In my heart I agree with Homer's comment about inventory investment risk of a retailer...

BUT....

Consider Walmart... Or quite equally, cabelas, or any shoe store in the country...

It's a well proven socio-economic principle that a retailer can get away with having a high inventory investment if they have a high variety, because it instills confidence in the buyers about the retailer. Retailers that carry a wide variety of products, even in lower individual quantities, will sell a lot more overall product than they would if they had a limited/specialized selection. Having a lower inventory of items decreases your inventory risk of THAT item, so it spreads your risk, and having a wider variety allows you to market ALL of your products to a wider consumer base.

It's also well proven that a retailer that stocks "the latest and greatest" whenever it comes out will do well with it. There are two motivations there: 1) it builds confidence that the shop is "with it" and offers the so-called best items when they come out, and 2) consumers ALWAYS buy on fads, so even if it isn't the best, the fact that it is "new and improved" means it will sell.

For example: I run a lot for exercise. I ONLY wear Brooks running shoes, and predominantly only wear Under Armour shirts. My shorts and socks, I could care less what brand they are.

There are 5 specifically running stores in town. I have literally never been inside 3 of them because they don't carry Brooks shoes. So they lose out on my potential purchases of Under Armour shirts (which they carry), and socks and shorts. The 2 stores that I use get ALL of my business, because they carry ONE specific item I want, even though I could find other items I want somewhere else.

Another Example: Gander Mountain is the only spot in town (clear across town) that carries 40rnd boxes of Remington UMC 50grn JHP's, which I use out of one of my AR's for plinking. Several other stores, including the Cabelas near me, have the same load, but not in 40rnd boxes. It saves me $5 per 40rnds to buy them in the 40rnd box vs 2 20rnd boxes. But when I go to Gander Mountain, because Ammo is in the back and they have a lot of inventory variety (ammo = common consumable, so it goes in the back, just like grocery stores have milk and eggs in the back), I see several items I want/need along the way, and spend $100 on other items, instead of just getting my ammo and leaving.

What about the risk from the other angle: Say your shop is conservative. Instead of stocking a small inventory of a wide variety of items, it has 10x the inventory on 1/10th of the items. In that case, the inventory investment risk is magnified. If the .17WSM comes along and kills the .17HMR, and you as a retailer had 20 .17HMR rifles and 2,000rnds of HMR ammo, instead of offering 4 rifles and 400rnds of 5 different cartridges, now he's left holding all of that inventory with nowhere to go.

Prime example of that type of trend: The small town shop I grew up near used to stock .32 H&R mag, .480 Ruger, and .454 Cassull ammo. I was the ONLY guy that bought them, but instead of special ordering them, he'd always carry some on the shelf. When I changed jobs and moved away, I had the foresight to let him know to stop ordering it, so he wouldn't have to swallow that inventory cost just because I left (not huge, but I'd usually buy them 5-10boxes at a time a few times a year).

So even though the inventory investment risk on a new item is high, retailers that follow trends and offer a wide variety of products will actually fair better than a retailer that doesn't.