Panzerschwein
member
I can easily see a "SR-12" or "SR-20" shotgun in Ruger's future.
I could see Ruger Buying Mossberg...
- Thread starter Solomonson
- Start date
- Status
No doubt. Ruger has been an agressive participant in the gun business for as long as I have been shooting. With or without a merger, they are on track to keep growing. It's just that if I was part of the Mossberg family and had worked in guns my whole life, I wouldn't want to suddenly have to give it up and either go to work somewhere in the bowels of Ruger corporate or sign non-disclosure and non-compete agreements and leave.
I know myself well enough to know that if you gave me millions of dollars and no responsibilities, no matter how good my intentions, within a year or two I'd be fifty pounds heavier with a drinking and perhaps a drug problem.
CoalTrain49
Member
When pigs fly.
Mossberg isn't going anywhere.
Ruger doesn't need another low end market to worry about. Seen their stock lately, down 25% in the last year. Barely hanging on would be my guess.
Mossberg isn't going anywhere.
Ruger doesn't need another low end market to worry about. Seen their stock lately, down 25% in the last year. Barely hanging on would be my guess.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,319
Solomonson
Possibly but I doubt it. As long as Mossberg is doing well they have no reason to put themselves up for sale. And Ruger certainly wouldn't want to pay top dollar for a successful and relatively solvent company. I also doubt if there's enough of a profit margin with inexpensive pump action shotguns in today's marketplace for Ruger to take on the cost of starting up from scratch a new shotgun division. Besides I think if Ruger wanted to get into pump-action and semi-auto shotguns they would have done something by now. Instead they play to the strength of their line-up with new handguns, bolt action rifles, and with their AR rifles.
Possibly but I doubt it. As long as Mossberg is doing well they have no reason to put themselves up for sale. And Ruger certainly wouldn't want to pay top dollar for a successful and relatively solvent company. I also doubt if there's enough of a profit margin with inexpensive pump action shotguns in today's marketplace for Ruger to take on the cost of starting up from scratch a new shotgun division. Besides I think if Ruger wanted to get into pump-action and semi-auto shotguns they would have done something by now. Instead they play to the strength of their line-up with new handguns, bolt action rifles, and with their AR rifles.
OP
OP
Solomonson
Member
That's correct. They would get their face torn off by Remington and Mossberg -- both of which make semiautos too by the way.
As slim of a margin as baseline shotguns might be, they're not as slim as "AR rifles." Ruger is actually selling built-up and stripped lowers. There's no slimmer margin in the gun world.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
Ruger doesn't try to compete on lowers. They drastically over-price them (probably because they don't intend to sell many) and hope their name recognition sells a couple. It's just a few bucks on the side for them.
In the same vein, they're not going to try to play a low-margin volume game against the Turks and Chinese. And while they can just cheaply order a few extra AR lowers and earmark them for individual sale, you can't just knock off a few shotguns like that (not without damaging your brand by re-labeling a cheap clone). A new shotgun would require millions in tooling, employees, probably a new plant, etc - just so they could fight for scraps of profit in a saturated market.
OP
OP
Solomonson
Member
Nobody suggested otherwise. Where did you come up with that notion?
I never thought of Ruger buying Mossberg. I always thought that Ruger and Marlin would compliment each others lineups.
I never said there was. The Chinese just make copies of existing designs which make it easier.
Well...maybe not. Smith and Wesson tried to make ammo, holsters, and shotguns but it didn't work for them. You're better off with sticking with what you know sometimes.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,319
GRIZ22
Yeah sometimes that whole "we have to be everything to everybody" corporate mentality doesn't always mean every product line you carry is the best and the brightest. Better to stick to your strengths and focus on quality instead of quantity.
Yeah sometimes that whole "we have to be everything to everybody" corporate mentality doesn't always mean every product line you carry is the best and the brightest. Better to stick to your strengths and focus on quality instead of quantity.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
So what was the Standard Auto a copy of (MKI came later)? Sorry but you're wrong and it certainly is debatable. I see that you conveniently ignored every other point that I made.
I don't know where you get this idea from, Ruger is the largest firearms manufacturer in the US. If they wanted to produce a pump shotgun, they would've done it. They weren't in the concealed carry market for most of their history. When they finally decided to enter it, how many million LCP's did they sell?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and yet you use the term "ignorant"? I'll flip that. It's "ignorant" to think that a huge firearms manufacturer with the capacity of Ruger would need to buy a company like Mossberg just to produce a pump shotgun. Or that they would market a product with something other than the Ruger name on it. Ruger has turned a profit every year of their existence since 1949. They operate on cash and have no debt. Yet you think you know better how to run their business? How many successful multi-million dollar corporations do you operate?
You also seem to be completely clueless about the market presence the Red Label shotgun had.
Mossberg is not "largely celebrated". They make a relatively cheap pump shotgun that has always played second fiddle to the Remington 870. Overall, they are a notch or two below Ruger. Did you just turn 18 and get a new Mossberg 500 and think it is just the greatest thing since sliced bread? Because that's how this thread comes off.
It's a private company, how do you know all that?
OP
OP
Solomonson
Member
It's you that is mistaken. It's largely a copy of the Nambu pistol. Bill Ruger said so on more than one occasion.
I'm not sure that Ruger is the largest firearms dealer in the US, but even if it is, that doesn't mean they would have built shotguns (pump or otherwise) given the harsh competition. You may not know what it takes to build market share but Ruger does and that's what's kept them out of the market. Mossberg would slaughter them on the bottom end. Because Ruger doesn't innovate, it could never compete with Remington, Benelli, et. al. on higher end lines.
Once more it's clear you have no concept on what it takes to build market share in a new market. It's costly, time-consuming and a gamble. Those are huge reasons why companies combine -- or pay a premium to buy other companies.
You're really getting agitated aren't you? No, I won't blindly accept your personal opinions. Though not a disastrous flop like their Gold Label attempt, their Red Label was always a poor performer. More a pet project of Bill Ruger's that was kept around due to his insistence.
Mossberg makes a lot more than "cheap pump shotguns." And yes, their arms are celebrated by their loyal owners. Odd how you don't appear to know that, yet you're commenting about the company?
OP
OP
Solomonson
Member
Ruger is well past the point of sticking to their strengths and focusing "on quality." They'll get into any business that'll make them a buck. The AR business is a prime example. That's as razor-thin margin of a market as there is in gun making today (thinner than shotguns), yet they're there, albeit quite late. They've even selling lower receiver assemblies and stripped lowers.
I have absolutely no question that (for example) if they could find a way to design an "inertia driven" S/A shotgun without violating Benelli's patents that they would do so in a heartbeat. Hopefully it wouldn't be a repeat of the Red Label/Gold Label disappointments.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
It looks similar, just as it also resembles the Luger. It operates completely different. To call it a "copy" is completely disingenuous.
Still no comment on the completely original DA revolver designs, or any other point to contradict your rhetoric.Sorry but the idea that Ruger doesn't innovate proves you don't pay attention. This thread is nothing but low info gun shop rhetoric.
They are the largest firearms manufacturer (not dealer), get your facts straight. If Ruger wanted to build pump shotguns, there has been nothing to stop them. I don't know why you think they would need to buy Mossberg to do so. Did they need to buy a 1911 manufacturer to produce them? No. Ar-15's? No. AR-10's? No. Carry pistols? No.
I'm more than a little familiar with the concept.
What you don't seem to understand is that Ruger doesn't need another manufacturer's name or market share to sell anything. Period. They have the single most diverse catalog of ANY manufacturer. Pump and auto shotguns are the only thing they've never offered. As I said above, they didn't need to associate their product with another maker to sell 1911's, AR's, precision rifles or anything else. Any more than S&W or Remington did.I'm sorry to burst your bubble but it takes more than anonymous nonsense on the internet to get me agitated. Nor I yours. You really need to pay attention. The Gold Label wasn't a flop. They sold every one they ever made and had orders for more. They decided they couldn't be profitable in that market, similar to what they've done with the No. 1. Except Lipsey's decided to keep it afloat by ordering enough guns per year to do so. Your comments about the Red Label are more proof of your cluelessness.
I'm well aware of what Mossberg is and isn't. They've always been a lower end manufacturer. Decent stuff at an affordable price but nothing particularly earth-shattering.
And I repeat:
CoalTrain49
Member
From you. Maybe not a physical move but no longer the same company.
CoalTrain49
Member
Let's get some history on the pump shotgun. Lots of people have made them and were successful at it. Winchester, Remington and Ithaca were the darlings of the pump shotgun world in the last part of the last century. Mossberg has been around awhile but they really never had market share in much of anything until recently with cheap tactical pump guns. Most hunters don't want a tactical shotgun so their market is limited. I've been a bird hunter for a very long time and I've never known anyone to buy a Mossberg for hunting. Most every serious bird hunter I know has purchased a Benelli. Some still cling to their doubles for upland. Benelli is eating everyone's lunch right now in the shotgun market.
Mossberg sells shotguns to people who want a very cheap home defense weapon. That's it. Why would Ruger want to compete in the tactical shotgun market with so many companies here and off shore making those these days? That has to be like trying to make a buck in the AR market right now.
I can remember a few years ago I saw a barrel of beat up tactical police trade-ins that were selling for $150 apiece. Now you can buy one NIB for about $200. Sounds like a market to stay away from to me.
Mossberg sells shotguns to people who want a very cheap home defense weapon. That's it. Why would Ruger want to compete in the tactical shotgun market with so many companies here and off shore making those these days? That has to be like trying to make a buck in the AR market right now.
I can remember a few years ago I saw a barrel of beat up tactical police trade-ins that were selling for $150 apiece. Now you can buy one NIB for about $200. Sounds like a market to stay away from to me.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Solomonson
Member
I've known MANY people who hunt with Mossberg shotguns -- second only to Remington. Yes, Benelli is doing great -- because they actually innovate -- a quality fairly foreign to Ruger.
Your premise is wrong. The US Military buys Mossberg shotguns. So do hunters as well as 3-gun competitors, etc., etc.
You bring up the "AR market." A razor-thin margin market that Ruger recently dived head-first into following the flop of their piston guns. Now Ruger not only (tries) to sell complete ARs, they also sell stripped lowers and lower assemblies. Interesting, huh?
Not if that shotgun costs $20.00 to build... In any event you'll find no NIB Mossbergs (or Remingtons) for $200. Closer to $350+. You can find Mavericks (made by Mossberg) for $200, but not the real thing. That fact shows Mossberg's coverage of the market.
OP
OP
Solomonson
Member
You're wrong. It really is that simple. It looks similar and it operates similarly. Ruger himself was clear that the Nambu was the model for his first .22 pistols.
Ruger is FAR from being an innovator. No, not everything is copied. But a great deal is.
They might be, I'm not sure. Remington and S&W might be larger and certainly Herstal and Beretta are.
One day you might want to Google "market share." Then do a bit of study on how long it would take (if ever), and how much it would cost for Ruger to take business away from Mossberg, Remington and others in the shotguns market. Because Ruger doesn't innovate it's not going to crash into the market with a better mousetrap and I seriously doubt Beretta is going to license Benelli held patents to them.
I'm more than a little familiar with the concept.
See above.
I have to give you credit. You're not using childish language for the most part this time -- well until your little "cluelessness" gig. The Red Label was a flop. The Gold Label was a disaster. I have read that each one that actually shipped was done so at a loss of at least $5K -- when amortized development an tooling costs were added.
Actually that doesn't appear to be the case...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
OP
OP
Solomonson
Member
You're wrong. It really is that simple. It looks similar and it operates similarly. Ruger himself was clear that the Nambu was the model for his first .22 pistols.
Ruger is FAR from being an innovator. No, not everything is copied. But a great deal is.
They might be, I'm not sure. Remington and S&W might be larger and certainly Herstal and Beretta are.
One day you might want to Google "market share." Then do a bit of study on how long it would take (if ever), and how much it would cost for Ruger to take business away from Mossberg, Remington and others in the shotguns market. Because Ruger doesn't innovate it's not going to crash into the market with a better mousetrap and I seriously doubt Beretta is going to license Benelli held patents to them.
I'm more than a little familiar with the concept.
See above.
I have to give you credit. You're not using childish language for the most part this time -- well until your little "cluelessness" gig. The Red Label was a flop. The Gold Label was a disaster. I have read that each one that actually shipped was done so at a loss of at least $5K -- when amortized development an tooling costs were added.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Judging by this and other posts, you are clearly only here to dump on Ruger. I can do this all day. I see that you still don't answer my direct questions or refute my points. The real question is, since you seem to worship Mossberg and loathe Ruger, why would you want Ruger to buy Mossberg???
Sorry but "you're wrong" is insufficient. You are obviously unfamiliar with the way the Nambu operates. The Ruger has a bolt that reciprocates within the receiver instead of a slide, that's the only similarity. The way the action and trigger operate are completely different. The Nambu might have provided some inspiration, the way the Collier revolving flintlock inspired the original Sam Colt Paterson designs and the way ALL existing designs inspire new designs but it is a long way from being a "copy". Maybe you should Google "copy"?
BS. I guess you don't realize how their work in investment casting has affected not only the firearms industry but others as well. Or the fact that their guns are designed for their manufacturing process. I'm sorry but these BS posts do nothing but trivialize the work of one of our most prolific firearms designers and manufacturers. Not to mention the engineers that work their presently.
You apparently lack the ability to separate fact from opinion. It is fact. Consult the ATF. In the latest numbers, Ruger was number 1 by over 200,000 guns. S&W ahead of Remington by 350,000 guns. FN Herstal is not even in the running. Nor is Beretta.
Unlike yourself, I don't need Google to have a discussion about firearms. Or "market share". The fact that you think Ruger needs another manufacturers name to sell guns is comical. As I've said several times now, did they need another manufacturer's name to sell 1911's, AR's or anything else? No. Do they need their manufacturing capability? No. Why would they need it for a pump shotgun?
The Red Label was in production in various configurations for over 30yrs. How does that constitute a "flop"??? It was eventually deemed not viable for the marketplace. Same for the Gold Label. What that means is that there are not enough people buying that type of shotgun to justify a manufacturer as large as Ruger allocating production capability to their manufacture. They couldn't be manufactured at a profit so they were dropped. It happens and Ruger is a long way from being the most prolific flopper. Sorry but your logic on this is flawed and far too simplistic.
It certainly is the case, always has been.
Cannibul
Member
1. I purchased a Mossberg shotgun for hunting. That was in 1975 and I still have it. I also picked up a "tactical" Mossberg several years ago on a Black Friday sale. I prefer Mossberg shotguns as I like the tang safety.
2. I see lots of talk about Chinese made firearms. It's illegal to import firearms from China. Please provide proof of any currently sold firearms made in China. The lower end inexpensive stuff I've see is all coming from Turkey.
3. Why oh why would Ruger need to buy another company if they wanted to enter the shotgun market? They've entered a lot of different markets and never bought a company to do so. Hell if they ever wanted to enter the market they could have gotten Ithaca at several different times in recent history.
2. I see lots of talk about Chinese made firearms. It's illegal to import firearms from China. Please provide proof of any currently sold firearms made in China. The lower end inexpensive stuff I've see is all coming from Turkey.
3. Why oh why would Ruger need to buy another company if they wanted to enter the shotgun market? They've entered a lot of different markets and never bought a company to do so. Hell if they ever wanted to enter the market they could have gotten Ithaca at several different times in recent history.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
Solomonson - name me a firearm company comparable in size to Ruger that is more innovative. Hell, name one innovative design that Smith, Remington, Beretta, etc. even have. The only gun that comes to mind from all of them combined is the Remington R51. Ruger can match that with the RPR in just this last year.
And I don't know why you're claiming that Ruger couldn't "innovate" well enough to compete in the shotgun market. With shotguns, and frankly most gun designs in general, there's nothing left to innovate. The pump shotgun was perfected over a century ago, and semi-automatic shotguns probably 50-100 years ago. There's not a better mousetrap. The only thing left to even change is stuff like the furniture.
So selling the exact same shotgun design as everyone else, and having no real ways to improve it, Ruger could either compete on
-Build quality (ie, taking on Beneli and trying to beat them at their own game)
-Name recognition (Ruger's name alone will sell rifles and handguns, but they have no reputation with shotguns)
-Price (good luck beating the Chinese)
I can see why they stay out of it.
And I don't know why you're claiming that Ruger couldn't "innovate" well enough to compete in the shotgun market. With shotguns, and frankly most gun designs in general, there's nothing left to innovate. The pump shotgun was perfected over a century ago, and semi-automatic shotguns probably 50-100 years ago. There's not a better mousetrap. The only thing left to even change is stuff like the furniture.
So selling the exact same shotgun design as everyone else, and having no real ways to improve it, Ruger could either compete on
-Build quality (ie, taking on Beneli and trying to beat them at their own game)
-Name recognition (Ruger's name alone will sell rifles and handguns, but they have no reputation with shotguns)
-Price (good luck beating the Chinese)
I can see why they stay out of it.
Last edited:
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
Everything but shotguns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norinco#Trade_disputes_with_the_United_States
Stevens shotguns are Chinese, and there is a shell importer company called Interstate Arms that sells Norinco products.
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2014/7/7/stevens-320-security/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norinco_HP9-1
It sounds like CTD used to sell a ton of them.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...r-gun-is-cheaper-than-dirt-and-made-in-china/
Last edited:
Ruger revolvers, two calibers one gun, rim fire pistols, No.1 rifles, 10/22. They have done some thinking.
- Status
