Joined
·
596 Posts
I am failing to convey some of my meaning here.
Granted they were marketed world wide at AFFORDABLE prices. How could that price been sufficient to cover costs?
It could not have worked under any other circumstances except those existing in Czechoslovakia in the late 40's It was surplus material, facilities, and skilled labor sitting idle or the gun would never have gone into production.
Consider that the steel, facilities, wood, distribution and marketing costs were all nothing (they were not) to pay the labor enough to eat and produce this gun could not have been done in the post WWII industrial and economic boom in the United States or any other country I can think of.
From the 1950's onward with the exception of a very few high end models all manufacturers world wide cheapened .22 rifles to be competive. This only reversed to some degree with the advent of CNC maching and new methods. Even with that, look at what a new Kimber, Cooper, or Anschutz cost and compare them.
Granted they were marketed world wide at AFFORDABLE prices. How could that price been sufficient to cover costs?
It could not have worked under any other circumstances except those existing in Czechoslovakia in the late 40's It was surplus material, facilities, and skilled labor sitting idle or the gun would never have gone into production.
Consider that the steel, facilities, wood, distribution and marketing costs were all nothing (they were not) to pay the labor enough to eat and produce this gun could not have been done in the post WWII industrial and economic boom in the United States or any other country I can think of.
From the 1950's onward with the exception of a very few high end models all manufacturers world wide cheapened .22 rifles to be competive. This only reversed to some degree with the advent of CNC maching and new methods. Even with that, look at what a new Kimber, Cooper, or Anschutz cost and compare them.
