Why does colt hate the civilian market?

File: WP_20160404_006[1].jpg (1MB, 3072x1728px)

1MB, 3072x1728px

They don't hate them, they're just coming off of a long government contract that made them (stupidly) think that they could cost off of M4geries forever with the lowly civvies and never bothered to keep up with trends and market developments at any point during that time. This is why we're only just now seeing their first mid-length. Ever. And why their answer to the retro AR fad are overpriced, limited-run examples made out of refurbished parts kits and built on outsourced lowers.

They don't hate the civilian market, they're just hilariously clueless and inept and have backed themselves into a corner with no idea how to proceed after FN made their fed buddies kick them to the curb.

>>32703733
Chris Bartocci put it in the best way.

Ever since the dropping their revolver line and the M4 contract debacle and nearly going into insolvency Colt has bled Brainpower and good employees. Then they started relying on their brand name to carry them instead of innovation.

>>32703733
In the late 90s or early 00s Colt hired some ex-Marine General to be their CEO. Naturally, being a Marine, he didn't give a shit about the commercial interests Colt has. The company got split into two companies, one for the military contracts and one for the commercial market. They literally painted a line down the middle of the factory separating the two halves.

File: ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh_confused.png (122KB, 400x288px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 400x288px

Why don't they rerelease the Python and Anaconda?
That's big cash money waiting to happen.
This Cobra thing was a disaster.

>>32703829
>They literally painted a line down the middle of the factory separating the two halves.
I don't believe you

>>32703837
Because Colt is Colt, and therefore the civilian consumer can go fuck themselves.

>>32703842
It's the truth. I believe there is fence, too.

>>32703733
because you suck, and we hate you

>>32703837
Because they're fucking broke. They literally have nothing to do with the manufacturing of their upcoming retro ARs. Unless you count the components they made a half century ago.

>>32703943
Do you know if the new Detective Special is being made under license by someone else? I'd laugh if most of the gun is actually being made by Armscor or some other shit tier saturday night special company.

File: LE6960-CCU_700w.png (80KB, 700x245px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 700x245px

>>32703976
Dunno, wouldn't surprise me if it was.
>This is our new groundbreaking rifle.
>The mid-length system dampens the recoil found in our older gas systems
>Also, the bulky quadrail has been replaced with this streamlined, modular handguard
It's like they only just now realized it wasn't 2008.

File: 1z3nebr.jpg (24KB, 878x488px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 878x488px

>>32703837
Given current Colt trends

>Colt Python Reissue (Limited Run)
>outsourced
>all CNC, no handfitting
>no buffing to high finish, matte instead
>$6000 MSRP

File: Colt-left-closed.jpg (4MB, 2981x1677px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2981x1677px

>>32704011
>matte instead
It would be parkerized and you know it.

>>32704003
I don't hate it. If it's cheap I'll buy one.

>>32705206
>If it's cheap
Do you know what company we're discussing here?

>>32704011
CNC can be so precise hand fitting not needed, but that costs more money including competent machine operators who thoroughly check and monitor setup. Jet engine parts are examples.

If you get a shitty CNC product, that shittiness was a CHOICE by bean counters.

>>32703805
this

>>32704038
>the inconsistent depth of the rollmarks
this was supposed to be a fucking floor model?

>>32705214
The 6720 is cheap and the 6920 used to be, I don't see why the the 6960 couldn't be cheap if it weren't for panic buyers.

>>32705280
>The 6720 is cheap
Because the only offerings are second hand.

>>32705301
Huh? You can find them for like 850-900 from retailers.

>>32703842
I don't know, it's sounds plausible as fuck like the kind of dumb shit you'd expect a Marine General to do.

>>32705280
The CCU has a MSRP of $1300 so it's going to be more like $1400, and it's pretty much a 6720 with a middy gas system, a magpul rail and magpul furniture

>>32705245
That gun isn't even made by Colt, fyi. It's produced by some no-name company and sold under license at a massive markup because it has a horse on the gun.

The really sad and hilarious part, however, is that there actually is a real market for the 1908 beyond the autistic collector crowd. Concealed carry is growing more popular every single year, and there is a demand among people who CC for guns that are easy to shoot while still being extremely easy to conceal. Most current offerings force you to choose between one or the other.

Enter a stainless steel 1908. It would fit both categories while also being supremely aesthetic (major plus in sales to women), easy to maintain, and easy to manufacture (fewer finishing steps). Alas, that the suits at Colt are stupid.

>>32705280
> I don't see why the the 6960 couldn't be cheap
Because it's Colt and this is their brand spanking new ""tactical"" offering? Are you new to this?

>>32703829
>>32703842
>>32703909
>>32705317
Seriously, its this dumb-ass bullshit which is why I want the fuck out. High-level military brass really is this mouth-breathingly retarded.

>>32705351
So how the fuck did they manage to make these new pistols if they more than likely destroyed the tooling 70 something years ago?

>>32705365
If that picture is any indication they used Mexicans with hand files in a shed somewhere in Arizona

>>32705230
Fuckin this. All of you faggots need to shut the fuck up about 'muh hand fitting'
Well set up CNC machine shits out parts at incredibly tight tolerances way above and beyond what colt cocksucking smiths could do in the past. Only thing stopping them from making pythons is their unwillingness to invest in machinery

>>32705365
The company that Colt contracted to make the 1908s is presumably the one that had to come up with the tooling to make the gun.

>>32705471
This so much. While you still need people to do assembly and QC, the actual processes involved in making a good gun only require competent machinists. Every single ballistics test out there that pits new revolvers against older ones--even high quality older ones that haven't been shot all that much--suggests that the newer guns are built tighter and strong. Take a look at the tested velocities for .357 on BBI for just one example.

>>32705560
I wonder if that means we'll be getting off brand 1908s soon.

Because they like money and hate innovation.

God forbid they come out with a new Python, or even a Trooper that looks like one. In a perfect world they'd have a New Service/Anaconda that could compete with Ruger or S&W's offerings. But what do we have? A goddamned Cobra, and a shitty one at that.

>>32705714
>shitty one at that
you can get a replica m16 for $2500 though

>>32705714
>Because they like money and hate innovation.
It's the same since Sam Colt was in charge. Colt has had bad management ever since. It's why when Sam Colt came up with a really great design, he went bankrupt. It wasn't until Texas wanted more Colts and paid him to make more did he start making money, but that was mostly luck. Colt has lived on luck and it's name since day one. First with the 1851 being extremely popular, then the 1873, then the 1911 and then the AR-15. They just kept getting lucky and living off of military contracts. Now they have no military contracts, nor any real exclusive ad popular designs to milk.

>>32705714
>complaining about a new Detective Special

It's actually not a bad move for them to begin with that. For whatever reason, neither Smith and Wesson nor Ruger actually have a J-frame sized 6 shot snubnose in current production that's chambered for commonly available cartridges and isn't rimfire. People who want a 6 shot centerfire snub currently have to pick from either an Armscor, Kimber, or Chiappa. All of them are shit, and the latter two are massively overpriced.

Additionally, it can help serve as a "test run" for greater things. I would rather that Colt introduces the new DS with some hiccups and then can roll out a mostly-flawless Python rather than for them to try making a Python immediately and having the launch fail.

>>32705802
The snake guns are pretty exclusive and popular.

>>32705802
>It's the same since Sam Colt was in charge.

Indeed. The best example of this is how the guy who designed the first American handgun capable of using metallic cartridges in the 1850s--who was a Colt employee at the time--pitched his idea to Samuel Colt and actually got fired for it. The rights to the design were then sold to the fledgling Smith and Wesson company, which is what allowed them to go from being a nobody to a big player in the industry.

Clearly Samuel Colt's ghost lives on in the business practices of the current CEOs and management of his company.

>>32703804
Precisely this. They got fat and complacent and when they turned their back, FN Herstal cucked them hard.

>>32705849
This post carries wisdom and is deserving of my you

>>32706007
Who the fuck fires somebody for suggesting an idea? What type of mentality could possibly justify this?

>>32705330
>retail will be more than MSRP
>Centurion Rail using MLok """Magpul""""

>>32706186
You have to remember that the 1800s and early 1900s were not like today. The people running big corporations back then were not know-nothing suits or corporate raiders who graduated from the Stanford business school but engineers and inventors who had built their companies from the ground up with their own toil and superlative efforts.

This often translated to a very statist/paternalistic bent in terms of how they operated their companies. Early industrialists like Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie (in his late years post-Homestead strike), and Samuel Colt took extremely good care of their employees. They paid them better than the competition did, built them model communities with great amenities, and other things like that. In return, they demanded that their employees work hard and excellently at all times, that they exercise a high degree of personal morality in their private lives (Henry Ford had detectives check on his employees and would fire them if it came to light that they were drunks or adulterers, regardless of how competent their work was), and that they have unquestioning obedience and loyalty.

Unlike today, where suggesting how a product could be improved in line with changing marketplace trends is "taking initiative" and will generally be viewed in a positive light if done correctly, men like the early industrialists would have viewed it as a self-important nobody acting above his station and trying to tell his bosses how their company should be run. Yeah, it's dumb; that's why this does not happen in any company that actually has good management practices.

>>32706007
>>32706186
>>32706526
Tbh, the Rollin White patent idea was stupid. He just lucked out that that revolvers made with metallic cartridges also needed to use his idea.

It's a shame Lefaucheux didn't patent his revolver in the US.

>>32703733
Neither Colt nor Kel-tec get that build quality is a thing.

Kel-tec comes up with cool designs and makes them ugly and fragile.
Colt has always made beautiful guns that in reality, aren't that great but they look good.

Meanwhile, people wonder why Glock is still so popular.

>>32705849
>6 shot snub
Plenty of people make those, anon. In fact, S&W just came back out with their snubby Model 66. Costs an extra $150, and I'd pay that for a magnum over a special. And yes, it's bigger and heavier, but I wouldn't call the Cobra thin or particularly light. If they kept the aluminum frame they'd probably have to ditch the +P designation. Likewise, I haven't heard bad things about Armscorp or Kimber revolvers aside from crude finish and price respectively.

Now, I hope that they do learn from this experience and really get their shit together. They famously cut the prices of several of their handguns after declaring bankruptcy, which was a good move, so they aren't completely retarded, but I'm really fucking pissed about that 1903/8 replica and this current Vietnam replica so forgive me for not holding my breath.

>>32705802
They were actually very successful with double action revolvers before WWII (beating S&W in sales) with both police and civilians, but they just dropped the fucking ball after that.

>1940's
>War Were Declared
>Massive gov't contracts for 1911's and all types of other shit
>Move out New Service and SAA machinery because fuck bitches, get money
>Allies Win, Colt finds old machinery rusted to shit, cries all the way to the bank
>Elmer Keith begs Colt to revive and modernize the SAA, showing them personal custom examples.
laughingsluts.jpeg
>Westerns get popular, Ruger comes along with the Blackhawk and eat Colt's lunch
>Colt revives the SAA but they're considerably more expensive and fragile than Blackhawks because they didn't bother to modernize.
>.44 Magnum appears, Ruger quickly produces large frame Blackhawk and S&W strengthens their N-Frame specifically for it's use
>Colt introduces New Frontier, so underwhelming that Kennedy plans his own assassination.
>Dirty Harry premiers. Model 29's sell for double MSRP and Blackhawks sell like hotcakes until Ruger comes out with the Redhawk a decade later, finally stabilizing the market. Colt doesn't bother competing until ANOTHER decade passes.
>Colt 86's all revolver production after 2003 save the SAA, which is horribly overpriced and of quality similar to Italian copies 1/3rd the price.

And don't get me started on the Colt 2000 or Double Eagle.

>>32711535
And Uberti still makes the best SAA repros to this day