Parker Bros. guns from the 1930's

[J. Scott Hanes]

I couldn't go to sleep tonight so, WTH...I counted a couple pages in the I&S book for the time period. V-grade was highest. 287 total counted. Scanning the other pages, the ratio of V-grade was even higher
V - 96 - 33%
P2 - 68 - 24%
Ti3 - 79 - 28%
A5 - 8 - 3%
S4 - 17 - 6%
A4 - 11 - 4%
S6 - 1 - 0.3%
P7 - 1 - 0.3%
A6 - 2 - 0.7%
PP - 1 - 0.3%

[Bill Murphy]

Total gun sales, 1934 to 1945.
1934: 526
1935: 1047
1936: 1489
1937: 1305
1938: 542
1939: 456
1940: 431
1941: 500
1942: 249
1943: 92
1944: (2)
1945: 14

Total: 6649

Total of all high grades, BHE to A1 Special, 74. Double guns only.

These figures are from a May 10,1946 Remington memo from M.R. Warden to G.E. Pinckney

The projected loss for 1941 as projected in 1940 was $86,200.69. Of that figure, $34,096 was for VHE grade guns. In 1941, it cost $215.59 to build a VHE and its net price was $88.23.

[David Noble]

[QUOTE=Bill Murphy;
The projected loss for 1941 as projected in 1940 was $86,200.69. Of that figure, $34,096 was for VHE grade guns. In 1941, it cost $215.59 to build a VHE and its net price was $88.23.[/QUOTE]

I would think it safe to say the $215.59 cost to build the VHE is not the actual cost of material and labor for each gun, but rather the cost in relationship to the total cost of overhead of the entire company. If sales had been higher the build cost per gun would have been lower. If the company could have sold 1500 guns or more each year they would have made a nice profit.
When sales are slow it's the overhead that can sink a company.

[Bill Murphy]

The Charles Parker company supported the Parker gun business for most of the time the company was in business. The same situation existed when Remington bought in. The marketing plan was ridiculous from the beginning. VHE, 1935 retail $116.00, net $64.00. An examination of the order books will show discounts of 10%, 5%, 2%, piled one on top of the other for good customers, not even neccesarily volume customers. The jobbers and retailers made more than the company and they didn't have to build and promote the product. Remington had no idea what they were getting into. It didn't matter where the cost of the gun came from, the labor and materials or the company. The result was the same. Whether the cost of the gun came from the company or the "actual" cost of labor and materials, it was still more than they got from the jobbers. The more guns they made, the bigger the loss, not the other way around.