Ryan Busse. Anyone?

[Gerald Martin]

I read @RobG’s quote above to mean that gun manufacturers refused to display conversions and tactical weapons at trade shows.
Not that they didn’t exist or have been converted for years.

 

[Treeshark]

And now we have stuff like this at gun shows/conventions.

Sad to admit, but i think Busse may be spot on.

 

[RobG]

Sytes - I get your point but your post is way off the mark. I was talking about the gun industry's trade shows and what they pushed and what they suppressed. It's just a fact what they promoted and didn't promote at those shows.

Look, 35 years ago the Anarchist Cookbook was pushing these weapons, and back then the gun industry certainly had a different agenda than the author of that book. If you disagree show me some mainstream ads from the 70s promoting Viet Nam weapons to earn your "man card."

 

[hossblur]

I don't know what you mean by years, but had you read the book you would know that the gun manufactures wouldn't even allow them to be displayed at their industry trade shows when he started. Now they are heavily promoted. Do you dispute those facts? I lived through them.

Somewhere around 2010 the tactical rifle craze exploded like a flashbang, and Kimber accommodated demand by introducing four rifles that feature custom-designed heavyweight stocks and heavy-contour barrels melded to the company’s vaunted actions. Most significantly, all rifles in its tactical category are guaranteed to shoot sub-half minute-of-angle (m.o.a.) groups

-American Rifleman.

10 years to figure it out?

 

[hossblur]

Dood... Were you in the industry to see why it changed over the last 40 years? Did you even read the book?

Do a quick dive on Kimber history. Then let's talk about "changes".

Anyone got a Kimber rimfire?

 

[RobG]

Somewhere around 2010 the tactical rifle craze exploded like a flashbang, and Kimber accommodated demand by introducing four rifles that feature custom-designed heavyweight stocks and heavy-contour barrels melded to the company’s vaunted actions. Most significantly, all rifles in its tactical category are guaranteed to shoot sub-half minute-of-angle (m.o.a.) groups

-American Rifleman.

10 years to figure it out?

So what you are saying is that you're a youngster . The trend he and I are talking about has happened over a much longer period than 20 years.

 

[hossblur]

So what you are saying is that you're a youngster . The trend he and I are talking about has happened over a much longer period than 20 years.

No.

I'm trying to say, HE PUSHED THAT TREND.

Don't forget, Kimber was a rimfire company.

Then, when the Clinton ban hit, Kimber grabbed onto the 1911. Why? Because high cap mags were banned.

He, as he points out, won several industry awards. He facilitated, and greatly profited from TACTICAL WEAPONS.

AR, and tactical stuff didn't start in 2020.

Or in short, he should look at those 3 fingers pointing back at him when he points a finger.

He wasn't a third party historian, he helped create the history.

Let's not pretend he worked for Henry and just saw what was going on

 

[hossblur]

Sytes - I get your point but your post is way off the mark. I was talking about the gun industry's trade shows and what they pushed and what they suppressed. It's just a fact what they promoted and didn't promote at those shows.

Look, 35 years ago the Anarchist Cookbook was pushing these weapons, and back then the gun industry certainly had a different agenda than the author of that book. If you disagree show me some mainstream ads from the 70s promoting Viet Nam weapons to earn your "man card."

Got any pics of plastic stocked, detachable mags, deer rifles from 35 years ago?

Technology changes.

Or are we forgetting where 1/2 the deer rifles got their foundation? Mauser?

 

[RobG]

No.

I'm trying to say, HE PUSHED THAT TREND.

No, he specifically resisted that trend. If you ever do read the book you are going to feel pretty stupid about all these claims you are making about him.

 

[Sytes]

Sytes - I get your point but your post is way off the mark. I was talking about the gun industry's trade shows and what they pushed and what they suppressed. It's just a fact what they promoted and didn't promote at those shows.

Look, 35 years ago the Anarchist Cookbook was pushing these weapons, and back then the gun industry certainly had a different agenda than the author of that book. If you disagree show me some mainstream ads from the 70s promoting Viet Nam weapons to earn your "man card."

Rob, So what about the gun industry trade show is relevant to your point? What they pushed? what they suppressed? Look at each of those ads... Trade shows are the exception to their advertisement? So long as they didn't promote at a trade show vs an advertisement?

 

[hossblur]

No, he specifically resisted that trend. If you ever do read the book you are going to feel pretty stupid about all these claims you are making about him.

Did he? While becoming salesman of the year, TWICE?

What did you think he'd say? "Yes, starting in 1994, I resisted the move to tactical guns, it took 36 years for my resignation papers to reach HR"?

You could get, Kimber, 1911 for life membership in BHA. You didn't get the choice of a rifle.

I won't support him financially by buying his book. I've now, since OP, this thread, read his statements, listened to podcast.

I keep thinking Lincoln Project. Maybe Bill Crystal.

Grift, is the word I'd use.

Sorry if that offends his neighbors.

 

[RobG]

Rob, So what about the gun industry trade show is relevant to your point? What they pushed? what they suppressed? Look at each of those ads... Trade shows are the exception to their advertisement? So long as they didn't promote at a trade show vs an advertisement?

It is one of Busse's points in his book. If that isn't relevant in a thread about him and his book I don't know what is.

 

[RobG]

Rob, So what about the gun industry trade show is relevant to your point? What they pushed? what they suppressed? Look at each of those ads... Trade shows are the exception to their advertisement? So long as they didn't promote at a trade show vs an advertisement?

I see your question was about how my trade show comment about what was shown and not shown is relevant to my point. It *was* my point. You are the one that went off on a tangent because you missed my point.

 

[brocksw]

No, he specifically resisted that trend. If you ever do read the book you are going to feel pretty stupid about all these claims you are making about him.

Could you highlight how he "resisted" those marketing trends and then subsequently won an award for marketing? Not being a smartass, just want to understand this dynamic a bit better.

 

[Sytes]

If you disagree show me some mainstream ads from the 70s promoting Viet Nam weapons

Ok Rob, you requested - and it was actually a fun review of the wonderful world of google.

We'll begin with WWI and work our way though American wars, including Vietnam. All those fancy civilian conversions and actual military surplus / new builds (during that era) of those firearms.
Follow up of Brock's sincere Q as well. Don't bypass it by lamenting over this history of military / turned civilian weapons. I think that part of the puzzle is worth better understanding.















Thee "conversion of the Vietnam M14: AR-15



Toys sold for children in '68 - '75 (Added for chits n grins can you imagine the Remington suits over these advertisements? Haha!) Here is your "Man Card", Rob.

 

[RobG]

Could you highlight how he "resisted" those marketing trends and then subsequently won an award for marketing? Not being a smartass, just want to understand this dynamic a bit better.

I'm not sure how I can "highlight" it, he just did it. He kept Kimber out of that business for a long time. He told them he didn't want to build guns that would be found at crime scenes. I don't know why you think that and the marketing award are mutually exclusive. His marketing innovation was related to changing the relationship between manufacturers and dealers although I don't remember exactly what the award was for.

I also don't know why people are trying to paint him as a "turncoat" for backing out of an industry that changed dramatically while he was there. He gave up his career because he realized the industry no longer represented his values. At least that is how I interpreted that part of the book.

 

[brocksw]

I'm not sure how I can "highlight" it, he just did it. He kept Kimber out of that business for a long time. He told them he didn't want to build guns that would be found at crime scenes. I don't know why you think that and the marketing award are mutually exclusive. His marketing innovation was related to changing the relationship between manufacturers and dealers although I don't remember exactly what the award was for.

I also don't know why people are trying to paint him as a "turncoat" for backing out of an industry that changed dramatically while he was there. He gave up his career because he realized the industry no longer represented his values. At least that is how I interpreted that part of the book.

Hey thanks man. I didn't state that they are mutually exclusive. That's why I asked the question. Hence, "...want to understand that dynamic better."

If the industry was moving towards aggressive or predatory marketing that Ryan didn't like and was fighting against, it just seems counter intuitive that they would give him an award. But thank you for clarifying why he won that award.

So as a follow up for a bit more clarification. Did Kimber want to build Armament Rifles and his book states that he stopped/convinced them not to? Or was it described as Kimber wanting to market their existing models in the same fashion as the Remington ads that were subject to the recent court decision and he stopped that from happening?

 

[hossblur]

I'm not sure how I can "highlight" it, he just did it. He kept Kimber out of that business for a long time. He told them he didn't want to build guns that would be found at crime scenes. I don't know why you think that and the marketing award are mutually exclusive. His marketing innovation was related to changing the relationship between manufacturers and dealers although I don't remember exactly what the award was for.

I also don't know why people are trying to paint him as a "turncoat" for backing out of an industry that changed dramatically while he was there. He gave up his career because he realized the industry no longer represented his values. At least that is how I interpreted that part of the book.

1994.

Kimber made its name with 1911 pistols.

He quit in 2020.

What career did he give up? He didn't quit Kimber out of protest and go drive a truck.

Of course he wrote about himself in the most flattering way possible.

But the facts remain. Kimber was building 1911 in the 90's. The gun ban he supported, increased Kimber's market share.

Did you read Art of the Deal and believe Trump to be the greatest deal maker ever as well?

Facts don't care about his feelings. And the facts are, he profited for years, if not decades from selling THE 1911, the most widely used police, swat, military, tactical sidearm ever.

How you do that, then AFTER YOU GET A JOB WITH GIFFORDS, claim you were "against tactical", is so laughable, it's assinine.

I know there are dudes who "know him", but good lord, take off the blinders.

It's just shear coincidence that his "disgust", coincided with his new career. Just happen stance.

I missed his "courageous" stand, while still employed by Kimber. Where's the book in 2017?

Gifford's paid him to dance, he danced.

Doesn't show an ounce of leadership or courage.


Grifter. Not the first, nor the last

 

[RobG]

Hey thanks man. So Kimber wanted to build Armament Rifles and his book states that he stopped/convinced them not to? Or was it described as Kimber wanting to market their existing models in the same fashion as the Remington ads that were subject to the recent court decision and he stopped that from happening?

Sorry, I don't recall those details.

 

[brocksw]

Sorry, I don't recall those details.

The title of the book is "Gunfight: my battle against the industry that radicalized America." But the details of what he fought against and how he fought that battle or the specific actions he took, didn't stand out? Or he did not say?