When It Comes To Guns, The New York Times Gets It Wrong.

              Now that gun control has become an accepted issue for mainstream concern, as well as a required part of ‘this is what I will do’ spiel for every Democratic Presidential candidate, it figures that our friends at the (failing) New York Times would start ramping up their coverage about guns. This past weekend, the paper ran a major article in the Sunday Magazine section explaining how Remington, one of the iconic names in the gun business, went bust due to the financial machinations of its ownership group, a ‘secretive’ private-equity firm, Cerberus Capital Management.

              I met the owner of Cerberus, Steve Feinberg, at the SHOT show (or maybe it was NRA) back in 2006 (I think) when he was first floating around looking to become a player in guns.  He said that his plan was to purchase multiple gun companies, then consolidate manufacturing in one or two factory sites. When I told him that the problem with thinking of gun companies as investment opportunities was that industry were always very thin, he said this problem could be solved by achieving ‘economies of scale.’

              As it turned out, Feinberg didn’t know much about the gun business, but according to the NYT article, he certainly knew how to make a quick buck. To acquire Remington he formed a holding company with money from the private sector, then getting Remington to borrow money which was used to pay back those investors (a.k.a. Cerberus and other hedge funds) leaving the gun company saddled with debt. The debt obligation couldn’t be sustained when gun sales went south following the end of the Obama regime.

              All well and good except for one little thing. What spelled the end of Remington was not just  the confluence of bad timing between taking on debt and declining sales. What was much more of a problem was how the gun company was already in deep trouble even though, according to the author of this article, Jesse Barron, “sales were strong and the future bright.”  If Barron had taken the trouble to walk into any gun shop and ask the proprietor how Remington products were selling back in 2008, he would have learned that the company’s future was already going down the drain.

              I got into the gun business in the 1960’s when companies like Remington, Winchester and Iver Johnson were name brands. Winchester and IJ were long gone by the time Feinberg came floating around. Remington was still holding on simply because everyone who wanted to go hunting with a bolt-action rifle or a semi-automatic or slide-action shotgun had at least one Remington in their home.

              Notice the phrase ‘go hunting.’ Guess what started happening to all those hunters beginning in the 1980’s? They all began to die off. Which is why gun companies like Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Springfield Armory saw the handwriting on the wall, along with the appearance of the European handgun imports (Beretta, Glock, Sig) and remade themselves as companies whose products were primarily designed for armed, self-defense.

              How did Remington meet the demand for small, concealable self-defense handguns? It came out with a whole line of large, full-metal pistols based on the Colt 1911 design which was never (read: never) considered to be a personal defense gun. When the Remington engineers realized that it was small, lightweight polymer guns that were pushing sales, the product they brought to the market, the R51, didn’t work.  And in the gun business, where everything is word of mouth, if a gun doesn’t work, you might as well close down your shop.

              If The New York Times wants to become an important voice in the burgeoning noise being made by Gun-control Nation, the editors might consider checking the content of their articles with someone who knows something about guns.  On the other hand, since the average NYT reader is probably not a member of Gun-nut Nation, does it really matter whether an op-ed piece aligns with the facts?

Advertisements

The Only Way To Avoid Gun Accidents Is Never Load The Gun.

There a lot of buzz going around the GVP community today about several gun deaths that were apparently the result of dropped guns.  One of the fatalities was a 16-year old girl in Houston, whose father’s gun may have discharged when he dropped it (the news report isn’t clear) the other was a 12-year old in Mississippi who came back from hunting, a gun was dropped and – BAM!

 

peacemaker

Colt Peacemaker

In 2015, the CDC says that the death toll from unintentional shootings was 489, of which 48 were under the age of 14.  These numbers may be off by as much as half, because if someone shoots someone else accidentally, state laws sometimes require that the death be ruled as a homicide even though the shooter isn’t usually charged.  But when a gun is dropped and goes off, nobody’s to ‘blame’ but the design of the gun itself.  But that’s not really true and the purpose of this column is to explain why.

Pardon me for a slight technical digression, but in order for a gun to go off, there has to be at least one round of live ammunition sitting in the breech.  The breech is the part of the gun where the live round sits with the front facing the barrel and the rear facing a firing pin.  When the firing pin is pushed into the back of the round, the chemicals in the primer create a spark, the spark ignites the powder and the explosion creates gasses which expand and push the bullet through the barrel and out of the gun. In other words, for any gun to fire, some mechanical action has to occur which pushes the firing pin into the shell.  Which is usually done by the hammer which falls on the firing pin after the trigger (which is connected to the hammer) is pulled.  Get it?

Now where things get tricky is in lining up the live shell in front of the firing pin. Because if there’s no shell in front of the firing pin, no matter how hard you push the firing pin forward, the gun simply can’t go off. When guns go off because they are dropped, what really happens is that the gun hits the floor with enough force to push the firing pin into the live round without pulling the trigger at all.

America’s oldest gun manufacturer, Colt, became famous for its Single Action Army revolver called the “Peacemaker’ or the gun that ‘won the West.’ It was known as the ‘six-shooter’ but we called it the ‘five-shooter’ because until the company redesigned its firing pin and hammer assembly, if you had the hammer over a live round in the cylinder the gun would go off sometimes just by accidentally touching the hammer as you went to pick up the gun. How many millions of these guns sold before Colt fixed the problem sometime around 1985? Remington finally settled a 20-year class action suit because the bolt in most of its hunting rifles had a funny way of going off even with the safety switch on.

The gun industry has been patting itself on the back of late, claiming that accidental gun deaths have declined to ‘historic lows,’ a result, of course, of the safety programs run by the NRA and the NSSF. I suspect that what’s also behind the decline is the spread of child access prevention (CAP) laws, but those laws penalize the gun owner if an underage person grabs a gun.  How many times does the gun owner himself or a friend lose an arm, a leg or a life because – oops! – I dropped the gun?

You can design or redesign the safety mechanism all you want, but a gun is a mechanical device and mechanical devices sometimes don’t work the way they should.  I don’t know how many of the 40 million American gun owners pick up one of their guns each day, but the more guns that are picked up, the more that will drop on the floor.