Guns are actually cheap (?)

[Sam1911]

Indeed it was. My grandparents built a house just after my grandpop got out of the Army Air Corps at the end of WWII. Pretty nice little bungalow on an acre or so of ground. We still have his itemized bill for it, totaling about $5,600. Real estate markets being probably poor yardstick, admittedly, that place sold for well over $100,000 about 6 years ago.

Someone once asked about the "One Gun Man," that old saw about bewaring the one-gun man because he probably knew how to use it.

I wrote then,

I believe that the "One Gun Man" is a very overblown concept. It may have had some relevance back in the 19th century and early 20th, when the value of a quality (or even cheap) firearm might have been a difficult financial hurdle for most folks. Combining the inability to afford a stable full of guns with the basic survival need to use them often and effectively to put food on the table certainly did breed a lot of folks who only had one or two guns and were very skilled in their use.

Now, even a high quality firearm rarely represents more than a few week's pay for most shooters. And there are tons of decent enough guns that are available for the equivalent of even a few DAY's pay. It isn't so hard to pick up a few. Whether we choose to or not, most of us could budget to purchase at least one quality firearm every year if we felt the need. (And some of us are MUCH more acquisitive than that!) For the majority of families in the 1880s to 1930s (many living at least partially through substance farming/hunting and the barter system) such disposable income would have been a wild dream. So you have the quintessential single-shot .22 or 12 ga. used to put meat on the table for a generation.

But the changes don't stop there because now, very VERY few people really count on their skill with a firearm to procure sustenance. There are plenty of hunters, of course, and they may be skilled enough with their rifles to kill a deer or two most years at short to moderate distances, or to kill a duck or goose with their shotgun, but the majority of REALLY skilled marksmen are shooting enthusiasts. Folks for whom shooting and gun collecting are hobbies that have very little to do with the necessities of their lives. That type of person doesn't generally have ONE gun. (I'd put forth that modern hunters rarely do, either.)

Now, it is said anyway, that there are an awful lot of folks who own just that one gun they keep in the sock drawer to ward off bad guys and never gets shot. I don't know that there are these folks for certain, but it's logical to assume they exist. But their skill with arms would unquestionably drag down the curve, so to speak.

All that to say: there may have been a time where this statement had a little homey truth to it, but I don't think it does in today's world. Skill at arms takes practice. Practice requires a purpose. That purpose is now no longer sustenance but interest/enthusiasm for shooting. Interest/enthusiasm breeds acquisitiveness which to me suggests that good shooters aren't "one gun" dudes any more.

So, yeah, decent guns are MUCH cheaper than they were for the average person to afford, and there are probably a lot more really good shooters now because some sizable chunk of the gun-owning public shoots FOR FUN and shoots A LOT. Almost no one goes to the range these days and is content with only one box of ammo burned in practice. How many would about puke if you told them they had to work with one box PER YEAR ... or less?!?

 

[radir68]

Shooting is far more affordable the my other hobby, drag racing. The wife even agrees.

 

[giggitygiggity]

I think that the fact that guns generally hold their value pretty well coupled with the history and the way that guns can be passed down from generation to generation are part of my fixation/obsession with guns.

 

[justice06rr]

Guns might be cheap, but gun ownership isn't.

Alaskan nailed it on the head.

Guns may be cheap, at least for now. Its the ammo and accessories (magazines, optics, gear) and range fees that gets expensive esp if you don't own land or have a place that is free to shoot.

In my case, I have to pay $15 every range session when I go to the indoor range. All outdoor ranges are member-only and cost a few hundred dollars a year to join.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Buying guns is the easy part. Spending money to enjoy them far exceeds the cost of the actual firearm.

One local pistol match= about $50-60. {Fees, fuel and ammo}
One sporting clays event about $200

Don't get me started on accessories.

 

[Ash]

It sure is nice to own property. I don't have to go anywhere to shoot. It's a nice place in the country which also gives me nice hunting grounds.

 

[4v50 Gary]

A "German military mauser for $39.95" makes me want to weep.

 

[mboylan]

With current pistol prices around $500-$800, if you make $50K-$80K/year, relative price of guns have remained about the same since 1960?

The items in the ad aren't new guns. They were high volume surplus back then. Think $250 Makarov or $200 P64 or $100 Mosin Nagant.

 

[OilyPablo]

With current pistol prices around $500-$800, if you make $50K-$80K/year, relative price of guns have remained about the same since 1960?

Pretty much what my brain did in a rough way.....it's not crazily different if you say a better gun would be $80 then.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

I certainly have more firearms than one guys needs but it doesn't compare to the money I've spent on Harleys.

 

[flphotog]

Are you telling me that 3 is all I need, man I wish you had told me that 30 guns ago.