With the way you've failed to argue logically this week, I'd say his conclusion was reasonable. You noticed the incorrect URL only after it was pointed out to you, so how would anyone know you even knew the difference in the first place? All we have to go on is your performance in this thread.
Difference in cost to produce: Glock 17 vs. Marlin Model 60?
- Thread starter Aragon
- Start date
- Status
Aragon
member
I was just thinking about the Marlin's wood stock versus the Glock's plastic frame.
The frame is injection molded with very few secondary operations from what I can see. Quick and cheap.
The Marlin's stock needs to be turned on something like a Blanchard duplicating lathe, sanded and then finished. The newest M60's wooden stocks seem to be laminates so they might take even a bit more process time?
Either way, the Glock's plastic frame is a lot cheaper to produce (both in raw materials and process time) than the Marlin's wooden stock.
The frame is injection molded with very few secondary operations from what I can see. Quick and cheap.
The Marlin's stock needs to be turned on something like a Blanchard duplicating lathe, sanded and then finished. The newest M60's wooden stocks seem to be laminates so they might take even a bit more process time?
Either way, the Glock's plastic frame is a lot cheaper to produce (both in raw materials and process time) than the Marlin's wooden stock.
Glock Costs
Many simply walk to the Glock facility in Smyrna.
Many have taken antique Glock pistols to the facility.
When these folks leave in all honesty they leave with a new gun. I have no idea what that kind of service sells for. I bet there are few firearm companies that offer this type/level of service.
My friend took a very old Glock pistol to Smyrna. Had no service/cleaning-nothing in many years. The employees greeted him with open arms and two hours later he left with more or less a new pistol. There were three pages of parts that had been installed for zero. You tell me how this affects the cost of a firearm. Please tell me how much this cost the owner(s).
Daddy WAS right. Impossible to amortize this cost. How do you place a dollar amount on a service like this? What is the dollar amount per unit that goes to the bottom line of how much it cost Gaston to provide all of this on his own dime with no or little cost to the owner of the firearm?
Many simply walk to the Glock facility in Smyrna.
Many have taken antique Glock pistols to the facility.
When these folks leave in all honesty they leave with a new gun. I have no idea what that kind of service sells for. I bet there are few firearm companies that offer this type/level of service.
My friend took a very old Glock pistol to Smyrna. Had no service/cleaning-nothing in many years. The employees greeted him with open arms and two hours later he left with more or less a new pistol. There were three pages of parts that had been installed for zero. You tell me how this affects the cost of a firearm. Please tell me how much this cost the owner(s).
Daddy WAS right. Impossible to amortize this cost. How do you place a dollar amount on a service like this? What is the dollar amount per unit that goes to the bottom line of how much it cost Gaston to provide all of this on his own dime with no or little cost to the owner of the firearm?
Last edited:
Aragon
member
Where?
Yes, I posted the wrong URL. Got that.
Now where did I fail to argue logically? Show me.
In all sincerity are you simply trying to be rude/nasty right now? Are you simply "piling on"? That's what it appears like to me...
BTW, given your own comments, what am I supposed to conclude about you? You posted several times on this thread without mentioning the incorrect graphic. Am I to bring your background into question because you too missed the wrong graphic? How about all the others that posted before the mistake was finally noted?
That knife cuts both ways...
Last edited:
Aragon
member
That's not true -- not that service costs are typically "amortized."
lysanderxiii
Member
That may not be a good assumption. Plastic, especially fiber reinforced plastic is not that cheap...
lysanderxiii
Member
Have you machined a Glock slide?
How long did it take?
A Marlin 60 appears to have a lot simpler machining cuts.
(It is also made from easier/faster machining metals.)
Last edited:
dogtown tom
Member
Guys...........he's a TROLL!!!!
Ed Ames
Member
The cost vs. prices discussion is a simple matter of value. Glock is able to produce more value per unit of manufacturing cost. That is far from unusual in the world of business.
Value differences exist regardless of regulatory milieu. They exist regardless of perceived taboos. They exist without regard to where products are manufactured. They exist for all types of product, from guns to power tools to pizzas to houses.
Do you want to move on to why the products are valued differently? That is a more complex issue involving perceived usefulness (most Americans alive today perceive self defense as more utilitarian than rabbit hunting), media exposure (Glock made a concerted effort to court product placements in movies and TV shows, just as many luxury brands do), employer policies ( some police departments, security services, etc. still require employees to provide their own weapons; an employee who showed up with a .22 rifle in place of a centerfire pistol would likely be asked to return with a more appropriate weapon), fantasy (people are more likely to fantasize about owning a more powerful gun), and so on.
It is, in fact, every bit as complicated for guns as it is for power tools. Most if not all of the above factors apply equally to explaining why you can buy a $30 electric drill from Chicago Electric, or a $300 version from Milwaukee, even though both likely cost about the same to make.
On and on. Taboos and regulatory compliance are factors but frankly they are small compared to the underlying business realities. Realities you seem unwilling to face.
Aragon
member
You're right about the material not being cheap (I would guess it was a Nylon resin like Zytel perhaps?), but little is used and the process to form it is very fast and not labor intensive.
Even though the molds themselves are expensive and require maintenance, they're also good for making many, many frames.
Aragon
member
Have you machined the metal parts for a Glock 17. How long did it take?
The metal types on both guns are comparable. The finishes are not and the final heat treats might be different, but the metals themselves are not wildly different.
Nope, I didn't notice the mistake at all. I never made any claim to know anything about a Marlin 60 or Marlin-anything-else. I assumed you knew what you were talking about...until you kept digging. When 45_auto pointed out your mistake, it further confirmed my growing suspicion that you 1) don't know your topic very well; and 2) want to fight about it.
I came here to learn, perhaps contribute. Perhaps neither is likely in this thread anymore, so I'll leave you with this. Read it or don't, I'm just playing nice.
45_auto
Member
aragon said:
What you have posted so far in this thread does not warrant a manufacturing cost discussion.
You post buzz-words that have no relationship to a rational discussion of manufacturing costs. You bring portable drill motors into the discussion based on your own faulty premises, but ridicule others when they bring watches into the discussion. You are apparently unable to open a Home Depot web page and discover that your "commodity" Dewalt and Makita drill motors cost twice as much as the equivalent Ryobi, yet wonder why a Glock costs twice as much as a Marlin.
When you're ready to discuss basic business and manufacturing costs, do a little research and at least learn some of the terms and definitions. There's a very basic primer here:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/basic-types-of-business-manufacturing-costs.html
aragon said:
If you're really interested in discussing costs, do a quick and extremely simple exercise. Assuming Glock's labor costs are equivalent to Remington's (in reality, they're probably higher), how much does Glock have to charge for each gun just to cover their annual payroll? Should take you well less than a minute to find out.
How does that impact your $65/unit number? We're not even going to think about raw material, inventory, real estate, shipping, taxes, utilities, machinery, depreciation, profit, etc, etc, etc. Maybe we can do that later if you're really interested in learning.
Aragon
member
Nice tap-dance...
Like most here you have no desire to discuss "Difference in cost to produce: Glock 17 vs. Marlin Model 60?"
Sad that so many threads get derailed on so many gun-related forums because people are so focused on something other than the subject of the thread...
Aragon
member
Just another erroneous opinion. I'll stop reading right there...
FWIW, I did see your mention of $65.00. If you would have actually read this thread, you would know that I never said that a Glock cost $65.00 to build. The fact is I questioned that number. You caught all that, right?
Does that provide any insight to you on why I take postings like yours with a block of salt? Maybe you need to make use of the reference you provided...
Last edited:
highlander 5
Member
I would think the price of the Glock is that it is a self defense weapon that needs to go "bang" every time you pull the trigger where the Marlin is more of a recreational firearm and being a rimfire design doesn't always go "bang" every time due to the inconsistencies of rimfire ammo. I'm not saying one is better than the other but their intended uses are vastly different.
As others have already mentioned, the cost to produce a product has very, very, very little bearing on the selling price of that product.
First you have to define "cost to produce" and that can have umpteen different definitions. Then you have to figure in post-production issues and those too can be totally different.
Let's assume that both guns "cost" roughly the same in regards to actual materials, labor, etc. How can we know what other costs might be associated with this, or any, product? Liability insurance is probably monstrous for firearms companies and I imagine Glock leads the way because of their name. Glock also apparently sells a lot of guns to LEO's, individuals as well as agencies, at steep discounts. I imagine they pass along the "lost profits" from those discounts to the average Joe that wants a Glock.
Maybe the money behind Glock requires a higher per unit return than Marlin does. I work in Ag and some companies require a higher return on investment than others. Sometimes I understand why this is and others I have no idea. If I want to get fired I guess I could ask.
There is an awful lot more to producing, shipping, selling, servicing, etc than just the raw cost of goods and I doubt anyone her knows enough of that information to really answer your question (assuming you really WANT an answer).
I don't own a Glock. I don't own any Glock Stock (isn't that catchy) and don't know if they are even public. If I did own Glock Stock then you better believe I would be raising hell if they decided to match ANYONE on price with the Brand Name recognition they have.
First you have to define "cost to produce" and that can have umpteen different definitions. Then you have to figure in post-production issues and those too can be totally different.
Let's assume that both guns "cost" roughly the same in regards to actual materials, labor, etc. How can we know what other costs might be associated with this, or any, product? Liability insurance is probably monstrous for firearms companies and I imagine Glock leads the way because of their name. Glock also apparently sells a lot of guns to LEO's, individuals as well as agencies, at steep discounts. I imagine they pass along the "lost profits" from those discounts to the average Joe that wants a Glock.
Maybe the money behind Glock requires a higher per unit return than Marlin does. I work in Ag and some companies require a higher return on investment than others. Sometimes I understand why this is and others I have no idea. If I want to get fired I guess I could ask.
There is an awful lot more to producing, shipping, selling, servicing, etc than just the raw cost of goods and I doubt anyone her knows enough of that information to really answer your question (assuming you really WANT an answer).
I don't own a Glock. I don't own any Glock Stock (isn't that catchy) and don't know if they are even public. If I did own Glock Stock then you better believe I would be raising hell if they decided to match ANYONE on price with the Brand Name recognition they have.
Aragon
member
That's largely true of course but how does that relate to the cost of manufacturing? It certainly impacts the price both products command, but not really the cost.
If guns didn't have so many restrictions placed on them, if guns weren't such a taboo business and if guns weren't such a historically feast/famine business, other serious manufacturers would have long gotten into the market. They would have created serious competition which would have driven prices down long ago -- or at least as far back as lapsing patents would have allowed.
Ed Ames
Member
If that was all there was to it, then as soon as it was obvious that Microsoft could sell a stack of diskettes or a CD (cost of manufacturing: maybe five bucks) containing Word for hundreds of dollars, Coca Cola, General Motors, and others would have moved in to do the same thing and pushed the price of word down to $20.
The reality is that value is a far more complex subject. It has little to do with taboos, regulatory restrictions, or market periodicity. Unfortunately, that doesn't support your pet theory so you won't accept it.
lysanderxiii
Member
Did a 1911 slide, all total time in the shop including set up times, about 18 to 22 hours, but I was on a manual machine and doing my very first one ... again what's your machining experience?
And, if you think machining an aluminum casting (a Model 60 receiver) is "comparable" to the steel used in a Glock slide, that says a lot....
45_auto
Member
aragon said:
Obviously you didn't stop reading. No surprise there, you seem pretty weak at following through on your statements.
I also see that you failed question 1: What are Glock's annual payroll cost per unit?
Let's simplify it even further for you, try question 2:
What is Remington's average annual salary at their Ilion facility? Here's a hint:
Assuming you can pass question 2, let's move onto question 3:
What's Remington's average BURDENED annual salary at their Ilion facility?
Since I very seriously doubt if you will be able to answer Question #3, let's move on to some of your other silly assumptions.
aragon said:
I would think that it would be obvious that the barrel metal, machining processes/tolerances and finishes on the two gun barrels are not "comparable".
The 9mm Glock runs at 50% more chamber pressure than the Marlin yet has chamber walls half as thick. Is Marlin too stupid to use less steel in their barrels, or do they choose to perhaps use a weaker, cheaper steel with looser (cheaper) machining tolerances, looser (cheaper) heat treat tolerances, less stringent (cheaper) certification processes, easier (cheaper) machinability, faster (cheaper) machinability, less wear (cheaper) on tooling, and inferior (cheaper) (whatever Marlin uses now vs Tennifer) corrosion resistance?
Applying the above thoughts and examining each part on both guns, it would be easy to conclude that the Marlin probably cost well less than half of what the Glock does to produce.
Let's do a quick and dirty look at the chamber and barrel.
The breech of a Model 60 barrel is about .630" in diameter. .22LR chamber diameter is .226". That means that the chamber wall is .202" thick. 22LR SAAMI pressure is 24,000 PSI. Shank is round, we'll use the thick-wall cylinder stress approximation. Hoop stress (what blows barrels apart) is about 31,000 PSI (check here if you don't like my numbers: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stress-thick-walled-tube-d_949.html). Pure crap A36 steel (about the cheapest stuff you can get) has a yield strength of 36,000 PSI (imagine that) with no heat treating. So you can make your Marlin barrel out of pretty much anything you can find lying around.
9mm chamber is .381" in diameter at the small end. Glock chamber is .105" thick on the sides, which would make it .591" in diameter if it was round. It's not round, so it'll have significant stress concentrations to worry about. None the less, we'll use the thick-wall cylinder equation just to keep it simple.
At a standard 9mm pressure of 35,000 PSI, the Glock chamber is seeing a minimum of about 85,000 PSI in hoop stress (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stress-thick-walled-tube-d_949.html)
Since the Glock chamber will be seeing well over 3 times the stress of the Marlin chamber (in reality the stresses will be MUCH higher in the Glock chamber due to the stress concentrations due to the shape) it's easy to see that the only things "comparable" between the Marlin barrel steel and the Glock barrel steel is that it's spelled the same.
aragon said:
What restrictions do you believe are placed on guns? Here's the link to the license application to be a firearm manufacturer (Type 07), it's $150 for 3 years. For an additional couple of hundred bucks I can be building full auto (NFA) weapons. https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download I hear that turn around time is currently a couple of months, I could easily be cranking them out before Halloween. There would be a couple of states I wouldn't ship them to, and I wouldn't worry about international sales for a while due to ITAR restrictions. Pretty much no different than growing produce. As far as "taboo" and "serious" manufacturers, how many licensed firearm manufacturers do you think that there are in the US?
Last edited:
dogtown tom
Member
Here's a pic of Aragons Model 60
Marlin Model 60:
Marlin Model 60:
Aragon
member
I have done a little work with conventional machining -- certainly not production work though. Typically working on tooling/fixtures or simply g-jobs -- not that it matters at all for the sake of this conversation.
From a CNC standpoint, I have specified and purchased machine tools, created and implemented programming, worked on tooling and fixtures and created process specification documentation. Once running I have completed machining dynamometry studies, MTM studies and machining optimization studies -- not that it matters at all for the sake of this conversation.
It "says a lot" if you think your 18-22 hour experience on a Bridgeport is in any way reflective of what it takes Glock to cut a slide. Yes, mild carbon steel is more difficult to machine than aluminum (usually) and the manufacturing process might include a trip or two through annealing/heat treat, but it doesn't explain the price difference between the two firearms.
It might explain the small difference in manufacturing costs (if there is indeed any difference) but not in price. Nice to see that the conversation has shifted to costs though and not comparisons with wristwatches and potato chips though...
Actually, I was interested in the topic, but facts have been sparse. When anything resembling a fact tries to work itself into the thread, you start an argument. I say "resembling a fact" because I am comfortable admitting I lack knowledge in this topic. However, as a father of five, the youngest of whom is almost 17, I am accustomed to discussions where somebody rejects facts and turns everything into an argument for no apparent reason.
I don't guess I'm going to learn anything here, but sadly I lack the discipline to stop paying attention. Good luck "discussing" your topic with the experts whose attention you seem to have gained.
...or power tools.
- Status
