We have the upper hand with manufacturers

M

maestro pistolero

New member
Approximate number of new firearms sold to Law Enforcement in 2012: 100,000 guns

Number of new guns sold to the civilian market in 2012: 11 MILLION!!

I know which market I would choose to sell to. If push comes to shove, publicly held firearms manufacturers will have to choose the civilian market which is about 110 times the size of the LE market.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...nd-the-civilian-firearms-markets-2572408.html

During 2012, Americans purchased more than 18,500,000 new and used firearms. From all appearances, more than 11,000,000 (eleven million) of those guns were new.

The total number of guns sold to the police and the military is less certain, but some things can be inferred. To begin with, there are approximately 800,000 police officers. If their guns are replaced every ten years, that is a total of 80,000 guns a year. If you add other municipal employees who regularly carry, such as animal control officers and some inspectors, you have a potential market of 100,000 guns a year.

Civilian market 11,000,000 guns vs Police market 100,000 guns

For progressives and other numerically challenged individuals, the police market amounted to just 0.009 percent of the total market for guns. A total that is, in the greater scheme of things, a fraction of the monthly increase in gun sales under Obama.

At this time, almost anything that can be persuaded to shoot will sell, but good times do not last forever. Success in the tough times depends on customer loyalties carefully built during the flush times. A gun company that ignores individual gun buyers in order to sell to police and other State sponsored paramilitaries does so at its own peril.

While the public may well forgive a company that says “we will honor our contracts but that is all;” a company that essentially tells the buying public to go to perdition is likely to be very “lite” indeed. “Lite” of customers.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent find. Hopefully these numbers register with more of the manufacturers. Something for them to consider, especially among the enthusiasts who buy regularly.
 
It would also be interesting to see how many guns the federal government buys from these same companies and how much is spent for spare parts. Maybe these companies can tell the government that they will honor their contracts but due to shortages caused by the current administration the deliveries wil be delayed for, say, four years.........
 
Beretta USA apparently has joined the side of not selling to LEO and federal agencies that serve in states that prohibit the sale and ownership of legal firearms. Good to know, reinforces my desire to buy a 92FS when funds permit.
 
An even bigger factor than that is the amount of profit / unit on civie sales vs gov't sales.

They make virtually nothing on gov't contracts, and add it to the price we pay.

WE CAN FORCE THIS ISSUE.

TREAT GOV'T ENTITIES THE SAME AS THE CITIZENS OF THAT STATE ARE TREATED.

Don't let anyone convince honest gun owners otherwise, because it is a fact.

Kimio - I hope you are correct about Beretta:)

I have, just now, sent another e-mail to Glock, S&W, and Beretta. I am telling them all we are watching. Tell them to stand with us or lose us - the ones they truly make their money off of.
 
Last edited:
As of this point Beretta is even threatening to move out of Maryland if the Maryland law makers pass some of the bills presented to them. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...eave-maryland-over-new-gun-control-proposals/
They already moved their warehouse a while back over this same sort of issue.
I love the quote from Ugo Beretta, “All I can tell you is, there always seems to be a problem with Maryland,”. Short and to the point, good man.
This is effective in my case in this way, within the next six months I hope to save up enough for a nice pistol, not the cheap ones I've been getting by on. I will now look twice at all of the Beretta line. 92fs for CCW anyone?:D
 
Not the typical boycott

What about a list of weapons and accessories to boycott for manufacturers that refuse to take sides? It seems like a nice piece of leverage for the average, gun enthusiast, Joe to use. Thankfully Beretta will not be on that list. This list could be updated and posted on this site as it changes... Thought, anyone?

David
 
Just got an e-mail back from Beretta

ISMW -

Decisions regarding Berettas sales policy are going to be made at the highest level, and at this time, they can not discuss what they might do.

CYA talk.
 
Approximate number of new firearms sold to Law Enforcement in 2012: 100,000 guns

Number of new guns sold to the civilian market in 2012: 11 MILLION!!

I know which market I would choose to sell to. If push comes to shove, publicly held firearms manufacturers will have to choose the civilian market which is about 110 times the size of the LE market.
Click to expand...

Publicly held firearms companies are in the minority. Some are held by Cerberus Capital Management which is a private equity firm. Granted, they are rumored and proclaimed to sell off Freedom Group, but that hasn't happened.

So you can bully S&W and Ruger as fire as firearms manufacturers as publicly held companies, but that is about it. You won't find ticker symbols for too many of the others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Firearms_manufacturers_in_the_United_States

Beretta really isn't getting on board, just getting out of Maryland. Notice they are not listed here...
http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

Yes, they have threatened to move out of Maryland, but only because proposed Maryland laws will make a lot of guns they make there illegal, or their capacities illegal, plus add liability to the manufacturer at the state level for the transportation and selling of guns. To move out of the state isn't so much a protest as it is a shrewd financial move that would reduce significant financial risk. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...eave-maryland-over-new-gun-control-proposals/

I have yet to see anything that says they won't sell to LE agencies, state, or federal agencies because of gun laws.

Also note on thepoliceloophole.com link at all the companies that are ONLY not selling in the state where they are located, New York. They are still selling to other anti-gun states when they can.
 
I would doubt that Beretta, and other international firearm companies really pick a side in this fight... It would not be popular for, say Beretta, to support certain things in the USA, say, like take a stand against registration (or whatever idea you have) and then sell the same firearms in another country with stricter laws for registration, just an example. Just my thoughts... Now could Beretta move out of Md due to cost cutting and avoiding future liability due to laws being considered? Of course.

Also, the close the police loophole thing, may get some traction, but IMO should be targeted directly at the state and fed agencies, instead of from state down to local, since its typically the states or feds that initiate the new laws. Its also odd, that after all these years, it is gaining traction. There has been a law enforcement loophole for years in one way or another, going back to 1968. Perhaps longer...

_________________

What's being argued right now:
AWB

Mag restrictions

Background checks

What's included in the law enforcement loophole:
Generally an exception for duty use for "assault weapons."

Generally an exception for duty use for standard, or "High" capacity mags.

Difference in background checks for a duty use firearm.

Ability for law enforcement to purchase by mail on letterhead from a distributor or manufacturer, without a local FFL dealer or distributor being involved.

An exception for duty use on post 86 full auto and select fire firearms.

Also there is the exception for the import restrictions such as those on the Glock 380's which are why they are sold to law enforcement only instead of direct import.

________________

With the above said, (I didn't include every exception for law enforcement, just a few big ones) its doubtful that the larger companies will hold to closing the "law enforcement loophole" since they have been enjoying the sales from such for years.

What would stop a company from saying that they will cut-off sales of say AR-15's to law enforcement, but then say "(Cough, Cough) Let us sell you some M-16's or M-4's instead?" That company could say they upheld their pledge not to sell so-called "assault weapons" to law enforcement, but they back door'd the NFA stuff in private. If pushed on the issue all the company would have to say was, "we kept our pledge to not sell assault weapons if a new law is passed on them, but there is not a new law on NFA firearms, so we sold them that, so it didn't violate our pledge."

Also, for this to be effective it would have to include restricting sales to the military. No, I am not against the military at all, but... The military and the feds have a system already in place to either gift or loan firearms, such as M-16's, etc. to local law enforcement, which also includes other firearms as well. So instead of law enforcement purchasing directly from a company, it would instead be getting more equipment from the feds/military, since that would be their source if every company cut-off law enforcement.

edit to add:

I'm not trying to sound all doom and gloom as far as this topic goes. Just trying to be realistic about things. We can debate "who buys more" all day long, and there will still be a select few companies that keep going after government contracts. As I mentioned already about the military long-term loaning firearms to law enforcement, it would be silly for FNH to give up the contract it just got for M-4's, because at some point, some of them would be given a long term loan to law enforcement, just as M-16's are loaned out to law enforcement today.

(Side note. If you want to read an article about it the new M4 contract. Link is below)
http://kitup.military.com/2013/02/army-awards-m4m4a1-contract-fn.html

What I am getting at is, this will become mostly just an obstacle to overcome for law enforcement, instead of a major problem. While I am glad to see the strong sales for firearms/ammo to the general public, and I really hope it continues, in the past its always come back down to a more reasonable level. There will always be at least a small handful of firearm companies who will go after government contracts, military, fed, state, and local. Even for the smallest law enforcement agencies, they would still be able to piggy-back on to a larger order in the future, just as some do now for firearms/ammo.

What am I doing to try to keep any new restrictions from coming forth? I'm working with those in law enforcement I know, and trying to win those few over who are on the edge...It may surprise some folks, but the majority of law enforcement here are very pro-gun. The main issue are the dept heads, which we all know has a good bit of politics in it, and as such, it may/may not represent the rank and file. We are all in this together. I just don't see a need to divide folks in to different sides.
 
Last edited:
I think its really a question of market and what the bottom line says... It might or might not be that a given brand sells so much in the US that whatever looses it might take in another nation could be trivial.

Some companies certainly have the moral courage to stand regardless of the bottom line, others will see the wisdom of supporting the largest number of customers and some will try to not take sides... For myself my dollars will go to those who stand with us and I will long remember them...

Where is Glock on this thing they have a huge market share?
 
Where is Glock on this thing they have a huge market share?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked that...As I mentioned previously, the so called "law enforcement loophole" covers more then just 'assault weapons' and 'standard capacity mags' and goes on to cover various other issues.

That's kind of simple. Just look at their website... When you look up the Glock 25, it mentions under technical data
For US market: Law Enforcement and Goverment Agency sales only
Click to expand...

http://www.glock.com/english/glock25_tech.htm

So, a Glock 25 is available to law enforcement and government agencies, but not to everyone else... (the reason why its law enforcement/government agency is that it doesn't meet the point count for the import restriction)

Heck, its just a .380!!! If Glock didn't support exempting law enforcement/government sales from the import restrictions, they wouldn't list it on their website for law enforcement/government sales only would they? You think they would not continue exempting law enforcement/government sales for various reasons in the future, as they already have done for a while now?
 
Last edited:
Where is Glock on this thing they have a huge market share?


Glock is a business selling a commodity, not a 2nd Amendment advocacy group. They (like any rationally managed large business) is going to sell their commodity to anyone who will buy it. Add to that the fact that they are a non-US corporation with absolutely no "Corporate Patriotism" (if such a thing exists) and you can rest assured that although they might pay some lip service to our side, they are not going to back it up with anything affecting their traditional bottom line.

While I appreciate small companies who have taken the opposite stand, let's remember that they are small specialty manufacturers who can sell their entire production capacity selectively, thus not impacting their bottom line. A major manufacturer with enormous production capacity is not in the same position. They need to keep their numbers up, and they will do that by selling to anyone who wil buy their goods.

There's a huge difference between managing a company the size of, say, Barrett, who no matter what is backordered, meaning that his production capacity is always smaller than his demand, and who sells, say... 1000 rifles a year, and Glock, to whom a 1000 pistol order is just another afternoon-shift of industrial production and who can make goods in any quantity, and make them as fast as the customer wants to receive them. One one hand you have essentially a small machine shop and on the other hand you have an industrial behemoth.

NYPD bought over 40 THOUSAND Glocks. You think that they are all of a sudden going to stop selling to these contracts? That's not a rational business analysis.




Willie

.
 
NYPD bought over 40 THOUSAND Glocks. You think that they are all of a sudden going to stop selling to these contracts? That's not a rational business analysis.
Click to expand...

No, it is not, but the proclaimed arguments are that gun manufacturers don't make any money on such deals and that all their money is made from the public. They may not make a lot on the guns themselves, but such deals usually come with some lucrative service contracts as well that do make money. Sure enough, the lion's share is from the public. So the argument is that we can force the manufacturers to bend to our will be boycotting those that do not perform in the matter we so desire to the lengths we so desire, hence the claim, "We have the upper hand with manufacturers."

The problem, of course, is that gun owners are a staunchly independent group of individuals, a large group, but very individualistic. We have an abdominal history of forcing any business to comply with our desires. We have the traditional political memory of typical Americans which is quite short and we are apt to break down and readily cross boycott lines at the point we become inconvenienced.

I realize there are strong proclamations here of those who will hold fast to their values and never cross a boycott line under any circumstances, but the fact remains that for the vast majority of gun owners across America, they are just your non-super human average folks.

You see, despite the fact that we have the numbers, buying power, and American spirit to do just about anything, as a group we are completely disorganized, not goal oriented, not disciplined, and so do not do a good job of accomplishing group goals. As such, we do not have the upper hand with manufacturers. We have the potential to have the upper hand with them, but that potential will remain unrealized until we actually organize and work in a unified, concerted, and consistent manner toward accomplishing specific goals.

Cases and points...remember how we were all up in arms about how Dick's was not selling ARs or how Walmart is anti-gun or should being boycotted? How about all those gun shops that don't allow concealed carry that we refuse to do business with? How about all those anti-gun gun shows that don't allow concealed carry of loaded firearms? Somebody is buying all their ammo and I am certainly it isn't the anti-gun people. Somebody is buying all their high cap guns as well at an alarming rate. Again, it isn't the antis.
 
Willie, you bring up a strong point about the small vs large companies. Its good you bring up Barrett. Mr Barrett has been making a stand on any restrictions on sales of his .50BMG rifles. That's all well and good, right? Since we are talking about the law enforcement loophole though, it would seem odd (at least it does to me) that he still list the REC7 on his website, under the specifications tab, as
Barrett.net said:
Operation:

Gas Piston System
Semi-Automatic
Select Fire
Click to expand...

http://barrett.net/firearms/rec7

knowing full well, that law enforcement and military are the only source of sales he could have in the USA for the select fire versions, since they are post '86 rifles. I would have more respect for Barrett's position if he was completely one way, or the other. No disrespect to Barrett, or other similar manufacturers who make select fire carbines, and standard semi-auto versions either. But I would think if they felt so strongly about closing any "loophole" they would discontinue these post 86 sales too.

Also, the argument about how firearms companies don't make any, or at least very little money off of the firearms is not entirely true. Many folks see one company or another offering to "give" the agency in question new firearms, in exchange for their old ones. Pretty typical. One thing most people forget when they look at this is that the price is lower anyway, since most of the law enforcement agencies are exempt from FET, which drops the price. Second is the customer-company relationship due to liability concerns, which keeps the agency buying any need spare parts from the manufacturer or returning the firearm to the manufacturer for service.

So, lets just compare this "free" gun in a quick way.

Ed's sales Glocks (individual officer price, agency is typically lower)
http://www.edspublicsafety.com/glockindividual.html
for $398.20. the used Glocks that get turned in and resold usually bring $325-$350 in my experience. So your looking at a spread of $73.20 on the high end, and $48.20 on the low end. If purchased from a law enforcement distributor, add in some extras purchased at the time, or new holsters, belts, mag pouches, etc that are typically tossed in when firearms are traded and it drops that spread down even more. So the "free" firearms, really are not "free" are they?

As to the actual size of the law enforcement market, it would vary, but lets just go to Wikipedia since its quick for a number.

Wikipedia said:
2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million persons on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers). Agencies also employed approximately 100,000 part-time employees, including 44,000 sworn officers.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States

so, they list 765,000 for full time, and another 44,000 for part time, sworn officers. That's 809,000, lets round it to 800,000 for an easy number, shall we? Also, since Wikipedia didn't mention some folks who are not always included in the law enforcement sworn personnel numbers, such as detention officers, corrections, and armed probation officers, its good to figure that the number may actually be a good big higher then 800,000 for the total number.

So to figure out market share, we have an 800,000 number right? Ok, lets say on the high end they all have 4 duty firearms, pistol, back-up, shotgun, carbine. So 4 times 800k is 3.2 million firearms at the higher end for law enforcement. So we have the high number of 3.2m if every officer has 4 firearms for duty use, and the low number of 800k if they just have the 1 pistol. Also, how often are firearms replaced in law enforcement? For quick figures, lets just say either 5 or 10 years. Agencies around the country buy firearms at various times, so lets get a yearly number.

800k firearms replaced every 5 years, is 160k firearms a year.
3.2m firearms replaced every 5 years, is 640k firearms a year.

800k firearms replaced every 10 years is 80k firearms a year purchased
3.2m firearms replaced every 10 years is 320k firearms a year purchased

So, by looking at the above, the 100k firearms to the law enforcement market isn't totally off, but could be low, or just an off year for purchases due to other budget issues. Its a smaller amount then typical public sales, but the difference is, is that its a fairly steady volume for the most part, year after year after year.
 
One might wonder how many of these companies are still selling firearms and components to entire COUNTRIES who do not recognize their citizens rights to arm themselves...

Are we concerned about violating some law or legal principle that exists because it happens to be written down, or are we (and they) concerned about Rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top