View Full Version : Is Colt having financial problems?
Was surprised to see this on Calguns: https://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=416006
Anyone have additional information?
On a separate but related note, it seems like LE versions of the 6920 and 6940 are becoming more difficult to find. Did Colt Defense stop selling these to civilians because of the re-launch of the SP-line?
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=60386
http://www.impactguns.com/colt-m4-carbine-6920-ar15-16in-6920.aspx
ursus.peracto
05-15-11, 19:33
They don't deserve to survive.
Same gunshow bullshit rumor than turned into an internet bullshit rumor that has been spreading for years. I sent one of my Government Model 1911s to Colt for some work and as I was walking around a gunshow I heard a dealer tell someone Colt had closed their doors. I interjected and told him that's funny, I wonder if their employees who are working on my 1911 know they're out of business. :rolleyes:
wetidlerjr
05-15-11, 19:45
Same gunshow bullshit rumor than turned into an internet bullshit rumor that has been spreading for years...:rolleyes:
I agree. It never stops.
I wonder when they will start selling to civilians again ? :sarcastic:
I agree. It never stops.
I wonder when they will start selling to civilians again ? :sarcastic:
I did not say nor did I imply Colt as a whole was no longer selling to civilians, I was asking specifically about the LE branded line (LE6940, LE6920) which are sold by Colt Defense and labeled 'For Military and Law Enforcement Use Only'.
With the re-launch of the sporter line by Colt Manufacturing, it seems like Colt Defense may have stopped sales of the LE-branded versions and that Colt may have decided to only sell the rifles through Colt Mfg. These are the SP versions (SP6920, SP694), which are the same sans the 'For Military and Law Enforcement Only' rollmark.
Previously I'd assumed both would be available with the LEs running several hundred more, but honestly that never made any sense. I'm just wondering now if Colt decided that the LE versions are truly that: the version sold through Colt Defense to military/law enforcement but in no material way differing from the SP line which is soley sold to civilians. It's called marketing. Just curious as to whether anyone new if this was indeed true since I'd not seen this mentioned before.
Same gunshow bullshit rumor than turned into an internet bullshit rumor that has been spreading for years. I sent one of my Government Model 1911s to Colt for some work and as I was walking around a gunshow I heard a dealer tell someone Colt had closed their doors. I interjected and told him that's funny, I wonder if their employees who are working on my 1911 know they're out of business. :rolleyes:
Well, the genesis of the thread on calguns as a link to their 2010 S4 filing. Their financials don't appear particularly good.
I somehow doubt Bubba at the gun show is looking at corporate financial statements when they start talking about things.
Well, the genesis of the thread on calguns as a link to their 2010 S4 filing. Their financials don't appear particularly good.
I somehow doubt Bubba at the gun show is looking at corporate financial statements when they start talking about things.
No, bubba at the gunshot flaps his gums and some interweb geek takes over from there.
variablebinary
05-15-11, 20:54
Colt has a past littered with financial issues.
It doesn't mean anything of real significance.
No, bubba at the gunshot flaps his gums and some interweb geek takes over from there.
Well, S&P did lower the credit rating of Colt earlier this year to B-. That said, S&P says they are 'stable', so I answered my own question. Thanks.
S&P Downgrades Colt (http://www.alacrastore.com/research/s-and-p-credit-research-Colt_Defense_LLC_Ratings_Lowered_To_B_On_Weaker_Results-848382)
Colt has a past littered with financial issues.
It doesn't mean anything of real significance.
Thank you! That's all I was asking. Looking at things a bit more closely you seem to be correct, I was unaware of their past problems but reading a bit more this simply seems to be more of the same.
Is Colt on the verge of bankruptcy?
I've heard this rumor for years.
In the mean time, I'll continue to buy their products.
I've heard this rumor for years.
In the mean time, I'll continue to buy their products.
Again, I think people are misinterpreting my post. I own a Colt myself and think they put out a fine product. I did not mean to imply otherwise or to sully their name. I was just curious about the linked thread I stumbled across and which seemed to have some merit to the statements. Nothing more, nothing less.
Again, I think people are misinterpreting my post. I own a Colt myself and think they put out a fine product. I did not mean to imply otherwise or to sully their name. I was just curious about the linked thread I stumbled across and which seemed to have some merit to the statements. Nothing more, nothing less.
No worries.
It's just one of those topics that come up from time to time. I think for those that have been around for awhile, they have the reaction of "not this again".
No worries.
It's just one of those topics that come up from time to time. I think for those that have been around for awhile, they have the reaction of "not this again".
Only been here 8-9 months, but I know most of the 'Shit, not that again' topics. I don't recall having seen this one, but thanks for the heads up.
That said, Colt *was* downgraded so there's some validity to the question (but I changed the subject of the thread to be a little less dire):
http://www.alacrastore.com/research/s-and-p-credit-research-Colt_Defense_LLC_Ratings_Lowered_To_B_On_Weaker_Results-848382
wetidlerjr
05-15-11, 21:45
Originally Posted by wetidlerjr
I agree. It never stops.
I wonder when they will start selling to civilians again ? :sarcastic:
I did not say nor did I imply Colt as a whole was no longer selling to civilians...
My comment was humor (hence the "Sarcastic" smilie) and is what I most often hear in gun shops about Colt. :cool:
So it sounds like unions are a factor for their financial downfall. Not surprised...
The_War_Wagon
05-15-11, 22:18
I'd like to see 'em say, "FUDGE CONNECTICUT," and then move to the United States! When their products can't even be sold in the state where they're headquartered, it's time to MOVE! :mad:
They don't deserve to survive.
Why? Back this up instead of just trolling.
wetidlerjr
05-16-11, 06:56
So it sounds like unions are a factor for their financial downfall. Not surprised...
Where did it say that ? :confused:
Army Chief
05-16-11, 07:44
In my experience, gun shops continue to perpetuate these rumors for two primary reasons:
1. They have little-to-no Colt product in stock to sell.
2. They have shelves full of Colt-equivalent (using the word loosely) product to sell.
This is why the typical guy who goes in to buy a Colt 1911 or AR-15 is going to hear the standard recitation about Colt's "going under" and/or "hating civilians almost as much as HK" along with the accompanying sales pitch about the Kimbers under the counter and the Bushmasters along the back wall being "just as good."
Since most shoppers are motivated by price, and not terribly well educated about quality (i.e. too lazy to do their research), this represents a suitable arrangement for both parties. It's not like these folks are buying a gun to actually shoot it much beyond the first 50 rounds, and even a Hi-Point is a good choice within those particular constraints. I'll bet their financials look terrific.
AC
lifebreath
05-16-11, 08:08
My comment was humor (hence the "Sarcastic" smilie) and is what I most often hear in gun shops about Colt. :cool:
Financials aside, it certainly seemed easy enough, for me as a "civilian," to recently buy a 6920 LE and a 6720 LE. I guess they must have thought I was LE from the authoritative way I hit the "BUY NOW" button on the website ... :jester:
wetidlerjr
05-16-11, 08:12
...even a Hi-Point is a good choice within those particular constraints...
AC
We were in COMPLETE agreement up to the part quoted above. :D
30 cal slut
05-16-11, 08:20
Hmmm. Colt Defense has filed a prospectus with the SEC to do an exchange offer ... swap unregistered debt for registered debt.
This means, as a privately-held company with private debt, after the exchange offering, it will be a privately held company with public debt. Which means it will be filing regular financial statements with the SEC.
You have kick and holler to get on their financials mailing list, even if you're an investor in the debt.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1508677/000095012311034357/x88534b3e424b3.htm
Actualy this is a common sense issue. The Army over the past 4-5 years went through significant growth in requirements for M-4's. Colt had to significantly increase their production capacity to meet those demands. Now Colt is in low rate production for the .mil so they have lost revenues and they no longer own the TDP for the M-4 so anyone could be awarded the next contract sould one develop.
Add in the current M-4 PIP efforts and the looming Carbine Replacement program and Colt stands to loose big if they don't win the replacement contract or any of the PIP efforts. They are in a weaker position then they used to be, nothing more and nothing less.
Army Chief
05-16-11, 08:30
We were in COMPLETE agreement up to the part quoted above. :D
You're right. I should have said "laughably viable" in place of "good."
I have an old S/42 Luger that probably won't even fire (desperately needs new springs, but I'm not messing with it because of some rather specific historical considerations). I would still prefer it to the Hi-Point. ;)
AC
30 cal slut
05-16-11, 09:22
I'd like to see 'em say, "FUDGE CONNECTICUT," and then move to the United States! When their products can't even be sold in the state where they're headquartered, it's time to MOVE! :mad:
Boggles my mind that Colt Defense would stick around (even though their commercial sales probably don't amount to much). The Colt AR-15 should be Connecticut's state rifle. Instead, our own legiscritters have gone out of their way to ban the AR-15 and AR-15 Sporter specifically by name. (But we can get politically correct/neutered Colt M4 Match Target Carbines instead). :rolleyes:
So it sounds like unions are a factor for their financial downfall. Not surprised...
High labor costs fer sure...
Labor disruptions by our employees could adversely affect our business.
The United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW”) represents our West Hartford work force pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement that expires on March 31, 2011. It is possible that a new agreement to replace the expiring agreement will not be reached without a work stoppage or strike or will not be reached on terms satisfactory to us. Labor organizing activities could result in additional employees becoming unionized. Any prolonged work stoppage or strike at either of our manufacturing facilities or unexpected increases in labor costs could materially harm our results of operations. Additionally, the workforce of Colt’s Manufacturing Company LLC (“Colt’s Manufacturing”), an affiliate of one of our sponsors that we do not control, shares space with us at our West Hartford manufacturing facility, and is subject to the same UAW collective bargaining agreement as our West Hartford employees. Labor stoppages may occur in the future. Union action asserted against Colt’s Manufacturing could also adversely affect our operations.
…
We may have to utilize significant cash to meet our unfunded pension obligations, and post-retirement health care liabilities and these obligations are subject to increase.
Our union employees at our West Hartford facility participate in our defined benefit pension plan. We also have a salaried pension plan, the benefits of which were frozen on January 1, 2009. At December 31, 2010, our aggregate unfunded pension liability totaled $2.0 million. Declines in interest rates or the market values of the securities held by the plans, or other adverse changes, could materially increase the underfunded status of our plans and affect the level and timing of required cash contributions. To the extent we use cash to reduce these unfunded liabilities, the amount of cash available for our working capital needs would be reduced. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, or ERISA, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC, has the authority to terminate an underfunded tax-qualified pension plan under limited circumstances. In the event our tax-qualified pension plans are terminated by the PBGC, we could be liable to the PBGC for the underfunded amount and, under certain circumstances, the liability could be senior to the notes.
We also have a post-retirement health plan for our union employees. The post-retirement health plan is unfunded. We derive post-retirement benefit expense from an actuarial calculation based on the provisions of the plan and a number of assumptions provided by us including information about employee demographics, retirement age, future health care costs, turnover, mortality, discount rate, amount and timing of claims, and a health care inflation trend rate. In connection with the renewal of our collective bargaining agreement in 2004, we capped the monthly cost of providing retiree health care benefits at approximately $206 (not in thousands) per employee per month. In connection with the renegotiation of our union contract effective April 2007, the cap was raised to approximately $250 (not in thousands) per employee per month. For the year ended December 31, 2010, the cost per employee per month was $212 (not in thousands). The unfunded post-retirement health care benefit obligation was $12.2 million at December 31, 2010.
And, if Colt Defense needs yet another reason to move ...
Lease agreement
Under a net lease dated as of October 26, 2005, we lease property in West Hartford, Connecticut, on which our headquarters and primary manufacturing facility are located, from NPA Hartford LLC until October 25, 2012, in return for monthly rental payments in years one through five of $62,500 and monthly payments in years six and seven of $68,750.
So why don't they move already? I thought only New York and California were states where stupidity and self destruction is made binding institutional policy.
Army Chief
05-16-11, 10:23
Honestly, as much of an advocate as I have always been of Colt's, I've got to admit that I can see no way in which they will ever enjoy financial stability as long as they (a) remain in West Hartford and (b) continue to be burdened by these persistent organized labor issues.
The story of the company is a sad tale of just about everything that has gone wrong with industry in modern America. Thanks, UAW.
AC
(b) continue to be burdened by these persistent organized labor issues.
The story of the company is a sad tale of just about everything that has gone wrong with industry in modern America. Thanks, UAW.
From working in manufacturing for over a decade now I think within a couple 10 to 20 years Unions will bankrupt all the Big ones left.
Union workers don't understand where their money/benefits come from. They need to be funded from the company. If the company don't have that much revenue...Bankruptcy here we come!
Mike in MN
jmlshooter
05-16-11, 14:22
At the Saturday gun show, a dealer had a Defense 6920 for $1499 and a MFG 6920 for $999 right next to one another.
Is it possible they're using substandard parts on the "Sporter?"
I'm very leery of Colt. Had a bad 1911 experience in the last year or so.
The best thing for Colt to do would be to Move to a gun friendly state! Kind of crappy to have the state your in prevent you from selling most of your product line and tax the crap out of you to boot!:rolleyes:
RAM Engineer
05-16-11, 15:51
...they no longer own the TDP for the M-4 so anyone could be awarded the next contract sould one develop.
Mehhh...
Paging Daniel Watters, paging Daniel Watters!
Colt still owns the TDP. They lost exclusive production rights. The Army can now competitively bid the M4, but they will have to pay Colt a licensing fee/royalty for each M4 they procure from an outside source.
Is it possible they're using substandard parts on the "Sporter?"
nah..even the MatchTarget series get the same QC and parts of mil stuff
I'm very leery of Colt. Had a bad 1911 experience in the last year or so.
sorry for that.
the same happened to a friend of mine.
IMHO, this things happen...nobody/nothing is perfect...it's the way the manufacturer take care of the issue that makes the difference
Folks don't know what they don't know.
Colt isn't alone. For a variety of reasons. Some are just better about stable appearances and managing their books creatively.
So it sounds like unions are a factor for their financial downfall. Not surprised...
<edit>
The story of the company is a sad tale of just about everything that has gone wrong with industry in modern America. Thanks, UAW.
AC
From working in manufacturing for over a decade now I think within a couple 10 to 20 years Unions will bankrupt all the Big ones left.
Union workers don't understand where their money/benefits come from. They need to be funded from the company. If the company don't have that much revenue...Bankruptcy here we come!
Mike in MN
It isn't a one way street where the company's problems were solely caused by organized labor. Problems also come from mis-managent by those at the top.
Organized labor has been overly greedy in the past; with the United Steel Workers being a prime example. But to place blame solely on unions is unfair, and unrealistic. Union jobs provide many people with the means to live a decent live, and provide for their family without having to work multiple jobs.
And yes, I belong to a union (the United Transportation Union, I'm a railroad conductor). Don't get me wrong, unions do cause some of the problem, but we're only reason companies have financial trouble.
Union jobs provide many people with the means to live a decent live, and provide for their family without having to work multiple jobs.
At no point did I want to say that Unions are bad or wrong... but Unions and their members don't seem to understand that if a company doesn't make the same amount of revenues there may not be room for those benefits that Union members want.
I work in manufacturing and with the economy as bad as it was the last couple years, I got my hours cut and wages cut finally in order for the company I "worked" for to survive. I don't work there now because I needed to find a job that paid me to provide for my family.
Whether it was the company's fault or the employees wages/benefits that put that company over the edge, either way there had to be cuts. It most likely is always the company's fault with mismanagement, but labor cannot be supported with less revenues.
A Union environment would never allow that without a fight, this is how bankruptcy comes into play with companies. Big Unions tie the hands of companies, maybe not the Union members doing it, but the Union themselves.
Everyone suffers in situations like this except the Union.
Mike in MN
At no point did I want to say that Unions are bad or wrong... but Unions and their members don't seem to understand that if a company doesn't make the same amount of revenues there may not be room for those benefits that Union members want.
I work in manufacturing and with the economy as bad as it was the last couple years, I got my hours cut and wages cut finally in order for the company I "worked" for to survive. I don't work there now because I needed to find a job that paid me to provide for my family.
Whether it was the company's fault or the employees wages/benefits that put that company over the edge, either way there had to be cuts. It most likely is always the company's fault with mismanagement, but labor cannot be supported with less revenues.
A Union environment would never allow that without a fight, this is how bankruptcy comes into play with companies. Big Unions tie the hands of companies, maybe not the Union members doing it, but the Union themselves.
Everyone suffers in situations like this except the Union.
Mike in MN
Sorry I lumped you into the "unions are bad" group. I do agree that a portion of union membership doesn't realize that there has to be give and take. My personal feelings on why some members are reluctant to compromise is because they feel if you "give them (labor relations) an inch, they'll take a mile". It does seem to be true, particularly in my industry (railroads). But you're right, there needs to be a balance between both sides. It just seems next to impossible to achieve it.
wetidlerjr
05-17-11, 04:22
With all the anti-union nonsense, I thought I was on TOS . :rolleyes:
On-topic, I believe Colt got a multi-million SAW contract in Sept '09 so I don't think they will be going under anytime soon. :cool:
QuickStrike
05-17-11, 04:27
This reminds me of a time when I called a local shop about colt 1911's in stock. All they had was a used one, and according to the guy on the phone they haven't made any new ones for 15-20 years. :rolleyes:
Littlelebowski
05-17-11, 05:11
Very well said, I assume you've seen the latest debacle where the union won't let Boeing set up a plant where they want?
Honestly, as much of an advocate as I have always been of Colt's, I've got to admit that I can see no way in which they will ever enjoy financial stability as long as they (a) remain in West Hartford and (b) continue to be burdened by these persistent organized labor issues.
The story of the company is a sad tale of just about everything that has gone wrong with industry in modern America. Thanks, UAW.
AC
I definitely think that Colt should be posting better numbers than they are currently showing. If their financials look this poor in booming gun market then how will they fare in a downturn?
mattallamerican
05-17-11, 20:02
another case of unions to stupid to see the writing on the wall
wetidlerjr
05-17-11, 20:21
There is no indication that any labor problems are the cause of any financial distress at Colt's Mfg. so the "It's the union's fault." comments have no basis in fact that I can find. The lack of government contracts seem to be the main problem, if indeed, that is even it. I guess, however, that if you say something over and over then it can be accepted as fact. This is odd given this site's professed quest for the truth. Odd, indeed.
(ON the other hand, they could just move to China where no labor problems (govt. unions) might make some here, happy.)
Littlelebowski
05-17-11, 20:42
True, the union is only a potential problem. Colt could do what Boeing is attempting to do (with protest from the unions and their Obama administration lackeys) and move to a union free state. Then colt wouldn't have the biggest supporters of Obama (the unions) threatening their business. How does that sound, wetidlerjr?
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TA9ZFMoBZMQ/SOagSCoC6FI/AAAAAAAABlE/8ie1-rY_4Uc/S172/uaw%2Bvote%2Bobama.jpg&sa=X&ei=IiPTTaPSHKXb0QHcxtHECw&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEyPMDaE-_JxBEd3peDqsSfr-CdKQ
Littlelebowski
05-17-11, 20:46
Article on Boeing, the union, and the Obama administration (http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/may/17/unfair-to-boeing/).
What is really funny is that the unions are driving work offshore. They and the Democrats they elect are making America a bad place to do business in. Christ, Boeing can't even build a plant where they want!
wetidlerjr
05-17-11, 20:47
True, the union is only a potential problem. Colt could do what Boeing is attempting to do (with protest from the unions and their Obama administration lackeys) and move to a union free state. Then colt wouldn't have the biggest supporters of Obama (the unions) threatening their business. How does that sound, wetidlerjr?
As I said, I see nothing that indicates that any union that supports anyone causing any problems at Colt. Using hypothetical situations to back an agenda is not a really good ploy.
How does that sound ?
Littlelebowski
05-17-11, 20:52
Yup, as I said the union is only a potential problem. However, your hysterical remark over China was pretty damned silly and worthy of a rebuke.
30 cal slut
05-17-11, 21:07
Unions drive up labor costs.
Hourly wages are one thing ... but the hidden beasts are pensions and post-retirement health bennies.
Equally important ... union work rules are also a drag on productivity.
CT being over-regulated and over-taxed and gun-bannified also don't help Colt's competitive situation. Rents are also absurd here.
The democrats in power here are mostly anti-gun and are in power because of the unions.
It's all sickly inter-related here.
Colt could move to a right to work state like TN - skilled non-union workers, lower taxes, lower costs of doing business (rents, environmental compliance) ... assuming such a move wasn't too disruptive, that would translate to lower labor costs and perhaps lower selling prices for Colt products, and improved profitability.
variablebinary
05-17-11, 21:45
Connecticut owns part of Colt, that is why Colt doesn't leave. This is also why Colt is saddled with the UAW
Statements by Colt in the financials about labor stoppages are probably standard fare for any company that heavily utilizes unionzed labor. I wouldn't read much into it.
Crow Hunter
05-17-11, 23:10
Colt could move to a right to work state like TN - skilled non-union workers, lower taxes, lower costs of doing business (rents, environmental compliance) ....
Good idea!
In particular they could move into that big open World Color/Quebecor plant right up the road.:D
Dirtyboy333
05-18-11, 00:10
So it sounds like unions are a factor for their financial downfall. Not surprised... Agreed....
wetidlerjr
05-18-11, 04:37
Yup, as I said the union is only a potential problem. However, your hysterical remark over China was pretty damned silly and worthy of a rebuke.
:rolleyes: No hysteria here as I am calmly awaiting some facts. Do you have any ?
Littlelebowski
05-18-11, 05:16
:rolleyes: No hysteria here as I am calmly awaiting some facts. Do you have any ?
What facts do you seek from me? I've said twice that the union is only a potential problem.
Army Chief
05-18-11, 08:40
I'm not persuaded that any of Colt's present difficulties (if, in fact, that is even reflective of current reality) are labor-related, though I suppose there is a certain logic to accounting for that particular variable at some point in the equation. Further, while I do not share Bill's views, I nevertheless respect them, and I don't think there is much to be served here by branching off into a pro-/anti-union sidebar discussion.
If we examine the history of the company over the past, say, 30 years, then yes -- organized labor has exacted a staggering toll on Samuel Colt's legacy. So too have political acquiescence, laughably out of touch marketing strategies, rotational ownership, unstable leadership, an inability to recognize market trends, failure to modernize and something else that probably is best described as just plain stupidity. I do think that labor has played a major role in keeping the company on the ropes when they have most desperately needed to reorganize and rebound, but I can't state with any certainty that the situation would have been significantly better had non-union workers been asked to take deep pay cuts and forego promised benefits, since this would likely have resulted in an exodus of the most skilled laborers. I'd like to think it would have been a more proactive, cooperative venture, but we will never know.
The point isn't that every union in America is crippling industry. The point is that some/most of the heavy hitters (and yes, I'll take a very well-earned swipe at UAW here) have become bloated, excessive, beligerent and highly-political entities which no longer serve their members nearly so well as they serve themselves. Such is the nature of humanity when brokering power, and it really makes no difference whether we're talking about a union, a religious movement or a political enterprise. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Nope, I'm not a fan of organized labor in modern America; even so, I have the utmost respect for union workers who remain dilligent, and are still committed to building and sustaining the American dream. Big business isn't altogether in the clear here, either, but I guess the idealistic side of me just laments the fact that employers and employees are no longer able to bargain simply, honestly and in good faith. It's become an adversarial process that, in the end, serves no one particularly well.
Is Colt's going through hard times? Perhaps. I'm not sure what to make of the reports, but if I didn't know better, I would think Colt's was an airline, as they haven't been fiscally viable for decades, and yet somehow they continue to operate. Whatever the case, the company remains an American icon, and I wish them only success.
AC
30 cal slut
05-18-11, 10:01
Connecticut owns part of Colt, that is why Colt doesn't leave. This is also why Colt is saddled with the UAW
Colt Defense LLC is 53.5% owned by Sciens Management LLC, 23.6% by The Blackstone Group, 9.2% by CSFB SP III Investments LP and 5.8% by Lt. General William M. Keys (ret.).
Privately owned, mostly by financial owners.
variablebinary
Lets tell the truth the Unions own Conn. :rolleyes: This is a perfect example of the Unions pricing themselves out of jobs! They ran Winchester out, Remington out, Ruger out next will be Colt!:D
Remington and Marlin have both moved alot of their production to Kentucky of late..glad I live there !.
I am aware that Colt had to swallow couple million dollars in losses due to rejected parts lots supplied for M4 refurbishment within the past year and a half... that no doubt hurt their bottom line.
Unions tend not to be the best help money buys..... they thoroughly wrecked alot of production in NJ and I have seen it on many jobsites throughout ohio and Ky ...let's not even talk about Illinois .... I won't work there again if any way out of it !.
Army Chief
05-18-11, 17:37
Gentlemen,
Can we voluntarily rein-in some of the union dialogue unless it is directly tied to what is/is not happening at Colt, and supported by some kind of factual underpinning? Just trying to preserve a sense of unity here, and that is going to be more difficult if we transition to airing opinions and anecdotes.
The thread is fine as it stands now -- just trying to make sure it stays that way. Thanks!
AC
Littlelebowski
05-18-11, 17:42
Solid copy, AC.
all these guys need to do to get back into the game is to start making colt pythons again :rolleyes:, well not really... But i'd really like to be able to pick up a brand new colt python lol.
all these guys need to do to get back into the game is to start making colt pythons again :rolleyes:, well not really... But i'd really like to be able to pick up a brand new colt python lol.
This. S&W is nice, but my first revolver was a colt and S&W needs competetion.
mattallamerican
05-18-11, 19:22
over 600$ for a model 15 i wont be buying any soon
variablebinary
05-18-11, 23:09
Colt Defense LLC is 53.5% owned by Sciens Management LLC, 23.6% by The Blackstone Group, 9.2% by CSFB SP III Investments LP and 5.8% by Lt. General William M. Keys (ret.).
Privately owned, mostly by financial owners.
When Colt went bankrupt, it owned CT millions in pensions. CT got a stake in the company in return, which is why Colt can't just leave, like a few here are suggesting.
North East states are saturated with unions, so Colt has to pay to play unless they buy back all the stakes, tell CT to pound sand, and move to a state in the south or midwest.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.