How people justify paying too much (Heritage Rough Rider versus Ruger Single Six)

Sure, a lot of stuff is more expensive than it's worth. The psychology of marketing is some serious voodoo-- look at Apple computers/devices as an example (and yes, I own some). There are some factors that influencing pricing you may be overlooking, though, like customer service, visual appeal, and resale value. Between the two guns you mention, if I shot .22, I'd go for the Ruger, because I know what their customer service is like, and they're a familiar company.

You may want to increase the example round count in your argument. 50,000 rounds is not a lot of shooting. I do that in five years, and I don't shoot a lot. 200 rounds/wk= 10,400/yr.

First of all, you always pay for what you get...SOMETIMES, you get what you pay for.

Second, I must respectfully disagree with your second point in regards to a gun made for two lifetimes. I still shoot and hunt with guns that belonged to my grandfather, that my father hunted with, that my son will be able to hunt with. That's the difference between paying more for a quality, well made gun. Will the rough rider be serving your family 3-4 generations down through the decades? This is the paradox of buying cheap and disposable. It's a false economy. My grandfather paid probably less than $100 for guns I'm still using. He could have bought some craptastic cheap-o gun that would have served him well, but then I'd have had to go out and pay $400 for a gun to replace it with. (BTW, the same is true of his tools. I fed my family many years using the same tools he used to feed my dad that my dad used to feed me. But he bought Snap-On, not Chinesium.)

However, I would definitely agree with your fourth conclusion. Americans just don't value the dollar very highly anymore.

By the way, a basic rule of economics is that the invisible hand of the marketplace drives a price point towards equilibrium wherein the supplier supplies just enough product to meet demand at a price that is both profitable for the supplier and agreeable to the consumer. High prices are supposed to drive down demand (fewer products sold at higher prices), and the reverse is also true. When an item is overpriced, people are supposed to not buy it, but these days, people just keep paying. (As evidenced by the spike in ammo prices-especially 22LR)

Sometimes it's a matter of just wanting a particular brand based on past experiences, and deciding the 50% extra cost is worth the benefits you get, real or perceived.

I guess I don't really understand the point here.

Will my Wilson Beretta 92 Brig Tac out shoot a standard 92FS? I dunno. I also don't really care. The benefits of the Wilson justified the cost to me. Same could be said of my 686 Performance Center gun. The same can be said of my HKs vs a Bersa.

Data and facts are important of course, but desire isn't always based on hard data. I'm not trying to crap on this thread but this phenomenon has been around as long as people have been making things and selling them to make a living. I doubt we'll understand it anymore in this context as any other.

If my Rough Rider is aluminum, it’s the heaviest aluminum I’ve ever felt. But that’s neither here nor there...

Is a Cadillac worth double the price of a Chevy? Same car inside, the Caddy has fancier options?

I’m not sure it matters, really. Both sell well enough.

I also own and shoot both examples you discuss. I love my Rough Riders for what they are. I also love my Ruger SS for what it is. The RR has many MIM and cast parts and has an aluminum of some sort, alloy frame. I have had two aluminum alloy frame revolvers split apart while shooting them. One with .22LR and one shooting 22 MAG. Both were made in Germany---S Richards IIRC and imported. I do not think that the Ruger will split apart when shooting though. So there MIGHT be a difference in construction that makes it worth buying. At least with a Ruger they have been around long enough that parts will probably be available for a longer time in the future. Here's one I have kept. YMMV

Op,

I’m glad you like your rough rider. A lot of people do. The experience I had with my rough rider tells me the single six is absolutely at least twice the gun that my heritage was.

All those points you argued in bold applied to my situation. Tolerances weren’t good, thr aluminum frame tweaked or stretched, and it wasn’t accurate by any measure.

Absolutely in today’s market there are great bargains. The bolt action market is a perfect example. There are also overpriced products in the fun world just like anything else.

Had one of each, sold both; Sold the Rough Rider because it IS NOT as nicely finished, has the stupid safety, wasn't tremendously accurate with 22LR (better with 22WMR), and was a single shot. Sold the Single Six because I bought it used with only the 22WMR cylinder and I really didn't shoot it or want to keep the 22WMR around. In the end, I just get tired of loading and cocking single action revolvers. Everything I now own is double action, with the exception of a 45LC Vaquero and a Ruger Bearcat (which I intend to pass on to a grandson).

Ultimately, though, I think the OP is wrong. Heritage lists the Rough Rider as "aluminum alloy". Ruger states the current Single Ten is stainless steel. Period. And I know my older Single Six was steel because I tested it with a magnet.

The value of a product is determined by what someone will pay.
Any gun that sells is fairly priced to the person who buys it.

WVGunman said:

If that's true, how can "A fool and his money are soon parted." ALSO be true?

Click to expand...

Because fools place value on foolish ideas and worthless things, that's what makes them fools.

I couldn’t find on the Heritage website what “alloy” it is. Steel is an alloy, aluminum is an alloy when producing products, it’s just mystery metal.

There are several other points you may want to add into your list:

1) A gun is not a utilitarian purchase. It isn't a sledge hammer you swing over to Harbor Freight to buy because you've got that one fence post to whack back into the ground. It's a discretionary, personal, even "prestige" purchase. Things way outside basic utility go into the decision. Like ...

2) Pride of ownership: Some people feel good about themselves when they buy something that speaks to them of a nostalgic, known, "feel of quality." Seeing that Ruger name on the gun is going to make them more attached to it than "just" what they see as an almost generic import. The small amount of extra money spent on it (and let's be honest, a few hundred extra dollars is somewhere between saving an extra week and what some would spend on a bottle of wine for dinner -- not a king's ransom) it completely worth that ephemeral extra degree of attachment to it.

Example: While I'm not extremely swayed by "pride of ownership" (I don't think), if I was to buy a(nother) single-action .22 revolver it would be a Ruger, not a Heritage. Why? Well, I don't need a single-action .22 revolver. The only reason for me to have one is to put a grin on my face. Seeing that nostalgic old Ruger logo, and experiencing the vague details of fit and finish that tend to mark a Ruger, help to stick that grin on my face. A RR would probably make me grin, too, but if I'm going to spend some money on a fun purchase like a .22 revolver, I'm going to do it the way that makes me grin most.

3) Related to number 2 -- Price point is important. People value what they spent more money on over that which they got cheap. A little-known fact about marketing and manufacturing is that maker's don't develop a product and then go out to the world and find out how much folks will pay for it. They develop a product and simultaneously decide at what price level in the market they're going to sell it. It's a strategic decision. Balancing how many they think they can sell, with how much folks will pay for it. There's no reason at all that Hi-Point couldn't tool up to build guns as "nice" as a Glock or a Springfield. But that's not their market niche. They WANT to sell a lot of their guns, cheaply, to the segment of the market that Glock and Springfield aren't reaching with their "better" products.

All that to say, studies have clearly demonstrated in hundreds of product categories that folks will perceive a quality difference between two identical products, favoring the one they paid more for. AND, folks aren't even completely unaware of this. They want to purchase something of a certain ... call it pedigree, call it value, call it prestige if you want. Owning the more expensive product is more of an accomplishment, or status symbol -- if only in their own eyes.

4) Made in the USA -- even in instances where the lines get blurry, a certain segment of our society still wants to purchase things made here in the 'States, and considers the small bit of extra money they have to pay for it to be their own little sacrifice to keep their fellow Americans working.

If this held 100% true:

Rossi would be held in the same high esteem as pre-lock S&W and Colt's...

"Remlin" wouldn't be a slur...

"Pittsburgh" tools would be carried on Snap-On trucks...

and Taurus and Beretta semi-autos would be on the same plane in everyone's mind...

People will pay more for an item from a manufacturer with a reputation for quality, dependability, and (in some cases) resale. Ruger's 50 years of quality vs Heritage? Not even close.

I bought my 6.5" single six convertible used but in near-perfect shape. It'll be my grandchild's someday (If I have any, that is...)

Stay safe!

The title of the thread could also be, "some people are terminally cheap and will go to great lengths to justify it".

What you place value on is your own business. For some, the RR is good enough and that is fine, there is no shortage of them. However, for other folks, it is not good enough. The Ruger is better and they're willing to pay for it. Some facts to ponder:

1. The RR's frame is ZAMAK, not aluminum. Its primary component is zinc and it is used because its low melting point makes it an easier, CHEAPER material to manipulate into a firearm. Ruger uses the same steel alloys in their Single Sixes that they use in the Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk.

2. The RR's barrel is "micro-threaded" (ribbed) and pressed into the frame, held in place with adhesive. This means that not only can the barrel never be removed without destroying the frame but it cannot be turned to correct windage. Sounds rather disposable to me. The Ruger's barrel is threaded and screwed into the frame, just like the Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk.

3. Heritage uses the cheapest, most easily machinable steels available. I know that their steel frame guns utilize 12L14 steel and you'd be hard-pressed to find it elsewhere in the industry. Again, Ruger uses the same alloys they use in the centerfire guns.

4. RR finishes are sprayed on. Ruger still blues their guns and the aluminum parts are teflon coated. Overall fit & finish is measurably better on a Ruger.

If given all of that, a Heritage appeals to you, then by all means, enjoy them. However, you shouldn't have to denigrate Ruger or the people who buy them to do so. I choose Ruger not because I'm duped by marketing and "a fool and his money are soon parted" but because they're a better made firearm. I deal with cheap people all the time. Fact is, most are penny-wise and dollar-foolish but think they're being frugal, when all they're really being is "cheap". There is a difference. If you can't tell the difference between the two and/or have convinced yourself that there is no difference, then I really can't help you. That said, I thoroughly enjoy my half dozen Single Sixes and have bought most of them used in the $200-$250 range.

I wonder how many 50yr old Rough Riders look this good after 30,000rds?

WVGunman said:

#3 "Oh yeah? Well, those other guns are made of 'pot metal," and that stuff is junk!"
In the particular case of the RR versus the SS, the grip frames of both are aluminum. The action frame of the SS is steel, while the RR is aluminum. Lest anyone draw any conclusions from this, let me point out that RUGER uses aluminum for the action frame of its LCR line of revolvers that are chambered for .22, .22 WMR, and .38 Special. Guess it doesn't make that big a difference after all. In fact, is there any reason to think there's any difference at all between the plastic used in the frame of any $600 semi-auto pistol and that used in a $175 SCCY CPX2? If anyone has evidence to that I'd like to see it.

Click to expand...

The LCR line with alloy frame and others like Taurus UltraLites and S&W Airweights are built the way they are to keep weight at a minimum in a purpose built carry gun. I can tell you my Taurus 85 UltraLite has a groove cut into the aluminum frame from the cylinder center pin dragging across it from all the opening and closing.

So, I'll call those lightweight guns the proverbial carry a lot and shoot a little guns.

Edit to add: The blued Single Six does have an aluminum alloy grip frame, but the stainless steel Single Six, Nine, and Ten models have stainless steel grip frames.

berettaprofessor said:

the stupid safety

Click to expand...

This alone makes the Rough Rider worthless IMO

CraigC said:

1. The RR's frame is ZAMAK, not aluminum. Its primary component is zinc and it is used because its low melting point makes it an easier, CHEAPER material to manipulate into a firearm. Ruger uses the same steel alloys in their Single Sixes that they use in the Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk.

2. The RR's barrel is "micro-threaded" (ribbed) and pressed into the frame, held in place with adhesive. This means that not only can the barrel never be removed without destroying the frame but it cannot be turned to correct windage. Sounds rather disposable to me. The Ruger's barrel is threaded and screwed into the frame, just like the Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk.

3. Heritage uses the cheapest, most easily machinable steels available. I know that their steel frame guns utilize 12L14 steel and you'd be hard-pressed to find it elsewhere in the industry. Again, Ruger uses the same alloys they use in the centerfire guns.

Click to expand...

The bold parts that CraigC mentions are exactly why I spent my money on a Single Six instead of something made cheaper just because it's a .22.

I know .22s can be made more cheaply, I've fired them and have owned a couple. However, I prefer .22s that are built like a centerfire gun and I've made the decision to pay for it when I can. Not just in revolvers, but in rifles, too.

That's coming from a working class guy that dreams of Smith and Wessons, but owns Rugers. That's not a knock on Ruger at all, it just means I think Ruger is great brand for a guy like me.

Riomouse911 mentioned Snap-On tools. I like Snap-On, but I'm a Craftsman guy for the same reasons that I'm a Ruger guy.

Why do you feel it's so necessary to defend your decision to buy a Rough Rider?

Not that I have anything against the Rough Rider. I've owned a couple.. They were OK. I've just never felt I had to defend my decision to buy them.

On paper (which includes collective opinions about the guns) I'd go for the Ruger Single 6. In real life, however, I've liked the one Heritage Rough Rider I've owned and shot better than the one .22 Single 6 I've owned. For some reason, the Ruger wasn't very accurate, despite having a long barrel.

Having said that, I know that the Rugers are better made, and that I probably got a fluke in my bad Single 6. After many years of not wanting to own a Single 6, I traded into a nice presentation style version in .32 H&R Magnum. It's a great gun and a nice shooter, though I don't shoot it much. OTOH I got a blem Rough Rider, new, for $148 with a spare mag cylinder. That is a value that's extremely hard to beat.