16ga.com ~ View topic

I was just wondering since we are about to start 2007, what the state of the gun industry is. In the US, that is. You know, sort of like the State of the Union. I see a lot of gun makers out there and was just wondering how many of them are still healthy companies.I see a lot of fine old American companies importing more guns than ever. I was wondering if there is enough demand to keep all of them solvent. Some of you shooting sports writers might know and share some rumors with me. I just can't believe there is enough demand to keep them all going.

Member Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 398 Location: S Fl

I have no insider knowledge, but some things I've taken note of recently:

S+W seems to be going gangbusters, based on capital spending (building a shotgun plant in Turkey and acquisition of T/C).

Ruger remains in a strong position as the largest American gunmaker, despite sales at roughly 1/2 the level of 12 yrs ago. This is not a unique predicament in today's US gun industry. Those that are flexible, adaptable and innovative will continue to do well.
The stock price has gained 50% since Bill Jr retired earlier this year.
Now if they'd just get the G.L. line up and running again... Rolling Eyes

Remington's tooling for the 700 rifle line was pretty well worn out by '02. They decided not to replace it with predictable results. I wouldn't own a 700 made in the last 4 yrs, and the word is getting around. Most of Rem's management decisions in the last 10 yrs have bordered on the bizzare/surreal.

Winchester/USRAC's demise has been well hashed out this year. An object lesson in long distance ownership.

Marlin looks to be in good shape. The large bore levers have become a "required accessory" for the well dressed Alaskan hunter/guide. I wish they had been able to make the 475 Linebaugh work in the lever. That had bear stomper written all over it. Too bad.

Colt is (barely) living on a reputation made 100 years ago. Don't understand why they're still in business.

I know Browning makes a few pistols in Utah, but I consider them an importer more than a manufacturer. That said, they seems to be doing well. The big caveat is that the same ownership/management that helped sink USRAC is in charge of Browning. Will they go the same way? Who knows?

Happy new year,
Pete

Actually, Browning is partially owned by the Walloons, part of the Belgian population. USRA was already on the ropes long before Browning/FN bought the majority of the stock after USRA was reorganized under chapter 11 for the umpteenth time.

The main problem was USRA could not produce and sell enough product to fulfill its contractural obligations to Olin, pay fro retooling as needed, and also make payroll. If you want to blame someone, start there. Olin has been an overbloated top heavy blood sucking corporation for decades. The best thing Browning did was to let it die. Now Olin is out and Browning can take the best John Browning designs, and the model 70, find a new manufacturer to tool up, and make the guns with better QC. It will happen. Just wait and see. Of course, the prices will be higher, but what else is new.

Marlin stole a step on Winchester decades ago and quietly has been making better, more accurate lever guns for a long time. They have tightened up on QC over the last 10 years, improved the barrel designs, and the guns show it. However, if Browning starts making the Model 1886, 92, and 98 lever guns in quantity with quality and accuracy to match, its gonna be a helluva dog fight.

Colt has been living on its M-16 contract for decades. It is not going anywhere until the US services dump the basic M-16 for another, totally different design. This will probably not happen until the problem with caseless ammo is solved. By that time, bullet firing arms will probably be passe anyway and will be replaced by energy pulse type weapons. Shades of Star Wars blasters, Star Trek phasors, and Klingon disrupters!! Its already in the works. Maybe we'll live to see it. They already have electron pulse cannons under developement which disrupt electronic systems nicely thank you. These gizmos reduce any computer dependant enemy to stone throwing real quickly. And we think computer viruses are a pain in the tushy. Laughing

Remington? Guns stopped being their forte 20 years ago. They have been relying on ammo sales and actually are doing OK. Its too bad they don't look to the 16 ga as new ground to explore. Teaching a Dinosaur new tricks is tough though. I can say that from first hand knowledge.

S&W? Anyone's guess. Its too bad they got their hands on T/C. I'd have rather seen Ruger win that one. I guess we can kiss the basic T/C Hawken and all its clones goodbye. I'm just glad I have a small but complete collection and that I also bought a few Green Mountain round ball barrels to go with them. I can't stand the modern in line front stuffers. They and compound bows are just too techie for me.

T/C died with Warren Center IMO. He was the brains and the driving force behind it all. Their quality went to hell very quickly after his passing. Rumor has it the last owners were a bunch of oil fat middle eastern creeps who managed to renege on every lifetime guarantee T/C ever made. But so is S&W ownership so I hear. I can't confirm it though.

I bought my last new S&W revolver over 20 years ago just before my friend and head of QC and customer service retired. It was and still is my most accurate wheel gun ever. Its a Model 57 long barreled .41 Maggie that will shoot 2 inch groups off the bags at 100 yards with full patch 210 grain thumpers. It dumps deer like they were poleaxed out to 50 yards or so. This was after a trip back to the plant in Springfield for a proper refit under his kind auspices as were all my S&W revolvers. Its nice to have friends. I'm happy. Very Happy

Joined: 15 Oct 2004 Posts: 787 Location: Indiana

Winchester may or may not have been a "bloated, top-heavy corporation for decades" (as a matter of fact that appelation could be applied to Ford, Chrysler, GM, GE, etc) but they sure made a significant number of excellent, classic rifles and shotguns that every other gun company only wishes they had made. Some were based on Browning designs and some (the Model 12 and Model 42, the Model 21, Model 61, Model 70, Model 52 Sporter and others) were designed by Winchester engineers. I learned a long time ago as a banker that there is a difference between an entity being an excellent PRODUCER of products (Winchester) and being an excellent, financially astute BUSINESS (Browning, Ruger).

Regardless of what Jap and other overseas companies make which "fantastic" products, the demise of Winchester is nothing but a bad thing...ask the unemployed in New Haven.....

Member Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 3438 Location: Illinois

I am questioning what the dems have up their sleeves for '07 and how it will negatively affect the existing workers whether they are involved in arms manufacuring or any of the related fields.

Savage Arms seems to be doing well with their really good factory accuracy, Accu-trigger and the ML-II muzzleloader that can use smokeless powder. That big barrel nut on their rifles looks kinda dorky, but it's real easy to make one of them into a switch-barrel, different caliber real easy. So I guess it's OK if looks aren't everything.

"Winchester may or may not have been a "bloated, top-heavy corporation for decades" (as a matter of fact that appelation could be applied to Ford, Chrysler, GM, GE, etc)" 16GG as misquote by Wolfchief.

Wolfchief, Who said anything about Winchester? I said OLIN. Big difference there fella. Winchester died under Olin's inept and greedy management long ago. It's lifeless carcass was then stripped of anything remotely valuable, and sold to USRA at a price that insured the firm would eventually belly up under the weight of the financial obligations that sale imposed on them. USRA tried to keep the Winchester name alive, but the effort was doomed from the start. The fact that it took nearly 25 years is a credit to the efforts USRA made to make a go of it.

However, you are right about the US car makers. Their solution to their financial problem is to screw the workers out of their pensions so the fat cats at the top can keep theirs. They ought to be horse whipped.

Member Joined: 01 Feb 2006 Posts: 450 Location: Indiana

It is easy to see what is going to happen within the next decade or so. We must look at what happened back in the days when Gov. Bowen was gov. of Indiana. He said the only way to get rid of guns and hunting is to get the price up high enough that the public will stop buying license and all the rest of the stuff that goes along with it. In time the younger generations will begin to dwindle in interest. Clubs will shrink along with less hunting grounds that will be useds for expansion on realestate and industry. Funny how our politations can see the future. Infact they can see right thru us and beyond.

I am greatful for the instructors we have had in the shooting sports for the young. but the problem remains there is not enough interest. Turnaroung and look at your own club you particapate in. Most are the same members just getting older. Yes their is some new young people but not enough to keep the clubs alive in the long term.

We must get involved with the schools and students to get interest. Many young people that would probably shoot don't want to belong to the scouts or other organisations, It must be made affordable for kids who's parents cannot afford their children to shoot often.

It seems to me the Large industry are looking the wrong way and are causing their own demise. Laws need changed for more common sense.

If the manufactures don't get more involved in promoting the sport to the young and ponying up with some of the coins instead of their fat bonuses to help change things then all I can say it was fun while it lasted and young fellow thats how it was.

Old16 - the same can be said for many outdoor related sports/pastimes.

I am a member of a fly fishing club - the joke is "the uniform is gray hair, glasses and flannel shirts."

fishing, hunting & trapping (as reminded to us by another post) in all it's forms are slowly being lost due to lack of interest - remember a few years ago when the insurgence of women in fishing/hunting happened? Catalogs exploded with gear for women.

Kids programs on every level are slowly being dropped due to lack of interest - first license hunt participation - does anybody here have privilege to the numbers of the last 10 years for their respective state? I'll bet based on the number of hunter safety courses, it's on a decline...

Meh - I'm tired so I'll get off my soapbox

As for the state of the state question, I have no real insight to any manufacturer or product but I am gravitating to older guns made in a time when "pride in craftsmanship" ruled the country regardless of who sat in the oval office or at the head of the BOD table.

Actually, now that I think of it, when a man with the same name of the company was running the show, products seem to be made a whole lot better than not - or am I wrong?

Here in Mass. There are less people hunting and fishing every year. The number of active shooting clubs has dwindled. Our MATA is on the verge of financial ruin for lack of participation. That is the down side.

On the up side, hunting and fishing have never been better. The lakes and streams are still there. The woods and fields too. Less people are out and about. Building has slowed down, because there are now less people to sell to. Suburban living is getting too expensive so more younger folks are going back to the city where there is an over abundance of rental units. The deer, turkey, grouse, woodcock, rabbit etc populations are exploding again. Game is everywhere. The Big and smallmouthed bass populations have survived the tournament era and are doing very well. Crappie still swim the lakes. There are even wild trout if one knows where to look. Since the decline of urban sprawl and the close of industry in the state, our rivers and streams are getting cleaner by the year.

The danger is that these new folks moving to the cities will become liberalized, blinded by a dogma that is both benighted and passe. If they vote to close the woods and streams to folks like me, that means they will need to pay for someone to gaurd them and keep watch. It will take quite a few of these gaurds too, because I will still be out there fishing, and I am still fairly deadly with a bow--a silent weapon. Some of the very best fishing I've ever had has been after sunset, at night or before dawn.

I grew up in the woods and on the waters. I will probably die there too. If I don't want to be seen or heard, then I won't be. I 've known how to "disappear" since I was very small. I'm not about to abide by the wishes of a bunch of damned fools. Sometimes the law really is an ass. If it becomes too much of an ass, treat it as such and quietly and unobtrusively do what is natural and right. Sometimes civil disobedience is the correct course.

Getting better every year. The 100 pounders are back. Even the haddock are makng a comeback. When things warm up a bit this spring, I'll have to book a trip on a cod boat.

Joined: 15 Oct 2004 Posts: 787 Location: Indiana

16GG: In many ways, for the six and a half to seven decades after 1932, Olin WAS Winchester. He brought the company out of receivership in the early 30's and presided over the introduction of several TOP Winchester firearms: The Model 21, which was basically his pet, the Model 61 hammerless .22 slide action, and others. Olin worked with a number of notable sportsmen, among them luminaries such as Nash Buckingham, John Madson and others, to popularize the idea of conservation and its companion, responsible sporting ethics. Under John Olin's leadership, the company introduced the Super X shotshell and made other innovative contributions to the improvement of sporting ammunition. We may or may not be saying the same thing but I will reiterate what I firmly believe: An important era ended with the demise of the Winchester name; and nothing good can come of that.

From Wikipedia:
John Merrill Olin was born on November 10, 1892, in Alton, Illinois. "Upon graduating from Cornell University with a B.S. degree in chemistry, he started his career in 1913 as a chemical engineer for the Western Cartridge Company [owned by his father, Franklin W. Olin], a predecessor of Olin Industries, Inc. He became President of Olin Industries in 1944 and upon merger of the company with Mathieson Chemical Corporation in 1954 became Chairman of the Board of the new corporation, named Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation. Subsequently the name was shortened to Olin Corporation. Mr. Olin retired as Chairman of the Board in 1957 to become Chairman of the Executive Committee, a position he held until he was elected Honorary Chairman of the Board in 1963. He died September 8, 1982."[1]
"Olin was an inventor or co-inventor of 24 United States patents in the field of arms and ammunition manufacture and design and was responsible for numerous developments in ballistics."[2]

"In addition to his industrial career, Mr. Olin was a conservationist, philanthropist and educator. He was also a breeder of saddle and race horses as well as a trainer and breeder of champion Labrador retrievers. A long-time supporter of wildlife conservation, Mr. Olin was widely recognized as one of the country's most active conservationists and led the effort to save the Atlantic salmon."[3]

"Olin was a Trustee Emeritus of Cornell University and of Johns Hopkins University, a Life Trustee of Washington University, St. Louis, and an Honorary Director of The American Museum of Natural History. He was named the Charles F. Kettering Award recipient for 1968 by the George Washington University PTC Research Institute. He received the Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur of France and the Grand Ufficiale-Ordine al Merito della Republica Italiana."[4]

John Olin died decades ago WC. The corporation that bears his name has no resemblance to the man.

No, we are not saying the same thing. John Olin bought Winchester out of receivership to not only save the name, but help the folks in Hartford keep their jobs. He saved Winchester from the conssequences of the leadership of short sighted, greedy little men. Great men like John Olin can do that. He took part of the fantastic profits Westren Cartridge had made and was making from defense contracts to do some good. He had a social conscience and the wisdom to see that profits are not the be all, end all and do not determine the real bottom line. Olin understood the give and take of life.

However, when John Olin died, the guidance and social conscience he lent to his company died with him. The resulting faceless, amoral, unfeeling collective business entity led by greedy, shortsighted, self important, very little men, proceeded to dismantle all he did in the name of the almighty bottom line as they saw it. Then, after stripping as much profit out of the name as they could, they sold off the carcass to USRA.

USRA tried mightily to do what John Olin had done, keep the Winchester name alive and keep the folks in Hartford working. However, the demands Olin Corp. weighted the agreement with were too heavy a financial liability. So the effort failed.

No, we are not saying the same thing. Not by a long shot. However, I will agree that nothing good ever comes out of greed driven, short sighted leadership that worships at the alter of the profit driven bottom line. Never.

Joined: 15 Oct 2004 Posts: 787 Location: Indiana

I give up. If we aren't saying that Olin was a great man and was in no way responsible for what eventually happened to Winchester, then what are we saying? More to the point, besides you and I, who really cares? I can see greed and corruption in many corporations today---both domestic and international. That is not unique to Olin. I'm sorry to say, neither one of us is going to do a hell of a lot about that on this forum. Winchester was a fine company. John Olin was a fine man. To see either name smeared or dishonored is NOT a good thing in any way, shape or form. If you don't agree with that, then we DISAGREE and I'll just leave it at that.