Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey dakka. Let me start of by saying I do not own any guns, and I don't anticipate owning one anytime soon, but I do have a bit of an interest in them. /k/ is always there for Weapon talks, but one can only take so many "u jelly /k/" threads and "which glock is best hurr durr" threads, and I appreciate your opinions more.

So. I've been lurking around Colt's website, checking out their products, reading a little about Colt's history, and just generally drooling on myself. But I have to wonder... What does Colt have going for it? Sure, they make AR-15 platforms for the US military (and other governments), but they charge an arm and a leg for (from what I can perceive as) weapons that are no more reliable than any of the other numerous companies that make AR platforms. Am I missing something with the reliability of Colts?

Colt has a pretty big grip on the 1911 market too, probably because they make so many freaking variants, but what is the advantage to buying from them over Springfield Armory or any of the other companies?

Is Colt just a status thing for people who have nothing else to spend money on? Clearly, Colt has the US Military in it's pocket (at least until they eventually dump the M4/16), and that lends itself to their influence, but after that, what will happen to them? They seem like the GW of guns.

General Colt/gun thread, I guess. Just a little confused

Colt basically invented the modern revolver, so it has history on its side. Their weapons are steady and reliable, easy to find parts for...

Iunno, the first gun I bought was a Colt M1911 .45 calibur semiautomatic pistol, so I could be a little biased.

It is sad that Colt has focused on the government contract work, and made the civilian market secondary. But, colt is nothing like the GW of guns. They are more like the Bently of guns. Much more innovative in the past,(thanks to Mr. Browning) and clinging to a business model that stifles real innovation. Colts best efforts are restyles of older classics.

Colt has basically been living off of law enforcement and military sales. In fact of you remember the hubbub about the XM-8 and it's subsequent cancellation that's because Colt simply lowered the price on the the m4. It just so happens colt never actually had to compete for the m4 because in the procurement arm it was originally just a low rate production variant of the M16. Were they to compete at any point for an actual contract for a carbine they would undoubtedly lose.

In the LEO field they are simply well known for reliability even and especially when firing subsonics suppressed. In that arena they are actually budget priced compared to say Noveske.

Recently you can see a resurgent interest in expanding thier market base. Colt is far from the dominant 1911 manufacturer, the reason you see a lot of Colt branded 1911 frames is because they have literally been made continuously for 100 years. When comparing prices it's hard to beat SA in mid range 1911s that are not full customs. In fact many of the 1911's carried by MEU(SOC)s that were not original USGI were SA. It is hard to beat the reputation for out of the box quality and reliability Colt has however, many buyers will pay 10-50% more for pony reliability. The Gold Cup being an excellent example. Colt has restarted the Mustang line and *may* have a new offering in the next 5 years.

I have an uberti replica of a colt 1861 Navy cap and ball revolver. It's pretty much the closest thing you can get to the origional. It's definitely my favorite black powder gun that I own, and is actually quite accurate.

(not a real Colt I know, but close enough lol)

Looks just like this, except this one is brass for some reason. (The brass parts are case-hardened steel on mine) EDIT: I think this one is actually an original. Though I think there were steel ones as well.

I've actually been brushing up on my 1911 knowledge (youtube, mainly), and it seems like Colts are OVERALL pretty much worth the price, which was a surprise. When you compare a 1911 made by SFA and one made by Colt, there are definitely noticeable differences, mainly in the aesthetics, but it seems like they make a more reliable product, and their customer service department is good as well.

Colt offers all sorts of obtuse configurations that for one reason or another, do appeal to shooters (Like the Delta 1911 that shoots 10mm, or the old 70 series systems, or the various 1911s with adjustable back sights) so I guess that's cool.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I've actually been brushing up on my 1911 knowledge (youtube, mainly), and it seems like Colts are OVERALL pretty much worth the price, which was a surprise. When you compare a 1911 made by SFA and one made by Colt, there are definitely noticeable differences, mainly in the aesthetics, but it seems like they make a more reliable product, and their customer service department is good as well.

Colt offers all sorts of obtuse configurations that for one reason or another, do appeal to shooters (Like the Delta 1911 that shoots 10mm, or the old 70 series systems, or the various 1911s with adjustable back sights) so I guess that's cool.

Heck, every one is making1911s. Colt, Remington, Sig, Kahr, IIRC Ithica, and Mossberg do too. Everyone makes one

Not bad for a 101 year old design.

Given that they gave up on the revolver market*, and generally only have a tiny lineup of the same old same old in terms of he civilian market, I don't honestly know. I guess they survive off of military and police weapons.


*Yes, I nkow they produce replica SAAs. No, that doesn't count. The reason one would buy a Colt SAA is different than the reason one would buy a diamondback, python, or anaconda. Honestly, SAAs are boring, stupid, and ugly, unlike Colt's more modern revolvers.

Samus_aran115 wrote:
Colt has a pretty big grip on the 1911 market too, probably because they make so many freaking variants, but what is the advantage to buying from them over Springfield Armory or any of the other companies?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they have a "big" grip on the market for 1911s, as it was pointed out, just about everyone makes one... After firing them, I actually prefer Wilson Combat, and STI, at least over Colt.

Didyou try their 1991 or their 1911?

Melissia wrote:Didyou try their 1991 or their 1911?

Of which??

Wilson Combat, I shot a 1911 and in the STI, it was actually a "2011" with a double stack "mag"

Melissia wrote:Given that they gave up on the revolver market*, and generally only have a tiny lineup of the same old same old in terms of he civilian market, I don't honestly know. I guess they survive off of military and police weapons.


*Yes, I nkow they produce replica SAAs. No, that doesn't count. The reason one would buy a Colt SAA is different than the reason one would buy a diamondback, python, or anaconda. Honestly, SAAs are boring, stupid, and ugly, unlike Colt's more modern revolvers.

Largely you can thank Smith and Wesson for that. They are now and always have been copycat artists. It's no coincidence the police positive and m and p are virtually identical, or the detective and j frame. It's not artful serendipity that an N frame fits into a form molded holster for a Python. When Colt was employing gunsmiths to hand build thier wheel guns Smith used machinists at 2/3s the cost and priced colt out of the market they created. I take great joy in Taurus doing to Smith what smith has done to so many others for decades. Modernity and copy cats drove Colt to drop thier Double action revelovers rather than retool, and we have all suffered for such a great loss to the firearms community.
It's worth pointing out the Woodsman was a victim of Smith too, take a good hard look at the model 41.

I do know the Taurus raging bull is better looking than the S&W revolvers at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Melissia wrote:Didyou try their 1991 or their 1911?

Of which??

Wilson Combat, I shot a 1911 and in the STI, it was actually a "2011" with a double stack "mag"

The colt version.

Colt released an update tot he 1911 called the Colt Government Model 1991, which improved on the basic mil-spec 1911 design.

I too am in the market for a 1911, I know it WILL be my next handgun purchase. I can tell you though, from readin reviews, watching reviews, talking to people, Colts are indeed good, sure its a given. But you can get a nearly identical firearm, with arguably the same reliability, for hundreds less. So unless your a Colt fanatic, or get one for a really good deal, Id say, save yourself some dough, and shop elsewhere.

The nice things about the 1911 market, is the majority of the upgrades and such you can buy for one, will fit the others, as they are pretty much, the same gun. So with the cash you save buying a different brand, you could get yourself some nice sights and grips or whatever else you were looking to do with it. At the very least, youll have a good jump on ammo

Melissia wrote:Given that they gave up on the revolver market*, and generally only have a tiny lineup of the same old same old in terms of he civilian market, I don't honestly know. I guess they survive off of military and police weapons.


*Yes, I nkow they produce replica SAAs. No, that doesn't count. The reason one would buy a Colt SAA is different than the reason one would buy a diamondback, python, or anaconda. Honestly, SAAs are boring, stupid, and ugly, unlike Colt's more modern revolvers.

SAA as in single action army? What's wrong with cap and ball revolvers? (Obviously they can't be used for self defense or anything practical really, but I buy guns mainly as a collector)

And Single Action army/navy revolvers are definitely not ugly. In fact, I think the 1861 is probably one of the most beautiful pieces colt has ever come up with. You don't see pictures of old naval battles imprinted into the cylinder of Colt's modern guns, do you?

Melissia wrote:Given that they gave up on the revolver market*, and generally only have a tiny lineup of the same old same old in terms of he civilian market, I don't honestly know. I guess they survive off of military and police weapons.


*Yes, I nkow they produce replica SAAs. No, that doesn't count. The reason one would buy a Colt SAA is different than the reason one would buy a diamondback, python, or anaconda. Honestly, SAAs are boring, stupid, and ugly, unlike Colt's more modern revolvers.

Colt is moving back into the civilian market.
Don't underestimate them. They make fine firearms, and will continue to do so in the future.

KingCracker wrote:I too am in the market for a 1911, I know it WILL be my next handgun purchase. I can tell you though, from readin reviews, watching reviews, talking to people, Colts are indeed good, sure its a given. But you can get a nearly identical firearm, with arguably the same reliability, for hundreds less. So unless your a Colt fanatic, or get one for a really good deal, Id say, save yourself some dough, and shop elsewhere.

The nice things about the 1911 market, is the majority of the upgrades and such you can buy for one, will fit the others, as they are pretty much, the same gun. So with the cash you save buying a different brand, you could get yourself some nice sights and grips or whatever else you were looking to do with it. At the very least, youll have a good jump on ammo

Dunno if "Made in America" is a major sticking point for you, but both STI and Wilson combat are all made from parts made largely in america (the models that are made with parts not of American origin are kept to such a standard that it's really not noticeable between them). I am in the same boat as you KC, and as of yet, only found one shop in my area that carries anything I would legitimately consider (and that was a Sig), aside from a custom Wilson or STI.

Melissia wrote:I do know the Taurus raging bull is better looking than the S&W revolvers at least.

.

Only if you like assuckitude customer service.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KingCracker wrote:I too am in the market for a 1911, I know it WILL be my next handgun purchase. I can tell you though, from readin reviews, watching reviews, talking to people, Colts are indeed good, sure its a given. But you can get a nearly identical firearm, with arguably the same reliability, for hundreds less. So unless your a Colt fanatic, or get one for a really good deal, Id say, save yourself some dough, and shop elsewhere.

The nice things about the 1911 market, is the majority of the upgrades and such you can buy for one, will fit the others, as they are pretty much, the same gun. So with the cash you save buying a different brand, you could get yourself some nice sights and grips or whatever else you were looking to do with it. At the very least, youll have a good jump on ammo

Dunno if "Made in America" is a major sticking point for you, but both STI and Wilson combat are all made from parts made largely in america (the models that are made with parts not of American origin are kept to such a standard that it's really not noticeable between them). I am in the same boat as you KC, and as of yet, only found one shop in my area that carries anything I would legitimately consider (and that was a Sig), aside from a custom Wilson or STI.

I personally love the Kimbers.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:I do know the Taurus raging bull is better looking than the S&W revolvers at least.

.

Only if you like assuckitude customer service.

I was talking about looks.

I cordially dislike how SnW revolvers look. The model 29 for example... ugh. Taurus revolvers

GalacticDefender wrote:And Single Action army/navy revolvers are definitely not ugly.

That grotesque handle and frame look hideously deformed. Ugh.

Kimber 1911s are good apparently. Someone was talking about them on one place or another, and had nothing negative to speak of.

I'm not a fan of revolvers in general, but the police revolver is nice. I sincerely hope Colt goes back to making civilian models after their contracts for M16 family weapons ends (and the m203 grenade launcher). They have the infrastructure to run a good business if they focus their efforts.


Mellisia, did you ever end up getting a piece for yourself? I remember you made a thread eons ago, and I don't remember what you decided on.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:I do know the Taurus raging bull is better looking than the S&W revolvers at least.

.

Only if you like assuckitude customer service.

I was talking about looks.

I cordially dislike how SnW revolvers look. The model 29 for example... ugh. Taurus revolvers

GalacticDefender wrote:And Single Action army/navy revolvers are definitely not ugly.

That grotesque handle and frame look hideously deformed. Ugh.

Wo wo, thats something the Spawn of Satan would say. Model 29s are sweet, especially with Pachmyr grips. Whats fun is to put specials in them, and have gun scared gals shoot them. They become instantly hooked because of the low recoil.

weapons that are no more reliable than any of the other numerous companies that make AR platforms.

Yes and no. If you are talking about some of the companies that actually attempt to follow the TDP -like- Colt and a few others, no, they aren't.

However, between Ye Olde DPMS, Olympic, and several other members of the "it's just as good as...!" crowd, you start seeing minor little differences show up in the Colt`s favor like...

1:7 twist rather than 1:9 twist barrels (Important if you want to fling tracers and heavy bullets. A few freaks of nature have 1:9s that fling them normally, but my old 1;9s didn't like them.)
5.56 chambers that actually ARE 5.56, rather than .223 or .Wylde, and might actually BE hard chromed (REALLY IMPORTANT BIT, UNLESS YOU LIKE MALFUNCTION DRILLS.)
Properly staked gas keys FROM THE FACTORY (A job that can be done in most garages, but should not have to be by the end user.)
HPT/MPI bolt groups (REALLY IMPORTANT BIT. IF THIS GUN IS FOR ANYTHING BUT SHOOTING BEERCANS.)
Proper front sight base for use with a flat top back up rear sight. (Bushmaster still cant seem to get this one done.)
Generally good overall QC.

An "M4" from DPMS with a tight, unchromed .223 chamber and a Colt 6920 may look the same on the outside, but one intensive shooting session like a training class or a case-in-a-weekend funfest will quickly demonstrate that one is going to perform better than another. There are the abnormalities like a DPMS or Oly that runs like a top no matter the abuse, or the Colt that doesn't, but generally you can put money on the Colt to stand up to being ran much harder and with a greater amount of neglect.

It gets worse when the "Just as good as!" group charge prices almost on par with Colt and the other TDP-or-better companies like LMT or Noveske. My face gets an expression eerily similar to my avatar when I see the price tags.

Well that's good to know. I suppose that's why the Military has stuck with them for so long!

I'm glad they haven't entirely stopped production of M16A3 style weapons in favor of tacticool carbines. I started this thread expecting to hear how bloated and not worth the money colt weapons are, but I'm starting to think a bit differently. I may even make it a goal to save up and buy a colt as my first plinker/ display piece

Another point in favor of colt, but this is a minor detail and can be obtained with varying levels of work from most any company:

Their barrels, generally, are military profile or even pencil barrel. Thick at the end, thin under the handguards, the lower end manufacturers don't want to bother with the lathe work to turn them down to something efficient for practical use, so they just slap "HBAR" on it, use it as a sales point, and who cares if it adds over a pound to the weight? It's not like anyone would actually carry the thing any farther than from the pickup to the firing line, am I right?

But I will tell you right now, if you want a 20 inch M16-clone, an A1 or A2 profile barrel balances a -HECK- of a lot better than an HBAR and is a lot less of a PITA if you actually carry the thing....and in my experience the HBARs only shoot better on paper anyway.

....That said, even CA-neutered, my Colt 6940 is still my baby. Some will call it tacti-cool. I will call it a sewing machine from Hell.

This is part of the reason why I was looking at a colt government model 1991 as my handgun of choice. I just haven't gotten the money to get it, and have been focused in other areas of my life :/

Also when they say "monolithic upper", what exactly does that mean and how does that effect the gun?

People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

Also when they say "monolithic upper", what exactly does that mean and how does that effect the gun?

Instead of a railed forearm you bolt to the upper reciever, the rails AND upper are one large forged and milled piece. there IS no detachable hand guard. There is no chance of it accidentally moving and your sights shifting if mounted forward, there is no chance of accidentally torquing the barrel nut loose yanking on a foregrip too hard or from impact, and you get a continuous top rail which allows you to mount all manner of large optical bits on top without worry of running out of room. Can also potentially allow for a 12 o clock mounting for a light.

...But use them rail covers, because if you mangle part of your rails, you cant simply unbolt the railed forearm and replace it. You get to buy a whole new upper half...which is going to be expensive. And in the 6940s case, a huge pain in the butt seeing as Colt will not sell the special barrel wrench needed to rebarrel a 6940 upper....so it's make your own wrench or send it to the factory!

People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

With consistency, but for my part this could change....assuming they ever decide to make a gun I actually like after putting my hands on it.

H&K make firearms? I thought they made waterguns.

SOFDC wrote:

People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

With consistency, but for my part this could change....assuming they ever decide to make a gun I actually like after putting my hands on it.

Fondle the HK45 or the P30, if you haven't yet. They finally came up with a formula beyond "ergonomics = brick" with those.