Very low priced non-proprietary pistol?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Solomonson

Solomonson

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
765
Location
God's Country
The AR15 platform is extremely popular due not only to its excellent design but its low price. This was made possible in part by a non-proprietary, gov't owned design that could be reverse engineered and subsequently produced by many. (Did Colt ever sue over that?) With ever growing competition among both finished firearms makers (some being little more than kitchen table assemblers with the right licenses) and parts manufacturers, I see the AR15 platform continuing to develop and prices continuing to drop or at least stay steady.

Could this ever happen for a pistol? Obviously the design would have to be something like a Glock rather than a M1911 based on manufacturing costs. Thinking outside of the box for a minute, what if a wealthy individual or charitable foundation reverse engineered the Glock 17 frame (as Lone Wolf already has -- do they have a lic?) and began selling it (along with a baggie of "small parts") at cost (at least at the beginning) to get the ball going?

There are already aftermarket slide, mag, barrel, trigger component and other small parts manufacturers out there. How long (if ever) would it take for companies like Hogue (frames), Magpul (frames, mags), Apex and especially even more utilitarian/lower-priced parts makers to get into the game and support the project as they have with the AR15?

I could see an assemble your own "Klock 17" for under $300.00, if things took off as they have for the AR15 which admittedly took a number of years. Obviously the tough part would be to find a sponsor. The NRA and the NSSF aren't about to do it due to conflicts of interest, but they would be the obvious choice otherwise.

Thoughts?
 
Well, there's nothing special about the Glock that needs to be "reverse-engineered"; virtually every maker of handguns makes a plastic-framed gun that is fundamentally a Glock clone already. They look different, but they all have tilt-barrel Browning actions, plastic frames, and high-capacity magazines. When Taurus, Sccy, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Canik, etc. are all selling guns like that for <$350 dollars, I think the era you describe has already arrived.
 
I also think you've mis-identified the source of the AR-15's appeal. It's not price; if that were true the SKS would reign supreme. It's that the AR-15 was adopted by the U.S. Army. Virtually every weapon ever adopted by the U.S. Army has had brisk civilian sales. The two guns used the longest by the U.S. military--the Colt 1911A1 and the AR-15 variants--also just happen to be massively popular on the civilian market. Not a coincidence.
 
I would like to see this happen! What you say in your first post WVGunman is correct, but I think if the frames were all the same it would match the OP's idea a little better. Something that uses all the same "upper" (slide?) parts so aftermarket parts could be swapped ad nauseum. There isn't really a "build your own" community yet for pistols, but the GLOCK wannabe (oops, did I just say that?) frames you can get from other suppliers are a good start. Especially since many of the GLOCK parts are already somewhat interchangeable.

Maybe a "chassis" system with interchangeable grips, slides, barrels, triggers, mags, etc. is the way to go for this. Maybe if we kick around enough ideas and come up with a "new" gun out of this we can call it the THR something!

Obviously start with something that is already a good idea and decent aftermarket support. Like... Beretta or Hi-Power mags, GLOCK barrels, etc. Make a chassis that uses all of these, and has a variety of grips and you'd have it made!

I think at the beginning the "US Military adopted it, it must be the best" idea was very significant; but I think that significance has diminished at least slightly. There is no question that it has become cheap because it was popular, but now I think that it's affordability is making it even more popular, or at least a contributing factor.
 
Missing an obvious one - the new M17. It's not only the latest service pistol, it also has a serial numbered trigger unit separate from the grip, instead of being integrated as one unit.
 
Mauser lover said:
I would like to see this happen! What you say in your first post WVGunman is correct, but I think if the frames were all the same it would match the OP's idea a little better. Something that uses all the same "upper" (slide?) parts so aftermarket parts could be swapped ad nauseum. There isn't really a "build your own" community yet for pistols, but the GLOCK wannabe (oops, did I just say that?) frames you can get from other suppliers are a good start. Especially since many of the GLOCK parts are already somewhat interchangeable.

Maybe a "chassis" system with interchangeable grips, slides, barrels, triggers, mags, etc. is the way to go for this. Maybe if we kick around enough ideas and come up with a "new" gun out of this we can call it the THR something!

Obviously start with something that is already a good idea and decent aftermarket support. Like... Beretta or Hi-Power mags, GLOCK barrels, etc. Make a chassis that uses all of these, and has a variety of grips and you'd have it made!

I think at the beginning the "US Military adopted it, it must be the best" idea was very significant; but I think that significance has diminished at least slightly. There is no question that it has become cheap because it was popular, but now I think that it's affordability is making it even more popular, or at least a contributing factor.
Click to expand...

Yes, it wouldn't have to be a copy of the G17 per se, but as the grandfather of the plastic fantastics and arguably the greatest existing third party support, it would be a logical choice. That said any solid design would work -- the M17 comments certainly has merit, and I appreciate your comments about interchangeability.

The problem I see is that I cannot imagine any individual or organization that would sponsor something like this. It just steps on too many toes. It would be fantastic if the NRA or NSSF joined forces with someone like Magpul to create the frame and to push it hard both online and in American Rifleman. If that happened and if the design was good enough, it would attract enough suppliers to make the project as success. But neither the NRA nor the NSSF is going to get involved in something like this.
 
Solomonson said:

The AR15 platform is extremely popular due not only to its excellent design but its low price. This was made possible in part by a non-proprietary, gov't owned design that could be reverse engineered and subsequently produced by many.

Could this ever happen for a pistol? Obviously the design would have to be something like a Glock rather than a M1911 based on manufacturing costs.

I could see an assemble your own "Klock 17" for under $300.00, if things took off as they have for the AR15 which admittedly took a number of years.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Why should I assemble my own "Klock 17" for $300.00 when I can buy a new S&W M&P right now for $225.00
(includes $75.00 factory rebate). The M&P comes with a factory warranty with service and parts support. Being made by a major company it will always have resale and trade in value.

A "Klock 17" is essentially worthless when it comes to resale or trade value. It is just a collection of parts from miscellaneous manufacturers which are of unknown quality and assembled by someone with unknown mechanical skills. Plus your Klock 17 is going to have to have a serial number on it if you resale or trade it.
 
Tirod said:
Missing an obvious one - the new M17. It's not only the latest service pistol, it also has a serial numbered trigger unit separate from the grip, instead of being integrated as one unit.
Click to expand...
Give it a little time. It will happen with the SIG 320/M17.

Solomonson, most modern pistols are able to be Lego'd together; gunsmithing the newest ones is simply parts replacement. Very little fitting is needed. It's just the more popular guns that get the Lego parts made for them. The 1911 is really the only currently popular pistol that needs a high level of skill to do a build correctly. And as you noted, that's because it's from a different era, and the fact that it served the US military for a long time.

Revolvers are a different story, particularly old Colts. That's an art as much as it is a skill.
 
When 3D printing quality/ durability in the home-user market hits a certain sweet spot of price and quality I could see that tech dovetailing with an interest in a build-it-yourself pistol. Really, it's already happening with the high-end race guns. From a regulatory standpoint the constraints will be blow wide open. It will be interesting....
 
entropy said:
Give it a little time. It will happen with the SIG 320/M17.

Solomonson, most modern pistols are able to be Lego'd together; gunsmithing the newest ones is simply parts replacement. Very little fitting is needed. It's just the more popular guns that get the Lego parts made for them. The 1911 is really the only currently popular pistol that needs a high level of skill to do a build correctly. And as you noted, that's because it's from a different era, and the fact that it served the US military for a long time.

Revolvers are a different story, particularly old Colts. That's an art as much as it is a skill.
Click to expand...

I hope it does. It already has in a sense with the M1911, but it's an inherently far more expensive firearm to build. The impact of such a pistol could be huge. I wonder if a frame could be designed and produced that would accept M17 barrels, slides, mags, trigger parts, etc. and not impinge on SIG's patent?
 
BSA1 said:
Why should I assemble my own "Klock 17" for $300.00 when I can buy a new S&W M&P right now for $225.00
(includes $75.00 factory rebate). The M&P comes with a factory warranty with service and parts support. Being made by a major company it will always have resale and trade in value.

A "Klock 17" is essentially worthless when it comes to resale or trade value. It is just a collection of parts from miscellaneous manufacturers which are of unknown quality and assembled by someone with unknown mechanical skills. Plus your Klock 17 is going to have to have a serial number on it if you resale or trade it.
Click to expand...

You can't buy a full-sized M&P for $225.00 right now, that's why. You can buy an S&W Shield right now and get a $75.00 rebate. FWIW, even with the rebate, the cheapest price for a Shield at Bud's is $254.00 An M&P 2 is closer to $500.00 Looking forward, the Klock 17 could dip well below the $300/unit price.

Nice try but no sale.
 
Glock and 1911 fit what the Op is talking about already. Glock parts are everywhere. You can build an entire Glock with hardly any Glock parts. I avoid Springy and S&W because I can't simply order replacement parts for them.

I don't think the .mil Sig will catch on.
 
Glock's patents on their original design have long expired. Anyone can make clones at this point (and some already do). It's just that when you get down to literally making a part for part clone of another gun, it's hard to differentiate yourself. Sure, AR15's are popular, but there are a bazillion different companies competing for sales there with many of them not really differentiated.

Dealing in commodities generally isn't as profitable.
 
Solomonson said:
The AR15 platform is extremely popular due not only to its excellent design but its low price. This was made possible in part by a non-proprietary, gov't owned design that could be reverse engineered and subsequently produced by many.
Click to expand...

If this is the basis for your platform, then the entirety of your reasoning is flawed. The AR-15 was designed by Armalite, NOT a government owned design, which design was shortly thereafter sold to Colt. The Government has enough power to pull designs where they see fit, through licensing rights or otherwise, but don't be distracted into thinking the AR was some sort of open-source platform for everyone to take a free bite...

The Sig P320, aka M17 (gotta be insult to injury for Glock, that it was designated after one of their model numbers!), is a fully modular design, so anyone who is willing to purchase license to the Sig design will be able to produce component parts. Sig probably isn't motivated to do so quite yet, for a multitude of reasons.

We're already seeing some of this with the Glock models, however, but most frequently in "80% form," since Glock was foolish enough to serialize the piece of plastic forming the grip frame as their receiver. I'm personally surprised to have not seen a small niche market of grips for the Ruger LCP yet, since they have the same embedded FCG chassis as the P320, although I can appreciate Ruger wouldn't outlicense design rights, and not many folks will pay $50-100 for a new grip for a $250 pocket pistol.

Personally, I expect this DIY phase to end sooner than later. People are already getting tired of building their own AR's, so I think we'll see a downturn in firearms sales rates in the next decade, and an even greater downturn in firearms customization/DIY build parts sales. Some folks have been building their firearms for a long time, some folks always will, but traditionally, those were the "gun guys among gun guys," not what we've been seeing of late where guys are building their first and only rifle.
 
Speedo66 said:
OP asks "Could this ever happen to a pistol?" Isn't that the case with the 1911? Who isn't making one now?
Click to expand...

Before posting did you even bother to read the seventeen words immediate following my question shown below in red?

"Could this ever happen for a pistol? Obviously the design would have to be something like a Glock rather than a M1911 based on manufacturing costs."

You're so anxious to post so you can show us how bright you are, you end up looking like a fool in the process...
 
Last edited:
mgmorden said:
Glock's patents on their original design have long expired. Anyone can make clones at this point (and some already do). It's just that when you get down to literally making a part for part clone of another gun, it's hard to differentiate yourself. Sure, AR15's are popular, but there are a bazillion different companies competing for sales there with many of them not really differentiated.
Click to expand...

That's right and that would be the goal for a generic pistol from the consumer's point of view.

mgmorden said:
Dealing in commodities generally isn't as profitable.
Click to expand...

Right again. Like with the AR15, it leads to lower prices. Great for consumers, not as great for producers.
 
Zerodefect said:
Glock and 1911 fit what the Op is talking about already. Glock parts are everywhere. You can build an entire Glock with hardly any Glock parts. I avoid Springy and S&W because I can't simply order replacement parts for them.

I don't think the .mil Sig will catch on.
Click to expand...

No, the 1911 isn't what I'm talking about. It's still expensive to put one together based on its design.

Nor is Glock. At least not right now. No one makes a low-priced frame. The aftermarket frames that are out there are sold as "upgrades" to the originals and are priced as such.

I do wonder what would happen if a cloned G17 frame was offered for $49.99? Would its existence further spur an already existing aftermarket parts network? Would people start assembling their own guns as they do with ARs?
 
Solomonson said:
You can't buy a full-sized M&P for $225.00 right now, that's why. You can buy an S&W Shield right now and get a $75.00 rebate. FWIW, even with the rebate, the cheapest price for a Shield at Bud's is $254.00 An M&P 2 is closer to $500.00 Looking forward, the Klock 17 could dip well below the $300/unit price.

Nice try but no sale.
Click to expand...

Maybe full size M&P's are going for $500.00 in your area but they are not where I live. Here they are going for less than $400.00.

I got a email today that with the rebate my price for S&W Shield is $224.99. As you point out the rebate is for the compact models which many prefer for conceal carry.

A quick check of Gunbroker has a full-size M&P 9mm with night sights for $369.00.

Which still doesn't change the fact that you want to build a handgun with parts from different manufacturers of unknown quality put together by a person with unknown mechanical skill that does not have a warranty, factory support and parts.

Nor you have not made a case why a copy of Glock 17 is desirable when sales clearly show the most popular model by far is the Glock 19 size.

Not to mention that the resale and trade-in value of your "Klock 17" is still pretty much worthless.
 
BSA1 said:
Maybe full size M&P's are going for $500.00 in your area but they are not where I live. Here they are going for less than $400.00.

I got a email today that with the rebate my price for S&W Shield is $224.99. As you point out the rebate is for the compact models which many prefer for conceal carry.

A quick check of Gunbroker has a full-size M&P 9mm with night sights for $369.00.

Which still doesn't change the fact that you want to build a handgun with parts from different manufacturers of unknown quality put together by a person with unknown mechanical skill that does not have a warranty, factory support and parts.

Nor you have not made a case why a copy of Glock 17 is desirable when sales clearly show the most popular model by far is the Glock 19 size.

Not to mention that the resale and trade-in value of your "Klock 17" is still pretty much worthless.
Click to expand...

They're going for nearly $500.00 on Bud's. In any event your $225.00 shield (which isn't analogous to the G17) doesn't exist.
 
Solomonson said:
I do wonder what would happen if a cloned G17 frame was offered for $49.99?
Click to expand...

A G17 frame couldn't be offered at such a low price, as for the G17, the frame is the "gun." Even as an "80% lower," the replacement frame would be replacing a serialized part, and of course, you need jigs and some machining ability to finish it out, so they realize they're selling into a limited market, with a relatively specific product market in mind - which is NOT the "I wanna build my own pistol on the cheap" crowd. They're selling to the guys who are building their own $1,000 AR's and are happy about it.

The modular designs like the $320 could and SHOULD see a day of $50 grip frames, but the Glocks, not so much.
 
Polymer80 makes an 80% lower that takes Glock parts. Lone Wolf makes the Timberwolf Glock polymer frame. There used to be a company that made aluminum Glock lowers as a foundation for race guns,but I can't remember the name.

As with most project guns, however, you can buy a complete gun for less than you can build one, unless you are using some parts that you already have lying around.

For example, you can buy a complete Anderson or DMPS AR for less than you can build one, when you include the cost of every single spring, plunger detent, and crush washer, and include the tools necessary. If you are like most AR builders and have bins full of parts already, then yes, you can build a rifle for less money than it take to buy one.



You may not have the best AR in the world, but the cheapest is still a complete gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
How much cheaper can AR parts get?
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
justice06rr
J
L
  • Locked
Curious, what's the BEST handgun safety design?
2 3
Replies
66
Views
5K
Jim K
J
D
  • Locked
Why isn't there a demand for a short/low recoil/affordable .50 caliber pistol round?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
hartcreek
H
N
  • Locked
Should I invest into 6.5 Grendel?
Replies
16
Views
825
ATLDave
A
F
  • Locked
Pistol Brand Accuracy Demystified
Replies
2
Views
224
tuj
tuj
Back
Top