Gun store report
- Thread starter No Fear
- Start date
- Status
Phydeaux642
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,886
After reading a few of this guys(gals) posts, I have come to the conclusion that he(she) has a real attitiude problem. Lighten up already.
Kenneth Lew
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 534
The reason suppliers have run out of some guns is only because of the nature of the gun industry i.e. that the gun industry is not high volume. Suppliers CAN'T stock too much or they'll go bankrupt.
Ever heard of Sports South, RSR, Amchar, Camfour, Davidson's, et al.
Ever heard of Sports South, RSR, Amchar, Camfour, Davidson's, et al.
I am a little skeptical when people tell me this kinds of thing - not that your local gun shop owner didn't tell you that, but I am not sure the business case is there. Most wholesalers don't make money by sitting on anything.
If If a manufacturer gives me 30 day billing cycle, then if I can constantly turn over my inventory in less than 30 days, I never pay the manufacturer for a weapon until I have already sold it. None of my capital is tied up in inventory - it's invested in stuff that helps me sell more guns faster (more warehouse space, better shipping, faster paperwork processing).
If I can't turn over my inventory in 30 days, then I have to borrow the full cost of the weapon, pay the manufacturer, and wait until it sells. That capital is not helping me sell anything - it's sitting on a shelf.
With the "just in time" model, I am using the manufacturer's credit, and I am a money conduit - in some sense, I never "own" the gun. With a stockpile model, I have to pay the manufacturer for the gun before its sold, which means that I have to use my credit.
That's the reason many industries run with "just in time" models - they don't want to tie up capital in inventory. Financial types are always watching the number of days of inventory a company has - companies get spanked for having too many days of inventory - fewer days of inventory are almost always better.
My personal guess is that everyone in the industry runs on a "just in time" model with 15 or 30 day inventories, and everybody sold their 30 day inventory in 5 days, so they are just waiting on resupply.
I don't know much about how the gun industry works, but most industries avoid inventory like the plague, especially when credit is tight - like right now.
Mike
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
As I was folding the laundry, my wife did in fact remind me that I had a pair. Being married, she also reminded me that she holds onto them now. It keeps me out of trouble that way.
And as much as I really did want to go out and sink more of our money into new guns, I don't like to go to the gun shops without them. The real men there always make fun of me when I show up neutered. And when I try to explain to Melissa why I want to borrow them for the evening, she'll stand there with her hands on her hips and give me "the look".
Rather than go through that exercise, I figure I'll just have to make do with the guns that I have.
And as much as I really did want to go out and sink more of our money into new guns, I don't like to go to the gun shops without them. The real men there always make fun of me when I show up neutered. And when I try to explain to Melissa why I want to borrow them for the evening, she'll stand there with her hands on her hips and give me "the look".
Rather than go through that exercise, I figure I'll just have to make do with the guns that I have.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Manufacturers are months out on catching up. Some shrewd dealers and distributers will sit on some inventory and hope to move it before the manufacturers catch up on production. We haven't even got to a Last Day To Buy yet. If that indeed happens then you will see how rediculious it can get.
It is funny how soon people forget about the $70 Glock mags that dropped to $17 dollars overnight. I got stuck in the last ban but have hedged my bet this time. Hopefully it doesn't happen but if it does I won't fall short.
I went to 3 shops today, one a class three had almost nothing in his rack and was trying to hustle up anything he could get his hands on. The other 2 one of which was also cl3 had a good inventory and showed little evidence of gouging on the guns, I did notice an increase on mags and ammo + primmers were $3.50 per 100. Both said they anticipated some increased buying so they stocked up and will probably sell the excess. In one shop the owner of a 4th store came in and bought their last 5.56 Sig pistol because he had sold to many on the internet.
It is funny how soon people forget about the $70 Glock mags that dropped to $17 dollars overnight. I got stuck in the last ban but have hedged my bet this time. Hopefully it doesn't happen but if it does I won't fall short.
I went to 3 shops today, one a class three had almost nothing in his rack and was trying to hustle up anything he could get his hands on. The other 2 one of which was also cl3 had a good inventory and showed little evidence of gouging on the guns, I did notice an increase on mags and ammo + primmers were $3.50 per 100. Both said they anticipated some increased buying so they stocked up and will probably sell the excess. In one shop the owner of a 4th store came in and bought their last 5.56 Sig pistol because he had sold to many on the internet.
mljdeckard
Member
Bullfrog, I'm in the same boat. "Honey, can I have them this Saturday night when I go out with the guys? Their wives are letting them take theirs."
bang_bang
Member
"I am a little skeptical when people tell me this kinds of thing - not that your local gun shop owner didn't tell you that, but I am not sure the business case is there. Most wholesalers don't make money by sitting on anything."
For certain gun dealers/wholesaler's who are in the business to make money, and not care about price gouging, arming America, being honest to their customers then now is the time to do it. Personally, if I could buy 100 AR's and sit on them until after the election and make a 30% profit because I originally bought them dirt cheap, I probably would do the same. Times are tough, money is getting harder to come by.
Yeah, I admit it, I want to buy a couple guns myself at the moment. I definitely want an AR, now might be the best time to piece one together, or at least get a lower. Prices might never go down, seeing that the demand is so high now and so many people will finally have that AR they've been dreaming about, or maybe their 5th or 6th one. What happens to prices after they stop this impulse SHTF buying? How will the manufacturers be in 5 years if AR's drop in value because so many are out there, but still costs even more to make one than ever due to the price of metal? If you want an AR, get one now, maybe the cheapest that you'll ever see them again.
This gun band stuff is scary, and may have a better chance of going through to become enforced within the near future. Remember though, Congress and the oval office will be controlled by Democrats, but our Chief Justice in the Supreme Court was appointed by Bush, and is very supportive of the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts said "In my opinion, all law abiding citizens should be able to own guns," when talking about the overturning of the handgun ban in Washington D.C.
I hope that the U.S. Constitution holds it own, proves to be true, and that no one dishonors our founding fathers. They can argue that the 2nd Amendment was based on every male fighting in a Militia in the 1770s, but technology changes. We are still the militia. We will fight for what is right, our rights to own firearms, our rights to freedom of speech, our rights to unlawful searches and seizures, and our right to protest in a lawful and orderly fashion to get our point across.
For certain gun dealers/wholesaler's who are in the business to make money, and not care about price gouging, arming America, being honest to their customers then now is the time to do it. Personally, if I could buy 100 AR's and sit on them until after the election and make a 30% profit because I originally bought them dirt cheap, I probably would do the same. Times are tough, money is getting harder to come by.
Yeah, I admit it, I want to buy a couple guns myself at the moment. I definitely want an AR, now might be the best time to piece one together, or at least get a lower. Prices might never go down, seeing that the demand is so high now and so many people will finally have that AR they've been dreaming about, or maybe their 5th or 6th one. What happens to prices after they stop this impulse SHTF buying? How will the manufacturers be in 5 years if AR's drop in value because so many are out there, but still costs even more to make one than ever due to the price of metal? If you want an AR, get one now, maybe the cheapest that you'll ever see them again.
This gun band stuff is scary, and may have a better chance of going through to become enforced within the near future. Remember though, Congress and the oval office will be controlled by Democrats, but our Chief Justice in the Supreme Court was appointed by Bush, and is very supportive of the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts said "In my opinion, all law abiding citizens should be able to own guns," when talking about the overturning of the handgun ban in Washington D.C.
I hope that the U.S. Constitution holds it own, proves to be true, and that no one dishonors our founding fathers. They can argue that the 2nd Amendment was based on every male fighting in a Militia in the 1770s, but technology changes. We are still the militia. We will fight for what is right, our rights to own firearms, our rights to freedom of speech, our rights to unlawful searches and seizures, and our right to protest in a lawful and orderly fashion to get our point across.
Speedo66
Member
There's a reason why they're called SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed). 
Dealers who are not selling inventory are playing a risky game. What if their assumption that prices will keep going up is incorrect. Two months ago everyone was saying the price of gasoline will keep going up forever. It has dropped 50 percent since September. In the spring when everyone realizes that no ban in imminent, there will be a huge glut of guns on the market because everyone who was thinking of buying a gun in the foreseeable future bought it in November. There was a huge drop off in gun sales after the 1994 ban because everyone went on a buying binge before it went into effect.
expvideo
Member
I partially agree
I agree fully with this statement. As for the rest of it, hey, my life doesn't revolve around guns. I spend way more money on my girlfriend and my family, and I spend a lot of time that could be used training myself with a weapon in bed napping. I smoke occassionally, and once in a while I'll have a drink. I wear hair gel.
In my home town, I am a yuppy, wussy, puny, metrosexual city person. In the city, I'm about the most cowboy-macho, manly, tough-as-nails, rugged person any of my friends know. Masculinity is all perception. In some places (my home town), you have to wear Carharts and operate some kind of heavy machinery to be considered masculine. Where I live now, I guess taking out the garbage when it's raining is macho. In fact, the fact that I take out the garbage and my girlfriend doesn't probably makes me a redneck, conservative, overly-dominant male on a macho trip. God I hate this place... But my point is that you shouldn't judge a man on what he spends his money on, how he combs his hair or what kind of girls he chases after.
However, I agree that it is the duty of any man to own and be proficient in the use of militia weapons. And I wouldn't be spending my money on cigarettes, alcohol, hairgel or fancy dinners if I didn't already own them.
Let me tell you a story. When I was a baby, I got really sick. My parents were poor and living in an apartment in a small town. They couldn't afford medicine, so my father went to a pawn shop and sold his revolver, so he could buy me medicine. The end.
The point of the story is that many people will interpret it differently. To a lot of people it's not a big deal, and it would be like pawning a stereo. To my father, it was the only time in his life since he was 17 that he didn't have a gun to protect his family. He didn't have a gun to carry with him every day, like he has ever since he was 17. To many people though, this story is not touching and doesn't show a huge sacrifice. To those of us that understand the what it would feel like to not be able to protect our families, which is the duty of a man, this story will have a whole different tone.
Anyway, sorry for the long winded post, my only point is that it is the duty of every man to own a weapon and be capable of defending himself and his family. Relying on other people to protect you is not feminine, but it is definitely not masculine. If you aren't willing to protect yourself, you shouldn't be counting yourself among men.
I agree fully with this statement. As for the rest of it, hey, my life doesn't revolve around guns. I spend way more money on my girlfriend and my family, and I spend a lot of time that could be used training myself with a weapon in bed napping. I smoke occassionally, and once in a while I'll have a drink. I wear hair gel.
In my home town, I am a yuppy, wussy, puny, metrosexual city person. In the city, I'm about the most cowboy-macho, manly, tough-as-nails, rugged person any of my friends know. Masculinity is all perception. In some places (my home town), you have to wear Carharts and operate some kind of heavy machinery to be considered masculine. Where I live now, I guess taking out the garbage when it's raining is macho. In fact, the fact that I take out the garbage and my girlfriend doesn't probably makes me a redneck, conservative, overly-dominant male on a macho trip. God I hate this place... But my point is that you shouldn't judge a man on what he spends his money on, how he combs his hair or what kind of girls he chases after.
However, I agree that it is the duty of any man to own and be proficient in the use of militia weapons. And I wouldn't be spending my money on cigarettes, alcohol, hairgel or fancy dinners if I didn't already own them.
Let me tell you a story. When I was a baby, I got really sick. My parents were poor and living in an apartment in a small town. They couldn't afford medicine, so my father went to a pawn shop and sold his revolver, so he could buy me medicine. The end.
The point of the story is that many people will interpret it differently. To a lot of people it's not a big deal, and it would be like pawning a stereo. To my father, it was the only time in his life since he was 17 that he didn't have a gun to protect his family. He didn't have a gun to carry with him every day, like he has ever since he was 17. To many people though, this story is not touching and doesn't show a huge sacrifice. To those of us that understand the what it would feel like to not be able to protect our families, which is the duty of a man, this story will have a whole different tone.
Anyway, sorry for the long winded post, my only point is that it is the duty of every man to own a weapon and be capable of defending himself and his family. Relying on other people to protect you is not feminine, but it is definitely not masculine. If you aren't willing to protect yourself, you shouldn't be counting yourself among men.
Last edited:
My point is that it's not a matter of dealer who want to do it. It's a matter of wholesalers/dealers who to sink capital into gun inventory. And that capital would have to be new credit - assuming that they are already using all their existing capital efficiently.
Think of it this way - suppose Mike's Gun Wholesaler had capital of $10 million dollars in January of 2008. Mike spend almost all of that on renting warehouse space, shipping, transportation, etc. He spends $1 million of that to carry a 15 day inventory (mostly credit cost).
Now he decides he wants to gamble, and ship nothing until January - he wants a 60 day inventory - which will cost $4 million. He's got $1 million, so where is he going to get the other $3 million? Mostly he'll have to borrow it - in a very tough credit market.
If he had $3 million in cash laying around in January of 2008, and it's still laying around in cash, he's an idiot. He could have grown his business by 30%!
There may be some wholesalers sitting around with piles of unused cash, but I am not altogether sure that I buy that many of them are in that kind of shape - or want to take that gamble. They know for sure that they can sell guns as fast at they can order them right now - with no credit risk. Why would they take on more credit in a very difficult credit market when they can make money hand over fist right now?
Probably the one with the lower price. You may chose to pay a higher price, but most people won't - and the dealer has to charge a higher price (all other things being equal), since he's got more capital risk.
You are correct.
That is the cost of "just in time". If everyone keeps a 120 day supply of what they are selling, and they sell at 4 times the expected rate, then they have enough inventory on had to handle 30 days of selling - they have 30 days to refresh their inventory before they have to backorder stuff.
If someone keeps a 30 day supply on hand, and they sell at 4 times the expected rate, then they only have a week or so to refresh the inventory before they have to backorder stuff. The problem is that there is real time involved - someone's got to stick the order on the truck, and get it to you.
Just in time is very dependent on transportation speed. If it takes 10 days for a supplier to ship to you, and you keep 120 day inventory, and all of the sudden, your 120 inventory is a 30 day inventory, you're fine. But if it takes 10 days for the supplier to ship to you, and your 30 day inventory is now a 7 day inventory, you will be out of what you're selling for 3 days!
Imagine everyone doing this all of the way up the supply chain. The gun manufacturer doesn't want to keep a big inventory any more than the wholesaler does. They'd be very happy to make guns exactly as they are selling. So they do "just in time" with their suppliers as well.
Note that back ordering has a cost as well. If you don't have products ready to sell when people want to buy, then you lose sales.
Most (large) corporations have departments full of people tying to minimize the cost of keeping a lot of inventory around, and also minimize lost sales. Ideally, you want to have exactly enough product around to sell every item you produce as quickly as you produce it.
I don't know how much the gun industry works like other industries.
I learned most of this when I worked for a corporation whose stock got spanked solely because they had a 127 day inventory when the industry standard was 90 days. The tech industry is particularly sensitive to this, because inventory ages very rapidly - memory chips you have kept around for 90 days may be slower (and have cost you more) than the chips that you can order today. The gun industry is not on quite as much of a treadmill.
Mike
Just for the heck of it, here's a letter from Sturm Ruger to it's shareholders from Q3 of 2007. the whole "Product Manufacturing" section is about their desire to reduce inventory.
http://www.ruger.com/corporate/PDF/2007-Q3ShareholderLetter.pdf
Welcome to capitalism - capitalism is fundamentally about the efficient use of capital. Spending it on inventory that collects dust is not a very efficient use of capital.
Mike
http://www.ruger.com/corporate/PDF/2007-Q3ShareholderLetter.pdf
Welcome to capitalism - capitalism is fundamentally about the efficient use of capital. Spending it on inventory that collects dust is not a very efficient use of capital.
Mike
AirForceShooter
Member
I was watching MSNBC this morning and they had Maria Bartaromo on , the business typre from CNBC.
She said Walmart is reporting heave buying of SAFES!!!
Not surprising . But she attributed it to people hoarding cash. Not the guns they were buying.
Interesting
But real men tend to buy off the books. No paper trails.
AFS
She said Walmart is reporting heave buying of SAFES!!!
Not surprising . But she attributed it to people hoarding cash. Not the guns they were buying.
Interesting
But real men tend to buy off the books. No paper trails.
AFS
expvideo
Member
Yeah, but they should have planned ahead for a large surge in demand, since that was expected to happen. CNN has been predicting an Obama win for months now, and it would have been a good investment for an AR manufacturer to have stockpiled a supply. Say for example DPMS. If DPMS had planned ahead for this likely surge in gun sales, all you would find in the way of ARs at the gun store would be DPMS, and what do you think that would do for their profits?
Capitolism is about the efficient use of capitol, but part of that is planning ahead.
expvideo
Member
How is this an appropriate comment? It's smart to buy off the books, but it is not a measure of a man's masculinity or worth.
madcratebuilder
Member
Best post in the whole thread.
It's all about risk. The various steps in the chain have to weigh the reward of having a stockpile when everyone else is out against the risk of having a stockpile that sits around for months.
Corporations tend to be risk averse, and my guess is that betting on election outcomes is one of the riskier propositions around.
A number of things could have changed the outcome. If the economy hadn't tanked, it's not real clear who would have won. A huge scandal about Obama could have erupted on October 15th. McCain could have picked a competent VP
- just joking. A terrorist attack on Nov 2nd could have changed the election. Elections are very hard to predict. One time when I lived in Indiana, an very popular conservative incumbent "sure bet" got a DWI on the Saturday night before the election - just in time for a notice the Sunday morning papers, but not enough time for his staff to spin it. The preachers saw the notice and, the result was an extremely liberal congressman from a very conservative state:
I knew some folks in the McCloskey campaign, and they were in a state of shock - he had been the Mayor of Bloomington (arguably one of the most liberal cities in the Midewest, if not the country). I knew Roberta McCloskey (his wife) personally, and she walked around in a daze for a week after the election.
Betting stockholder money on an election outcome is not what CEOs are paid to do.
Would you want to be the CEO that had to explain that you lost $5 million dollars because you built up a huge inventory banking on an Obama win, but McCain won instead, and now you have to liquidate that inventory at a loss?
Evil
Clipper
Member
By the time most of us are old enough to afford any of them there high maintenance wimmin, the pair we have won't work anymore...
The Lone Haranguer
Member
No Fear said:
I resemble that!- Status
