TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 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.

Apparently you are down for maintenance!

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. I forgot to take the site back online after doing so work on it.

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.

bblhd672 wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Has anyone ever told you that you should have a blog? Your stuff is always so informative and well thought out.

We've been trying to talk TAM into compiling books of essays. If his posts here alone average only 50 words--and I'll bet it's closer to double that--the total is over 1 million words here on the Forum. If you throw half of that out because they might not fit into themed essays, per se, you'd still have enough for about seven 300-page books.

The mind boggles.

"Essays by an Annoyed Man" - $29.95 available wherever books are sold and on Amazon Kindle. I'll take 2.

Hardy har har!

I appreciate the kudos, but what you guys are proposing sounds a lot like work, and I'm too retired for that.

bblhd672 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: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?

Springfield could have (should have?) found money to reduce the cost of buying the M1A. I believe that is still a great platform and purchasing a M1A is on my wish list.

I've owned one, a "Loaded" model, and I do regret letting it go. But for me, it is more of a nostalgia rifle than a realistic self-defense weapon. I also own a SCAR 17S, which is in almost every way a better rifle (lighter, more accurate, stock folds, controls are more intuitive [especially for AR users], magazine inserts and ejects more easily, comes apart for cleaning more easily and quickly, and reassembles more easily and quickly, requires no greasing of a roller bearing on the bolt lug, etc., etc.), albeit a lot more expensive. For instance, you don't want to go shooting very hot loads with an M1A. You'll bend the operating rod on older guns with forged op-rods, and break them if they are MIM op-rods.......most of them are MIM. My M1A broke the hammer claws clean off in less than 100 rounds of commercial 168 grain match ammo. Springfield warranted it, but I had to send them the fire-control group for repair. At the time they would still do this (they no longer will), so I requested that they replace the MIM hammer with a forged mil-spec unit that won't break. What the M1A does have going for it besides being cheaper than a SCAR 17S, and besides the nostalgia of the platform, is that (A) it has extraordinary iron sights......harkening back to a day when men were men and shot 1,000 yard competitions with iron sighted guns that were made for long range shooting (because the battlefield was a long range battlefield), not CQB iron sights; (B), it's recoil is very manageable.....partly a function of its weight; and (C) it's a beautiful rifle to look at. It's a great platform, but so is the '03-A3 Springfield, and it has been surpassed in the battle rifle role by guns with more modern technologies too. One of the M1A's contemporaries, the FN FAL in its various iterations, has remained relevant longer (in my opinion) in that role because it is nearly unbreakable, being, like an AK, as reliable as an anvil, if not anywhere near as accurate a rifle as the M1A/M14.

If you're serious about buying an M1A, get one from Fulton Armory (they call it an "M14"). You'll pay hundreds more, depending on the model, but you'll have a truly great and beautiful rifle that won't break its hammer off in 100 rounds, that will probably exceed the Springfield product for accuracy, and that will certainly exceed it in workmanship. I'm not down on Springfield per se.....I have spent a fair amount of money on two of their rifles (my son's was a Christmas present from me), and I still own and enjoy shooting three of their pistols. It's just that, having owned an M1A, and having owned a number of more modern battle rifles, including an AR10 and a SCAR in .308, I just know from experience that the M1A has lost some relevance as a battle rifle. But they are fun to own, and probably everyone should own at least one in their lifetimes.....in the same way that all motorcycle buffs should own a Harley at some point in their lives, and all pistol shooters should own at least one 1911.

But the M1A will never come down in price much, regardless of who makes it. You might as well wish for the moon. It's an economies of scale thing. Back when the M14 was the nation's primary battle rifle, parts were easily available and cheap because they were manufactured in large quantities, and you could buy the civilian version for much less money than today. But the modern M1A market is a much smaller market. In an age of $900 AR10s, not that many people want to spend between $1500 and $2500 for an aging .308 battle rifle platform. I'd be willing to bet that they can't lower the price much below current levels because they don't sell that many, and not selling that many means that they have to manufacture the parts in much smaller batches.....which translates to more expensive rifles. You can "bet" all you want that they could lower the price, and maybe they could, but then they might also then lose the incentive to continue manufacturing what is a very outdated rifle. In fact, with Springfield getting into the AR15 market, I can see the day when they finally realize that they can make AR10s for a lot less cost and greater profit than M1As, and they might decide that the M1A is a custom shop product going forward, and gradually just phase it out. Eventually, the M1A will become like the M1 Garand, which aren't being manufactured in great numbers by anyone these days either.

Fortunately, my son still has his M1A, and I can shoot it if I get the itch, but even he doesn't shoot it all that much anymore. My SCAR on the other hand gets regular workouts. These days, although I do miss my M1A somewhat, I have a bigger yen to buy a Garand than I do another M1A - mostly for the nostalgia of owning one. It too, like the M1A, is a fine rifle, but it isn't really a modern battle implement anymore.......even if it was at one time, the very pinnacle of the type.

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.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Topbuilder wrote:"Is it because the gun-owner needs 17 guns, or because he likes buying guns? Because once you've got your range pistol, your concealed carry, your shotgun for home defense, and your .22 for plinking, I rather suspect you've moved beyond "need" and started to wander into "want" territory."

http://www.fool.com/investing/2017/01/0 ... un-ow.aspx

I'm pretty sure the author does not know the difference between need and want.

The author is leaving out the car carry, 3 hunting rifle (for various types of game), BUG, and a competition gun. Also, "concealed carry" will likely equate to at least 3 different guns depending on whether one is wearing light, medium, or heavy clothing. That gets me to 12 as a minimum acceptable number of guns, per person. The poor fellow with only 17 guns is insufficiently armed, IMHO, unless he lives alone.

You beat me to it. If a car owner owns a car that is optimized for the drag strip, a car that is optimized for sand dunes, a car that is optimized for NASCAR racing, a car that is optimized for autocross, a car that is optimized for rock-hopping, a car that is optimized for Indycar super speedway, a car that is optimized for commuting, a car that is optimized for road trips, a car that is optimized for cow-trailing, a car that is optimized for F1 road courses, a car that is optimized for grocery shopping, a car that is optimized for pickup up and delivering people to and from the airport, a car that is optimized for farming, a car that is optimized for the most comfortable ride possible, a car that is optimized for extreme quiet, a car that is optimized for amphibious duty, a car that is optimized for towing a travel trailer, a car that is optimized for etc., etc., etc., DOES HE OWN TOO MANY CARS? Or is he simply well prepared?