Originally Posted by
Father Forkhorn
Could you tell us his response?
What you describe actually creates a problem for a gun manufacturer. A grandfather passes on his old pre-64 model 70 Winchester to a grandson and now the youngster has no need to buy a gun at all.
There's also other dynamics at work. Today, fewer youth are hunting, and they don't get introduced to guns through hunting. They get introduced to guns increasingly through video games and movies, and that's what they want to shoot. Hence, many are far more interested in AR style rifles and semi-auto pistols than they are in wood and steel bolt actions and Smith and Wesson model 10 revolvers. If they get Grandpa's model 70, it may less appeal to them than an AR-15., and they sell the Winchester to get the black rifle.
A gun that just gets a guy by is actually a boon for a gun manufacturer. It means the purchaser may or will eventually buy another gun. (This is what led to the idea of "planned obsolescence" in the 1960s).
And this is the truth about today's budget guns: Even a lowly plastic stock Axis, 783, American, or similar sometimes reported to get less than 1 MOA out of the box. 2 MOA is probably substandard. They often outperform yesterday's wood and steel beauties. A lot of new buyers just want a gun to hunt deer with, the less expensive budget rifle gets it done just fine.
Today's gun market for traditional hunting rifles is actually becoming glutted, and that's narrowing the profit margins. A small company that makes really high end guns can make a go of it, but large corporations do better with volume sales at a low price. The money for them probably lies more in selling an inexpensive bolt action, ARs, and semi-auto pistols--those wonder nines like the Glocks.
They're not pretty, but they're profitable. That's what increasing numbers of customers want and that's where the money lies. What a gun is supposed to be is dictated by the buyers in the market, and more of them are saying they want something besides fine wood and steel. They want something affordable and they want something cool like the gun in the video game. Fail to give them that, and a company's guns will not sell and that heads them towards bankruptcy.
The other problem is one we've faced before: the problem of production costs. They doomed classic guns like the pre-64 Winchesters and the Savage 99. They were costly to make and had to be priced too high for adequate sales and profitability. It's the same today with a plastic stock bolt action. That plastic keeps the costs down and the profitability up because so much of the buying is driven by the price tag, not the material that went into the stock .
He basically agreed with me, especially when talking about the 22 market. If you look at the big name gun manufacture's most of them have went bankrupt, restructured, sold out. Like you said, There are smaller companies that are actually building better rifles than the big names. And they are asking way more money for the rifles.
I don't think that the passing down of guns is actually hurting them that much. If you look at the number of guns sold per year compared to the number of people, you can see pretty fast that there has to be some very large collections out there.
I don't see anyone that grew up with pre 64's buying these cheap guns, but maybe I am wrong. I have bought several fiberglass stocks for rifles that I wanted to be more weather proof. I have bought Stainless guns for their look and weather resistance.
I have never thought to buy a cheap gun to use, abuse, and get a new one in a year or two.
I really hope that the quality gun manufactures don't go away but I am afraid they might. And all that will be left is AR's and boat paddle guns.