What does /k/ think of this company and their guns(especiall

Paying for the little pony rollmark. That's about it.

They make the best feeling 1911's but they are overpriced.

>>32159652

I have a older 6920 with the restricted rollmarks and standard size trigger pins. It's a really nice AR and better than my BCM's in fit and finish. I hear that the newer 6920's are not as good but i never handled one it's probably just arfcom autism.

If their guns were actually ever in stock I'm sure they would be doing alot better economically.

>>32159661
>>32159675

What's it like in 2006?

>>32159652
custom shop guns are bretty gud

Recently got a 1948 .38 Detective Special. It's so fucking cool, i feel like i should be an undercover infiltrating the gangs of new york in the 30's.

>>32159693
Try 1942. Can't beat a ww2 m1911 that was used to kill japs and germans.

Also the Gold series Colt is still the best quality 1911 on the market. Quit being hipsters with your little indie brands and go back to the classics.

File: Mc Fly.jpg (76KB, 634x430px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 634x430px

>>32159737
>Recently got a 1948 .38 Detective Special
>i feel like i should be an undercover infiltrating the gangs of new york in the 30's.
>in the 30's

>>32159652
Better than any other company around
If colt makes it, they make it better
Inb4 shills and trolls go hurr durr colt is bad
No, it has a long proven history of flawless weapons

>>32159801
Truth.
I bet you fags think that Rock Armory makes great 1911's >>32159693
>>32159661

>>32159840
RIA makes the best budget 1911's, colts are top notch guns

A retarded has-been that can't even begin to put their finger on the pulse of the public's wants and needs.

>>32159801

lol
Welp, confirmed for knowing fuck all about 1911s.

>>32159840
Those are some serious implications friendo. Care to pull something else out of your ass while you're at it?

They stopped producing revolvers. Stopped giving a shit ever since. Used to make top notch weapons with build quality unmatched by any gunmaker in the world.

I was going to spend over $1,000 in a 1911 5 or so years ago and did a lot of research. I was originally going to buy a Kimber until i started reading 1911 forums and fond out they were plagued with problems.

Colt and Springfield Armory were the 2 i narrowed it down too. And since Colt's were 100% US made and only used like 1 MIM part i ended up deciding on Colt. Some shit happened and i ended up not buying a 1911 though but i do wish i could have had that 70's series.

File: paint.jpg (51KB, 600x656px)

51KB, 600x656px

>>32159823
just let me shitpost quietly, anon

Oh my fucking autism, you just came here after we all suggested it in /arg/, didn't you?

Colt is bland even for mass-produced ARs (they are well-made, however), and are not really a dominant player by volume in a 1911 market they freakin' created.

Colt is badly run, and deserved its bankruptcy. If they make something with a featureset you like, they are pretty good.

File: colt-pocket-pisto_web.jpg (517KB, 2000x1548px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 2000x1548px

>>32159930
>Colt is badly run
This above all else, on top of being utterly clueless.

>>32159885
I'm a gunsmith that specializes in 1911 models and lever actions. Colt hands down produce the smoothest and most reliable 1911s. I mill out my own parts for most of the guns I own but when it comes to my Colts, I just can't find anything I want to improve.
t. someone that has been working on guns since they were 10 buying old milsurp rifles to fix and sell.

>>32160008

If you were an actual gunsmith, you'd know that WW2 era 1911s are terrible quality.
They're 90% unhardened frankenstein guns.

File: Muh 'M4'.jpg (1MB, 3552x2000px)

1MB, 3552x2000px

>>32159652
Got this guy for $599.99 well over a year ago. Its a damn fine rifle at that price point. For the typical $1200 msrp? Ehh...maybe

>>32160070
I wasn't saying they were the best, hence why I said the gold series are. ww2 1911's are my favorite because of what they did. I hate shooting mine because I have big hands and the hammer bites the webbing of my thumb

So, I have a 1980s colt AR and a 1903 pocket hammerless produced sometime in the 20s or 30s.

The hammerless I actually concealed carried for about two and a half years. Very nice carry gun, I liked shooting .32acp, and hey, it only cost me like $325. Unfortunately I ended up being more accurate with a S&W shield, so the shield now rides around in my pants.

The AR is a bone stock pre-SP model. Differences from what I usually see in new ARs - the recievers are held together in the front by a non-standard pin. Mine also has the ~period~correct~ scope sitting on the carry handle. (It's a 1980s Chinese clone of the actual US scope, much to my amusement).

Got this piece of kit from a gun store owner liquidating part of his own collection, and it ended up running me somewhere between 1100 and 1200 dollars. Considering tricked out fancy ARs go for that price, I think I got a pretty goddamn decent deal.

I want to say the AR is just an AR, but it's just kinda... *nice*. It's not as light, or as fancy as other ARs, but damn is it simple and no-nonsense.

Overall opinion of colt as a manufacturer? New production - you're mostly paying for the roll-mark, there are other manufacturers which will provide comparable quality at a cheaper price. If you're buying their vintage stuff, then the price difference tends to go away somewhat, and you end up with a pretty fantastic gun.

>>32159652
I like my Colt. I like Colt's.
Springfield is probably the better choice though.

>>32159951
I really would have liked a new production 1903 for a carry or fun gun, they make threaded barrels for them and they're sexy suppressed. Plus I already have a gun in .32acp so it wouldn't be a hassle to feed it.

I seem to remember those new ones being stupid expensive and a limited run which is dumb.

>>32159652

They are generally quite good but the same quality can be had cheaper each and every time. So it's not like they're a shit company, but they know they can ask more than the competition and you'll pay it, because when you think 1911 or m16, you think Colt. .

Where are you guys getting this $1200 figure you're throwing around? I got a new 6920 the week of the election for $800 shipped. I guess I'd be talking shit too if I paid +$400 the going rate, but I'm not retarded.

>>32160871
Not them but I generally see colt 1911s stickered for around 1200. My delta elite was 1180.
Maybe you got a base model or a good deal.

Colt's aren't even that much more than a mid tier 1911. You can get the 1991 model for like $700.

>>32160763
>I seem to remember those new ones being stupid expensive and a limited run
Yeah, to the tune of being more than twice as expensive as an original in good shape, complete with tooling marks, shitty grips, and an ungodly awful park job that looks amateurish.

>>32159951
this can't be real

complains about being low on money and they wont make more ar15a4's!


idiots! fuck colt.

File: Colt-left-closed.jpg (4MB, 2981x1677px)

4MB, 2981x1677px

>>32162393
>Boy, people sure are wanting retro AR these days. Especially the A1 and XM-177. We should get in on that.
>Okay, we're making small, limited runs of each and every model we made during the Great Jungle Clusterfuck, paying no attention to which variants are in the most demand and pricing them so absolutely no one who isn't a Gunbroker-flipping kike will want one.
They deserve everything they get.
>>32162342
You haven't even seen how they look up close yet.

>>32159652
>Make an excellent quality (but outdated) AR for a decent price
>excellent quality (but outdated) pistols for a high to extremely high price

Haven't innovated since the Bush Mk II Administation

>>32162439
fucking christ

that is worse quality than my $230 big-box store edition Bersa thunder