Maybe - for now.

Generally speaking, a company doesn't come in and buy out another company simply to invest capitol for R&D. They're in the game for one reason and one reason only - to make money!

HHHHMMMMMMMMMMM!!!! Everyone thought I was crazy when I started a thread inquiring about this the other day.

I agree with you in principle. It depends on what employees. The aquiree or the acquired company employees.

I have been part of 3 acquisitions, on the aquiree company side, and they are never totally seamless. There are systems integrations, HR, insurance, among other things. It may take some time but there will be some changes.

Not knowing the fundamentals behind either companies, there is still an underlying reason for the acquisitions. To say unlimited R&D dollars doesn't satisfy me as a company is still only going to spend a certain % of revenue on R&D. There is other synergies that aren't and won't be filtered down beyond the executive level for quite some time. It is certain that there have been cap ex, op ex, SG&A, EBITDA discussions prior to the acquisition. There are underlying reasons from a financial standpoint or there would be no need for the acquisition.

Regardless of the impact, I still like my Bowtech and will consider them for future archery purchases.

Bout the same as when Diamler bought Chrysler. Means nothing to the consumer. Bowtec is still bowtec and savage is still savage. Just more hands that need a cut.

Not everyone. Give that man a $10 cigar.

I hope it works out for both companies and they stay true to who they are. I've always liked Savage rifles for their accuracy and affordability. I love my Guardian and the Tribute before it was fantastic.

This merger makes good business sense for Savage.

Firearm sales have been flat (see Winchester) and bows have actually been stealing their thunder.
Bowhunting (for better or worse) is hot right now and Savage, which is a well established brand name
probably wanted to branch out. I'm sure that a big payday was in it for the founders and honchos
at Bowtech (who appear to have earned it due to the phenomenal growth of their company).

Sometimes it's all about timing and momentum. I wouldn't be surprised if Bowtech ends up in
a business textbook oneday. Upstarts don't usually dominate the competition so quickly, especially
in a loyal area like archery. Matthews should have at least tried to do something other than its
single cams and adding harmonic dampeners.

I agree that mergers have not proven very effective. Always big promises up front, but you rarely
can have a win-win for everbody. Since Savage appears to be a well run company, hopefully
they will allow Bowtech to remain fairly independent and just skim off some of the profits.

Thanks for making up my mind for me Savage, my next bow will definitely be a Mathews now. Diamond was in the running, and my current bow is a Bowtech, but my dad would dis own me for buying a Savage product.

That makes sense[&:]

Sounds like a win win to me. Best rifle I ever owed was a Savage and don't ever plan to buy any other brand.