My recollection is they lost the A2 to them first, then the M4 most recently. End of their core strategy and core sales engines = likely end of Colt.Originally Posted by hiro
My recollection is they lost the A2 to them first, then the M4 most recently. End of their core strategy and core sales engines = likely end of Colt.
Plowing through a couple of threads on that other site, it's clear that for the faithful, the ability to send a newly purchased brand new gun back to the custom shop and get it fixed so it would actually work was the only reason they would still buy a Colt. Many of these guys were buying multiple per year.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
They did not lose the m4 contract, they now share the $212 million contract with FN 50/50.
He was not a gunsmith, only a manager of the custom shop. But I agree with your sentiment I hope he does well elsewhere.
The Custom Shop didn't just produce one-offs, they also produced semi-large runs of hand fit pistols with their own model numbers. Now I can't imagine that the CS guns make up a large percentage of sales -- but it did have a reputation of doing excellent work for a fair price. It's the type of thing that matters to enthusiasts.
The guy who ran the shop also acted as a liaison to Colt customers and seemed to understand the industry very well. So hell, let's fire him! I understand I may have a narrow view of the situation but it seemed like a dumb-ass move.
I've bought eleven Colts over the last 4-5 years. One went back to Colt and it was simply over sprung. The Lightweight Commander 9mm I carry now is one of the best pistols I've owned. Things are far from perfect at Colt (obviously) but I've never felt my guns will only run after a trip to the Custom Shop.
A thought I had last night that sort of brought Colt's issues into focus for me: they don't make anything that's not based on a design at least 50 years old. And two of their most well known products (1911s and SAAs) are over a century old. I know the firearms industry isn't overrun with innovation, but to not have any successful new designs in that long doesn't seem like a recipe for success.
"Originally Posted by OlongJohnson
Plowing through a couple of threads on that other site, it's clear that for the faithful, the ability to send a newly purchased brand new gun back to the custom shop and get it fixed so it would actually work was the only reason they would still buy a Colt. Many of these guys were buying multiple per year."
I've owned plenty of Colts over the last 25 years and precisely 1 required a return to Colt and it was a 6920 SOCOM Carbine. The idea that every Colt 1911 is a nonstop malfunction machine is ridiculous. Recent production has been downright impressive, and with a Colt you don't have to replace basic parts like a slide stop or extractor.
Do they benefit from little tweaks like dressing the extractor or removing some burrs left over from manufacturing? Sure they do. What do you think Bruce Gray does when he works on a Sig or an HK? Same stuff.
Last edited by Greg; 03-01-2017 at 09:38 AM. Reason: wrong quote
Someone will be along soon to tell us it's the union's fault.
Prestige. A custom shop *should* be a profit center, if a small one, but it's existence helps cement your reputation as a high end product. Colt is a prestige brand. It can also be a "skunk works" for new products, new ideas, and a test bed. Having a competition team, a custom/performance shop, etc. gives you both prestige and authenticity in the marketplace. In a loose analogy, it's sort of like the motor companies sponsoring or owning race teams. They aren't profit centers, they are marketing and idea centers.
Prestige and authenticity/authority comes from different things. Brand ambassadors, well done marketing, competition teams, training schools, etc. Colt, with the huge head start of having incredible levels of brand recognition, seems to fail to capitalize on those opportunities. People laugh at Sig's "lifestyle" marketing...but Harley Davidson. I don't know if that's the original lifestyle marketing campaign, but holy shit did it work. Harley Davidson is a marketing company that happens to make motorcycles. Glock is a marketing company that happens to make pistols (and also marketed "lifestyle", just not so openly as Sig). Colt is a manufacturer who...do they market?
I agree with the first part, maybe not so much the second IF he's the guy who told people to "get over it" when they objected to the trigger guard on the new Cobra being different enough to not allow the use of existing Cobra holsters. Telling potential customers to get over it when they tell you a feature they want is foolish. If you can't offer that feature, say why, lay out the advantage of the product as it exists, and if no advantage exists look in to offering the feature they want. "Get over it" is basically telling customers to fuck off, buy what we have or don't. That's part and parcel of Colt's problem. We make X. Buy X. Customer says we want Y. Colt says we don't make Y. We make X. Buy X.
Compare to Sig. We make metal hammer fired guns. You want a plastic pistol with a light trigger and you value modularity? Fuck yes, we can build that. Hell, we'll make new grip frames instead of just interchangeable back straps. These pistol/rifle doo-dads are catching on? People want an SBR without having to mess around with SBR paperwork? Fuck yes, we can build that. Red dots are catching on? Well, shit, let's just go ahead and build the full set up. You can buy our pistol, our optic, and it's already put together and ready to go out of the box. Then they TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT. Exposure, slick ad copy, selling the fantasy as much or more as the reality. There's no "get over it", there's only "we're on it".
Also, if you are not sure about it come up to our training facility and borrow one of our guns for a basic intro pistol class all the way up to force-on-force.
SIG academy is a good facility but the ability to hook people early... Smart.
Reply With Quote