Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2019, 05:19:58 PM
-
https://www.foxnews.com/us/colt-suspending-production-of-ar-15-for-civilians
The venerable gun manufacturer Colt is suspending production of the popular and controversial AR-15 and other long rifles for civilian use, as lawmakers continue the fraught gun debate following a series of mass shootings.
The company's president and chief executive, Dennis Veilleux, said that the consumer market has "experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity," and that Colt believes there are enough rifles on the market for the foreseeable future.
Colt will instead focus on fulfilling military and law enforcement contracts.
Veilleux reaffirmed the Connecticut-based company's commitment to the consumer market and the Second Amendment. He said Colt would still supply revolvers and pistols and is expanding its network of dealers.
"Colt has been a stout supporter of the Second Amendment for over 180 years, remains so, and will continue to provide its customers with the finest quality firearms in the world," he said.
When I first heard this, I was thinking this was an anti-gun stance by Colt due to outside pressure. That could still be true, but they aren't saying that.
-
Didn't they do this once before some years ago for similar reasons? And by similar reasons, I mean caving in to anti-gun activism.
-
One story I read said they considered the distribution pipelines oversaturated and they didn't want to get stuck with a bunch of unsold production. They were suspending production to deplete stagnant inventory, using production capabilities in other ways until it's financially justifiable to resume AR production.
Brad
-
The reality is that Colt doesn't have any civilian production to suspend.
I've toured the colt factory twice in recent years. It's a huge building, and it's divided by a heavy-gauge chain link fence the runs floor to roof. One side is where they make the handguns they sell to us peons. The other side is where Colts Defense makes the M16s and M4s for the military. There is no AR-15 production on the commercial side -- that's all handguns. The "modern sporting rifles" are [were] all made on the Colts Defense side, right along with the M16s and M4s, and then internally transferred from Colts Defense to whatever they call the commercial operation today.
So, when they say they're suspending production, what they mean is they're not going to divert any guns from the military channel to the commercial channel until further notice. It makes sense. Colt AR-15s really aren't any better than a half dozen or dozen competing brands, all of which sell for less money. They can't compete, so why expend resources trying?
-
One story I read said they considered the distribution pipelines oversaturated and they didn't want to get stuck with a bunch of unsold production. They were suspending production to deplete stagnant inventory, using production capabilities in other ways until it's financially justifiable to resume AR production.
Brad
Yes, I saw the quote from the Colt spokesman saying essentially that. The MSM has of course, picked it up as a "Beto won" thing. ;/
-
Well, I have mine, so ..... [popcorn] :angel:
-
"Long rifles" ;/
Isn't it about time for someone to buy Colts' AR and 1911 operations? Those are iconic, American firearms that Colt's has been allowed to dominate for no good reason. Let them keep their crummy, second-rate revolver operation (Colt's was never more than a dress rehearsal for Remington's and S&W's superior revolvers).
OK, yeah, that last point's an exaggeration, but not by much.
-
Market is too full of better options for less, I don't really blame them. Maybe do a limited run occasionally for the collectors and charge a bundle for those that can't live without a pony on the lower.
-
NBC news article quote below. I'm not sure if NBC changed his words, or if the Colt CEO is so dumb that he says he's making AR-15s for the military. This conflating AR-15s with actual military weapons is a big problem already. We don't need the manufacturers adding fuel to the fire.
Veilleux said his company will continue to make and sell AR-15s for "our warfighters and law enforcement personnel" who "continue to demand Colt rifles and we are fortunate enough to have been awarded significant military and law enforcement contracts."
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/colt-will-stop-making-ar-15s-for-civilian-sale-says-theres-already-plenty-on-market/ar-AAHyc9Q
-
NBC news article quote below. I'm not sure if NBC changed his words, or if the Colt CEO is so dumb that he says he's making AR-15s for the military. This conflating AR-15s with actual military weapons is a big problem already. We don't need the manufacturers adding fuel to the fire.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/colt-will-stop-making-ar-15s-for-civilian-sale-says-theres-already-plenty-on-market/ar-AAHyc9Q
Given that the term "AR-15" is not within the quotation marks, I believe that this is the writer's interpretation. I'd bet the CEO said something about along the lines of "Colt will still make rifles for our warfighters and law enforcement personnel" and the writer changed it since AR-15 is a hot-button term these days.
If I recall correctly, Colt has been having financial issues for quite a while. Dropping a product from their line which, frankly, isn't a huge money maker for Colt, is likely a financial move. Now, I wouldn't put it past the Board of Directors to generate this media blast crafted so that it seems to support 2A and also appease the "buy em back" crowd.
-
If I recall correctly, Colt has been having financial issues for quite a while. Dropping a product from their line which, frankly, isn't a huge money maker for Colt, is likely a financial move.
I still agree with that, and believe that's Colt's real motive. I mean, when I was looking at ARs, I never even considered Colt, and that's not from any Colt hate, just from the fact that there are so many other choices out there.
The word salad about it is getting ridiculous though.
-
The word salad about it is getting ridiculous though.
I'm afraid that is a sign of the times, from POTUS to the Dem debates down to a recent "meet the candidate" night for local city counsel and mayoral candidates, everyone carefully says everything so that they really say nothing. They drone on and on about an issue, if given the opportunity, and end up saying nothing substantial so as to avoid alienating...anyone. I almost...not really, but almost... respect Beto for coming out and saying that he's all for confiscating firearms. At least he took a stand and admitted out loud with no reservation what he would do. Not very politician of him.
-
Meh. Colt rifles are far behind a few commercial makers in terms of tech and and quality.
-
I'm afraid that is a sign of the times, from POTUS to the Dem debates down to a recent "meet the candidate" night for local city counsel and mayoral candidates, everyone carefully says everything so that they really say nothing. They drone on and on about an issue, if given the opportunity, and end up saying nothing substantial so as to avoid alienating...anyone. I almost...not really, but almost... respect Beto for coming out and saying that he's all for confiscating firearms. At least he took a stand and admitted out loud with no reservation what he would do. Not very politician of him.
And I can understand why politicians do this when I hear people condemn a candidate over one little thing they said. They would rather vote for the candidate that said nothing than the one that said 9 things they liked and 1 thing they didn't like. Some people talk about wanting candidates to be more open say what they think, but I am not sure how many people really do.
-
I would love to have a Colt AR, but I would rather have an older one. My Dad has a 1984-ish Colt carbine that is a very nice rifle. I think I would buy one of the Brownells retro guns before a current Colt AR.
So if this is just Colt cutting a production line that isn't selling, I can believe that. We will see.
-
NBC news article quote below. I'm not sure if NBC changed his words, or if the Colt CEO is so dumb that he says he's making AR-15s for the military. This conflating AR-15s with actual military weapons is a big problem already. We don't need the manufacturers adding fuel to the fire.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/colt-will-stop-making-ar-15s-for-civilian-sale-says-theres-already-plenty-on-market/ar-AAHyc9Q
I've read somewhere -- can't remember where right now -- that Colt just got some contracts for their AR rifles from a couple of countries, and will be busy fulfilling those contracts.
IMHO Colt makes very good ARs, but I also think there are many equally good ones out there, and some are better. "Mil-spec" has become a sort of lowest acceptable quality standard now, not really top drawer. In addition, "mil-spec" is also design, and includes the full auto trigger parts, and those aren't available to us mere peons anyway, so even a Colt that you get at your local gun shop won't be true mil spec.
-
According to SmallArmsSolutions,the guy used to work at Colt, Colt has pretty much outsourced their AR parts. The newer ones he's seen the parts lack the "C" Colt production mark. The only thing that is genuine Colt anymore is the lower's rollmark. (Actually laser engraved now)
His youtube page
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn_AGhwovzeWrnqHFJpYWaw/videos
-
NBC news article quote below. I'm not sure if NBC changed his words, or if the Colt CEO is so dumb that he says he's making AR-15s for the military. This conflating AR-15s with actual military weapons is a big problem already. We don't need the manufacturers adding fuel to the fire.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/colt-will-stop-making-ar-15s-for-civilian-sale-says-theres-already-plenty-on-market/ar-AAHyc9Q
M16s/M4s are AR15s, Ben. I've tried pointing this out before. AR15 does not imply semiautomatic, except to the uninformed.
-
Enter David Hogg
You all. The firearm manufacturer, Colt is ending production of AR-15s due to lack of demand. This is real life. We’re winning. https://t.co/iB19k1VUR4
— March For Our Lives (@AMarch4OurLives) September 19, 2019
Media Gleefully Report Colt Ending Civilian AR-15 Production, March For Our Lives Claims Credit
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/media-gleefully-report-colt-ending-civilian-ar-15-production-march-for-our-lives-claims-credit/
-
NBC news article quote below. I'm not sure if NBC changed his words, or if the Colt CEO is so dumb that he says he's making AR-15s for the military. This conflating AR-15s with actual military weapons is a big problem already. We don't need the manufacturers adding fuel to the fire.
Can you clarify your stance here for me?
From my perception: Armalite/Stoner invents rifle model AR-15. It has a select fire switch. This is pre-86 FOPA, there's no difference between Stoner's AR-15 and the military designation M-16 for the rifle sent to Vietnam. Prior to 1986, there were tens of thousands of AR-15's in the civilian market that were functionally identical to the M16's sent overseas as military rifles. Same receiver, same 3-position safety switch.
I see your stance as echoing that of the M1A/M14 situation. There are mountains of people that think the Springfield M1A is an M1 series rifle (i.e. Garand) rather than an M14 pattern rifle. Yes, the M14 was heavily derivative of the M1 in its design process. But the M1A is unarguably an M14 rifle, not an M1. M1A and M14 parts are interchangeable. M1 and M1A parts are absolutely not interchangeable. The M1A is a commercial trademark of an M14 pattern rifle. I own an Armscorp M14 (it is stamped M14 on the receiver, not M1A).
The M-designation is stupid military jargon. Sometimes it crosses over into the commercial marketplace, other times it does not.
As evidence that AR-15's prior to 1986 can be full auto, I submit a picture.
-
Can you clarify your stance here for me?
I can't clarify my stance for me. I'm just going by everyone on the pro gun side, including the NRA, making a clear distinction that AR-15s in the civilian market are not the M-16s used by our military, and everyone on the anti side saying that they are. I guess if we want to say that there is no difference (and maybe there isn't technically), that's fine. But when the antis scream "Weapons of war!" every time there's a mass shooting, we shouldn't then be saying "No they're not!"
JMO.
-
I'm afraid that is a sign of the times, from POTUS to the Dem debates down to a recent "meet the candidate" night for local city counsel and mayoral candidates, everyone carefully says everything so that they really say nothing. They drone on and on about an issue, if given the opportunity, and end up saying nothing substantial so as to avoid alienating...anyone. I almost...not really, but almost... respect Beto for coming out and saying that he's all for confiscating firearms. At least he took a stand and admitted out loud with no reservation what he would do. Not very politician of him.
No, it is entirely politician.
He says something extreme so the others can say thins sorta extreme but be viewed as reasonable when compared to the aforementioned extreme comments.
Popular stance: don't take guns.
Make extreme statement: take all guns.
Make less extreme statement: take some guns.
Shifts popular stance to: take some guns.
Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
-
Popular stance: don't take guns.
Make extreme statement: take all guns.
Make less extreme statement: take some guns.
Shifts popular stance to: take some guns.
Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
Which brings us back to Lawdog: https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
-
I can't clarify my stance for me. I'm just going by everyone on the pro gun side, including the NRA, making a clear distinction that AR-15s in the civilian market are not the M-16s used by our military, and everyone on the anti side saying that they are. I guess if we want to say that there is no difference (and maybe there isn't technically), that's fine. But when the antis scream "Weapons of war!" every time there's a mass shooting, we shouldn't then be saying "No they're not!"
JMO.
We of course have to clarify that the AR-15s everyone's talking about and trying to confiscate are semiautomatic, and not that different from common hunting rifles. On the other hand, trying to claim that M16s are a totally different weapon, or that the size of the magazine doesn't make it easier to shoot more people more quickly - they're untenable positions, and cripple our side's credibility. On top of that, we keep insisting that AR-15 means semiautomatic - an easily disproved claim.
I don't see any way we keep our rights, unless we insist on the right to own military weapons. We have to explain why it's part of our history and character.
-
We of course have to clarify that the AR-15s everyone's talking about and trying to confiscate are semiautomatic, and not that different from common hunting rifles. On the other hand, trying to claim that M16s are a totally different weapon, or that the size of the magazine doesn't make it easier to shoot more people more quickly - they're untenable positions, and cripple our side's credibility. On top of that, we keep insisting that AR-15 means semiautomatic - an easily disproved claim.
I don't see any way we keep our rights, unless we insist on the right to own military weapons. We have to explain why it's part of our history and character.
Making any distinction between types of arms is asinine and divisive.
Arms are arms. The ability to acquire, possess and employ arms is the inherent right of existence enumerated in our Constitutions.
You are already choosing between things to give up and things to keep and in so doing have already surrendered your right to the status of privilege.
-
Making any distinction between types of arms is asinine and divisive.
Arms are arms. The ability to acquire, possess and employ arms is the inherent right of existence enumerated in our Constitutions.
You are already choosing between things to give up and things to keep and in so doing have already surrendered your right to the status of privilege.
Absolutely correct. Writing at the time the Bill of Rights was being debated, an influential gentleman named Tench Coxe made some comments that are worth keeping at hand for discussions with fence-sitters as to what the meaning of the Second Amendment is:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of Americans.
The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia.
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Clearly, it was the intent of the Founders that the citizenry be armed, and armed with weapons as powerful as any possessed by any army (and, particularly, our own army).
-
I don't see any way we keep our rights, unless we insist on the right to own military weapons. We have to explain why it's part of our history and character.
I agree with this. I rarely see it used to effect though, whenever there is a hullabaloo. Which is maybe why me, and probably many others, have been conditioned to note a difference when people argue to take our EBRs away. Every major gun rights organization uses the term "modern sporting rifles" for AR15s. I follow what the constitution lays out regarding our right to military weapons, but the major talking point I see from our side every time there's a mass shooting is, not that.
-
Small Arms Solutions put this up this morning
It's 46 minutes long but well worth your time. In a nutshell he goes over the cluster __ that Colt has been the past 30 years much of which he saw from the inside.
Colt - Betrayal of the American Gun Owner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt3DCqdnn8w
Other Colt videos he's made recently
The M16A1 “Reissue”, Genuine Colt or Overpriced Copy?
https://youtu.be/--W3sRED9-4
Colt - The Fall of an Empire
https://youtu.be/gpz8KTqoOhk
-
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers says he would consider mandatory buybacks for assault weapons.
Democratic presidential candidate and former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke has been pushing for mandatory buybacks on the campaign trail. Republicans have balked at the idea.
Asked if he supports mandatory buybacks during a news conference Thursday to introduce a red flag bill, Evers said he would consider the idea. He didn’t elaborate, saying he was focused on trying to get the red flag bill and a universal background check bill that Democrats introduced last month passed.
Wisconsin Governor Mulling Mandatory Buyback Of AR-15s
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/09/21/wisconsins-governor-is-considering-adopting-some-australianstyle-gun-control-measures-n2553453
-
Wisconsin Governor Mulling Mandatory Buyback Of AR-15s
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/09/21/wisconsins-governor-is-considering-adopting-some-australianstyle-gun-control-measures-n2553453
Wisconsin Governor Mulling Confiscation Of An Enumerated Right.
Stop using their NewSpeak!
-
Yeah, I just can't wrap my mind around the BS term "Buy Back"
In order for you to "buy" something from me I first have to want to sell it. If I decide to sell something I also get to set the price/value of the item being sold.
I'm also not keen on the idea of being forced to sell something to someone using my money to buy it.
I haven't seen any mention yet on how much they are going to make me sell my privately owned personal property for but I doubt it will be my stated price nor market value.
So, instead of a "buy back" we should call it forced confiscation with token compensation.
-
So, instead of a "buy back" we should call it forced confiscation with token compensation.
I'm guessing they don't really care if you turn your gun in or not. They kinda win either way. If it's illegal to possess and you don't give it up, what do you do with it? You can keep the "illegal" gun hidden away for SHTF and in most states, no one will be the wiser. Or you can take it into the BFE desert or wherever to shoot where no one else is around.
Most law abiding folk won't take it to the range though, for fear of somebody dropping a dime on them. If you have a job and a paycheck and health insurance, you're gonna worry about what an arrest and criminal conviction will do to your life. Criminals have no such concerns, and I don't think these people give a *expletive deleted*ck about the criminals - they'll happily call disarming us, or making us hide our stuff in an attic, a win.
-
Yeah, I just can't wrap my mind around the BS term "Buy Back"
In order for you to "buy" something from me I first have to want to sell it. If I decide to sell something I also get to set the price/value of the item being sold.
The term also implies that you sold the item to me in the first place. Example: In late 1998 I made the mistake of buying one of the very first 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokees off the assembly line. 1999 was the first year of a total redesign of the Grand Cherokee (Jeep model code "WJ"). As is too often the case with new designs, I got a lemon. I owned it less than a year, during which time it spent nearly as much time in the shop as it did in my possession.
To stop me from invoking the lemon law, Daimler Chrysler bought it back from me. THAT's a buyback -- the people who sold it took it bac, and they paid me. The government (at any level) telling me they are going to buy my $1500 firearm and they'll pay me $250 -- take it or leave it -- is not in any way a "buy back."
-
In the socialist mindset everything is the govt's property to give and take as the govt pleases
-
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/71638541_10206296635852934_6331919140298686464_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_oc=AQl9AXaUVk_fR19zuPIMZQL74AjAxoFD7baVmLbmqM-1lGKqUHK2jMammeiD_ORyt0g&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=df4d422e1110f3941d323dc5c2f43c36&oe=5E327B69)
-
The economics of Colt having to work with the UAW probably doesn't help anything either.
I'm certain that chasing civilian sales would not even be a "win the battle lose the war" prospect for them financially, but a "lose the battle and lose the war" scenario.
There's no way they can compete with functional $400 AR 15's. Unless it's on fixed cost contracts with .mil and LE sales.
-
In the socialist mindset everything is the govt's property to give and take as the govt pleases
Including the money they money they pay you. Occasionally you see one of those BigGov jerks slip up and say it.