M17 - public availability?

The Marines seem to be more interested in trying to get enough M27's (the H&K piston AR) to equip very high percentages of their troops with them... and then hang suppressors on the front.

Oh, I get that... another Business 101 practice is taking advantage of uninformed or emotional buyers.

Click to expand...

So...SIG saying, "we will price these to make the best profit we can" should impress you with their ethics! After all, there's little more a business could do to educate their customers than explain their pricing practices so clearly, right? Bravo to them.

And, of course, a buyer does not have to be uninformed OR overly emotional to pay a premium price for an item which may be available at a lower price point later on. Buying one now, at a few hundred dollars more than they will someday be worth, may simply not bother an educated buyer in the least.

There's no moral imperative to buy something as cheaply as it can be had, and no moral failure in spending money in a way that pleases you. I'm sure every one of us would grasp that we could buy a bottle of Pepsi from a vending machine for $1.50 right now, or we could drive to the super market and buy a six pack of those same bottles for $2.00 on sale. Most of us are going to put the buck fifty in the machine and enjoy our beverage. It isn't because we're uninformed or emotional.

The Pepsi machine example isn't wrong - we have people lining up to buy CMP 1911's when they could buy one and have choices on gun auction sites right now. But, no, they have to have a "CMP" 1911. By all accounts they will not be cheaper and with a lottery will not have much selection.

Buying a M17 won't be much different than buying a late model manufactured P320 if I remember correctly, when the voluntary recall was announced SIG stopped production to handle the refits and there was information parsed to then expect the military trigger to be stock when production resumed. There isn't any profit to be made making two different assemblies with the civilian one tainted by a "defect" which requires abusing the gun beyond SAMMI drop testing protocol.

If the parts have different numbers then it remains to be discerned if that is entirely due to a different finish, rather than it weighing less or a different shape, the two functional criteria that make up the important factors.

Sam1911 said:

So...SIG saying, "we will price these to make the best profit we can" should impress you with their ethics! After all, there's little more a business could do to educate their customers than explain their pricing practices so clearly, right? Bravo to them.

And, of course, a buyer does not have to be uninformed OR overly emotional to pay a premium price for an item which may be available at a lower price point later on. Buying one now, at a few hundred dollars more than they will someday be worth, may simply not bother an educated buyer in the least.

There's no moral imperative to buy something as cheaply as it can be had, and no moral failure in spending money in a way that pleases you. I'm sure every one of us would grasp that we could buy a bottle of Pepsi from a vending machine for $1.50 right now, or we could drive to the super market and buy a six pack of those same bottles for $2.00 on sale. Most of us are going to put the buck fifty in the machine and enjoy our beverage. It isn't because we're uninformed or emotional.

Click to expand...

That's not at all what I was saying, but I love the High Road because it's always "I'll spin what this guy says so I can say that I'm right"... even if there is no "right-and-wrong-paradigm".

I was poking fun at a company, and claiming I wasn't interested. I didn't say anybody was wrong and I didn't say "consumers are idiots and you're dumb if you want one". I made an opinion on this discussion based on mark ups to garnish buyers who demand things because they are military but not necessarily better. I didn't bring up Business 101 or ethics/morals, I replied to them. If anything, I commented on intrinsic value of an item but no one seemed to catch that but "debate" me about things I didn't even mention.

And your Pepsi analogy is spot on in so many ways, but it is also not universal. I can also think of another analogy that would be the opposite and also be correct, but not universally applicable.
-Example: diamond engagement rings. Will a bigger diamond make a fiance love you more? Possibly if she's a gold digger, but it's an emotional purchase that has no value other than being valuable. You can't drive a diamond ring, live in a diamond ring, eat a diamond ring,etc. It has no other purpose than being jewelry/status symbol. In my diamond example, I would be making fun of Tiffany's jewelry for their insane ring markup... the same way I'm making fun of SIG for stating the obvious and admitting to trying to markup their product.

I'd like one with a safety, too. That way it can be left on a nightstand outside a holster safely.

I was poking fun at a company, and claiming I wasn't interested. I

Click to expand...

That certainly was clear.

But why in the world poke fun at a company for not only doing what is merely the absolute right thing for them to do in order to procure a good return on their investors' money, and the right thing to do for them to be able to win a military contract, and the right thing for them to do in order to acquire the necessary funds to continue operations, but then having the clarity and the honesty and the respect for their customers to explain that clearly and publicly?

It's precisely the "making fun of"/ridicule aspect that I find so strange. Hey these people are doing a good thing and are being really honest about it -- hahaha, aren't they silly?

I suppose you'll forgive me for assuming or implying that you weren't that conversant with business practice, but it was an honest mistake considering that we most often hear similar types of comments from people who seem to believe that a gun maker being out to make a profit is wrong or that there is some theoretical "right" or "appropriate" or "fair" price that a manufacturer should sell a gun for, and that to apply dynamic pricing to trends I market forces is somehow "scalping" or "gouging."

I understand now that you don't believe those things but I still don't understand why you would ridicule them.

Sam1911 said:

I understand now that you don't believe those things but I still don't understand why you would ridicule them.

Click to expand...

Short answer: The "fun" part of "poking fun".
Long answer: Satire, in its nature, it to ridicule a specific party to prove a point. My point was to ridicule SIG for what I find to be a ridiculous product.

But I guess I was being too harsh, because you're right. It would be refreshing if companies were more honest with their tactics, no matter how absurd it would be.... can you imagine if the local news admitted "We have no idea what we are talking about, but we are gonna ramble on to fill time so we can keep our advertisers" or the Pizza commercials saying "our products aren't really food, but you can chew them, and don't mind the stomach issues later tonight"... or even an auto manufacturer "Yes, we know this manufacturing issue kills people, but it's just cheaper to pay you in a lawsuit than do a recall but your brand loyalty will keep yo buying our subpar vehicles (talking to you Chevy )

Edit: But with this whole conversation taking place, no body better make fun of Springfield for their "Gripzone" or Ruger's "read instruction manual" roll marks, etc etc etc cuz it's their right

Ha ha! That would be might refreshing to hear, wouldn't it? .


"Attention: this product serves no real purpose."

"Warning, this product could be better, but this is easier and we just don't feel like it's worth the effort."