Gun Prices

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Doog

Yeah, the custom has better sights and trigger and a SS rod. It's a slight difference but I only got two because I got one for the wife. I wouldn't trade one in for the custom.

I got the LCP because it is good past 100 yards....
lol.gif
lol.gif


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxVer9byr48

lol mine isn't good past 10 yards.
btw I used bright white finger nail polish and painted the sight blade. I have shot it many times and carried it many times in the last 5 months. The polish has stayed in place. ( 99 cents) Huge improvement!
1_IMG_0379a.JPG


Thanks for getting back.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
There are lots of slapped together guns that sell for the same or more. Quality not the defining metric on used prices.


That's complete nonsense. You will never buy anything of quality cheap. Price a decade old Ruger to a Python. Or better still, price a new Ruger single action to a new Colt Single Action Army. Or a Freedom Arms Single Action. They are close to triple the cost, if not over. No matter how you look at it, used or new, quality is defined by price. Just like anything else. Rugers are slapped together by the thousands. That's why they are cheap. Colt and Freedom Arms guns are not. Hence more cost equals better quality.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
There are lots of slapped together guns that sell for the same or more. Quality not the defining metric on used prices.


That's complete nonsense. You will never buy anything of quality cheap. bla bla bla Hence more cost equals better quality.

You seem to be not want to equate high performance with something not "high quality" (workmanship).
OK here here are the 9mm Shield, 9mm LC9s, and G-43. Are any of these "high quality"? Are any of these "high Performance"? Give me an example of a "High Quality" 9mm. Is it also high Performance compared to the 3 above 9's?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Al
Give me an example of a "High Quality"


Colt Python, Single Action Army, Colt Gold Cup, Browning Citori, Korth, Smith & Wesson Model 41, Weatherby Mark V Deluxe, Browning Medalist, Hammerli, Anschutz.... Nothing you would be remotely interested in. You want bang for your buck. And that is fine. But you are going to sacrifice overall quality and hand workmanship to get it. You can buy high performance with high quality. It's just going to cost you more than a Glock full of hollow points.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
There are lots of slapped together guns that sell for the same or more. Quality not the defining metric on used prices.


That's complete nonsense. You will never buy anything of quality cheap. Price a decade old Ruger to a Python. Or better still, price a new Ruger single action to a new Colt Single Action Army. Or a Freedom Arms Single Action. They are close to triple the cost, if not over. No matter how you look at it, used or new, quality is defined by price. Just like anything else. Rugers are slapped together by the thousands. That's why they are cheap. Colt and Freedom Arms guns are not. Hence more cost equals better quality.


No what is nonsense is that you forgot about rarity being a factor in used prices. Sometimes I just think you like to argue for the sake of arguing with people. Two examples would be the horrid Gyrojet and the Liberator pistol off the top of my head. I said quality is not the DEFINING metric for used prices. Both will cost you several grand according the to blue book, and both are certified garbage pistols. Or better yet look at items that were banned from import by the 1989 Non Sporting executive order. The rarity of good ones left almost 30 years later is the defining metric on their prices.

But none of this matters simply because NO ONE was talking used gun prices until you starting blabbing about Pythons.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Al
You seem to be not want to equate high performance with something not "high quality" (workmanship).
OK here here are the 9mm Shield, 9mm LC9s, and G-43. Are any of these "high quality"? Are any of these "high Performance"? Give me an example of a "High Quality" 9mm. Is it also high Performance compared to the 3 above 9's?


Colt Python, Single Action Army, Colt Gold Cup, Browning Citori, Korth, Smith & Wesson Model 41, Weatherby Mark V Deluxe, Browning Medalist, Hammerli, Anschutz.... Nothing you would be remotely interested in. You want bang for your buck. And that is fine. But you are going to sacrifice overall quality and hand workmanship to get it. You can buy high performance with high quality. It's just going to cost you more than a Glock full of hollow points.

I didn't think you would answer the question
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: billt460
No matter how you look at it, used or new, quality is defined by price.


I disagree with this, and I know you do, too! You spent the better part of your participation in this thread trying to decouple the LCP's price (that you quoted at $450) from its level of quality. Now, it seems you're saying the opposite, that price is not only connected with, but actually defines, an item's quality.

I think you'd agree that there are some pretty beat-up WWII service pistols selling today for double or triple the price of some VERY fine modern 1911s made today, simply because of the service pistols' heritage, their provenance. I'd also wager that some of the popular plastic fantastic pistols retail for more than their manufacturing cost would indicate. You're not paying for the cost to manufacture the product -- you're paying for the anticipated reliability and durability it will deliver compared with something else.

Build quality or assembly quality is only one factor that influences price. Market demand is usually a far stronger influencer. In the end, something is worth exactly that amount for which it sells. Terms like "overpriced" and "underpriced" are ultimately only personal opinions (to which we're all, of course, entitled).
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

Build quality or assembly quality is only one factor that influences price. Market demand is usually a far stronger influencer. In the end, something is worth exactly that amount for which it sells. Terms like "overpriced" and "underpriced" are ultimately only personal opinions (to which we're all, of course, entitled).

Exactly
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Build quality or assembly quality is only one factor that influences price.


Stop. Just stop. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't even begin to compare a gun like a Ruger LCP to a Coly Python, or Single action Army. In quality OR price. The more time you spend building something, the more it's going to cost, period. Labor is the most costly factor in production of goods. It's how Henry Ford made cars affordable. He built a lot of them fast. Just like Ruger does with it's LCP, along with most of their line. Labor is expensive. The more they can produce, and the faster they can produce it, the cheaper it becomes.

You can buy a house full of cheap assembly line produced furniture for what a single handcrafted and hand finished desk sells for. Obviously Ruger is not going to "hand build" a cheap plastic molded pocket pistol. It would accomplish nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig. The gun is what it is. Cheap, reliable, and quickly produced in mass numbers. The materials used, along with the fast build time, all help keep it cheap. And that's what matters most. Just look at this thread. More than half of it is comprised of people talking about how cheaply they can buy one for. Because that's what matters to them most.

It the same with the Remington 870 Wingmaster compared to the 870 Express. The Express is built fast and cheap. (It sells for about half of what a Wingmaster does). The parts are all exactly the same except for the stock, and a couple of other machined parts like the extractor they replaced with MIM molded parts instead. The gun is lesser finished all the way around. The parts are not deburred as well, or as nicely polished because that requires more time and labor. Assembly is quick and dirty. Which is why the Wingmaster has a much smoother action. More labor and time was spent fitting it together.

The people who want quality, hand fitted weapons know they are going to have to pay dearly to receive that. They are not concerned about price. They want high quality and precision hand fitting, and they understand and accept the fact that will cost more.... A LOT MORE. Just as the person who purchases a Wingmaster is willing to pay over twice for one, what the 870 Express buyer will pay for 2. Or just as a Ferrari buyer is willing to pay over 4 times what a Corvette buyer will, who wants to go fast cheap in comparison. And if they want fast even cheaper, they'll buy a HEMI Charger, and worry only about how cheap they can get it for.... And on the way home they'll most likely stop at the gun store and look at LCP's.
 
bilt460, I think we're talking about two different things. Manufacturing cost vs. retail price. In my experience, they're not always coupled. In yours, they may be. We can agree to disagree on that.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
bilt460, I think we're talking about two different things. Manufacturing cost vs. retail price. In my experience, they're not always coupled. In yours, they may be. We can agree to disagree on that.


I agree to a point, depending on the gun. But here is what you must understand. With most "common guns" like Ruger, there is MSRP, and then there is the, "street price". There is usually a sizeable difference. Like you and others have pointed out with the Ruger LCP. However that difference quickly disappears with higher end, quality weapons. Mostly because a large amount of the profit is taken up in the lengthy and expensive manufacturing process. They are required to sell them at almost full retail price in order to realize ANY profit on them. For example, look at the Marlin Model 60 compared to their flagship .22, the Marlin Golden 39-A. The Model 60, (which is a nice .22 that I personally own 3 of), can most always be found discounted, or on sale at most any big box store, at any time, in most any configuration. The Model 39-A is difficult to find, and when you do, you will almost always pay full retail.

I purchased a new Marlin Golden 39-A back in 2000. I called almost every gun shop in the Phoenix area before I found one. I bought it for full retail price. Which at the time was $405.00. An amount I thought was insane at the time. Today you are lucky to find a new one for less than $650.00. A price that is matched by other flagship .22's from the other manufacturers. Such as the Remington 572 Fieldmaster pump, or the Browning BL-22 lever action. It's much the same with high end .22 target pistols like the Smith & Wesson Model 41, or the Beretta Model 87 Target. Both sell for a street price that is almost always full retail of over $1K. In comparison Ruger Mark III .22 target pistols can be had at a street price well under MSRP.

When a gun starts selling for full retail, and are seldom, if ever discounted, that's a good indication they are about to go out of production. Because they can't charge enough, or sell enough to make it a profitable venture. There have been many fine guns over the years that fit into this category. The Winchester Model 88, the original all steel and Walnut Browning Auto-V shotgun, the pre 64 Winchester Model 70, and the list goes on. All have been replaced by guns that are more profitable, because of far cheaper production costs. Sadly, most of these guns fit into todays marketing philosophy of, "Build em' cheap, and stack em' deep."
 
Absolutely, depending on the gun. This thread is about Ruger LCPs, where the actual selling price is usually below the MSRP, and also above the actual manufacturing cost. Though it may cost Ruger only $150 to build the gun (to make up a number), the popularity of the pistol is what ultimately determines its street price. There are apparently more LCPs on the market than there are buyers right now, because the price has come down to near 200 bucks. Years ago, you couldn't buy LCPs for much less than MSRP, because they were new, they were fresh, and people wanted 'em. It cost Ruger the same $150 to make them back then as it does now...but market pressure determines the price.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
......but market pressure determines the price.


Again, I agree to a point. The difference is LCP's can be built fast and cheap. (Much like the Marlin Model 60 .22 I used in my example). As a result they can flood the market with them. Then, much like AR-15's, when the demand drops, the price falls through the floor along with it. Back to the high end guns. They cannot be quickly produced in high numbers because of the intense labor involved. So demand, and price, stays high because of that.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
......but market pressure determines the price.


Again, I agree to a point. The difference is LCP's can be built fast and cheap. (Much like the Marlin Model 60 .22 I used in my example). As a result they can flood the market with them. Then, much like AR-15's, when the demand drops, the price falls through the floor along with it. Back to the high end guns. They cannot be quickly produced in high numbers because of the intense labor involved. So demand, and price, stays high because of that.


+1 Companies like Ruger make their initial $$ on the front end of the model release then when all of the engineering is paid for and the tooling is paid for they do 24/7 production runs and flood the market. Then the price drops off. But their cost also drops off and they still make a decent profit and corner the market. So, when they release a new polymer gun....wait a few months and save 35%.
 
Last edited:
Built460. Just one question at a time for you...hopefully a "yes" or "no".

Do you feel that High quality materials, more quality workmanship (more expensive) almost always equates with superior performance and reliability of the firearm vs a low cost pistol like LPC ($199), Shield ($359), and G19 ($499)
 
Last edited:
I don't think of Glock as low cost. So, for a G19 at $499, that's medium cost, but with exceptional reliability...

If you're looking for value, which in this instance I'll define as reliability vs. cost, Glock represents good value.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I don't think of Glock as low cost. So, for a G19 at $499, that's medium cost, but with exceptional reliability...

If you're looking for value, which in this instance I'll define as reliability vs. cost, Glock represents good value.

True but if you look at the supposed workmanship or better the materials in the firearm..the M&P Shielod is (IMHO) better made than the Glock.
There is no way though that the Glock is superior to the shield. Shield..more solid, cheaper...equal or better performance. Hard to make an argument either way here.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Built460. Do you feel that High quality materials, more quality workmanship (more expensive) almost always equates with superior performance and reliability of the firearm vs a low cost pistol like LPC ($199), Shield ($359), and G19 ($499)


Not necessarily. A Ferrari or a Rolex can stop working, just like a LCP. Even a Stradivarius has to be tuned up. What's your point?
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I don't think of Glock as low cost. So, for a G19 at $499, that's medium cost, but with exceptional reliability... If you're looking for value, which in this instance I'll define as reliability vs. cost, Glock represents good value.


Good point. Glock represents an interesting example of very successful marketing, as opposed to Ruger's marketing concept. Glock's sell at steady prices regardless of market conditions. Yes, you can find them somewhat discounted, but nowhere near as much as Ruger's semi auto Polymer line. They regulate prices much more carefully. I read somewhere that it costs Glock approximately $75.00 in materials and production cost to manufacture one. That is from the start of molding the frame, to taping the box shut. The profitability is very high, along with production numbers. Glock manages to keep both that way through very skillful production and marketing. Along with fewer changes, and or new additions over the years. (Only 4 generations in the last 3 decades). Where as Ruger seems to discontinue one model, and introduce another every 15 minutes.

As was pointed out, Ruger chooses to make their money in the first year or so of production. Once that is covered, they'll usually either flood the market, (back to build em' cheap, and stack em' deep, like with the current LCP lineup), or else discontinue them and move on to the next model. Both are successful marketing options for both companies. As both Ruger and Glock have proven to be very financially viable over the years. Let's face it, you don't fly around globetrotting in aircraft like this if you're not turning a healthy profit on a good product. (Bombardier GLEX Global Express.... Around $50 Million).

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top