Hacker News Reader

Comment by TallGuyShort | Hacker News Reader

Let's see, 3 for 3-gun matches, 1 more for PCC matches, 1 more for precision matches, a few extra if I don't compete in the same class for all of those, 1 the kids can shoot, 1 for my wife to carry, 1 for me to carry, bigger ones for the house and cabin, a few extras for the zombie apocalypse.

No, there's plenty of demand for guns. Remington's just lost their former reputation.

View on HN

> Remington's just lost their former reputation

This is pretty much it. Sad, considering I own a fine bolt-action paper puncher from Remington in .223. But it's no more complex than what you pointed out.

Lol, you forgot to mention buying ones for family and friends, like Matt Carriker of offtheranch channel.

I agree free market (with certain safeguards) is usually the best path for a society to sustain itself and prosper.

But I feel private equity firms are definitely not good for a free market to sustain itself. And yet they and their lobbyists will insist free market is the best for our society, use that line to prevent any regulations over what they do.

I don't see the market not sustaining itself, though. As a consumer, if I'm not satisfied with Remington, I just buy a Mossberg instead of an 870, or a Bergara instead of a 700, or literally anything but an XD. There's a lesson to be learned that if you open your investment to the public or get in bed with a private equity firm, you may now be pressured or forced into short-term thinking that isn't aligned with your long-term vision. But I don't see this as a failure of the market. In a free market, losers lose.

Yep. The gun market is saturated right now. Literally everything that Remington makes is also made by half a dozen (or more) competing companies. If they make stupid decisions and build garbage, that's tough for them.

We don't have any pity for auto manufacturers who make garbage and lose badly. Why would anyone have pity for gun manufacturers who do the same?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com