TargetTalk

Freepistol wrote:Man, are you guys actually paying that much?

I paid $245 for my Anschutz 1407 back in 1973 or 74. I do like the aluminum stocks.

Sounds about right, with inflation, that's about $1300 today, which is roughly where the bottom end of the wood-stocked rifles are today (Anschutz 1903, etc).
These days of course the stocks are more complex, more complicated to machine (such that you need expensive CNC machinery, and design needs to be done in CAD). The accessories like butt plates can be incredibly intricate, and cost a lot more than a basic rubber plate. And the actions and lock-times are crazy fast.


Also, the cost of metal and fuel has gone through the roof since '73, so the raw materials are far more expensive, and it costs more to ship to the end user.


A rifle for $8500 will sell, but in limited numbers, which will be even more limited if it doesn't have clear advantages over the dominant market leaders.

gwsb wrote:I dont think a rifle can have more adjustments in a stock than current Anschutz or FWB free rifles.

I give you the Rifle Made For Total Control.
As I understand it, Richard Fowke who makes these shattered his left wrist such that he couldn't support a standard stock. The ability to rotate everything, and the complex sling-point/hand-stop allow him to distribute the force more comfortably and get into a position that his wrist will permit.

Hi:

I was going to request that this poll be discontinued by the moderators but some interesting comments were generated so I have kept it open. 3-P shooters are a smaller fraction of the U.S. target rifle market but they tend to be more open to new equipment and innovation than NRA shooters or bench rest shooters. That is why information generated here is so valuable. I was also surprised at the large number of views and the small number of poll responses. Which brings about another interesting question -- are there a lot more non-U.S. users of this site than U.S. users or simply, is the market happy with an Anschutz or Walther for their sport. Anyway, Thanks for all your comments!

MNshooter.

Since you asked why the voting numbers are low I can explain how I see this poll.

The information in the first post is not good enough for me to know what I am buying:

"• New action design offering superior accuracy and reduced group size
• Improved trigger and faster lock time over similar rifles on the market
• Premium hand-lapped stainless steel barrel
• Improved stock adjustability and improved shooter fit
• CNC machined for improved tolerances, fit and appearance
• Scope mount designed to maximize accuracy and require minimal adjustment when removed and reinstalled on rifle
• Sights, sight extension tube and scope mount included with rifle"

Similar rifles = similar to what? bleiker, an old anshutz?
Reduced group size is a good thing.
Improved adjustability = improved compared with what? Everyone has something they look at specifically when it comes to adjustments. Two points for me are stock length and action length. I also pick and choose pieces here and there from different makes to make a rifle fits me so not all adjustments are equally interesting.
Scope = 3P shooters don't need a scope. Which market are you looking at?
The last point is not important to me since I already have sights and a tube. I assume here that the mounting will be universal? or at least fit some of the makes out there?

Overall, I don't know where it stands compared with the GE Racer, or even a 2700. So therefore I can't vote.
This is not critique against the actual rifle, just the information given. If the rifle is better than other makes it will sell no matter what the price is. People are always look for something better. How many you sell is a combination of marketing, price, specs, service, location etc which a previous comment mentioned.


About the views. You can see the same thing happen on most topics, lots of views but not so many posts. Not everyone wants to interact and reply on posts, some are happy with just reading what other think and maybe learn more. And yes, there are lots of non-U.S. visitors here (like me)

EJ pretty much pegged where I was going in my previous 'catch 22' allusion. In order to sell to the top end of the market, essentially a subset of a subset of a subset of shooters, you need verifiable benchmarked performance against peers, the Anschutz, Bleiker's etc. of the world. This probably requires you to get a prototype of your product onto the firing lines in the hands of a few true world class shooters. (It also helps if you are one yourself). Once your prototype makes its appearance on the medals podium of a few world cups, the buzz will build and the very top end of the market may start experimenting with your product. Remember when Warren Potent first won with his Bleiker/Grunig rifle combo? Blood in the water for top end competitors but no mass conversion by any means.

Someone else made reference to how the price of rifles incrementally creep in to the upper price ranges. This is true for a bunch of reasons. We are comfortable with our rifles and a complete change represents not just an expense, but the potential for a lot of relearning. So, we end up tweeking things with (expensive) little bits of this and that in the never ending search for perfection. If we are honest with ourselves we have to admit there is an element of fun to that process. Witness how expensive AR-15 and Ruger 10/22 builds become, relative to their performance.

The point of this is, if your system has an element of modularity, like the current crop of rifles, you may eventually get product adoption from the (relative) ground up. This is pretty much how MEC/Centra models their business.

Good luck and good shooting.