S&W's sales down 48.5% compared to last year...

Status
Not open for further replies.
If this keeps up, we might once again see firearms priced based on their cost to produce and sell plus a reasonable margin, rather than the ridiculously high prices the market allowed over the past several years.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-slump-as-sales-fall-by-100m-compared-to-2016

I haven't found Smith and Wesson's prices to be exorbitant even during the great firearm shortage. The M&P series is quite affordable and comparable to Glock, Walther, etc. on plastic fantastics. The Sport I and later II are quite affordable entry level AR's. Revolvers are getting expensive because of what and how they are made and declining share of the market.

I think what you are blaming was the result of panic buying and sellers (not so much manufacturers) taking advantage of it. I don't really know of any manufacturers that spiked their prices to distributors but I do know quite a few retailers that did so to consumers. Right now, no panic, and thus prices are less as supply and demand adjust to consumers not fearing an impending ban on new firearm buying.

BTW, the Guardian is an leftist anti gun rag that is less than reputable as a news source. Next time, ask a Brit that still has firearms how the Guardian's rep is to them.
 
Prices have fallen off a little already, though we aren't going back a decade. I assume there will be some production cuts to balance. Just hope manufacturers are ready to meet demand again if/when it spikes with a future election.
 
I haven't found Smith and Wesson's prices to be exorbitant even during the great firearm shortage. The M&P series is quite affordable and comparable to Glock, Walther, etc. on plastic fantastics. The Sport I and later II are quite affordable entry level AR's. Revolvers are getting expensive because of what and how they are made and declining share of the market.

I think what you are blaming was the result of panic buying and sellers (not so much manufacturers) taking advantage of it. I don't really know of any manufacturers that spiked their prices to distributors but I do know quite a few retailers that did so to consumers. Right now, no panic, and thus prices are less as supply and demand adjust to consumers not fearing an impending ban on new firearm buying.

BTW, the Guardian is an leftist anti gun rag that is less than reputable as a news source. Next time, ask a Brit that still has firearms how the Guardian's rep is to them.

Based upon what? The prices of firearms from other makers (also inflated) or you ability to afford one? I'm talking about pricing based upon the actual cost to manufacture and sell, plus a reasonable margin -- not on what the market will (or would) bear.

I've done some product costing and product cost reduction in the past. Take apart an M&P handgun. Affix each part to a board. Cost out each part (including the design and amortization of tooling) and come up with a total for the cost to produce the firearm. Add the cost to sell (which I suspect is actually rising as more advertising and sales promotional efforts are being tried) and I suspect the sum is substantially less than the MSRP. In other words it's substantially more than a reasonable profit in "normal" times.

While you have your M&P apart, go buy a name-brand power tool for about $100.00 These days that will buy a lot. Take it apart and attach the parts to another board. Compare it to the M&P...
 
Prices have fallen off a little already, though we aren't going back a decade. I assume there will be some production cuts to balance. Just hope manufacturers are ready to meet demand again if/when it spikes with a future election.

I don't think there will be a similar sales spike for generations to come. Firearms are largely non-perishable goods and there are a HUGE number already floating around out there. Many, many future demands have already been bought/sold. Further, I think many learned their lesson buying $1,400 ARs that were worth $400 in a non-emotional market. I think there will be more caution if there is a next time.

Prices could very easily roll back to 2007 (or earlier) levels. We'll have to watch the market.
 
I'm talking about pricing based upon the actual cost to manufacture and sell, plus a reasonable margin -- not on what the market will (or would) bear.

In a free market, things sell for what that free market will bear. No more and no less. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Otherwise this "reasonable margin" you advocate will be decided by... what exactly? Some omniscient guardian of what's best for you and me? How much should it be? 5%? 10%? How about 40%, like Apple seems to have no problem getting, thereby becoming the most valuable company on Earth? From each according to ability, and to each according to need?

What do you think of a "reasonable margin" of 10,000% or more, like I probably paid (joyfully) for my wife's diamond engagement ring?

Like health insurance companies decide what they're going to pay, and what they won't? Or perhaps an appointed Secretary of Heath and Human Services should to that for them? How well is that working out for us?

How well has it worked anywhere on Earth, ever?

No thanks.

:fire:
 
Last edited:
Unless you are the Vice President of production for Smith and Wesson you can't have any idea what it costs to manufacture a firearm. Most of the price gouging was at the LGS level, just like the price gouging for gasoline in disaster areas was by the individual service station owners not the oil company they were franchised with.
 
Based upon what? The prices of firearms from other makers (also inflated) or you ability to afford one? I'm talking about pricing based upon the actual cost to manufacture and sell, plus a reasonable margin -- not on what the market will (or would) bear.

I've done some product costing and product cost reduction in the past. Take apart an M&P handgun. Affix each part to a board. Cost out each part (including the design and amortization of tooling) and come up with a total for the cost to produce the firearm. Add the cost to sell (which I suspect is actually rising as more advertising and sales promotional efforts are being tried) and I suspect the sum is substantially less than the MSRP. In other words it's substantially more than a reasonable profit in "normal" times.

While you have your M&P apart, go buy a name-brand power tool for about $100.00 These days that will buy a lot. Take it apart and attach the parts to another board. Compare it to the M&P...
Dont forget the substantial hidden surcharge attached to every new firearm to cover product liability litigation.....this will rise regardless of market conditions or supply\demand.
 
The huge difference may be attributable to sales of their AR model. Once the panic ended, probably their AR sales fell flat.

I'd be interested to see their sales broken down, AR's vs. everything else. I have a feeling the difference in sales other than AR's may not be so great.
 
I don't want future panic buying and shortages, but I think it is predictable. Politicians and antigun activists will continue to push control. The Democratic primary field in two years will feature people like Kamala Harris.

Last time a lot of us who already had a full safe got hot under the collar and bought more.

I think an up-and-down swell with presidential elections may be the norm for the foreseeable future.

I hope I'm wrong.
 
"I don't think there will be a similar sales spike for generations to come. Firearms are largely non-perishable goods and there are a HUGE number already floating around out there. Many, many future demands have already been bought/sold. Further, I think many learned their lesson buying $1,400 ARs that were worth $400 in a non-emotional market. I think there will be more caution if there is a next time."

I disagree.
If you have been around guns for a few decades then you know that these periods of frantic/panic buying has happened a number of times before. Sometimes on a national level, and sometimes on a more local or regional level.
Just to name a few: prior to the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" and then following the sun setting of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban". These runs on gun stores used to happen after every major shooting spree although I think that now people have just accepted shooting sprees. After various court decisions, after various riots...........
The US has an insatiable appetite for guns. Panic drives prices up. When the panic subsides, the prices come back down. In my opinion, it isn't the prices that cause sales to stagnate, it is the fact that the panic has subsided.
 
In a free market, things sell for what that free market will bear. No more and no less. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Otherwise this "reasonable margin" you advocate will be decided by... what exactly? Some omniscient guardian of what's best for you and me? How much should it be? 5%? 10%? How about 40%, like Apple seems to have no problem getting, thereby becoming the most valuable company on Earth? From each according to ability, and to each according to need?

What do you think of a "reasonable margin" of 10,000% or more, like I probably paid (joyfully) for my wife's diamond engagement ring?

Like health insurance companies decide what they're going to pay, and what they won't? Or perhaps an appointed Secretary of Heath and Human Services should to that for them? How well is that working out for us?

How well has it worked anywhere on Earth, ever?

No thanks.

Firearm sales in the USA is hardly a "free market." It has legal barriers to market entry that other manufactures do not have in the US. It's also a highly regulated market. Importation is limited. A highly regulated market that often differs from state to state. Further, like porn, firearms manufacturing has a definite stigma attached to it that keeps other companies from participating.

I didn't say that the margins should be identified by anyone/anything other than the (highly regulated) market -- go read what I actually wrote before going off half-cocked again. I said (and I quote) "we might once again see firearms priced based on their cost to produce and sell plus a reasonable margin."

My hope is that S&W, Ruger Remington and/or someone else will feel the pressure to really cut prices to spur sales. If/when that happens, prices will plunge. That's what I'm hoping for.

Yes, some will whine about some makers potentially going out of business if things truly became competitive. To that I say either do it right, or be gone.
 
Unless you are the Vice President of production for Smith and Wesson you can't have any idea what it costs to manufacture a firearm. Most of the price gouging was at the LGS level, just like the price gouging for gasoline in disaster areas was by the individual service station owners not the oil company they were franchised with.

Malarkey. I have a great deal of background in costing: metal fabrication and machining, plastic injection molding, MIM, die-casting, powder coating, tool and die making, etc. Guns are not satellites! They are not space shuttles! You may be ignorant about such things, but not all are.

FWIW, it wouldn't take a "Vice President of production for Smith and Wesson" to understand the cost data for an S&W firearm. S&W production managers/supervisors, cost accountants, purchasing agents, manufacturing engineers and a slew of other folks would have access to the numbers and work with them on a daily basis.

I doubt S&W even has a "Vice President of production." It likely have production managers reporting either to a Director of Operations or a Division VP, but that's another discussion,
 
Dont forget the substantial hidden surcharge attached to every new firearm to cover product liability litigation.....this will rise regardless of market conditions or supply\demand.

That's very legitimate, as is the firearms excise tax. On the other hand, just imagine what power tool makers pay in terms of product liability insurance.
 
The huge difference may be attributable to sales of their AR model. Once the panic ended, probably their AR sales fell flat.

I'd be interested to see their sales broken down, AR's vs. everything else. I have a feeling the difference in sales other than AR's may not be so great.

I would be interested to know how the sale of ARs cannibalized sales of other firearm lines such as traditional bolt action hunting rifles?
 
I do happen to know what my Dept paid for Glock 19s a few years ago, and everyone here would buy three at that price. The street price is, as said, what the civilian market will bear, but sometimes other considerations enter in to the cost of a firearm.
I, for one, am thrilled with the drop in prices right now, but what I don't want to see is manufacturers going under, or, being bought out so we have Remchester-Coltuger Brand being the only thing left on the market.
 
I don't want future panic buying and shortages, but I think it is predictable. Politicians and antigun activists will continue to push control. The Democratic primary field in two years will feature people like Kamala Harris.

Last time a lot of us who already had a full safe got hot under the collar and bought more.

I think an up-and-down swell with presidential elections may be the norm for the foreseeable future.

I hope I'm wrong.

There is a HUGE difference between 2012 and 2020. The existence of MILLIONS more firearms in the US. Well that and the knowledge that things do go in cycles.
 
"I don't think there will be a similar sales spike for generations to come. Firearms are largely non-perishable goods and there are a HUGE number already floating around out there. Many, many future demands have already been bought/sold. Further, I think many learned their lesson buying $1,400 ARs that were worth $400 in a non-emotional market. I think there will be more caution if there is a next time."

I disagree.
If you have been around guns for a few decades then you know that these periods of frantic/panic buying has happened a number of times before. Sometimes on a national level, and sometimes on a more local or regional level.
Just to name a few: prior to the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" and then following the sun setting of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban". These runs on gun stores used to happen after every major shooting spree although I think that now people have just accepted shooting sprees. After various court decisions, after various riots...........
The US has an insatiable appetite for guns. Panic drives prices up. When the panic subsides, the prices come back down. In my opinion, it isn't the prices that cause sales to stagnate, it is the fact that the panic has subsided.

I'm a student of firearms sales flow. I also know that several times in the US in the 20th Century (particularly after the ends of wars) firearms sales levels dropped so much that firms either went out of business, closed for a period or came close to going out of business.
 
I do happen to know what my Dept paid for Glock 19s a few years ago, and everyone here would buy three at that price. The street price is, as said, what the civilian market will bear, but sometimes other considerations enter in to the cost of a firearm.
I, for one, am thrilled with the drop in prices right now, but what I don't want to see is manufacturers going under, or, being bought out so we have Remchester-Coltuger Brand being the only thing left on the market.

The difference is the size of the margins. Automakers make somewhere between 5 and 15% on sales. More for luxury/specialty cars, but 5-15% on average. At a conservative Bud's Gunshop price of $500 for a Glock 19, I'm sure that Glock's gross margin is hovering around 300% It's certainly way north of 200% There's plenty of room to cut.
 
I don't think there will be a similar sales spike for generations to come. Firearms are largely non-perishable goods and there are a HUGE number already floating around out there.

New shooters coming of age every day, and veteran owners are always looking to add to the collection-especially when a type or class of weapon is threatened legislatively.

I promise if a Democrat is elected and starts beating the AWB drum, you'll see it all over again.
 
With plastic-fantastic pistols, I know there is some meat on the bone. If I remember right, the manufacturing cost for one Glock is like $80. Now that ignores all their overhead, like their undoubtedly enormous insurance bill, taxes, marketing costs, R&D, and donut Fridays. But when you can make one new gun and sell it for $550, there's a lot of money to cover all that.

If I had to make a bet, I'd say that Glock sells their pistols to agencies at very close to their true cost, maybe even as a loss leader, and uses armory support contracts and the civilian market to make their profits.

As far as the final cost to get a Glock into consumer's hands: we've recently seen Ruger willing to jump in the game with a plastic service pistol for about $350, and I would imagine that Ruger's cost to build that pistol isn't that far off of Glock's. Glock is likely taking the extra $200 or so you pay for "perfection" and sticking it in their pocket.

People still buy Glocks left and right, so I can't blame them for it. AFAIK, they haven't offered a sale or rebate or anything since the election, so if this extreme buyer's market doesn't lower their prices, then I doubt that anything will.

So there's some comfortable margin to be had with Glocks, but I think AR prices are probably about as low as they can go. The rifles are just completely commodified. Everyone's assembling the same parts, building the exact same gun, and and no one can jack up their prices because 10 other companies would undercut them if they tried. $400 for a finished AR in the customer's hands is probably the realistic floor.

(And before someone mentions that $359 Delton: I had never even heard of it before it got ultra cheap, and I don't think anyone wants buy a slick sided 16" HBAR carbine anyway. My guess is that Del-Ton is dumping inventory with that one).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top