What gun companies haven't "sold out?"

[krazykeny]

This one of the reasons I bought an EEA Windicator instead of a smith+wesson..

 

[rscalzo]

What exactly is the future of Ford and how do you know for absolute certain?

We were notified that the last date to order a CV through our purchase system will be March 2011. Production is shutting down around June 2011. At that point the CV and the variants will cease to exist. The Panther chassic hasn't seen any major upgrades in years and survived by being the only game in town.

FMC is producing a LE model based on the Taurus due out in the 2012 model year. How it fairs is anyone's guess as agencies (mine included) do not look favorable toward FWD units. The Impala never caught on as a marked unit. They also have a AWD model with the new Econoboost system which on paper looks nice but the cost will probably prevent large sales numbers. Chevy has a model set to go that looks like it might take a large chunk of the market along with the charger which is getting upgrades.

 

[Jolly Rogers]

The Cooper issue was addressed when Dan Cooper was ousted from his corporate positions with the company. I think he even had to sell his percentage of ownership but I may be wrong about that. There was a lot of internet information to follow during the hubub.
Joe

 

[John Wayne]

I found it very interesting that JW noted Winchester going down hill in '64, but had not heard of anything bad about Remington. As has been quite the story of late, Remington cut corners back in 1947 on the Rem 700 and related lines by not opting to add a 5.5 cent improvement to the Walker fire control system that would have kept the gun from being able to fire for reasons other than pulling the trigger.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. My original post was based on what I'd observed, and I even stated that there was a lot I probably hadn't heard about. Where exactly are you getting your facts about Remington? The Model 700 wasn't around until 1962; there's no way they could have saved 5 cents in 1947 by cutting costs on that model.

I was also suprised not to see 1970s Colt being included in quality control issues. He did include Colt for the smart gun technology Colt toyed with for several years which quite to the contrary has turned out to show how problematic such technology is on numerous levels and has helped to squash some of its demand.

I listed Colt, but the "smart gun" thing was all I could remember about them. I didn't claim that was the only thing they'd ever done.

WRT your question of "selling out," it needn't only describe gun makers who sided with anti-gun politicians. Selling out can mean a cheapening of materials or incorporation/elimination of certain features as well--something that the end user does not want and the company had previously led them to believe would never happen, but forced on them anyway. A perfect example would be when Levi or Carhartt stopped making clothing in the US. It had nothing to do with legislation (and some would argue quality was no different) but it was a sellout nonetheless.

Also, trigger locks are a completely different issue from integral locks. For one, trigger locks are not effective and can offer a false sense of security. Anyone who has bought a gun from a "big box" store can attest to this, after getting home and realizing the idiot behind the counter forgot to give you the trigger lock keys. It takes about 15 seconds with a screwdriver to pop the thing off, and most weren't installed correctly to begin with.

Integral locking mechanisms can be effective, but not as implemented by S&W. If I run a cable lock through the action of my gun, I know that it is secure and can see it from a distance. If I lock the gun internally, I don't know without turning the lock or pulling the trigger whether it's locked or not. The lock is also more susceptible to failure, and could concievably lead to some idiot pulling the trigger thinking that the gun is locked and won't go off.

 

[GEM]

Taurus was in on the smart gun frenzy also. IIRC, worked with New Jersey - an antigun state to produce one.

But life goes on. AKs were tools developed to destroy capitalism and tax cuts for the rich - . So how far do we push this?

 

[Ole Coot]

Once again: PERSONAL OPINION IS JUST THAT, I have owned and used firearms for over 55yrs and I have used them frequently for hunting and combat. Disagree, fine with me but I have NO interest in punching holes in paper. I don't need locks, safeties etc. Anyone who has added anything extra for my personal safety has sold out. As for me, I own enough unaltered firearms to last me for a long long time.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Where exactly are you getting your facts about Remington? The Model 700 wasn't around until 1962; there's no way they could have saved 5 cents in 1947 by cutting costs on that model.

Well, they were saving 5.5 cents on the fire control system that ended up as the basis for the 700, designed by Mike Walker. The assembly went into other models first, but the 700 is the one model with the largest production using the assembly and the 700 is Remington's proverbial golden child because the model has such a significant market share.

The Walker fire control system was not ideal. Walker informed Remington of this himself, first categorizing it as a theoretical problem as the system went into full productions, but he had noticed the problem in the parts. The fix was 5.5 cents per gun. Remington was already over budget on it and opted NOT to implement the fix. So Remington was too cheap to put in a 5.5 cent part to remedy the problem and the result was (according to Rem's own testing) about 1 in 100 of the 700s in the 1970s had the ability to fire when the safety was moved and/or when the bolt was moved without the trigger being depressed at the time. That was per Remington's own testing of brand new guns coming off of the assembly line, not old guns, used guns, or modified guns, but brand spanking new mint condition ready for sale guns.

CNBC interviewed Walker and had some of his memos. Walker repeatedly wrote memos noting the problem and the needed fix for it, especially after customer reports came in. He continued with his memos until he retired and then afterwards.

Remington has lost over $20,000,000 in lawsuits as a result and an unknown amount in out of court settlements where they admitted no wrongs and the recipients agreed to not disclose the amount.

Remington implemented Walker's fix in 2007 and you can get a rifle with the fixed system. It is marketed as the X Mark trigger.

Over the decades, there have been several complaints of notoriety, yet Remington has tried to deny that they had knowledge of such a problem. However, a bunch of the complaint letters from their own files have made it into court. They knew of the problem. They knew of it before the Walker fire control went into full production, but they denied there was a problem.

I was seriously surprised you had not mentioned this. It was a fairly hot topic on several gun boards (including here). Your post count indicates you are fairly regular participant in this forum and I would guess you probably particpate in others. All this really came to a head back in October and has continued with several sideline threads on the topic, directly and indirectly. So this really is a current issue with quite a bit of notoriety.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=550346&highlight=cnbc+remington

There were several threads started, but were shut down because of the longer running thread noted above. There are several links within the thread to Remington memos and such that were made public as a result of them being used in evidence in lawsuits. Remington most definitely knew of the problem and worked very hard to keep it from being known, despite a lot of complaints over the years and mishaps.

The next showing is on Christmas Eve....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39554936

Selling out can mean a cheapening of materials

Then who are they "selling out" to?

As near as I can tell, your idea of "selling out" is when a company has a change you don't like.

something that the end user does not want and the company had previously led them to believe would never happen, but forced on them anyway. A perfect example would be when Levi or Carhartt stopped making clothing in the US. It had nothing to do with legislation (and some would argue quality was no different) but it was a sellout nonetheless.

I had no idea that Levi and Carhartt were gun companies...since they are "perfect examples" and this thread is about gun companies.

So what companies have made the end user buy something the company had led the end user to believe would never happen? Surely you have plenty of actual gun company examples of this, right?

Also, trigger locks are a completely different issue from integral locks.

Yep, they are and they are both are optional to use, but the mere presence of them sent a lot of folks into a frenzy out of a fear of further encumberance of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Zach S]

As far as the HK and you thing, Ford sells plenty of Crown Vics to the police and yet they take care of lowly civilians too.

Depends on how you look at it. To add to the above post regarding Crown Victorias, non-fleet Crown Victorias haven't been available since the 2007 model year.

 

[rozziboy18]

i geuss i love sell outs,
ruger m77 mk2 270
browning a500g
kimber eclipse 2
kimber 8400 tactical
cva wolf
winchester 1300
ruger 10/22

funniest thing though! i have yet to have a major problem with any of them. ( had a ad with the kimber 8400 due to a overly light trigger, still my fault)

 

[shotgunjoel]

I'd love for them to release something like a .499 FUCAL... The "L" would be legislature...

Well they do have the 416 Barrett.....

 

[burley]

Thanks ralsco.

 

[minutemen1776]

If "selling out" means cutting corners for cost reasons, then many manufacturers would be on that list. Mossberg is often criticized for the plastic trigger guards and safeties on its Model 500s. Remington cheaped out with its 710/770 series. S&W and MIM parts. I could go on...

Remember, too, that in the 1980s Marlin shortened the magazine of ALL its Model 60 rifles to comply with New Jersey laws regarding magazine capacity. And last, wasn't Taurus one of the first to tout the integral locks on its models?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If "selling out" means cutting corners for cost reasons, then many manufacturers would be on that list.

There isn't any commercial manufacturer that hasn't cut corners for cost reasons. You might find some guy who builds custom guns that doesn't, but not any of the major companies or most of the minor ones. There isn't a company that can remain operating in the black without paying attention to the bottom line.

Of course you then have all the "sell out" people who willingly buy "sold out" guns.

 

[John Wayne]

Well, they were saving 5.5 cents on the fire control system that ended up as the basis for the 700, designed by Mike Walker. The assembly went into other models first, but the 700 is the one model with the largest production using the assembly and the 700 is Remington's proverbial golden child because the model has such a significant market share.

Your example makes sense now that you explained it, but going from your original post it was not clear. While I have been a THR member for a while I have not read about the Remington 700 having an issue with the trigger, safety, or lawsuits as far as I can recall. After you posted it, I googled it and found out what it was about but you shouldn't assume that I would have come across it just because you read it here.

I was seriously surprised you had not mentioned this.

Again, my original post made no claim to the fact that I was well-updated on every recent occurance regarding every gun company, including those I listed.

I had no idea that Levi and Carhartt were gun companies...since they are "perfect examples" and this thread is about gun companies.

Obviously, they're not. I was making a parallel to another market. Others have used the auto industry as an example. In case you didn't know, Ford doesn't make guns either.

Then who are they "selling out" to?

They are using their previous reputation to pass off an inferior product to the consumer, in order to put more money in corporate pockets, at the end user's expense--as opposed to the continued manufacture of quality products and increasing sales through maintaing high standards. Therefore, they are selling out by placing other demands above the interests of the consumer--whether the motive is greed, relief from legal pressure, or whatever else.

As near as I can tell, your idea of "selling out" is when a company has a change you don't like.

Then you obviously didn't read my original post, which specifically stated that I was not trying to argue about whether or not there were any good gun companies left. In fact, I own or have owned guns made by a lot of companies I listed as having been accused of "selling out." Notice that I didn't say that they'd sold out, but that they'd been accused of it.

My intent was merely to observe whether all the gun companies that have been around long enough had been accused of this at some time.

 

[rscalzo]

To add to the above post regarding Crown Victorias, non-fleet Crown Victorias haven't been available since the 2007 model year.

Some made it out into the publics hands as dealers were not prohibited from sales to the public if they were on hand. They just couldn't be ordered to spec. The Mercury Marauder was available until this year.

Taurus was in on the smart gun frenzy also. IIRC, worked with New Jersey - an antigun state to produce one.

NJ does not require a "smart gun", nor have I ever seen one made available for sale. NJ has no handgun restrictions outside of the magazine capacity. The legi8slation on the books is open ended and at this time requires nothing.

 

[oneounceload]

They are using their previous reputation to pass off an inferior product to the consumer, in order to put more money in corporate pockets, at the end user's expense--as opposed to the continued manufacture of quality products and increasing sales through maintaing high standards. Therefore, they are selling out by placing other demands above the interests of the consumer--whether the motive is greed, relief from legal pressure, or whatever else.

Greed is trying to compete and stay in business while the public keep clamoring for cheaper and cheaper POS from countries where the monthly wage is the same as our hourly......all the while trying to answer to the owners.....known as stockholders - many of whom might be YOUR pension fund?

Really?

The US gun buyers have spoken with their wallets - read ANY thread here or on other forums, and the majority are NOT talking about wanting quality - they want the cheapest gun possible..quality be damned - because they feel that gun prices should be the same as they were 50 years ago, but in today's price/salary structure.........of course, most of these folks have no idea on how to run a business - they're too busy working for someone else

 

[Quiet]

In regards to the patent/trademark infringment lawsuits...

H&K was following the example set by Colt.

In the '90s, Colt sued Bushmaster over the usage of "M-4 Carbine".

H&K sued Vector Arms over the usage of "HK-53".
Vector Arms made several recievers marked "HK-53".

H&K sued GSG and ATI over the usage of "MP-5".
ATI & GSG had an advertistment for the GSG-5 as a "MP-5".
Case was settled with ATI/GSG no longer advirtising/selling the GSG-5. GSG made some cosmetic changes and released new versions as the GSG-522 (the GSG-522 is visually different and does not infringe upon H&K's trademark). H&K then licensed Umarex to make .22LR MP5 and .22LR HK416 firearms for the civilian market.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

In regards to the patent/trademark infringment lawsuits...

H&K was following the example set by Colt.

Patents and registered trademarks have been around since long before Colt's lawsuit as there has been a long term need for the protection of intellectual property.

 

[CAS700850]

I have to say that I see all of this as business. Just business. A company changes its products to meet the demands of the marketplace. And by demands, I mean more than just sales. More and more the anti gunners are using Consumer Safety issues to attack the manufacturers based upon the theory that the firearms are "unsafe" when placed in the market. These days, if you get injured, you get a bunch of advertisements from lawyers promising to get you money in compensation for your injuries. If someone is injured by a person's use of a product, the smart (i.e. greedy) lawyer knows that you sue the manufacturer of the prodcut, not the user. Deeper products, and a more likely cash settlement. So when Little Johnny finds Daddy's gun under the mattress and shoots his sister, it isn't Daddy's fault for leaving the loaded gun under the mattress, it's Smith and Wesson's fault for not making the gun childproof. To combat this, Smith adds the internal lock. Why? They have now done all that they can to stop the tragedy...it's the user's fault for not simply turning the key in the lock. For Smith, they have now made themselves a harder target. Makes perfect sense. But, then again, I'm a lawyer, which may explain why stupid things like this make sense...