Interestin article on Colt's failed business model

[DR Owl Creek]

I just saw an interesting article on Colt's history that goes right up to it's present financial problems. Despite being an icon in the firearms industry, and arguably the most recognized name in firearms worldwide, it's many miscues have put it on the edge of financial disaster once again. From supporting gun control, to lack of quality control, to not having "gun people" in management, to relying almost entirely on government contracts, Colt's 1st quarter 2014 financial report showed revenues down 22% with a net loss of $7.8 MILLION dollars for the period.

For more, go to: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-29/colts-curse-gunmakers-owners-have-led-it-to-crisis-after-crisis

[Larry Gibson]

to not having "gun people" in management

That has been the bane and demise of numerous firearms manufacturers over the years. The companies with "gun people" in charge who pay attention to the demographics of the gun buying population will succeed.

Larry Gibson

[dilly]

Noteworthy observation, Larry Gibson.

Firearm enthusiasts are a very particular demographic, and information about America's population (note I didn't simply use the term Americans) in general doesn't always apply to us.

[Blammer]

It takes two things to be a good gun manufacturer.

1. A gun nut
2. A financial guy (meaning you have to know how to at least manage a checkbook properly)

Rarely do both of those go together in business.

[Echo]

Great article - it sheds light on Colt's problems. It seems that the owners gave themselves millions, in spite of running the company into the ground. Gives capitalism a bad name...

[Freischütz]

Parent bleeding the subsidiaries dry isn't unusual. Wasn't that one of The Leisure Group's activities with Lyman and others back in the 70s?

[JohnH]

I've always thought the dumbest thing Winchester ever did was when cowboy action shooting took off, was failing to make modernized versions of the 1873 and the 1892. Oliver must have been rolling over in his grave. Reading that Colt had people in management positions that were not "gun people" made the wheels turn. I think most of Rugers success is that Bill was a gun person. The gun industry thought he was nuts bringing out a single shot rifle, but he defended the move saying that if he liked a type of firearm he believed other shooters would also. The Ruger #1 remains a popular rifle to this day. Perhaps the recent moves by different gun companies to states that are more gun friendly will help them realize that the customer is not the only group of gun people necessary to their survival.

[376Steyr]

With $300 Million in debt, an aging plant stuck in a high-cost state, and all their products are being made by competitors that can build them better and cheaper, what could possibly go wrong? I'm betting they will soon close their doors, sell the trademark, and we'll see Colts being built in the Southeast USA soon enough.

[tygar]

It's really a shame. I grew up with a Colt 1911 in my hand & on my belt & had a good 100 of them before I ever owned another brand. Now my carry 1911 is a Kimber Ultra Carry, & my carry .45 revolver is a S&W 325PD. I still have 20 or so including several match guns & a couple comps & my first CC I got about 1970, but.....out of the box there are a number of other manufacturers that beat todays Colt, hands down & cost less.

Same holds true for the ARs, lots o them are as good or maybe better, certainly cheaper.

Sure hope they can get it together.

[Charley]

It's not just that a firearm manufacturer needs to by managed by a "gun person". Many, many businesses today are managed by "numbers people", no matter what the end product is. "Numbers people" tend to focus on short term gains, and have little to no interest in the long term picture. My experiences in the business world show me that if your primary goals are (1) take care of your clients, (2) take care of your employees, the numbers will pretty much take care of themselves, given basic management techniques.

[DeanWinchester]

They deserve to go belly up and should have long ago. Clinging on to them out of some sentimental sense of "what they used to be" loyalty is as ludicrous as clinging on to GM. Samuel Colt should be rolling in his grave.

[dragon813gt]

It's not just that a firearm manufacturer needs to by managed by a "gun person". Many, many businesses today are managed by "numbers people", no matter what the end product is. "Numbers people" tend to focus on short term gains, and have little to no interest in the long term picture. My experiences in the business world show me that if your primary goals are (1) take care of your clients, (2) take care of your employees, the numbers will pretty much take care of themselves, given basic management techniques.

This was all forgotten a long time ago. It's all about quarterly profits and large bonuses for those on the board regardless of how a company performs. It no longer matters if the company tanks when you're in charge of it. There is still a large sum of cash for you at the end.

[theperfessor]

I lost interest in anything Colt years ago when my interests led to large bore DA revolvers. I realized I could get one from S & W, Dan Wesson, Taurus, and Ruger. Where are all of Colt's .41 Mag, .44 Mag & .45 Colt DA revolvers? For that matter, where is anything innovative from Colt in the last twenty years?

[MBTcustom]

The CEO of Colt was the recipient of the worst butt chewing I have ever given anyone in my life. It was heartbreaking to suddenly realize that that horse isn't worth the hammer that struck it to the current management.
I guess I'm just dense, but until last year, I had this romanticized idea that Colt was still the original American gun company. It really hurt when the CEO told me that they do not warranty any firearm with that logo that was made before 1997.

My grandfather carried a Colt pistol, cocked and locked.
My father carried a Colt pistol, cocked and locked.
I will carry a Ruger.
The only Colt pistol that I will allow in my safe is one of the two mentioned up yonder. Other than that, I don't care.
Colt is a sell out and is run by money grubbers who just want to make a buck off the name. It's disgusting to hold one now.

[RKJ]

I thought it was a well written article and informative. I've been a Colt fan for a long time after getting one of their SS GM's in 87. I love that gun. (My son has it now so it's in good hands but I sure miss it). Anyway, I would like a Commander sized 1911 and after noticing a "real" Commander in a local shop I went to look at it. I was under glass so I couldn't (didn't) handle it. It was priced at $999.99 and the finish on it was atrocious. I'm not sure if it was a LW or an all steel gun but I was so disappointed in the quality of the finish, and for that price point it didn't matter. It was awful. I'd rather buy a Colt as I've got a soft spot in my heart for them, but I'll most likely get a Ruger 1911 CDR as they are available for a lot less and appear to be a quality pistol.

[TXGunNut]

I keep hoping someone interested in the Colts I remember will take the reins someday and make us all proud to own them again. I have a few Colts but nothing recent. Tried to buy a 2011 1911 but never found one.
I needed a Colt part awhile back and they had it at a very good price, excellent service as well. It seems there are still some good folks working there.
Got an e-mail survey from Colt some months back testing the waters for using the Colt logo on clothing and other firearm-related stuff a few months back and figured they weren't as interested in Colt firearms as I was, more interested in cashing in on the logo. Sad moment for me.

[osteodoc08]

Maybe Freedom Group will buy them out........

[MtGun44]

Guns are a specialty market and it requires specialty leadership. Colt has been
entirely clueless about guns, gun design, the gun market and the politics of guns
for many decades. At one point I was discussing a (small) business deal with them, through
a well known gunsmith that was consulting with them for a time. Unfortunately, they were
too stupid to take his advice - he could have made them many, many millions if they
would have listened to the. Never did the deal, we couldn't meet their insanely low
price for are parts.

Bill

[historicfirearms]

I just bought a new all stainless Commander this spring. When I got it home and took it apart to clean it I found my first surprise, a nice idiot mark underneath the slide stop lever. Not nice...
i took it out after a clean and lube to shoot it (with factory ammo). I had ten failure to feeds in 50 rounds. Not nice...
When the pistol actually functioned, I had about a one in ten chance of taking a hot spent casing to the face. Not nice...
lather, rinse, repeat hoping it just needed a good break in. Same. Not nice...
Called Colt and got the run around, lost my temper and I was not nice... No more new Colts for me!

[TXGunNut]

Called Colt and got the run around, lost my temper and I was not nice... No more new Colts for me!-historicfirearms


Reminds me of the guns they built in the late 70's & early 80's, we called them kit guns. Looked nice enough but they needed tuning and often a few mods. My first 1911, a Series 70, was a good example. To get it to the level of reliablity required for a duty gun I spent as much at the smith as I did for the gun. Admittedly a sizeable chunk of that was S&W revolver rear sights, a front insert front sight (silver soldered) and an Armalloy finish but it needed a fair bit of polishing and tuning, probably more than yours.
Nowadays there's little excuse for a gun that won't feed or eject properly. Good news is a good 'smith can probably get your Commander running correctly without a lot of drama or expense. My present carry gun (Defender) had an annoying habit of tossing empty cases that struck me in the forehead at impressive velocity on a regular basis. Found out later that's why it was traded in. Only took a new extractor and ejector and just a little tuning to cure that bad habit. Replaced all the springs while I was at it and dropped in a long trigger to suit my big hands and it's been a great little gun ever since.

[dtknowles]

I have never owned a Colt. They did not design the two guns most talked about in the thread, Browning designed one and Stoner designed the other. Colt has not innovated in recent memory and just like all the other big American gun companies except Ruger are not the companies that they originally were. All have been bought and sold more than once. The names don't mean anything anymore. I own a bunch of Rugers because when I was in the market they had the gun I want at the price I was looking for. I did get one sort of lemon Ruger a single six with mismatched serial number on the 22 LR cylinder and a poorly fitted grip frame. I would buy a Colt if they made something I wanted and it was a good value but not for the name. As far a antique revolvers I prefer S&W.

Tim