stinkeypete
New member
To summarize: in order to maximize profits.
Marketing will produce a graph with cost on the x axis (dependent variable) and sales on the y axis (independent variable.) Simplistically, more people buy cheap guns than expensive ones.
Profit per gun is the price subtract the cost to manufacture. A general rule of thumb is that you must charge 5-7 times the cost of the parts just to break even. Saving cost of production is critical in manufacturing. Consider the cost of the semi-custom firearms: does a Freedom Arms or Korth compromise anywhere? If they do, I don’t see it.
Total profit to the company is the profit per unit at the cost sold multiplied by the number of units sold at that price. Very simplistically, the shape of the total profit curve looks like an upside down parabola, something like the shape a thrown baseball makes.
If S&W sells a j-frame at the cost it takes them to produce and support it, they will sell lots of them. But they won’t make any profit.
Likewise, they can try to sell that j-frame for $3,000 but they will sell scarcely any. They won’t make much profit.
If they determine the price that is attractive to consumers and also a price where the profit per gun multiplied by the number of sales is maximized, the company maximizes profit.
It is much less expensive to produce a gun with a lower pressure cartridge. Cost.
The .357s May use titanium cylinders and special frames to resist stretch and flame cutting.
The companies are betting that they can not sell enough expensive guns to maximize profits.
Let’s face it, many of us are weirdos. I am more than a little tempted to buy another Freedom Arms. I am thinking a little one with in .327 with a matching .32-20 cylinder would be pretty nifty as it would be rare and knowing FA, more accurate than a lever action carbine. There is a little room in the market for super expensive and tiny number of sales.
Hi-point. Let’s not pick on Hi-point. Their model is to make very inexpensive guns and sell lots of them. Then everyone else in between, trying to carve out their own little market.
I want a .327 revolver that is trim, light weight, and accurate like an old Smith target gun. Say.. 4 inch barrel. I want to pay $450 for it.
We had this discussion “what is important to you when buying a gun” and I felt people refused to accept that cost was a major determining factor. Sorting gun sales by volume on the Bud’s Gun, Cabela’s and Gander websites you can see it: people buy a lot of cheap guns. Stuff I would not buy, but I am not the average market.
So.. I can’t get exactly what I want for the price I want to pay.
A company can struggle to meet my individual need, or they can launch a campaign to change my mind about what I want. So much marketing.
I feel for them. It’s a tough business. Someone is selling an old Colt in 32 long with a 4” barrel for about $450 near me, it was made in 1917. I am tempted but I don’t know much about colts.
Maybe I should buy a single seven and hope I get one that really shoots. I expect it will be tougher and tougher to get one in the future. Send it to someone to have it accurized, maybe... but there goes another thousand dollars and I’ll be in a nursing home before I could find someone resell it to such that me heirs only lose a thousand on the deal.
So realistically... I think I see a trend to .380 auto. I like .380, I liked the ones I had. Maybe a single stack 9. I want small, light, and as accurate as a .22. Let’s face it, a .380 can be designed just like a blowback .22 and it’s really hard to make a semi auto .22 that is not 1/4 minute of squirrel. But maybe a blowback 9mm? Marketing really got behind the 9mm and because so many are produced, the costs drop due to mass production...
Bottom line is... profits. And realistically, I have to fight my cheapskate nature.
Marketing will produce a graph with cost on the x axis (dependent variable) and sales on the y axis (independent variable.) Simplistically, more people buy cheap guns than expensive ones.
Profit per gun is the price subtract the cost to manufacture. A general rule of thumb is that you must charge 5-7 times the cost of the parts just to break even. Saving cost of production is critical in manufacturing. Consider the cost of the semi-custom firearms: does a Freedom Arms or Korth compromise anywhere? If they do, I don’t see it.
Total profit to the company is the profit per unit at the cost sold multiplied by the number of units sold at that price. Very simplistically, the shape of the total profit curve looks like an upside down parabola, something like the shape a thrown baseball makes.
If S&W sells a j-frame at the cost it takes them to produce and support it, they will sell lots of them. But they won’t make any profit.
Likewise, they can try to sell that j-frame for $3,000 but they will sell scarcely any. They won’t make much profit.
If they determine the price that is attractive to consumers and also a price where the profit per gun multiplied by the number of sales is maximized, the company maximizes profit.
It is much less expensive to produce a gun with a lower pressure cartridge. Cost.
The .357s May use titanium cylinders and special frames to resist stretch and flame cutting.
The companies are betting that they can not sell enough expensive guns to maximize profits.
Let’s face it, many of us are weirdos. I am more than a little tempted to buy another Freedom Arms. I am thinking a little one with in .327 with a matching .32-20 cylinder would be pretty nifty as it would be rare and knowing FA, more accurate than a lever action carbine. There is a little room in the market for super expensive and tiny number of sales.
Hi-point. Let’s not pick on Hi-point. Their model is to make very inexpensive guns and sell lots of them. Then everyone else in between, trying to carve out their own little market.
I want a .327 revolver that is trim, light weight, and accurate like an old Smith target gun. Say.. 4 inch barrel. I want to pay $450 for it.
We had this discussion “what is important to you when buying a gun” and I felt people refused to accept that cost was a major determining factor. Sorting gun sales by volume on the Bud’s Gun, Cabela’s and Gander websites you can see it: people buy a lot of cheap guns. Stuff I would not buy, but I am not the average market.
So.. I can’t get exactly what I want for the price I want to pay.
A company can struggle to meet my individual need, or they can launch a campaign to change my mind about what I want. So much marketing.
I feel for them. It’s a tough business. Someone is selling an old Colt in 32 long with a 4” barrel for about $450 near me, it was made in 1917. I am tempted but I don’t know much about colts.
Maybe I should buy a single seven and hope I get one that really shoots. I expect it will be tougher and tougher to get one in the future. Send it to someone to have it accurized, maybe... but there goes another thousand dollars and I’ll be in a nursing home before I could find someone resell it to such that me heirs only lose a thousand on the deal.
So realistically... I think I see a trend to .380 auto. I like .380, I liked the ones I had. Maybe a single stack 9. I want small, light, and as accurate as a .22. Let’s face it, a .380 can be designed just like a blowback .22 and it’s really hard to make a semi auto .22 that is not 1/4 minute of squirrel. But maybe a blowback 9mm? Marketing really got behind the 9mm and because so many are produced, the costs drop due to mass production...
Bottom line is... profits. And realistically, I have to fight my cheapskate nature.
The truth be told, this same sort of debate was going on decades ago regarding the .45 Colt, and it is still going strong. I expect nothing less of the .38 Special.