I think this is an important point. Kel-tec makes guns, but the structure of their business is very different than Ruger A while back, they could have taken the money they were making off the P3AT and created a larger scale manufacturing operation. Instead, they are spending a lot of that money on developing new products. I don't think Kel-Tec wants wants to be as big as a Ruger or Smith and Wesson.
After hashing out KT's inability, or unwillingness to actually meet market demand for their designs for years over on KTOG, I think the consensus is that Keltec/George Kelgren wouldn't mind being "bigger", however, they flatly refuse to go into debt or leverage the company to do it, and are on the pay-as-you-go plan. I guess it makes sense. Trying to follow election year gun-sales panics, or just get in debt up to the eyeballs, to only have the teetering American economy finally go over the precipice, and all discretionary income in the private sector to vanish... I agree it's not a sound business practice.
Using debt to ramp up to meet a market demand that may be transitory could well be a fiscal "Win the battle/lose the war" scenario. So while I don't like being unable to find a PMR-30 for even MSRP, a pistol who's "street price" should arguably be below $300, I understand it.
AFAIK, they're not meeting the demand for the SUB-2000, the RFB, the PMR-30, and I doubt the situation will be any different for the upcoming RMR-30, or the new KSG that just started dribbling out.
That makes them pretty unique in firearms mfg. history. There's been any number of botique makers, like Seecamp who've had the same issue on one model, perhaps the only one they make for just about forever, but I can't recall a maker who perpetually ran behind on four or five model lines indefinitely.