TexasCHLforum.com

Jusme

C-dub wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
bblhd672 wrote:As anyone ever told you that you should have a blog? Your stuff is always so informative and well thought out.
Actually, despite joking about not doing it earlier, I actually have a blog: http://www.annoyedman.com.
Oh great! Something else for me to read.

Yeah I spent a couple of hours yesterday on there, I thought the same thing.

But It is very good reading.

Jusme

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Jusme wrote:
lfinsr wrote:Looking at the comments I'm left wondering if anyone actually read the article. Admittedly he quoted known bogus stats but doesn't anyone find it interesting that Vista Outdoor and S&W both doubled R&D spending and it's up significantly at Ruger? What about the buy recommendation for Orbital ATK? And are the record sales truly over since our favorite gun salesman is leaving office?

Aside from the bogus stats, I'm hoping we see some new innovation as a result of the R&D budgets. I'd also like to make some more money for my upcoming retirement in a couple of years.

I read the article and I'm not surprised by the increase in R&D spending by manufacturers. They have recorded record profits for the last 8 years, and to keep up with trends in the buying public, caused by upstart manufacturers they have to keep finding new and better options. More states are passing CC, and OC laws, so these new demands need to be met. Also with the already mentioned increase in purchasing by women, the manufacturers have to try to find ways to appeal to that market segment that has gone almost completely ignored in the past, along with the technological advancements in ammo, requires manufacturers to keep pace.
Of note: Both Springfield and Savage have entered the AR15 market for 2017. These are both successful smart companies that have done very well for themselves - whether or not one is personally a fan of either brand. It goes without saying that the AR15 platform is easily the best selling long-gun platform for several years now, and that a significant chunk of all those gun sales over the last 8 years were AR15 sales of one brand or another (and I wonder if the sale of stripped lowers has been included in most of these journalists' figures). So why are two smart and savvy gun manufacturers just now getting into the AR15 market, if that market is now at risk of tanking? After all, they could have fairly easily jumped in years ago and gobbled up some of those sales for themselves.

Now, I can understand Springfield staying out of the AR15 market until now. Why sell something relatively inexpensive, that competes in the same general category as their very expensive M1A? But maybe Springfield has seen a decline in their M1A sales, which is becoming more of a collectors' gun and less of a personal defense weapon. So now they see an opportunity to make up some declining sales by offering a more popular rifle platform?

But why did Savage stay out of it all along, and why are they suddenly getting in? Savage has made an excellent reputation for itself for relatively inexpensive long-range rifles of great accuracy, not to mention their affordable bolt action/scope combination offerings and .22s. But most of their market, outside of long-range accurate rifles, has been the hunting market. Springfield's market has been until now entirely tactical.

I'd be looking to see if some other major manufacturer is going to maybe drop AR15s from their lineup. I've heard no such thing about it, but Remington comes to mind. Freedom Group already includes DPMS and Bushmaster, and I've never personally seen a Remington AR platform rifle in the wild. Maybe Remington's AR platform sales haven't justified the investment, and so they're dropping the line? Just a thought.......

What I do know is that two established, successful, and smart companies like Savage and Springfield would not just now be getting into the AR15 market if they thought it was about to collapse.

To further expand on these points, I also think with the hoped for passage, of the Hearing Protection Act, the potential removal of some guns from the NFSA, manufacturers are forward thinking towards firearms with brand specific suppressors, and maybe SBRs etc.
These manufacturers haven't stayed in business, all these years by sitting back and not moving forward in anticipation of things to come.
Ruger has been a great example, they were not the first in the polymer striker fired pistol market, but their product, from the reviews I have read, took all of the good things customers liked, and did away with all of the bad things, and their line is one of the top sellers. They were one of the last to the AR 15 party, but their price point has sold them a lot of guns, They were not an original manufacturer, of the 1911, but again they took the good and left out the bad, and sell it at a very consumer friendly price.

All of the major manufacturers, are trying to find their niche, and as TAM pointed out, if they thought there would be a decline in certain types of guns, they would not be venturing into them now. The only down side that I see, is that the smaller companies will have a much harder time competing due to the fact that they can't mass produce at the rate the big boys can, nor be able to meet the price point. I do predict a lot of smaller companies will be overrun. JMHO

Jusme

I agree with TAM's assessment.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see more large manufacturers, move into the pistol caliber carbine market, it would make sense for Ruger, Glock, S&W etc, they already have the pistols, and other manufacturers are making them using their mags.

I think the manufacturers are seeing a huge opportunity to expand their customer base since the election, and are banking on a much improved economy, giving consumers more disposable income. Not to mention the tax breaks promised by The Donald for American manufacturers, who stay here and hire American workers. JMHO

Jusme

lfinsr wrote:Looking at the comments I'm left wondering if anyone actually read the article. Admittedly he quoted known bogus stats but doesn't anyone find it interesting that Vista Outdoor and S&W both doubled R&D spending and it's up significantly at Ruger? What about the buy recommendation for Orbital ATK? And are the record sales truly over since our favorite gun salesman is leaving office?

Aside from the bogus stats, I'm hoping we see some new innovation as a result of the R&D budgets. I'd also like to make some more money for my upcoming retirement in a couple of years.

I read the article and I'm not surprised by the increase in R&D spending by manufacturers. They have recorded record profits for the last 8 years, and to keep up with trends in the buying public, caused by upstart manufacturers they have to keep finding new and better options. More states are passing CC, and OC laws, so these new demands need to be met. Also with the already mentioned increase in purchasing by women, the manufacturers have to try to find ways to appeal to that market segment that has gone almost completely ignored in the past, along with the technological advancements in ammo, requires manufacturers to keep pace.

Jusme

SewTexas wrote:I don't think number of households is going down. I think number of households admitting to owning guns is going down. Remember the number of women buying guns is going up. They are going to be less likely to admit to owning a gun on a survey.

Exactly, first time buyers have been the real surge in gun ownership. The polls were conducted in many left leaning areas, and have been thoroughly, proven to be totally useless in data gathering. I was never polled, and even if I had been, there is no way I would have responded to any questions regarding firearm ownership, or my buying habits, as I suspect most legitimate gun owners would have done.
This was just an attempt to paint gun owners as "gun nuts" who are hoarding massive numbers of firearms.

They wanted to use the data to try to show most Americans are non-gun owners, but, as the election results showed, gun rights was a very important issue among voters,

Jusme

This is just a rehash of an article that claimed the increase in gun sales was due to people who already owned firearms being responsible for the increase. It is based on polling people (we all know how reliable polls are after the election) who were willing to answer the poll either truthfully or not, that they owned multiple firearms and had purchased one or more during the past year. This research has already been proven to be flawed, and the NCIS background checks show it to be false. They claim that the number of households who own guns has dropped, but they didn't take into consideration that people may not be truthful when someone calls and asks you about firearm ownership, or how many.
Just like a lot of people here whose guns were lost in unfortunate boating accidents.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 6 matches

Re: Are you a "Super Owner"?

Re: Are you a "Super Owner"?

Re: Are you a "Super Owner"?

Re: Are you a "Super Owner"?

Re: Are you a "Super Owner"?

Re: Are you a "Super Owneer"?