Quantcast
Americans are buying fewer guns says Smith & Wesson - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > General Gun Discussions

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 6, 2014, 10:28 PM   #1
Kynoch
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2010
Location: Central Coast of California
Posts: 958
Americans are buying fewer guns says Smith & Wesson

"The gunmaker expects its sales to slow over the year as Americans buy fewer firearms.

It looks like Americans may be buying fewer guns this year.

Smith & Wesson SWHC 0.83% , the 162-year-old gunmaker, lowered its guidance for the quarter and rest of the year, even as it reported better than expected sales in its fiscal fourth quarter that ended Apr. 30. Shares of Smith & Wesson’s stock had dropped nearly 9% by the close of trading Friday following the announcement..."

Complete Story at Fortune Magazine Website
Kynoch is offline  
Old July 6, 2014, 10:36 PM   #2
Deltaboy
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 21, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,695
Get rid of those locks and Cut the prices by a 1/3 and see what happens.
__________________
I just an ole sinner saved by Grace and protected by Smith & Wesson.
Deltaboy is offline  
Old July 6, 2014, 10:39 PM   #3
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,335
It had to happen, eventually. Well, unless we can manage to get the Banic to span a full four years, in which case we cross the event-horizon and are perpetually in a buyer's frenzy

Depending on November, we'll have yet another gun-grab, and yet another buying surge; I think gunnies are watching this election more than usual.

TCB
__________________
I was talking to my gun; not with it. There's a pretty big difference...

Do anti's dream of defenseless sheep?
barnbwt is offline  
Old July 6, 2014, 10:43 PM   #4
UpperAtmosphere
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 23, 2013
Location: Central IL
Posts: 104
Well, if they'll actually get a couple of 929s out into the market, I'll buy one.
UpperAtmosphere is online now  
Old July 6, 2014, 10:49 PM   #5
Deaf Smith
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 7, 2004
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 2,468
Quote:
Americans are buying fewer guns says Smith & Wesson

Never fear, Heir Obama will change that again once he issues more 'executive orders' while Hillary looks on and nods her approval.

Deaf
__________________
“We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality” Ayn Rand
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old July 6, 2014, 10:55 PM   #6
jmr40
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 26, 2007
Posts: 7,339
Well for the last 6-8 years Americans have been buying at a record pace. The market had to get saturated at some point.
jmr40 is offline  
Old July 6, 2014, 10:59 PM   #7
Kynoch
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2010
Location: Central Coast of California
Posts: 958
I have to say it would be fun to be chasing a degree in economics right now and doing a thesis or dissertation on the US gun market for the coming decade.

Harley Davidson was absolutely superb at limiting output in order to keep prices and profits artificially high. They did it for years. After all, they had no serious competition for what they were hawking -- that "Harley mystique." (LOL!)

Slowly over time the market began to saturate with used Harleys, the Japs became far better at building big twins and perhaps most of all, Polaris/Victory/Indian began eating-up more of the domestic market.

As demand drops will the gun manufactures collude to keep prices high? I don't know how much margin there is in a Marlin Model 60, but there is a ton in a Glock 17. Will manufacturers drop prices to maintain their current share? How will dropping prices effect the often unsophisticated gun buyer?
Kynoch is offline  
Old July 6, 2014, 11:09 PM   #8
theotherwaldo
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 30, 2008
Location: In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
Posts: 1,955
Of the many firearms that I own only one is a Smith & Wesson. I prefer Rugers in that particular niche.

Smith & Wesson has compromised their product and philosophy too many times, as far as I'm concerned.
__________________
"I try to be cynical, but no matter how hard I try, I can't keep up."
-Lily Tomlin
theotherwaldo is offline  
Old July 6, 2014, 11:12 PM   #9
Kynoch
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2010
Location: Central Coast of California
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by theotherwaldo View Post
Of the many firearms that I own only one is a Smith & Wesson. I prefer Rugers in that particular niche.

Smith & Wesson has compromised their product and philosophy too many times, as far as I'm concerned.
What "niche" is that? Ruger is close to being a full-line dealer of handguns and long guns. S&W isn't too far behind...
Kynoch is offline  
Old July 6, 2014, 11:12 PM   #10
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,335
What I think is convenient (truly convenient; not suspicious) is that gun stuff appears to be tanking in price right about the time gas is starting to climb up again. Should keep expenses closer to stable for a spell, and once I'm stocked up I imagine the law of odds & probability will have the markets dipping down just in time for me to divert funds once again to that. It's gonna be a good year

TCB
__________________
I was talking to my gun; not with it. There's a pretty big difference...

Do anti's dream of defenseless sheep?
barnbwt is offline  
Old July 6, 2014, 11:21 PM   #11
rcmodel
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 17, 2007
Location: Eastern KS
Posts: 48,786
Quote:
Harley Davidson was absolutely superb at limiting output in order to keep prices After all, they had no serious competition for what they were hawking -- that "Harley mystique." (LOL!)
Now, you got me going!
DTDT! And got the T-Shirt!

Actually, Harley had real big serious competition from Japan in the form of large road bikes like the Honda Gold-Wing, etc, that where way better, faster, smoother, safer, and 100 times more reliable then what Harley was trying to foster off on the public at twice the price.

So, Harley ask for, and received an import tax in 1983 on heavy weight imported motorcycles that directly competed with them.

To provide relief, the ITC recommended the following five-year tariff plan for heavyweight motorcycles: Raise the current tariff of 4.4 percent to 49.4 percent and keep it there for a year; lower the rate to 39.4 percent in the second year, to 24.4 percent in the third year, to 19.4 percent in the fourth year, and to 14.4 percent in the fifth year. After the fifth year the tariff is to return to 4.4 percent.

Buy the second or third year?
Most of the Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, and other import dealers had been run out of business all over the U.S.A. Due to the huge import tax on new sales of imported big road bikes.

And Harley once again owned the big bike market they could never compete with against the new & much better Japanese big road bikes.

Harley didn't save itself.
A Government imposed 49% excise Tax on their direct competition did!

Once that was done, you are right.
They then severally limited production output, so new Harley's cost 50%-75% over SMRP, and you had to get on a year-long+ waiting list to get one you wanted.
And used ones sold for almost as much as new ones did for years after.

No mistaking the 'Mystique' plays very heavily on sales today.
But Harley would have been out of business by 1985 or so without the government bail-out and near 50% excise tax on the direct competition to protect them.

rc
__________________
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Or all your primers in a glass jar!

Last edited by rcmodel; July 6, 2014 at 11:41 PM.
rcmodel is online now  
Old July 6, 2014, 11:27 PM   #12
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
  
 
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Posts: 7,707
Quote:
Heir Obama will change that again
What's he the heir to?
Jorg Nysgerrig is offline  
Old July 6, 2014, 11:32 PM   #13
Kynoch
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2010
Location: Central Coast of California
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmodel View Post
Actually, they had real big serious competition from Japan in the form of large road bikes like the Honda Gold-Wing, etc, that where way better then what Harley was trying to foster off on the public at twice the price.
Nope. HD wasn't about selling the best motorcycles. HD was about selling that "Harley Mystique." The closest gun analogy would be Colt or in years past, Winchester.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmodel View Post
So, Harley ask for, and received an import tax in 1983 on heavy weight imported motorcycles that directly competed with them.
So? Jap bikes were still considerably cheaper (and better) than the Harleys. If one wanted the best bike they bought something from the Far East or possibly Germany. Millions however wanted that "Harley Mystique."

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmodel View Post
To provide relief, the ITC recommended the following five-year tariff plan for heavyweight motorcycles: Raise the current tariff of 4.4 percent to 49.4 percent and keep it there for a year; lower the rate to 39.4 percent in the second year, to 24.4 percent in the third year, to 19.4 percent in the fourth year, and to 14.4 percent in the fifth year. After the fifth year the tariff is to return to 4.4 percent.
And? Harley's best years were well after 1987.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmodel View Post
Buy that time, most of the Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, and other import dealers had been run out of business all over the U.S.A. Due to the huge tax on new sales of imported bikes.
Not true. In fact, their bikes continued to be less expensive than comparable Harleys -- often far less expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmodel View Post
And Harley once again owned the big bike market they could never compete with against the new Japanese road bikes.
You're missing the entire point. No one from Japan could replicate the Harley Mystique that was (is?) in such great demand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmodel View Post
Harley didn't save itself.
A Government imposed 49% excise Tax on their direct competition did!
I think superb marketing and nothing less than artful manipulation of production output and pricing is what made HD thrive. My comments were never about what "saved" HD, but how they limited output to keep prices through the roof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmodel View Post
Once that was done, you are right.
They severally limited production output, so new Harley's cost 50% over SMRP, and you had to get on a long waiting list to get one.

rc
Alrighty.
Kynoch is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 12:12 AM   #14
vamo
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 18, 2012
Location: Missouri
Posts: 613
Non-story. Last year saw guns being bought in absolutely unprecedented numbers so it stands to reason those who bought more than normal last year will buy less this year. Especially if they paid an inflated price on the secondary market.
__________________
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-C.S. Lewis
vamo is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 12:23 AM   #15
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 2,246
Reply to post #2......

stop making sense


Really, a drop in sales or slowed production was going to occur at some point.
I agree that Smith & Wesson could response to the desires or requests of the customers(like Ruger's Ask the CEO bit).
The M&Ps are selling like hotcakes & the J frame will be around for a for more decades at least, . Sorry M&P Shield.
I have seen S&W like SIG Sauer discontinued a few calibers/models you would think could sell.

If they just cut the lawyer locks or even did a "test run" of a few wheel guns without it to see how customers/vendors reply it would be worth it.

A single mom who wants a home defense gun or a entry level CCW holder could buy a S&W revolver with a security lock if they wanted it but other more experienced(savvy ) handgun shooters can get the lock free style.
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is online now  
Old July 7, 2014, 12:30 AM   #16
MrWesson
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 13, 2009
Posts: 724
Good..! Maybe now I can find some .22 ammo.


Honestly though I feel alot of firearms are overpriced when compared to other goods and tools with similar technology.

Average income hasn't even doubled since 1990 and yet a SKS has gone from $75 then to $350 now.

Across the spectrum even in 10 years with some exceptions the sport has gotten very expensive. Ammo is even worse.
MrWesson is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 12:35 AM   #17
22-rimfire
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 11, 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 10,488
I guess my question with regard to gun sales is, fewer than what and when? Fewer than last year? Companies want their sales and earnings to increase every year.
22-rimfire is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 12:38 AM   #18
vamo
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 18, 2012
Location: Missouri
Posts: 613
Quote:
Average income hasn't even doubled since 1990 and yet a SKS has gone from $75 then to $350 now.
Milsurp prices behave differently than other things, that SKS was very cheap even in 1990 $'s when the supply finally dried up they normalized, $350 seems about right for what that gun does. Mosins will do the same in the near future, currently they're still cheaper than you'd expect for their capabilities (but more than they were 3yrs ago).

Look at stuff that is in production to see how price has actually increased. I was a bit too young in the 90s to know about gun prices so I can't speak to it, but I'm betting if you take something that doesn't have a ridiculously high initial supply in the 90s and compare it to todays price it won't be 5x the price like an SKS.
__________________
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-C.S. Lewis
vamo is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 03:51 AM   #19
Kynoch
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2010
Location: Central Coast of California
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by vamo View Post
Non-story. Last year saw guns being bought in absolutely unprecedented numbers so it stands to reason those who bought more than normal last year will buy less this year. Especially if they paid an inflated price on the secondary market.
That hardly makes it a "non-story" -- even if it were true. FWIW, if you do your research, 2013 did not have sales of "absolutely unprecedented numbers."
Kynoch is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 04:02 AM   #20
Kynoch
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2010
Location: Central Coast of California
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by vamo View Post
Milsurp prices behave differently than other things, that SKS was very cheap even in 1990 $'s when the supply finally dried up they normalized, $350 seems about right for what that gun does. Mosins will do the same in the near future, currently they're still cheaper than you'd expect for their capabilities (but more than they were 3yrs ago).
You're sure making a lot of statements that aren't backed-up by facts. It's all about supply and demand -- be it new production, milsurp or used non-milsurp. The prices of new production have risen right along with milsurp because the demand has outstripped the supply.

YOU might think Mosins are "inexpensive" based on their capabilities but that's nothing more than a personal opinion. They're simply the bottom of the barrel once all the other milsurp -- from Garands, Mausers and Enfields to SKSs have been long sold at dirt cheap prices. Given the HUGE number of surplus Mosins, I seriously doubt they're going to be a $500 rifle anytime soon unless they happen to be a rarer variant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vamo View Post
Look at stuff that is in production to see how price has actually increased. I was a bit too young in the 90s to know about gun prices so I can't speak to it, but I'm betting if you take something that doesn't have a ridiculously high initial supply in the 90s and compare it to todays price it won't be 5x the price like an SKS.
It's not about a "ridiculously high initial supply." It's what an importer paid for the SKSs.
Kynoch is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 04:05 AM   #21
Kynoch
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2010
Location: Central Coast of California
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWesson View Post
Good..! Maybe now I can find some .22 ammo.


Honestly though I feel alot of firearms are overpriced when compared to other goods and tools with similar technology.

Average income hasn't even doubled since 1990 and yet a SKS has gone from $75 then to $350 now.

Across the spectrum even in 10 years with some exceptions the sport has gotten very expensive. Ammo is even worse.
That's certainly true. Look at cordless power tools over the past 20-30 years vs. firearms. There are a number of reasons why firearms are so expensive...
Kynoch is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 04:30 AM   #22
nathan
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 4, 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,453
Partly bec of unemployment and ammo cost has doubled . NOt only that the cost of range fees has increased.
nathan is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 07:32 AM   #23
HexHead
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 15, 2008
Location: TN
Posts: 2,172
Not to worry, we're only one nut job away from the next panic buying spree.
__________________
"If it's a miracle Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry, point 4-5 caliber miracle." (Chard)

"And a bayonet Sir! With some guts behind it!" (CS Bourne)
HexHead is online now  
Old July 7, 2014, 08:27 AM   #24
hemiram
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 29, 2006
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Posts: 788
I would have to mention here that, in regards to handguns, S&W currently makes nothing I would really be interested in buying. If I want a S&W revolver, I look to the used market, where I can buy a 28.29, 629, etc with no lock. If I want an S&W semiauto, I look to the used market, where I can get a solid stainless gun for a heck of a lot less than a plastic one.

Rifles are another story, I like the M&P15's.
hemiram is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 09:26 AM   #25
lcambre
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 1, 2004
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 52
I think most of us can think of products that can improve sales. Here are some off the top of my head:
- All revolver model available without a lock
- get the 629 into volume production
- 5" 625
- 5" 610
- 610 Mountain gun
- Centennial light weight 9mm
lcambre is offline  
Reply

Tags
economy, fewer guns, slower sales, smith & wesson


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.