TexasCHLforum.com

"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.

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.

Already discussed here:
viewtopic.php?f=83&t=86223&hilit=super+owner

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.

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?

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

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?

Dang it. Now I am not only running out of room in the gun safe, I have to add an addition onto my garage!!!!

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,

Oh oh, I remember a post where many users voted for Glock 19 if they would choose to own one gun only.

You can keep your glock, I will keep my HK or Berretta or STI or Browning, or Ed Brown, or Colt.....
Oh, I forgot the CZ, and Caracal is missing. Actually it wondered back to Caracal.

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.

There's a shop I visit every time I'm in their part of the world. One of the early times I stopped by I stated upon entering that I came by to see if there was anything I needed. One of the older guys replied, "Son, if there's anything you NEED in here you got some issues that you should work on." Or something to that equivalent, but pretty close.

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.

Am i a Super Owner? Yes and no. Up until just recently I have been an accumulator. But lately am starting to make changes as a result of increased learning and as current conditions/technology evolves.

Nothing is ever static.

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 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.