Gun Grabbin:  DPMS

I had read of this last week, but it makes the Strib this morning and as a snarkline in The Glean:

My observations as an “expert”:

Remington as a conglomerate is a product of the modern age.  In recent years Remington was a part of Cerberus / Freedom Group, which were private equity ventures to roll up a lot of quality, old firearms brands into a larger corporate enterprise. Leverage efficiencies!

Since Sandy Hook, Cerberus has been trying to figure a way to spin off the gun companies therein.

“Remington” as the flagship entity for this is going to bring manufacture of several brands under one roof in a large facility in the south.  Marlin, DPMS, etc

DPMS makes AR-15s.  The AR design has been in the public domain a while now, and over the years several machinists in different places around the country built nice businesses making AR-15’s.  I think this DPMS guy was part of that trend.

RE DPMS closing locally, I doubt Minnesota’s business / taxation climate was the largest issue here, inasmuch as a few other northern states lost out as well.  I mean ,yes, DPMS went to elsewhere as part of a larger centralization plan, Minnesota not being the location chosen for that centralization.  But the company seemed to operate and compete here fine while it did.

DPMS leaving is not political per se, at least not with respect to the Minnesota legal environment.  Remington did feel they were hindered operating in New York.

These machinists / assemblers who are laid off at DPMS will have jobs in no time flat.

I hadn’t known until recently that ATK owned the Savage line, which is old and esteemed, but not Minnesotan.  ATK is similarly spinning off Savage.

I still don’t own an AR, never have.

I saw a guy shoot a deer with a DPMS AR a couple years ago.  He had no difficulty.  This notion of it being not enough cartridge for deer is ‘baloney’.


3 thoughts on “Gun Grabbin:  DPMS

  1. pm1956

    So is the AK design also in the public domain? Are there people in the US producing AK’s? I have always heard that the AK design is far more robust than the AR design, and that the AK was a much better overall weapon. If so, why is it not more popular in the US? Is this a Cold War legacy?

    just wondering….

    1. Erik Petersen Post author

      That might be a fair way to characterize it, though it came out of the Soviet bloc and I’m not sure they even contemplated who owned the design besides the Red Army. The Soviets allowed a lot of entities to make it and provided some expertise to do so in various hot spots during the cold war.

      Machinists didn’t take up a similar effort here to churn out AK receivers. I don’t have a learned answer why that is….. so I will try to make up a sensible one now…

      I’ll bet there weren’t a lot of AKs around within the US for gunsmiths to look at prior to 1989 / fall of the USSR. A lot of surplus AK / SKS came in after that, but then I doubt a US fabricator could be price competitive with the surplus stuff at that point.

      Another thing – I am looking around for a milling machine. They are abundant, and every Bridgeport mill deployed during WWII is probably still in operation somewhere in the country. There was this enormous machining capacity that was created, and expertise as well, and that’s how American guys who know how to do it want to build guns. The AK is a stamped receiver with not nearly as much milling. It is built with loose tolerances, because it has to be by virtue of how it is formed. It’s reliable in its way because of this, but it’s also kind of crude.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s