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

[SPEMack618]

Colt probably takes that cake. Ruger and S&W were able to bounce back from both ill advised political stances and were able to innovate in regards to product line up.

In 1996, did we ever expect a Ruger AR-15 or the S&W would have a polymer DAO service gun actually used by LEOs?

Colt, well, not so much.

 

[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.

 

[dogtown tom]

TruthTellers The question of the topic is who has misread the market and for 20 years it has been Glock..

Horsehockey. Just because a company doesn't manufacture what YOU want doesn't mean they misread the market. If fact there s quite a few people who believe the G26 is just as easily concealed as the single stack G43. The dimensions are nearly identical and the height is actually less on the G26. The weight is the only difference because the G26 has a 10 round mag.

Compare the G26 to other single stack 9's and the numbers aren't that much different.

I have both and find myself carrying the G26 more often.

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

Well so what?
FBI asked for, and Glock delivered EXACTLY WHAT THE FBI ASKED FOR. Whether you like it, hate it or deem that it delivers nothing more to the market is irrelevant. Maybe you should write a letter to the FBI telling them the Gen5 is no better than an off the shelf Gen4.

The 19x was for the Army... and it failed because it wasn't modular.

Wrong. The Glock entry passed every Army requirement for the MHS. It "failed" only on price. The Army said so. Sig offered the 320 at a lower price than Glock was willing to sell the 19X. Too many people like you don't know what the Army meant by "modular" (hint it wasn't just a FCG that could be removed).

Now Glock is selling a model to civilians, who largely buy pistols for conceal carry, that has a grip meant for open carry.

Well..........civilians saw what Glock presented to the Army and asked for Glock to make it available.

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.

Yet you've provided absolutely zero facts.
The fact is Glock has brought MORE models to the market in the last five years than they did during the "'80's to the mid '90's".
5th Gen
M series
MOS
G41
G42
G43
G46

 

[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.

For a company that has basically defined and then stayed in its own lane they do remarkably well at not responding to market pressures while still selling.

 

[Don Fischer]

Speaking of rifle's, other than Mossberg, Savage, Marlin and H&R, they all have equal success at it!

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.