Yes, but not from a collector or appreciation per dollar view, although I bought Rugers when I could have bought Colts for the seemingly better bang for the buck we had with our non-forecasting blinders on at the time.IIRC, in the mid-1970s, a Colt Trooper .357 mag. revolver cost around $139.99, while a Ruger Security Six .357 mag. revolver cost about $99.99. Today, I wish I had bought the Colt, but at the time I did not have the additional $40, so I bought the Ruger. Back then, the $40 difference was a big deal; not so much today. The Ruger has done everything that I asked it to do, so in hindsight, the Ruger was the right choice.
Damn inflation. My little retirement fund while probably get me a six pack Pearl light when I retire.Don't get too nostalgic about old-time Colt pricing. It is only inflation that makes old-time pricing look attractive. When one compares old-time Colt pricing to old-time wages, old-time Colt pricing was never a bargain.
In the early 1970s, a PPS may have cost around $90. In those years, I made minimum wage, $1.65/hour (gross), or take-home of around $1.10/hour - or about 82 hours of work to buy a PPS. Now, a high condition PPS can be had for around $500+/-, federal minimum wage is $7.25 or around $6/hour take-home, for a total of 83 hours needed to purchase the PPS.
The costs of Colts related to the cost of labor has remained pretty much constant over the history of Colt firearms.
IIRC, in the mid-1970s, a Colt Trooper .357 mag. revolver cost around $139.99, while a Ruger Security Six .357 mag. revolver cost about $99.99. Today, I wish I had bought the Colt, but at the time I did not have the additional $40, so I bought the Ruger. Back then, the $40 difference was a big deal; not so much today. The Ruger has done everything that I asked it to do, so in hindsight, the Ruger was the right choice.
