You would think a gun manufacturer would know better than to sleep with government. I guess nobody shared that lesson with Colt’s management. •
via Live by Big Government, Die by Big Government – Townhall Magazine.
Colt does have a history of being tone-deaf to the civilian market. When you have signs everywhere that your product is very well sought after but refuse to heed to the obvious, you deserve to get hurt.
Colt Python? You will have waves of people holding bundles of cash ready to pay premium for a new batch of those babies. Colt Delta Elite is the official unicorn of the Gun Culture and be ready to pay lots of cash and at least a kidney for one. The M4 series is the yardstick to which other manufacturers are measured for mil-spec and quality. Just imagine Colt bringing back the Peacemaker even for a short run with all the Cowboy Action Shooting going on, they would have people lining up & camping in Hartford just to get the chance to buy one.
Not to cater to civilians is possibly the stupidest thing a gun manufacturer can do in the US. If an Austrian plastic widget-maker with zero experience in firearms not only made it in the US but revolutionized the Gun World, Colt has no excuse for going under but its own corporate stupidity.
Hat Tip to Grant Cunningham
Excellent points, and also one CANNOT please all masters, and actually succeed in the marketplace…
I’ve never been a big colt fan. I did like some of their older revolvers, like the Police Positive. The Python was nice, but I thought it was way over priced. The Troopers were good guns at a better price. They had all of these good guns that were dependable and people wanted them and they pissed it away for the government teat.
Colt could also score some points with me by pulling out of California like Ruger and S&W, or making any attempt to leave the unfriendly state they operate in, like PTR or Beretta or Magpul or Mossberg or (you get the point). Their staying quiet on these fronts as well as being more or less oblivious to customer demand makes me wonder how much longer they’ll last.
Here’s my plan. Originally I wanted to do this with GM. We all know in the current market place, one’s ability to engage is business well is worthless.
I want to raise a whole bunch of money, someone in the low millions, and donate it to the Democrats. Bear with me. Once I have bundled for a bunch of reelections, I get the local Dems to say that Colt is too important to fail. We need Colt for strategic arms purposes, etc. Also, Colt employees are union members. Then get Colt a bailout, and I get myself government appointed as CEO.
At that point, as a gun guy and engineer, I can actually make some positive changes in the company.
I mean, when GM goes under again, its going to get bailed out again and another idiot Dem lackey is going to get put in charge. Rather than protest the system, take advantage of the blatant “pay-to-play” and at least use it to put someone competent in charge.
I can even make it like a kick starter campaign, a $1,000 donation gets you a Mustang, a $2500 donation gets you a Python, a $5000 donation get you an Anaconda, and $10,000 donation gets you a 1911 Gold Cup. I plan on reintroducing all the most beloved Colt products.
You are an evil genius….
Give me a donation option other than Kickstarter and I’m in. You’re brilliant!
Sorry to disagree – but the M4 isn’t the yardstick because of it’s quality but because the US leads the NATO and US-ordnance automatically becomes the reference for any other NATO country.
I work QC for an ammunition company (there aren’t too many here in germany) and I’ve never seen a military rifle that fouls and jams so easily and happily then the new M16 and M4 rifles – without dirt and under controlled conditions.
are you using the correct ammunition? Powder is stick or ball? That makes a boatload of difference. It also requires the proper lubrication as you can run it dry only so far.
Everything is MilSpec ^^
“Quality Control” in germany – we do everything by the book and doublecheck every step 😉
Powders are STANAG, too (of course). There aren’t too many different powders in use with the NATO.
It’s because of the coating of the action parts. I have an “Oberland Arms” AR15 with a different coating and there are no such troubles.
Remember: Military Rifles are mass produced. Cheaper Coatings then on civilian rifles are common – even the chrome lining on the M16 ist the cheapest and less durable thing I’ve ever seen.
Not to mention dropping their prices at least below Earth’s stratosphere….
really, tiredweasel? Powders are STANAG?
Where in the 5.56x45mm ammunition STANAG (4172) is propellant specified?
Because it’s not in *MY* copy of STANAG 4172. 4172 is a dimensional and performance spec, and the only real “propellant” specs are that it must have accpetable ignitiona qualities and not produce “excessive” flash, smoke, or fouling. . .
However, if your ammunition isn’t working acceptably in an M16A2, then it is NOT STANAG 4172 ammunition — because the M16A2 is one of the standard 5.56mm NATO reference weapons (along with the FNC, G36, L85A2, and AR70/90), with which ammunition being certified as STANAG 4172 must be fully compatible. . . 🙂
Of course powders are STANAG – they’re a vital part of the ammunition (I think there are even STANAGS for shoelaces…).
If I recall correctly, there are quite a few STANAG for explosives, propellants in general and small arms propellants. But none for “5.56x45mm” powders 😉
I can’t say correctly which are in use because we work with “TL” (Technische Lieferbedingungen, a condensed and translated version) and not the original STANAGS.
Virtually every propellant in use with armed forces world wide is double base ball powder – so no big surprises there.
Maybe the M16 just isn’t the Holy Grail and fouls easily because it’s cheaply made (like every NATO Rifle) O:)
Don’t focus on the powders, I can assure you that it does make zero to none difference on the weapon performance if you use american or european STANAG propellants – because there are virtually the same, thanks to standardization (I mean, THAT is the point of standardization, right?). The differences mainly lies in the ballistic performance and the reliability under extreme conditions (heat, cold, etc.)