benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
It hopefully won't come back.
IF it does, and it looks like H.R.1022, then those "rest of the parts" will be banned along with complete new rifles, and you'll be stuck with a bunch of useless lowers.
Panic Prices; what we learned a decade ago?
- Thread starter Davandron
- Start date
- Status
IF it does, and it looks like H.R.1022, then those "rest of the parts" will be banned along with complete new rifles, and you'll be stuck with a bunch of useless lowers.
another thing people are doing is buying ar's & ak's in order to resell after a possible ban to make money. they might get burned,because they might make it illegal to resell them,kind of what california did with anyone with a registered ar,once the owner dies it has to be sold out of state,cant be transferred to a relative. now with a federal law,it cant be transferred or sold anywhere.i saw a guy on gunbroker with this very dilema.....
I was too young at the time of the first AWB to know what was going on.
Can someone please explain why prices went down after the passing of the ban? I don't know exactly what was covered and what the limits were, but I don't understand why prices would fall.
I'm trying to figure out if I'm an idiot for buying an AK for seemingly twice what they're worth, with the idea that they'll only increase in value.
Can someone please explain why prices went down after the passing of the ban? I don't know exactly what was covered and what the limits were, but I don't understand why prices would fall.
I'm trying to figure out if I'm an idiot for buying an AK for seemingly twice what they're worth, with the idea that they'll only increase in value.
2fewdaysafield
Member
Remember the old silent movies where the bad guy ties the damsel to the train tracks? To my mind thats pretty much where we are. Tied to the tracks waiting to see whats headed our way. I don't see much chance of stopping an AWB from being passed. Even if I believed Obama's statement "I'm not going to take away your guns" which I don't, its congress that drives legislation, not the President, and the leaders in Congress are bound and determined to have an AWB. And Obama is not going to veto it, even if he wanted to. He's not going to get into a veto fight with the leaders of his own party. Not this early in his administration. I don't like Obama one bit, but I do believe he'd rather deal with an AWB later rather than sooner, but Congress wants "feel good" legislation so they will get it. Typical that congress will deal with things like an AWB before trying to deal with what truly ails our great country.
I think about the best we can hope for is an AWB similar to '94 and similar to what we still have here in CT. Maybe we will get really lucky and the new AWB will have a sunset clause just like the last one. But I doubt it. The new AWB may even have a "turn in" clause just like the one here in CT did. Three months to legally dispose of banned guns or else turn them in. And if you don't, then boom, you're a felon. And lose all your gun rights. I just hope that the few friends gun owners still have in congress are able to soften the new ban a bit to keep the less "evil looking" guns legal and available.
The saddest part is that to my mind the new AWB will be even less constitutional than DC's handgun ban was. I think the FF specifically had "military style" weapons in mind when they wrote 2A. It will be interesting to see if anyone stands up to challenge the new AWB on Constitutional grounds. Especially if there is a turn in clause without compensation.
Anyway, keep your "EVIL BLACK RIFLES" close boys. We're in for a bumpy ride.
I think about the best we can hope for is an AWB similar to '94 and similar to what we still have here in CT. Maybe we will get really lucky and the new AWB will have a sunset clause just like the last one. But I doubt it. The new AWB may even have a "turn in" clause just like the one here in CT did. Three months to legally dispose of banned guns or else turn them in. And if you don't, then boom, you're a felon. And lose all your gun rights. I just hope that the few friends gun owners still have in congress are able to soften the new ban a bit to keep the less "evil looking" guns legal and available.
The saddest part is that to my mind the new AWB will be even less constitutional than DC's handgun ban was. I think the FF specifically had "military style" weapons in mind when they wrote 2A. It will be interesting to see if anyone stands up to challenge the new AWB on Constitutional grounds. Especially if there is a turn in clause without compensation.
Anyway, keep your "EVIL BLACK RIFLES" close boys. We're in for a bumpy ride.
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
Hope for? Maybe? Grandfather?
Dressing a mad dog in a pretty pink skirt won't make him less dangerous.
The gun grabbers won't be any less dangerous just because the economy stinks. 1022 is proof of that.
So very few really understand whats comming our way.
Dressing a mad dog in a pretty pink skirt won't make him less dangerous.
The gun grabbers won't be any less dangerous just because the economy stinks. 1022 is proof of that.
So very few really understand whats comming our way.
2fewdaysafield
Member
feedthehogs,
Regrettably, I think I have a fairly good handle on what is coming our way. And like the damsel in the silent movies I doubt there is much we can do about it.
So, yes I use terms like hope for, maybe and grandfather because I believe that our best hope is to make the new AWB a little less onerous, not stop it, because I feel we have about as much chance of stopping it as we do of stopping the earth from turning. We may have a chance of overturning a new AWB, but stopping it from being passed? IMHO....NO HOPE.
Regrettably, I think I have a fairly good handle on what is coming our way. And like the damsel in the silent movies I doubt there is much we can do about it.
So, yes I use terms like hope for, maybe and grandfather because I believe that our best hope is to make the new AWB a little less onerous, not stop it, because I feel we have about as much chance of stopping it as we do of stopping the earth from turning. We may have a chance of overturning a new AWB, but stopping it from being passed? IMHO....NO HOPE.
I can't imagine that ever being a real problem. There will always be plenty of buyers lining up to buy guns regardless of what the law says. Just like drug laws haven't done a thing to stop drug sales, gun laws won't do a thing to stop gun sales.
2fewdaysafield
Member
Strakele,
Prices went down for a number of reasons, mostly related to fear. Prices had been driven sky high by fear of future lack of availability. Once the ban was passed and everyone realized that you could still legally buy a rifle that accepted 30 round magazines, and that there was not going to be a shortage, either of rifles that accepted Hi cap mags or of the mags themselves, then prices came down. Sure, there were limitations on what features you could have, no flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc, but you could still buy a rifle in a military style configuration that accepted hi cap mags and you could get the mags. The '94 ban was largely cosmetic. The basic platform had not been outlawed. I was 37 in '94. That ban did not worry me too much. I'm a lot more worried about the coming ban than I was in '94.
If you bought an AK at todays prices because you wanted to make a killing down the road, then you took a gamble. When you gamble sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you bought an AK at todays prices because you absolutely, possitively wanted to own an AK, then you did the smart thing. Is it POSSIBLE that your AK will be worth less a year from now than you paid? ABSOLUTELY. Is it possible it will be worth twice what you paid? SURE. But if you bought an AK because you were sure you wanted one, then what are you worried about? That you paid $200 or $300 too much? So what? You've got the gun. A year from now you may not be able to legally buy one...AT ANY PRICE.
If you bought the gun because you really wanted it then what difference does the price make? If you bought the gun purely as an investment, then its like you played the stock market. Maybe you'll win, maybe you'll lose.
Forget about the money. Buy LOTS of ammo (or reloading supplies) and HAVE FUN AT THE RANGE.
P.S. I'm in the process of paying more for a used Bushmaster than it cost brand new 1 year ago. Why would I do such a foolish thing? Because I want to have one and can't be sure I'll ever be able to legally buy one again.
Prices went down for a number of reasons, mostly related to fear. Prices had been driven sky high by fear of future lack of availability. Once the ban was passed and everyone realized that you could still legally buy a rifle that accepted 30 round magazines, and that there was not going to be a shortage, either of rifles that accepted Hi cap mags or of the mags themselves, then prices came down. Sure, there were limitations on what features you could have, no flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc, but you could still buy a rifle in a military style configuration that accepted hi cap mags and you could get the mags. The '94 ban was largely cosmetic. The basic platform had not been outlawed. I was 37 in '94. That ban did not worry me too much. I'm a lot more worried about the coming ban than I was in '94.
If you bought an AK at todays prices because you wanted to make a killing down the road, then you took a gamble. When you gamble sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you bought an AK at todays prices because you absolutely, possitively wanted to own an AK, then you did the smart thing. Is it POSSIBLE that your AK will be worth less a year from now than you paid? ABSOLUTELY. Is it possible it will be worth twice what you paid? SURE. But if you bought an AK because you were sure you wanted one, then what are you worried about? That you paid $200 or $300 too much? So what? You've got the gun. A year from now you may not be able to legally buy one...AT ANY PRICE.
If you bought the gun because you really wanted it then what difference does the price make? If you bought the gun purely as an investment, then its like you played the stock market. Maybe you'll win, maybe you'll lose.
Forget about the money. Buy LOTS of ammo (or reloading supplies) and HAVE FUN AT THE RANGE.
P.S. I'm in the process of paying more for a used Bushmaster than it cost brand new 1 year ago. Why would I do such a foolish thing? Because I want to have one and can't be sure I'll ever be able to legally buy one again.
mason_winston
Member
could you possibly point me towards what info has you thinking this way? I ask because I'd like to read up on this as much as I can, and not because I doubt your reasoning.
punkndisorderly
Member
Hmmm, I seem to remember standard capacity magazines being expensive all through the ban. More so for handguns than military rifles. I wonder if they only considered standard capacity magazines or included 10 rounders as well.
Also, during the last ban during the ban, you could still get AR's as long as they didn't have certain features (bayonete lug, flash suppressor, pistol grips, etc) so you could still buy an AR or AK. I wonder if they figured that into the prices as well.
If you included post-ban magazines and firearms, I would think the price levels would be skewed. Guess I have some reading to do.
The thing is that we are going on what happened with the last ban, inferring that any new ban will take a similar approach. That may or may not be the case. If no AR or AK pattern rifles can be sold regardless of how many or few "evil" features they have, prices will go high and stay there. If, however, not only can they not be sold, but they can't be transferred either, then prices won't mean a hill of beans. If no ban is forthcoming, I see a huge bubble about to burst. Most every firm is feverishly pumpling out AR's and magazines at 100% capacity and multiple shifts. Eventually demand will cool and prices will fall since at some point everyone who wants one (or two, or ten) will have them. Also, they will start showing up used as many first time purchasers realize that they'd really rather have a new deer rifle or shotgun than an AR that just sits in the closet.
We're kind of in a Y2K situation again. Either the chicken littles are right or they're wrong. Either way, people are getting screwed.
Also, during the last ban during the ban, you could still get AR's as long as they didn't have certain features (bayonete lug, flash suppressor, pistol grips, etc) so you could still buy an AR or AK. I wonder if they figured that into the prices as well.
If you included post-ban magazines and firearms, I would think the price levels would be skewed. Guess I have some reading to do.
The thing is that we are going on what happened with the last ban, inferring that any new ban will take a similar approach. That may or may not be the case. If no AR or AK pattern rifles can be sold regardless of how many or few "evil" features they have, prices will go high and stay there. If, however, not only can they not be sold, but they can't be transferred either, then prices won't mean a hill of beans. If no ban is forthcoming, I see a huge bubble about to burst. Most every firm is feverishly pumpling out AR's and magazines at 100% capacity and multiple shifts. Eventually demand will cool and prices will fall since at some point everyone who wants one (or two, or ten) will have them. Also, they will start showing up used as many first time purchasers realize that they'd really rather have a new deer rifle or shotgun than an AR that just sits in the closet.
We're kind of in a Y2K situation again. Either the chicken littles are right or they're wrong. Either way, people are getting screwed.
2fewdaysafield
Member
Mason,
I lived in DC and its suburbs for 22 years. I worked as a paid staffer on 6 political campaigns for federal office. In the mid 80s I was considered one of the top up and coming political fundraisers in DC. I'm out of that business now, but am still in touch with a few old friends that are still involved. Does that mean I know anything more than anyone else? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
What it means is that I have a bit of personal familiarity with how the system works in DC (albeit that experience is somewhat dated). Like anybody else, I make my judgements and form my opinions based on what my experience tells me is likely.
In this case, my experience tells me that while Obama would prefer to deal with other issues before he tackles an AWB, he may well not get the luxury of waiting. Congress, which usually prefers to deal in symbols rather than concrete works, may well force the issue on him in fairly short order. And if that happens, he will sign ANY AWB bill they send him.
I believe its highly likely that the House or the Senate will pass an AWB in Obama's first 180 days. Most likely, the house. But both Reid and Pelosi want one, so the Senate might act first. Do we have the votes to kill an AWB in the Senate with a filibuster? Not likely. Filibusters are nowhere near the powerful weapon they were in the 50s and 60s. What kind of AWB will come out of conference committee? I wouldn't want to make any prediction on that other than to say I think it will be considerably tougher than the Clinton Ban. Conference Committee can be a big crap shoot. Thats where the "smoke filled rooms" and deal making can really get crazy. Beyond that, I'd be blowing smoke out my a$$ as I've been out of the game too long and no longer have any personal familiarity with the major players and how they operate and what kind of compromises they are willing to make.
I'm not a betting man, but if I was going to bet, I'd say we will see a new AWB signed into law in the next 12 months and that it will be MUCH more restrictive than the '94 law was. Do I have any proof? NOPE. Just the knowledge I gained from spending quite a bit of time "in the belly of the beast".
So I guess you could say I'm just a washed up old has been. And I wouldn't be able to refute you. But occasionally even a washed up old has been is right.
Mason, if I in any way unintentionally led you to believe I had some kind of facts or proof that what I said was true, I apologize. I don't. What I have is opinions, albeit opinions that are based on a little more personal experience with how politics in Washington works than most people have.
Regards...2few
I lived in DC and its suburbs for 22 years. I worked as a paid staffer on 6 political campaigns for federal office. In the mid 80s I was considered one of the top up and coming political fundraisers in DC. I'm out of that business now, but am still in touch with a few old friends that are still involved. Does that mean I know anything more than anyone else? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
What it means is that I have a bit of personal familiarity with how the system works in DC (albeit that experience is somewhat dated). Like anybody else, I make my judgements and form my opinions based on what my experience tells me is likely.
In this case, my experience tells me that while Obama would prefer to deal with other issues before he tackles an AWB, he may well not get the luxury of waiting. Congress, which usually prefers to deal in symbols rather than concrete works, may well force the issue on him in fairly short order. And if that happens, he will sign ANY AWB bill they send him.
I believe its highly likely that the House or the Senate will pass an AWB in Obama's first 180 days. Most likely, the house. But both Reid and Pelosi want one, so the Senate might act first. Do we have the votes to kill an AWB in the Senate with a filibuster? Not likely. Filibusters are nowhere near the powerful weapon they were in the 50s and 60s. What kind of AWB will come out of conference committee? I wouldn't want to make any prediction on that other than to say I think it will be considerably tougher than the Clinton Ban. Conference Committee can be a big crap shoot. Thats where the "smoke filled rooms" and deal making can really get crazy. Beyond that, I'd be blowing smoke out my a$$ as I've been out of the game too long and no longer have any personal familiarity with the major players and how they operate and what kind of compromises they are willing to make.
I'm not a betting man, but if I was going to bet, I'd say we will see a new AWB signed into law in the next 12 months and that it will be MUCH more restrictive than the '94 law was. Do I have any proof? NOPE. Just the knowledge I gained from spending quite a bit of time "in the belly of the beast".
So I guess you could say I'm just a washed up old has been. And I wouldn't be able to refute you. But occasionally even a washed up old has been is right.
Mason, if I in any way unintentionally led you to believe I had some kind of facts or proof that what I said was true, I apologize. I don't. What I have is opinions, albeit opinions that are based on a little more personal experience with how politics in Washington works than most people have.
Regards...2few
CoRoMo
Member
I think the only reason that prices might have fallen after the first ban took effect was because the market saw that the ban would be temporary.
Had those firearms been banned permanently, they would only continue to skyrocket in price every day that passes by.
Had those firearms been banned permanently, they would only continue to skyrocket in price every day that passes by.
Semmerling
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 128
1994 Law = Restricted Supply
2008 Law = Restricted Supply and Restricted Demand
Restricted Supply = Higher Prices
Restricted Supply and Demand = No Market
End of Topic
2008 Law = Restricted Supply and Restricted Demand
Restricted Supply = Higher Prices
Restricted Supply and Demand = No Market
End of Topic
mason_winston
Member
2few,
thanks for detailing your reasoning - and I absolutely would not say that you are a washed up has been. if you've been there, I'd think you may have a better idea of how this works than the majority of other posters here.
barring individual interpretations of HR 1022, most statements about this topic are opinion. my opinion? I could see a significantly tightened version of the Clinton ban, but I think the "turn in" clause sounds a little far reaching. here's my reasoning - the 2nd Amendment promises Americans the "right to keep and bear arms." the key word there is "keep" - as in, I own it already, I'm keeping it. there's also Amendment 4 - protections from illegal search and seizure. add 2+4 and you get "you are Constitutionally prohibited from seizing/confiscating/demanding that I turn in a firearm that I already legally own."
now, I'm still a young man, and I admittedly dont have the experience/knowledge that many of you have. that said, I'm trying to think of this in a "legal" manner, not political. am I way off? naive? stump dumb?
thanks for detailing your reasoning - and I absolutely would not say that you are a washed up has been. if you've been there, I'd think you may have a better idea of how this works than the majority of other posters here.
barring individual interpretations of HR 1022, most statements about this topic are opinion. my opinion? I could see a significantly tightened version of the Clinton ban, but I think the "turn in" clause sounds a little far reaching. here's my reasoning - the 2nd Amendment promises Americans the "right to keep and bear arms." the key word there is "keep" - as in, I own it already, I'm keeping it. there's also Amendment 4 - protections from illegal search and seizure. add 2+4 and you get "you are Constitutionally prohibited from seizing/confiscating/demanding that I turn in a firearm that I already legally own."
now, I'm still a young man, and I admittedly dont have the experience/knowledge that many of you have. that said, I'm trying to think of this in a "legal" manner, not political. am I way off? naive? stump dumb?
Davandron
Member
Report's pricing information
I saw a number of people had questions about the pricing, especially when they felt it contradicted their own observations.
Both reports explain where they sourced their information, and I'd encourage everyone to read the footnotes and method sections to understand, but I'll summarize here:
As for why the prices dropped, it wasn't the focus of the report but some possible reasons are offered:
I may have already mentioned it, but the author's also suggest that sporting rifle users and manufacturers were able to adapt quickly to the new laws, hence meeting demand and preventing prices from staying high.
I saw a number of people had questions about the pricing, especially when they felt it contradicted their own observations.
Both reports explain where they sourced their information, and I'd encourage everyone to read the footnotes and method sections to understand, but I'll summarize here:
- For LCMs (greater than 10 rounds), they used ads in the magazine Shotgun News from eleven distributors who advertised throughout the years investigated.
- For rifles, the 1996 report used ads in Shotgun News and the 2004 report used each year's Blue Book of Gun Values of banned rifles plus MSRP reported by manufacturers for legal.
- Also, when comparing one year to another, they adjusted for inflation using the GDP price deflator.
As for why the prices dropped, it wasn't the focus of the report but some possible reasons are offered:
I may have already mentioned it, but the author's also suggest that sporting rifle users and manufacturers were able to adapt quickly to the new laws, hence meeting demand and preventing prices from staying high.
Davandron
Member
"IF" an new AWB is proposed I'll be watching to see what the NRA does. I feel they should see the handwriting on the wall and use every resourse, ever dollar to oppose it in the media and in the courts. If they "work" with congress to change a few lines and say they softened it but to no real effect, then I believe every God fearing, gun loving man and woman should pull out of that organization. At some point, the NRA has to step up to the plate or stop taking money.
My prediction? I think they're becoming as political as the congress is and I believe they're more like big unions now. They started out doing good but somewhere along the way (if they aren't careful) they start worrying more about securing their own existence and revenue.
If anything in the new AWB is permanent then the NRA needs to stand up and be counted and I believe so should each of us by registering our complaint with our senators and congressman. Not that it'll do much good but if we don't then we should say too much after the fact!
I don't know about the rest of you but I believe we're looking at what some might say is a "turning point", or "tipping point".
I hope I'm wrong...
Gideon
My prediction? I think they're becoming as political as the congress is and I believe they're more like big unions now. They started out doing good but somewhere along the way (if they aren't careful) they start worrying more about securing their own existence and revenue.
If anything in the new AWB is permanent then the NRA needs to stand up and be counted and I believe so should each of us by registering our complaint with our senators and congressman. Not that it'll do much good but if we don't then we should say too much after the fact!
I don't know about the rest of you but I believe we're looking at what some might say is a "turning point", or "tipping point".
I hope I'm wrong...
Gideon
2fewdaysafield
Member
Mason,
Agree with you completely. A significantly tightened version of the Clinton ban. Big question being how far that will go.As far as California's AWB? Further? As to a "turn in" clause, I also doubt it. I only mentioned it because the AWB here in CT had one. 3 months (I believe it was) if you already owned one to obtain a certificate of possession, transfer same or turn it in. My details here are probably not perfect, but the effect was a modified grandfather or turn in. The anti gun crowd took some pretty heavy hits after the Clinton Ban and I doubt they want to risk something similar in 2010. So I doubt they would risk any type of turn in clause. The big question is whether they will go after the platform itself (semi auto, removeable hi cap mags) or whether they will stick to features (flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, protruding pistol grips and the like).
I'll vote against them (even though its mostly useless here in CT) and always have. But personally, if they don't go after the basic platform I'll breath a sigh of relief.
Agree with you completely. A significantly tightened version of the Clinton ban. Big question being how far that will go.As far as California's AWB? Further? As to a "turn in" clause, I also doubt it. I only mentioned it because the AWB here in CT had one. 3 months (I believe it was) if you already owned one to obtain a certificate of possession, transfer same or turn it in. My details here are probably not perfect, but the effect was a modified grandfather or turn in. The anti gun crowd took some pretty heavy hits after the Clinton Ban and I doubt they want to risk something similar in 2010. So I doubt they would risk any type of turn in clause. The big question is whether they will go after the platform itself (semi auto, removeable hi cap mags) or whether they will stick to features (flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, protruding pistol grips and the like).
I'll vote against them (even though its mostly useless here in CT) and always have. But personally, if they don't go after the basic platform I'll breath a sigh of relief.
2fewdaysafield
Member
Davandron,
You may be right about Reid's record. I based my statement on comments from a friend in Nevada who is a muckity muck with a political organization out there...planevada I believe it is.
You may be right about Reid's record. I based my statement on comments from a friend in Nevada who is a muckity muck with a political organization out there...planevada I believe it is.
mulletguter
Member
I went to a show in Ft Lauderdale yesterday. There was a S load of ARs, AKs. STG5562s and PS90s on the tables. I was there 3hrs during prime time and saw only a hand full of buyers. I think that for the next few years most people are going to be spending their money to keep their kids fed and a roof over their heads and not on 1000 to 2000+ dollar rifles. Sort of like the housing boom. I think by the middle of this year there are going to be some real bargains if you have some cash and a job.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
I touched on this a bit earlier, but the main reason that rifle magazine prices stayed low and handgun mag prices stayed high were that most common rifles used standardized magazines that weren't brand-proprietary, and tens of millions of those were grandfathered in, whereas handgun mags are usually brand- and model-specific, with orders of magnitude fewer grandfathered in. So it was a supply and demand thing.
I paid $9.99/ea for Romanian steel AK magazines in 2003, and $5.99/ea for Hungarian 20-rounders.
Most definitely. Manufacturers could freely make postban AR's and AK's (and pistol grips WERE legal, as long as the gun had no other feinsteinphobic features like a threaded muzzle) to meet demand. Prebans still fetched a premium because if you wanted an adjustable AR stock or flash suppressor, that was the only way to get one, but particularly for the AK there wasn't much difference between preban and ban-era guns.
Here's my ban-era AK, a Romanian SAR-1 (2002 model):
A non-aficionado would be hard pressed to tell the difference. It made more of a difference with AR's, but still far more AR's were sold 1994-2004 than in the previous three decades combined.
punkndisorderly
Member
There were quite a few AR's and AK's at the local show in Pasadena TX this weekend. I got there right at opening on Saturday and it was packed. I hadn't been to that particular show before but my buddy who had been there many times said he'd never seen it that crowded. My observations were that most people were buying pistols, not semiauto rifles. However, the majority of the crowd was around the semiauto rifles. People seemed to be looking, seeing the higher prices, and walking away. I know I got sticker shock. Most things seemed to be going for full retail or above. The least expensive I saw was 1,100 for an Oly A2. Most of the M4's were in the 1,300 to 1,500 range. Most AK's seemed to be in the $600 range depending on configuration.
I felt like gouging was in effect and since I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for (DCM/NM competition AR) I purchased a M4 lower and went home and ordered a couple of uppers online direct from the manufacturer for less than they were going for at the show. It's going to be a long wait before I actually see them (20 weeks or so) but I'm getting exactly what I want.
I felt like gouging was in effect and since I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for (DCM/NM competition AR) I purchased a M4 lower and went home and ordered a couple of uppers online direct from the manufacturer for less than they were going for at the show. It's going to be a long wait before I actually see them (20 weeks or so) but I'm getting exactly what I want.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Whatever happens, price and convenience will affect the hobby.
You may remember that before the '94 ban, high capacity pistols were all the rage. Berettas and Glocks pretty much ruled. Then there were the KG9s, Spectres (remember them?) and Tec-9s with those forty round magazines.
After the ban when mag prices went through the roof, with magazines costing more than some pistols, suddenly gun writers and shooters rediscovered the virtues of the 1911 platform and its measly seven (no, eight!) rounds. Suddenly all the talk was about stopping power and great big rounds, not larger numbers of smaller rounds. And folks talked about how nice and concealable the new "compact" (low-capacity) Berettas and Glocks were. Cowboy Action Shooting came on big, since revolvers had only five rounds. No, six if you carried one under the hammer. No, seven, eight or nine, if you bought a modern revolver.
Another point, that a post above touched on -- an unintended consequence of gun control is the decline of competitive marksmanship and hunting (fewer places to shoot, more controls on who can shoot what) and the rise of tacticool. Forbidden fruit, and all that. It's true, far more people own AK and AR pattern rifles today than did in 1993. FAR more. And the venerable Winchester 94 and 70 are out of production entirely. I honestly don't think the gun controllers entirely understand the monster they have created.
You may remember that before the '94 ban, high capacity pistols were all the rage. Berettas and Glocks pretty much ruled. Then there were the KG9s, Spectres (remember them?) and Tec-9s with those forty round magazines.
After the ban when mag prices went through the roof, with magazines costing more than some pistols, suddenly gun writers and shooters rediscovered the virtues of the 1911 platform and its measly seven (no, eight!) rounds. Suddenly all the talk was about stopping power and great big rounds, not larger numbers of smaller rounds. And folks talked about how nice and concealable the new "compact" (low-capacity) Berettas and Glocks were. Cowboy Action Shooting came on big, since revolvers had only five rounds. No, six if you carried one under the hammer. No, seven, eight or nine, if you bought a modern revolver.
Another point, that a post above touched on -- an unintended consequence of gun control is the decline of competitive marksmanship and hunting (fewer places to shoot, more controls on who can shoot what) and the rise of tacticool. Forbidden fruit, and all that. It's true, far more people own AK and AR pattern rifles today than did in 1993. FAR more. And the venerable Winchester 94 and 70 are out of production entirely. I honestly don't think the gun controllers entirely understand the monster they have created.
- Status