Very low priced non-proprietary pistol?

Solomonson said:

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...

Click to expand...

Telling me I'm wrong is fine, telling me what I look like is not. I guess in the enormous amount of time you've been here, 3 months, you haven't learned what the High Road is about yet.

Zerodefect said:

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

Click to expand...

Uh... You know that the ".mil" Sig is just a MA compliant P320 Carry frame with a full length RX slide on it right?

"...that the AR-15 was adopted by the U.S. Army..." As ordered by McNamara. Nobody but the USAF wanted the thing otherwise.
Anyway, creating generic handguns would depend a lot on the ATF and other busybody government agencies keeping their collective noses out of the entire idea. Probably need to get past all the law suits over patent infringements too.
"...Did Colt ever sue over that?..." I believe the actual design was owned by the U.S. government, not Colt. Said patents have long since expired. Colt does hold patents on some of the 'upgrades' like the forward assist and the diameter of the bolt. http://www.google.com/patents/US9121614
Whole thing has been discussed on these and other similar pages before.
Mind you, 'AR-15' is a trademarked name owned by Colt Industries. A net search for 'AR-15 Patent' turns up 11.5 million sites.

A guy can build an AR for $300-350. Haven't seen a complete rifle with a price tag that low.

Most guys don't really build their AR because it's the cheapest option, they build their AR because it's the cheapest CUSTOM option. I've sold over 200 of them, most of them in the $800-1,200 ballpark. I spent several years rebuilding 10/22's and Mark II's for racers too, and those also were not the cheapest option on the market. Custom frame poly pistols could live in the same world, happily, but they won't, on average, end up being the cheapest option on the street.

Sunray said:

Colt does hold patents on some of the 'upgrades' like the forward assist and the diameter of the bolt.

Click to expand...

Patents expire 20 years after issuance. You can file for patents on new innovations to the AR-15 design, but everything regarding the original rifle is public domain now.

Solomonson said:

Yes, but as I noted above, they are expensive, "upgrades" from the stockers. What would happen to the market if someone offered a $49.99 clone G17 frame?

Fully built AR15s are now the cheapest (or among the cheapest) because of the harsh competition, provided in part by assemblers -- either individuals or very small shade tree organizations.

Click to expand...

And I will point you to the 1911 market for a similar effect. There are sub-$400 1911s coming out of the Philippines, a price never even remotely approached by Colt when they were the only game in town.

A $49.99 clone G17 frame would not all by itself get you a sub-$300 G17. The barrel, slide, and internals will cost more than $250, and so far nobody is making really cheap strikers, slides, barrels, or trigger groups for Glock.

What you really want is for someone to start building full up G17 (or G19) clones and selling them for $300. Given Glock's Blue Label pricing, and what they have rumored to have sold new firearms to police departments for, Glock themselves could do it if they so chose, but supply and demand has set their pricing where it is.

Building and selling an AR clone taps into a market that is already rich in aftermarket parts. As such, there is a value to being interchangeable with other manufacturer's ARs. However, building a G17 clone would limit the amount of aftermarket parts one would be tapping into, so it would also limit the volume of G17 clones being sold, limiting the potential for breaking even on the venture.

There are too many other striker fired polymer framed pistols on the market for a G17 clone to get a real foothold at a price that would allow a profit margin.

Varminterror said:

A guy can build an AR for $300-350. Haven't seen a complete rifle with a price tag that low.

Click to expand...

Show me a parts list that totals $350, and I'll buy it today.

F-111 John said:

Show me a parts list that totals $350, and I'll buy it today.

Click to expand...

You must not be a very frugal AR shopper. Getting the lower built for $125-150 is easy, even without shopping sales. Finding stripped lowers for $45 is easy, mil-spec stock kit for $45, easy. DPMS lower parts kits for $45, often on sale for $30, easy. OR... Buy the same components, already assembled by New Frontier for $119. So we're talking $120 for the lower.

Multiple uppers for in the $200-250 ballpark on the market. Or build one with a Critical Capabilities barrel for $62, Rock River BCG for $52 (regular $65, but they almost always have 20% sales on their site)... Grab a sale on a forged upper for $55, blems for $40-45 plus an $18 upper kit, add either a clamshell kit or a DPMS handguard kit for $40-50 (nordic rails can be had on sale every now and then for $40). That gets you into the upper for about $240. That's all in for $360 without working very hard to find sales (validated all of these prices in this short amount of time). Getting AR's done any time of year for under $400 is easy, wait around for sales, and you can get them lower without working too hard. I've even seen a few guys put them together south of $300 in the last couple of years. It's even easier for some of us who get discounts on parts.

PSA had complete uppers minus the BCG and charge handle today for $160. They also had BCGs for $80 add a CH for $10 or so you have a complete upper for $250. I've seen them have complete lowers for $130. So you're at $360.
That's insane

As far as the original topic. S&W has some incredible deals going on pistols. So I doubt we'll see any standardization when a company like that has pistols for $250 (the Shields)

Solomonson said:

Sure it would, in time. The barrels, slides, frames, triggers parts, etc. that are now available for the Glock are either OEM or upgrades to OEM -- in other words they're still pricey. If interest grew like it did for the AR15, I'm sure a $199.99 or less Klock 17 would be possible with very decent margins.

Click to expand...

I've been entertaining this idea, as I do build a lot of custom firearms, but this $199.99 price point is nothing short of ridiculous.

Why do you believe that would be true? Because all of the parts you mention are currently available, and in a dozen Glocks I have built, I've spent more than TRIPLE what you are stating.

Why do you think AR-15 pricing supports a Klock 17 price point less than 40% of the retail price of a factory model? For AR-15 carbines, the LOWEST build price a guy can get is somewhere $300-350, whereas you can hit sales for $500 on Factory carbines just as easily as finding those sale prices on parts. Most guys struggle to build one under $400. So you're talking about a $500 factory AR for $350-400, but then turning around and saying you can build a $500 factory Glock clone for $200? Forgive me if I don't understand your reasoning for laying out different numbers, and calling them the same.

Could you please start from our current reality of $150+ barrels, $200+ slides, $50-100 LPK's, and $70-100+ 80% frame kits, $100 slide completion kits and walk through how each of these components will become so much cheaper just through open source production? The list I've provided above makes a basic "Klock 17" with readily available aftermarket and OEM parts for $570, please do explain how you will get us down to $200 total cost?

Reminding here, the cheapest of the cheap open source 1911 barrels are $50-75, which gives you a head start with a $75-100 knock off on what I have listed above... But also reminding, the cheapest of the cheap AR-15 LPK's which include the FCG are $40+, so you likely have no room at all to come down on that bit of kit. You've repeatedly dropped out $50 as the goal for your frame cost, which is only $20 reduced from the current price on Polymer 80 kits. So that's a head start for you - $120 off of the list above is $450. I could be convinced a slide completion kit could be bought for less than $100, so let's all pretend for a second and say it would be priced comparably to an AR bolt rehab kit, for $50. That's another $50 off. So now we're at $200 before you have bought a slide or sights, which puts us right at $400. So here's where things get really silly, let's pretend in the future you can get a Klock slide made at Sarco prices (which doesn't exist today for Glock slides), so you're talking $100 instead of $200, that's still $300 into an open source Klock 17, with a home-milled lower and a crappy Brazilian made slide. And that's a long damned road to bring those prices down another $100 to meet that $199 price point - and I sure don't see any margin for retail dealers after cutting all of those SALE prices again in half.

$570+ is our reality today, and $300+ is pure speculation a guy can cut the cost of almost all of the major components IN HALF, or even cut by 75% in the case of the barrel. You don't see $100 slides at all, and you don't see $50 pistol barrels very often.

I've been building and rebuilding guns for far too long to believe an open source "Klock 17" could be built for $200, or even for $300! It's just not going to happen. I've built on Polymer80 frames and the $600 mark for a base model is real. Granted, nobody builds a base model, as the point of building a custom is to end up with something custom, not end up with the same generic Glock everyone else has, for the same price PLUS more work and no warranty.

So what is the firearms production world missing which you are not? How do you propose to cut another $100 off of that absolutely ridiculous thought experiment I went through above?

Solomonson said:

$380... For something that sold for $1,380 or even more not too many years ago. If M&P 2s ever begin selling for what they should be selling for -- about $199.99, then I agree that a generic pistol wouldn't be successful. Until then it would be.

Click to expand...

Are you saying an AR-15 was selling for $1,380 "not too many years ago"? If so, then this entire discussion is even more foolish than I thought - which I already thought was incredibly so!!

The only reason Basic AR prices were so high a few years ago was panic purchasing and price gouging. When I started building AR's 20yrs ago, I could build a basic AR carbine for just under $300 with FFL/wholesale pricing on parts if I was lucky, but a more typical price was somewhere around $450 all in. There have been a few political roller coaster spikes along the way where prices soared, but if I'm honest, I remain to be amazed how cheap AR's are today - as they're really going for about the same price today as they were 15-20yrs ago, despite inflation. A $400 AR in 2000 has to sell at $566 in 2017 to be the same price, yet I can build the same year-2000 $400 AR for the same $400 today.

So AR prices did NOT drop from $1,380 to $380 on AR's, plain and simple. Either you're very young and don't really know how AR prices have tracked over time, or you don't understand demand pricing influences, or most likely, both.

I agree with alol of what Varminterror posted.

The only truly open source pistol is the 1911 and parts for it come nowhere close to being able to make one at home for anywhere near $200.

The poly Glock clone IMHO isn't a true open source option.

Personally, I'll love to see 2011 parts become like ARs as that seems like the "best" open standard for a pistol. But even then, we'd have tons of disagreement. Even then I can't see prices falling to the $200 mark. I'd even be willing to bet that sub $500 for 1911/2011 isn't going to happen.

Let's not forget that just because we want something and because it's possible doesn't mean it'll happen.
There are many factors in play here. And many of them aren't ones that are in our interest.

That said, With small scale manufacturing, tools such as CNC , water jet, and 3D printing could allow a small manufacturer to fill a niche. That niche could be the catalyst to drive prices down. Only this way would we see where prices could go. But right now, I don't see any major companies having a business need to undermine their current price models.

As a business person, I see them keep prices up as long as they can. We were used to high prices compared to the contract prices. So yes, they could lower prices but it's not in their interest.

My final thought on this is that the current administration is new. There's still a bunch of unrest, so many are still nervous. Until things normalize the major gun companies aren't going to be making major changes. They'll react as we've seen with AR prices, but I don't expect anything earth shattering until they can plan and have a better understanding of the future.

Or to put it more basically why change until the market forces a change.

Hokie_PhD said:

That said, With small scale manufacturing, tools such as CNC , water jet, and 3D printing could allow a small manufacturer to fill a niche. That niche could be the catalyst to drive prices down. Only this way would we see where prices could go. But right now, I don't see any major companies having a business need to undermine their current price models.

Click to expand...

It need not be a major company. Just as Armscorp is producing 1911's that work in the $400.00-$600.00 range so are companies in the U.S. and elsewhere producing low priced polymer framed, striker fired guns and trying to make a profit. In the case of a U.S. outfit like FMK enough to stay alive for awhile:

http://fmkfirearms.com/

If you scroll down here to the bottom of page 5 you'll see 9mms for $300.00 and the FMK with prices "too low to print".

https://www.cdnnsports.com/firearms.html#pg=5

Prowl around CDNN for a bit and see what is available.

This does not count guns from Turkey, Hungary, etc. But those too undercut the market for garage made pistols unless they rise above the level of novelty.

What's propelled the explosion of ARs and polymer framed striker fired handguns is the rate of return on investment by the manufacturers. The panic buying of the Obama administration helped by increasing demand. (There are other factors as well, but that's another story). There is a limit here though. The market can become saturated, economic downturn, etc. There is also a tendency towards monopolies. Already 2 or 3 companies come to dominate the market for parts (think Magpul).

tipoc

So what is your manufacturing path to get from a $570+ price point to build a Klock 17 today, to your touted $199.99 price point of the future?

If you're right, you're right, but I'm certainly missing something to cut the current cost by 67%, even before we talk about manufacturers and resellers margin.

For $300, I'd go to palmetto state arms and buy a S&W SV9E, pay shipping and transfer, and send the $25 rebate in. It's proprietary, but it's also a fully useable handgun under $300 bucks. Easier than goofing around with an 80% non-Glock 17.

Solomonson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Shields are definitely selling in the $225 range right now. Buds isn't the only retailer - you need to shop around. Great time to buy one if you like them. I think they're good guns, but they don't fit my hand.

Look guys all you need to make inexpensive handguns.....or anything.....is a nation with no Unions or Union Workers, Not even anything approaching minimum wage in the US for the un organized workers and lacking in safety and environmental controls.

No secret to it at all.

-kBob

I've got an FMK (essentially a Glock clone, albeit minus some features) that I paid $260 or so for. Works quite well; actually shoots better than my G23, caliber difference notwithstanding.

I'm not sure a 'non-proprietary' format is necessary for the $200 price point; I think the right design, extremely high volume sales and an efficient production program could get a gun there. There are already, as mentioned, S&W Shields selling for (cheapest I've seen, in .40 caliber) $209 after the rebate, so it IS possible. Probably just not sustainable for the long-term.


Larry