Are you a "Super Owner"?

[Beiruty]

How many AR do you need?
How many AR do you want?
How many AR do you shoot?
Beside semantics, I have a SIG M400 and SIG 556, the later is quite heavy for what it shoot. The M400 is more agile weapon.

[Lynyrd]

"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.

In addition to those I need at least two concealed carry options, an open carry gun, a BBQ rig, a BUG, and a workshop gun. Also a hog gun (AR15), backup hog gun, deer rifle, back up deer rifle, elk rifle, snake gun, squirrel gun, varmit gun, dove gun, duck gun, truck gun, truck revolver.... did I leave out anything?

[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

[bblhd672]

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.

[bblhd672]

"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.

In addition to those I need at least two concealed carry options, an open carry gun, a BBQ rig, a BUG, and a workshop gun. Also a hog gun (AR15), backup hog gun, deer rifle, back up deer rifle, elk rifle, snake gun, squirrel gun, varmit gun, dove gun, duck gun, truck gun, truck revolver.... did I leave out anything?

Only that you need two of each (2 is one and one is none)!

[jason812]

How many AR do you need?
How many AR do you want?
How many AR do you shoot?

Probably zero to 1
A lot more than zero or 1
1 at a time

[allisji]

"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.

Plus you might need doubles of those guns, just in case your SO needs one to use, or in case one is held as evidence, or in case one is out for repair/maintenance, etc.

[Jusme]

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

[Syntyr]

What i need:


What i want!

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[bblhd672]

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.

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

[vjallen75]

[Snip]

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

Agreed, definitely enjoy your long posts TAM

[bmwrdr]

There is a large increase in gun sales occurring within the LGBT community. Especially after the Florida Pulse night club shooting. Add on to that the increase in gun ownership interest among women. I really think both of these are untapped markets for huge growth...

I also expect the Lame Stream Media (LSM) to never write an article stating any of the above. It just doesn't fit their narrative.

...
Nothing is ever static.

So the press is profiling a group of our population?

[Skiprr]

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.

[bblhd672]

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.