Friends,
I received this from a good friend that is a talented stock broker as well as a great shooter. No one can predict the future, but it's worth considering.
Greg



Gentlemen;
If you ever wanted another Colt, now would be the time to rush out and get one. Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal just reported that Colt Firearms will probably default on their $380 million in debt, later this month.

That means that if they cannot find additional financing (or a buyer) they will probably fold.

When you sell out to a single buyer (.gov, Wal-Mart, etc.), this happens every time.

That said, perhaps the new buyer will move Colt out of the USSA.

Here's a link to the Bloomberg article.

Bloomberg Article on Colt Defense.

Dan

My opinion Colt priced themselves out of business. Most over rated handguns on the market. I knew when Colt stopped production on the Woodsman and Trooper they would eventually close their doors

In their halcyon days, they made some mighty fine guns.

The new gun market won't miss a beat.



Travis

Agreed.

Over priced, poor management, piss poor product development, big govt. contacts, and union labor have all added to Colt's demise.

It seems Colt does this every 10-15 years and has since the 1970s. Oh well, not like there aren't Colts to be had.

If a gun company can't make a profit in today's market, it doesn't deserve to survive.

Were stockbrokers in 2008 telling everyone to run out and buy a GM or Chrysler car if they wanted one because they were about to default? Companies default every day and life goes on. Maybe they go into Chapter 11 and the business or the key assets get sold to someone else who intends to use them. Remember when USRA shut down in 2006, and everyone lamented the end of the Winchester design, and guns got reintroduced in 2008 under new ownership?

The worst case is that someone like Bloomberg wastes money and buys the company or assets so it can shut them down, and you buy a Kimber/Springfield/Ruger/S&W/RIA/etc. instead. I really don't see a life altering downside.

Ain't that the truth.

When you've made sure your only real client/customer is .gov, you're doomed no matter the economy.

I have never owned a Colt of any kind. Can't say I have never lusted over a Python or two, but never spent the money, so I won't necessarily miss them, but I do hate to see historic companies go by the wayside, especially gun companies.

How many times has Colt been broke or near bankrupt?

If Colt does go under I am willing to bet the likes of FN, Beretta, ATK or some other company would pick them up if nothing else to keep the Colt name alive.

This ^^^^

Someone will buy the name, but not the labor force.

Colts problem is and has been poor management. The work force cannot make up for poor management.

Management/leadership is always the problem.

Always.

Always.

Always.

Bet on the bright side, my Delta may go up in value a smidge.



Travis

Colt's biggest problem was Colt Industries, the holding company - they ruined several good American companies by pulling all the profit out and allowing no re-investment. Holley Carburetor and Fairbanks-Morse are two examples - companies that once dominated world markets and are now shadows of their former selves. I'd almost bet Colt is still paying big royalties just to use their own name.

Colt did have a lot of union problems in the 1980's, but pretty well got their act together in the 1990's, and have been making good stuff since then.

I expect that if they fail, the brand will be picked up by somebody. Hopefully someone who will respect it and run it well.

1+

Bummer. Hopefully Colt Mfg. will once again be spun off from Colt Defense.

That�s EXACTLY the problem. Colt�s leadership has gone from corporate raider to corporate raider, to inept, to corrupt corporate riders, back to inept. And keep in mind, there are two distinct Colt�s, Colt�s Defense, and Colt�s LLC, so while Colt�s Defense is the boom and bust, Colt�s LLC while not a big money maker, IS a money maker. I could see someone buying up Colt�s Defense for the name if the price was low enough. Then move production to someplace more reasonable.

As for Colt�s LLC (civilian guns), I can see someone like Cerberus snatching them up, pouring in some investment (and I don�t think it would take a ton), to modernize some and possibly expand their offerings. It would be very difficult financially to move them out of CT, but if they could pull them off, they could probably turn Colt back into a real gun company.

Their current 1911�s are VERY good quality, better than most. S&W�s 1911�s are highly regarded and my Colt�s is MUCH nicer than my S&W, more accurate and since both have been 100% reliable, that�s parity. Colt�s marketing for their civilian guns S U C K S ! ! They couldn�t sell water to a dying man in a desert. Even with such piss poor marketing, they are selling guns and actually making a profit.

If Colt's had any sort of decent marketing, they'd be selling a lot of 1911's because the new 1911's are really good guns.

The AR-15 market is just freaking brutal. The guys making money in that market are the ones changing their catalog every 15 minutes to accommodate the latest AR-15-a-holic whims...Hey, that's the market like it or not, either play the game or understand that you're just not going to do well. Again, Colt's is still selling AR-15's, at a profit, but much hungrier companies are out-working them in offerings and marketing.

Oh, goodie, now we can start a big fight over internal vs. external extractors!

War has always been the savior of Colt's. Colt's has always, literally from day one been a poorly run company. Sam Colt was a hell of a salesman, but he wasn't the greatest CEO.

They nearly went broke after the Civil war, that was probably the biggest threat to the survival of the company ever because they hadn't built up much of any foreign customers. S&W sold the Government the Schofield and that cut into Colt's rather small US contract. Then the Spanish American war and the contract for the DA revolver saved them from bankruptcy. And the story goes on and on, they have been on the ropes and nearly out, to be saved by the latest war. Seriously, look 1-2 years before every US war and you'll see that Colt's was nearly bankrupt. They really screwed up when they lost the M16A2 contract and even the Gulf War couldn't save them, so they went bankrupt in 1992. The new wars and the patent on the M4 completely saved their arse. Since the invention of the M16 Colt's has received a LOT of corporate welfare with the US military buying M16's just to keep the production lines rolling.

The new wars were advertising gold for Colt and the M4 because the M4 has performed exceptionally well and has become the weapon of choice for spec ops groups all over the world. Colt's foreign sales are really their bread and butter, but it looks like large scale US military involvement won't happen for some time, so they're in a world of hurt.

The 'two Colts' reunited a year or two ago.

Not much of a fight. Externals are cheaper, not better.

Yes, the name itself, like that of Winchester, is quite valuable. Some company with purchase it just for that.

Horseschitte. Workers that deliver 5 hours for the 8 they are paid is the problem and is precisely why we build schitte elsewhere.

If you've got an entire company of people delivering 5 hours of work for 8 hours of pay....you've got a pretty big management / leadership problem.

How do you know that's the case or is it just your anti union BS?

The only BS that I see is what you are spewing. Management is responsible for productivity. I have taken over too many crews that weren't producing and turned them into top producers. It starts at the top always has always wil.

A company doesn't get good or bad from the bottom up, it gets good or bad from the top down.

More like a union problem.

Once again, you prove that you're full of schitt and don't know what you're talking about.

Nope, that is a management problem, a lack of good leadership. Men will only give their leaders minimum expectations. Productivity and quality begins at the top, not the bottom.

That's disappointing news to hear.

I have one of their 1911's which seems pretty high quality. Yes, I did pay a little bit of premium for their name, but it was my first 1911.

��spent a few years teaching "Leadership Training for Managers" in a couple of UAW plants (GM & Ford)----UAW required that we offer segregated classes to union as well as salaried personnel----I can't bring myself to fully agree that ALL quality and production issues begin at the top----too many unions have invested themselves in disruption for self preservation; however, I get your point.

Re: the current Colt quality; I bought a Wiley Clapp Cmdr. a couple of years ago and Lightweight full-sized Govt. model last fall, and both have been superb guns in function and esthetics. It's been 8 or 9 years since I purchased a new SAA, but the finish was as good as anything ever to leave Hartford---the action wasn't as smooth as a 2nd Gen gun, but that was easily resolved. Personally, I feel like they've come a long way from their low point in the 80's. They just haven't kept up innovation-wise.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Management should not accept disruption.

agreed��..but in a cause and effect discussion, neither did they necessarily cause it��..ignoring it might propagate more however.

Having only one major client/customer is suicide regardless of how good/bad your management/work-force is.

Management should never agree to a contract that controls their destiny.

You mean, like having essentially only one client/customer? Agreed.

workers(union or not) are like a truck, it may be capable but it is managements job to see it work. Wages, benefits everything is negotiated by both sides in a contract. If the union has it too good and is replaceable they will be locked out and replaced. If not blame management

Exactly.

Spoken like a unionista. Glad all those Union dollars and votes went to Hussein; Colt, the coal industry, the U.S. military, and America really ought to "thank" them properly.

I get your point jwp and I'm not trying to erase Mgt.'s responsibility entirely, but it's at a point where unions have frequently functioned at the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton race-baiting stage where they have to stir up controversy where there is none simply to justify their existence. To say that it's all Mgt.'s fault is a little like saying that Ferguson, MO is entirely the white establishment's fault in my opinion. Of course, I could be wrong.

No doubt tha at some locals run their business poorly and donot act as if the connection between management and labor is a 2 way street, the same can also be said for some managers. The fact remains that a company is not forced to sign a union contract. I have worked both sides and believe me there is certainly ways to control the situation.

I knew that Colt would never go anywhere after they stopped making the 1851 Navy.

In the short term, yeah unions can cause a lot of problems. I've worked with one that would say, "yes we are proud of our work here, glad to be part of your team" and there would be no grievances or strikes. But try to make a change to improve anything, and you'd hear "fantastic, great idea!" and then 2 weeks later they'd go back to the old methods. If something got improved, it would get unimproved 2 weeks later.

But some of the problems and attitude were a response to some of the company's actions.

In the end, the company just packed up & moved. And suddenly was non-union. In the end, it was a management issue.

Always is a management issue. Change is difficult to empliment on both side union or non union. People just feel more comfortable doing what they have always done.

If unions are not a huge part of the problem, why are other company's moving or wanting to move to right to work states.

A friend works for the RR, he said if the fridge don't work, the conductor/engineer area is dirty, or they don't have a locker they get to bill extra, like 20-50 bucks a day. Now I don't recall the exact amount but it was ridiculous.

GE built a plant in Texas in order to get a cheaper work force. So far this has not worked out, most of what they have built in Texas has had to be shipped to Erie, Pa. Ignore dear to correct poor quality by union workers before they could ship to the customer. The cheaper labor so far has cost more over all.

Still a management issue to correct.

It's kind of like every month when you get the checks from one of your credit card companies. They want you to transfer your debt from the 25% card so you can have no interest with them for a year or something. You put off into the future what you can't pay today so you can't pay it tomorrow either. I think this is what is happening at Colt. I just don't see how a company like that could die. They probably need bankruptcy protection to get from beneath the mountain of debt they have at high interest rates and to break some of the union deals they have made. This is not the unions or the banks fault, it is Colt's management or lack thereof. This is the way our system works, like it or not.

unions do tend to increase labor costs. Because union labor tends to get more of the pie. Is it perfect? No. Do YOU benefit? If you like 8 hour workdays, 40 hour weeks, overtime pay, insurance benefits, vacation pay or safety standards.
then YOU have benefit from unions. There have been big abuses but the pendulum has shifted since the seventies. Now if management wants they can do a lockout and replace union workers pretty easy. Companys go right to work to save money. I dont understand the union hating.

I have worked about the same amount of time union and non. The differences are very noticeable pro and con. Some are small like being told by management to shut up when you disagree. Others are not so small. Some will not like this but a union can make the two sides get along better simply because people are treated more equal. And no one will believe that I am still skeptical of unions and get mad every time i get the propaganda newsletter.

I�m not a big fan of unions, but I don�t bash union workers just because they�re union. Colt has been union for nearly a century, so the current people have had no say in whether Colt�s is union or non-union.

Truth be told, the lowest quality Colt�s came when Colt�s union workers went on strike from 1985-1990. Still Colt�s at its lowest quality has always been pretty decent. Series 80 pistols made in the �80�s were some of the low points for Colts but they functioned better than most Series 70�s, and the frame, slide, and barrels were still just as good as they ever were.

But if you look at the history of Colt�s they have ALWAYS had leadership problems, and have suffered horrendously from corporate raiders through buyouts.

But Colt�s biggest sin was their failure to innovate, and horrible marketing. THAT is a leadership problem, has nothing to do with the union.

In 2002 William Keys a retired Marine General took over as CEO and not long after that quality went way up. If you haven�t taken a Colt�s 1911 out for a test drive in a while, I recommend you do. I personally think they make the best production (non-custom/semi-custom) 1911 these days, with perhaps only Dan Wesson making a nicer 1911. Colt�s are fully the equal of anything coming out of Springfield Armory, and better looking aesthetically, just more attention to detail. And Colt�s beat Springfield & Kimber for the Marines contract. And did so with union employees whom some claim aren�t worth a crap.

+1

That's just anti-union talk for the sake of being anti-union. Unless you specifically have good information on how the union shop at Colt's is hurting Colt's at this time, I don't see how it's relevant.

Look I spent 16 years in a union against my will, but I couldn't work as a non-union medic until I became management. So I became a union shop steward to fix problems with the union and get them to work with management instead of against it. When I left it was a healthy shop. In fact, you're ONLY chance of getting into management was to have served as a union shop steward. We had a healthy partnership with management and people worked hard for the company. We specifically found ways to fire the non-productive people or those who were a danger. And again, I don't like unions either, but to throw all of them in the same batch just shows a lack of understanding.

Just because Colt's is UAW doesn't mean it works the same way as GM's UAW shop.

Colt's had a nasty strike in the '80's, and on that one, you can point fingers at the union (and let's not forget management, it takes two). But that was 25 years ago, so how do you explain the past 25 years?

Truth be told, Colt's has had piss-poor management from day one and has been on the brink of bankruptcy more times than you can count, and filed bankruptcy in 1994. It takes LEADERSHIP to run a company, if you don't have it, you're going to have problems. I personally think it's a miracle that Colt's has survived.

Which product/plant in Texas? I know GE builds Locomotives in Erie, but had not heard about other products.

They are trying to build them in Texas now, but so far the quality isn't up to par so they Erie plant is stil going. If they get the quality issue resolved in Texas I am not sure what will happen to the Erie plant. I have a good friend that works in Erie.

If you say so.




Travis

Too fuggin' funny.

News flash: Management can handle that real easy like.



Travis

Nail on head...



Travis

That's because LEADERS were not chosen. Managers were chosen.

That's how unions win. They march on top of managers.

Don't promote a pussy. It will cost you in the long run.



Travis

I didn't imagine this thread would contain any pissing match.

In my thinking, with the employment situation in this country right now, if a company can't find a labor force that works hard, they aren't trying. Unions may have something to do with this, making it difficult to fire morons and slackers, but the ship is always steered by the rudder, no matter which way the wind is blowing.

The firearms market has gotten pretty competitive; yet the name Colt still means something to those who are looking for quality firearms. Colt has made so many bad decisions regarding their production and the guns they are putting out that they are screwing themselves. It has become all too common for big names to start putting out shyte in the interest of cost-cutting, and then losing market share.

When companies grasp that guns aren't thow-away items the way that appliances, cars, and computers have become, and that quality at a higher price will always win out in the long-term, they prosper. When they discard this simple understanding, they lose money. When the used market for older guns is consistently bringing higher prices than the new production guns, something is seriously wrong. I'd love it if Colt was still building their simple, rugged revolvers (like the Trooper) at a competitive price. Or their 'Snake' line. Maybe they are? I quit paying attention 10 years ago.

I certainly agree that Colt's quality is superb and their innovation is lousy. Compare them to say, Mossberg or Savage. Not too many years ago, either name was synonymous with mediocrity at best, with Savage going thru bankruptcy��today, both companies seem to be kicking butt in the innovation department and they've done it without going after competitive shooters (which while a narrow market, drives innovation) or the Military (other than a modest Govt. contract for Mossberg).

The name "Colt," like "Winchester" is probably too iconic to die; hopefully they won't go the route of Remington/Marlin and get purchased by a Cerberus/Freedom Arms group�..I think that bean counters don't tend to make good gun company decision makers.

Hopefully the new owners move Colt to a state that still believes in the 2A, the Constitution, and one without a union albatross.

Funny schit that Colt can fail in today's climate.

"One of these is not like the other." And magically, the oddball is the same company that had a government dick in its mouth for some time.

SHOCKING.



Travis

Been saying something about having just one client/customer. None want to listen.

Thai is definately a problem that lies at the feet of management.

Sometimes people can get by without being managed but they can never get by without being lead unless they're already where they need to be.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...LC-Enters-70-Million-Senior#.VGs_ncnQpwd

Well then, Management saves the day.

well, I can wait a while on buying a new Commander

Yeah, I'd love to see Colt's give the finger to the North East.

Well that should help them limp along a little longer, but that's not a solution.

Yea, because moving to new, nonunion facilities has really helped the QC and reputation of Remington and Marlin.

Well you kinda have a point there, and a good point. I think the move is more political than union vs. non-union. When these companies move they need to put a real insistence on quality. Moving such an operation is a very tough thing and you can't expect it to not have its growing pains. But long term employees are hard to replace, union or no union.

Maybe not that company, but the South Carolina non union Winchesters are very fine rifles. And competitive.

If my big game rifles were stolen today, I could - with the insurance settlement money- replace them all with off the shelf Winchester Model 70's and be a happy and VERY well armed big game hunter for the rest of my life and have some excellent rifles to hand down.

Here is another vote (not that our opinions or 'votes' mean squat) For the Colt name etc to get picked up by FN or a similar company. With Modern CNC equipment maybe the Pythons and Troopers and Diamondbacks could be re added to the line up along with a really good and well equipped 1911 for about $750 out the door.

Sure as Hell helped Winchester/FN, and will help Beretta. I don't think you really want to play this game, unionista.

A long time ago UI created the print advertising for Colt. The guns sold like nobody's business but there was a small problem - the genius management at Colt tried to have the Cowboy made in Yugoslavia, they discontinued the Magnum Carry, and the Defender was almost impossible to find on a dealers shelf I was told by an "insider" that probably knew the entire story, that there were orders for 50,000 Cowboys and they could not be manufactured on the antique Colt equipment. One of the Colt chaps gave me TWO Magnum Carry revolvers that still grace my hip when UI am cruising the wilds. What a shame that a great company has fallen so low - and that such wonderful handguns have disappeared.

Puthons are dead and will never come back, that much I can promise.

Play what game? Beretta is moving to get out of antigun Maryland.
PS- What's a "unionista"? If it's supposed to be a insult or you're trying to be cute, you failed on both counts.

I got the point of his insult, easily. Your posts make you look like a pro union socialist. Unionista is a slang term to describe folks who are Union shills. Your posts look and sound as if you fit the bill or description.

A casual glance at Colt's situation shows the problem is not the product, the location, the union, or even the day-to-day management or employees. The problem is the financial management, which in a better world would be stated as "criminal financial management".

Colt execs have been taking millions of dollars in loans and distributing most of the cash to themselves. Colt gets saddled with the debt, eventually forced to take additional loans, and the line-our-pockets scheme by the execs is repeated.

Colt needs to fold if only to be purchased by someone or some entity with a shred of integrity.

�.does anyone know the straight scoop on what happened to USFA�..they took over the Blue Dome portion of the original Colt factory and all of the original equipment IIRC and added a bunch of CNC enhancements----they made the absolute finest SAA in production and had started to branch out into 1911's. For some reason the owner wanted to make .22 zip guns or something. He had been an Olympic Shooter IIRC and seemed like a good business man----almost like the place is cursed or something.

Of course, you'd never blame management, they're just like you, stealing peoples money. Why don't you go find a quiet corner and GFY.

This is the point that escapes every anti-union poster I see here and elsewhere. It's as if they think that management always has the right answers and management's interests are only with the benefit of the company.

Regardless of what else is going on, the fault for failure always rests with management. A poorly managed company should be allowed to fail.

Asking why management does something as a rhetorical response indicates an assumption that management always makes the right decisions for the company good. That would be a pretty ignorant assumption.

As for your RR friend....Those penalties are in place to encourage management to treat employees like humans. RR crews are essentially held captive for extended periods in remote locations on trains and need a way to keep food safe to eat. Management has historically refused to maintain equipment for them to do so. The easy way to avoid penalty payments (other than just refusing to pay and stonewalling) is to have the equipment available and working. If you haven't worked in the industry, I doubt you'd understand. The RR industry is a prime example of why we have unions.