Colt bails out of the civilian AR-15 market

[gunbugs]

Weak sister bastards. I never thought Colt stuff was all that good anyway. Now they have caved to political correctness. Cowards.

[Roadster 02]

I second that, except for the part where Colt stuff ain't good. I think it is excellent, though pricey.

[rolandtg]

This has nothing to do with "caving".
It's all about business.
The market has decided that there's no reason to pay a premium for a Colt-made weapon when everyone else is capable of making parts of virtually the same quality.
Colt is simply choosing to not try to compete with the hundreds parts makers out there who make it possible to build a perfectly serviceable AR for ~$500.

On the plus side, this will make my pre-ban Gov't model more valuable.

[HerrKaiser]

Was thinking the same thing. It also comes on the heels of plenty of other manufacturers posting ‘Beto’ sales. Some as cheap as $350. They got priced out of the market because they relied too much on a reputation instead of quality. You’d have thought that after what happened to Remington and Smith & Wesson in recent memory, companies would have learned their lesson.

[rolandtg]

Imho, lack of quality on Colts part is less the issue than the fact that Colt has a lot more overhead than a few guys in a metal building making lowers on a CNC machine.
Because of that Colt just can't afford to sell a ~$500 AR.
The price of the hardware required to manufacture parts has declined very rapidly in the last decade.
It just doesn't require highly trained craftsmen and expensive infrastructure to manufacture AR's anymore.
The other problem, as they mentioned in their press release, is the market for AR's is completely saturated.

[DonVoigt]

Yes,
when one can buy a complete AR for under $400 and a receiver(plastic) for under $50 or a complete upper for under $200- I'd agree that there is slim profit, and the marked is for sure "saturated".

The AR is like an "Erector set" or maybe "Lego's"; not much to putting one together and scores of guys or small outfits or companies are competing to the bottom price on parts.

Colt is doing what they need to do to stay in business, which has not always been the case for them.
JMHO.

[DavidJayUden]

I'm betting they sold few AR15's lately and probably focus more on gov't. contracts, etc. This is NOT a blow to them.
"Colt Firearms, Inc, facing bankruptcy since 1855".
dju

[calibrator]

My advice for future AR owners is to go no further than here for the major components ;

https://www.aeroprecisionusa.com/?ms..._content=Brand

Send them a redacted copy of your DD 214 and get 15% off all your purchases.

All my triggers have a "G" on them, except the one Hyperfire unit that edges it out slightly.

[MW2152]

This non-story has been hilarious to follow... left leaning radio talk show hosts falling all over themselves talking about how Colt was doing the right thing to be part of the solution. That they have heard “the people’s” concerns after mass shootings and are responding to it. Bunch of knuckleheads... too dumb to realize it is simply about the market and profit. A company circling the drain of bankruptcy wouldn’t walk away from a profit center. But they will walk away from dead weight and anything not profitable. Just like Colt is doing.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by MW2152

This non-story has been hilarious to follow... left leaning radio talk show hosts falling all over themselves talking about how Colt was doing the right thing to be part of the solution.

Where does one find these "hosts"? I've never heard one on any of my radios.

[Edward Tinker]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

Where does one find these "hosts"? I've never heard one on any of my radios.

It is unlikely your wrist could turn the knob, so far left Geo

[MW2152]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

Where does one find these "hosts"? I've never heard one on any of my radios.

Large metro radio station in my area.

[aldo35]

I believe Colt's first military contracts for AR 15's had prices in the range of $115. I purchased a civilian model from a friend at Colt's in the 60's for $168. Not a bad investment in hindsight.

The popularity of AR's was certainly enhanced by pricing of others. Some 10 yeas ago I bought a heavy barrel Bushmaster model for around $650 and thought that was a bargain at the time.

[flydive]

Originally Posted by MW2152

This non-story has been hilarious to follow... left leaning radio talk show hosts falling all over themselves talking about how Colt was doing the right thing to be part of the solution. That they have heard “the people’s” concerns after mass shootings and are responding to it. Bunch of knuckleheads... too dumb to realize it is simply about the market and profit. A company circling the drain of bankruptcy wouldn’t walk away from a profit center. But they will walk away from dead weight and anything not profitable. Just like Colt is doing.

Do you apply the same to gunbugs and Roadster 02?

[Doubs]

I agree that it's a business decision based on the score or more of companies that sell decent ARs rifles at prices that Colt can't compete with.

The AR is so easy to put together that most people with a few basic tools can do it. The cost of an armorer's tool, upper and lower blocks, a vice and a few tools you're likely to have already and you're set.

[mrerick]

I'll cross post this research from another forum I participate in. I looked into the facts behind Colt's decision.

When these older manufacturing companies design a product, they also design in an expected level of profit from selling each one of them.

They calculate their own internal costs (labor, materials, stocking etc...) and then project a price point at retail and wholesale that will cover manufacturing and distribution profits.

But, thanks to technology, the world has changed and Colt obviously has not changed with the world.

They can make the profit that they need by selling and supporting a $1,500 rifle. They cannot do so for $350 rifles.

Nimble and aggressive competitors entered the market based on military specifications for the parts, an expanded supplier chain for raw materials, automation and numerical machine control for the machining steps, and comprehensive automated testing.

I've never been there, but I expect you'd see the difference touring Palmetto State Armory's suppliers, their final assembly facility and their warehousing (which I expect contains few finished goods, and lots of just in time staged in-process parts).

PSA has let interested journalists in to see their facilities:


https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/amm...armory-part-1/

here's one on Daniel Defense:

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/04/05...defense-videos

This article shows Colt during WW-II:
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/10/col...s-image-vault/

Here's an article with a few factory photos from Colt in Hartford:

Colt's Manufacturing Company | Hendon Publishing

http://www.hendonpub.com/tactical_re...turing_company

And a video showing the M1911a1 line: (go about 20 minutes in for a view of the actual factory in operation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eij9GxSaIYw

The last video is from the UAW talking about how union employees manufacture Colt products:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePV00uei1k

In the case of Colt, it's not just labor, it's union labor. And it's a lot more manual union labor than a modern automated factory requires. Does that account for a $1,000 difference in price? I doubt it.

When you manage a company the way it's "always been done" and someone pops up with a much more efficient approach, you can get left in the dust of the marketplace. When you find that almost everyone else has a much more efficient approach, you have a real problem.

One response is to find a customer (the US tax payer, government agencies, and foreign governments) that are willing to pay your price for the "value" you deliver. I expect that is Colt's current plan.

[Roadster 02]

The reason I jumped to the conclusion I did, is that Colt in the past has abandoned their retail customer base before, to concentrate on the military side of gun sales where the big bucks are. I just figured it was more of the same. It looks like I might be wrong, it won't be the first time.

[George Anderson]

Here's ABV News' spin on Colt's decision...
This, from ABC, is a nice example of a news organization deliberately bending the truth in order to advance a narrative that it wishes were true but is not: "Venerable gun manufacturer Colt says it will stop producing the AR-15, among other rifles, for the consumer market in the wake of many recent mass shootings in which suspects used the weapon." That’s actually not the story at all.



The company did not mention mass shootings and the reason that the company did not mention mass shootings is because mass shootings have nothing to do with its decision. As Colt made clear, it believes that “there is an adequate supply of rifles for the foreseeable future,” and so it is temporarily shifting its production priorities in order to focus on the military. That’s it. That’s the whole story.

[DonVoigt]

Yes, the statement is true and yes the additional clause is true; they just are not related to each other.

We see it all the time, like George says- someone wants to "push" an agenda.

[mrerick]

There is often a minuscule kernel of "truth" wrapped in the lies you read and hear in the media.

When you're directly involved in the thing that the media is reporting on, you regularly understand how small that kernel is, even if it happens to be in there.

Everybody does it, and it's under the control of the editors that work for the publishers that profit from it. The key is to understand how media is modulating and using fear to maintain the public's attention.

So... as they say, pick your poison. On our forum, a true mistake or informed assumption is more likely to be misleading than an outright fabrication. It's nice to be among friends here.