Colt developing a new revolver?
- Thread starter 18DAI
- Start date
Just build the Python the way it was and charge accordingly for it. We've all seen what happens when they try to cheapen up guns. Does the post 64 Winchester Model 70 ring a bell?, or the Remington 710? This is the reason Browning dropped the Auto-V. Gunmakers need to realize not everyone who buys a gun is broke. If people will anty up $55,000.00+ for a yuppie Hummer "H2", (that really isn't a Hummer at all), they'll pay a couple hundred extra for a nice, high quality handgun that will last for generations. I don't know about you guys, but a gun is supposed to reflect pride in ownership. Who the hell would be proud to own a 710??? Bill T.
"BillT, what exactly was cheap about the post 64 model 70? It was still priced around the range of a model 700. The model 710, however is an inexpensive gun, and a total piece of crap."
The post 64 Model 70 was a very poor replacement to the pre 64 Model 70's that enjoy such a following today. Current prices of the 2 reflect this. My point is gunmakers continually cry the same song about production costs being so high they can't remain "competitive". Competitive to what? The Browning "Gold" is a nice shotgun, but it's no Auto V, and never will be. I would much rather see gun makers simply raise prices, (with a educated explanation as to why), than drop production of a high quality model in favor of one which is less costly, (cheap), to produce. The Browning Gold with it's Aluminum reciever is a perfect example of this, as is the post 64 Model 70 with it's lesser finish and cheaper to produce "improved" action. Cheaper is cheaper. I have no problem accepting that. What bothers me is when they claim it's "improved" and "better". It's not, just cheaper. I would rather spend more and have more. Especially with a durable good like a firearm which I will most likely own until the day I die. I'll save somewhere else. Bill T.
The post 64 Model 70 was a very poor replacement to the pre 64 Model 70's that enjoy such a following today. Current prices of the 2 reflect this. My point is gunmakers continually cry the same song about production costs being so high they can't remain "competitive". Competitive to what? The Browning "Gold" is a nice shotgun, but it's no Auto V, and never will be. I would much rather see gun makers simply raise prices, (with a educated explanation as to why), than drop production of a high quality model in favor of one which is less costly, (cheap), to produce. The Browning Gold with it's Aluminum reciever is a perfect example of this, as is the post 64 Model 70 with it's lesser finish and cheaper to produce "improved" action. Cheaper is cheaper. I have no problem accepting that. What bothers me is when they claim it's "improved" and "better". It's not, just cheaper. I would rather spend more and have more. Especially with a durable good like a firearm which I will most likely own until the day I die. I'll save somewhere else. Bill T.
Imports
Hey, they have imported guns from Astra and put their mark on them before. Italian blackpowders likewise. Maybe they will make a contract with Taurus or Rossi to make small revolvers for them to sell, stamp on the horsey, the name and a huge price tag! Heck, the Argentines made passable Colt .45 autos for awhile early on. Smith puts their name on Walther products, and Browning did Sigs, so maybe that is it, outsource the product and just have a big warehouse with no mfr-ing, to ship them!
Hey, they have imported guns from Astra and put their mark on them before. Italian blackpowders likewise. Maybe they will make a contract with Taurus or Rossi to make small revolvers for them to sell, stamp on the horsey, the name and a huge price tag! Heck, the Argentines made passable Colt .45 autos for awhile early on. Smith puts their name on Walther products, and Browning did Sigs, so maybe that is it, outsource the product and just have a big warehouse with no mfr-ing, to ship them!
HammerBite
New member
What Bill T said in post #23 . . .
I agree.
Why can't Colt, or any other maker, build the usual junk for those who are happy with junk or don't know the difference, and have their Custom departments or Performance Centers produce quality guns for those who are willing to spend the money?
I agree.
Why can't Colt, or any other maker, build the usual junk for those who are happy with junk or don't know the difference, and have their Custom departments or Performance Centers produce quality guns for those who are willing to spend the money?
Hi, Dfariswheel,
Yes, I am aware of the Trooper Mk III and its successors and the way they are made. I am also aware that they didn't sell well, partly because they were not "like the good old Colts" and that most of the folks on here are panting over the Python, which has the old lockwork. I guess if Colt is to reestablish itself as a 21st century gun maker, they have to decide whether to produce 19th century antiques for the nostalgia trade or make modern guns for users. Maybe they can get away with doing both, but the have to have more determination (and capital) than they seem to have had so far.
Jim
Yes, I am aware of the Trooper Mk III and its successors and the way they are made. I am also aware that they didn't sell well, partly because they were not "like the good old Colts" and that most of the folks on here are panting over the Python, which has the old lockwork. I guess if Colt is to reestablish itself as a 21st century gun maker, they have to decide whether to produce 19th century antiques for the nostalgia trade or make modern guns for users. Maybe they can get away with doing both, but the have to have more determination (and capital) than they seem to have had so far.
Jim
While there are guns on the large end of the medium framed size, there are no guns offered in the K-frame size (well the SP101, but that is intended to compete with J-frames). The D-frame and Pythons were roughly the same size. While I don't expect the old lockwork, I think these would sell well. With modern metallurgy, it should be strong enough.
Save the King Cobra for when an Anaconda replacement is out. After all, these are the N-frame competitors. Initial production capacity will be limited and they need to focus resources on the most flexible (in terms of offerings) frames.
Three-inch D-frames are great carry guns, if you can find them. Longer barreled versions are nice home defence, range guns. Add to that the appeal of a gun to pair with K-frames because they use the same speed loader.
Of course a "kit gun" .22LR can also be rolled out.
Save the King Cobra for when an Anaconda replacement is out. After all, these are the N-frame competitors. Initial production capacity will be limited and they need to focus resources on the most flexible (in terms of offerings) frames.
Three-inch D-frames are great carry guns, if you can find them. Longer barreled versions are nice home defence, range guns. Add to that the appeal of a gun to pair with K-frames because they use the same speed loader.
Of course a "kit gun" .22LR can also be rolled out.
I think one of the biggest problems that have plagued Colt Firearms division is that of piss poor management. Aside from their M-16 government contracts, Colt has rarely, if ever turned a profit. Their Crucible Metals Division carried them thru much of the 70's and 80's. Another thing that Colt has had to contend with is they have a reputation as being, "slick but delicate". With S&W and Ruger bringing out brawny, heavy revolvers like the X-Frame and the Ruger Super Redhawk, Colts just seem puny by comparision. For gun enthusiasts that doesn't matter because they buy guns like the Python for it's attention to detail, and fine fitting of it's super smooth lockwork and action. But for a guy walking into a gun shop wanting something "Dirty Harry like", Colt, even with the Anaconda, is too little too late. Colt has been up and down more times than a rollercoster at Six Flags. I doubt if investors today would want to tie up the dollars to give them yet another ride. Bill T.
Mark Milton
Moderator
Carlo,
That is one sweet Wheelgun! And it has more of a retro look than the Thunder Ranch specials!
That is one sweet Wheelgun! And it has more of a retro look than the Thunder Ranch specials!
Mark Milton
Moderator
Thats the problem in a nutshell. For years now, Smith has cut corners to make the guns cheaper. BUT, instead of cutting the PRICE they actually increased it. Hello?
They sell you less gun for more, then they claim its an improvement, like with the cheezy two peice barrells on stainless guns with investment cast carbon steel parts prone to rusting....
Colts problem has always been that it has had management with its head up its butt.
Look at how well Taurus has built itself up while Colt has sadly declined. from what I gather the colt "factory" is about the size of a small town supermarket now....
Taurus made a blue gazillion dollars on snubbies and high capacity nines at a time when Colt decided to drop their DS/Magnum Carry line, and decided to dump the SSP in favor of the All American 2000.
Colt did come to an agreement with CZ to produce a DA, modern high capacity .40 pistol, only to back out at the last minute, right of course, when the .40 took off like a rocket.
We are dealing with morons here, people, who are absolutely CLUELESS as to what the gun buying consumer wants.....
In the 70s, the Colt Trooper line did not catch the public fancy because people wanted a Python at a Smith price.
Unfortunately the Trooper series of guns had a LOT going for them. They tended to be better balanced than Smiths and they tended to be a LOT more durable. They were better than K frames in many ways, but they were not as smooth as a Python so the public stayed away.
Things are different these days. Look at all the rubes paying $700 or more for a USP thinking its the same quality as the old p-7 series HKs, when its not and never was designed to be.
I think the Trooper/King Cobra line could sell and perform well these days if Colt would put effort into it.
Anacondas seem to go for a Premium too, when people can find them.
I would like to see Colt bring back the King Cobra, the Anaconda and the DS with no locks other than a cable you can attach through the frame and trigger guard! One peice barrells too. The Colt Sintered Metal process does not seem to be as problematic as the MIM process, so they could leave that be.
Id love to see it, but I wont be holding my breath waiting though....
>>>I would much rather see gun makers simply raise prices, (with a educated explanation as to why), than drop production of a high quality model in favor of one which is less costly, (cheap), to produce. The Browning Gold with it's Aluminum reciever is a perfect example of this, as is the post 64 Model 70 with it's lesser finish and cheaper to produce "improved" action. Cheaper is cheaper. I have no problem accepting that. What bothers me is when they claim it's "improved" and "better". It's not, just cheaper.<<<
They sell you less gun for more, then they claim its an improvement, like with the cheezy two peice barrells on stainless guns with investment cast carbon steel parts prone to rusting....
Colts problem has always been that it has had management with its head up its butt.
Look at how well Taurus has built itself up while Colt has sadly declined. from what I gather the colt "factory" is about the size of a small town supermarket now....
Taurus made a blue gazillion dollars on snubbies and high capacity nines at a time when Colt decided to drop their DS/Magnum Carry line, and decided to dump the SSP in favor of the All American 2000.
Colt did come to an agreement with CZ to produce a DA, modern high capacity .40 pistol, only to back out at the last minute, right of course, when the .40 took off like a rocket.
We are dealing with morons here, people, who are absolutely CLUELESS as to what the gun buying consumer wants.....
In the 70s, the Colt Trooper line did not catch the public fancy because people wanted a Python at a Smith price.
Unfortunately the Trooper series of guns had a LOT going for them. They tended to be better balanced than Smiths and they tended to be a LOT more durable. They were better than K frames in many ways, but they were not as smooth as a Python so the public stayed away.
Things are different these days. Look at all the rubes paying $700 or more for a USP thinking its the same quality as the old p-7 series HKs, when its not and never was designed to be.
I think the Trooper/King Cobra line could sell and perform well these days if Colt would put effort into it.
Anacondas seem to go for a Premium too, when people can find them.
I would like to see Colt bring back the King Cobra, the Anaconda and the DS with no locks other than a cable you can attach through the frame and trigger guard! One peice barrells too. The Colt Sintered Metal process does not seem to be as problematic as the MIM process, so they could leave that be.
Id love to see it, but I wont be holding my breath waiting though....
>>>I would much rather see gun makers simply raise prices, (with a educated explanation as to why), than drop production of a high quality model in favor of one which is less costly, (cheap), to produce. The Browning Gold with it's Aluminum reciever is a perfect example of this, as is the post 64 Model 70 with it's lesser finish and cheaper to produce "improved" action. Cheaper is cheaper. I have no problem accepting that. What bothers me is when they claim it's "improved" and "better". It's not, just cheaper.<<<
Colt has had a history of "zigging" when everyone else "zagged."
Colt kept producing percussion revolvers while the world went to cartridges.
Colt kept producing single actions when the world went to double action.
Colt scrapped their SAA tooling just when the first "cowboy" craze took off.
Colt came out with a so-so .22 SA years after Ruger had the market with their superb Single Six.
Colt hashed up their Woodsman just when the Ruger Standard Model came along to provide a low cost quality pistol, and High Standard took over the high cost, high quality end.
Colt decided the .44 Magnum was a "fad" just when Dirty Harry made S&W's day.
Colt blew millions on the awful AA2000. Did anyone at Colt ever fire one?
Colt dropped their small pocket revolvers and automatics just when the CCW movement started to change laws and attitudes.
Colt dropped the SAA again, then resumed SAA production just when a zillion companies were making the same gun; talk about sailing into the wind, when a few years earlier they could have had a big chunk of the market.
"Colt will carefully review all the possiblities and then, after much consideration, make the absolutely worst decision possible." That says it all.
Jim
Colt kept producing percussion revolvers while the world went to cartridges.
Colt kept producing single actions when the world went to double action.
Colt scrapped their SAA tooling just when the first "cowboy" craze took off.
Colt came out with a so-so .22 SA years after Ruger had the market with their superb Single Six.
Colt hashed up their Woodsman just when the Ruger Standard Model came along to provide a low cost quality pistol, and High Standard took over the high cost, high quality end.
Colt decided the .44 Magnum was a "fad" just when Dirty Harry made S&W's day.
Colt blew millions on the awful AA2000. Did anyone at Colt ever fire one?
Colt dropped their small pocket revolvers and automatics just when the CCW movement started to change laws and attitudes.
Colt dropped the SAA again, then resumed SAA production just when a zillion companies were making the same gun; talk about sailing into the wind, when a few years earlier they could have had a big chunk of the market.
"Colt will carefully review all the possiblities and then, after much consideration, make the absolutely worst decision possible." That says it all.
Jim
