Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(8) Commitments and Contingencies: Litigation In January 2018, Gemini Technologies, Incorporated, or Gemini, commenced an action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, or the District Court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we breached the earn-out and other provisions of the asset purchase agreement and ancillary agreements between the parties in connection with our acquisition of the Gemtech business from Gemini. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment interpreting various terms of the asset purchase agreement and damages in the sum of $18.6 million. In November 2019, we filed an answer to Gemini’s complaint and a counterclaim against Gemini and its stockholders at the time the asset purchase agreement was signed. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim of fraud in the inducement. In September 2021, Gemini filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss our counterclaim. In June 2022, the District Court denied Gemini's motion for summary judgment. Gemini filed a second motion for summary judgment, and in August 2023, the District Court again denied Gemini’s motion. In November 2023, we entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs on the indemnity and counterclaims. On the same day, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave, seeking to file a second amended complaint. In January 2024, the District Court allowed plaintiffs’ amended allegations of fraud, and denied without prejudice their motion to add punitive damages. In February 2024, the District Court set a trial date of January 6, 2025, which was later postponed. On August 15, 2025, we filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, seeking to properly name the defendants and to add punitive damages as relief. On November 6, 2025, the court confirmed that a hearing for oral argument on our motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is scheduled for December 10, 2025. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action. We are a defendant in two product liability cases and are aware of four other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed in August 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana, or the City, against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief, allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. In January 2018, the Lake Superior Court, County of Lake, Indiana granted defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dismissing the case in its entirety. In February 2018, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In May 2019, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision, which affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, the trial court’s dismissal of the City’s complaint. In July 2019, defendants filed a Petition to Transfer jurisdiction to the Indiana Supreme Court. In November 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court denied defendants' petition to transfer, and the case was returned to the trial court. In March 2024, a bill was signed into law that purports to prohibit political subdivisions in Indiana from bringing certain legal actions against certain firearm industry members and to apply to actions or lawsuits filed before, after, or on August 27, 1999. Defendants subsequently filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the new law. In August 2024, the trial court denied defendants’ joint motion for judgment on the pleadings and, in October 2024, stayed its proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals. In November 2024, the Indiana Court of Appeals granted defendants’ motion to accept jurisdiction of the interlocutory appeal. In December 2024, the state of Indiana filed a notice of intervention in the appeal, which was accepted in January 2025. On February 20, 2025, defendants and the state of Indiana filed opening briefs with the Indiana Court of Appeals. The City filed its opposition brief on May 23, 2025 and, on May 30, 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a notice of defect to the City on technical grounds – the City filed a corrected brief on June 6, 2025. On July 8, 2025, the defendants and the state of Indiana filed their reply briefs. On July 14, 2025, the City filed a motion for the Indiana Court of Appeals to hear oral argument in the matter. On October 9, 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals set an oral argument hearing for December 9, 2025. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action. We are a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada that was filed in December 2019. The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto in July 2018 and their family members. One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other victim suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The plaintiffs sought to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. In July 2020, we filed a Notice of Motion for an order striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety. In February 2021, the court granted our motion in part and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims in public nuisance and strict liability. The court declined to strike the negligent design claim and ordered that the claim proceed to a certification motion. In March 2021, we filed a motion for leave to appeal the court’s refusal to strike the negligent design claim with the Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In July 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay our motion for leave to appeal with the Divisional Court, on grounds that the appeal is premature. In November 2021, the Divisional Court granted plaintiffs’ motion, staying our motion for leave to appeal until 30 days after the decision on the balance of plaintiffs’ certification motion. A hearing on plaintiffs’ certification motion was held in January 2024. In March 2024, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Three appeals were filed: (1) our appeal from the dismissal of our motion to strike the negligent design claim; (2) the plaintiffs’ appeal from the order striking out their public nuisance and strict liability claims; and (3) the plaintiffs’ appeal from the order dismissing their certification motion. In August 2024, the parties filed their motions regarding the appeals. In October 2024, the parties filed their response briefs and, in December 2024, the Court of Appeals for Ontario heard the appeals together. On June 23, 2025, the Court of Appeals for Ontario issued a decision: (1) dismissing our appeal from the dismissal of our motion to strike the negligent design claim; (2) dismissing plaintiffs’ appeal from the order striking out their public nuisance and strict liability claims; and (3) granting plaintiffs’ appeal from the order dismissing their certification order and certifying their negligence claim as a class proceeding. On September 19, 2025, we filed an application with the Supreme Court of Canada, requesting that the court grant leave to appeal the duty of care issue related to our negligent design claim. On October 22, 2025, plaintiffs filed both an opposition to our application seeking leave to appeal the duty of care issue related to our negligent design claim and a cross-appeal of the dismissal of their strict liability and public nuisance claims with the Supreme Court of Canada. On October 24, 2025, the Court of Appeal issued and entered the formal order in the case, which was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada. In May 2020, we were named in an action related to the Chabad of Poway synagogue shooting that took place in April 2019. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego – Central and asserts claims against us for product liability, unfair competition, negligence, and public nuisance. The plaintiffs allege they were present at the synagogue on the day of the incident and suffered physical and/or emotional injury. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. In September 2020, we filed a demurrer and motion to strike, seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. In July 2021, the court granted our motion in part and reversed it in part, ruling that (1) the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act barred plaintiffs’ product liability action; (2) plaintiffs did not have standing to maintain an action under the Unfair Competition Law for personal injury related damages, but the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend to plead an economic injury; and (3) the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act did not bar plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence and public nuisance actions because plaintiffs had alleged that we violated 18 U.S.C. Section 922(b)(4), which generally prohibits the sale of fully automatic “machineguns.” In August 2021, we filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. In September 2021, the Court of Appeal denied our appeal. In February 2022, the court consolidated the case with three related cases, in which we are not a party. In March 2022, the court granted our motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law claim, without further leave to amend. In February 2023, we filed a motion for summary judgment. In May 2023, the court denied our motion for summary judgment without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs time for additional discovery. A hearing on our renewed motion for summary judgment was held in October 2024. In December 2024, the court granted our renewed motion for summary judgment and we later filed a proposed notice of final judgment with the court, requesting the court to enter a final judgment in our favor and to dismiss all claims against us. In February 2025, the court entered the final judgment. On April 8, 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of Appeal. In September 2025, the parties stipulated that plaintiffs’ opening brief must be filed with the California Court of Appeal by December 8, 2025. In September 2022, we were named as defendants in 12 nearly identical, separate actions related to a shooting in Highland Park, Illinois on July 4, 2022. The complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Lake County, Illinois and assert claims against us for negligence and deceptive and unfair practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The plaintiffs allege they were present at a parade at the time of the incident and suffered physical and/or emotional injury. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. We filed motions for removal of each case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In November 2022, we filed a motion to consolidate the cases for preliminary motion purposes. In December 2022, plaintiffs filed motions to remand the cases back to the state court. In September 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand. In October 2023, we filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In March 2024, three new lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. In April 2024, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the remand decision. In May 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of removal, and we filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. In March 2025, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion, ordering us to pay certain of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. In June and July 2024, the district court remanded the 12 separate actions to state court, with some plaintiffs amending their complaints to remove references to violations of federal law and asserting additional claims against us, including claims alleging violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent entrustment. We were also named in 13 additional separate cases against us in the same state court during the same time period, largely raising similar allegations against us as in the initial and amended complaints. In July 2024, the trial court consolidated all cases for purposes of motions to dismiss and discovery. In September 2024, we filed our motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ 25 separate complaints. On April 1, 2025, the court granted our motion to dismiss without prejudice with respect to plaintiffs’ counts for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act for lack of standing (with respect to the deceptive claims only) and negligent entrustment and denied all remaining counts. Later in April 2025, plaintiffs served their first set of written discovery and we filed a motion to certify issues for interlocutory appeal with the trial court. On May 1, 2025, the court ordered an expedited briefing schedule for the motion and stayed discovery. On June 5, 2025, the court certified several issues for interlocutory appeal, lifted the discovery stay, set an initial trial date for March 8, 2027, and scheduled a status conference. We also filed our answers to plaintiffs' complaints. On July 7, 2025, we filed an application for interlocutory appeal with the Court of Appeal. On September 22, 2025, the Court of Appeal denied our application for an interlocutory appeal. We filed a petition for leave for an interlocutory appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court on October 27, 2025. On November 20, 2025, the parties agreed to extend plaintiffs’ deadline for filing an opposition to our application for an interlocutory appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court from November 17 to December 12, 2025. Discovery is ongoing. In December 2022, the City of Buffalo, New York filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, against numerous manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of firearms. Later in December 2022, the City of Rochester, New York filed an almost identical complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe against the same defendants. The complaints allege violation of the New York General Business Law, public nuisance, and deceptive business practices in violation of the New York General Business Law. In January 2023, we filed notices of removal of the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. In March 2023, defendants filed a motion to stay both cases pending a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the NSSF v. James case. In June 2023, the court granted defendants’ motions to consolidate and to stay pending resolution of the NSSF v. James appeal. On July 10, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against NSSF in the NSSF v. James appeal. Later, the court granted the parties’ joint briefing schedule, setting September 25, 2025 as the deadline for defendants to file their motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss on September 25, 2025. We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any incident and any results from them or any injuries were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party. In addition, from time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, premises, and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $75,000 to approximately $50.0 million. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. We believe that our accruals for product liability cases and claims are a reasonable quantitative measure of the cost to us of product liability cases and claims. We are involved in a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit filed on February 4, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The action was brought by plaintiffs seeking to act on our behalf against our directors and certain of our executive officers. The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duty (for allegedly allowing us to become exposed to significant liability for intentionally violating federal, state, and local laws through our manufacturing, marketing, and sales of “AR-15 style rifles” and similar semiautomatic firearms) and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The derivative plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages, as well as reforms and improvements to our compliance procedures and governance policies. In May 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. On June 30, 2025, plaintiffs filed an opposition brief to our motion to dismiss. On July 28, 2025, we filed a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition brief. We were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed on April 4, 2025 in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Privacy Act, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud/deceit/misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied contract and fair dealing, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege that after they clicked on the “reject all” cookies button on our website, our website enabled third parties to place cookies and similar tracking technologies on their browsers and devices and/or to transmit their user data to third parties for their financial gain and other purposes. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages (including statutory damages), punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, disgorgement of revenues and profits, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 30, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. On July 11, 2025, plaintiffs filed an opposition brief to our motion to dismiss. On August 1, 2025, we filed a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition brief. On October 9, 2025, the court conducted a hearing on our motion to dismiss, and the parties filed an initial case management statement. On November 7, 2025, plaintiffs served us with their first set of written discovery. On November 13, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order selecting an alternative dispute resolution process, notifying the court of their selection of a private mediator and their proposed June 30, 2026 deadline to mediate the case. We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive, time consuming, and diverts the time and attention of our management. We monitor the status of known claims and the related product liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs for asserted and unasserted claims. After consultation with litigation counsel and a review of the merit of each claim, we have concluded that we are unable to reasonably estimate the probability or the estimated range of reasonably possible losses related to material adverse judgments related to such claims and, therefore, we have not accrued for any such judgments. In the future, should we determine that a loss (or an additional loss in excess of our accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, we would then disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate could be made, or disclose that an estimate could not be made. We believe that we have provided adequate accruals for defense costs. At this time, an estimated range of reasonably possible additional losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. Commitments In connection with the Relocation, we entered into a project agreement, or the Project Agreement, with The Industrial Development Board of Blount County and the cities of Alcoa and Maryville, Tennessee, a public, nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Tennessee, or the IDB. Pursuant to the Project Agreement, we represented to the IDB that we intend to incur, or cause to be incurred, no less than $120.0 million in aggregate capital expenditures on or before December 31, 2025, create no less than 620 new jobs, and sustain an average hourly wage of at least $25.97 at the facility. Further, pursuant to the Project Agreement, we are required to, among other things, (a) execute a facility lease and an equipment lease with the IDB; (b) cause the construction of the new facility at our sole cost and expense to commence on or before May 31, 2022; (c) incur, or cause to be incurred, aggregate capital expenditures in connection with the construction and equipping of the new facility in an aggregate amount of not less than $120.0 million on or before December 31, 2025; (d) cause the construction of the new facility to be substantially completed and for a certificate of occupancy to be issued therefore on or before December 31, 2023; (e) provide the IDB with a written report certified by one of our authorized officers, not later than January 31 of each year during the period between January 31, 2024 and January 31, 2031; and (f) make certain payments to the IDB in the event that our actual capital expenditures, number of employees, or average hourly wage of such employees are less than our projections. In connection with the Relocation, we entered into an accountability agreement, or the Accountability Agreement, with the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development and the Blount Partnership economic development organization. Pursuant to the Accountability Agreement, the Blount Partnership received a grant in the amount of $9,000,000, which was paid to us pursuant to a grant contract. Among other performance requirements in the Accountability Agreement, we committed that we would create and maintain 750 new jobs at the facility, measured as the average number of full-time jobs at the facility on three test dates: January 1, 2027, January 1, 2028, and January 1, 2029, or the Compliance Period. In the event that the three-year average number of full-time jobs during the Compliance Period equals or exceeds 90% of the 750-job commitment, no recapture payment will be required. If the three-year average number of full-time jobs during the Compliance Period is less than 90% of the committed number, but greater than 50% of such number, we will be required to make a recapture payment equal to the percentage of full-time jobs at the facility below the 750 jobs committed, times the grant amount. If the three-year average number of full-time jobs during the Compliance Period is less than 50% of the committed number, we will be required to make a recapture payment equal to the full amount of the grant. The payment, if any, would be made on a one-time basis and due no later than 45 days after the state’s demand, which would likely be in the second calendar quarter of 2029, if required.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(8) Commitments and Contingencies:

Litigation

In January 2018, Gemini Technologies, Incorporated, or Gemini, commenced an action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, or the District Court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we breached the earn-out and other provisions of the asset purchase agreement and ancillary agreements between the parties in connection with our acquisition of the Gemtech business from Gemini. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment interpreting various terms of the asset purchase agreement and damages in the sum of $18.6 million. In November 2019, we filed an answer to Gemini’s complaint and a counterclaim against Gemini and its stockholders at the time the asset purchase agreement was signed. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim of fraud in the inducement. In September 2021, Gemini filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss our counterclaim. In June 2022, the District Court denied Gemini's motion for summary judgment. Gemini filed a second motion for summary judgment, and in August 2023, the District Court again denied Gemini’s motion. In November 2023, we entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs on the indemnity and counterclaims. On the same day, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave, seeking to file a second amended complaint. In January 2024, the District Court allowed plaintiffs’ amended allegations of fraud, and denied without prejudice their motion to add punitive damages. In February 2024, the District Court set a trial date of January 6, 2025, which was later postponed. On August 15, 2025, we filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, seeking to properly name the defendants and to add punitive damages as relief. On November 6, 2025, the court confirmed that a hearing for oral

argument on our motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is scheduled for December 10, 2025. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action.

We are a defendant in two product liability cases and are aware of four other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed in August 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana, or the City, against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief, allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. In January 2018, the Lake Superior Court, County of Lake, Indiana granted defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dismissing the case in its entirety. In February 2018, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In May 2019, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision, which affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, the trial court’s dismissal of the City’s complaint. In July 2019, defendants filed a Petition to Transfer jurisdiction to the Indiana Supreme Court. In November 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court denied defendants' petition to transfer, and the case was returned to the trial court. In March 2024, a bill was signed into law that purports to prohibit political subdivisions in Indiana from bringing certain legal actions against certain firearm industry members and to apply to actions or lawsuits filed before, after, or on August 27, 1999. Defendants subsequently filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the new law. In August 2024, the trial court denied defendants’ joint motion for judgment on the pleadings and, in October 2024, stayed its proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals. In November 2024, the Indiana Court of Appeals granted defendants’ motion to accept jurisdiction of the interlocutory appeal. In December 2024, the state of Indiana filed a notice of intervention in the appeal, which was accepted in January 2025. On February 20, 2025, defendants and the state of Indiana filed opening briefs with the Indiana Court of Appeals. The City filed its opposition brief on May 23, 2025 and, on May 30, 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a notice of defect to the City on technical grounds – the City filed a corrected brief on June 6, 2025. On July 8, 2025, the defendants and the state of Indiana filed their reply briefs. On July 14, 2025, the City filed a motion for the Indiana Court of Appeals to hear oral argument in the matter. On October 9, 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals set an oral argument hearing for December 9, 2025. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action.

We are a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada that was filed in December 2019. The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto in July 2018 and their family members. One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other victim suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The plaintiffs sought to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. In July 2020, we filed a Notice of Motion for an order striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety. In February 2021, the court granted our motion in part and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims in public nuisance and strict liability. The court declined to strike the negligent design claim and ordered that the claim proceed to a certification motion. In March 2021, we filed a motion for leave to appeal the court’s refusal to strike the negligent design claim with the Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In July 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay our motion for leave to appeal with the Divisional Court, on grounds that the appeal is premature. In November 2021, the Divisional Court granted plaintiffs’ motion, staying our motion for leave to appeal until 30 days after the decision on the balance of plaintiffs’ certification motion. A hearing on plaintiffs’ certification motion was held in January 2024. In March 2024, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Three appeals were filed: (1) our appeal from the dismissal of our motion to strike the negligent design claim; (2) the plaintiffs’ appeal from the order striking out their public nuisance and strict liability claims; and (3) the plaintiffs’ appeal from the order dismissing their certification motion. In August 2024, the parties filed their motions regarding the appeals. In October 2024, the parties filed their response briefs and, in December 2024, the Court of Appeals for Ontario heard the appeals together. On June 23, 2025, the Court of Appeals for Ontario issued a decision: (1) dismissing our appeal from the dismissal of our motion to strike the negligent design claim; (2) dismissing plaintiffs’ appeal from the order striking out their public nuisance and strict liability claims; and (3) granting plaintiffs’ appeal from the order dismissing their certification order and certifying their negligence claim as a class proceeding. On September 19, 2025, we filed an application with the Supreme Court of Canada, requesting that the court grant leave to appeal the duty of care issue related to our negligent design claim. On October 22, 2025, plaintiffs filed both an opposition to our application seeking leave to appeal the duty of care issue related to our negligent design claim and a cross-appeal of the dismissal of their strict liability and public nuisance claims with the Supreme Court of Canada. On October 24, 2025, the Court of Appeal issued and entered the formal order in the case, which was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In May 2020, we were named in an action related to the Chabad of Poway synagogue shooting that took place in April 2019. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego – Central and asserts claims against us for product liability, unfair competition, negligence, and public nuisance. The plaintiffs allege they were present at the synagogue on the day of the incident and suffered physical and/or emotional injury. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. In September 2020, we filed a demurrer and motion to strike, seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. In July

2021, the court granted our motion in part and reversed it in part, ruling that (1) the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act barred plaintiffs’ product liability action; (2) plaintiffs did not have standing to maintain an action under the Unfair Competition Law for personal injury related damages, but the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend to plead an economic injury; and (3) the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act did not bar plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence and public nuisance actions because plaintiffs had alleged that we violated 18 U.S.C. Section 922(b)(4), which generally prohibits the sale of fully automatic “machineguns.” In August 2021, we filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. In September 2021, the Court of Appeal denied our appeal. In February 2022, the court consolidated the case with three related cases, in which we are not a party. In March 2022, the court granted our motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law claim, without further leave to amend. In February 2023, we filed a motion for summary judgment. In May 2023, the court denied our motion for summary judgment without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs time for additional discovery. A hearing on our renewed motion for summary judgment was held in October 2024. In December 2024, the court granted our renewed motion for summary judgment and we later filed a proposed notice of final judgment with the court, requesting the court to enter a final judgment in our favor and to dismiss all claims against us. In February 2025, the court entered the final judgment. On April 8, 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of Appeal. In September 2025, the parties stipulated that plaintiffs’ opening brief must be filed with the California Court of Appeal by December 8, 2025.

In September 2022, we were named as defendants in 12 nearly identical, separate actions related to a shooting in Highland Park, Illinois on July 4, 2022. The complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Lake County, Illinois and assert claims against us for negligence and deceptive and unfair practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The plaintiffs allege they were present at a parade at the time of the incident and suffered physical and/or emotional injury. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. We filed motions for removal of each case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In November 2022, we filed a motion to consolidate the cases for preliminary motion purposes. In December 2022, plaintiffs filed motions to remand the cases back to the state court. In September 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand. In October 2023, we filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In March 2024, three new lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. In April 2024, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the remand decision. In May 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of removal, and we filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. In March 2025, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion, ordering us to pay certain of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. In June and July 2024, the district court remanded the 12 separate actions to state court, with some plaintiffs amending their complaints to remove references to violations of federal law and asserting additional claims against us, including claims alleging violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent entrustment. We were also named in 13 additional separate cases against us in the same state court during the same time period, largely raising similar allegations against us as in the initial and amended complaints. In July 2024, the trial court consolidated all cases for purposes of motions to dismiss and discovery. In September 2024, we filed our motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ 25 separate complaints. On April 1, 2025, the court granted our motion to dismiss without prejudice with respect to plaintiffs’ counts for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act for lack of standing (with respect to the deceptive claims only) and negligent entrustment and denied all remaining counts. Later in April 2025, plaintiffs served their first set of written discovery and we filed a motion to certify issues for interlocutory appeal with the trial court. On May 1, 2025, the court ordered an expedited briefing schedule for the motion and stayed discovery. On June 5, 2025, the court certified several issues for interlocutory appeal, lifted the discovery stay, set an initial trial date for March 8, 2027, and scheduled a status conference. We also filed our answers to plaintiffs' complaints. On July 7, 2025, we filed an application for interlocutory appeal with the Court of Appeal. On September 22, 2025, the Court of Appeal denied our application for an interlocutory appeal. We filed a petition for leave for an interlocutory appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court on October 27, 2025. On November 20, 2025, the parties agreed to extend plaintiffs’ deadline for filing an opposition to our application for an interlocutory appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court from November 17 to December 12, 2025. Discovery is ongoing.

In December 2022, the City of Buffalo, New York filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, against numerous manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of firearms. Later in December 2022, the City of Rochester, New York filed an almost identical complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe against the same defendants. The complaints allege violation of the New York General Business Law, public nuisance, and deceptive business practices in violation of the New York General Business Law. In January 2023, we filed notices of removal of the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. In March 2023, defendants filed a motion to stay both cases pending a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the NSSF v. James case. In June 2023, the court granted defendants’ motions to consolidate and to stay pending resolution of the NSSF v. James appeal. On July 10, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against NSSF in the NSSF v. James appeal. Later, the court granted the parties’ joint briefing schedule, setting September 25, 2025 as the deadline for defendants to file their motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss on September 25, 2025.

We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any incident and any results from them or any injuries were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party.

In addition, from time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, premises, and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business.

The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $75,000 to approximately $50.0 million. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. We believe that our accruals for product liability cases and claims are a reasonable quantitative measure of the cost to us of product liability cases and claims.

We are involved in a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit filed on February 4, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The action was brought by plaintiffs seeking to act on our behalf against our directors and certain of our executive officers. The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duty (for allegedly allowing us to become exposed to significant liability for intentionally violating federal, state, and local laws through our manufacturing, marketing, and sales of “AR-15 style rifles” and similar semiautomatic firearms) and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The derivative plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages, as well as reforms and improvements to our compliance procedures and governance policies. In May 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. On June 30, 2025, plaintiffs filed an opposition brief to our motion to dismiss. On July 28, 2025, we filed a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition brief.

We were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed on April 4, 2025 in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Privacy Act, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud/deceit/misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied contract and fair dealing, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege that after they clicked on the “reject all” cookies button on our website, our website enabled third parties to place cookies and similar tracking technologies on their browsers and devices and/or to transmit their user data to third parties for their financial gain and other purposes. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages (including statutory damages), punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, disgorgement of revenues and profits, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 30, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. On July 11, 2025, plaintiffs filed an opposition brief to our motion to dismiss. On August 1, 2025, we filed a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition brief. On October 9, 2025, the court conducted a hearing on our motion to dismiss, and the parties filed an initial case management statement. On November 7, 2025, plaintiffs served us with their first set of written discovery. On November 13, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order selecting an alternative dispute resolution process, notifying the court of their selection of a private mediator and their proposed June 30, 2026 deadline to mediate the case.

We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive, time consuming, and diverts the time and attention of our management.

We monitor the status of known claims and the related product liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs for asserted and unasserted claims. After consultation with litigation counsel and a review of the merit of each claim, we have concluded that we are unable to reasonably estimate the probability or the estimated range of reasonably possible losses related to material adverse judgments related to such claims and, therefore, we have not accrued for any such judgments. In the future, should we determine that a loss (or an additional loss in excess of our accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, we would then disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate could be made, or disclose that an estimate could not be made. We believe that we have provided adequate accruals for defense costs.

At this time, an estimated range of reasonably possible additional losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made.

Commitments

In connection with the Relocation, we entered into a project agreement, or the Project Agreement, with The Industrial Development Board of Blount County and the cities of Alcoa and Maryville, Tennessee, a public, nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Tennessee, or the IDB. Pursuant to the Project Agreement, we represented to the IDB that we intend to incur, or cause to be incurred, no less than $120.0 million in aggregate capital expenditures on or before December 31, 2025, create no less than 620 new jobs, and sustain an average hourly wage of at least $25.97 at the facility. Further, pursuant to the Project Agreement, we are required to, among other things, (a) execute a facility lease and an equipment lease with the IDB; (b) cause the construction of the new facility at our sole cost and expense to commence on or before May 31, 2022; (c) incur, or cause to be incurred, aggregate capital expenditures in connection with the construction and equipping of the new facility in an aggregate amount of not less than $120.0 million on or before December 31, 2025; (d) cause the construction of the new facility to be substantially completed and for a certificate of occupancy to be issued therefore on or before December 31, 2023; (e) provide the IDB with a written report certified by one of our authorized officers, not later than January 31 of each year during the period between January 31, 2024 and January 31, 2031; and (f) make certain payments to the IDB in the event that our actual capital expenditures, number of employees, or average hourly wage of such employees are less than our projections.

In connection with the Relocation, we entered into an accountability agreement, or the Accountability Agreement, with the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development and the Blount Partnership economic development organization. Pursuant to the Accountability Agreement, the Blount Partnership received a grant in the amount of $9,000,000, which was paid to us pursuant to a grant contract. Among other performance requirements in the Accountability Agreement, we committed that we would create and maintain 750 new jobs at the facility, measured as the average number of full-time jobs at the facility on three test dates: January 1, 2027, January 1, 2028, and January 1, 2029, or the Compliance Period. In the event that the three-year average number of full-time jobs during the Compliance Period equals or exceeds 90% of the 750-job commitment, no recapture payment will be required. If the three-year average number of full-time jobs during the Compliance Period is less than 90% of the committed number, but greater than 50% of such number, we will be required to make a recapture payment equal to the percentage of full-time jobs at the facility below the 750 jobs committed, times the grant amount. If the three-year average number of full-time jobs during the Compliance Period is less than 50% of the committed number, we will be required to make a recapture payment equal to the full amount of the grant. The payment, if any, would be made on a one-time basis and due no later than 45 days after the state’s demand, which would likely be in the second calendar quarter of 2029, if required.