This is probably a stupid Colt question, but......

[Zaydok Allen]

I realize this is a probably a foolish question that has been answered in the past, but why did Colt stop manufacturing the Anaconda, Python, King Cobra, and all of the “snake series” revolvers? I have not been collecting revolvers for very long and do not know the history behind them. Every time I think about buying a full size .357 or .44 I think of how beautiful Colts are, and wonder why they stopped making them. It seems a revival would go over well, and I don’t think it would decrease the value of the early models. In fact, it may drive the cost of them even higher. Thoughts? Please share.

 

[Trebor]

They stopped making them because they weren't bringing in enough profit.

The Colt revolvers were always a bit pricey compared to the S&W guns and as revolver sales declined overall with the rising interest in semi-autos Colt was either not making enough money on their revolvers or was actually losing money.

If you want to see sticker shock imagine what a new Python would cost today if Colt made them to the same specs (no MIM, etc) as the old models. It would probably be a $2000 gun.

 

[420Stainless]

Profitability dried up. Most would rather pay $600 for a GP100 or $750 for a Model 29, than $1200 for a Python. Some of them were available as custom orders for awhile after the production lines shut down, but the demand wasn't high enough for them to make money at it. Apparently they weren't designs that transferred over into more economical manufacturing methods. When Colt attempted to introduce new versions that were cheaper to manufacture, Colt fans saw it as an unacceptable reduction in quality. Not enough people wanted to pay for Colt's reputation to maintain the standard through the years when there were less pricey options; and Colt was not successful in pulling market share from the competition when it tried to produce lower priced offerings. Guns have transformed somewhat from what were once prized possessions to more commodity items. Productivity increases give the average person the luxury of having far more tools and toys to spread his attention among than folks of even the very recent past. Not as many are willing to part with almost a month's wages or more for a handgun.

 

[Guillermo]

While Colt made some great revolvers they were and are a terribly managed company.
The unions combined with the poor management and diminishing revolver market were more than enough to push them over the cliff

 

[Jim K]

The basic cause was the antique lockwork of those Colts. It required an inordinate amount of hand fitting and dated from the time when skilled workers were paid $2 a day. Colt tried to redesign those guns, and actually did pretty well, but the buying public rejected the new guns. S&W, in contrast, carefully kept the outward appearance while radically changing the lockwork details and production methods involved.

The simple fact is that those older guns cost the company more than the general public was willing to pay for them. Union demands didn't help, but the economics simply were not in favor of keeping the old guns in the line.

Jim

 

[Uteridge]

Jim beat me to the correct answer. The old Colts could not be made in the Quantity of the competitors and they were expensive. There are always some people who are willing to pay for quality (this is how custom 1911 shops stay in business) but there were not enough high end customers for Colt to turn a profit on their hand fitted revolvers. That is why Colt came out with the Trooper and the Lawman; which are not hand fitted.

 

[Old Fuff]

Another little known factor was that the post-1970 models used many parts that were made by sub-contractors and not in-house. As Colt's financial dificulties grew these vendors demanded cash-up-front, and Colt didn't have a cash flow to support that.

Also at the time, the Clinton Administration failed attempt to either take over or destroy the handgun industry caused Colt's top management to believe that the commercial market was about to end, so they decided to reduce their line to "collector" models. Thereafter the focus was on military contracts.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Thank you all for the information. I figured diminishing profits had a lot to do with it, but I had no idea what the root causes were. I guess I better save my money if I ever want to own one. Given the investment value though, I would be hesitant to shoot it. Hmmmm. That seems wrong.

 

[Guillermo]

I have several Colt revolvers that I shoot regularly.

There are enough safe-queens out there so the breed is safe.

 

[PapaG]

I think one main reason is that Colt quit caring about the common consumer after they got the ill advised contracts for M16s, the first gun adopted by the us military without a trial and solely on politics.
Note what they no longer produce and were once leaders in the production of:
Peacemakers, Pythons, small frame defense guns (cobra, ds, agent, etc), 22s like the sport, and match woodsman, frontier scout, and a few others I forget today.
I see they are trying to woo us back with a new compact .45 in a da mode.
I loved my old Colts, still have a few, but won't be back in their fold after getting ignored for years. I put my trust in Ruger, Smith, Savage, and Remington(with some reservations, here).

 

[420Stainless]

I don't have any of the high dollar Colts, but I enjoy shooting the ones I have. They may break down someday, but considering that my Official Police is 81 years old and doesn't show any signs of problems yet, I'm not too worried about it. I look for those that have holster wear, but still have good bores and tight actions. Those are the only ones I can afford and won't mind if they ever wear out since they didn't have any collector value to start with.

 

[earlthegoat2]

As an example of mismanagement, Colt did not ramp up 1911 production and options during the AWB when, because of magazine restrictions, 1911s were really becoming popular.

Another: Colt stopped producing their small revolvers (Det Spl, Cobra, etc.) just when concealed carry was gaining positive legislation around the country. These could have competed with all the other manufacturers small revolvers. They came out with the Magnum Carry which was a great idea and then just nixed the whole thing right when those guns were becoming popular.

These were guns that could have competed in the market and they dropped those too.

 

[788Ham]

Thanking God I bought the 6" Python I did 25 years ago! I surely didn't mind paying the $245.00 NIB that I did, wish I'd have bought the other 4" that was sitting next to it tho!!

 

[century2000]

You got yours cheap--I was giving $275 for 6 inch blues back then.

 

[SaxonPig]

Colt essentially got out of the civilian handgun market dues to inept management. The company nearly went under and has been barely hanging on for the past 20 years. They seem to think not making guns is the way to run a gun company.

 

[harmonic]

It's already been pointed out that the Python was expensive to manufacture because of the meticulous lockwork that had to be handfitted. People were getting into semiautos and tupperware guns. Revolvers were generally becoming less popular with a gun buying public that was watching too much tv.

The Anaconda wasn't like the Python. It had a different lockwork that didn't require so much handfitting. But the Anaconda had some problems, such as going out of time, that killed its reputation.