Remington kills off DPMS and Bushmaster?

[RevolverRob]

Well, if you DO want an old deer rifle or fowling piece, pretty much any pawn shop or LGS you walk into is liable to have a used Rem 700 or 870. All of Remington's other market forces aside, at some point you've built so many guns, you're competing with the used inventory you built 30 years ago as much as your current competitors.

If a plain jane bolt or pump gun is considered a down market choice, your down market consumer is going to be ok with buying used.

One of the fundamental problems with the gun industry is they sell products that essentially don't ever get worn out. And while modern rifles and cartridges are "better," you can walk into an LGS, buy a Rem 700 built before you were born, and getcher deer just as well as if you buy the latest greatist.

So if you want to keep selling guns to what is essentially a finite market, you have to convince people what they already own is inadequate, and offer them something new and novel. Remington hasn't been very good at this. When they've tried, like with that funky pistol they released a few years back, it's been a disaster.

While it is true that you can go buy something used, I've sold enough new guns to know - people will absolutely buy new over used, for no other reason than it is new.

Financially, it makes zero sense to buy anything new, except maybe underwear. Cars? Used is a better value, depreciation has hit, but you still get plenty of return on investment. Guns? Absolutely used are better values. Look at the number of high-fashion resale shops out there selling second-hand clothes. BUT still people will buy new. Convenience and being the only person to own something are intrinsic to our consumer culture. I've seen people be offered a refurbished iPhone vs. a new one - identical models and features - where the refurb is literally 1/3rd the cost of the new one and then they buy the new one. "Well, the used one has scratches on the back cover of it and I don't want scratches." - Never mind they are going to cover up the scratches with a case.

So, even if you're competing with your own previous production you can still sell new guns.

Then you add in that even though used guns are out there, they actually are often harder to come by. It may not seem like it, but you and I are the type to go peruse the stock at the local gun stores and pawn shops. Perhaps we have make an afternoon of it with a buddy, circle around town hitting the five or six places and the good hole-in-the-wall that has the odd N-Frame or custom 1911 in it. In my experience, most consumers aren't really into that. They go buy what they want/need at the nearest place and as long as it isn't outrageously expensive, they'll buy it where it is more convenient.

Finally, there is a real problem - where companies like Remington once made better guns than they do today. You know that, I know that, consumers know that, gunshops know that. More than once I've seen a 40-year old .30-06 ADL sit next to a brand new .30-06 SPS and the SPS is half the price. Consumers buy the cheaper gun.

[CCT125US]

...... at some point you've built so many guns, you're competing with the used inventory you built 30 years ago as much as your current competitors.

Very true.

I know we can be a peculiar bunch around here, having a pair and a spare. Focusing on one gun, gaining proficiency, sticking with it for years. I don't think that path is commonplace. How common is it to have multiple copies of the same rifle, maybe same type, but a duplicate?

Now, convincing folks that they need a 700 and an 870, how about starting there. I don't own either, why not?

Now, on to HK, I have one or two. Why, because they work for me, I have a long history with them. I will not wear out what I have in many lifetimes, and will likely buy more. Why would I continue to purchase a product that I will not wear out, have no need for, is higher priced, and has spotty availability? First hand experience, and reputation.

You don't get that loyalty from me by putting out shit products.

[Hambo]

Now, convincing folks that they need a 700 and an 870, how about starting there. I don't own either, why not?

Because Remington (and others) are on the monkey see-monkey do business plan, hence every company makes the same guns (AR, 1911, etc). They used to try to convince you that they made better guns than Winchester, now they just hope their AR is closer to the end of the rack so you pick it.

[Seven_Sicks_Two]

Actually, it's not about making more varieties, it's about making better quality guns and eliminating the 7,000 variants of the 700 that they make. Paring production down and focusing on quality.

It's also about eliminating the garbage from the production lines.

I dunno exactly what Remington's biggest sellers are, but I'd guess they are the 700, the 597, and the 870. Slimming those lines to a few variants and focusing on production quality improvements would go a long way to insuring against future market disruptions.

But, eh, no one ever really listens to the actual economic advice and instead they tend to keep expanding their lines and bloating them up until they become unwieldy and untenable.

I spent some time as both an inside and outside rep in the firearms business... every region is a little different, but the Marlin lever-gun and 870 lines seemed to do pretty well in my area. The 700s were slow, as were 597s. Ammo sold well, but it was commodity type stuff like Core-Lokt, promo shotshells, and 9mm ball. BM/DPMS only really sold to dealers when there was sharp pricing or incentives. They couldn't compete on price in a market dominated by guns like the S&W Sport 2 and most of the line was priced comparable to guns that had higher perceived quality or more features.

[OlongJohnson]

FWIW, my Marlin 1894 is a 1997 gun, and it's pretty dang ugly on the inside. I'm convinced that a lever gun I want will probably be priced like a Winchester or Chiappa.