CZ has acquired Colt

[JustJim]

Looks like it is official: https://www.reuters.com/article/czg...uys-colt-in-cash-and-stock-deal-idUSL1N2KH3HO

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I see that as a good outcome.

CZ will gain a network in the USA to supplement their existing importation network. They will gain the Colt name, should they choose to continue to use that name. They will gain some manufacturing capability and a skilled workforce. If they are smart (and I think the Czechs are generally very bright) they will move that manufacturing out of union controlled and democrat ruled - Connecticut.

 

[Bret4207]

CZ is good stuff. I hope it helps Colt. But,when I look back at the various partnership/ownerships that have come and gone it's not a real comforting thing. Savage/Anshutz should have flown. I think they had Valmet or Tikka in the mix too. You never know anymore what will work or won't.

 

[Brad]

CZ already owns Dan Wesson and they make some very nice 1911s

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't know if it will work or not but I do know what will absolutely NOT work - Colt, under its old ownership. That's been proven, a few times.

CZ will gain some manufacturing capability, some of which can be moved to a red state.
CZ will gain a name that they can utilize, if they wish.
Colt employees will get a much better opportunity to remain employed.

I see this as a win-win.

 

[david s]

I'm a CZ fan and I think there management will be beneficial but I wonder about how the Colt revolver line will fair. CZ as mentioned owns Dan Wesson and makes nice 1911's but they haven't done much with the 715 revolver that's now discontinued.

 

[Bisley]

I see another positive development in CZ's property acquisition in Little Rock, Arkansas to build a new factory. I, too would like to see Colt's revolver line strengthened. Bring back the Anaconda.

Bisley

 

[RBHarter]

I think outside of market saturation a full line of SAAs would boom if they could be priced about the same as a plain Jane RBH and more so if every one were a convertible . 38/40 & 40 , paired 44s , 45 Colts/Schofield & ACP , and of course a 38/357 & 9mm ...... I don't think unless they go 1911A1 and offer 45 ACP , 38 super auto in 3,4,5 inch and do a treaded barrel they will ever get that back . I'm pretty sure the AR market is still pretty crowded of course that depends heavily on the Rem break up lines and what happens with those brands . That leaves obscure retro cowboy carbines wrestling with the Italians , hoping the snake line and history can pull it up and the sportsman (outdoorsman , woodsman ?) large frame 44 mag compatible 1917 , 38/357 and 22s will hit or a whole line based on the parts bins that was competition to the M29 .

I really can't remember what else Colts had going for them . I'm sure there was something else . A Snake Buntline or a J frame 32/327 class .... Once fit , finish , and engraving was attritioned out in favor of GI trucks and melonite there really wasn't a lot left but a name and lore .

 

[JustJim]

I think that, at least in the short term, we're unlikely to see Colt move from CT. Even as anti-2ndA as CT is, Colt is Union, and moving union jobs away quickly becomes political, and costly. I'm not sure it would be economically feasible in the short term. Long term, expansion with new facilities in other states might be one way to avoid problems.

Personally, I'd like to see them bring back the Woodsman, the Scout, the SAA. I'm expecting to be disappointed on all of these. The Woodsman we know and love won't be coming back, cost of production is just too much for it to sell at a competitive price. I can't see them bringing back an SAA at the price range of a Ruger BHawk, simply because the market has shown we're willing to pay more for what we get. Even a modified SAA along the lines of the safety-ridden clones, or a "budget" model along the lines of the USFA "Rodeo" would probably be twice the price of a Ruger. . . and I can't see the lawyers/BOD letting them mass-produce a true copy of the SAA for liability reasons. Just for cost reasons, I suspect we'll not see the return of the Woodsman, or most of the other models that became icons.

I don't think I've ever owned a Colt DA for long, never cared for them. My dream was always to see DWA with as many offerings as S&W; any Colt offering was an afterthought. CZ has had Dan Wesson for 15 years, and they no longer make revolvers. I fear this may be the future for Colt.

As for what they might do, I think buying Colt is going to be their entry into competition for military and law enforcement contracts. With a manufacturing presence here, and Colt's history, they'll have a leg up on most of the Euro makers. CZColt will be a serious competitor for any future replacement of the AR by the US military.

 

[CZ93X62]

I'll acknowledge The Elephant In The Room--has anyone on this site received one of the Colt Pythons that got pre-ordered about a year ago? The few reviews of those examples were not encouraging. With this sell-off to CZ, makes ya wonder what the status of pending orders or future production of that line will be--if any.

I own several D/A Colts and one S/A Bisley. The oldest was made in 1901, the newest c. 1949. The D/A stroke on Colts is different than a S&W, and Rugers differ as well. I can make Webley-Enfields work, too. Only the contraption-esque Nagant Model 1895 exceeds my hand strength, its mainspring tension exceeds its needs several times over.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I think that, at least in the short term, we're unlikely to see Colt move from CT. Even as anti-2ndA as CT is, Colt is Union, and moving union jobs away quickly becomes political, and costly. I'm not sure it would be economically feasible in the short term. Long term, expansion with new facilities in other states might be one way to avoid problems. ........................

......................As for what they might do, I think buying Colt is going to be their entry into competition for military and law enforcement contracts. With a manufacturing presence here, and Colt's history, they'll have a leg up on most of the Euro makers. CZColt will be a serious competitor for any future replacement of the AR by the US military.

As for moving out of Connecticut, the ONLY impediment to that has just been removed.
CZ is NOT Colt and they can move those union jobs wherever they like and there's not a damn thing the Bolsheviks can do about it. So I would say it is the unions that need to be worried, ....not CZ management.

As for U.S. military contracts, FN and others have that locked up for now. As for what the future may hold, your crystal ball is as good as mine. It's hard to say what the future holds. As lucrative as military contracts appear on the surface, there's usually not that much profit in those contracts. The contracts offer guaranteed income but generally not a lot of profit. The real money is in the private sector. There's more competition and more risk but there's also far more payoff in the long run.

 

[358156 hp]

So the two kings of backorders have merged. Oh well, business as usual.

 

[RBHarter]

Many Union contracts carry over for the duration of the contract with a new contractor .....I don't about corporate owners it's possible/ probable that everyone has been terminated and reapplied for their jobs most will be rehired directly knowing the tools and job . Everyone from line managers up is out of luck , foremen running poor performance crews are on the block . Close to retirement , fresh from the street may be on edge too .

An SAA would be more like a steel Heritage or RBH I imagine .

 

[Petrol & Powder]

So the two kings of backorders have merged. Oh well, business as usual.

There's no merger. CZ didn't join Colt.
CZ purchased Colt.

And Union contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on if one half of that contract (the company) no longer exists.
CZ is not bound by Colt's prior agreements with union employees. They can simply fold up their tent and leave.
If CZ decides to relocate the manufacturing to a non-union state, those union workers can move with the company OR they can stay in Connecticut and find employment elsewhere.
That negotiation is going to be incredibly short because CZ holds the cards, not the union.

 

[popper]

Until they try to sell the Ct plant.

 

[Winelover]

CZ purchased Colt.


That negotiation is going to be incredibly short because CZ holds the cards, not the union.

Depends, on how bad CZ wants those skilled workers.

 

[Charles Graff]

I believe the primary target of CZ was the Colt AR brand to strengthen their military and police sales. I also don't think they will throw the civilian Colt line under the bus.

 

[Bruce Drake]

CZ if they are smart would move the company to a red state NOW and staff the company with their own employees. The union employees will be given one option. stay in CT or move to where the job is. And with the way the Democrats are, I foresee them attempting to bar importation of firearms in the future so the Colt label will allow CZ to make their firearms in the US for sale to customers.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I believe the primary target of CZ was the Colt AR brand to strengthen their military and police sales. I also don't think they will throw the civilian Colt line under the bus.

I agree that civilian sales is where the money is, so CZ will likely focus on that aspect.
FN & SIG pretty much have the military small arms production locked up for now. CZ may attempt to compete in that arena later but civilian sales are a much safer bet to make money in over the long haul.

 

[358156 hp]

There's no merger. CZ didn't join Colt.
CZ purchased Colt.

And Union contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on if one half of that contract (the company) no longer exists.
CZ is not bound by Colt's prior agreements with union employees. They can simply fold up their tent and leave.
If CZ decides to relocate the manufacturing to a non-union state, those union workers can move with the company OR they can stay in Connecticut and find employment elsewhere.
That negotiation is going to be incredibly short because CZ holds the cards, not the union.

You are correct. It was an acquisition, not a merger. I misspoke.