What would you like to see happen to Colt?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kynoch

member
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
1,481
Location
California Coast
The news about Colt's financial troubles begs the question -- what would you like to see happen to Colt? Obviously there are all sorts of things that could happen to the brand.

I personally would like to see the Colt brand, model names, designs, etc. (but not the debt, labor contracts, etc.) acquired by an American or long established European gun maker -- someone that already knows how to make guns.

S&W and Ruger are out because there is too much overlap. Remington is always a possibility but I'm not sure they have demonstrated they can actually build high quality guns starting from zero. Mossberg would be very intriguing but this would be way out of their wheelhouse. Kahr might be a possibility too. Beretta and FN would be the likely foreign suitors.

I would like to see a new Colt focus on their M4/AR-15, M1911, 1873 SAA, and perhaps a D/A revolver of some flavor, plus rimfire versions of each one. I don't know if this product line would support what they would have to pay for Colt? If it wouldn't, I wouldn't buy the company. If anything is going to keep killing Colt it's paying too much/assuming too much debt to acquire the company.

In time the new Colt could venture into other markets -- quality Colt shotguns, a quality .22 semi auto, maybe a lightning pump that actually worked, etc. I think in terms of getting into polymer guns, that's going to become a truly cutthroat market that might be best avoided.
 
Seems they are in very deep so someone would have to be buying them who has money to burn and simply wants to own Colt.

Gun market is soft, getting softer now, and I just don't see that they have any of the market left after decisions which they have made.

If they make it through the year, I would like to see them move to Texas (good wild west area), ditch the union, and then, maybe, they could survive if they get their head on right. However, if they stay where they are with the current union contract they are dead no matter what they do.

Would love for them to break free, start making Pythons and the other snake revolvers again and do well. Those revolvers are selling for $$$ money now and if they could put out new ones at a reasonable price the market will obviously pay it.
 
Reinvestment, restructuring and relocation...

Domestic investment on a "legacy" rather than short term gain level.

Restructure to diminish past reliance upon governmental pipe-dream contracts.

Relocation (100%) to a favorable state with a long history of corporate appreciation and sustainable operating/labor costs. A "right to work" state preferred.
 
Ohen Cepel said:
Seems they are in very deep so someone would have to be buying them who has money to burn and simply wants to own Colt.

Gun market is soft, getting softer now, and I just don't see that they have any of the market left after decisions which they have made.

If they make it through the year, I would like to see them move to Texas (good wild west area), ditch the union, and then, maybe, they could survive if they get their head on right. However, if they stay where they are with the current union contract they are dead no matter what they do.

Would love for them to break free, start making Pythons and the other snake revolvers again and do well. Those revolvers are selling for $$$ money now and if they could put out new ones at a reasonable price the market will obviously pay it.
Click to expand...

It all depends what the market will bring. If Colt cannot restructure or be sold and goes into bankruptcy and actually closes, their assets would be auctioned where they would still be worth quite a bit because they would be unencumbered by accumulated debt, liability, warranty claims and a union contract.

Being able to roll stamp "COLT", that horsey and "Peacemaker" on a revolver is literally worth hundreds/unit.
 
I would like to see them move out of Connecticut and to a more gun friendly state. I do not want to see them go out of business or have some Chinese company take them over.
.
 
I'd like them to deal themselves a hand where they have half a chance. That would almost certainly require relocation to a more gun-friendly and less costly state.

But I'd like them to keep something open in CT - something historical. Maybe just a custom shop for SAA's, percussion revolvers, and cartridge conversions or open tops. I think that for marketing purposes, they'd still be better off to have those guns stamped "Hartford, CT."
 
How about Colt embracing new technologies and becoming a pioneer in 3D printing for gun parts? This would be a way Colt could bring back the Python and Detective Special at competitive prices and save themselves as well.This would cross over to their other guns like the SAA,1911 and the AR 15 making them competitive too.If Colt doesn't do it somebody else will.
 
If they move to Houston, the better their future be. I hope STI buys them out.

I d like to see them make traditional midlength ARs and the SP1 20 inch triangular retro configuration with 1:8 twist. A lot of nostalgia of the Vietnam era would be coming back. Also Delta Elites 10 mm for 1911s and Colt Python in 6 inch .
 
Last edited:
Employee ownership? Maybe the employees take over the company and introduce some innovation back into their product line. Possibly add some new products?
 
carpboy said:
How about Colt embracing new technologies and becoming a pioneer in 3D printing for gun parts? This would be a way Colt could bring back the Python and Detective Special at competitive prices and save themselves as well.This would cross over to their other guns like the SAA,1911 and the AR 15 making them competitive too.If Colt doesn't do it somebody else will.
Click to expand...

3D printing of carbon and stainless steel?

3D printing is also prohibitively expensive for product quantities.
 
Moparnut said:
Employee ownership? Maybe the employees take over the company and introduce some innovation back into their product line. Possibly add some new products?
Click to expand...

Colt has had problems with their UAW employees for many years. The Colt/UAW strike might still be the longest in US history. I don't really know which side is to blame (likely both), but I suspect in most cases, a unionized workforce is going to get its face torn off if they have to compete with a company like Ruger which is non-union.
 
nathan said:
If they move to Houston, the better their future be. I hope STI buys them out.

I d like to see them make traditional midlength ARs and the SP1 20 inch triangular retro configuration with 1:8 twist. A lot of nostalgia of the Vietnam era would be coming back. Also Delta Elites 10 mm for 1911s and Colt Python in 6 inch .
Click to expand...
STI doesn't have the cash and likely could never raise enough cash to buy Colt. STI also doesn't have experience running a large, high-volume operation so they would be at a distinct disadvantage.
 
The issue facing Colt is, what real assets do they have? I'll exclude examining them from a financial perspective because I just have not taken a closer look. But from a product/market/brand perspective, here's my take:
Good brand. Though it's diminished in value, the Colt brand brandished on firearms/defense related products is a strong positive;
Market leading products: sadly no. Colt had not created a new market impacting product in many years. Moreover they do not have a product in-market that is valuable, differentiated or market-making. For those who would state that their AR's are well built, perhaps so, but not so valuable or differentiated as to convince the USGov to stay with them or for them to be a leader in the consumer market.
Manufacturing expertise: from what I've read, their manufacturing is old, antiquated and difficult to modify to compete in complexity and cost versus their competitors
Differentiated skills base: again, and I may be wrong here, but I get the impression that Colt's employees are running on fumes. Colt is in an anti-firearms state, which is not the environment in which to attract, motivate and cultivate an outstanding group of employees.
Like many who have contributed to this thread, I have trouble remaining objective on the topic because I have an historic love of the Colt of old, while harboring a lot of anger at many involved for letting this great asset devolve to its current point.
As I noted in a previous post, it would take a lot of fresh leadership, re-financing and shedding of debt to keep them alive long enough to execute on a new strategic plan. I agree that relocating to a friendlier (costs, employee base, firearms regulations) would be worth a long look. I'm born and raised in the Northeast but that is no longer a place for a firearms company.
I also think they are out of time to re-build. Few companies have done this successfully (Apple is one - few remember how close to complete collapse they were under Scully, before Steve Jobs returned; and it took him three years before a turnaround seemed like a possibility). So a merger/acquisition might be prudent. They need design and they need modern manufacturing. They already have government contracts, a good channel to sell their consumer products, and a brand. Perhaps buying Kel-Tec for their design expertise and Stag for their manufacturing skills (or similar small to medium sized companies) would be worth considering.
B
 
B!ngoFuelUSN said:
The issue facing Colt is, what real assets do they have? I'll exclude examining them from a financial perspective because I just have not taken a closer look. But from a product/market/brand perspective, here's my take:
Good brand. Though it's diminished in value, the Colt brand brandished on firearms/defense related products is a strong positive;
Market leading products: sadly no. Colt had not created a new market impacting product in many years. Moreover they do not have a product in-market that is valuable, differentiated or market-making. For those who would state that their AR's are well built, perhaps so, but not so valuable or differentiated as to convince the USGov to stay with them or for them to be a leader in the consumer market.
Manufacturing expertise: from what I've read, their manufacturing is old, antiquated and difficult to modify to compete in complexity and cost versus their competitors
Differentiated skills base: again, and I may be wrong here, but I get the impression that Colt's employees are running on fumes. Colt is in an anti-firearms state, which is not the environment in which to attract, motivate and cultivate an outstanding group of employees.
Like many who have contributed to this thread, I have trouble remaining objective on the topic because I have an historic love of the Colt of old, while harboring a lot of anger at many involved for letting this great asset devolve to its current point.
As I noted in a previous post, it would take a lot of fresh leadership, re-financing and shedding of debt to keep them alive long enough to execute on a new strategic plan. I agree that relocating to a friendlier (costs, employee base, firearms regulations) would be worth a long look. I'm born and raised in the Northeast but that is no longer a place for a firearms company.
I also think they are out of time to re-build. Few companies have done this successfully (Apple is one - few remember how close to complete collapse they were under Scully, before Steve Jobs returned; and it took him three years before a turnaround seemed like a possibility). So a merger/acquisition might be prudent. They need design and they need modern manufacturing. They already have government contracts, a good channel to sell their consumer products, and a brand. Perhaps buying Kel-Tec for their design expertise and Stag for their manufacturing skills (or similar small to medium sized companies) would be worth considering.
B
Click to expand...

I think the keys would be: 1.) Acquiring the assets of Colt and not the operating company with all the debt, labor problems, etc. and 2.) Acquiring the assets at a low enough price that will allow a new Colt (or Colt division) to actually make money.

Without all the debt, Colt could make money selling M4s/AR15s, M1900s, 1873 SAA, DA revolvers, etc. I think Colt is going to require a cost structure that will allow it to make $$$ selling their best selling/highest margin legacy products and not new polymer guns with Colt's name on them.

P.S. There were two other Apple CEOs between SCully and Jobs...
 
Kynoch said:
I think the keys would be: 1.) Acquiring the assets of Colt and not the operating company with all the debt, labor problems, etc. and 2.) Acquiring the assets at a low enough price that will allow a new Colt (or Colt division) to actually make money.

Without all the debt, Colt could make money selling M4s/AR15s, M1900s, 1873 SAA, DA revolvers, etc. I think Colt is going to require a cost structure that will allow it to make $$$ selling their best selling/highest margin legacy products and not new polymer guns with Colt's name on them.

P.S. There were two other Apple CEOs between SCully and Jobs...
Click to expand...

I agree with your points. All that you cite would seem to be necessary to create enough air space to enable a recovery. But I don't think it would be sufficient (nor am I implying that you are stating same). Doing a restart with a clean balance sheet, etc. with the same products and cost structure means that they will get a chance to fail all over again. Without changing their course and speed (as well as having removed their financial shackles) I'm not sure what is different.
B
(and yes, I most assuredly am aware of Apple's history; the point is that they did execute an organic turnaround, but it took them a long time, and (to your point) burned through a lot of CEO's before they could do it).
 
Lucky Derby said:
This.
This is exactly what saved Harley Davidson (another iconic American manufacturer) 30+ years ago.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that Harley's turnaround was also a function of the substantially higher import taxes that were imposed on foreign (read Japanese) motorcycles that coincided with their return. They in fact were aided by the actions of the U.S. government/Reagan administration to help restore their luster by re-leveling the competitive playing field by effectively raising end-consumer prices on the products of Harley's competitors.
Not that I am opposed to these types of protectionist acts or this one in particular. Most other countries do the same for their domestic industries, so it is needed at times to keep certain key (or not key in this case) industries competitive.
To wit: http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?16,714764,714771 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley-Davidson
B
 
If Warren Buffet saves them with his billions, then they may find a good home in middle America, safe and secure.
 
As much as I hate to say it, maybe it's time to send that pony to the great gluepot in the sky. Historical nostalgia is no reason to keep a long failing business around. This is just another example of an American company playing the "Too big to fail" card. I would never expect the federal government, or even the state of CT, to bail them out (again), not with the current administrations.

Let them pass, and maybe be resurrected in the future. But for now, the market is too soft to hold up what shoulda coulda woulda been an industry giant.
 
USAF_Vet said:
As much as I hate to say it, maybe it's time to send that pony to the great gluepot in the sky. Historical nostalgia is no reason to keep a long failing business around. This is just another example of an American company playing the "Too big to fail" card. I would never expect the federal government, or even the state of CT, to bail them out (again), not with the current administrations.

Let them pass, and maybe be resurrected in the future. But for now, the market is too soft to hold up what shoulda coulda woulda been an industry giant.
Click to expand...

Except that won't happen. The brand is strong enough on its own that someone will buy it if the price is low enough.
 
B!ngoFuelUSN said:
Don't forget that Harley's turnaround was also a function of the substantially higher import taxes that were imposed on foreign (read Japanese) motorcycles that coincided with their return. They in fact were aided by the actions of the U.S. government/Reagan administration to help restore their luster by re-leveling the competitive playing field by effectively raising end-consumer prices on the products of Harley's competitors.
Not that I am opposed to these types of protectionist acts or this one in particular. Most other countries do the same for their domestic industries, so it is needed at times to keep certain key (or not key in this case) industries competitive.
To wit: http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?16,714764,714771 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley-Davidson
B
Click to expand...

Harley also didn't have any real domestic competition or even serious Euro/Asian competition in big twins. Colt's two main markets -- the AR15 pattern rifle and the M1911 pattern pistol are probably the two most hyper competitive gun markets in the world.

Further, if Harley would have failed it would have put far, far more people out of work than if Colt failed which got the politicos interest back in the day.
 
And as I recall, Harley Davidson got some lobbyists involved and put huge tariffs on the Asian market imports, all but eliminating any foreign competition to the market. A Honda or Yamaha bike that performed as well or better than a comparable HD that would have sold for half the price would have been a TKO for HD.

Colt had it's niche market, as you say, in the AR and 1911, along with massive .gov contracts, but they failed to capitalize on the civilian market and suffered greatly when the bottom dropped out of government contracts. Its just another indicator that reliance on government is a poor business model.

I don't know that Colt could survive under any climate. I think they are too far behind their competition. Years back, Smith & Wessons claim to fame was their high end revolvers, but slowing sales forced their hand, and now one of their biggest market sellers is yet another plastic fantastic striker fired pistol available in various sizes, calibers and colors. Much like Glock is a one trick pony, S&W adopted a large part of that business model. Adding a line of affordable and higher end ARs secured themselves in the civilian market, despite (or because of) the Military & Police marketing tags.

Colt seemed to go stagnant a few decades ago. Its their own fault for not keeping up with the tide and trends of the free market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TexasBill
  • Locked
Colt in trouble?
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Vonderek
Vonderek
A
  • Locked
What would you do if you owned Colt's Manufacturing LLC?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
Sam1911
S
D
  • Locked
Shot Show - what would you like to see?
Replies
4
Views
519
waterhouse
W
O
  • Locked
Colt: The Continued Soap Opera.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Replies
334
Views
25K
Robert
Robert
helitack32f1
  • Locked
Question of Colt's survival
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
NIGHTLORD40K
NIGHTLORD40K
Back
Top