I'm an old HK user - bought a HK91 when they were less than a Remington 700, $160 to $240+.
HK was originally a sewing machine manufacturer who bid into the government contract. There was interest to use the STG45/CETME from Spain because it was originally German in design to begin with, something Harold Vorgrimmler started late in the war. Wehrmacht firearms designers had so much opposition to the whole 8MM short and assault rifle from Hitler they equipped his personal security guard with them. And he relented. Up until the design came back in the early '50's, HK had no input.
Some of the criticism of ergo's, service, and pricing is legit - but as was said in the linked article, much of that came after HK was sold. Again, some core management decisions came from others. I don't understand why HK's seem to have high prices any more than Kimber, William Henry knives, or Mercedes other than they can charge what the market will bear. It seems to bear it pretty well.
I have seen the pictures on the weapons contract where Makarovs, et al, are being ground up, but I have not seen the direct language of the contract yet. Many European countries destroy weapons rather than bother with reselling them on the market, or when disarming their citizens, like Australia. It's sometimes political pressure from the government that sets the standard in contracts - just like the Italians linking the Med Fleets R&R port to the M9 Beretta contract.
If you want to blame someone for attitude and high prices, the liability insurers to the firearms makers seem to deserve more, or the car/house liability insurers, who directly link your credit rating to the payment. How 'bout those pharmaceutical companies who are making more profit this year than the oil companies, dollar for dollar, and have for decades? How's that? Yeah, pill makers have historically made way more than oil.
I think HK deserves more understanding from gun enthusiasts. Like Colt and Ruger, where would we be if they had never been in business?
HK was originally a sewing machine manufacturer who bid into the government contract. There was interest to use the STG45/CETME from Spain because it was originally German in design to begin with, something Harold Vorgrimmler started late in the war. Wehrmacht firearms designers had so much opposition to the whole 8MM short and assault rifle from Hitler they equipped his personal security guard with them. And he relented. Up until the design came back in the early '50's, HK had no input.
Some of the criticism of ergo's, service, and pricing is legit - but as was said in the linked article, much of that came after HK was sold. Again, some core management decisions came from others. I don't understand why HK's seem to have high prices any more than Kimber, William Henry knives, or Mercedes other than they can charge what the market will bear. It seems to bear it pretty well.
I have seen the pictures on the weapons contract where Makarovs, et al, are being ground up, but I have not seen the direct language of the contract yet. Many European countries destroy weapons rather than bother with reselling them on the market, or when disarming their citizens, like Australia. It's sometimes political pressure from the government that sets the standard in contracts - just like the Italians linking the Med Fleets R&R port to the M9 Beretta contract.
If you want to blame someone for attitude and high prices, the liability insurers to the firearms makers seem to deserve more, or the car/house liability insurers, who directly link your credit rating to the payment. How 'bout those pharmaceutical companies who are making more profit this year than the oil companies, dollar for dollar, and have for decades? How's that? Yeah, pill makers have historically made way more than oil.
I think HK deserves more understanding from gun enthusiasts. Like Colt and Ruger, where would we be if they had never been in business?
:banghead:
