.17 wsm
11-24-2013, 07:46 AM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,186
Homers Brother makes some great points. As does Nomercy448.
I have done a lot of piddling shooting at the range with .17HMR and 22 Mag. One could easily argue that these two particular cartridges fit no "necessary" niche. But, for now its a free world .... and having a myriad of choices when it comes to varmint type cartridges and "plinkers" is a good thing.
As far as staking a business on cartridge such as the .17WSM ... don't that is the situation at all. If it flops, no company associated with the cartridge is likely to fold.
As Homers Brother points out there have been (and surely will be) cartridges that never become popular in the shooting/hunting crowd despite being a pretty good round, such as the 280 Rem. and 257 Roberts. And some of will be at best extremely limited as far as a production run, such as the 358 Win. and 35 Whelen. And some will become more or less obsolete ..... such as factory ammo for my 6.5 mm Rem. Mag Rem 660 that I bought as a teen aged kid with about every $$$ I had saved friom a hot summer's work bailing hay and mucking dairy barns.
I have done a lot of piddling shooting at the range with .17HMR and 22 Mag. One could easily argue that these two particular cartridges fit no "necessary" niche. But, for now its a free world .... and having a myriad of choices when it comes to varmint type cartridges and "plinkers" is a good thing.
As far as staking a business on cartridge such as the .17WSM ... don't that is the situation at all. If it flops, no company associated with the cartridge is likely to fold.
As Homers Brother points out there have been (and surely will be) cartridges that never become popular in the shooting/hunting crowd despite being a pretty good round, such as the 280 Rem. and 257 Roberts. And some of will be at best extremely limited as far as a production run, such as the 358 Win. and 35 Whelen. And some will become more or less obsolete ..... such as factory ammo for my 6.5 mm Rem. Mag Rem 660 that I bought as a teen aged kid with about every $$$ I had saved friom a hot summer's work bailing hay and mucking dairy barns.
11-24-2013, 10:05 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,902
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.
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.
11-25-2013, 05:53 AM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,359
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.
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.
11-25-2013, 10:52 AM
#24
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,380
The wife and I went to Scheels in Reno on Saturday and they had quite a bit of 22WSM ammo in stock but only 1 Savage Bmag rifle on display. I talked to one of the guys working there and he said they seem to have either ammo or guns but usually not both at the same time (kind of echoes some earlier comments about getting the supply pipeline sorted out). I asked the guy about 22LR ammo and he said they got an entire pallet in this week, limited customers to one 525-count box of Federal 22 ammo and were sold out within hours. He said this is just about a weekly occurrence for them. I asked if he had heard about any other rifles being made in the 22WSM caliber and he said no. I think more than 1 rifle being made in this caliber would make me feel more like the caliber is likely going to stick around.
11-26-2013, 04:44 AM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,056
Those are all very reasonable considerations. Maybe it's a good thing neither of us are retailers and have to decide upon a business model? Maybe we'd stock Brooks shoes on one wall, high-end single malt on the other, and the guns in the back?
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
11-26-2013, 06:21 AM
#26
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
It doesn't matter to me if the companies roll out a new caliber everyday! But in my opinion, with the exception of the .17 HMR and Leverlution ammo they have not made any improvements over the older proven calibers!
11-26-2013, 09:10 AM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,902
You could say the same thing really about most things out there. The incremental improvement made on anything in the last 100yrs (depending upon it's industry) is pretty minimal. The .308 over the .30-06, iPhone 5 over iPhone 4, Bluray over DVD, 2014 F-150 over 1991...
The room for improvement shrank to almost nothing a long time ago on firearm cartridges. Now the only room left is diversification.
The sad part is that marketers understand that consumers buy on fads/trends, so they don't have to consider longevity of a product anymore. If the NPV on the product is positive, based on a short-term, unsustainable life cycle, then they still sell the product. Profitability is driven by investors, who don't care HOW the company makes money, but only care that it makes THEM money. If that means turning out piece of junk cars that don't make it 100k miles, all the better, because they can sell you another car 100k miles from now. Just like those gum commercials, make something that lasts too long and you'll put yourself out of business.
I have about a thousand bucks in Cabelas cash saved up from the last few years, I'm pretty tempted to give the .17WSM a shot just for something to play with in February and March when fur starts falling out.
11-26-2013, 12:20 PM
#28
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,380
If you guys keep saying stuff like that and it gets around, half the gun magazines would go out of business and the other half would be on shaky ground. 
Personally, I'm glad there's lots of variety or diversification. It provides more toys to play with and consider. Different people will want/need/have different levels of finances and interests in guns, just like in hunting. I don't foresee myself ever having the money to buy one of those governor's tags I read about but they're still kind of fun to read about sometimes. Same with some of the fancy (and expensive) guns.
A Bmag or the next rifle to be chambered for the 17 WSM (hopefully with a little heavier barrel as well) will be interesting and tempting just because. I'm kind of surprised that nobody on here has one yet and posted a shooting review.
Personally, I'm glad there's lots of variety or diversification. It provides more toys to play with and consider. Different people will want/need/have different levels of finances and interests in guns, just like in hunting. I don't foresee myself ever having the money to buy one of those governor's tags I read about but they're still kind of fun to read about sometimes. Same with some of the fancy (and expensive) guns.
A Bmag or the next rifle to be chambered for the 17 WSM (hopefully with a little heavier barrel as well) will be interesting and tempting just because. I'm kind of surprised that nobody on here has one yet and posted a shooting review.
12-05-2013, 06:00 PM
#30
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southeast Missouri
Posts: 2,178
I have a Savage .17 WSM on order,my Gun Dealer has me on His waiting list and when he gets it in I'm 3rd in line to receive one... as mentioned He didn't have any ammo on hand but when I got back in my Home Town the local Wally World had several boxes of 20 & 25 grain Winchester ammo on hand,I bought 3 boxes this past weekend and another 3 Wednesday!
There is another Company that makes the .17 WSM....Winchester In a single shot Low Wall listed at $1,469.00,little too steep for me in my opinion!
There is another Company that makes the .17 WSM....Winchester In a single shot Low Wall listed at $1,469.00,little too steep for me in my opinion!
