|
Gentlemen,
Thank you for your input. Obviously, I have 'stirred the pot' on the third generation Colt controversy. Many of you make valid points: that I have pondered.
While it is true that Colt licenses it's name to be placed on many different items, the Colt name on a firearm is a different story. As a consumer, if the Colt name is on a firearm, I expect a high quality item and I expect a higher price tag because of it.
Legally, Colt can sell it's name to whomever to produce whatever. However, I don't know if it is a moral or ethical responsibility to ensure that the quality controls are in place for 'whomever' to live up to the Colt name on a firearm. This was a Colt failure.
Obviously, this consideration was not taken when they sold the rights to a licensee to produce their signature series blackpowder revolvers. The quality is hit-or-miss and not, in my opinion, up to Colt customer expectations.
It is a shame and (in my opinion) shameful, that Colt made questionable business decisions with a firearm that bares Samuel Colt's signature.
I appreciate your input.
Hopefully, I will be able to fire this gun someday. I own an original, a second generation, and the suspect third generation.
|