Colt Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
I went through an armorer's school on that gun in '03.
If Colt had stayed with the original Reed Knight design, I think it could have gone somewhere.

As it was, it died quickly.
Biggest problem was the trigger.

As a shooter, you can do much better.
As a curiosity without parts or factory support, it's OK to have as an example of....well, just as an example. :)
I would not buy one to shoot today.
Denis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
852 Posts
I had responded to the earlier thread as well. It occurs to me that the 2000 is one of several reasons that Colt has stuck pretty close to its original designs and avoided anything new. They are apparently selling about all they make for top dollar, so why should they do otherwise?
Moon
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,519 Posts
The only thing "wrong" with the All American 2000 is the trigger feel. The gun is soft-shooting, accurate, reliable and has a great-feeling grip. The "First Edition" ones with the aluminum frame have a much better trigger than the ones with the polymer frame. It probably has to do with the trigger ball bearings not running smoothly in the soft polymer frame. If the trigger does not offend, then the gun is fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
In my experience, the ball bearings running on polymer was not a good idea. The steel would tend to wear the polymer unevenly and trigger pull was eventually affected.

As I said, if Colt had not chosen the direction they went with that pistol, it could have gone somewhere.
I think a steel frame could have resolved much of the trigger problem, but Colt wanted to join the poly trend.

One Colt rep shortly after the 2000 was dropped told me a good part of the reason it failed was because it was 90% outsourced. I didn't bother to argue with him.
Denis
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,519 Posts
I agree with the thought that the All American 2000 was Colt's attempt to be "in with the in crowd" (Glock) in using a polymer frame. That meant Colt's entry into the "Wonder Nine" wars would be "cutting edge." With the design being so "clunky," the polymer frame did nothing to help, and, ironically, was likely the reason the pistol failed.

It has always been my contention that Colt should have instead introduced the SSP (Stainless Steel Pistol) in the commercial market that Colt developed for the United States Service Pistol competition. It is a handsome pistol and would have been easily adaptable to the .40 S&W chambering that followed the Wonder Nine era. While the SSP did not do well in the service pistol trials, it would have been very competitive in the civilian and police markets against Third Generation Smith & Wesson pistols and Beretta.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top