IIRC, many years ago Colt made an "entry level" SAA called the "Cowboy", which had a plain matte finish.My hope is that they are smart enough to revive the SAA, making tons of them beating the italians at an affordable price.
More MIM and Investment casting parts if SW or Ruger did it....SW to have bought Colt so that they can start putting internal locks and Hillary holes on Colts?
Savage isn’t doing so well that they can afford to buy Colt.
Ruger could have done it but they didn’t buy.
Henry is a relatively small private company. It is unlikely to come up with $220 million for acquistion.The least offensive and most capable, imho, American name that should have bought Colt is Henry.
But that didn't happen. CZ bought it, and I for one am grateful at this point. Much better "feeling" than having Colt bought out by yet another corporate raider or venture capitalista.
I wonder how I will feel about it in 5 years.
I was about to say the same thing. They’re doing well but not that well.Henry is a relatively small private company. It is unlikely to come up with $220 million for acquistion.
Yeah, it most likely just means they won't change anything for the first few months while they quietly look for some folks to put in charge. (Assuming they don't have anyone lined up already.)CZ's statement about Colt's management competency is standard corporatespeak. It means nothing. CZ will make changes as it sees necessary. We'll all learn what the outcome is as events unfold.
The Cowboy was a real nice gun, I should have bought one. Like the Python Elite, everyone asked for it, they made it, no one bought it. Now they're in demand much more than they were when made.IIRC, many years ago Colt made an "entry level" SAA called the "Cowboy", which had a plain matte finish.
They were aimed at the "Cowboy Action" shooters.
It didn't seem to last all that long, but they bring high prices today.
My understanding is that the SAA is still produced, just in very small numbers, as their are not very many people who actually know how to build a gun that requires so much hand work?
But I agree; more SAAs.
your "effite" in the last paragraph is spelled effete. Sorry I'm an English teacher couldn't help myself. I use spell checkers myself.Private ownership has dramatically different financial objectives than public ownership. [And ownership by a public company is identical to pubic ownership.] Publicly owned companies are like rats in a circular cage...chasing a never-ending increase in profits for the benefit of unknown shareholders controlled by Wall Street investment banks. Private companies, on the other hand, chase only enough profit to satisfy their owners - who as often as not get their own hands dirty at the shop every day. Private companies become public companies only when the owners want to cash out, or die prior to resolving the continuation-of-management issues.
For several years I was CFO of a baseball card company (which owned Donruss and Pinnacle Brands). Its new owners aspired to take the company public - a formula for death in the aftermath of the mid-1990s baseball players' strike. That baseball card company was simply NOT a candidate for public ownership. Today? RIP.
Another example was Harley Davidson - a great, innovative company until it was "taken public" and began worshipping at the alter of revenue growth. The very thing that made HD famous - a bike-owner's ability to sell his bike for more than he paid for it - went down the tubes when HD began to make more bikes than its dealerships could sell. And those dealerships also suffered when they were no longer able to mark up the MSRP on those bikes due to competition from the HD dealership on the next block. Once again - public ownership of HD foreshadowed its demise.
Now we see the same thing occurring in the firearms business...companies emphasizing revenue growth ahead of product quality. That Colt your dad bought 25 years ago? Used to be, that Colt could be sold for a decent premium over its purchase price. Today? Nope...too may Colts (and Colt look-alikes) flooding the market, thus keeping prices low. Thus, the public company owners move to (a) cut costs - specifically costs that would otherwise either improve product quality or improve customer service - and (b) peddle less and less interesting (and cheaper) weapons. That is exactly what Colt did. And its what Remmington did. And other "iconic" American gun makers, too. Pile on top the great expense of defending litigation (much of it purely polotical in origin and intent) you you have a marketplace that is not conducive to public company ownership.
[Interesting aside here: when a company increases its product quality, the result is actually decreased cost of customer service and lowwer product warranty repairs. That formula was preached by management guru Edward Demming in the 1950s and early 1960s, initially in the US to deaf ears, and later to the Japanese, who fully bought into the notion of continuously-improving product quality in everything the Japanese made. But corporate America failed to recognize that relationship - check out Chrysler in the 1970s-1980s as a prime example of what declining product quality did to the company's existence.]
So...what's to be done. Well, ownership needs to be someone who places revenue and profit growth second (or third) in line to product quality and brand value. Is CZ that new owner? Only time will tell. But the Colt/CZ saga may well be only chapter 2 of the future of all American firearms makers. Who's chapter 1 about. Why the late Rock Island Armory (now RIA, owned by Armscor), of course. While the effite among us may disparage Armscor/RIA's Philippines manufacturing base, that base nevertheless makes good quality, affordable weapons, munitions, etc., and is steadily fortifying its brand in many countries outside the USA, particularly Southeast Asia.
I love my CZ and Dan Wesson products have seemed to hold up. This made in America or not made at all b.s. was debunked by Toyota a long time ago. Biden America is not the old America anyway, so who cares? My Glocks were made in Austria and who cares? It's who makes the better mousetrap is what counts. And that used to be a well known American slogan and philosophy.I'm pretty Bummed out, I own more Colts than any other brand.
Doesn't seam right a Foreign gun company owning a American Icon.
Before they tell em to buzz off they better secure whatever equipment they (CZ) intend to keep in working order.From what I understand, Colt only assembles the AR's they make now. Nothing to move but a few hand tools and work benches.
The Union contract is, im pretty sure between the Union and Colt, not between the Union and CZ. When my Job a few years ago was union, every time a new company took over, the union had to re-negotiate with the new company. If CZ were smart, and I believe they are, they would tell the union to buzz off.