Well, is the RR zamak or 12L14 steel? They’re totally different.
Thank you. I was beginning to think a bunch of people didn't really read my first post wherein I clearly stated:I don't believe the OP was attempting to call anybody a fool, or stupid. Don't take offense.
Mainly I think he was questioning the BIG difference in price, in which case he is correct.
So this was never just about the Rough Rider vs. the Single Six; they're just examples of the phenomenon I was describing. People (many of them in this thread) seem quite convinced that "THIS expensive gun" is twice as good/worth twice as much as "that CHEAP gun." My theory is that when actual use is taken into account, we're paying a lot more than we need to for a level of construction we mostly don't need, or isn't even really there anyway.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)
I have a Rossi 357 that was purchased new in 1997, about five years ago the plastic front sight broke off. It took me forever to find a replacement, partly because they’ve been bought out or something since then...... Now had I bought a new S&W in 98 it would have taken literally one phone call to get a replacement..... and that cylinder slop probably wouldn’t be there either but that’s another story.
Well, you've found me out. I'll bet it was It was the first five words that gave me away: "This thread is REALLY about..."OP definitely came out with an agenda. Reread the thread title.....
Yep. What does it cost to manufacture a glock 17? At least 5 or 6 times less than what they charge including everything that goes with it.The value of a product is determined by what someone will pay.
I could not disagree with you more wholeheartedly. Just because someone is willing to be overcharged for a gun, doesn't mean the gun is at a fair price-even to the purchase who is willfully paying more than what the gun is worth.The value of a product is determined by what someone will pay.
Any gun that sells is fairly priced to the person who buys it.
I'd bet you are correct and they sell them every day for $450+ so that is what they are worth.Yep. What does it cost to manufacture a glock 17? At least 5 or 6 times less than what they charge including everything that goes with it.
That's how I feel about Taurus! LOL Sure, I could have bought a Tracker 44 magnum for $200 less than my Redhawk, but I want the gun to go bang when I pull the trigger. I also want it to go bang when my grandson, who is decades away from being born, pull the trigger.I’m frugal so most guns seem to cost more than I value them and that includes the S/A Rugers, but I won’t touch a RR.
My theory is that when actual use is taken into account, we're paying a lot more than we need to for a level of construction we mostly don't need, or isn't even really there anyway.
That's why they are worth the asking price.People keep paying those high prices for Redhawks and dealers and owners keep charging those high prices.
Well actually yeah it is.I could not disagree with you more wholeheartedly. Just because someone is willing to be overcharged for a gun, doesn't mean the gun is at a fair price-even to the purchase who is willfully paying more than what the gun is worth.