Do They Owe Us

Do the gun companies owe we customers anything?

I was in a discussion where the topic of Colt's treatment of the civilian market while they are flush with government contracts came up.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=500570

CTbuilder1 said: "They are a company like any other. They will do what is profitable and in there best interests. It doesn't mean they are anti civilian. Why is it that so many people feel they are owed something by gun companies?"

I don't feel that Colt owes me anything. I just think that if their best interests are ignoring us for the fat government contract we should ignore them when they come back, hat in hand, for our business when those contracts expire.

I am getting damned sick of hearing what great products Colt makes and how I should ignore their actions in the early nineties. "They were forced to do that or lose their military contracts," is what several people have said about the large hammer and trigger pins and the deletion of the bayonet lugs and flash-hiders, "if they hadn't done that they would have gone bankrupt!" In 1992, they went bankrupt anyway. In 1994 they were bought out. They have not been a large presence in the civilian gun market since. In 1998 their CEO, Ron Stewart, stated that he would favor a federal permit system with training and testing for gun ownership. He was replaced because of the boycott that followed, but his successor pursued "smart gun" technology, something that there was zero market for naturally but got a lot of gun-control people drooling to make a requirement for ownership; who were they trying to sell that to? It wasn't us private buyers.

Yes, you can buy a Law Enforcement line gun as a normal schmoe, but for several years Colt threatened dire consequences to the dealers who sold the LE line to non-departmental customers. There are rumors of Colt refusing to warranty LE line guns that were sold to private individuals. The threats proved hollow and the rumors appear to be false; but your gun will have "RESTRICTED MILITARY/GOVERNMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT/EXPORT USE ONLY" stamped on the side. That sure doesn't give me the impression they want private ownership of those guns.

I get the distinct impression that their defenders are totally unaware that there are companies like Bravo Company and Spike's Tactical who are making AR-15's that are every bit as good, perhaps better, than what Colt sells.

For a long time Colt's 1911 has been just more expensive than several competitors, not better made.

Their Single Action Army is, indeed, still the standard by which all other SAA are measured, but you could buy two of the next most expensive brand for the price of that standard.

All of this makes me seem like a Colt hater. I am not! I want them to court me actively while they are flush with government largess and act like they want my business too rather than treating the markets as mutually exclusive or a zero sum game where a sale to a person is a lost government sale. It's not true.

There are people pining for the return of the Python or Detective Special. I would love to see the return of the Anaconda. Smith and Wesson is managing to make money selling revolvers in those sizes and there are several other companies sharing the market with them, like Charter Arms, Rossi and Taurus.

SIG is making big money selling a clone of the Colt Mustang! Colt could have owned that market, but they gave it away by sucking up to the politicians.



Comments

15th-Jun-2010 12:11 am (local) ravenclaw_eric
Sounds like the way H-D treated the "biker" market for a long time, back before bikers became fashionable and they finally realized who was buying their bikes, even in the AMF years.


15th-Jun-2010 12:46 am (local) mcthag
You mean lawyers, doctors and investment bankers?


15th-Jun-2010 12:53 am (local) ravenclaw_eric
That's nowadays---who else can afford the overpriced contraptions?

If I can get my bike up and running this summer, I may come down to visit you.

15th-Jun-2010 10:02 am (local) mcthag
When I was hanging around with my dad and the club he was in, there were damn few new Harleys. In the AMF days I think the issue was that nobody was buying.

Dad took a lot of shit for his Yamaha chopper, but it started and ran every time and didn't leak.

Harley took a long time learning a lot of lessons; but the one that took longest, it seems, is you have to have a product that people want to buy. I have to admit their solution to that was clever, rather than fundamentally change the product to fit the market, they marketed the cachet of their product.

All I have to do to resist that cachet is to say, "Sturgis '84," to myself. The lesson is further reinforced by all the shit-heel scumbags riding with their heads firmly up their asses around here. Not to mention the anti-cager mentality that's present at any "bike-night". I think that Jews were more welcome in Nazi Germany than a car driving past.

18th-Jun-2010 01:53 am (local) ravenclaw_eric
"Sturgis '84?" What is that all about? ISTR reading in Supercycle and Easyriders that some big bike rallies in that time frame got 'way out of hand.

One other reason I'm not keen on owning a H-D, even if I had the bucks for one, is that they're candy for thieves. My '79 Yamaha XS1100's comfy and doesn't attract that sort of attention. A hot Harley's worth big bucks either as a whole bike or as parts.

20th-Jun-2010 10:53 pm (local) mcthag

Sturgis '84 was the year I had the honor of riding the Sportster from Minneapolis. That bike was made of suck.

Just as my Mercury Lynx closed my heart to FoMoCo forever so did that AMF Sportster...