"Gun companies want to make profits, not create great products"

[mmc45414]

There's a cost to modernizing that may not be worth it. Especially with the projected move to Tennessee and the sales trajectory of what's actually selling.
Revolvers at large account for ~10% of guns made.

It is my understanding that revolver production is staying Massachusetts, and that seems to make sense, since the antiquated equipment and workforce with all of the tribal knowledge is not going to want to relocate. And S&W probably doesn't want many of them too, they probably want a fresh start with different personnel to run the new equipment in the new location.

And labor is another piece of this puzzle, and we gun nuts probably want to think that these treasures we accumulate were all painstakingly crafted by people like Armand Swenson, when they are probably just being screwed together by people that needed a job and are being paid the going rate. I am sure many/most of them want to do a good job, but not necessarily because they love guns.

It also puzzles me sometimes how different companies will or will not do various things, sometimes seeming to not be able to get out of their own way. We are talking about S&W J-frame sights, but these Lipsey's guns are probably not going to even make a blip on a PowerPoint slide on the quarterly call with the brokerage analysts. At this point I am all-in on M&Ps, but good grief how long did they drag their feet before making one in the 4"/15rnd form factor. Glock is successful for a lotta reasons, and I think the G19 is one of those reasons, and it was obvious for a long time before S&W put out a proper bowl of porridge.

[1Rangemaster]

I saw reference to this in a thread today, and it comes up periodically.

Gun companies, like other companies, want to earn profits. That is what corporations do. The question is how do you best "make profits." Some think that the best way to maximize profit is to short change quality or not invest in new products. My belief, is that the best way to maximize profits is to make great products and continue to make new great products. When companies cut quality and fail to innovate, I view that as a failure of leadership, and not some crafty profit maximization scheme.

Thoughts?

First, let me say that the OP is a great question and I am in awe of some of the smart responses here. Part of the response it seems to me (simplistically) is to respond to potential customers demands. For example, government agencies, militaries and large organizations have a profound effect on product development. Case in point: American law enforcement was rolling along with revolvers generally speaking until the catastrophic 1986 FBI Miami gunfight. That tragic event started the Bureau, in fits and starts, to general issue of semis, which in turn influenced other agencies, etc.
Another example: Gaston Glock was responding to an Austrian Army request for a new pistol. To paraphrase an earlier comment, he took a pretty revolutionary approach to the design and manufacturing and came up with a platform that was adaptable, reliable and relatively inexpensive to make(maxing profits). Generally speaking, other manufacturers have had to catch up.
@GJM, I agree with your last statement. A big part of the Glock success story was that other manufacturers, some being used as cash cows, were letting quality slip and innovation wither.
For me, a follow up question would be what will the market “ask” for next?
Just some Saturday morning thoughts…

[littlejerry]

I saw reference to this in a thread today, and it comes up periodically.

Gun companies, like other companies, want to earn profits. That is what corporations do. The question is how do you best "make profits." Some think that the best way to maximize profit is to short change quality or not invest in new products. My belief, is that the best way to maximize profits is to make great products and continue to make new great products. When companies cut quality and fail to innovate, I view that as a failure of leadership, and not some crafty profit maximization scheme.

Thoughts?

Short of Ben_G and a few other forum members I don't think the vast majority of people here have ever been involved in product development or business strategy.

All businesses have to make profits, otherwise they become a charity or hobby.

Profits are what enable business growth, innovation, increased headcount, increased investment in new manufacturing, and the ability to take strategic risks.

It's also completely legitimate for a business to make the decision to pull investment from a product line, market, or category that isn't providing enough return. They would be foolish to put all their eggs in the 10% basket when there are 30%+ baskets they could be playing and growing in.

Sometimes consumers get cranky when their snowflake preference doesn't line up with general market demands and trends. That's fine, you can be upset, but business leadership has a responsibility to shareholders and employees to be profitable.

My snark response for the armchair quarterbacks is: "Great idea! You should go spin up a new business and get that product to market if you believe in it so much"

[HCM]

I saw reference to this in a thread today, and it comes up periodically.

Gun companies, like other companies, want to earn profits. That is what corporations do. The question is how do you best "make profits." Some think that the best way to maximize profit is to short change quality or not invest in new products. My belief, is that the best way to maximize profits is to make great products and continue to make new great products. When companies cut quality and fail to innovate, I view that as a failure of leadership, and not some crafty profit maximization scheme.

Thoughts?

As the reason this “comes up periodically” words mean things.

The phrase is “gun companies exist to make money, not guns.”

The distinction is important. Short changing quality is only one option. A company can make products that are high quality but are still stupid / impractical in response to market demands.

It probably should the “the markets” plural rather than singular and different markets require different strategies.

For example, the Taurus /PSA strategy of price / quantity over quality is quite successful for their target market; people who don’t their guns much if at all and whose primary purposes are recreational or LARPing.

Whereas this strategy would not be acceptable with institutional customers and freaks like PF members who will shoot every gun they buy (at least a little) and consider guns life / safety equipment.

[echo5charlie]

The majority of people want cheap. I can't count how many gun shop owners have told me that they sell a bajillion Tauruses and HiPoints to offset the Daniel Defense or KAC ARs that hang on the wall for months at a time before someone buys them. Same thing with just about any commodity. You don't see the average drinker buying 18-year MacAllan, they buy a case of Milwaukee's Worst or maybe Bud Light if they're feeling flush on payday. The same holds true for most consumer goods.

As a gun shop guy, I wish I could add more than one like.

Making $125 on a $419 cost Diamondback DB-15 in a week makes a whole lot more sense than $200 on a $1600 cost Daniel Defense in three months.

We went from being a Daniel Defense Reseller of the Year to not stocking an AR that retails for more than $600. I work a whole lot less to generate the same income.

[okie john]

As a gun shop guy, I wish I could add more than one like.

Making $125 on a $419 cost Diamondback DB-15 in a week makes a whole lot more sense than $200 on a $1600 cost Daniel Defense in three months.

We went from being a Daniel Defense Reseller of the Year to not stocking an AR that retails for more than $600. I work a whole lot less to generate the same income.

When I was working retail, margin was better on cleaning gear and books than on guns.


Okie John

[Borderland]

I tend to use the term Coin-Operated.
And people tend to bemoan sales (I work in sales) and marketing, but if the most wonderful product doesn't generate any sales it means bumpkiss when it is time to make payroll. But few firearm products seem to be developed with generating sales in mind. So you get things that must have been developed in a room with no windows with no concern for a target selling price, and then get thrown over a wall to a sales team that is expected to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

I think the market has a void for DA/SA pistols, that IMO would be great for new shooters, but the market keeps launching more and more striker guns. Honestly if I were in the business I would probably be supportive of producing valid variations of quality striker guns.

But the innovation seems too often be radical departures, but occasionally an enthusiastic product developer with an ear to the ground like @Ben_G gives us an evolutionary product like the A300-UP. They combined elements of several established products into a combination that hit a bullseye. The mold for the forend was a big expense, but otherwise just transferred some existing 301 stuff over to the A300 that was being made in Tennessee so 922r compatibility is simple. Seems like examples like this are rare.

ETA: I think Mossberg Optic-Ready shotguns are significant, and the cover plate with a peep sight is a great idea.

Surely Gaston Glock benefitted greatly from not being an industry veteran.

I think the market has a void for DA/SA pistols, that IMO would be great for new shooters, but the market keeps launching more and more striker guns.

Interesting observation. I've stepped into (HK) polymer but not striker pistols. I'm wondering why DA/SA is being avoiding in the market. Even when perfected (LEM) it still isn't popular. Probably has something to do with cost, strikers being the Bud Light of lead delivery systems. I find it interesting that Mexicans won't drink light beer and have actually made impressive headway in the US market selling Modelo lager.

[bofe954]

Enthusiasts will never be happy with mainstream products, I think by definition. Same with cars, motorcycles, trucks whatever.

There are tons of great firearms out there, a G19, P365, P320, M+P will do everything 95% of buyers want a handgun to do with minimal to no maintenance and probably do it for the rest of the owner's life. Yeah, if you want niche things, you will have to go to a niche outfit but that isn't anything new.

[Totem Polar]

Enthusiasts will never be happy with mainstream products, I think by definition. Same with cars, motorcycles, trucks whatever.

I dunno. Sometimes enthusiasts will drive the development of a “niche” product that then goes mainstream because of the feature benefits. I’ve seen this first hand, as the enthusiast, big time.

[echo5charlie]

When I was working retail, margin was better on cleaning gear and books than on guns.


Okie John

It used to be, but the availability of these things (to include ammo) online make them not worth the square footage to stock. Well, ammo we do stock as the guy that wants one box of 9mm isn't paying ~$10 S&H. It is amazing as to the differences in sales reports from 2009 and 2023.

Honesty, I cannot count the times I have had someone say that they'll look online when offered a $9.99 Hoppe's starter cleaning kit. Amazon sells the same kit, delivered, for the same price. Our markup? ~$1.25. (These are pre-Covid numbers, no idea what the prices are now). These are usually the same people that claim early on that they want to support the local shops.


The days of trying to actually help the customer who came in to buy an LCP for protection against Grizzly bears in PA (yes, true story) with fact are over. Now I ask if they need a box of ammo with that. I'll also tell them that G2 RIP ammo is an informed choice and should suit them well. I guess that saying about 'comforting lies vs unpleasant truths' is true.

I can't fix stupid, but I can let them to spend their money. I also now understand the grumpy gunshop fuck behind the counter...I was him until I embraced reality.