I started this thread on a UK forum and had some very interesting responses, I thought it would be interesting to see the response from you guys.
Seeing as the competition between our beloved British Daystate and FX seems to be hotting up I was wondering aside from their guns what was the thinking behind their strategies as businesses?
Daystate as I see it, subs out a lot of their components to CNC space in the machining industry, i.e. those who make very high end machined parts and have some machine capacity to spare, with the ability to produce the quality product Daystate wants.
Of course they stick to the reputation of Walther for their tubes which I think is sensible.
Mainly then Daystate assemble parts designed in house and made to a very high standard by subcontractors and hand fit them. This is very clever in one way because it requires relatively little in the way of investment of "big ticket CNC" machinery and of course less space, less in the way of very costly machinists etc. etc. presumably the very high level of quality control, is partly the responsibility of the subcontractor?
This hand fitted approach IMO is reflected in their product, it looks handfitted and I think it gives a little more of a "custom" product look.
FX on the other hand have a very different approach, they have invested hugely in CNC equipment, the Ben Taylor smoothtwist barrel system was looked at in depth by Daystate in the beggining, but adopted by FX after Daystate rejected it. FX also borrows from Ben Taylor or Theoben in reg design and magazine system.
This is also very clever in it's own way as it allows full control over production, with of course the ability to make very fast design/manufacturing changes in house.
Potentially curing design/function issues without waiting until another cycle or generation of product begins before introducing it. However it may frustrate others including me, you simply can't keep up with the product at the moment, I admit to feeling a little cheated by this.
However this approach also has great risks, capital invested, high operator costs, space and the need to pump out a lot of product to cover costs, this is fine when demand is high of course.
In my opinion again, despite the excellent styling innovation and function of FX products, they still look mass produced upon close inspection, something that I never feel with Daystate products.
On the other hand FX seems to react to customer demand very quickly, huge drives to satisfy lots and lots of variations on the theme. Daystate seems to take it much more slowly and release less product, not rushing into new guns continuously, but little tweaks, custom or special editions, something I love but I know some don't. Perhaps though trying to satisfy the market with lots of new products all the time as FX appears to be doing can harm your reputation in the long run?
I looked at the Daystate accounts published at Companies house in the UK, I think that their commitement to quality may cost them profit margin that they could get if the product was produced to a lower quality, but this is of course why they have been around for 40 years, the product quality is simply second to none IMO.
I don't know if FX publishes accounts in Sweden or if they are required to make them public record or not, it would be interesting to look that is for sure, my opinion is that profit is much more central to their business model, not that there is anything wrong with that of course.
Also for me Tony Belas MD of DAYSTATE is a great ambassador for the sport, I have never seen him not smiling at the shows, ever enthusiastic and willing to talk to anyone who approaches be it their biggest customer or the guy who owns one Daystate rifle.
I love the products from both companies, it will be interesting to see if they are still both around in another 40 years, certainly if you look at Gareths collection of Daystates (displayed at the UK 40th anniversary events) they are all still working well and have defintely stood the test of time despite being fully used, having said that the odd battered but Iconic AXSOR pops up every now and then still fully working.
From the feedback I have had on the UK forum the opinion seems to be heavily in favour of the quality of DAYSTATE products over FX.
Seeing as the competition between our beloved British Daystate and FX seems to be hotting up I was wondering aside from their guns what was the thinking behind their strategies as businesses?
Daystate as I see it, subs out a lot of their components to CNC space in the machining industry, i.e. those who make very high end machined parts and have some machine capacity to spare, with the ability to produce the quality product Daystate wants.
Of course they stick to the reputation of Walther for their tubes which I think is sensible.
Mainly then Daystate assemble parts designed in house and made to a very high standard by subcontractors and hand fit them. This is very clever in one way because it requires relatively little in the way of investment of "big ticket CNC" machinery and of course less space, less in the way of very costly machinists etc. etc. presumably the very high level of quality control, is partly the responsibility of the subcontractor?
This hand fitted approach IMO is reflected in their product, it looks handfitted and I think it gives a little more of a "custom" product look.
FX on the other hand have a very different approach, they have invested hugely in CNC equipment, the Ben Taylor smoothtwist barrel system was looked at in depth by Daystate in the beggining, but adopted by FX after Daystate rejected it. FX also borrows from Ben Taylor or Theoben in reg design and magazine system.
This is also very clever in it's own way as it allows full control over production, with of course the ability to make very fast design/manufacturing changes in house.
Potentially curing design/function issues without waiting until another cycle or generation of product begins before introducing it. However it may frustrate others including me, you simply can't keep up with the product at the moment, I admit to feeling a little cheated by this.
However this approach also has great risks, capital invested, high operator costs, space and the need to pump out a lot of product to cover costs, this is fine when demand is high of course.
In my opinion again, despite the excellent styling innovation and function of FX products, they still look mass produced upon close inspection, something that I never feel with Daystate products.
On the other hand FX seems to react to customer demand very quickly, huge drives to satisfy lots and lots of variations on the theme. Daystate seems to take it much more slowly and release less product, not rushing into new guns continuously, but little tweaks, custom or special editions, something I love but I know some don't. Perhaps though trying to satisfy the market with lots of new products all the time as FX appears to be doing can harm your reputation in the long run?
I looked at the Daystate accounts published at Companies house in the UK, I think that their commitement to quality may cost them profit margin that they could get if the product was produced to a lower quality, but this is of course why they have been around for 40 years, the product quality is simply second to none IMO.
I don't know if FX publishes accounts in Sweden or if they are required to make them public record or not, it would be interesting to look that is for sure, my opinion is that profit is much more central to their business model, not that there is anything wrong with that of course.
Also for me Tony Belas MD of DAYSTATE is a great ambassador for the sport, I have never seen him not smiling at the shows, ever enthusiastic and willing to talk to anyone who approaches be it their biggest customer or the guy who owns one Daystate rifle.
I love the products from both companies, it will be interesting to see if they are still both around in another 40 years, certainly if you look at Gareths collection of Daystates (displayed at the UK 40th anniversary events) they are all still working well and have defintely stood the test of time despite being fully used, having said that the odd battered but Iconic AXSOR pops up every now and then still fully working.
From the feedback I have had on the UK forum the opinion seems to be heavily in favour of the quality of DAYSTATE products over FX.
I know Daystate doesn't make their own stocks. 
