So what happened to Colt and Remington over the years?

[dcmdon]

I read an article about 15 years ago about Colt. It specifically pointed out that they faced major challenges with aging machinery and a very specialized labor force that was aging out and replacements were next to impossible to find. There were just a handful of guys that could blue and polish the way that Colt did in the 60's and it took years to master the process.
Craftsmanship can not be duplicated by a CNC machine.

They couldn't retain talent. because right across the river was Pratt and Whitney, who paid a great wage and took (takes) good care of their employees.

Colt has had a cultural problem in management since I can remember. They treat their employees like crap. That was the problem.

One of the people I know who worked there was a master engraver. They took very good care of him because they knew he was essentially irreplaceable.
But if you were a machinist, or even worse, a lowly assembly person, they treated you like crap.

I can't emphasize enough that Colt was and may well still be an absolutely garbage company. Whether its still an abomination all depends on whether or not CZ has cleaned house yet.

 

[Ultrarunner]

They couldn't retain talent. because right across the river was Pratt and Whitney, who paid a great wage and took (takes) good care of their employees.

Colt has had a cultural problem in management since I can remember. They treat their employees like crap. That was the problem.

One of the people I know who worked there was a master engraver. They took very good care of him because they knew he was essentially irreplaceable.
But if you were a machinist, or even worse, a lowly assembly person, they treated you like crap.

I can't emphasize enough that Colt was and may well still be an absolutely garbage company. Whether its still an abomination all depends on whether or not CZ has cleaned house yet.

In fairness pretty much all factory work sucks no matter the company culture. I have friends at Sig and Ruger that absolutely hate their jobs but applied because they thought it would be cool to build guns. They don't feel that way anymore.

The only factory job that doesn't suck is making vehicles. The unions have driven wages up to absurd levels for the level of work required.

 

[PappyM3]

Yeah, people like to dis on private equity but PE doesn't pay top dollar for a thriving business. PE comes in after a business has been mis-managed and sees an opportunity to turn it around. PE may or may not be successful at that, but PE doesn't ruin a company -- the company is ruined already and that is why PE comes in.

They come in with limited knowledge of the industry and implement cost cutting measures in the wrong spots. They do ruin companies The companies before they buy them were weak, not ruined. The PE then ruins them.

 

[dcmdon]

In fairness pretty much all factory work sucks no matter the company culture. I have friends at Sig and Ruger that absolutely hate their jobs but applied because they thought it would be cool to build guns. They don't feel that way anymore.

The only factory job that doesn't suck is making vehicles. The unions have driven wages up to absurd levels for the level of work required.

A gun is a simple machine being built in a facility where quality control is less important than cost controls.

A jet engine is a hugely complex machine being built with hundreds of checks that continue throughout the building process. Working in that kind of environment is different.

Another friend used to work at Electric Boat in Groton CT. He can in unskilled and they trained him to work as a welder. At first it was non-critical stuff. But eventually he was welding high pressure steam pipes and through hull fittings. Absolutely critical items where you can really develop your craft.

 

[LittleCalm]

They come in with limited knowledge of the industry and implement cost cutting measures in the wrong spots. They do ruin companies The companies before they buy them were weak, not ruined. The PE then ruins them.

PE doesn't run companies. They hire management teams that have the industry knowledge. I'm not defending PE in the sense that they are just as capable of hiring a management team that isn't able to turn around a company, but if PE is knocking at your door, it means the company is not performing and there is no strategic partner/other industry participant that wants to attempt to turn around the company. It also means that stockholders or lenders are looking to get out and cut their losses, which is who management has to answer to in the first place. Blaming PE is just another main stream media scapegoat trope. PE is made up of investors who'd prefer to turn around a company and sell it for a profit, that's all. There is no drama to be found, much to MSM's dismay.

 

[PappyM3]

…PE is made up of investors who'd prefer to turn around a company and sell it for a profit, that's all. There is no drama to be found, much to MSM's dismay.

Yes, and don’t have a strategic vision. They want to cut corners and turn and burn with the company. They don’t care if it survives in the long term.

 

[MickeyD’s]

Yeah, people like to dis on private equity but PE doesn't pay top dollar for a thriving business. PE comes in after a business has been mis-managed and sees an opportunity to turn it around. PE may or may not be successful at that, but PE doesn't ruin a company -- the company is ruined already and that is why PE comes in.

Meh , right PE doesn’t ruin a company that ain’t already circling the drain

They come in rack up debt and f*** it even further then sell it for nuts and bolts.

 

[PatMcD]

It is great that Colt is making good stuff. However, let's not forget that they cost 1.5X what a Smith costs and 2X what a Ruger costs. So they better be better.

People are free to buy whatever they want for whatever reason, but I don't think a Colt is 1.5X better than a S&W. Certainly not twice better than a Ruger.
But, I'm not a Colt guy, so maybe I'm biased.

 

[Spanz]

remington so sad. was roadtripping and ended up 9in Ilion NY, and there was this unbelieveable rifle museum. You could smell the hundreds of years of gun expertise in the old wooden floored factory.

all gone. some investment company bought them, and split it up. i think the name and some drawings were bought by a company down south

 

[Dench]

I have a relatively recent M16A4 clone from colt...it hasnt had any issues.

 

[MickeyD’s]

They couldn't retain talent. because right across the river was Pratt and Whitney, who paid a great wage and took (takes) good care of their employees.

Colt has had a cultural problem in management since I can remember. They treat their employees like crap. That was the problem.

One of the people I know who worked there was a master engraver. They took very good care of him because they knew he was essentially irreplaceable.
But if you were a machinist, or even worse, a lowly assembly person, they treated you like crap.

I can't emphasize enough that Colt was and may well still be an absolutely garbage company. Whether its still an abomination all depends on whether or not CZ has cleaned house yet.

First of the mba crowd at work

 

[Ultrarunner]

People are free to buy whatever they want for whatever reason, but I don't think a Colt is 1.5X better than a S&W. Certainly not twice better than a Ruger.
But, I'm not a Colt guy, so maybe I'm biased.

I don't mean to be crass, but there's absolutely no way you're correct on this. Go to your LGS and pick up a Python and a GP100. They aren't in the same league. Maybe when a GP100 was $550 but they want $900 for that peace of crap now.

 

[PatMcD]

I don't mean to be crass, but there's absolutely no way you're correct on this. Go to your LGS and pick up a Python and a GP100. They aren't in the same league. Maybe when a GP100 was $550 but they want $900 for that peace of crap now.

Well, I guess it goes back to this: what do you expect when you buy a revolver? If you're looking for a piece of art, then probably a Ruger isn't going to be at the top of your list.
On the other hand, if you want a super-rugged, super-reliable gun, then there is no reason to pay twice what you have to.
Unless you want to. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[fencer]

It is great that Colt is making good stuff. However, let's not forget that they cost 1.5X what a Smith costs and 2X what a Ruger costs. So they better be better.

I really don't like the cylinder release on the Python. It is counter intuitive.

 

[Ultrarunner]

Well, I guess it goes back to this: what do you expect when you buy a revolver? If you're looking for a piece of art, then probably a Ruger isn't going to be at the top of your list.
On the other hand, if you want a super-rugged, super-reliable gun, then there is no reason to pay twice what you have to.
Unless you want to. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I want to like Ruger. But cylinder binding, misaligned barrels, and poorly installed sights are unacceptable at any price point. I really really want to like Ruger. But they make Taurus look good. My 2001 Super Redhawk is a phenomenal gun. But modern Ruger production should make that company go out of business. Seriously.

 

[Scuderia]

I remember back in the day when you could say that you'd love to get a new Colt handgun or a Remington rifle and folks would say, yeah, those are some good quality firearms. As the years went by things have definitely changed. Nowadays you couldn't pay me to buy a newly minted Colt or Remington. Their QC went down the tubes, their products have issues left and right and basically they've destroyed the good names of the brand. Remington basically destroyed the reputation of the 700 and they are trying to paw it back. To late though in my book as I'd love to have one of their older ones, but not sure exactly what year they turned into crap.

So what do you think happened? New owners, cost cutting, bad manufacturing machinery, etc'? It's a shame what they've turn into.

Couldn’t pay you to buy a newly minted Colt? What is wrong with the new production Colts? Have you handled or shot one? All of the new Colts I’ve handled have been fantastic. Picked up a 2023 Colt Commander and the fit is superior to my Colts from the 1960s and 1970s. The bluing is prettier on the older guns but I don’t have any complaints with new bluing. It shoots lights out and hasn’t had any issues.

 

[rogersmithiii]

Yup. As others have said above. Two words: private equity

The same global elites who took over both political parties, and are causing chaos in the world.

 

[rogersmithiii]

I want to like Ruger. But cylinder binding, misaligned barrels, and poorly installed sights are unacceptable at any price point. I really really want to like Ruger. But they make Taurus look good. My 2001 Super Redhawk is a phenomenal gun. But modern Ruger production should make that company go out of business. Seriously.

I bought a brand new, Lipsey's 10/22 rifle to take an Appleseed class. Right out of the box, it wouldn't feed cartridges out of the magazine. Sent it back to Ruger, and they had to replace the barrel, and the receiver.

Service was quick, but it blows me away that the gun made it out the door in that condition.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Couldn’t pay you to buy a newly minted Colt? What is wrong with the new production Colts? Have you handled or shot one? All of the new Colts I’ve handled have been fantastic. Picked up a 2023 Colt Commander and the fit is superior to my Colts from the 1960s and 1970s. The bluing is prettier on the older guns but I don’t have any complaints with new bluing. It shoots lights out and hasn’t had any issues.

I have and the dealer had to send the new Colt back as there was a gap between the barrel and frame. Barrel was solid but there shouldn’t be a gap. A couple stout rounds and that’ll loosen up. Nope. If a shlub like me can see it a QA person should have caught it.

 

[T-Unit]

Other than a few companies, I've figured that if it's manufactured in the US that means it is overpriced and low quality and relies on being "Made in the USA" as the selling point.

Colt and Remington execs had no pride and didn't care about the product, just the profit.

 

[Dennis in MA]

PE doesn't run companies. They hire management teams that have the industry knowledge. I'm not defending PE in the sense that they are just as capable of hiring a management team that isn't able to turn around a company, but if PE is knocking at your door, it means the company is not performing and there is no strategic partner/other industry participant that wants to attempt to turn around the company. It also means that stockholders or lenders are looking to get out and cut their losses, which is who management has to answer to in the first place. Blaming PE is just another main stream media scapegoat trope. PE is made up of investors who'd prefer to turn around a company and sell it for a profit, that's all. There is no drama to be found, much to MSM's dismay.

Mmmmmm, I'm not so sure. I think the PURPOSE of PE is to do what you say. But people get lost in the weeds. They stop looking to turn things around. You get that quick dopamine hit of making bank on this one deal (hey, what ever happened to that company?) and then you start looking for things you can do to just make huge profits on ancillary transactions, like selling off the real estate.

The whole Remington/Bushmaster/whatever fiasco illustrates this. There was no reason to buy out Remington. Now, the owners SOLD it - so that's on them. But it left a much weaker, poorer company in its wake. I'm sure Cerebro made a bunch of $ in the process.

The issue is: We are ASSUMING that PE is smarter than the average bear. If that were the case, the major brokerage houses would be smarter than the average investor. They aren't. If they were, they would have sold tech in 2000, real estate and mortgage in 2006 and bought massive #'s of PFE in early 2020 and sold it in 2021.

The law of averages. The average WS firm is of average intelligence. Teh average PE firm is of average intelligence.

Which is why I think the death of PE will be real estate. On a small scale, PE keeps buying property. They have no boots on the ground to run it right. The same reason Remington got boned is the same reason they'll screw up a 2 family in Reveah. No boots on the ground. I will thoroughly enjoy watching them get their asses handed to them. They deserve it. I tend to be a strict capitalist, but that also means that robber-barrons need to get thier asses handed to them every so often so they stop. . . for a while.

 

[dcmdon]

First of the mba crowd at work

That actually wasn't the case. It was "The General" and all the people he brought in.

In 2013, just before the bankruptcy, they brought in a guy from Sturm Ruger who did a lot of cleaning up. But it wasn't enough.

 

[1903Collector]

I've got two of the new Pythons and I like them a lot. Admittedly I haven't shot a ton of rounds thru them but they appear to be well made. I think Colt was smart to bring these back, a lot of people want a Python they can shoot without killing the value and don't have to spend 2-3k. But there are enough changes they should have updated the name to something like Python Mk2 or something like that.

I always felt that Colt, the old Colt, relied too much on government sales and blew off the commercial market.

 

[Rockrivr1]

I've got two of the new Pythons and I like them a lot. Admittedly I haven't shot a ton of rounds thru them but they appear to be well made. I think Colt was smart to bring these back, a lot of people want a Python they can shoot without killing the value and don't have to spend 2-3k. But there are enough changes they should have updated the name to something like Python Mk2 or something like that.

I always felt that Colt, the old Colt, relied too much on government sales and blew off the commercial market.

As a S&W fanboy I can say that I've never shot one of Colt's Snake guns. I've looked at a new one that I posted about above but never owned nor shot one. Is there any big difference between the older and newer ones? The new ones are out there and I haven't seen a decrease in the price of the originals.

 

[1903Collector]

As a S&W fanboy I can say that I've never shot one of Colt's Snake guns. I've looked at a new one that I posted about above but never owned nor shot one. Is there any big difference between the older and newer ones? The new ones are out there and I haven't seen a decrease in the price of the originals.

Most of the changes are on the inside from what I have read, parts are larger, better machined etc and I think the new Pythons have a new part that was not in the originals. Some minor exterior difference that probably most people wouldn't even catch, I know I didn't until they were pointed out to me but they are definitely not carbon copies of the older guns.

 

[ware]

Id like a colt revolver but other than that…