That's a very well done essay.
Many points are valid, and most come down to money. Colt has been running down to the bone for several years now. Investment capital available for new equipment went to the military side where Colt knew it could make a profit. There's no money for advertising. There's limited money for salaries (You have no idea how many people were cut a while back, and that was actually beneficial in a top-heavy company. Not too long ago they literally did not have enough people to answer the phones!). 18 months ago there were exactly two people in the Marketing division. There's limited money for R&D, or to gamble on a new and radical (for Colt) design.
The General has done wonders with he had to work with, and overcoming the "We are COLT!" attitude has been a major stumbling block for the company that gave away their civilian revolver, Peacemaker, and AR15 markets years ago by sticking to that arrogance. I'm talking about previous managements, not current, although there's a bit of that attitude left.
Colt's management is doing the best they can, but it's not hard to see why they're sticking with known guns & known processes that they've been set up with for quite a while. They can't do much that's new, no money. Many of the models they've produced are high-per-unit-cost items to produce, which dictates high end user pricing that people complain about. They're sorta stuck with that in trying to maintain both older manufacturing methods on older designs, and in trying to maintain acceptable quality levels.
They're also between a boulder and a titanium wall in that the consuming public will not accept much of a "cheapening" of the Colt line-up. We want cheaper Colts, but boy do we scream if they put MIM parts in 'em! (I certainly do!
) The way Colt makes their guns is expensive, if they make 'em cheaper like S&W has done, they'll alienate sections of their market base just like S&W has done.
With no money to come up with something radically new, and not enough general operating capital to continue to float fringe guns that don't carry their weight, the company is in a bad position.
With the Peacemaker, you're looking at a niche market in people who want the real thing, can tell the difference in quality between it and the Italian clones at one-third the price, and are willing to pay the extra. The Peacemaker has a relatively steady demand, but it's not a high volume mover. If Colt tries to cheapen it, it'll die a horrible death after howls of protest by traditionalists. Look what happened with their "affordable" Colt Cowboy. The 1911 situation is sort of a day late & a dollar short. Not much that can be done by Colt to come up with anything really new for the platform. 20 years ago, if the company had listened instead of saying, "We are COLT! They will always come to us, we don't need to change anything!", and kept up with the market that Kimber and Springfield took over with semi-custom variations on a regular production basis, it could have been different. There are already polymer 1911s out there, there are scores of different models & features already out there, there are already $400 1911s to $3000 1911s. What else can Colt realistically do with their 1911s now beyond plugging along with basically the same old thing, and doing a few retros now & then that don't require major re-tooling or re-training? Improved quality is the only answer there, and they're working on it. Otherwise, there's just too much competition by companies offering either cheaper guns with cheaper parts for the low-end market and by true custom outfits catering to the high-end market.
The military sales are the only reason Colt is still in existence. The military division pays the rent, the civilian side limps along. If they can continue to make money in that division, and if Colt can bring back their quality and some of their lost customer base, the civilian side may show some improvement with a new model one of these days.
Some people make indignant posts about why Colt doesn't do this or that, and the answer is money. They're not deliberately trying to ignore us (not nowdays, anyway
), they just can't produce guns that we're not buying, and they can't develop shiny new stuff without capital.
Look at a choice- Colt Python at $1400, S&W 686 at $700, Ruger GP100 at $400. Colt holds as much of the quality as possible on a difficult design that requires a lot of experienced hand fitting. S&W goes to MIMs & starts to develop a bit of a spotty QC problem. Ruger designed their revolvers from the get-go to be easy & cheap to manufacture without a loss in quality to do so, and though QC has suffered some here & there since the Old Man died, overall the company is holding to good quality parts at good prices.
Given the above, it's not hard to see where the revolver market has gone, and is still going.
The loss of the revolver line saddens me. Ten years ago I had two loaners at the same time, and could only keep one of them due to finances. One was a Smith Model 19 (which I knew was not going to be in production much longer), the other was a Python. It was actually a hard decision since both were classics, but I kept the Python & I'm glad I did.
With any maker (look at Winchester), if you've got a model you like or want, get it now.
The firearms industry is facing some nasty winds of change.
I hope Colt survives.
Denis
