In all seriousness, if they couldn't undercut the 642 by $100, why even do it?
I'm not saying that the 642 is the end-all, just that, if Ruger uses a new manufacturing technique (one that everyone with half a brain knows is cheaper), then shouldn't they be able to offer the same functionality as the existing market leader, at a lower price, instead of the same functionality at a higher price?
Isn't that the whole point of manufacturing innovation?
Isn't that how you become the new market leader?
Would the Remington 870 have been more than a humorous footnote if it cost more than the dominant but expensive Model 12 at the time of its introduction?
What about the Glock? Many sneer at the fact that the Glock commands a 400% markup over its production cost, but the fact is, it still undercuts most reliable auto pistols -- and when it was introduced, it offered superior function and reliability to its competition while undercutting the competition. The only reason for any shift in this picture is that the competition was forced to step up and compete with Glock to stay afloat.