This is going to make me sound like I'm off my proverbial rocker and hitting the "devil's weed" and I assure you I have not been doing any of that noise (although maybe I should have been).
I'll post it here first since I usually haunt SH more than other forums but here I go...
I'm sure many of us are familiar with the term "big tobacco" and are old enough to remember when that term came into existence. For those younger- essentially there was a point a couple of decades ago when it was financially lucrative to sue Tobacco companies for health "ailments" (and guess what- the courts agreed with the plaintiffs). So eventually the major Tobacco companies figured out that after decades of competing against each other- when it came to this one particular situation it might be better for them to pool their money together to combat these legal charges.
I'm not arguing that they were right or wrong either, just that they all figured out that they had a common interest in pooling there (otherwise insane) amounts of money together and fighting the lawsuits collectively. I'm sure I'll miss a few but Philip Morris (Marlboro), RJ Reynods (Camel), and plenty others pulled their resources together to fight, not only for their individual companies but for their industry (and arguably that was a successful business decision that I don't seem to recall ever being discussed much).
So with that said- let's "fast forward to today" and change the party of discussion from tobacco companies producing cigarettes to ammunition companies producing (specifically handgun) ammunition. I'm not arguing that ammunition manufacturers are creating a product that gives their customers base cancer through scientific evaluation, what I'm questioning is whether they figured out (either directly or indirectly) that they'd all be better served focusing on one pistol caliber as the (end all be all) rather than competing against each other on a half dozen+ calibers.
Think about it- You're ammunition company 'A' & I'm ammunition company 'B'. We're both competing in the same pistol caliber market, we're both fighting the same legal battles for making "cop killer" or "extra deadly" self defense bullets. We're also manufacturing competing products in 25 ACP, 32 ACP, 380 ACP, 9x19mm, 40 S&W, 357 SIG, 45 GAP, 45 ACP, 50 AE, etc etc. and doing so for decades- the 9mm/40 S&W/357 SIG/45 ACP dominates the market preferences and concerns AND you find a way to bridge the proverbial chasm between your two largest market segments- 9mm & 45 ACP and you now have a 9x19 that can meet the current performance standards of the best 45 ACP (never mind that nobody cared to invest in developing the 45 ACP further than it was capable of 20-40 years ago because, well frankly there wouldn't be a financial incentive in that approach).
Well now you potentially have a "big ammo" situation where they frankly realize they're all being attacked by the same lawsuits and it's better business for them to "circle their wagons" and focus on less calibers (I'm sure that the 9mm being amongst the cheapest for them to produce is just a happy coinicedence) and then free their capital up that was previously spent developing other calibers towards their legal defense/company sustainment monetary requirements.
I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I don't know if I've ever seen this particular angle discussed before so figured I'd share it/ at least the concept of it.
-LD
