Colt's cred was based around Mil-Spec components...I'd look to DD and Geissele now.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
The article also correctly pointed out that there was no apparent reason why this was necessary. If they don't actually have the contracts, then there is no reason why they can't keep making guns for the civilian market. If they actually regain a contract that requires 100% of their capacity, then I would understand.
The article was 100% correct in pointing out that ending civilian sales does not help them in acquiring these contracts. IF they actually had the contracts and needed 100% of their capacity, I would understand. Unless and until that happens, ending civilian sales does not help them in any way.
The only reason they made that statement is to virtue-signal to the liberals while pretending to us that they are not virtue-signaling to the liberals.
Yeah, Colt made a statement but taking them at their word might not be wise based on decisions their management team has made in the past. From what I understand, Colt's rifles are pretty decent -- but once again Colt management makes a decision that will only alienate buyers and hurt their business. Sort of like how they make a lot of decent 1911s but can't be arsed to check the extractor tension on the 9mm ones. Dumb management.
And you’d be wrong if you think you know, any more than RSR does, as to what Colt has in the works.
Someone at RSR got a little carried away, TTAG ran with it, and now the internet is ablaze with political yammering.
I’d suggest that ‘pursuing’ military contracts doesn’t exactly mean what you’re taking it to mean, and...well, that this is simply *not* a big deal.