[firestar]

I don't get the prices on these things. A mil-spec Colt or SA 1911 will cost upwards of $450 and I don't see where there is $450 worth of work put into them.

R&D=$0. It is not protected by any patents. It should cost less than most other quality guns in the same caliber but it doesn't.

Is there something keeping the price up on these guns that I don't realize? I would never think about paying $500 for a mil-spec 1911 when there are so many quality guns for about the same price. I could get a used SIG 220 for $500 and it will outshoot the 1911 and probably be more reliable to boot.

I am not bashing the 1911, I just don't see why it cost as much for a mil-spec as it does for a gun that had to be designed and marketed from scratch.

[Blueduck]

Logic to gun prices:banghead:

At least with the 1911 you could say it requires machiening and some tight tolerences which cost some money...

But how would that explain Glock, I love'em personally BUT a major part of the ingenuity of the design was to make an inexpensive gun. Loose tolerences, virtually all drop in parts, lots of inexpensive (didn't say "cheap") stamped innards, inexpensive (didn't say cheap) polymer frame. But once it became popular they started selling for as much as the competition, which obviously cost more to make.

To follow at 5:00 : Blueduck and firestar repeatidly being called communist ;) and/or told it's all the fault of lawyers. (despite the fact Ruger and Lorcin should have the same liability cost per gun as Glock, Colt, or Sig.

Sorry, just been down this road before. They all cost exactly what a certain number of people are willing to pay...

[stans]

To a great extent, price is based on what the market will bear. I am sure it does not cost $500 to make a basic 1911, so there is a mark up by the manufacturer, the distributor and the dealer, plus the Federal taxes; these costs must be covered to be profitable. If people are willing to pay $500 at the dealer for a $300 gun, then that is the price. If people are willing to pay $1000 at the dealer, then that is the price. Right now, the market is flooded with 1911's, so the market will bear no more than around $500. Years ago when Colt was the only game in town, the story much different. So competition has driven prices down. This is a function of supply and demand. High demand and low supply equals high prices. Low demand and high supply equals low prices.

[caz223]

It certainly doesn't cost $20,000.00 to make a chevy cavalier, but with some options, that's what people are paying.
Some people believe that companies should turn a profit.
It helps keep them keep the lights on, and motivate them to do more R&D, and product design and testing...
If people stopped buying them, they would lower the price, but they seem to be selling enough of them to raise the prices a little every year...

[Southern Raider]

A mil-spec Colt or SA 1911 will cost upwards of $450 and I don't see where there is $450 worth of work put into them.
And you aren't complaining about Glock prices in relation to what you get? Don't look at the HK USP or you'll be very upset and confused! :eek:

Disclaimer: I am not bashers of the above guns. It's just hard to justify some of the prices on polymer firearms, even though I own them.

[New_comer]

A bare-bones 1911A1 Norinco, RIA or CD costs only $250++.


Know where to find them. Lots of testimonials that they do work right outta the box at 1911forum.com


If you prefer the glitzier brands, then prepare to shell out the cash.


But they're not necessarily more reliable... :rolleyes:

[45auto]

From what I have read, the 1911 was designed at a time when you could produce quality parts with skilled hand fitting and still sell it for a decent price.

If it was designed today, I assume it would be designed with "different specs" that would allow for easier(cheaper) production. I suspect it would look different, but who would know!

[B Coyote]

Liability Insurance. Firearms manufacturers today need to carry large amounts of insurance, due to our society's "blame the device" attitude.

Also, advertising. Those full page ads in the gun rags aren't cheap.

I recall hearing from someone who knows someone at Glock....it costs $42 to produce one. Ship it over here, that adds a little. But, by the time we've paid our people, paid the lawyers, and paid Guns & Blammo for the ad to sell the pistol, we've reached a number closer to what you pay for it. Add in the distributor's profits and finally the Gun Shop's....now we're right around $500.

These numbers closely relate to the way other companies do things...I think you get my drift. ;)

bc:)

[Soap]

Because the market says so.

[wingman]

Some people believe that companies should turn a profit.


Yes, many do however there is fair profit and there is robbery and sad to say most
companies lean to the second now.

In the case of the 1911, I believe it is
viewed(as I do ) a work of art, it is after
all what all guns want to be.

[dude]

supply-demand



..................some of y'all need to go back to school!!!

[braindead0]

Store here in Ohio had a Steyr M marked at $569...I doubt they sell them for that, but perhaps they do...

[Erich]

I think with the 1911s, to a large extent you're looking at hand-fitting costs. If you want a 1911 to run well with the modern variety of ammo, you need to put more work into it than you would something that was designed to be mass-produced and function with this wide variety of ammo. Let's face it, they're pretty and they're capable of doing great things when tuned, but bare bones 1911s aren't designed to do everything that we ask of our modern pistols (100% reliability with a wide range of ammo, good trigger, great fitting for tight groups, night sights, ambi safeties, etc.) - and to get them there is going to cost a bit. Probably, all things being equal, an American-made stock 1911 as envisioned by JMB would cost about what a S&W or Glock (boy, you want to talk about markup!) semiauto would cost - but getting that pistol to do modern tricks is going to raise the price.

If you get a cheap Phillipine 1911, it won't cost you a ton and it'll probably run ball ammo fine. The trigger won't be great, but you'll live.

If you want a JMB-stock 1911 to work flawlessly with hollowpoints, someone's going to need to mess with it. While a lot of companies seem to do this just fine in house (adding probably 50% to the cost of the pistol), some folks prefer "boutique" treatment of their guns, and that costs more.

Personally, I am real skeptical about the sensibility of spending over $1k for a personal defense handgun, particularly when you can get a mass-produced gun that will do the trick just fine for a whole lot less than that. On the other hand, I drive an Oldsmobile. My neighbor drives a Porsche. Neither one of us gets up to our top speed on the commute to work, but his car will go faster than mine. It's great to live in a place where I'm free to make the choice.

(Oh, right now I mainly use a SA loaded Micro-Compact that I bought new and a S&W 6946 that I got used for cheap for protection pistols. The SA is more fun, but the S&W was a better deal.)

[MoNsTeR]

Part of the answer is intricate machining. It takes more milling passes and whatnot to craft a 1911 and it's parts than it does pistols that were designed to be low-cost.

Most of the answer is demand. 1911's cost $600, $700, $1000, $1500, $2000, $3000, even $6000 because people are willing to pay that much. If people got fed up with buying $600 guns that don't wor... I mean are "quirky", and stopped buying them, you'd see some changes in the market. But so long as people think "yeah let's see, $600 up front, plus one or two trips back to the factory, then a trip to <big name smith> with a check for $600 more" is a decent deal compared to laying out $700 for a SIG P220 or heck, $350 for a Ruger P90, nothing will change.

I'm not trying to disparage 1911 buyers or makers, hell I love the damn thing. But a lot of this goes on, and it's better that we acknowledge it.

[Erik]

Another "because the market dictates it" type of reply.

[arinvolvo]

1911s are expensive because people buy them...period...

It is a macho thing, like a muscle car...and it aint cheap.

[antsi]

The "what the market will bear" crowd is right to some extent, but there are limits on that. If it was possible to produce 1911's at the same quality level for a much lower price, someone would jump in and do it.

I suspect there may be something to the "designed for a different time, with different manufacturing methods" argument, too. The trend in manufactured products has been to engineer them for easier more effecient production, fewer high-skill workers on the line, less hand fitting, etc.

[Lone_Gunman]

If you want a JMB-stock 1911 to work flawlessly with hollowpoints, someone's going to need to mess with it.

Baloney.

I wish people would quit making false comments like that.

The notion that a 1911 is not reliable "out of the box" compared to any other design is not true in my experience, yet it is endlessly chanted on internet forums.

I have had Glocks, Sigs, and Rugers that jammed at one time or another.

I have several Colt 1911's, all unmodified from the factory, that have NEVER had a problem, even with JHPs.

[Kahrma]

You can buy cast 1911's cheaper than Glocks,Sigs, and Hk's.

No flames but I think you asked an ignerant question. :uhoh:

[Erich]

Well, Lone_Gunman, it's not baloney in my experience. I've managed a gunstore and I have certainly handled a pile of 1911s. And, in my experience (not just because it's "endlessly chanted on internet forums"), it's true.

Watch what you're calling "false comments," hombre.

[Lone_Gunman]

Didnt mean to offend you Erich, but I think its still a false comment; however I have never managed a gun store.

[Erich]

:) Well, it's been going on 13 years since I have.

Have a good evening, all! :)

[firestar]

I just meant, I think someone could build an exact copy of a Colt 1911 and not spend a penny for R&D or advertising and sell it for less than $500. If someone can design from scratch and market a new gun and sell it for about $500 (there are plenty), where is all the extra money going for the 1911?

Is there really such a demand for 1911s? I know a lot of shooters and not everyone has a 1911 in their collection.

[New_comer]

where is all the extra money going for the 1911? Labor mostly...


Products manufactured stateside are very expensive due to high labor cost component, along with prohibitive but mandatory legal fees mentioned earlier, as compared to those made in third world factories which may even enjoy government tax breaks to ensure competitiveness when the guns are exported elsewhere...


My $0.02

[45auto]

There appears to be between 70,000 and 100,000 1911's sold each year. That's from the ATF web site. They break it down by caliber, pistol, revolver and company. Easy to tell what Colt sells, but not what S&W will sell in 1911s, since they sell other autos in 45.
So, it seems to vary and the numbers change. In the centerfire 45-50 caliber the 1911 would have a high share of market, guessing at perhaps, 20%. Overall handgun sales, I would guess at around 5% or less!

Don't quote me!!

[Mr. Black]

Probably much of it is machining costs. While a glock barrel probably costs just as much as a 1911 barrel to make, the frame one the 1911 probably costs something much more. (despite the fact that the nylon 6 or plastic or whatever is marginally more expensive than steel)

The frame must be forged. Lotsa equipment.

The frame must be machined. Forged steel wears out tooling right quick (that's why heads on new cars are aluminum and not iron-even though al is "more expensive" by itself)

Lotsa high precision cuts on a 1911.

And the Glock slide probably was designed to be easier to machine.

So the real question, is why can I get a mil spec for $415 and a plastic glock is more?

And my mil-spec in .38 Super; I've gotten that thing to feed .357 DEWC; reliably. Don't tell me about 1911's being balky.

I don't think hand fitting comes into play with a run of the mill 1911 (kimber, SA, colt) They would cost FAR more if it did.

[Shmackey]

Yes, the "free market" thing is correct. The "supply and demand" thing is correct. (I happen to think that our very current setup is corrupt as hell, but the price of a pistol is a pretty good basic example of supply/demand that doesn't necessitate mention of loopholes, bailouts, and fraud. It's as close as you'll get to a basic high-school economics example without talking about butter.)

On the other hand, that's not why this is a strange question. It's strange because a $600 1911 has more work put into it than a $700 Sig or HK, so the latter should be the focus of the question. As for there being no R&D on a 1911: go pick up a Kimber or Springfield Loaded, put it next to a 1942 Colt, and tell me there's no R&D.

Back to the economics though... Yes, there is a difference between turning a profit and robbery. But "robbery" is not defined by profit margin. If people will pay a 200% markup to get a product, that's not robbery; it's what the market will bear. "Robbery" is knowingly selling defective infant formula (regardless of margin). It's paying doctors to prescribe medications that their patients don't need. See the difference? (On a side note, the problem with 100% deregulated laissez-faire free marketism is that it considers these two examples, like everything else, self-correcting flaws. People will stop buying faulty baby food, and corrupt doctors will lose patients. On a macro level that's true, but in the meantime, people die. Slight regulation--what we have now, but less and less all the time--allows for a 99% free market, hopefully eliminating the 1% that knowingly sells tires that blow up.)

[willyjixx]

so fair profit affects the pocket book
an robbery effects the owner of the pocket book.
hmm good theory.


me being a conspiracy theorist blame it on the big men. the cost to manufacture the weapon or the R & D put into it has nothing to do with todays currently inflating hand gun prices.
its the additional administrative cost of producing, tracking, auditing all the paperwork involved to send #xxxxx 1911 from great Springfield, Missouri to anytown, some state gun dealer to transfer the weapon over to you after parting with a few franklins.

an then with some states that have an empty shell to transfer to a LE Agency for future forensic evidence.

that kinda racks up a pretty penny dont you think?

[firestar]

I think I see now. It is based on what the market will bear. I have no doubt that there is more work put into the 1911 pistols than is put into a Glock. I just thought that cost of manufacture is really a small part of the entire cost of making a gun.

[Grayrider]

Well I would not underestimate materials. Plastic guns are really cheap to produce. Squirt the goop into a mold and let it set. I really don't understand why Glocks and such cost what they do, given how they are made. They go together like Legos, so assembly is nothing. If a part doesn't fit they just throw it away. Not to bash them here, but as I understand it they are very easy to make. Mr. Glock knew what he was doing from a manufacturing standpoint.

A 1911 made from good steel will cost more, as does a Sig. Pricing of both are pretty similar new, although there are a lot more used police Sigs out there driving prices down. My dealer is selling (or at least was last I checked) well used 220 police guns for $375. There just aren't that many well used police trade 1911s. That may change with all the various PDs adopting them for SWAT use. Perhaps in 10 years we can all buy some cheap trade in Kimbers!

GR

[Correia]

1911s have more machine operations than most other pistols. Machine time equals money. Machine time equals machine wear which equals money. I'm an accountant for a manufacturing company, no conspiracy theory there.

Why do you think the 1911 has locking lugs on the barrel, and pretty much every other modern gun locks up on the square barrel hood? Why do you think everybody uses external extractors?

Round and multiple cuts are more expensive than straight. Internal operations require more expense than external.

From a manufacturing perspective, Glock is a genius.

[Erich]

Ayup.

[NapAttack]

Seen this debate before. The price something sells for is strictly market value, what the customer is willing to pay for it.

Labor, insurance, cost of parts, cost of manufacture, etc has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the price of the item.

Yes, these costs will determine whether or not that company stays in business or not. If a company cannot manufacture something with all these costs involved and make a profit then they will not stay in business.

That's also exactly the reason the costs of anything except collector's items, works of art goes down. Company markets an item, supply is low, demand is high, price is high. Other companies jump in, supply goes up, demand stays the same, price goes down. With items in short supply like works of art, collector's items, supply stays the same or goes down, then price fluctuates according to demand. Eventually, with anything that is still being produced, supply, demand and costs reach an equilibrium where the companies left after the initial rush can make an item and sell it for a reasonable price.

Do a study sometime of the DeBeers(sp?) family and the diamond market. Classic study of created demand and monopolistic practices limiting supply causing higher prices.

[Feanaro]

All pistols cost so much because they do. A CD costs roughly five cents to make but they retail for thirteen bucks. Even assuming you must pay this person and this person and this person, albums that DEAD PEOPLE wrote sell for the same as new ones. They can't have as many people to pay since quite a few are dead. But they sell them like so because they can.

It's possible they sell them for so much because they keep a company afloat. But HK, for example, has no such excuse. The weapons themselves, even with all the tape and such, probably don't cost five or six hundred dollars or eight or two thousand dollars. They have government contracts, the MP5 and all their other little gadgets to keep them alive. But they still sell for that much.

In the end they cost that much because we buy for that much.

[harrydog]

QUOTE:
"Labor, insurance, cost of parts, cost of manufacture, etc has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the price of the item.

Yes, these costs will determine whether or not that company stays in business or not. If a company cannot manufacture something with all these costs involved and make a profit then they will not stay in business."

Your second two statements contradict your first statement. Of course materials, labor, and other overhead play a major part in determining the price of an item. The diamond analogy is not a good one, as that's a completely different situation.

[Mr. Black]

The best way to look at this is through actual cost of manufacture (including all that stuff) relative to sale price.

I bet for the big, high quality 1911 manufactures (SA, Kimber, Colt) their percentage markup is less than, lets say, a Glock or a Sig. (or even an XD)

[DrDremel]

A Colt 1911 with forged parts milled from stock, costs quite a bit more than the current breed of guns. New designs are actually the overpriced guns. A Glock or any plastic framed handgun is cheap to manufacture. They are basically designed to make the parts as cheaply as possible. The slide on a Glock is square because that is the shape of the barstock it is made from. Stamped steel internal parts are cheap. Tolerances are great. The Sig has an aluminum frame that is machined form a casting. Aluminum is much cheaper to machine than a steel part.

1911 prices have come down when inflation is figured in. You are getting a savings because of no new designing needed. The price for a stock 1911 is actually lower than 20 years ago when you figure in what you are making. That is because of three things. No R&D, CNC Machining and Metal Injection Molding (MIM). MIM is not as nice as a forged piece of steel but it works, CNC saves the manual machining and had fitting on the stock 1911s, and no R&D is self explanatory.

The Glock should sell for $200, just as the XD did before Springfield doubled the price. Glocks do sell for a lot less to police departments. The fact is you are getting much more for your money with a 1911. HK plastic pistols are extremely overpriced. Now I am not a 1911 cult follower, but I do like them as well as a lot of other pistols. I am an Engineer that designs machines that build Engine components and even firearm components. I know the manufacturing side and the profit margin on the plastic pistols is huge. That is why companies are making new ones all the time. The 1911 does have the benefit of lasting longer than the plastic breed. I doubt you will be seeing 100 year old Glocks, USPs and XDs unless they haven’t been shot much. Even then nobody is sure how the plastic will degrade. The plastic pistols real advantage is weight for carrying. That is worth the trade off in longevity in most cases. It still does not justify the prices though.

[NapAttack]

Your second two statements contradict your first statement. Of course materials, labor, and other overhead play a major part in determining the price of an item. The diamond analogy is not a good one, as that's a completely different situation. harrydog, exactly how do these two statements contradict my first statement? Not flaming you just trying to understand your statement. My first statement was that the price of an item is what the customer is willing to pay. If the costs plus a modest profit exceed what a customer is willing to pay for an item then no sale will occur and the company producing this item will quickly go out of business.

Your second statement is incorrect. Materials, labor and other overhead have zip to do with the price of an item. They are the costs involved in preparing an item for sale.

Nope again, the DeBeers family created a demand for diamonds through hollywood film makers. Once the demand was created they kept the price artificially high by buying out or forcing smaller diamond mines out of business keeping the supply limited. Classic case of supply and demand.

Hypothetical example. Assume that I am the only possible customer you can sell your Glock to. I don't like Glocks so my demand for a Glock is very low. You have a Glock you want to sell me. Since I am the customer I determine what I am willing to pay you for your Glock. I say $100. You spent $500 on the Glock. Your cost was $500 but the price is $100. You sell it to me then you just lost $400. You wouldn't stay in business very long losing $400 on every sale. So you hold the Glock hoping someone else will come along to purchase it at $600 so you can make a profit. No one else comes along willing to purchase it. No sale at all. Thus the market place has determined that the price of your Glock is $100 not $500 (what you paid for it) or $600 so you can cover your cost plus a small profit. No sales, no business. Your cost for the Glock is $500 but the price is $100. If you don't lower your price from $600 to $100 then no sale.

[Stainless Steel]

Strange market forces going on here that I do
not understand.

I can buy a totally bitchen industrial grade
3/4" hammer drill for a fraction of the cost
for a 1911. The drill has a very intricate
motor and precision bearings, not to mention
the hammer mechanism which requires hardened
steel precision components.

Also I don't feel the need to 'cherry pick'
the drill at the hardware store.

Why is the Hammer Drill so much cheaper?

http://home.mindspring.com/~colt45acp/nra1.gif

[Handy]

Don't forget the huge customer service support staff you need if you're going to sell those never quite perfect $600 1911s.

Plus the cost of "throw in" mags to smooth over hurt feelings.

[Soap]

This is America people. If you really think you can produce an inexpensive QUALITY 1911 go ahead and do it. You could make tons of money plain and simple. I don't think that many of you understand what sort of factors drive a product to cost what it does.

NapAttack-

Materials, labor and other overhead have zip to do with the price of an item. They are the costs involved in preparing an item for sale.

That is not necessarily true. It really depends on the good, but you stated earlier that:

the price of an item is what the customer is willing to pay

So wouldn't the customer be willing to pay more for a good that uses better materials and labor? Thus, materials and labor do influence the price of a good.



DrDremel- Then start a company that produces the "cheap" pistols and make millions...heck, maybe even billions. The market awaits!

[DrDremel]

There is a big difference between understanding the process and being able to afford to start a company. I guess I could say “Go get a job in the real world” since your location states you are at a college. Then you can speak from experience, not just theory. Communism is great in theory too, but does not work in the real world. So is world peace and time travel but it isn’t going to happen real soon.

The risk in starting a company that produces pistols is too great these days. States banning your product, lawsuits against you because someone used your product in a crime, ATF hassles, liability insurance, etc.. It simply is not worth the hassle. But none of that changes any of my past statement. It is not easy to start a firearms business from scratch in the US these days. Try finding investors for a product that can be banned any day.

R&D is a small part of the cost of any firearm. With Solid modeling and stress analysis programs, most major flaws can be found before the first part is even made. Machining steel is more expensive than machining aluminum, casting from steel, or aluminum, MIM, or molding plastic. That is why they cost what they do. The labor force required to run and maintain a precision CNC machine and the tooling required costs are much higher than that required for casting or molding. Especially making plastic parts.

The reason a hammer drill costs less is that they are most likely made in China, or another 3rd world country, there is not a Government agency requiring you to have a special license, sell only at licensed dealers that will raid you and arrest you if you screw up the paperwork. The insurance for liability is much less to make power tools. When is the last time you saw a city sue a hammer drill manufacturer because somebody stole a hammer drill, and used it to kill some gang member with it? Also the hammer drill parts are not held to the precision that the part in a 1911 are held to. The bearings are off the shelf parts that are made by the millions and are used in many other devices. The housings are cast, aluminum, metal or plastic with little or no machining. The motor is wire wrapped by a simple machine. The chuck is a common part used in other applications as well. The spindle is turned but again the tolerances are not as tight as those needed to build a 1911. The quality of metal used is not as expensive as those needed for a firearm.

[Soap]

DrDremel- I work about 60-80 hours per week at two places thank you very much. One as a banker, one with an investment firm.

You said the Glock/Sig/etc. should sell for about $200, then why doesn't it? They bear the same risk as a firearms manufacturing firm as any other firearms manufacturing firm. I'm not attacking any of your statements except this one. I think it is interesting that people say what an item should cost, I simply want to know how they justify it.

[DrDremel]

Sorry, I took your statement wrong, I take back my statement about the job.

As to the reason it should cost $200. Police departments bought the pistols for that price. The reason for charging more is because they can. They are charging what the market will bear. This is due to marketing.

If the average Glock purchaser knew the difference in the markup between a 1911 and a Glock, they would sell less Glocks at that price. The diamond industry is similar in that diamonds do not cost that much to produce. They are not really rare. They have no real use other than decoration. The marketing campaign to equate diamonds with love and a perception of rarity has allowed the manufacturers to sell at markups that are way above average for similar goods. Plastic framed pistols are the same. The perception of new is better, that the police chose them because of their superiority, the marketing of “Glock Perfection” or HK’s “Accept No Compromise” also factor in.

The reason that Glock won the contracts with so many police was because of the low price. Cost is a huge factor in police budgets. They choose the cheapest pistol that functions when they test them. They buy handguns more frequently since they have switched to polymer framed guns as well. But that usually does not factor in when they are buying pistols, they are only worried about the budget for that purchase. They usually do not test all handguns either. If they wanted the best, they would test them all and buy the winner whatever the price. Instead they have bidding on a lot of pistols.

Now, 10+ years later, even police departments are falling prey to marketing. Smaller departments buy Glocks simply because larger more prestigious departments have chosen them. The FBI is also looked up to. They have switched between various handguns not because they keep finding better handguns, but the lowest bidder was not always the same company. They have issued Smith &Wesson Autos, SIGs, and Glocks. In fact, all of these pistols are still acceptable for FBI use. Low bidder gets the next contract.

The XD was sold at 2/3 the price that it is now being sold through Springfield Armory. The gun is the same, it works the same and does the same thing that it did before. Springfield is marketing the handgun and since it now has a name recognition with a reputable company, they bumped up the price because they knew the market would bear it. They don’t even make the gun. They are a distributor. They had no hand in the development or reputation of the firearm itself.

Marketing is a powerful tool. If anyone had told you 20 years ago that a bottle of water would cost more than a bottle of Coca Cola, you would have laughed your @%% off. But marketing and image are powerful forces in business. Look at the pet rock. The manufacturing costs are almost nothing yet the marketer made over a million dollars in profit on them. They are not any better than the Chia pet, are they? Beany-babys are the same thing. $5000 for a stuffed animal that is newly manufactured takes good marketing. It is not related to manufacturing cost. Are Beany-babies really that much better than other toy stuffed animals? Are they “Stuffed animal perfection” or are they made for those that “Accept No Compromise”?

So in summary, the 1911 does cost more to make than plastic framed pistols. Just as in vehicles, and appliances, plastic parts are cheaper to make. Even 1911 pistols are using plastic mainspring housings on some models in order to save manufacturing costs. Otherwise there would have been no reason to switch from a part you are already tooled up for and producing.

[Soap]

Dr. Dremel- No apology necessary my friend. This is the Errornet! :D I completely understand and agree with all of your statements. But if you've ever seen Wall Street you would know this scene:

Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another, like magic. This painting here. I bought it ten years ago for $69,999. I could sell it today for six hundred. The illusion has become real.
And the more real it becomes, the more desperate they want it. Capitalism at its finest.

This concept is essentially what you're saying. Even though something should cost something, it may not. And a saavy person can basically exploit these tendencies of price fluctionation. Exploiting price fluctionations is smart and it is a way to make money for nothing. I just got the tone that you thought these fluctuations were a bad thing, they're not at all. They're opportunites.

[DrDremel]

This isn't really a fluctuation as much as fooling the customer. It is kind of like Wrestling (WWF or whatever the latest version is). There are those that think that it is real. The price of plastic pistols is the same. The only good thing is that a profitable company is more likely to make new products. Too bad they will most likely be plastic products.

[harrydog]

Quote:
"harrydog, exactly how do these two statements contradict my first statement?"



It's fairly obvious, I thought.
It costs a company $100 to manufacture a particular product. This cost includes materials, labor, and all other overhead. In order to remain in business, the company must sell these items for something more than $100. They can't sell them for $99. So doesn't the cost of manufacture influence what the selling price is?
But if the buying public refuses to pay over $100 for these items then the company is unable to sell them. They have a couple of choices. Go out of business, or find a way to make the product cheaper, so they can sell it for a price the public is willing to pay and still make a profit.
By using cheaper materials, less skilled labor, etc., they are able to produce the same item for $75 and are now able to sell it at a price that people are willing to pay, yet still make a profit.
So, yes, the amount that people were willing to pay did influence the selling price but so did the cost of manufacture.

[NapAttack]

harrydog, Ah, I see where the confusion came in.

The statements still do not contradict. Using your own example, So doesn't the cost of manufacture influence what the selling price is? Nope, witness your next statement. But if the buying public refuses to pay over $100 for these items then the company is unable to sell them. And your next statement.They have a couple of choices. Go out of business, or find a way to make the product cheaper, so they can sell it for a price the public is willing to pay and still make a profit.
So, yes, the amount that people were willing to pay did influence the selling price but so did the cost of manufacture. Nope, the cost of manufacture vs the amount people were willing to pay decided whether or not the company would stay in business. The amount people were willing to pay drove the company to find ways to cut costs. So even in your example, price influenced costs but costs did not influence price. The price was set by the buying public, ie the market place. To stay in business the company had to reduce costs below the price set by the buying public to where they could make a profit.

edited to add: Marketing companies and marketing departments spend millions each year trying to determine how much people will pay for a product so that they can determine whether or not to invest in the ramp-up costs of a particular product. Even then, it still a crap-shoot as to whether or not a particular product will turn a profit. Marketing is certainly not an exact science. Advertising is just that, trying to convince consumers that they "need" a particular product so as to increase the price the customer is willing to pay. A customer that perceives a "need" for a product is willing to pay more than if it's just a wish or want.

[harrydog]

:scrutiny:

What price has the consumer determined they are willing to pay for a 1911?

[Smoke]

Supply & demand, thats it, period.

I just meant, I think someone could build an exact copy of a Colt 1911 and not spend a penny for R&D or advertising and sell it for less than $500. If someone can design from scratch and market a new gun and sell it for about $500 (there are plenty), where is all the extra money going for the 1911?


You mean like Chuck Daly, Llama/Firestorm, Rock Island Armory, Armscor, etc.

there are plenty of "cheap" 1911 style guns; but there quality is questionable.

[NapAttack]

harrydog,

I'm not up on prices for different models but it does vary from one area to another. It totally depends on your customer base. Your location will have a lot to do with it if you depend on walk in business. If you depend on walk in business and are located in a richer section of town you'll want to carry more high end firearms. In the northern areas of Georgia you would tend to carry more hunting type weapons and supplies. Good businessmen listen to their customers and provide what they ask for. You have a range and IDPA and IPSC clubs shoot there then it would behoove you to carry race guns and parts and accessories for the 1911.

People perceive a difference between Charles Daly and Colt just for example. Consumers will pay $700+ for a Colt in my area but CDs go for $400 or less.

[harrydog]

So perceived quality is one thing that determines how much someone is willing to pay for a 1911. No one would pay $1500 for a Charles Daly but they will gladly pay more than that for an Ed Brown.
It still seems to me that cost of manufacture determines what a product must be sold for. What the public is willing to pay determines whether or not it makes sense for the company to stay with that product or change it, and thus change the price.
It's kinda like the chicken or the egg in a way, but hey, maybe I'm just slow to pick up on a new concept. My wife thinks so!

[45auto]

I used to do I lot of "pricing" for products in a different industry, but I suspect the principles are the same for the gun business.

Most of the factors mentioned in the threads affect pricing. It's an evolving process affected by many factors.

Cost of manufacturing does affect pricing because the owner or CEO, the big guy, have basic minimum margin(profit) requirements that must be met if you are going to stay in business, or remain the CEO.

Large, well financed companies can sell products at cost or below, if they wish, but only for the future growth and price increase potential. In some cases, they can do that for a segment of the market to drive a competitor out of business, and then raise prices! Generally, if it's sold at "cost" , it's only because the start up costs, marketing and sales, are high and eventually(hopefully) the increased sales numbers bring the profits in line.

After that, you are into market conditions(competition) and what segment you wish to compete in. Unless you are coming out with a completely new concept, new market, pricing is pretty well established by existing brands.

When Springfield re-introduced the XD they were able to raise the price @$100, market the gun, and still price it about $100(?) lower than their targeted competitor- Glock. If it was priced the same as Glock, they would have to spend a great deal more in marketing to "convince" people to buy one- that tough against a Glock, a master of marketing!

Price it too cheap and it's not consistant with the quality image that Springfield wants to stand for. Besides, the gun business is not a huge business with huge sales numbers, why price it cheap?

Just an opinion of course.

[NapAttack]

harrydog,It still seems to me that cost of manufacture determines what a product must be sold for. What the public is willing to pay determines whether or not it makes sense for the company to stay with that product or change it, and thus change the price.You have it exactly right.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that the cost of an item has something to do with the price. It only has to do with the price, as you said, if the company wants to stay in business. If the company can manufacture the item for less than consumers are willing to pay then they'll make a profit and stay in business, otherwise they'll either drop the product, go out of business or find a way to reduce the costs involved with the product.

If you could find a way to figure out how much people are willing to pay for a product then you'd be worth millions to industry.

45auto, you have it right. If the CEO wants to keep his job he'll either figure out a way to make the product profitably, find another product he can make profitably or he's gone real quick. Usually the first place they look is costs because they have too much invested in a particular product to simply drop it. And guess what is the first and largest cost that they will look to reduce and will have the biggest impact on costs. Salaries, of course.

There was a discussion on TFL, I think, about a gunsmith that was selling custom 1911s for $6000. Everyone was trying to figure out what he was doing that made it worth that much. The answer was real simple, he charged that because his customer base was willing to pay that much. He didn't do anything that any other quality gunsmith couldn't do, he simply charged that much because he could. He wasn't ripping anyone off, no one was forcing his customers to pay that much and it's not like he has a monopoly or anything, he simply had a reputation and a customer base that was willing to pay those prices. Heck, if I could charge that much and get it I certainly would too.