outsell their competitors in the automatic market to stay profitable. Its sad but in effect drove demand for their revolvers to record levels. Who knows what the demand would be for a .357 python for $1500?? After five years of production and 80,000 units sold I think you would find it would taper off while production costs for it would only increase for the company and that wouldnt help them pay for the machines or the employees
Its just economies of scale.Nightcrawler
Member
I don't think the Anaconda and the King Cobra required any more hand fitting to assemble than the current S&W guns. They are very modern designs.
Now, the Python, on the other hand, has ancient lockwork. If I were in charge, it'd be a custom shop only model.
Now, the Python, on the other hand, has ancient lockwork. If I were in charge, it'd be a custom shop only model.
Troutman:
I didn't mean to slam "polymer pistols," as the best are very effective weapons. They are affordable for most consumers, and the manufacturers make a good profit after the tooling is paid for.
The issue here is, how long can a gunmaker in the United States (exclude the foreign products for the time being) make a classic revolver that people lust over for a price they are willing to pay? Ruger has done well by using investment casting and innovative designs, but this has been carried about as far as it can go and Ruger's prices have been going up.... and up. Again this is not a slam, but a statement of fact.
I agree with you concerning SASS, and other similar reenactment groups. But at the present time full participation requires 2 revolvers ($1,000 up), one rifle ($300 up) and a shotgun ($300). This may (or may not) be a modest figure, but for many it's one to be reckoned with.
At the time the AR-15 was introduced by Colt they had the law enforcement market in mind. Absolutely no one was interested in a plastic-framed handgun. I know... I lived through the era, and owned one of the first AR-15 commercial rifles with a 3-diget serial number. By the time Glock had made plastic pistols acceptable Colt no longer had the financial resources to buy the tooling or develop a gun.
All of the older revolvers were not created equal, but for those that are interested in them I think now, not later is the time to buy - on a selective basis of course.
I didn't mean to slam "polymer pistols," as the best are very effective weapons. They are affordable for most consumers, and the manufacturers make a good profit after the tooling is paid for.
The issue here is, how long can a gunmaker in the United States (exclude the foreign products for the time being) make a classic revolver that people lust over for a price they are willing to pay? Ruger has done well by using investment casting and innovative designs, but this has been carried about as far as it can go and Ruger's prices have been going up.... and up. Again this is not a slam, but a statement of fact.
I agree with you concerning SASS, and other similar reenactment groups. But at the present time full participation requires 2 revolvers ($1,000 up), one rifle ($300 up) and a shotgun ($300). This may (or may not) be a modest figure, but for many it's one to be reckoned with.
At the time the AR-15 was introduced by Colt they had the law enforcement market in mind. Absolutely no one was interested in a plastic-framed handgun. I know... I lived through the era, and owned one of the first AR-15 commercial rifles with a 3-diget serial number. By the time Glock had made plastic pistols acceptable Colt no longer had the financial resources to buy the tooling or develop a gun.
All of the older revolvers were not created equal, but for those that are interested in them I think now, not later is the time to buy - on a selective basis of course.
Hawk
Member
I recently caved on an Anaconda and it is not noticably different from my 686 function-wise nor priced outlandishly higher than the 29-2 I sold and was pining over. Transfer bar ignition with the double action pull of a Security Six. Not that that's a bad thing...
I keep hearing about the Python's buttery smoothness but my dealer hasn't heard that the market has softened and I'm not sure about dropping 1,600.00 on something that has a limited service life before an overhaul is needed. I gather from Grant Cunningham's site that the "delicate timing" issue is only a myth but the need to service it prior to reaching rattely doom concerns me - mostly because I couldn't tell if it was getting to that stage or not even if it bit me on the bew-tocks.
I've never shot a Python - is it really all that plus a bag of chips? I don't see much chance of a "try before you buy" in my immediate future.
I'd feel much better if USFA was making the things. I find discontinued stuff disconcerting. This will likely change if I mutate from a shooter to a collector.
deadin
Member
From what I read and gather from a number of gun forums the pain threshold on cost seems to be reached right around the price of Taurus revolvers. Much more than that and the market falls off quickly. Colt just couldn't be competitive at that level. Maybe if S&W or Ruger didn't exist to take up a portion of the market share.?????
- Status
