An article about Colt's finances
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
the barrels and cylinders were better than the rest of the revolver. The grips should have been SAA horse and eagle ,but were poorly finished and fitting plastic. Case colors were more like case finished a la Ruger. although they later went astray ,the USFA Cowboy and Rodeo 2 were a much better product.in the right price range for the marketplace at the time. Still ,if Colt can still make a state of the art Sa revolver ,the best 1911 around and now the best sa 380 around ,they should be able to get a shooter grade sa on the market. A properly cast and machined sa revolver, with case hardened frame,and a stainless sa version,with conventional lockwork,and the Rampant Colt on the frame would sell.
67,
I dunno if it would.
The major appeal of the Colt single-action is the Peacemaker form & history.
If Colt put out another $500 single-action, it'd have to have shortcuts, and the quality couldn't be any better than what the Italian market already has covered very well.
Even if they upped it to around $700, still could not be the Peacemaker, not at current Peacemaker quality levels, anyway.
Part of the Cowboy's problem was that those who knew better wanted the real thing, those who didn't know better thought they were getting the real thing at bargain basement prices, the guts were not much liked by gunsmiths, and many of those who didn't know better were disappointed when they later found out what they'd really bought.
There were, of course, buyers who were satisfied with the lesser gun, and still are, but I think the majority of the market fell into the first two categories.
I'm not really sure it'd be viable for Colt to tie up resources in producing two different levels of single-actions today, with two entirely different designs & parts inventories.
Toward the end of production, the Cowboy was actually slated for upgrading & expansion, but it was eventually decided to put the money & energy elsewhere.
I'm not a Colt snob, but the only Colt single-action I had any interest in was the "real thing", the Peacemaker.
I personally had no interest in a lesser gun from Colt with no history and lower quality in general, and I had no inclination to buy a Cowboy just because it looked like a Model P in outline & said "Colt" on it.
At the Cowboy's price point, there were much more durable Rugers, and a multitude of Italian copies truer to the original with parts available and gunsmiths who could do impressive things with them.
Denis
I dunno if it would.
The major appeal of the Colt single-action is the Peacemaker form & history.
If Colt put out another $500 single-action, it'd have to have shortcuts, and the quality couldn't be any better than what the Italian market already has covered very well.
Even if they upped it to around $700, still could not be the Peacemaker, not at current Peacemaker quality levels, anyway.
Part of the Cowboy's problem was that those who knew better wanted the real thing, those who didn't know better thought they were getting the real thing at bargain basement prices, the guts were not much liked by gunsmiths, and many of those who didn't know better were disappointed when they later found out what they'd really bought.
There were, of course, buyers who were satisfied with the lesser gun, and still are, but I think the majority of the market fell into the first two categories.
I'm not really sure it'd be viable for Colt to tie up resources in producing two different levels of single-actions today, with two entirely different designs & parts inventories.
Toward the end of production, the Cowboy was actually slated for upgrading & expansion, but it was eventually decided to put the money & energy elsewhere.
I'm not a Colt snob, but the only Colt single-action I had any interest in was the "real thing", the Peacemaker.
I personally had no interest in a lesser gun from Colt with no history and lower quality in general, and I had no inclination to buy a Cowboy just because it looked like a Model P in outline & said "Colt" on it.
At the Cowboy's price point, there were much more durable Rugers, and a multitude of Italian copies truer to the original with parts available and gunsmiths who could do impressive things with them.
Denis
I believe that a Cowboy could be done for less and sell for slightly less than the Spaghetti guns . Most of the replicas offer high end finish done by Turnbull, they send him the frames disassembled and polished and it usually adds $150- 200 to the price of the revolver . Colt could do this, and get a functionally nice revolver out the door for msrp of $750-800, as opposed to a hand crafted revolver. I have had Turnbull caseharden a Ruger 3 screw ,and it looks pretty close to a New Frontier. I will be sending him a 45 limited run Flat Top ,all steel gun. These are shooters ,and when all is said and done they were both under $1000. If Colt takes this option they could also offer a 22 on the full size frame for what a 22 Peacemaker is going for on the used market ,and make it a 12 shooter and you have a 22 back on the market. Round that out with a matte ,and bright stainless version and you will take a lot of business back from the importers. People are sending Turnbull Rugers to make them look like ,well A Colt ,so why not a Colt that is a Colt? There will always be a market for a handcrafted one at a time SAA or New Frontier, but Colt needs some assembly line guns on dealer shelves to serve as using guns .
Well, no- relatively speaking very few Italian replicas get anywhere near Turnbull. 
Certainly not "most of the replicas".
I don't see any possible way Colt could turn out a gun that'd have any quality worth buying for LESS than an Italian SA.
Italy has a much lower wage level, Colt can't compete head to head in that area alone & sell for less.
The Cowboy, when it was in production, WAS the equivalent of what you're asking for, and it didn't sell well enough to stay in the line-up.
Even if it were brought back, which is highly improbable, and sent to Turnbull, I seriously doubt it'd make any money for Colt.
The Cowboy was not liked enough to keep it in production.
A resurrection, but with a fancier finish, would be unlikely to do much better.
Developing a new design with different guts would put Colt in the same position as the Python- expensive R&D and start-up inventory costs, with inadequate return on investment.
Cheapening the Peacemaker to get it down to $700 would cause massive outrage among purists (80%-90% of Colt's SA market), and result in a revolver with cast frame, cast gripframe, MIM internals, and an inferior finish (NO way Colt could pull that price off with a Turnbull treatment).
CAS is no longer the driving force that was largely behind the Cowboy's development, there are so many other areas that Colt would see a far greater return on (keeping up with demand on current models, even a new DA revolver if & when), that sinking resources into a new Second Tier single-action wouldn't be worth the money.
As for bringing back the .22s, same startup problems. The guns would have to be developed for CNC programs, parts vendors arranged, parts inventories worked out. To be truly competitive with Ruger, which the .22s weren't, they'd have to be a shade nicer in appearance, at least almost as durable, and sell for roughly the same price, or no more than 10% more.
That'd be extremely tough to pull off.
Building a .22 on a full-sized SA frame cuts down on manufacturing & inventory costs, since many parts already in the chain can be used, but the result is a heavy gun, and those don't sell well in volume to .22 shooters.
It's not a simple picture, and there are many factors that have to be considered.
Denis
Certainly not "most of the replicas".I don't see any possible way Colt could turn out a gun that'd have any quality worth buying for LESS than an Italian SA.
Italy has a much lower wage level, Colt can't compete head to head in that area alone & sell for less.
The Cowboy, when it was in production, WAS the equivalent of what you're asking for, and it didn't sell well enough to stay in the line-up.
Even if it were brought back, which is highly improbable, and sent to Turnbull, I seriously doubt it'd make any money for Colt.
The Cowboy was not liked enough to keep it in production.
A resurrection, but with a fancier finish, would be unlikely to do much better.
Developing a new design with different guts would put Colt in the same position as the Python- expensive R&D and start-up inventory costs, with inadequate return on investment.
Cheapening the Peacemaker to get it down to $700 would cause massive outrage among purists (80%-90% of Colt's SA market), and result in a revolver with cast frame, cast gripframe, MIM internals, and an inferior finish (NO way Colt could pull that price off with a Turnbull treatment).
CAS is no longer the driving force that was largely behind the Cowboy's development, there are so many other areas that Colt would see a far greater return on (keeping up with demand on current models, even a new DA revolver if & when), that sinking resources into a new Second Tier single-action wouldn't be worth the money.
As for bringing back the .22s, same startup problems. The guns would have to be developed for CNC programs, parts vendors arranged, parts inventories worked out. To be truly competitive with Ruger, which the .22s weren't, they'd have to be a shade nicer in appearance, at least almost as durable, and sell for roughly the same price, or no more than 10% more.
That'd be extremely tough to pull off.
Building a .22 on a full-sized SA frame cuts down on manufacturing & inventory costs, since many parts already in the chain can be used, but the result is a heavy gun, and those don't sell well in volume to .22 shooters.
It's not a simple picture, and there are many factors that have to be considered.
Denis
Joined
·
640 Posts
The polymer frame pistol in 9mm and .40 (and possibly .45) with a trigger safety is the salvation of Colt. Our favorite gunmaker needs a pistol to compete with Glock, Springfield-Armory's XDM, Ruger's SR Series, and S&W's M&P.
Colt needs to get an engineer to make a gun that can compete which also has Colt's own style.
Colt needs to get an engineer to make a gun that can compete which also has Colt's own style.
Joined
·
2,350 Posts
As was the Python, Diamondback, Cobra, Anaconda, King Cobra, Viper, etc., etc., etc.....
Dpris is absolutely right. None of these guns could compete with the offerings of other companies in the open market and the design could not be made to compete, even with cnc equipment investments. If the market was there, they would still be in production. Even the cheapened MKIII and MKV designs where rapidly overwhelmed by the competition offering modern designs and pricing. The Colt name alone, does not justify overpriced products to a large enough block of consumers....Most shooters want the most bang for the buck and Colt's "bang" required too many "bucks".
67,
Nope, not at all.
You & I and others keep going the rounds over this "I Want Colt To Make Me A Fill-In-The-Blank" thing, and you view it as a defeatist attitude, while I view it from a business, production, and profit viewpoint.
It seems to be extremely difficult to get this concept across: All that costs MONEY, and Colt doesn't have much to gamble with.
Startup costs on any new model are substantial & have to be balanced against a number of factors such as immediate outlay, continuing outlay, anticipated consumer acceptance, projected return on investment, impact on current production, impact on current processes, and impact on planned processes, to mention a few.
People gripe now about not being able to find existing models.
Diluting the production flow by incorporating limited-appeal low-sellers into the facility's production capability is simply bad business.
Colt has to weigh any new model very carefully against all of the above factors & a new model has to do more than merely tip the scales slightly in its favor, it has to pretty much bottom out the pan to justify the expense & effort.
Colt doesn't want a repeat of either the All American 2000 OR the Cowboy.
Nobody is saying Colt shouldn't even try, they just have to choose very carefully what they do try, and a Second Tier SA isn't going to either sell for less than a good Uberti, or make any money for the company.
Colt tried it when the CAS movement was much stronger & couldn't make it work then, why would you think it could work now?
People seem to have a very hard time understanding what's involved in creating and producing a new model.
You have to break each aspect of an idea down, as I did, and balance it out.
Denis
Nope, not at all.
You & I and others keep going the rounds over this "I Want Colt To Make Me A Fill-In-The-Blank" thing, and you view it as a defeatist attitude, while I view it from a business, production, and profit viewpoint.
It seems to be extremely difficult to get this concept across: All that costs MONEY, and Colt doesn't have much to gamble with.
Startup costs on any new model are substantial & have to be balanced against a number of factors such as immediate outlay, continuing outlay, anticipated consumer acceptance, projected return on investment, impact on current production, impact on current processes, and impact on planned processes, to mention a few.
People gripe now about not being able to find existing models.
Diluting the production flow by incorporating limited-appeal low-sellers into the facility's production capability is simply bad business.
Colt has to weigh any new model very carefully against all of the above factors & a new model has to do more than merely tip the scales slightly in its favor, it has to pretty much bottom out the pan to justify the expense & effort.
Colt doesn't want a repeat of either the All American 2000 OR the Cowboy.
Nobody is saying Colt shouldn't even try, they just have to choose very carefully what they do try, and a Second Tier SA isn't going to either sell for less than a good Uberti, or make any money for the company.
Colt tried it when the CAS movement was much stronger & couldn't make it work then, why would you think it could work now?
People seem to have a very hard time understanding what's involved in creating and producing a new model.
You have to break each aspect of an idea down, as I did, and balance it out.
Denis
Joined
·
1,787 Posts
I was told a story by someone in the gun industry years ago that in circa. 1965 Aldo Uberti was summoned by Winchester to a meeting whereas they were thinking of having him make a new Model '66 Win. for them for the upcoming centennial of that model. Supposedly, Aldo Uberti wanted $0.50 (cents) more than Win. was willing to pay and he walked out. Win. proceeded to make a crappy pseudo '66 on a '94 frame which was ridiculous.
I often have pondered what would have happened if he had made the deal. Winchester is no more, albeit in name only by FN, and Uberti thrived. They later were bought by Beretta right after the old man died and his kids didn't want to run the co.
I love my Colt Frontier Six Shooters, however I get an equal, if not more elusive, feeling when I shoot blackpowder in an Uberti '72 OT and their conversions. I would never have believed that anyone would ever make repros of those models years ago.
I often have pondered what would have happened if he had made the deal. Winchester is no more, albeit in name only by FN, and Uberti thrived. They later were bought by Beretta right after the old man died and his kids didn't want to run the co.
I love my Colt Frontier Six Shooters, however I get an equal, if not more elusive, feeling when I shoot blackpowder in an Uberti '72 OT and their conversions. I would never have believed that anyone would ever make repros of those models years ago.
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
