Gun Prices - Are They Justified?

[AlexanderA]

I wonder if the way guns are distributed adds to the cost. My impression is that it's generally manufacturer to distributor and then to FFL. Middle man getting his cut.

Yes, and the FFL system, itself, is monopolistic. Not every corner gas station can sell guns. Monopolies always tend to drive up prices.

 

[Appalachiannative]

Yes, and the FFL system, itself, is monopolistic. Not every corner gas station can sell guns. Monopolies always tend to drive up prices.

When I was a kid the corner gas station in my home town was also a gun store. how that town has changed for the worse

 

[rust collector]

Guns are durable goods and there are many manufacturers, so the challenge is to build something so significantly better than the product of competitors and older production that people will pay more to acquire it. Beretta knows this well. Price controls such as minimum advertised pricing help to keep prices, and demand, elevated. It's not easy, and most manufacturers have failed, bankrupted or been propped up/acquired by the government at least once in their history.

 

[DeepSouth]

In the end the market sets the value of an object, regardless if you feel the total production costs are fairly represented in the price.

Sort of, the market sets the price but not the value. Take bottled water, if someone is dehydrated to point of weakness on the verge of needing hospitalization and they stop at a convenience store to buy a couple bottles of water. The price doesn’t change, but the value is much higher as a result of the individual consumers need.

Supply and demand has set the price but not the value. Truly it’s mostly semantics, but I think the difference is worth noting.


As to the OP, the first thing I thought of was when I bought my 45acp Heizer derringer, the ported model was just under $200, meanwhile the nonported model was well over $500. Both priced and in stock at buds at the time, some of them were so cheap I assumed the company was about to fold and was liquidating inventory, others were still outrageous…. Somethings not right, better stated it wasn’t right 6-7 years ago, I’ve got no idea what they are now.

 

[doubleh]

The market value of guns, like just about everything else, is based on scarcity.

And also the value of our funny money which is getting funnier every day and that really isn't funny at all.

 

[AlexanderA]

the challenge is to build something so significantly better than the product of competitors and older production that people will pay more to acquire it

This is exactly the problem for gun manufacturers. Guns are a mature technology. The only things that gun makers can offer are incremental gains. True breakthroughs, such as the Gyrojet rocket gun and the Dardick (trounds), inevitably fail because gun buyers are technologically conservative. So, the only realistic way for gun makers to increase sales is by recruiting new buyers.

And, guess what? The biggest recruiters of new gun buyers are the antigun activists. (Because people buy what they are told they cannot buy.) Paradoxically, the antigunners are the ones that are keeping the gun industry alive!

 

[unspellable]

It's my observation that gun prices are generally higher than other items that should have about the same cost to manufacture. I see two reasons.
1. Government regulations distort the marketing structure driving up costs at the retail end.
2 Spurious lawsuits and liability drive up the cost at the manufacturing end.

 

[Landgroove]

Needs time perspective.

https://www.hhhistory.com/2018/06/what-things-cost-in-old-west.html

From that link:
"And the gun that won the west—the Colt .45 “Peacemaker” ran $17 if ordered by mail-order."

Bear in mind that at the time, a $20 gold piece was nearly an ounce of gold.
So, the price has stayed pretty constant in terms of gold.

 

[GEM]

When I bought a Glock 19 in the mid 90's it was $400 and change. I also bought a Honda Civic for $10k. Today the Glock can be had for $500 (sometimes better) and the Civic for $23K.

 

[Ignition Override]

Sidenote: were the AR-15 no where Near as tremendously popular as it is, other rifle types would cost even more than they do.

I sing the AR’s praises for this huge indirect benefit.

Also- do most viewers want 1990-level paychecks?

 

[tarosean]

Bear in mind that at the time, a $20 gold piece was nearly an ounce of gold.
So, the price has stayed pretty constant in terms of gold.

An oz of gold is around 2000 USD +\- now a days

 

[jmorris]

Also- do most viewers want 1990-level paychecks?

I’d take them, even further back than that if it included population numbers back then as well.

My State has doubled its population since 1990, that’s a pretty big edge to the supply side of the equation.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I wonder if the price of the Browning 1911-22 is higher than what this pistol, with the materials used, should go for.

Factors of production-cost of materials, labor costs, taxes, etc. only impact the minimum price of any item in a free market.

If you are talking about used guns, I've always thought it was funny that a Liberator is over $1k nowadays.
Literally the cheapest POS disposable gun possible..

These statements are purely socialist/communist lines of thinking. (I'm not calling anyone a socialist or a communist.) The free market uses supply and demand to set prices. The reason a Liberator is $1k is because there are so few surviving examples, yet, there are more people wanting them than there are available examples.

In a socialist/communist system, the supply is set by the government, which is famously inept at reading demand for an item, hence the widespread use of black markets. In a communist system, the only way to determine value is by the amount of labor put into production, hence a Liberator is a $1.00 gun: "...Literally the cheapest POS disposable gun possible..." and...I don't know, what's your favorite, overly complex, time consuming, gun to make? is $5k, even if no one wants to buy it. (In a free market, companies who make those kinds of products typically go out of business-not so in a government planned economy.)

If you are talking about new guns, labor prices have a lot to do with things, but its true there are a lot of companies that import guns made in places where labor rates are low and try to get away remarketing it under their own umbrella. Yea I'm talking to you, Springfield.

The market sets the value of Springfield Armory guns, as with any other item in the market, regardless if it's a rebadged item from another maker. I paid $400 for my XD-E, when it first came out. That was a price point where I saw value for a product I wanted and the company could make enough of a profit to cover their factors of production. That was, of course, a sale price of $100 off. At $500, I didn't see the value. I'd actually like to buy another, but even after having been discontinued, the local store is holding the price at $500. It has sat on their shelf for well over a year now. The gun is obviously overpriced at $500-not because I'm cheap and won't spend my money, but because no one is buying at that price.

In the end the market sets the value of an object, regardless if you feel the total production costs are fairly represented in the price.

The total production costs only set the price floor. Companies won't make guns for a net loss. The only question to be asked and answered is "is there enough production to meet demand?" Yes? prices come down. No? Prices go up. Full auto NFA guns are a perfect example of this. There is zero production since 1986. Sure, Thompson can build a sub machine gun for less than $25k (if they were allowed to), so why does a Thompson go for $25k? Because there aren't enough of them to meet demand. (I suspect that, deep down inside, owners of transferrable NFA guns really don't want to see the Hughes Amendment of the NFA repealed because of this.)

 

[theotherwaldo]

An oz of gold is around 2000 USD +\- now a days

-And I remember helping my Dad sluice for gold that he sold for $32.00 an ounce.
Guns are a better buy than gold... .

 

[chicharrones]

Sidenote: were the AR-15 no where Near as tremendously popular as it is, other rifle types would cost even more than they do.

I sing the AR’s praises for this huge indirect benefit.

Also- do most viewers want 1990-level paychecks?

My highest salary against cost of living was in 2002 when I was 37. Throwing that 2002 pay into an inflation calculator and it says I'm currently making 91% of what I made in 2002. Yet my 2nd house I bought in 2006 has jumped 220% in estimated market value. I couldn't afford to move into my own neighborhood now if I had to start over.

So yeah, sometimes the pay in the past was better. And my work weeks were truly 40 hours back then, unlike the 60+ now and being away from home 5 to 6 days out of every week. Which means if I broke it down into an hourly rate, well . . . it's good to have a career but that's about all I can say kindly about it.

 

[Orion8472]

Housing and vehicles are completely out of control.

So in that light, wondering if nearly $800 for a Black Label Browning 1911-22, seems silly.

 

[silicosys4]

These statements are purely socialist/communist lines of thinking.

I said I thought it was funny. I didn't say the government should step in and fix the price of Liberators to a point I see fair. The liberator IS a piece of crap. It IS made to the lowest standards possible. It IS very valuable. And I think that is funny.
My decision not to pursue ownership of a Liberator is a free market decision based on the price, my perceived view of its value, the supply of said object, and the demand of said object.

In a socialist/communist system, the supply is set by the government, which is famously inept at reading demand for an item, hence the widespread use of black markets. In a communist system, the only way to determine value is by the amount of labor put into production, hence a Liberator is a $1.00 gun: "...Literally the cheapest POS disposable gun possible..." and...I don't know, what's your favorite, overly complex, time consuming, gun to make? is $5k, even if no one wants to buy it. (In a free market, companies who make those kinds of products typically go out of business-not so in a government planned economy.)

Communism and Socialism has nothing to do with POS guns designed to be a one shot disposable POS gun. I don't know where this communism stuff is coming from, but my thoughts on the Liberator has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the free market.

 

[chicharrones]

Housing and vehicles are completely out of control.

So in that light, wondering if nearly $800 for a Black Label Browning 1911-22, seems silly.

You know, I've been eyeing the .380 version for my wife and yes I mentally choke on that price for a poly framed downsized 1911. If it were metal framed, I'd probably have already jumped on it. So, that means an S&W .380 EZ with manual safety levers (effectively equal to the Browning) sure is more wallet friendly at $454.00.

 

[Landgroove]

-And I remember helping my Dad sluice for gold that he sold for $32.00 an ounce.
Guns are a better buy than gold... .

I started buying $20 gold pieces at $40.

 

[Skribs]

Maybe it's ignorance, but I can't really tell the difference in capability between most cheap guns and most expensive guns.

Compare a hi-point to a Glock? Yes, it makes sense that the Glock is more expensive. But what makes a USP twice the price of a Glock? What makes a FN Scar 6x the price of a M&P 15? Do you really get what you pay for with those?

 

[doubleh]

"Also- do most viewers want 1990-level paychecks?'

If we still had 1990 level prices it would be fine. What people don't take into consideration is inflation. In 2023 you are making more money and paying more for what you buy. When things get out of hand is when government starts printing money like recently and reduces the value of our dollar. Businesses can raise the prices of what they sell. Pay raises don't follow quickly and the consumer is stuck with less purchasing power. Bread. meat, vehicles, guns, you name it, it takes more dollars to take it home..

 

[sevt_chevelle]

Bought a Smith Wesson 9mm metal competitor for around 1K, cool looking pistol. Not even remotely worth its price tag.

Paid around 1300 for a CZ shadow 2 optics ready. That gun is flat out awesome and IMO punches above its price tag.

For rifles, bought a CMP M1 garand that was a complete rebuild/restore, don't remember the price and frankly don't care. That rifle sucked so bad.....I bought another.

 

[Varminterror]

This seems to be the most basic, fundamental paradigm of all product pricing. I’m not sure what there is to discuss. When we buy stuff, we’ve justified the cost. When we “feel like we got a great deal,” we likely would have been willing to pay more. When we abstain from buying something we want because we feel the price is too high, we feel the price isn’t justified. What’s complex about that?

Equally simple - the value, the saleable price, of a product or service has very little to do with the cost required to produce or offer it, and everything to do with what someone is willing to pay for it.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

This seems to be the most basic, fundamental paradigm of all product pricing. I’m not sure what there is to discuss. When we buy stuff, we’ve justified the cost. When we “feel like we got a great deal,” we likely would have been willing to pay more. When we abstain from buying something we want because we feel the price is too high, we feel the price isn’t justified. What’s complex about that?

These discussions come up from time to time, and I think what drives these discussions is that someone wants to buy a gun that they simply can't afford, and this is how they complain about it. I know I'm certainly guilty of this. I wanted a Ruger Redhawk for years and years. I balked at the $650 price. I told myself, the gun isn't worth $650. It should be more like $500. (Which, coincidentally was the price of a Taurus Tracker 44, but there was no way I was going to own a Taurus, which I felt should have been $300.) The next year, I balked at the $700 price tag on the Ruger. Then the $750. Then the $800. Finally, I caved and bought one at $850, complaining the whole time about how I was being ripped off. I think they're over a thousand now.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I didn't say the government should step in and fix the price of Liberators to a point I see fair.

Never meant to say you did. My point was that your idea that, just because something is a POS, it should have no value is in line with communist economic thinking.

The liberator IS a piece of crap. It IS made to the lowest standards possible. It IS very valuable. And I think that is funny.

Not funny at all. It's value isn't in it's quality. It's value is in the demand for its historical provenance. People aren't buying them for their precision craftsmanship; they're buying them to own a piece of history from a dark time in humanity when the light of liberty had been extinguished in Europe, and America was doing all it could to supply those left willing to fight with anything that would help them. The value of a Liberator pistol is the cautionary tale the object's history tells-not in it's production and/or material costs.

It's not unlike when I bought a CMP 1911 for $1080. People here, and at the range, berated me for wasting money on a junky, clunky, wore out pistol. They "schooled" me on what a fool I was not to buy "insert name of their preferred modern 1911 here" pistol. I've probably only fired a single box of ammo through it. I didn't buy it to shoot it. (And I doubt anyone is buying Liberators to shoot them, either.)

My decision not to pursue ownership of a Liberator is a free market decision based on the price, my perceived view of its value, the supply of said object, and the demand of said object.

You and I obviously perceive value differently-especially when it comes to items with historical provenance. That's the beauty of the free market. We can have different perceptions of value. If more people agreed with you, then Liberator pistols would be like twenty bucks, but apparently enough people find value in them to support a significantly higher value.

...my thoughts on the Liberator has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the free market.

Communism is an economic system, and, as I stated earlier, your thoughts on the Liberator are in line with Communist economic theory. I'm not saying your a Communist-far from it. I'm just drawing lines and connecting dots to illustrate a point in a discussion.

To reiterate and clarify. Your thoughts are that, because the Liberator is a POS, requiring little in production or material costs, it should be of lesser value than something requiring more production and material costs. That is essentially the Communist way of setting market values.