Which Gunmaker has "shot themselves in the foot" the most?

[T. O'Heir]

"...delivers nothing to the market that previous..." That's pretty much the story for everything marketed in the past 20 plus years. Changing the chambering doesn't count as being a new model. That's been done by all manufacturers.
"...Colt originally produced two of the most popular firearms..." Three. The SAA is still in demand over 100 years after it was designed. Stopping production then re-starting it wasn't a good idea.
Mind you, Colt has been marketing on their name for eons. So has Winchester, Browning and nearly all the rest of American firearms companies. Everybody needs to remember that none of 'em are operated by "gun guys" any more. Colt Firearms is just a small part of Colt Industries.

[t4terrific]

Most recently Colt, Remington, and Sig.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

Glock has been very good about "staying in its own lane" Think of all the things people have clamored for over the years (external safety for instance) while Glock has simply puttered through making and selling mostly cosmetic changes. Nothing ground breaking. Want smaller? Get less shots - the magazines stay functionally the same and interchangeable up to the G43. Different caliber - no problem same design.

What's interesting is that the same thing could be said about S&W from about 1914 to 1985, when they pumped out millions of largely similar revolvers—basically the same design scaled up or down—and equipped most of the nation's police forces with them. During this time, their auto pistol business was essentially a sideline, and their rifle and shotgun production amounted to a rounding error.

Then Glock came along, and S&W arguably took the better part of 20 years to get their mojo back.

It makes one wonder if the same thing may happen to Glock one day.

[Lohman446]

It makes one wonder if the same thing may happen to Glock one day.

I expect it will. Despite the dalliance into the shooting sport and hunting lines which are simply mildly refined versions of their core line Glock is incredibly dependent on "their lane"

But the thing that knocks off Glock will not be someone "out-Glocking" Glock. It will be something new and actually "revolutionary". Caseless, something out of Star Trek with "stun / kill" settings, something...

[TruthTellers]

It makes one wonder if the same thing may happen to Glock one day.

This is largely why I say Glock, because I see it coming. Glock may have a large share of police and foreign military contracts, but they've been losing customers and that trend isn't slowing down and Glock isn't innovating to compete with the times.

They're also not trying to compete with budget pistols. If you put a $230 Ruger or a $450 Glock in front of a first time buyer looking for a pistol, which do you think will be chosen? If Glock churned out a $300 9mm... they'd be in a better position right now.

[Lohman446]

Glock doesn’t have to move near as many though. That $239 Ruger and $450 Glock likely have similiars costs of production. Even the Glock outsells Ruger. If you sell a $300 Glock you devalue the name

[laytonj1]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

This is largely why I say Glock, because I see it coming. Glock may have a large share of police and foreign military contracts, but they've been losing customers and that trend isn't slowing down and Glock isn't innovating to compete with the times.

Losing what customers? Per the ATF, their production in the U.S. has been increasing every year. Their production more than doubled since 2012. Plus, they make guns for a lot more than just the U.S.
They continue to gain customers.

And, l agree with dogtown tom, the ones no longer in business are the losers.

Jim

[laytonj1]

Originally Posted by Sevens

The WORST is a great debate. The most times -- I suppose I would argue Colt.

Putting the Single Action Army tooling in the alley outside the plant to rust & die while Bill Ruger dragged in a fortune in Blackhawk and Single Six sales might be my favorite.

If I remember correctly, that was done to make room for the wartime production of 1911’s for WWII. Besides, by then a lot of the tooling was well worn.

Jim

[Sevens]

How much would it cost the world's most legendary gunmaker to build a SHED?!

You make it sound like what they did was a good idea.
Forced, necessary, poorly executed? Perhaps.

A good idea? Ummm -- a "face in the dirt" failure.

[laytonj1]

Originally Posted by Sevens

How much would it cost the world's most legendary gunmaker to build a SHED?!

You make it sound like what they did was a good idea.
Forced, necessary, poorly executed? Perhaps.

A good idea? Ummm -- a "face in the dirt" failure.

I never said it was a good idea... lol, but that was the reason they did it. By then, SAA’s were not big sellers. It wasn’t until all the westerns in the 50’s that a resurgence for “cowboy guns” started. And Bill Ruger filled the bill.

Jim

[NWPilgrim]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

I'd throw in another vote for Colt. The only one of their products I am in the market for was manufactured before almost every poster in this thread was born. Some stiff competition though.

I will give some credit to another manufacturer performing the inverse IMO.
The modern Henry. Using a historic name is a crap way to start a company with no real ties to the original. A few others out there did the same and many of the historic names have little tie to the original company besides a small amount of paperwork, but starting a company that way seems in poor taste to me. But they stuck to the lever gun until they became a real player. Refined it, made small incremental improvements giving customers options they wanted and built a firm healthy company off the stolen legacy. Recently they have started to branch out into some mechanically innovative products while maintaining classic aesthetics. Listening to customer demands and developing products to fill niches in the market without exceeding their competencies. Also, their new models tend to work when shipped. They keep it up and the modern Henry might surpass the historic in reputation.

Kudos to Henry as well. But I disagree about "stealing" a legacy. I think they are keeping it alive at least. If not for them then "Henry" would be associated with 1860 or something. At least they give tribute to the legacy and have maintained a semblance of the designs, while delivering good quality and customer service at affordable prices.

Is it any worse than FN buying Winchester and having Japan make the lever actions for $1,200? Or Savage bringing out a "Fox" SxS that really isn't?

Winchester priced themselves out of the hunters' lever action market, European and Brazilian makers either did not get it quite right or did not have the numbers. Marlin got sold to the infamous Remington during the worst possible time. But Henry forged their way into the antiquated lever action market with "Made in USA", quality and superb customer service. And they did not try to come out with YAPP (yet another plastic pistol)!

[turkeestalker]

Gotta think John M. would do a double facepalm if he showed up and saw his legend had evolved to two pink kissing deer on the back window of a soccer mom's Honda Odyssey.

Thanks Sevens.. I'll be chuckling about that one all day!

[Emerson Biggies]

Remington, Rossi (Taurus) , and Remington

[johnwilliamson062]

Is it any worse than FN buying Winchester and having Japan make the lever actions for $1,200? Or Savage bringing out a "Fox" SxS that really isn't?

Absolutely not. There are lots of instances of using historic names and most of the players are just milking the reputation of the original company with substandard products.

But, why not Imperato Arms?
The Imperatos have handled this marketing ploy the best out of all those guilty, but I still don't like it.

[jonb32248]

It's a little obvious that someone brings up Glock being a bad company. They just don't like Glock. Instead of responding to the question honestly they speak from their prejudice.

[22-rimfire]

Colt has continuously shot themselves in the foot since WWII and now are one leg in the grave. Remington did it right for years, but once they were bought out (Post DuPont), things have gone down hill ever since. Remington really didn't have many firearm failures.

[HiBC]

IMO,Remington has made some errors along the way.Often it was a silly as choosing the wrong rifling twist.
The RSAUM's? on there own,probably great...but make them just a little smaller than WSM's? Hmmm.

The comment I want to make is about Colts SAA tooling rusting in the alley.

Technology changes. A Bridgeport and a good lathe are great hobby toys today.Sure,a gunsmith can use them. But you can't compete with the guy who has Haas,Seiki,Makino etc CNC machines. To contract work you need a Co-ordinate measuring machine,etc.
My early days in the trade,we dreamed of our own Bridgeport,lathe,grinder,and a sinker EDM the way some folks used to dream of 40 acres and a mule.Times change. Gotta have a tractor.

That older stuff was made with drill fixtures and gang drills,broaches,shapers,etc. Probably flatbelt and jack shaft machines.The tools were not fast and efficient enough to rebuild. The guys with the skills and experience got old,blind,and died.

Parts designs around a shaper or broach don't necessarily produce well from a CNC mill.

The old design must be re-engineered for modern production,or abandoned.

Perhaps MIMmakes very good parts,but MIM might not make parts that compliment a S+W K-frame or 1911 sears and hammers.

Ruger excelled at adapting the forged and machined designs to investment castings. Glock put the Plastic molding machine to work.

And,I don't know for sure,but some states might tax and bleed an enterprise to poor health,and labor contracts might finish the job. Retooling and producing new designs is capital intensive. There is risk and return.
The hostile and litigious attitude toward gun manufacturers makes for shaky ground. The EPA,OSHA,etc demand millions of $ be spent,or they fine you more.Then the Health Care debacle.
At some point,why bother?
That may be why Win,Rem,Browning diversify the brand away from guns.

[Slamfire]

For me the most frustrating was Colt. Colt was always behind the times. When I was shooting IPSC, which was before Springfield Armory or Kimber, Colt M1911's were the only game in town. AMT was in business, but their 1911 was so bad, shooters used to say put enough Colt parts in it and it will work The thing was, the Colt M1911's you bought over the counter, you immediate sent to a gunsmith for basic stuff. Like beveling the throat, beavertail, Bomar adjustable rear sights, magazine well ported. You could add aftermarket extended safeties and mag releases. When Kimber introduced their Custom Classic, which was tight, did not rattle, and had all the features that you paid hundreds to gunsmiths to install on a Colt, I gotta say, Colt was doomed, and Colt was oblivious.



Colt was non responsive to the Market, by the time they did something, like lower the ejection port, the need had been identified a decade before. I remember the one and only time I saw Colt at the National Matches. They had a table full of AR15's with 1:9 twist barrels. I asked why they did not have any 1:8 twist and was talked to a Colt Executive behind the table. He had a very insulting attitude and let me know how little I knew. I was told, in so many words, they knew best because they were selling so many AR's on the commercial market. He and the rest of Colt were idiots. They came to the National Matches and not one of their rifles could be used in the competition with any reasonable chance of success. The 1:9 twist barrel was fine for 69's, but would not function with 75's or 80's at 600 yards. The 69 grain bullet was outstanding out to 300 yards, but was too wind sensitive at 600 yards.

Winchester did poorly and went bust. They are a brand today. They are still behind the market. I called about a decade ago, asking why they only had five round magazines to their FN PBR rifles, because I wanted a ten round magazine to use in across the course. I wanted to use a M70 PBR with a box magazine for the mandatory reload. The idea of a ten round magazine had been submitted to high management, but not implemented. You can look now at that market, a number of bolt action rifles have taken over the precision market, and a ten round magazine is getting to be a standard. Winchester still has not done anything to offer a precision long range rifle built around the M70 action. While I love the M70, Winchester is stuck back in 1937.

[Sevens]

HiBC, love the post and you make numerous excellent points. I suppose to back up my frustration at Colt moving their hardware to the alley where it died, I'm simply saying that they willfully left the single action revolver market merely years before the American Cowboy love affair began in TV and movies and they missed out on the cash cow that took Ruger from a new upstart making a great little .22 pistol to a heavyweight in landscape that CORNERED the single action hogleg market. Ruger's only competition was low-buck import clones when Colt made no effort to reply to a rebirth in single action six-shooters.

I actually do understand factory floor space, trained staff, aging tooling and all of that, but it was still -- a net POOR result, and just "yet another" piece of evidence that Colt, in my opinion, has found the most and found most every possible way... to fail.

Heck, maybe this discussion shows us rather how Colt is a cat with 9 lives (more than 9) as they still exist in some form today despite history's most creative and ridiculous ways to fail.

[Don P]

My thought is Colt. Wanting to abandon the civilian market so they could concentrate on LE and Military business was bad enough then the strike crippled them. Can't say for sure if they could have done anything different about the strike, but 5 years is a long time for a strike.

[Kreyzhorse]

S&W certainly did with their PC lock fiasco. That said, Colt, the grail maker to many people, just never seems be to make a sound decision. That also said, if they made sound decisions would the demand still be there?

[Prof Young]

I don't think it's the worst, but Beretta shot a toe or two off with the Nano.

Life is good.
Prof Young

[Water-Man]

Remington.

[anymanusa]

I'm a mid forties guy who collects military style rifles, and from my point of view, SIG takes the cake. They used to be a company with products to envy, but of the last 10 years they have bungled so many guns that I won't ever look at the the same again.

They have nothing that I want.