price and reliability


PDA






Jmackk
July 25, 2009, 09:06 PM
Well my question is do you guy(and gals) think that price reflects reliability. I do understand price and quality and Im a firm beliver in "you get what you pay for". BUT, when I hear about these $1500 guns that always need work and are picky on what ammo they shoot, and then I hear about a $200 hi point (just an example) that has had several thousand round through it with out a hitch, it kinda makes me want to by the cheaper. The old saying is "if it dont rattle it wasn't made right". If you have a gun that has really tight-fitting parts would'nt that mean (in theory) that if it get to dirt, or something gets in there, that is would fail to function, due to impaction. And if the parts have a slightly "loose" fit wouldn't that mean that there is more room to "run dirty". The tight-fitting gun may shoot 1 inch groups and the loose gun might only shoot 2 inch groups but isn't a gun that goes bang every time more important than looks and so-called quality. It's like a Ford 351w and a Ferrari engine; the Ferrari has tighter fit and has more power and so on. But the 351 will go 300,000 mile if properly taken care of, and the Ferrari will not; trust me on this one my brother is a Ferrari tech, they're always in the shop. While my Bronco just pushed 289,000 miles and still going strong. I hear people say that people who buy cheap quality guns dont know anything about machining and metal, and funtion and all that stuff. But I must say neither do they, Glocks are polymer guns that are built to function, no matter what (most of the time) but I own Glocks and I know people who do and the "fit" is good but not as good as my buddys gold cup, but my Glock never skips a beat (unless the GF is shooting it, limp wrists :D ).

And I'm talking about a carry, or truck guns, not a target gun. I have been around guns all my life and since I never had much money myself I tend to buy on the "cheap side". And I have never had any trouble with my "cheap" guns but my buddy's gold cup only likes particular round, and hates reloads of any kind. And he has some other guns with similar problems. So thats just my thought on the subect, I can't wait to hear everyone else's.

If you enjoyed reading about "price and reliability" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
General Geoff
July 25, 2009, 09:16 PM
Price reflects the design, materials and labor put into the manufacture of a firearm. It does not directly reflect reliability.

Firearms are mechanical devices just like cars. As such, specific examples can vary wildly from other examples of the same make & model. It all comes down to quality control during manufacture.

Every firearm designed to be carried and/or used as a defensive tool, SHOULD have reliability as its top design priority. Often, however, more expensive firearms have much tighter tolerances and possibly unorthodox parts that differ from "standard" designs, and this can create reliability problems, even if this was not the intention.


Take a Ford Mustang for example. A bone stock Mustang directly from Ford should be a fairly reliable daily driver. But start modifying it, put a supercharger on it, increase compression ratio, hotter cam, stiffer suspension, higher rate valve springs, etc.. you now have a faster car, but at the expense of reliability. It's really the same thing with firearms.

Mags
July 25, 2009, 09:22 PM
Never heard of a 1500 dollar gun that was finicke on anything as long as you follow the instruction manual.

Tinpig
July 25, 2009, 09:43 PM
Sometimes price is driven by the logo.

Back when I had four children in college I bought an older 5-shot Charter Arms .38 spl. snub in excellent condition for pocket carry. A similar Colt or S&W would have cost twice as much and I didn't have the money.
It's a solid and well-built revolver. I practice with it every time I'm at the range and it has always been completely reliable. I've never felt the need to trade "up."

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc91/ccanhamjr/Guns/charterL-1.jpg

Tinpig

Skillet
July 25, 2009, 09:51 PM
an AK-47 is made with loose parts. you can run over it with a truck and it will still fire. you can dip it in mud and it will still fire. but it is also very very inaccurate, because it is made with loose fitting parts.

a traditional AR-15 is made with tight fitting parts. if dipped in mud it will jam. if ran over with a truck it will probably break. but it is very accurate and will hardly ever miss.

so my question is, which do you prefer-innacuracy or unreliability?

of course there is a few exceptions, like a bolt action rifle. this is one of the tightest fitting guns out there. which makes it very accurate. but it has less moving parts, which makes it more reliable.

so i guess the answer is- less moving parts.

if you go from top to bottom in reliability with the most unreliable at the top and the most reliable at the bottom-
Auto's-most likely to jam because of the speed and amount of moving parts
semi-autos- depends on the design, but some likes to jam because of more moving parts
revolver-reliable, but that reliability takes away from other things like capacity and recoil and being very dirty
bolt action-almost unfailureable. the only thing that moves is the bolt which moves manually and the firing pin which is very unlikely to fail. sacrifices rate of fire and recoil and the ability to keep the eye on the target at all times
single shot-the only thing that can make this fail is if the barrel is mangled, the firing pin fails, or if the ammo is bad. sacrifices any follow up shot, and the ability to reacquire the target.

i don't think that it is in the price as much as it is in the design of the gun.
you can fix a unreliability factor that arises by to much goo on the gun. just keep the gun cleaner. you can't fix inherit inaccuracy based on the design of the gun.

Jmackk
July 25, 2009, 09:51 PM
So, what your saying, General, is it's more of a simpicity factor, and that the more expensive guns have more problem due to the higher rate of "objects" in them and more complicated upgrades? And I must say, that mustang would be hot :D

And $1500 may be a little exagerated but I think my buddys gold cup was around 1200, or so, but he also bought 3 extra mag with it. (5 total)

Soda, I think unreliability would be more hazerdous to your health than an a weapon that shoots a wider group. And you do make a good point, I guess I like a little bit of both.

Glockman17366
July 25, 2009, 09:54 PM
The high dollar firearms are probably very accurate "match grade" guns. These guns are built to close tolerances which improves the accuracy. The trade off is an appetite for match grade ammo or reduced reliability with standard off the shelf ammo.
And, as others wrote...sometimes it's the name (snob factor).

That's not the kind of firearm I'm interested in (I like 100% reliability in a self defense gun (with any brand ammo) and I'm just a plinker at the range), but to each his own...

I did have a high dollar match grade rifle once...a DPMS. Super accurate, but really finicky with ammunition. It wouldn't feed mil-surp .223 at all. That gun was sold years ago and I'm much happier with a very reliable Rock River Arms AR-15 (which eats pretty much anything) now.

Skillet
July 25, 2009, 10:03 PM
Soda, I think unreliability would be more hazerdous to your health than an a weapon that shoots a wider group. And you do make a good point, I guess I like a little bit of both.

yeah, but if you can't hit your target, your rifle becomes about as much use as a club would be.

the Navy SEALS train on burst fire, and hitting your target on the first shot. the taliban, train on spray and pray(to allah).

which has come out on top?

Pweller
July 25, 2009, 10:04 PM
The old adage 'you get what you pay for' is foolishly simplistic, and implies that price and quality are directly tied together.

The pricing of anything is determined by a lot more than just design, material, and labor. It has to do with the logo, the brand recognition, the amount of overhead of the company, how much or little advertising they do, how much they pay their execs and labor pool, how much they pay in healthcare and other costs, how their products are distributed (how many firms are in the distribution channel between manufacturer and end-user), what their profit margins are, where their products are produced (i.e. labor costs) etc. etc.

So, if you have a company with a multi-tiered distribution channel with a flashy advertising budget and celebrity endorsements, where the execs are overpaid, their product will invariably cost more to the consumer than a lean company who sells more directly to the consumer and does very little advertising.

Skillet
July 25, 2009, 10:13 PM
So, if you have a company with a multi-tiered distribution channel with a flashy advertising budget and celebrity endorsements, where the execs are overpaid, their product will invariably cost more to the consumer than a lean company who sells more directly to the consumer and does very little advertising
you hit the nail right on the head.
just compare hi point to smith and wesson.
hi point, while the gun they make is kinda cheap to build, is very reliable and accurate. but they don't do a ton of advertising. so since they have less expense because of that, you get a less expensive gun. smith and wesson, make great guns at a somewhat high(er) manufactering price. but they do tons of advertising. so since they have bigger expense to build and make ads, you get a revolver that costs 1500 bucks.

follow the money.:D

Jmackk
July 25, 2009, 10:56 PM
yeah, but if you can't hit your target, your rifle becomes about as much use as a club would be.

the Navy SEALS train on burst fire, and hitting your target on the first shot. the taliban, train on spray and pray(to allah).

which has come out on top

Soda, I dont disagree with you at all, if you cant hit what you are going to shoot at then why bother, it kind of defeats the purpose of shooing. But what is considered accuret and not accuret, there combat acurret, theres hunting accuret, then there tac-driving accuret, and then there's HO my goodness you compleatly missed the side of the barn, were going to get you some glasses right know:D There all different with different qualitys and different means. hua..om..what was my point....oh ya, is it worth scraficing a weapon that shoting a 1inch group but is very finicy for a weapon that shoots a 2inch group but will eat anything?

And the SEAL's do train on burst firing, but they know there weapon will fire every time. BUT how tight are there weapon, Im no SEAL, so I could not tell you, all I know from coming from a slight military familly(2uncles were marines) is that its government issue and that to govt tends to be "cheap" So are there weapons tac-driver with really tite tolerences or are they kinda loose. Im not trying to argue or come off wrong so I hope I dont come off that way, just trying to pick all your brains and get the most info I can.

Skillet
July 25, 2009, 11:01 PM
oh i know, i just hate the thought of an AK-47 being a better weapon than an AR-15. after all, an AK-47 IS a bad guy weapon lol.

Claude Clay
July 25, 2009, 11:09 PM
today, paying more often means that you paid more--not that you got more [value] for your money.
sad, no?

rbernie
July 25, 2009, 11:18 PM
Money can buy many things, and there is no simple answer to which combination of these things you are getting for a given price point.

Money can buy a highly mature design, with lots of FEA and somesuch. It can buy better materials that are used in the fabrication of the gun's parts. It can buy better finishing of the parts. It can buy hand-fitting of the parts. It can buy better cosmetic finishing of the pieces. It can buy better testing of the prototype products, to validate the design and material specifications. It can buy better QC and QA in the assembly process. It can buy better Customer Service (more, smarter service reps). It can buy slick ads in the gun rags, to convince you of the virtues of the product. It can buy a booth and a hospitality suite for the vendor at ShotShow. And so on...

There is no linear scaling of money to reliability for any given class of gun. Some manufacturers spend a lot to get the best materials but don't spend much at all on the finish or anything on the marketing. Some manufacturers skimp on the CS but spend a lot on the manufacturing QA/QC. Some spend a lot on the marketing side of the house and not on the design side of things.

You just have to do your homework and determine what you're likely to get for a given product at a given price point.

Tim the student
July 26, 2009, 12:16 AM
Nope, I don't think that it does. But among similar items, I think its a good indicator.

Doug S
July 26, 2009, 12:26 AM
I do not think you need a thousand dollar gun to have a reliable gun. That said, when I first got into guns I tried a number of "budget" guns. I bought multiple Bersa, FEG, and Taurus handguns, and had problems with all of these brands. I then "upgraded" to Smith and Wesson and Glock (again multiples of each brand), and I haven't had a problem with any of them. So, yes I think to a degree, price and reliability are related. I also think firearm type "revolver/autoloader" can be a factor. Cheaper revolvers seem to be less problematic than cheap autoloaders.

DHJenkins
July 26, 2009, 01:23 AM
Marketing hype plays a big part in the price of anything, and there are always lemons.

akodo
July 26, 2009, 07:58 AM
Quote:
Soda, I think unreliability would be more hazerdous to your health than an a weapon that shoots a wider group. And you do make a good point, I guess I like a little bit of both.

yeah, but if you can't hit your target, your rifle becomes about as much use as a club would be.

the Navy SEALS train on burst fire, and hitting your target on the first shot. the taliban, train on spray and pray(to allah).

which has come out on top?

even inexpensive guns and 'loose' guns still produce 'minute of badguy' results at standard distances. A handgun that shoots a 6" group at 25 yards from a rest is gong to be considered 'very innacurate' yet it will get the job done. Same with a 5 MOA rifle.

Glockman17366
July 26, 2009, 09:46 AM
even inexpensive guns and 'loose' guns still produce 'minute of badguy' results at standard distances. A handgun that shoots a 6" group at 25 yards from a rest is gong to be considered 'very innacurate' yet it will get the job done. Same with a 5 MOA rifle.

Exactly! And, in a self defense gun, a MOBG works quite well.

LaserSpot
July 26, 2009, 05:05 PM
Any gun will work reliably when everything is perfect. A really good design can tolerate some dirt, abuse, or out of spec parts.
I think the best way to get an out-of-the-box reliable gun is to either buy a model that's been accepted for military service, or one that has been made by the same company for decades.
In the first case, the design wouldn't have been passed military trials if it jammed.
In the second case, they've either worked out the kinks, or the design would have been dropped because of its poor reputation and low sales.

huntsman
July 26, 2009, 06:01 PM
Well my question is do you guy(and gals) think that price reflects reliability. I do understand price and quality and Im a firm beliver in "you get what you pay for".

Price may not be the sole indicator of reliability but it can be a good indicator of quality which means reliability.

LaserSpot
July 27, 2009, 02:07 AM
Higher priced guns are likely to have better metal work, finish, and accuracy. Itís probably been test fired and nothing will break on the first box of ammo. None of this ensures %100 reliability.

If you enjoyed reading about "price and reliability" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!