Is there demand in the market?

[Pinecone]

I picked one up (Chiappa .22). It does have plastic parts, but seems OK. No, it is not a battle firearm.

I just love the Carbine. I have a number of what I call "tribute" M1 Carbines. That is, somewhat based on the look and feel of the M1 Carbine.

One day, should do reviews on all of them. Starting with my Crossman BB gun I got in about 1967.

 

[BuildnBurn]

Springfield Armory sold their reproduction of the M1 Garand back in the '80s...and it was a fine rifle. If it had sold in enough numbers it would probably still be in production. There's been plenty of companies that have sold new M1 Carbines with limited success. Back in the '50s there a couple of repops of the 1903A3 rifle made but were of questionable quality compared to the real deal.

Basically...the tooling costs to build new versions of such classic rifles would probably be excessive compared to expected sales of a product that would always be worth less than the originals which are already widely available. I don't think the orange would be worth the squeeze.

You have to remember there were tons of military surplus parts, as in everything except the receiver dirt cheap. M1A's started out using the vast majority of surplus M14 parts.

 

[rseymorejr]

I dont think they could build them for that. If they were to build good quality copies they would almost certainly cost more than a real k98 or lee enfield.

Every time I look at a Luger this thought goes through my mind. I wonder how much a Luger would have to sell for today? $2K? $3K? more?
I honestly find it hard to imagine anyone could produce them today.

 

[noddaz]

Thank you everyone that replied

My questions have been mostly answered. And thank you for the Chiappa link, the M1 clone, reproduction, whatever looks like fun. And has a nice price also.

 

[lemmdus]

As a collector of military arms, the idea of having those rifles is that they served someone, some where, in the conflict. Maybe if saw action,maybe it didn't, but it was made for WWII or WWI. It served a soldier or sailor or marine in those wars. I do have a reproduction 1911A1, but that is because it was cheaper and I felt more comfortable firing a replica than the actual. Its the relic value that drives collectors to buy them.

 

[Samlab]

Uh I guess you weren't around back in the days of the mint unissued M48 Mausers that were available in the early 2000's. Full rigs with bayonet mint matching and unissued! Demand is price driven.

 

[Combloc]

Is there demand in the market for retro rifles? I know that some are out there (Like a Garand and M1 Carbine) but the prices are astronomical. (To me anyway) What if Mauser made a retro K98 for under a $1000? Or if Remington as a Hail Mary made a SMLE for under $1000. Is there a market?

Yes, there is. But the only rifles this will work for are ones that original examples of already cost a large sum. For example, to build an exact reproduction of a K98 or an M1, it would cost as much or more than an original. You could water it down to save money but then you're not really getting a reproduction but rather a pale facsimile. What's the point of that?

Two that I own that immediately come to mind where is practical are the FG42 and the MP44.

This original FG42 with scope has a value of around $250-300,000:


This essentially hand built reproduction cost $5000 without scope:


Here are the original and the reproduction together for comparison:







This original MP44 is worth around $30,000:


This reproduction cost about $5000 when new:

They are no longer being imported and I have seen them sell for as much as $13,000. That alone is proof to me that there IS a market for retro/reproduction firearms. But I think that the only way you will get enough interest is if you build a true reproduction and not a hot mess like HMG was trying to pass off with their version of the MP44.


Speaking of HMG, they proved (and MarColMar refined) the fact that you can also build a very good reproduction if you can get ahold of many original parts. Here are both HMG and MCM reproductions compared to an original:

There are no transferable originals in the US to my knowledge so a value cannot be determined. The HMG cost about $1500 and the MCM is currently $1350. Not cheap but doable for the average Joe. However, if all parts had been made from scratch.....not practical. How are you going to find enough customers to pay $3-$4,000 for a reproduction CETME L to make it worth your while?


Lets look at just a couple more.

Here is an original US made AR180 with scope worth about $3500:

Brownell's sells a "BRN-180" upper for $829 but it has very little AR180 in it other than the operating system. To produce a true Armalite reproduction today would cost as much or more than an original.


Brownell's PROTO model, while neat, is FAR from a reproduction and they've had to mark the price down considerably over time to get them to move at all:

The only way this poor excuse for a retro/repro is feasible is because of the glut of AR parts and manufactures in the market. Had they actually TRIED to make a true repro, they would probably get more interest but the price increase would be prohibitive so it would be a wash.


I could go on but I'll just close by saying what I did at the beginning......YES, there is a market but that market. But it is very fickle. If your retro/reproduction deviates more than just a little from the original, nobody want's it. However, the closer you come to the original with all its warts, outdated production methods and the associated collector scrutiny regarding a plethora of minute details, the faster and higher the price climbs. Unless you are a major manufacturer or are doing it simply for the passion of doing it (and there ain't much profit in that), it's pretty much a waste of time. Yes, it is unfortunate but that's how it looks from my perspective.