|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 9, 2012, 07:36 AM | #51 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,863
|
Quote:
And what I said is true, it was inferior quality for the money, but of course, not inferior in general. They didn't really become a Taurus or something in those darker days, but for their ask price, better guns could be had. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west |
||||
October 9, 2012, 07:39 AM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,863
|
Quote:
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west |
|
October 9, 2012, 10:04 AM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 22, 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,620
|
Don't know where Colt would come down on price, but guns that are over $1000 are beyond most of us...one reason that Ruger has been so successful for what is it now...over 60 years? Hand fitting, machining tolerances, and skilled workers able to do the job, in the numbers necessary to keep a production line open, are a thing of the past in my opinion...regrettably so...Rod
__________________
Cherish our flag, honor it, defend it in word and deed, or get the hell out. Our Bill of Rights has been paid for by heros in uniform and shall not be diluted by misguided governmental social experiments. We owe this to our children, anything less is cowardice. USAF FAC, 5th Spl Forces, Vietnam Vet '69-'73. |
October 9, 2012, 11:11 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 30, 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 2,156
|
If Colt makes DA revolvers again using a minimum of cheap MIM parts, no internal locks, and manages to align the barrel properly with the frame, they will be FAR superior to any currently produced S&W.
__________________
S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum. Everything you need in a revolver, and nothing you don't. |
October 9, 2012, 11:48 AM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 2,474
|
I predict that 20 years in the future thanks largely to CNC there will be "boutique" makers turning out any number of guns just as today we have tons of "semi-custom" 1911 makers. I say this based in the gun market as it is today and how things have unfolded in the past 25 years for the 1911.
I bet one of the first into production will be a better / custom BHP. Add to that any number of micro 380, 9 and 45 self defense guns. Likewise I predict colt will continue to carve out a nice little market for custom 1911's and the SAA. At some point they will revisit their heritage and bring back the python as a semi-custom / custom gun. Will it be spendy? For sure. But if they do if right it will meet or exceede the older guns |
October 9, 2012, 12:40 PM | #56 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,445
|
Quote:
|
|
October 9, 2012, 12:44 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,863
|
Quote:
You have to understand that regardless of "new anti-gun ownership" Colt as a company was headed downhill in the 1980s, long before this ownership took over the company. I can accept what you're saying, but it was also obviously not just what you pointed out either.
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west |
|
October 9, 2012, 12:50 PM | #58 |
Member Emeritus
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 7,133
|
As I've said repeatedly before:
Colt would have to sell in VOLUME on such a gun. Not a few units here & there to fringe elements of the market willing to pay $2000 per gun largely out of nostalgia. I would love to see Ford bring back an absolutely authentic Model A roadster, just exactly like it was built at its production peak. Will not happen, though, because even without government regulation the resulting cost would be so high only the wealthy could afford to buy one. Unit price would be in the stratusphere because the startup in turning out a totally "new" model from scratch would be huge & not recoverable in volume sales. The Model A also couldn't compete in the modern world on several levels (speed, comfort, efficiency, longevity, etc.). See any kind of parallel? Colt has retained the "patterns" for the Python, I was told by a rep some time ago, but they no longer have the machinery. Nor do they have sufficient trained people to produce the old V-Spring actions, and CNC can't bypass that entirely. It's not just a matter of sticking the parts together & tossing them in boxes for the shipping department to get out. Also repeatedly: Bringing back the V-Springs, or even more modern versions of the MKV revolvers, would involve the entire process of setting up a new model from scratch, with the exception of already having the basic design & specs on file. Specs for parts produced in-house would still have to be translated to CNC programming. Parts not produced in-house (the majority of the smaller ones) would have to be specced and vendor sourcing set up. Forged parts come from a forging house in Hartford, new dies would have to be fabricated for raw forgings. Outsourced smaller parts would have to be carefully QC'd, paid for, routine deliveries arranged, and inventoried. NO PART OF ANY COLT DA REVOLVER WOULD BE INTERCHANGEABLE WITH ANY OTHER EXISTING MODEL CURRENTLY IN PRODUCTION. This would involve a major outlay in set-up costs to establish vendor networks, inventory space, and inventory control/tracking, on top of the money to pay for the parts. Colt can't even keep up with parts on existing guns at times as it is. Additional people (at least one or three) would have to be hired & trained on the V-Springs. Either additional CNC machinery would have to be bought (quite expensive) or production runs would have to be integrated into current CNC resources (which would further affect availability of existing models that everybody complains about). The entire process of bringing back a Python would take large amounts of money, and money is something Colt's not had a lot of to play with in the past 15 years or so. To justify that level of expenditure, careful market analysis would be required and a certain positive projection would have to be in place up front to justify the risk, and all that goes back to the volume issue. Colt can't afford to do it, as a practical matter. Regardless of the same 20 people posting "I'd buy one!" on ten different Internet gun forums ad infinitum, the market for a new Python built to the same standards as the discontinued Python simply is not there. Comparisons to other companies are invalid (Colt has a convoluted ownership and limited funds for development & operation), and to other guns are equally invalid (Colt makes limited numbers of the Model P because they've had tooling & processes in place for many years, by & large, and the Peacemaker is their most iconic product). Any new DA revolver they produce, if they ever do again, will be built along the MKV lines, to compete with Ruger, Taurus, and S&W, at an equal quality & pricing level, to move in large numbers to both pay for startup costs and ensure a sustainable profit. It will NOT be an antiquated design that almost nobody left in the gunsmithing trade can work on, STILL requires a higher level of fitting & polish (despite the idea that CNC centers can eliminate the skilled human element entirely) than designs already selling well by other companies even in a market where plastic autopistols rule, and would price itself out of the market now just as it did toward the end of original production. CNC can't solve every problem associated with the outdated V-Springs. Colt is much more stable now than it's been in several years, but money is still tight & has to go where they think they'll get the most return. An expensive DA revolver can't do that for them. And this "Colt decided not to sell guns to civilians" BS is getting very old. At the time the DA revolvers were dropped, YOU WERE NOT BUYING ENOUGH OF THEM FOR COLT TO KEEP MAKING THEM! Very simple business math, and no matter how many people are still nursing a personal grudge over being "abandoned" by a cold and callous gunmaker, the fact remains that Colt IS a business. Unless you're either scamming or tax dodging, the basic premise behind any business is to make money. COLT WAS NOT MAKING MONEY ON THOSE GUNS. They were essentially broke. They took a hard look- millions in military rifle contracts vs going and STAYING in the red on DA revolvers that weren't producing enough sales figures to justify allocating limited production funds. Not at all hard to understand why they took the route they did. It's business, they don't owe any customer or fan base eternal production of a product line that's losing them money. Simple survival. Put your operating capital where it'll bring in the most return, or go under. A very essential business principle that seems to be bafflingly hard for some to understand. Denis |
October 9, 2012, 01:05 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,863
|
Very good post Denis. I didn't realize some of the things you mentioned.
I think part of these debates stem from people wanting to justify the extra price of a Colt, which is more a reflection of limited supply and high demand, not because any Colt was vastly superior, so superior that could no longer be made Other people think that all Colts are as good as say pre war models or 1950s guns, which is not the case. I must say, I do like the older Colts and some of the more modern ones.
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west |
October 9, 2012, 01:12 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2010
Posts: 645
|
For those who would like to spend a while pondering the possibilities, here I bring you another parallel from the camera world: Nikon making a limited, year 2000 edition of a camera they last made in 1958. Dies long gone, operators long gone, etc. Lost money on every one of them, but gained so much positive press that in 2005 they pulled the stunt again with a harder to reproduce model.
Of course, Nikon is a corporation which is famous for not making bad marketing choices. Unlike you-know-who. http://www.cameraquest.com/NRFS3%202000.htm http://www.cameraquest.com/nrfblsp2005.htm |
October 9, 2012, 02:03 PM | #61 |
Member Emeritus
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 7,133
|
Again- invalid comparison.
Nikon is a sizable company with a worldwide customer base and a stable financial structure, and not based in Connecticut. It'd be helpful if you stop drawing comparisons between apples & horsehoes. Colt is Colt, a relatively small company, and while it IS reaping the benefits of decades of bad managerial decisions, the DA revolver situation was not one of those. Denis |
October 9, 2012, 02:37 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Ruger was a small company at one time, too. Yet they somehow manage to come up with new ideas all the time, even pushing single shot rifles and single action revolvers. Does Colt have a shortage of ideas?
I looked at the referenced production table. Amazing how many are out there producing guns and just for civilians, too. Of course, none of them are as good as they used to be.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
October 9, 2012, 02:46 PM | #63 |
Member Emeritus
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 7,133
|
Ruger did not have a long history of highs & lows, wartime expansions & post-war contractions, or the burden of out-dated legacy models & designs, not to mention an adherence to older manufacturing methods, to overcome in starting out.
Ruger has never declared bankruptcy, has always been progressive, has enjoyed better management with less arrogance than we saw at Colt prior to the General's administration, is even now adapting to more modern technology in moving to MIM parts, and has never suffered from Colt's convoluted ownership and shaky financial foundation. Once again, invalid comparison. Ruger's larger than Colt, has the money to play with. Denis |
October 9, 2012, 03:06 PM | #64 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,445
|
Dennis -
While just about all you wrote in post #58 above is correct, much of it also applied to the Mustang .380, and Colt brought that back. I don't think a reborn Python machined on CNC equipment would cost $2,000. |
October 9, 2012, 03:12 PM | #65 |
Member Emeritus
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 7,133
|
Ag,
Colt took another look at what's selling (the concealment market, not the four-inch high-end deluxe DA revolver market) and gambled on the Mustang. I don't find that surprising. Like I said- you put your money where you think it'll bring the strongest return. Re Python pricing, a Colt VP told me five years ago they estimated $1500 then. I can't see even CNC bringing it down below $2000 now. Denis |
October 9, 2012, 03:16 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
|
"I don't think a reborn Python machined on CNC equipment would cost $2,000"
Do you seriously believe that a production line assembly person can take all of those CNC parts and simply assemble them into a functioning Python just like they were assembling a bicycle or ceiling fan? The Python is a complex mechanism requiring a lot of fine adjustments, not just a metal jigsaw puzzle to be slapped together and pushed out the door. Colt tried that a couple of times and it didn't work too well. John P.S. - I wonder, how is S&W doing with those Model 17 Classics that list for $1100? Doesn't everybody just buy a original Model 17 for less? Wouldn't Colt have the same problem with the Python? |
October 9, 2012, 03:32 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Colt is a small company. They aren't capable of mass producing high quality revolvers for what anyone would pay for them. S&W revolvers are "good enough". Ruger also makes some acceptable revolvers. Colt is a profitable company - why would they want to take on revolvers which probably have a lower profit margin for them to do it right?
|
October 9, 2012, 07:46 PM | #68 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2011
Location: to close to other houses
Posts: 1,176
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 9, 2012, 07:49 PM | #69 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,863
|
Quote:
You might be experienced in 357s, but the majority of people who are well experienced with revolvers agree that the Python is pretty over rated. However, this is not always true. I do want a 1950s Python. Got one of those?
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west |
|
October 9, 2012, 07:59 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2011
Location: to close to other houses
Posts: 1,176
|
Just (had) dads 70s. I've never really cared for S&W...I love the 40s guns but just don't really care for anything else of theirs...I don't really know why either, they just don't feel good to me. I'll agree with you on the Dan Wesson. Dad had a DW kit gun. The only Smith I've ever REALLY wanted...Is an 8" 586 Distinguished Combat . And I think that's really just because of the name
Last edited by BerdanSS; October 9, 2012 at 08:06 PM. |
October 9, 2012, 08:05 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,863
|
Quote:
I never heard of a DW kit gun. Hopefully he doesn't sell it, as it could be a rare factory prototype. Here is my 586 distinguished combat magnum. Its a 4 in nickel no dash, an uncommon variant. It has an excellent SA trigger and a smooth DA trigger. 586s were only blue or nickel, while the 686 was SS.
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west |
|
October 9, 2012, 08:11 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2011
Location: to close to other houses
Posts: 1,176
|
No...I meant I like the WWII models. The victory model 10 is my favorite. Yes I'm well versed in the frames. And sadly yes, the kit gun is long gone...it was some kind of a dealer special spurred by dirty harry movies (he used to sell, mostly gun shows but had a small shop also)...it was sold with many many more special guns....ones you'd be very hard pressed to replace now. That may not have been the real name of it...but it's what he and his business partner called it. It's also what the supplier had it listed as.
Last edited by BerdanSS; October 9, 2012 at 08:23 PM. |
October 10, 2012, 05:12 AM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,169
|
It would be an interesting challenge for a CNC machinist to take the Python blueprints (or reverse engineer a Python) and see if a comparable clone could be made using entirely CNC machining and minimal hand-fitting.....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0...... |
October 10, 2012, 07:09 AM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2010
Posts: 645
|
Quote:
Pray, if Nikon is too big, what is wrong with the Leica comparison? Talk about not wanting to see anything but your own opinion! BTW, Nikon is a "sizable company with a worldwide customer base and a stable financial structure" because they make intelligent marketing and engineering choices. It didn't begin big. |
|
October 10, 2012, 10:23 AM | #75 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
It seems everyone wants a Python, but not one that could conceivably be made today to sell at a reasonable price. Even if the new Python would look and feel exactly like the old one, it would not have the "soul of the Python" and so would be despised by Colt fans.
As to military/LE guns, Colt has always gone first for the government contract for the simple reason that that is where the money is. Their mistake has been to totally kiss off the civilian market and that has hurt them when competition for military contracts comes not just from U.S. companies but from overseas (FNH, Beretta), even if foreign companies have to establish U.S. manufacturing facilities, something fairly easy to do today. Certainly it makes sense to want a contract for a million identical guns, even if the profit per gun is smaller, vs selling a quarter million of a dozen different models at more profit per item. But when the military contracts go to someone else, and the company has let its civilian production lapse, the company is in deep trouble. Jim |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|