I'm not sure how they'll be branded, but a MADE IN USA stamp will be on them. Also no worries about 922r compliance either!
I'm not sure how they'll be branded, but a MADE IN USA stamp will be on them. Also no worries about 922r compliance either!
yea, but all the $$ will be funneled back to the mother land through through Switzerland, little or no tax paid to the US.
google major corps that are doing this today...it's cray cray
google major corps that are doing this today...it's cray cray
try this on for size folks.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=20414
click the link to read the whole thing
Whats really going on here is simple: the US importer of Concern Kalashnikov arms, RWC Group, of Tullytown, PA, has the US rights to the name and to sell the guns, but RWCs boss, Tom McCrossin, enjoined from importing anything from Russia, and even from contact with CK or Izmash under the latest sanctions. It can sell the guns it already had warehoused and approved before the sanctions hit, but anything in Russia, stays in Russia.
Russian guns stay in Russia. Russian tooling stays in Russia. Russian ideas and concepts stay in Russia. So the only possibility is for them to be reverse-engineered here, unless RWC got hold of that information antes de the sanctions declaration.
Theres no political solution to this.
What determines whether these AKs are good is not the brand that goes on, but the construction that goes in. In the short term, the way for them to maximize profit is to build an el cheapo AK and slap Kalashnikovs name all over it. Presumably they have some arrangement with CK for royalties, in which case theyll have to escrow the money. Probably forever. This means they probably cant be the low-cost provider in the legendarily price-sensitive US AK market. But they can market their clone with the, Everything else is just a clone, tagline and see how that works.
In the long term, they might build a better and more sustainable business by taking care to make premium AKs with processes as near to the Russian firm as they can reasonably replicate; this also would leave them in better shape if or when the sanctions regime falls, but we just dont see it falling. And the market for premium AKs is some small subset of the market for generic AKs.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=20414
click the link to read the whole thing
Whats really going on here is simple: the US importer of Concern Kalashnikov arms, RWC Group, of Tullytown, PA, has the US rights to the name and to sell the guns, but RWCs boss, Tom McCrossin, enjoined from importing anything from Russia, and even from contact with CK or Izmash under the latest sanctions. It can sell the guns it already had warehoused and approved before the sanctions hit, but anything in Russia, stays in Russia.
Russian guns stay in Russia. Russian tooling stays in Russia. Russian ideas and concepts stay in Russia. So the only possibility is for them to be reverse-engineered here, unless RWC got hold of that information antes de the sanctions declaration.
Theres no political solution to this.
What determines whether these AKs are good is not the brand that goes on, but the construction that goes in. In the short term, the way for them to maximize profit is to build an el cheapo AK and slap Kalashnikovs name all over it. Presumably they have some arrangement with CK for royalties, in which case theyll have to escrow the money. Probably forever. This means they probably cant be the low-cost provider in the legendarily price-sensitive US AK market. But they can market their clone with the, Everything else is just a clone, tagline and see how that works.
In the long term, they might build a better and more sustainable business by taking care to make premium AKs with processes as near to the Russian firm as they can reasonably replicate; this also would leave them in better shape if or when the sanctions regime falls, but we just dont see it falling. And the market for premium AKs is some small subset of the market for generic AKs.
Last edited:
Lmao. Try.....'tax free US companies'
So does this mean that the President has done something useful during his terms?? Like growing jobs "the gun industry" ..
Laws of unintended consequences dont discriminate.
Truer words were never spoken.
So you are saying that once they are made in America they will make a few superior modifications which turn it into an AR so they will be better? I could agree with that.😄
The tax law is a little more complex than that. A US corporation that sells product in the US pays taxes here in the US. They can always do things to lower that tax bill. Things any business owner would do like charitable contributions, making investments in land or tooling for future use. And to create future jobs. Where the confusion seems to occur is when something happens like Apple. Apple sells phones and Macs and iPods and iPads, etc, all around the world. The new iPhones are selling very, very well in China. But then what? You sell a bunch in Japan, you have massive amounts of yen. You can convert that to dollars and send it home to Apple but then the US government wants a big chunk in taxes. Which has never made sense to me. A company like Apple is a true multi-national corporation. If they manufacture an iPhone overseas, then sell it overseas, employ people overseas, get paid in a foreign currency.... why does the US government think they should pay taxes on that?? Why would they? If you were the CEO and responsible to the shareholders... why would you allow that to happen?
So the result is predictable. Overseas US corporations just don't send all that foreign money back to the US. They keep it in banks in the countries where the product was sold. And use it to pay their expenses over there. To pay for the factories and employees. To make more investments over there. So the US doesn't get the economic boost which could have happened had they allowed that money to flow back here. And here is the even worse thing... what if a government decides to get super aggressive and pursue this sort of thing with Apple or Exxon, whomever? The obvious answer if you are the CEO is why do we actually need to be a "US company" in the first place? It's like the nationality flags they fly on ships. Doesn't mean much other than where they pay taxes. So if you try to enact repressive taxes on an international corporation (or super wealthy individuals) don't be surprised if they just pack their bags and go somewhere else. Is that really what we want to happen? Drive the corporations out of the US. Drive the wealthy out as well so we end up getting zero taxes from them? Just seems very self-defeating to me. Anybody who is worth a billion or so will have no problem living wherever they prefer.
So the result is predictable. Overseas US corporations just don't send all that foreign money back to the US. They keep it in banks in the countries where the product was sold. And use it to pay their expenses over there. To pay for the factories and employees. To make more investments over there. So the US doesn't get the economic boost which could have happened had they allowed that money to flow back here. And here is the even worse thing... what if a government decides to get super aggressive and pursue this sort of thing with Apple or Exxon, whomever? The obvious answer if you are the CEO is why do we actually need to be a "US company" in the first place? It's like the nationality flags they fly on ships. Doesn't mean much other than where they pay taxes. So if you try to enact repressive taxes on an international corporation (or super wealthy individuals) don't be surprised if they just pack their bags and go somewhere else. Is that really what we want to happen? Drive the corporations out of the US. Drive the wealthy out as well so we end up getting zero taxes from them? Just seems very self-defeating to me. Anybody who is worth a billion or so will have no problem living wherever they prefer.
Similar threads
- Sale Price: 1234$
