OK...people are making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Bud's is in business to make a profit. To that end, they are apparently very successful since they're not only still around after many years, but have grown considerably.
Raise, lower, or stable prices, no matter on what time scale, the bottom line is this: Are they selling any particular gun at a price you are willing to part funds for?
If the answer is "yes", then buy the dang thing and get it over with.
If the answer is "no", then either wait until they come along with a better deal for you or go somewhere else.
If people think that their practices are, somehow, "unfair", "unethical", or "suspicious" simply based on fluctuations in pricing, then so be it. But I would question why these concepts don't also come into play should they simply hold their prices at some arbitrary constant value as well. Why should either stable or fluctuating prices necessarily be indicators of "unfair", "unethical", or "suspicious" activities?
There have been several opinions put forth on why, or why not, these price fluctuations occur as people have indicated that they do. Perhaps some are valid, perhaps some are not.
Regardless, this isn't rocket science here, and it's pointless to debate all the wherefores on Bud's business paradigm from anything other than a position of curiosity. They're business paradigm is the same as for any other business: profit. Where their desire for a profit matches up with your idea of a fair price, then we have the makings of what is known as a "deal". Where they do not match up, there is "no deal".