I'd say give it awhile for the smoke to clear. Give it till March/April of '05 and let's see where prices fall in.
I've wondered some months back this thought ... if the ban really sunsets, under what obligation does Colt have to perform business prior to the ban?
Right after the ban did indeed sunset, out of the blue and unforseen to many, Colt anounced there are no plans the make availible to the "common people" any weapon of the post pre-ban models.
I don't see H&K's or the like flooding the resale market either.
Understand Colt is owned partially by the "People's Republic of Conneticut" and most of us know what thinking they incorporate. They have other interests at heart. One stock holder expressed that Colt, for the idea of political and "good business" pourposes intends to keep their business "as is" and doesn't need or want to change this policy. After all, Colt expresess that the common people make up less than 8% of the sales since 9/11. Now, Colt enjoys military contracts as well as other business endeviors.
Getting to the middle man ...
I believe there's the thinking that 1 ... as you've stated, they paid "x" amount of dollars and wish to cover as much as they can to to pervent loss. And now they like to believe they have help from Colt's said anouncement. And 2, like any other commodity, supply and demand dictates how they perform business.
Then ... there's the greed factor, which is present in most involved.
I'd keep mine and not involve myself in "wishful thinking", therefore removing any emotional thoughts.
Just my long-winded 2 cents worth ...