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

Do you think some guns are overpriced?

  • Yes, many of them.

    Votes: 19 20.0%

  • Some brands or models seem too expensive for what they are.

    Votes: 57 60.0%

  • No, most guns seem to be priced fairly, even if their prices range by $100 or more on Gunbroker.

    Votes: 17 17.9%

  • No, a gun's price always reflects its quality.

    Votes: 2 2.1%
  • Total voters
    95
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
WVGunman said:
My point was that we pay entirely too much for incremental increases in quality.
Click to expand...

In terms of the quality differences between the Ruger Single Six and the Heritage Rough Rider, imo, said differences are a long way from being "incremental". That said, though I think both revolvers are worth their price for what you get, I think the better quality manifested in the Ruger (finish, workmanship, material, etc.) more than justifies the extra money it takes to buy one. And, not that it necessarily makes any difference to an individual buyer, twenty or so years from now I'd wager that the Ruger will be worth more than what you pay for it today and the Heritage will be worth less.
 
bassjam said:
Like the RR, a Hi Point NEEDS to be so much cheaper for anyone to consider buying one. If they were only $100 less than their "nicer" counterparts, nobody would buy either of them.
Click to expand...

This is one of the best points made in the thread, imo. I think one of the best reasons for having firearms like Hi Points and Heritage as options is because many, if not most, of the citizens who need a gun for self-defense the most are the very poor and elderly people who are forced to live in high crime, urban areas infested with crack heads and violent gangs through no fault of their own. Being able to own a cheap but reliable firearm might mean the difference between life and death for these folks. I'm glad we have affordable and reliable firearm options.
 
Last edited:
Reality vs marketing are seldom the same. Is Ruger overbuilt, yes. Is HRR a good gun yes. Is the HRR a gun that will still be running right when my grandkids inherit it, maybe. Is the SS, probably. I have had both, currently own a 9” SS.

Reality is that both use ADEQUATE materials however Ruger materials seem more robust and durable. Ruger guns also seem to be finished and polished better. Reality also is that Taurus now owns Heritage and Taurus has mixed reviews whether they are warranted or not.

Marketing says the Ruger is better because it’s from a more respected company with a bunch more models and a history longer than Heritage Mfg because few people connect the dots from Heritage back to Taurus. The ones who do tie back to Taurus are either bull lovers or Taurus bashers for the most part, so whichever way that plays in marketing is up for debate. The big deal here is that Heritage hasn’t put as much money into magazines, tv shows, etc to get their good spin on their product out to the public.
 
Personally I prefer the Ruger 3 screws due to there originality to the old Colt Peacemaker. BTW I also own 2, 3rd Generation Colt .45's. I've seen the Heritage RR at the LGS and granted they do look nice, that is until you pick them up and look at them, with there "stupid safety" and terrible metal to metal fit. Sorry I definitely will pay a few hundred dollars for a quality firearm any day.
 
There is a difference between price and quality. I have owned two SS and one RR. The Rugers are/were much better quality. Whether or not that is worth the much higher price is a personal decision that limited resources might play a part in.

If someone has a RR that functions well and is accurate, good for them. I'm happy that they got a good bargain. If I had paid retail price for a SS and my buddy wanted to give me a little bit of a hard time because his RR shot just as well, it wouldn't bother me. He would be correct that, in the short term at least, he got the better bargain.

What tends to irk me is when someone assumes that their handgun HAS to be far superior to mine because it cost a lot more. I prefer to buy milsurp and police trade-in handguns. A typical price is $250.

I might be at the range shooting my Makarov or FEG High Power or whatever. The guy next to me might be shooting a similar handgun (size and caliber) that is much newer and more expensive. In my experience his guns won't outshoot mine, even though he kind of smirks at me and looks down his nose at them. I also wonder if his will still be functioning perfectly 30 years from now. That is how long I've owned those two particular pistols.

If his $1,000 pistols make him happy, great. But that doesn't mean that their quality is actually any better than my $285 Glock police trade-in, or whatever I happen to be shooting that day.

In my experience, low price and high quality aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, this is the first time I've ever hear Ruger being mentioned as too expensive for what you get.
To me, their revolvers are the perfect balance of quality and value.
They are leaps and bounds better than the cheaper options (the idea that a RR is 85% as good as a SS is laughable). They do fall a little short of Freedom Arms and BFRs, but that's where the value comes in IMO.

I went through a phase where I purchased some cheap firearms because I valued quantity over quality. The longer I live the more I do not think that way.

I am in the market for a .44 revolver right now. I had a project going that I thought was going to net me $450-$500 so I was certain I was about to be the owner of a new (at least to me) Ruger Blackhawk.
It turns out that the project only netted me slightly over $300.
So at this moment, I can only afford a $300 gun. I could take that and go buy a used Taurus and have myself a .44 revolver. Or I could stick it in my sock drawer and forget about it, while I squirrel away a couple hundred more dollars and get what I want, that I know full well is far superior.

I'll go with option 2, thank you.
I don't disparage anyone who doesn't, but I'm not a child who has to have it RIGHT NOW (I'm not saying everyone who buys inexpensive firearms is a child).

You don't have to be wealthy to buy quality. You just have to be patient.
 
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown said:
Who would want a BMW Sedan when a Trabant Estate can get you from Point A to B just as well (and for a fraction of the sticker price)?
Click to expand...

That's more like a H&K versus a Rohm and a Ruger isn't either of those things. Maybe a Ruger is a Ford pickup if you have to put an automotive comparison to it. lol. :D
 
Last edited:
WVGunman said:
This thread is REALLY about what passes for common knowledge or "common sense" in the gun world, and my suspicion that much of that is really people just repeating what they've heard elsewhere, with no data to back it up. For simplicity's sake, I'm looking at this through the lense of two well-known guns, the Rough Rider and the Single Six. (I have owned both)
Old Saw #1: "Yew get what ya pay fer!"
The Ruger Single Six (the SS) base model, which has adjustable sights, is about $450+, while the Rough Rider (The RR) with adjustable sights is around $200-245. (THe RR with adjustable sights is not the base model.) By this logic, the SS should be twice the gun the RR is, right? Except it isn't. Read on.
#2 "But... the SS is 'built like a tank'"!
These are both .22 caliber revolvers. Just how robust do they need to be? How many of us are going to shoot 50,000 rounds of anything COMBINED in our lifetimes? I'm sure someone will (and of course he'll post on here, just to to argue) but this isn't about a few exceptions, it's about what's most common. I've never personally met anyone who shot any gun enough to wear it out. A gun built for two lifetimes sure sounds great ... except we each have only one to shoot it with.
#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.
#4. Whatever. The pricier guns are built with tighter tolerances, which makes them more accurate.
In the case of the RR versus the SS, I beg to differ. I've shot them both (taking shooter skill out of the equation). These were the cheapest models available with adjustable sights in both cases. There was definitely not $200 worth of difference. If anything, the RR was slightly better. This brings me to ...
#5: "The expensive gun is better designed."
The RR came with MUCH better sights, with a white insert on the back and a bright red fiber optic dot on the front, which made shooting it out of the box significantly easier. (to install sights like this on the Ruger costs another $40-50) Couple this with a larger grip frame and a lighter action frame ('cause it's aluminum) that gave the gun better balance, and I'm not sure where the "better designing" comes in. I WILL concede the coil springs used in the SS and the ability to modify them are a significant advantage, possibly worth paying for.
From all of this I conclude the following:
#1: The RR is probably about 85% as good as the SS, but only costs 50% as much;
#2: Gun makers, like manufacturers of almost every consumer product, rely on branding to charge us more for marginal increases in quality.
#3: Gun buyers are no smarter about branding than anyone else, but they sure seem to THINK they are;
#4: We're all probably paying too much for EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...
First let me state That I've never owned a Heratige Arms Revolver and probably never will.
Second I've shot on average at least 10 rounds a day in various firearms since I was in college 51 years ago. That equates to over 150,000 rounds fired. Granted not all in the same gun, but had I only owned one gun it would have been. I've got one pocket gun that has seen over 5,000 rounds thru it.
Third I've owned any number of Rugers over the last half century. None of them ever needed to be sent back to the factory for repairs or cause parts wore out. Can't say the same for several other popular brands. (That pocket gun with over 5,000 ronds thru it - back to the factory to be reblued and a new 3" barrel cause I wanted one)
Fourth flat springs while good will eventually break; not the case with coil springs.
Lastly I'm glad the RR feels great in your hands. Others may not and may end up liking the Ruger grip. Me? I'm a Colt style grip fan and that's what's on my replica Colt Single Action Army. No it's not a 22, it's a man's sized gun in 38-40.
One note, if you try to figure out what a gun is worth, try what it cost (in gold, silver or labor - manhours at minimm wage) back then vs today. Think you'll find that many products today are a very good deal compared to yesterday.
(My 22's? Not many revolvers but three Walther (European made) PP or PPK/s including one pre War. And they get a work out almost every day here on the farm
 
Mosin Bubba said:
I simply don't shoot single-action 22s enough to justify a $600 pistol.
Click to expand...
It's always worst case, rock bottom sale prices on RR's and full MSRP on the Ruger. :confused:

Preference may be whatever it is but let's at least make realistic comparisons. Street price on a new blued Single Six is around $450. I just paid $420 for a brand new Bisley .22LR. All my used ones were $200-$250. Every time this discussion comes up, I'm able to find several used Single Sixes on Gunbroker for under $300. Pretty sure I've already posted all this in this thread already.
 
CraigC said:
Every time this discussion comes up, I'm able to find several used Single Sixes on Gunbroker for under $300.
Click to expand...
Is that the actual sold price, though? Maybe I'd have more luck on Gunbroker- seems like used Single Sixes are never on Armslist in my area, either due to people that already have them hanging on to them, or the ones that do go on (probably) get snapped up quickly.
 
The only person I need to justify any of my purchases to is me. And I long ago learned that I'd rather have a little bit of good, especially real good, than a whole truckload of so-so. So I spend my money on quality, particularly time proven quality. I drive a Toyota truck which is time proven and tops in durability & retained value. I don't even consider purchasing Harbor Freight tools, but will gladly spend what I need to on DeWalt/MilWaukee or SnapOn/Mac. And no lower tier guns in my safe, I want high quality, proven arms. Rock River AR rather than a no name bargain basement economy build. Ruger DA revolvers, Glock or Sig pistols. I am a 10/22 addict, and am finding a lot to like in Ruger's newer American rifle I just got. But though they may be lower priced, they are in no means cheaply designed or constructed

The price difference between quality & crap is often less than you'd think. And I've made the determination in my life to always go for quality.
 
Last edited:
I may be wrong but I think the RR 20 years from now will be hard to get what you paid for it out of it, especially if you shoot it as much as I shoot my Single Six. I see that with a lot of guns, they just don't hold their value. I can't say that about a Single Six, or any Ruger revolver!

As for the difference in quality, the best gunsmiths in the world will refuse to modify or customize the RR, while at the same time some of them go so far as to catalog special packages just for the single six. My guess is they must figure the RR just ain't worth putting any time, money, or effort in trying to make it something it could never be,, and are convinced the Ruger is more than capable of being even more special than it already is.

Now this may not be the case, but I'm pretty sure if you ask them, my assessment aint to far off!

I don't care if it is a little better or a lot better, to me better always trumps not as good, and therefor makes it a know brainer for me, better is worth it!
 
Last edited:
I think the OP is under the mistaken assumption that value added at different price points is a linear relationship. It's not, it's an exponential one, and there is a point of diminishing returns for your investment.

With virtually any consumer item, there is a cheap version that is at least 50% as good and function as the top-of-the-line production version. The values vary by product, but in my opinion, here's what it looks like for knives, the market for which and the quality of which I understand better than guns:

For $5 you can get a pocket knife that is 10% as good as the top-of-the-line production. It will cut things, but will probably not come very sharp, definitely not be made out of quality materials, and have very rough fit and finish.

For $35 you can get a pocket knife that is 50% as good as the top-of-the-line production. It will cut things, the heat treatment will not be totally shoddy, and it will be reasonably well made with a decent factory edge.

For $75 you can get a pocket knife that is 80% as good as the top-of-the-line production. It will be well made to good quality standards from good materials, if not cutting-edge ones, carry a good warranty, and enthusiasts will generally agree that you are carrying a respectable knife.

For $150 you can get a pocket knife that is 90% as good as the top-of-the-line production. You'll see a slight increase in material and fit and finish quality, and if you're willing to sacrifice quality of one component, you might get top-quality material in another.

For $350 you can get a pocket knife that is 99% as good as the top-of-the-line production. It will use top-quality materials, have excellent fit and finish, extremely close tolerances, and is often hand-finished or inspected by someone who knows their business well and is passionate about the manufacture of knives, as opposed to some rando at Industrial Facility #9 in Beijing.

Past $425 or so, there are no longer really gains in material quality, only subjective aesthetic quality and scarcity (due to being limited production, limited available for collectible knives, or completely custom make).

If I'm generous, probably 66% of the population will never buy a pocket knife at all, and another 24% will never buy anything more than $35... because 90% of the population will never need or want quality past 50%.

It boils down to the fact that people don't need to justify paying "extra" for a Ruger Single Six over a Heritage Rough Rider, or for paying much more for a S&W K-22 Target Masterpiece, much less one that's been lovingly worked over at a custom shop with 250 years of combined gunsmithing experience. It's simply that the increase of quality, however disproportionate to the increase in price, is worth it to that buyer.

The fact that value is subjective is what undergirds the whole economy, from the most basic economy of a tiny village in the Stone Age to the most advanced, computer-controlled futures trading operation today.
 
Last edited:
Well I guess that explains things, then. All of my pocket knives are in the free-$20 range, and they always cut whatever I need. No need to burn money on a fancy tool (be it a knife or .22 pistol) when a cheaper tool gets the job done, especially when it is not used for defense. (I have no problem spending more for a weapon or tool that will be counted on for protection of home & family.)

It may help to also add that I'm not really a revolver guy. I was simply looking for a cheap .22 for plinking fun at the range. It just so happened that the gun that best fit my requirements was a revolver (the HRR). For guys setting out to look for a nice .22 revolver to complement their other revolvers, I can see how a SS would be more appealing.

Madcap_Magician said:
It's simply that the increase of quality, however disproportionate to the increase in price, is worth it to that buyer. The fact that value is subjective is what undergirds the whole economy, from the most basic economy of a tiny village in the Stone Age to the most advanced, computer-controlled futures trading operation today.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm thankful that we have options so that buyers can select the product that is right for their needs.
 
Last edited:
everydefense writes:

Agreed. I'm thankful that we have options so that buyers can select the product that is right for their needs.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I don't shoot any one gun often enough to worry about "shooting it apart." Even my Jennings J22, owned since new in 1987, still looks and works well, even though it did get shot quite a bit when I first got it.

My HRR (both of them, actually) will last longer than I need them to, but they will not hold resale value. I get that. Now, I typically buy guns with that in mind, since I've satisfied my curiosities regarding the cheaper ones, and I do also own a Ruger NM-SS.
 
If anyone is interested, JG Sales has a used one, as of the posting of this, with just the magnum cylinder for $319. Looks like in pretty darn good condition. 5.5" IRRC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C5rider
  • Locked
Heritage vs. the Single-Six!
2
Replies
38
Views
12K
Really?
R
WVGunman
  • Locked
Don't laugh: Change in zero of non-steel framed revolvers? (i.e., Heritage Rough Rider)
Replies
8
Views
614
J-Bar
J-Bar
C
  • Locked
used Ruger or new Heritage
Replies
6
Views
1K
aug e. dog
A
D
More Ruger Wrangler
Replies
6
Views
546
Riomouse911
Riomouse911
Inthealders
  • Locked
How many sizes of Single Six are there?
Replies
4
Views
302
bannockburn
bannockburn
Back
Top