Quality of firearms and the price point?

My litmus test for guns is "Can I fight with it"?, or rather "Will I trust it in a fight?".

Having said that...I can buy a Glock under the LE blue label for right around $419. For a few more bucks I can get them with night sights, but i never go with that option because I am not a huge fan of most night sights and prefer to add my own TruGlo TFO or TFX because I consider fiber optics to be the better choice for most applications, and the combo of night sights with a fiber optic to be optimal all around. No one who truly has any experience, or real knowledge can say the Glock is not reliable. For less than five hundred bucks, the Glock is a solid value. It's the ONLY semiauto I trust to pick up, load, and trust my life to it without ever having fired a shot. I don't recommend that practice, but Glock is the only semiauto I would if I were in that situation.

The HK USP 40 and USP 45, in both full size and compact are guns that I have used extensively as duty guns when my department bought them. We had no option but to carry the USP, so I spent a lot of time on the range learning that gun. It was a great pistol, and I am one who hates, and I mean absolutely hates the DA/SA trigger on a semiauto because so few manufacturers ever got it right. HK did a "pretty good" job. But, at twice the price of a Glock...though it is a good pistol...I don't consider the HK to be a good value.

The Ruger P Series. I have already mentioned that I am not a fan of the DA/SA semiauto, and especially those with slide mounted safeties/decockers...but the P Series from Ruger, all the way from the first P85 to the P345 work. I mean, they just flat out work. I have one P345 and a P89 9mm. I have had them so long, I don't even remember where I got the P89. I got the P345 off the prize table at a USPSA match. But for a pistol you can regularly pick up for around $300 I consider them to be really good values.

You can lump in a bunch more striker fired polymer guns...the M&P, the XDs, the Ruger striker guns, the SigP320....etc, et al, ad nauseum. They are all good guns at comparable prices, and all are solid performers. It all boils down to personal choice in this area...Ford, Chevy, Dodge. I am not going to bag on your choice of any of those. Some I like, some I am ambivalent, and others I don't like but that is a matter of "How they feel in my hand versus another". BUT...just because I like one model, I am not going to run out and buy one because I am a shooter, not a collector, or one who attaches my ego to the cost of my gun. I am utilitarian, and none of the ones I mentioned are as good, for me, as the Glock. Contrariwise, one of those might be a lot better for you than the Glock, and if that's the case...Happy Meal.

1911s...I love the 1911. But, I feel that spending more than $800-$1000 on one becomes a waste of money. Once you get above that dollar amount, you're paying for ego dollars. I build 1911s, and have for over 20 years...so to me...buying the base model and making it what I want it to be makes more sense. But again, that's me and my opinion. Yours may differ, I don't care, I won't argue. Since I have the ability and know how to build them...my priorities are different than the person who lacks the skills to do it.

Revolvers...Smith & Wesson...for me. Yes, there are a couple of Rugers I like and own (Super Redhawk and an SP101)...but in general my go-to revolver will be a Smith & Wesson. Smith, Ruger, Colt...in that order, however I am a huge fan of the Taurus snubbies.

In the end...as long as it goes BANG 100% of the time, and you can actually do something silly like train and practice with it a lot before it falls apart...use it.

Depends what you want the firearm for. A pocket pistol for self defense or are you looking for something for long range target shooting. I was shooting just last week with a guy who was trying out his new benchrest rifle. He paid more for that rifle than I paid for my car.

To a point, I agree with the Henry Ford business model...putting a rifle in every gun safe,
if you will. When quality suffers to reach a price that will beat your competitors by $5, what's the goal? Better the would be gun purchaser wait a year and pay an extra $100 and have a gun worth owning.

Quality and value are two different things. Another consideration is resale value, which can be tied to either of these, or something else entirely. (Movies) And the type of gun and it's intended use come into play.
A Perazzi MX-8 has undeniable quality, but it's value to a duck hunter out in the Horicon might not be as high as to a top ATA shooter. A Registered Magnum (early S&W Model 27) has quality and undeniable collector value, but it wouldn't be my first choice for a carry gun or bedside gun. As pointed out by Med Wheeler, A Hi-Point is a good value, because they do what a gun needs to do, go bang reliably and accurately. But they are not asthetically pleasing, not even to Glockateers, and that factors into value to some, also. A Colt Python has undeniable quality and is a piece of gun manufacturing art (Hold back a second, Smith fans) but is it good value now, no thanks to Rick Grimes? Not in my opinion. The price on them, as well as all Colt revolvers, has artificially inflated. I hope it comes down again someday.
For myself, I pretty much need them to go bang, be accurate enough for their specific task, be carryable if a handgun for carry. Looks are secondary, though I do appreciate and have owned fine guns in the past.

"...believe quality comes in at a certain price..." It does not. There's lots of high priced junk.
"...talked about quality of one manufacture or another..." Said talk is usually about the lowering of quality compared to years gone by.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. If all you need is a gun to go bang every time, $350 should do it. With all the gun sales going on online, $300 would probably do it.

Ah, the quality question. I believe there are at least two different dimensions of quality. The first is, does the product do what it was intended to do regularly and within design specs? From this perspective, BIC makes quality pens: they work as intended and when they are done, you toss them out with no regret. Auto manufacturers make lower cost models that are also high quality by this definition, even though they are somewhat pedestrian.

The second dimension of quality is "differentiating" quality; that is, some differentiating factor that adds value in the mind of the customer above basic utility. If my basic need is to get from home to work regularly, that need can be met by either a Chevy Cruze or a BMW 4 Series convertible. If my basic need is to reliably and humanely take deer-sized game inside 300 yards, that need can be met with a WalMart Remington 710 or a Nontypical from Georgia Precision. Yes, the BMW is faster, tighter, more comfortable, and way cooler than the Chevy ... and the GAP is more accurate and robust--and again way cooler--than the Remington. So the question becomes what do YOU or I value when purchasing a firearm?

So for ME (YMMV), most of my utility needs are adequately met by pedestrian firearms that are "high quality" in terms of function, and low on differentiating quality. I like Glock semi-autos, Ruger revolvers, and Remington 700 and 7 rifles. They are all more than adequate to my primary needs. I think of myself as a shooter rather than a collector, so my number one criterion is, does this gun serve a practical shooting purpose? If it isn't going to get shot, it isn't going to stick around.

I do have a couple of higher "differentiating quality" rifles (that I purchased second hand). But even a Cooper is "middle quality" compared to a full custom.

val·ue
[ˈvalyo͞o]
NOUN

1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something:
   "your support is of great value"

For myself, I can see spending more on rifles and shotguns. There are real performance achievements that your dollars can get you. Handguns, not so much unless you are into some pretty high level target shooting. Then there is the simple fact that for almost everyone a mid price handgun is already more accurate than you are, they are reliable, they are durable. I'm not criticizing collectors, they have that bug that I don't have. I can understand that because I'm a little that way about knives. But I don't see the value when it comes to handguns.

Moparnut said:

Some threads, as of late, have talked about quality of one manufacture or another. Many of us here believe quality comes in at a certain price point for an item.

Tell me what quality means to you and at what price point that becomes a factor.

Click to expand...

Great thread I am infuriated at Sig

Brand new P227 TACOPS out of the box and sights are off shoots 6" to the left at 7 yards. easy fix but a gun that costs $1000 shouldnt have the sights out of alignment out of the box, Sig MCX recalled for bolt carrier group, Sig P320 X5 that finally arrived last week is already recalled for the drop fire issue we have all heard about. I dont mind paying top dollar but I expect top quality. Hence I am going to take a step back from Sig for a while as they have not lived up to their reputation.

JohnBiltz said:

I don't know, some people are strange. Back when I was a PFC in the Army my two room mates had Rolex watches, which believe me is a statistical anomaly, I had a G-Shock. Both would admit they did not keep great time and both had had to have them repaired at great expense. I just did not get it, it they break a lot and don't keep time how is that a quality watch. That is not quality its bling.

I tend to think HK and Sigs are way over priced. Sigs made in the US are way way over priced. But I think hand guns are tools, nothing more, nothing less. Brutal solutions to brutal problems. Elegance need not apply. It needs to be reliable, durable and be more accurate than me. After that its all just features. Pretty is not quality, its simply pretty.

Like it or not, Glock plus or minus $50 tends to be the price point for diminishing returns in my mind. Because like it or not Glock is a standard.

Click to expand...

Don't get me started on watches . . .

Well for M1911s, it's things like knowing it's made with forged steel and not MIM or castings etc.

This comes at a price in 2017, but is well worth it for users serious about durability and accuracy etc. etc.

This is why I scoff at those who claim Nighthawk Customs and similar guns are overpriced. When it comes to personal safety and the safety of one's family, there really isn't a price you can put on that, and quality comes with a price.

Cooldill said:

Well for M1911s, it's things like knowing it's made with forged steel and not MIM or castings etc.

This comes at a price in 2017, but is well worth it for users serious about durability and accuracy etc. etc.

This is why I scoff at those who claim Nighthawk Customs and similar guns are overpriced. When it comes to personal safety and the safety of one's family, there really isn't a price you can put on that, and quality comes with a price.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm lucky, out of about 15 handguns, only one is questionable and one a total jamo-matic, a Kahr P380, north of $700. Out of about 15 long guns, only one or two are marginable.

Moparnut said:

Some threads, as of late, have talked about quality of one manufacture or another. Many of us here believe quality comes in at a certain price point for an item.

Tell me what quality means to you and at what price point that becomes a factor.

Click to expand...

Quality to me is an issue that varies greatly from one purchase to a next, at least in terms of what I'll pay for quality. For example:

1) In a defensive pistol my number 1 consideration is reliability. My second consideration is my fit to the gun and comfort with its function. My third consideration is a gun that is corrosion resistant, and able to be exposed to the elements I encounter in every day carry, backpacking, duty use, etc. To meet those criteria I find that I need to spend more than $300, less than $600, and don't gain any additional ground by going over $600. So, the price vs quality equation puts me in the $300 to $600 price point for this category of firearm.

2) My primary interest in recreational shooting is long range precision work, in field conditions (think PRS matches, not benchrest). For that activity I started out with an $800 gun, and I found that quality varied considerably among manufacturers at that price point. I got a really nice Tikka rifle for $820, and it shoots incredibly well, even against far more expensive rifles. But, I know of other rifles from other manufacturers in that price point that don't shoot nearly as accurately. My primary competition gun now is an Accuracy International AX260. If you're familiar with that gun, you know that it can run you around $6,000 if you're paying retail price for the rifle. But, that's my game when it comes to shooting, and I don't mind spending more to get great equipment for that activity. Quality comes at a price in the precision rifle game. Is a $6K rifle actually 7.5 times better than an $800 rifle? That's a truly subjective question. It was undoubtedly better for my purposes, and it was better enough that it was worth owning to me (granted I got it at a discount). With that said, even the $800 rifle wouldn't be worth it to some shooters, let alone the $6K rifle.

3) Here's the other side of the subjectivity coin: Shotguns. I'm not a trap or sporting clays shooter. My very first gun was a Mossberg 500 pump 12 gauge, and it's still my go-to shotgun for any type of shotgun hunting I might do (pheasants, whitetails back east, turkey, etc). That gun probably cost me $325, with both a rifled slug barrel and a 28" smooth bore. It's all the shotgun I need for shotgun hunting. But, a good friend of mine is a very dedicated sporting clays guy. He has a $20,000 shotgun. I personally see no value in a $20K shotgun, but it has a lot of value to someone like him. For me that would be a waste of money, and for him a $6K precision rifle would be an equally bad financial decision.

4) Some guns have value without a high price tag. I have a surplus .22lr bolt gun that I'd never part with. It shoots great, it feels great when I shoulder it, and I paid $47 or $49 for it back in the late 1990's. I have another gun (well, a pellet gun) that was given to me by my late grandmother shortly after my grandfather died. This gun is way light on power, and isn't worth a ton of money, but it was the gun I was taught on back when I was about 5 years old. There's no amount of money that would get me to part with that gun. It has sentimental value that money can't overcome.

redneck2 said:

My income and desires may be significantly different from yours. I know a guy that literally has an oil well on his home property. $50,000 a day. He's in a different position from most everyone here

Gets back to your definition of value

Click to expand...

Wow. $18,250,000 per year from an oil well on his property? That's a pretty good living right there! I knew a lady who was making $110,000/year from her well and I thought she was doing good at that point. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone pulling $50K of oil per day from a well... reminds me of the opening story on the Beverly Hillbillies show!

gbran said:

I guess I'm lucky, out of about 15 handguns, only one is questionable and one a total jamo-matic, a Kahr P380, north of $700. Out of about 15 long guns, only one or two are marginable.

Click to expand...

I think Kahr is living proof that quality and price do not always go hand in hand.

Always an interesting discussion.

My automatic watches powered by Seiko are usually at least one minute fast at the end of the week, the new G Shock has gained one - 1 - second in about three weeks. In fact, the Seiko Dive is two minutes fast, the deplorable and generally hated Invicta with the newer movement does one minute.

Even so I get tired of hacking it every Friday to keep accurate time. Like the horse, it makes a nice pet, but the polymer watch does do a much better job, measurably more accurate. Much more.

No, I doubt that I will get 45 year battery life out of it, then again, I doubt that I will never take down and clean my Kahr CW380, which has been fed a steady diet of Monarch steel cased ammo and which always goes bang. It's a simple matter that if you intend for your equipment to always operate to a high standard you might need to get rid of one or two of them and clean out the locker of low performing gear. Price is no guarantee of performance.

Looking at guns with just new price in mind you get a stilted view of what does and doesn't perform. Buy used with a track record for that model and things are much clearer. Just about any S&W 3Gen in clean shape, LEO trade in, for under $400 will perform better than most other die cast pocket pistols. I strongly suggest the S&W will also do better than most new 1911's regardless of price. The forums are full of happy owners testifying to great customer service getting their $1,100 guns up and running. It is important to note that - CS is not in house QC preventing the gun from being shipped, it's just a cheaper way to bandaid hurt feelings after the sale.

As for any one Brand or another having issues we could go on for pages about Remington. SIG obviously has their plate full but give credit where credit is due, they haven't ignored the trigger issue for decades, they were preparing for a voluntary recall. And like the 700, not everybody sees the need to send their gun in. There are, in fact, some who never sent in their Ruger LCP's. Given the highly similar situations, I don't see much need for doing it as it involves a very small set of Negligent Discharges based on abusing the firearm in order to make it fire. In court that nets a large discount off your award if not totally invalidating it.

If you leave your finger on the trigger when you holster it, are you not equally culpable?

In many cases what we read about "quality" is really complaints about fit and finish - when Mauser first made the 98K before the war, they were excellent examples of craftsmanship, polished, blued, nearly every one a color guard parade representation of excellence. By May 1945, all that fit and finish was out the window, with rough machine marks clearly in evidence. That month was the peak of production for the 98K, more going out the door than ever - yet their reliability and accuracy never diminished. They were just as good a battle rifle as ever. Peruse a collector's rack with the targets and you will note the latter guns were every bit a gun for the sharpshooter as the early ones, and I will suggest better because the fit and finish would tolerate much longer sessions in harsh conditions, longer, with less maintenance.

They were made as cheaply as possible.

Price has nothing to do with quality.

There is a long running thread on guns rented at a Las Vegas range being fired up to 100,000 rounds a year, it's noted by the owner the expensive 1911's break down much earlier than say, Glocks, which go much longer in service before they are damaged. When they do, tho, the 1911's almost never suffer a slide breakage. The Glocks almost universally will at the ejection port, especially the later models. That's a catastrophic failure.

What price quality? The problem is that however much you pay, everything is built to a price. And everything will eventually get used up and worn out. What it looks like not being used is something entirely different than how long it lasts being used.

Moparnut said:

Some threads, as of late, have talked about quality of one manufacture or another. Many of us here believe quality comes in at a certain price point for an item.

Tell me what quality means to you and at what price point that becomes a factor.

Click to expand...

I have a buddy who lives in California. When we went out on his yacht I asked him how much one like his cost?

He laughed and told me if I have to ask I am unable to own one...

Moparnut said:

Some threads, as of late, have talked about quality of one manufacture or another. Many of us here believe quality comes in at a certain price point for an item.

Tell me what quality means to you and at what price point that becomes a factor.

Click to expand...

I have not observed a correlation between price and QC. I've owned several rifles/handgun >$1000 that exhibited fatal flaws that never should have left the warehouse...yet every one of my $500 Glocks have been assembled properly and consistently reliable with good ammunition.

I have noticed that the more modern designs seem to be more consistent...maybe due to using more recent manufacturing techniques vs older designs requiring more skilled fitment and assembly.

The OP's question is of course, and,as asked,was intended to be, entirely subjective. What does quality mean to one?

In the same topic area and of a more objective nature was a phrase the OP made reference to: price point.

Many manufacturers produce a wide variety of products. In the firearms industry, there may be more specialization than in others but there are certainly manufacturers who focus on different parts of the market, whether it be the likes of Purdey making British Best Guns or Hipoint making low cost pistols and carbines, as well as volume producers, where the bulk of revenue is coming from a low to mid range portfolio.

Take one of the largest, Remington. There is no question that Ilion can produce high quality (if perhaps not Best quality) firearms - meaning manufactured to extremely tight specifications, very finely finished and stocked with expensive wood or high tech synthetics. But such firearms are a very small portion of their portfolio, which is designed and manufactured to meet specific price points. One assumes that David McKay Brown could pop out a single barrel, birch stocked 20GA with all the finesse of a Baikal for something under $250. But he doesn't.

Take the Eibar manufacturers in Spain in the 50s and 60s. The likes of AyA made some fine double guns. But they also pumped out some pretty hideous, clunky Matadors for Sears that were well known for malfunctioning,in single selective trigger format at least. Because they were designed to meet a price point, not to be good value for money.

While quality control has improved fairly consistently across the board for guns manufactured by the Huglu cooperative and related makers in Turkey, a decade ago, they were all over the shop. While AKUS was producing the S&W Gold Elite and Kimber Valier, guns as good as any mid-grade Spanish doubles, there were manufacturers producing semi-autos that were shocking, and Huglu itself offered everything from the quite nice DeHaan imports, to pot metal innard door props - depending on the price point that they were designed to achieve.

So, quality is not always specific to, or inherent in a particular manufacturer, and quality does not always mean value. A matched pair of Holland & Holland Imperial 12ga sxs guns will most certainly be of the Best quality, but they would not represent a Value to me.

So, when assessing the idea of Firearms Quality, in my opinion, there are the following categories:

1) Crap. Manufactured to hit a price point regardless of the impact on materials and manufacturing required to hit that point. The firearm may or may not work as intended, may be ok with additional finishing, or may simply be a waste of time and money (where I don't want to be)

2) Cheap. Not the pejorative cheap - more like frugal. It was made to be low cost and it may look it, but it should generally work (where, sometimes, I may have to be)

3) Value for Money. Good balance between the quality of the materials and manufacturing and cost. This stuff looks good, is well made, reliable, and is not vastly more expensive than comparable firearms types in category 2. (generally where I like to be)

4) Art. Perhaps an exaggeration, as it includes not just aesthetics but also durability. But, generally, these are firearms that would not necessarily render the shooter markedly more accurate/successful than those in category 3 but they move from the functionally refined to the elegant to the sublime. (where I would be if I hit the Lotto for $790 million).

depends on the purpose of said gun. If its a carry/ personal defense and used as such- you may never see it again.
So a cheap one that you practice with and function check is ok for a car/truck gun.
Now the ones I use in CAS,3gun and local uspsa are much more $.
Guess it depends on $ you have and area you live in.
My car/truck gun is not allowed into or on premise of where I am employed. So it has to stay hidden in vehicle. I use it for only said use of defense. tests well in cold/hot weather.Price used from someone I know was $140.

My view is that there is distinctive quality versus lower quality, which comes at a price. Because of the disparity in manufacturing costs, wages, etc (design and features aside), similar quality may be available at a lower price with a firearm made in a different country. Canik comes to mind. And a product in this category could also then be referred to as value for money.

Then there is a basic level of value for money where a firearm goes bang every time, and be even cheaper. It may not be pretty, refined, very accurate, etc. Or exactly what you would like to have. But it works. EAA Windicator comes to mind.

I have not had a generous firearms budget for a long time, but I have aquired what I need, and a few I just like. That said, I have nearly always bought what I specifically wanted. If I had to wait to accumilate the funds, I waited. The only one I ever bought because it was all I could afford was my first 12 gauge at age 15; a well worn Baikal single barrel. And it was my most regretted purchase ever.

moparnut wrote:
Tell me what quality means to you and at what price point that becomes a factor.

Click to expand...

Quality is the measure of whether the gun goes "bang" and then cycles the action each time the trigger is pulled. Whomever can deliver that at a price point in the lower half - preferably the lower quartile - of the market cost is who I'm likely to buy from.

My tastes are pretty plebian and I bought much of my stuff used because either they don't make 'em any more, they don't make 'em that well any more, or I cannot afford the new ones. I can easily tell the differences in quality: accuracy, fit and finish, smoothness of action/trigger pull, etc. There is a huge difference between, say, a late 60s 39A and a modern 10/22. If money were no object (and I weren't staring down two college tuitions in a few years) I might indulge in some very nice/pricey stuff, but that isn't reality for me.

Sometimes it does not pay to trade up. My field shotguns are mostly Baikals. I am going to drag them with me in the river, into brush, through trees, into ditches, in the snow, and at elevations ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 feet. They are not going to stay pretty for long if they start out that way. So what I consider to be good quality for the job is 1) does it reliably function in all conditions?, and 2) can I hit what I am aiming at with it given reasonable amounts of practice, etc.? The Baikals meet those criteria and I do not shed many tears when I discover the latest scratch or other wear mark. They also were pretty inexpensive.

I don't really have a price limit but I don't think I have ever paid more than 1 K for any quality firearm. If it's something I want that's outside my current budget I save for a few months or sell something. I've been doing business with my LGS for 25 years and they have a very liberal lay away policy that I take advantage of. That's how I bought my FN 5.7 and CZ Evo Scorpion Carbine last year. They were both in jail, at separate times, for 2-3 months. I would love to have Korth Nighthawk Mongoose but their price point is way off the grid for me.
As someone with a C&R license I'm always on the prowl for military firearms or Colt & Smith handguns that fall within the 50 years or older parameter of the license. I like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable about prices but don't mind paying a little more (within reason) than current market for something that's been on my radar for awhile or it's in exceptional condition but I do have a limit. I believe the most I've ever paid for a C&R eligible firearm was $650 for a 90 - 95% graded pinned barrel Model 28 S&W with box and paperwork. While some people might think I paid to much to me it was worth every penny. No FFL transfer fees. Delivered to my door within 3 days of purchase. I will only buy on line from dealers or individuals that provide a full description of the firearm with pictures. I stay away from places that have several of the same or large lots of C&R eligible firearms as the chances of getting one in decent shape is just the luck of the draw. I also attend gun shows and get lucky every now and then. I also have had some decent pick ups over the years from local sellers.
My best asset is the girl I've been married to for 45 years. She never asks me what I spend on a firearm just what I'm spending it on.

Funny thing about my price limitations I believe it's truly subconscious. I'm stuck at $500. But back in the 90's that was for new and now it's used. I just seem to gravitate to guns in the $400-550. Price range.