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

[44 AMP]

Which gun maker has shot themselves in the foot the most, over the past century, or so??

By "shot themselves in the foot", I mean they have so misread the market, or marketed a product so miserable that it failed commercially??

Every maker I can think of has made mistakes, things that hurt sales, and wound up with them dropping a particular product, but which one do you think has done it the most???

right now, I'm putting my money on Remington.

your thoughts??

 

[Lohman446]

With the 365 fiasco coming so close on the heels of SIGs last fiasco I have to throw their name in the hat. If they ever needed a new product release to go smoothly it seemed to have been this one. I mean you look at SIGs reputation 20 years ago vs now. That is a pretty steep drop.

Course not like Remington either I guess

 

[carguychris]

If discussing GUNS and not ammunition, I think that the answer is glaringly obvious.

Winchester Repeating Arms.

The company was once a high-tech market leader with massive market share, and now it's reduced to a corporate shell, a mere brand name licensed to others.

While some floundering gunmakers have been bought up by others and gradually reduced to an indistinguishable component of their parent (e.g. Marlin), Winchester's leadership basically drove the company into the ground with a long series of poor management and marketing decisions. They simply failed to adapt to late 20th century market realities. They did it all to themselves.

 

[FrankenMauser]

Remington, at the top of the list.

Colt, Winchester, Charles Daly, Olympic Arms, and Taurus milling around in the waiting room.

Marlin as a solid runner-up. Sort of a special case: The ownership no longer wanted to run the company, and simply didn't care any more. So, they let quality slide until deciding to simply sell everything off to a company that had no idea how to build Marlin rifles...

 

[lamarw]

My thinking is Colt. From what I have read, they pretty much put their fate on military sales to the detriment of commercial sells. They are the winner, in my book, of the handicap parking award permit from bullets/slugs/birdshot to the feet.

 

[gw44]

Remington-Remington-Remington !!!!!!!!

 

[TruthTellers]

Glock. They should have come out with a single stack 9mm 15 years before they actually did. Had they, they would have cornered the market long ago, instead they were one of the last gun makers to produce a slimline 9. More recently the Glock Gen 5 and 19x seemingly have no purpose or features that people have asked for. Sure, the Gen 5 doesn't have finger grooves, but you know what else didn't? The Glock Gen 2's.

Glock has had all the money in the world to make new products and they haven't and I think that's what puts them at the top of the list. They may be financially better than other companies, but they could have made so much more by making more. Now they're losing market share at a staggering rate and they have no idea why or how to make it stop.

Colt. They lived off 1911 sales and AR's whilst dumping their revolver production, they stopped making the Mustang right around the time concealed carry was picking up steam in the US, and kept making the Delta Elita for decades when the 10mm was all but dead.

Remington.

 

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP Which gun maker has shot themselves in the foot the most, over the past century, or so??

By "shot themselves in the foot", I mean they have so misread the market, or marketed a product so miserable that it failed commercially??

The ones no longer in business:
AutoMag
High Standard
Iver Johnson
USFA
etc.

TruthTellers Glock. They should have come out with a single stack 9mm 15 years before they actually did. Had they, they would have cornered the market long ago, instead they were one of the last gun makers to produce a slimline 9.

You have to be kidding. About the only Glock that hasn't enjoyed wide success is their .45GAP models.
To Glocks credit they don't jump on the latest trend, but wait.

More recently the Glock Gen 5 and 19x seemingly have no purpose or features that people have asked for.

Huh?
The Gen 5 was made to meet requirements of the FBI.
The 19X was made to meet the requirements of the US Army.
So most certainly someone did ask for those features.

Sure, the Gen 5 doesn't have finger grooves, but you know what else didn't? The Glock Gen 2's.

I think everyone knows that.....but that's what the FBI wanted.

 

[NWPilgrim]

Most of them.

Remember S&W knuckling under to PC politics and the ensuing boycott and near bankruptcy?
How about Ruger and the 10-rd mag bans? Colt with the large AR15 front pivot pin and sear blocker (who needs crummy civilians anyway)? Unreliable American 2000?
Winchester and the 1964 "Who needs the Rifleman's Rifle any more?" and "Cheaper is better, who will even notice?"

But I think Remington has to take the cake with its poor handling of the M700 trigger issue, poor switch over to new tooling and poor QA on legacy rifles, repeatedly failing to produce a reliable handgun which was not their forte anyway, and not introducing competitive rifles in emerging market categories such as precision rifle (they should have OWNED that), budget but quality hunting, rimfire semi-auto sporter and precision bolt-action, etc. They also fell behind in bonded hunting rifle ammo and self defense pistol ammo, and precision rifle ammo just as those categories sky rocketed.

Winchester, Colt and Remington are headed for the "ghost of their former selves" status. I think Marlin will recover since they are so strongly focused. Ruger and Savage should be proud for having navigated both their traditional strengths as well as the emerging markets, some of which they helped launch. Mossberg has not really expanded like those two but still has remained strong by not being stupid. S&W has successfully regained market prominence in a very tough market segment due to change in ownership that listened to its customers rather than politicians. Even so, back in early 1980s S&W and Colt OWNED the handgun market. Now Colt is nearly out and S&W has to share with strong competition from Ruger and Europeans like Glock, Springfield, H&K, CZ, SIG, and many others.

 

[Whistlebritches]

Glock. They should have come out with a single stack 9mm 15 years before they actually did. Had they, they would have cornered the market long ago, instead they were one of the last gun makers to produce a slimline 9. More recently the Glock Gen 5 and 19x seemingly have no purpose or features that people have asked for. Sure, the Gen 5 doesn't have finger grooves, but you know what else didn't? The Glock Gen 2's.

Glock has had all the money in the world to make new products and they haven't and I think that's what puts them at the top of the list. They may be financially better than other companies, but they could have made so much more by making more. Now they're losing market share at a staggering rate and they have no idea why or how to make it stop.

Colt. They lived off 1911 sales and AR's whilst dumping their revolver production, they stopped making the Mustang right around the time concealed carry was picking up steam in the US, and kept making the Delta Elita for decades when the 10mm was all but dead.

Remington.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your Glock argument.If anything Glock is the shining light on the hill.They do what they do well,as well if not better than anybody in the business and at a better price than most.Glock has become a household name over the last 30 years.I'm a firm believer in continuing to do what you do well in competitive market.Their numbers seem to indicate they're most definitely doing something right.

My vote goes to Winchester.......a once proud company that today is little more than a breakfast joke.

 

[TruthTellers]

The question of the topic is who has misread the market and for 20 years it has been Glock. The Gen 5 may be to meet FBI requirements, but other than no more finger grooves, it delivers nothing to the market that previous Glocks or other pistols that people already own have.

The 19x was for the Army... and it failed because it wasn't modular. Now Glock is selling a model to civilians, who largely buy pistols for conceal carry, that has a grip meant for open carry.

I'm basing all my opinions off what Glock has been doing for 20 years or so as shooting themselves in the foot. The Glock of the 80's to the mid 90's was the opposite of "shooting themselves in the foot." The Glock since... not so much.

 

[Scorch]

Sounds like a Who's Who" list of America's gunmakers
* Remington- introducing cartridges or guns people like, then dropping them (5mm RM, BR cartridges, 280 Rem/7mm Express, any SAUM, 8mm Rem Mag, etc, etc). Or introducing totally nonsensical rifles and continue trying to market them in spite of negative feedback (Model 600 in 6.5 Rem Mag or 350 Rem Mag, to 660, to Model 7, to 935, etc). I never met anyone who wanted a rifle with 4,000 ft/lbs energy in a 6 lbs rifle.

* Winchester- drop the winners and introduce something new and amazingly mediocre (pre- to post-64 models, Model 12 to 1200/1300, 94 to 94AE, 220 Swift to 225 Win) or introduce a new cartridge that could easily flog the competition and not offer it in the best rifles (284 Win, basically a 7mm mag without the belt, only offered in the 88/100).

* Marlin with all the iterations of the Model 60/75. And dropping the popular models of the 336 and 1894. And dropping one model of bolt action rifle after another. And auto-loading rifles. And shotguns.

* Ruger for not fixing the accuracy issues with the Mini-14 and continuing to make a rifle you couldn't hit anything with. And for not actually following through with the 308 version (XGI). And for not making the 77/ series in 45 Win Mag or 10mm. And introducing cool new guns then disappearing them (44 Carbine, Hawkeye pistol, for example). And introducing awful new guns and then re-introducing them under a new name (P85/P90/P95/345, etc)

* Springfield Armory for claiming to be "America's Oldest Gunmaker" (as if we didn't know it's a different company) and selling only guns made in foreign countries (Yay! Brazilian 1911s!). And the "BIG announcements" that are totally anti-climactic (The New Saint! A totally new concept! Yeah, sure, except it's a Bravo Company AR. A base model one at that).

* And the grand prize- Smith and Wesson. Can you say MIM? Nuff said!

And the list goes on and on.

 

[KyJim]

I'll vote for Colt. First, they misread the market in completely dumping double action revolvers. They could have kept the Python as a Custom Shop pistol and limited production. Exhibit B is the All American 2000 which was their attempt to enter the police, high-capacity pistol market. By all accounts, it was an atrocious handgun and a complete flop. Then, of course, there was Colt's nearly complete abdication of the entire civilian market while tying their fortune to a monopoly on building rifles for the military. The monopoly ended and Colt almost did too. It filed for bankruptcy in 2015.

Their fortunes weren't helped when their CEO said in the late 90s that he favored a permit system for gun ownership which included training. This caused a boycott. Cot booted that CEO and got another one who also misread the market and Colt again shot themselves in the foot with attempts to create a "smart" gun.

Colt survives on three product lines: their single action revolvers, their 1911 pistols, and their AR15/M4 rifles. The AR15/M4 is the latest "newly-designed" product and it dates back to the 1950s.

 

[jmr40]

Remington has had the most marketing and management blunders. Ruger has done the best job of predicting what shooters will buy and offering them at good prices.

A lot of people get mad when a company stops production of their favorite, or won't make what they want. But for a company to stay healthy they have to produce what sells. Companies can't stay in business making guns that you and 6 of your friends will buy. And they can't sell them for less than it costs to make them. That is where Remington is now. They haven't had a profit in over 10 years.

* Winchester- drop the winners and introduce something new and amazingly mediocre (pre- to post-64 models,

This has to be put in historical perspective. In 1963 the model 70 wasn't anything special, for that matter none of the pre-64 Winchesters. In fact quality had been in the crapper since WW-2. Simply put they weren't selling. Remington was selling for a lot less and beating Winchester in quality, accuracy and sales. Winchester had no choice but to find a way to produce a rifle at lower costs in order to stay afloat.

When CNC machining made it possible to produce the pre-64 design at a price that would be profitable it was brought back, with great success. In fact the CRF versions made since 1992 are better rifles than the real pre-64's.

It was only after the CRF version was dropped that it gained a cult like status. If customers had been buying them between 1946 and 1963 this would have never happened. Can't blame Winchester for this decision. They were making what sold.

 

[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.

 

[10-96]

Seems odd that nobody has mentioned all the makers of the commonly referred to Saturday Nite Specials. Jennings, Raven, Lorcin?, Daniel, etc. They all started out with 'something' and had every opportunity in the world to build on it and improve instead of churning out the same old junk until they went belly up.

And it's probably been covered in other threads, but I still don't know exactly what class of bankruptcy Remington is going through at this point.

 

[Sevens]

I would also like to mention Browning... tangentially anyway. They are a success these days, but (and yes, this is a serious question) -- do they have any single firearm model that produces PROFIT that matches the volume of cash that the 16 million buck mark truck stickers, PINK buck mark stickers and those wretched, God-awful "kissy deer" stickers generate?

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.

 

[Water-Man]

Remington. Nothing else even close.

 

[TruthTellers]

Seems odd that nobody has mentioned all the makers of the commonly referred to Saturday Nite Specials. Jennings, Raven, Lorcin?, Daniel, etc. They all started out with 'something' and had every opportunity in the world to build on it and improve instead of churning out the same old junk until they went belly up.

Those companies were all using the same general design because they had the process and machines set to produce it as cheaply as possible and because the blowback design is the cheapest action to make for a pistol as it allows the use of a cheap cast slide made of zinc based metals.

There's really nothing that can be done to improve those designs, at least not within the financial means of a company that makes a cheap gun and really, the cheap pistol market was what those companies built products for and that was their niche. It would be like if High Point decided they wanted to get into the 1911 market... what's the point? That's not their forte.

BTW, most of them didn't go "belly up", they either had legal issues that drained funds or sold the business to other people who then renamed it or had fires that destroyed the factory.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Remington has certainly had some amazing marketing blunders and production issues over the past century. I can see why they are a contender.

On the other hand Colt originally produced two of the most popular firearms of the last hundred years - the 1911 and AR15. They then totally abandoned both markets to other manufacturers who made millions selling clones of Colt products. And what bankruptcy is Colt on right now? Not as many serious marketing blunders (Colt All American); but they sure missed the boat on their own product.