[mrstang01]

Why are 10mm Glocks more expensive than other calibers? Is there a rhyme or reason?

Thanks!

Michael

[TheeBadOne]

I suspect it's as simple as they sell less of them then other calibers, and the tooling is newer than the 9mm/.40 tooling, so the cost is higher. Anyone else?

[glockten]

I usually see them priced the same as the .45ACP Glocks, which is higher than the 9mm/.40 models. The 10mm/.45 models are larger, maybe that has something to do with it. More steel and polymer required to produce one, hence higher cost.

Just a guess.

[Bren]

because 10mm's are cool? :evil:

Ooooops, the Witness and S&W's are cheaper, more accurate, and don't bulge brass. :uhoh:

:D :D

[denfoote]

I dunno!! I traded for mine, so it didn't cost me anything!!! :neener:

[Coronach]

I got mine (G20) LNIB for $400. It was a pretty good deal...one of the ones making up for a few of my pretty bad deals. *shrug*

Anything that costs roughly the same to make as your other products, but that you sell less of than your other products, is going to cost more. If it costs more to make and you sell less of it, its going to cost significantly more than the other products. Thats economics.

Mike

[AndABeer]

more metal, though they share many components of the .45s the bore diameter is obviously smaller, hence more metal is used :evil:

[agtman]

10mm Glocks are more expensive ....


... because Glock now realizes that you're really getting 3-guns-for-the-price-of-1. :eek: And for that kind of versatility, ... well, you can expect to pay a bit higher freight.

See, Glock knows that the smart little gunshopper who buys, say, a Glock 20, will then buy aftermarket barrels (from KKM or Fed. Arms) in .357 Sig and .40 Swishy-Walker.

That means - after a 10-second barrel swap at the range - our shopper can be shooting 2 additional calibers besides 10mm. Glock knows that its stock 10mm mags and recoil assembly work just fine with these other cartridges.

Guess what? Not only will Glock NOT see the $$$ that's spent on these aftermarket barrels, but that's also future money Glock loses too, since owners of a G20 or G29 have no need whatsoever to buy a .40 or .357 Glock. Thus, Glock has to make up that little bit of gravy somewhere. :scrutiny:

'Course, the reason for the higher retail cost could just as easily be that the larger-frame 45acp and 10mm guns require more base material (steel & polymer) to make. ;)

[litman252]

:evil: : :D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :cool:

Total sarcasim mode:


You are just pre-paying for the bigger KB!!!

Seroiously, shot the ported 10mm last thurs, dusted the cealing at the same time.:) ;) :D

Tony

[Nightcrawler]

'Course, the reason for the higher retail cost could just as easily be that the larger-frame 45acp and 10mm guns require more base material (steel & polymer) to make.

It costs roughly $75 to make a Glock pistol.

Production cost for an individual unit has very little to do with the price of most modern, mass-produced firearms, especially polymer framed ones.

[Kharn]

Because you or someone else will eventually pay the difference and buy one.

Kharn

[4v50 Gary]

About a decade ago, I got mine used for $300. The officer didn't want to sell it and I told her I didn't really want to buy it. Take it or leave it cuz it didn't matter to me. Today I'm happy she took it (my cash) and left it (G20 with me).

[jem375]

No reason........just greedy manufacturer.........

[JohnKSa]

Nightcrawler,

I've seen people claim $75, $48 and various other very low figures as the "cost to make a Glock".

I'll readily admit that I don't know the actual cost, but have to say that such figures are either not based in any fact, are misquoted out of context, or don't take a lot of important factors into account.

I suspect it costs Glock around $300 to $350 to get a pistol out the door.

The total manufacturing costs MIGHT be (I'm thinking that's still a bit low even when you get that specific) $75 but even if that's true, that's not the whole story.

A reasonably large percentage of the cost to the manufacturer isn't in actually making the gun, it's in doing warranty work, dealing with legal issues, advertising, testing, amortisation of factory and equipment costs, etc. I don't think it's out of line to assume that half of the out the door cost to Glock (or perhaps even more) is made up of these types of expenses.

If Glock could really sell pistols for around $100 and still make money, you can bet that they would be doing it. Who could resist the temptation to undercut their competition by 60-80%?

[Nightcrawler]

Who could resist the temptation to undercut their competition by 60-80%?

Apparently Glock can. Glock 21s sell for $610 in my area. Ruger P97s (another poly framed .45) run about $450.

People will buy Glocks at $600, so that's what Glock sells them for. Actual production cost is probably immaterial.

Sometimes I think Glock could require its buyers to get beaten with a stick before they can take the pistol home, and the Glock faithful would line up for their beatings...

Of course, HK is doing the same thing. The USP is a good gun, but is it really a $750 gun?

[duncan]

Just availablity.

Several key LEAs like the Texas Dept of Public Safety have priority AND

with Dan Wesson now making the 10mm Razorback and Kimber following, the 10mm is resurging.

Get your Glock 20s now!

[JohnKSa]

People will buy Glocks at $600, so that's what Glock sells them for.
Glock does NOT sell Glocks for $600. DEALERS and STORES sell Glocks to the public for $600. Distributors sell Glocks to stores and dealers for a bit over $400 ($410 to $430). Glock sells Glocks to distributors for something under $400 but over $350.

Those numbers are the results of discussions with friends who are FFL holders, prices on volume buys by Police departments, etc. None of them are exact, but I'll bet on all of them being close enough to give a very accurate picture of what's happening.

BTW, around these parts, you can generally pick up a standard model Glock for about $440 (retail) if you shop a bit but no matter what you do, you can't get a new one for much under $430. Which makes perfect sense since even a high volume dealer can't get them for enough less than that to make money.

Ruger polymer frame guns go for around $360 new around here.

Since you have the same distributors and dealers trying to make more or less the same profits along the way, that points to the Ruger and the Glock having a base cost (to the distributor) that is very roughly similar.

But, Ruger, who doesn't have to deal with Austrian labor or import costs, and who casts instead of forges can beat the Glock prices.

It doesn't make sense to assume that they're BOTH padding their prices by hundreds of dollars, it makes a lot more sense to assume that they're making a decent, but reasonable profit on each pistol.

[KahrKarrier]

The most I ever paid for a Glock and I have 3 of them (23,33 & 26) was $510 for the 23, $485 for the 26 and $495 for the 33 all new at local gun shows and shops. You can pay a lot more for other manf's products but you just can't buy a better gun than a Glock, IMHO.
My favorite carry gun is a Kahr K40, slightly heavier than my Glocks but it conceals better.
As far as $75 to make a Glock, that may be for a pile of raw materials laying on the floor of the factory. I have been in manufacturing for over 20 years when pricing a product many factors enter the equasion, labor #1, plant maintenance (ie electricity, water and building upkeep) raw materials then there's shipping costs, advertising and a couple of distributers get their cut before the product hits the show room. Your local retailer will tack on anywhere from 10% to 45% over his cost depending on how knowlegable and shrewed the customer is. It's not much of a secret that many law enforcement agencies can buy Glocks, in a block purchase of say 10 or more, for prices in the very low $300's.
Nobody is in business to give their products away, we can thank labor unions and greedy retailers for the high prices consumers must pay today for most products, not just firearms.------Jed

[Blueduck]

It doesn't make sense to assume that they're BOTH padding their prices by hundreds of dollars, it makes a lot more sense to assume that they're making a decent, but reasonable profit on each pistol.

I'd politely disagree with that.

Say advanced company "G" makes widget "KB" and due to manufacture methods could realize a good profit at a final $5 sale price. However oddly all other widgets on the market that are considered to be of comparable quality by consumers are priced at $60+, and company "G" already has 40% of the widget market sewn up with sales increasing every year selling way overpriced $55 widgets...

Company "G" dropping the price of "KB" widgets to $5 to wipe out the other 60% of the competition would never make up the current profit margin of selling a smaller number of way overpriced Glo----I mean widgets ;)

At least no one suggested 10mm's having a greater liability cost. I loved the clerk defending manufacturers pricing by trying to tell me liability cost of each pistol manufactured was around $200. Asked him to explain Lorcin and Jennings profit structure:scrutiny:

[Oracle]

Guys, suffice it to say that there is a lot more than just the straight "manufacturing costs" involved in the sales and distribution of a firearm in the U.S. That includes everything from legal defense against cities suing firearms manufacturers, to paying employees, to advertising, to import costs, to paying interest on money borrowed to build the factories, buy the equipment, etc.

Where did you get this "it only costs Glock $75.00 to make a Glock pistol" from, anyway? Off the Internet? Yep, that's a reliable source :).

If you don't like paying $450 - $600 for a Glock, don't. There are many other fine firearms manufacturers out there just itching to take your money. But don't go posting internet bs like "it only costs $75.00 to make a Glock pistol". That is simply ridiculous.

[New_comer]

Reason 1 : Greed is good for business!

Reason 2 : Suckers are born every minute!


Seriously, it's market forces at work. People buy what they want at a "good enough" prices. ;)

[Nightcrawler]

But don't go posting internet bs like "it only costs $75.00 to make a Glock pistol". That is simply ridiculous.

Why? The entire lower half of the gun is injection molded plastic. How much do you think that costs, in terms of actual per unit labor? It's not like any skilled or intensive hand labor goes into the production of a Glock.

The $75.00 might be low, but it'd be very suprised if it were much more than that.

If you don't like paying $450 - $600 for a Glock, don't.

Don't worry, I won't. If I want something plastic with a bad trigger, I can probably get much more use out of a bottle of Windex. :neener:

[Mike Irwin]

"Why? The entire lower half of the gun is injection molded plastic. How much do you think that costs, in terms of actual per unit labor? It's not like any skilled or intensive hand labor goes into the production of a Glock."

Have you priced the machinery used to make those frames?

The basic machinery set up could well be several million dollars.

The molds, which are independent of the machines, can be in the range of $100,000 to $300,000 per set, depending on what the item is and the complexity of making the mold. They also don't last forever.

Those prices have to be figured in, and can add substantially to the cost of a firearm as a capital expense.

[Coronach]

Mike,

He is talking the per-unit cost in material and worker time only. He is using that to debunk the idea that the increased cost is due to more material being required, or excessives steps in machining being necessary, to maufacture 10mm pistols. Even if there ARE significant differences in either (my guess is, there is not), they do not account for anything but a fraction of the cost difference.

However, you are quite correct that the machinery, research, overhead, etc etc etc all need to be factored in. I think Nightcrawler is saying that as well. I know I am saying that. Witness:Production cost for an individual unit has very little to do with the price of most modern, mass-produced firearms, especially polymer framed ones.He's just saying that the basic, per unit cost in material and labor doesn't vary that much between, say, a G22 and a G20. Nightcrawler, correct me if I'm wrong.

Naturally, if you have massive LE sales of the Glock 22 and are able to take advantage of economics of scale for it, but you don't have those same advantages for the G20, the G20 is gonna cost more.

Mike

[Nightcrawler]

Yes, that's what I was trying to convey. Regardless of how little or how much it costs to manufacture an individual Glock pistol, the differences between the regular frames and the large frames is not that great; certainly not enough justify a (sometimes) $100 difference in price, depending on where you are.

There are many forces at work that affect the retail prices of firearms, but I don't think the minute amount of extra material needed to make a Glock 20 over a Glock 17 is one of them.

As for research, machinery, etc....it's already been done. The design is already in production, they already have the molds, the machinery is in place. The profits they take in have probably already paid for these things many times over.

[Mike Irwin]

Coro,

I know, that's why I was tossing out the machinery and molding dies, etc., option costs.

As for the machinery being bought, the research being done, etc., yes, but it's not NEARLY as simple as it being "paid for."

Those costs are not insignificant, nor is maintenance, or refinement of designs during production. You pay for the front-end costs with venture capital funding, loans, etc. All of which is paid back over time, and all of which is subject to interest.

Those costs are factored into ALL of the firearms that you make using that design, that particular machinery, etc. You amortize the front end costs over the life of the entire line.

It's not as simple as walking into a Matsutomi molding machine dealership, plopping down $50 million in cash and saying in your best Thurston Howell the Third voice "My good man, I'll take 10 of your finest injection molding machines and molds."

If you don't amortize the front end costs, the first five or 10 guns off the line would cost maybe $1 million to $2 million EACH, and next 50,000 would be $450.

[Tamara]

10mm Glocks cost the exact same amount from any distributor in the country as their .45 siblings. Some dealers may price them higher on the theory that they're going to sit longer and therefore need a higher profit margin to justify the lengthier stay in the showcase. This, however, seems kind of bass-ackwards to me, as the higher tag does nothing to shorten that turnover time. :uhoh:

[tiberius]

The original premise of the question is spurious, at best. Just checking the prices at www.sportingarms.com shows the following:

GLOCK 17 4.5" BBL FS 9mm $459.00
GLOCK 22 4.5" BBL FS .40 S&W $469.00
GLOCK 20 4.6" BBL FS 10mm $509.00
GLOCK 21 4.6" BBL FS .45 ACP $519.00


It looks to me like the full size small frame Glocks are one price and the Full size large frame guns are about $50 more.

What's the issue?

I don't own any Glocks currently, but they are certainly of equal or better quality than other similarly priced guns, so how can they be overpriced?

[Nightcrawler]

how can they be overpriced?

Up here, at least, in any gun store you'll pay a hundred dollars more than those prices. Glock 21s NIB go for $610 at the local Gander Mountain.

[tiberius]

Then order them from SportingArms if you feel ripped off locally.

Personally I prefer to supprt local businesses when possible.....but then again, SportingArms is local to me:)

[Blueduck]

Up here, at least, in any gun store you'll pay a hundred dollars more than those prices. Glock 21s NIB go for $610 at the local Gander Mountain.-Nightcrawler

Don't complain Nightcrawler your in a Glock oasis compared to me!17's, 26's and 27's are priced between $650 and $685 with regular sights in my home town:uhoh:

90 mile drive one way and I can get down to $550 but thats about it.

[Nightcrawler]

Ah, yes, but if I order from this online place, who's going to do the transfer? My local dealer, who has plenty of Glocks of his own to sell?

It's a moot point, really, as I have between little and no desire to own a Glock pistol.

I'm just saying, though, that they ARE, in my opinion, overpriced, at least in my neck of the woods.

[tiberius]

Fair enough, but I'm curious...are Glocks the only guns that your dealers mark up too much?

[Nightcrawler]

Well, depends. Glock 21s run about $610. My NRM Colt Gov't Model cost me $610, as well, but it's a damn nice gun. $515 for NIB Springfield Mil-Spec ($450 or so for the Mil-Spec-er WWII wannabe). $460 for a Springfield XD (up from $455), $350-$400 for a Ruger P89, depending on configuration.

Can't really compare with prices in the rest of the country, as I don't know what those prices are.

[Coronach]

Mike Irwin:I know, that's why I was tossing out the machinery and molding dies, etc., option costs.

As for the machinery being bought, the research being done, etc., yes, but it's not NEARLY as simple as it being "paid for."

Those costs are not insignificant, nor is maintenance, or refinement of designs during production. You pay for the front-end costs with venture capital funding, loans, etc. All of which is paid back over time, and all of which is subject to interest.

Those costs are factored into ALL of the firearms that you make using that design, that particular machinery, etc. You amortize the front end costs over the life of the entire line.

It's not as simple as walking into a Matsutomi molding machine dealership, plopping down $50 million in cash and saying in your best Thurston Howell the Third voice "My good man, I'll take 10 of your finest injection molding machines and molds."

If you don't amortize the front end costs, the first five or 10 guns off the line would cost maybe $1 million to $2 million EACH, and next 50,000 would be $450.Dude, we agree. You just haven't realized it yet. The end result is the Glock 20 is gonna cost significantly more, for all the reasons you just mentioned. I was lumping them together for simplicity's sake.

Mike

[timbo]

Just to back up some other claims here, the price in material between the 9/40 and the 10/45 versions wouldn't be significant. I'd be surprised if the material cost difference exceeded $1 between them. The price increase is likely to come from manufacturing and marketing. Some would equate a larger caliber having to be more expensive and so by marketing reasoning, Glock may feel they can get away with charging a little more. Bigger is better and better is more expensive. I'm not advocating what caliber is better here though, so please don't yell at me. :)

Then again, there may be fewer of these produced (10mm) and that drives the cost up. I'm actually not sure of this though. What we need to do is get a guy in here that works for Glock and get him to tell us. For that matter, ask a guy from HK why my USP .45 was more expensive than the .40 or 9. Don't tell me it's the metal mags either!

[Ky Larry]

The reason they cost more is because that's the price the market will support. If everybody stopped buying Glocks, their prices would come down until people started buying them again. If Glock couldn't make a profit at the new price, it would either have to make a cheaper gun or go out of business. Remember Economics 101? Markets are driven by Supply and Demand.

[Mike Irwin]

"Dude, we agree. You just haven't realized it yet."

You think I have time to read your reply to see if we agree or not?

Bah! I'm a busy man! :neener:

I'm glad that we agree, but I don't think that others agree with us.