Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 179

Thread: Colt Halts Production of Long Guns for the Retail Market

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by BillSWPA View Post
    I have been a big fan of Colt products since I first started shooting. Colt's decision has now changed that. There is nothing they make that I cannot get from another source that doesn't consider me unworthy to own it.
    This is blown waaaaay out of proportion.

    Colt is pursuing other contracts, and is refocusing manufacturing capacity towards that end.

  2. #22
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    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."

  3. #23
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan_S View Post
    This is blown waaaaay out of proportion.

    Colt is pursuing other contracts, and is refocusing manufacturing capacity towards that end.
    That is contrary to the link in the original post. Do you have other information?

  4. #24
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by BillSWPA View Post
    That is contrary to the link in the original post. Do you have other information?
    I don't know what the true motivation at Colt is, but the linked article contains a communication right at the top where that is stated as the reason.

    Of course, I don't read their stuff anyway so I wouldn't base my view on what they print.

  5. #25
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan_S View Post
    This is blown waaaaay out of proportion.

    Colt is pursuing other contracts, and is refocusing manufacturing capacity towards that end.
    I dunno... I swear I’ve heard this exact same song before, and the lyrics ended with "bankruptcy."

    My take:
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB

  6. #26
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by Robinson View Post
    I don't know what the true motivation at Colt is, but the linked article contains a communication right at the top where that is stated as the reason.

    Of course, I don't read their stuff anyway so I wouldn't base my view on what they print.
    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.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by BillSWPA View Post
    That is contrary to the link in the original post. Do you have other information?
    Just reading what the email from RSR says...




    Everything, including the email from RSR itself, is being bent way beyond what reason would dictate, unless one is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

  8. #28
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan_S View Post
    Just reading what the email from RSR says...




    Everything, including the email from RSR itself, is being bent way beyond what reason would dictate, unless one is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
    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.

  9. #29
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by BillSWPA View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by BillSWPA View Post
    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.
    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.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •