Just out of curiosity...why are guns so expensive...

[MikePGS]

How much does the semi-prohibition inflate the price I wonder.

 

[notorious]

The semi-prohibition drives it up about 15-30% on average, and sometimes more depending on supply.

In CA, it drives the price down to ZERO because we can't buy it, period.

 

[RP88]

around me the prices have jumped only ten percent, if that. No one seems to be ripping people off here, but I do believe the things I'm hearing elsewhere.

Also, if you knew how much it truly costs to make something, you would be deeply saddened. Despite the vast difference in price between a DPMS and a Noveske, etc. a lot of manufacturers get a GOOD CHUNK of their parts from the same manufacturers in bulk buys. Most of your parts that are actually made in house aside from bolts and barrels are extremely cheap to make, too. Since an M16A2 would cost like 500 bucks through the military, it is very possible that you can be paying up to 3-4 times what it cost to make your gun. Gotta cover that warranty and product insurance...

 

[Loomis]

No. Not the way I see it.

AK47s are not made in africa(in general). They are imported to africa. Wage rates in africa have nothing to do with production costs of an AK47.

AK47s are not made in america either. Wage rates in america have nothing to do with productions costs of AK47s.

 

[Pulse]

AK47 are made all over the world.
i am preaty sure that there are plenty of AK47 made in africa.

and since Ak47 can not be imported as a whole in to the USA, you need to have people work on them, like the highly qualified master gunsmiths at Century Arms.

so yes, wages in the USA have a influence on the price.

 

[RPCVYemen]

but would you want to live there in Somalia and avail yourself of all the other lovely things that come with Somalian residency, including being terrorized by khat juiced militia all day and no air conditioning, ever?

At least in Mog, I remember beautiful offshore breezes and very cheap lobster. The beaches were beautiful, but there was a shark problem, so swimming in the surf was a bad idea. The old parts of the city had a very charming dilapidated colonial appeal. Some things about Mog were very nice.

Khat is actually pretty pleasant. I chewed a lot in Yemen, not as much in Mog.

But things have deteriorated since I lived there.

I think notorious's point is that it might be worth converting the price into a percent of per capita income, and see what that looks like.

For example, $1000 rifle in a county where the median income is $35 is actually a smaller slice of annual income than a $125 rife in a country where the median income is $3500.

As a more concrete example, the per capita GDP in Somalia is $600/year. A $60 rifle would cost 10% of that. In the US, the equivalent per capita figure is $48,500. So a rifle that cost "the same" would cost $4850.

Mike

 

[Loomis]

AKs in africa are largely imported. Some are made in egypt.

AKs are no longer imported to america. But they used to be.

 

[Owen]

Don't forget that AK's in Africa were largely given, for free or not much more, to the local government. Then they got onto the streets by being "lost" by conscripted soldiers, given to the local tribal leaders by the .gov, etc.

What's a fair free market price for something that cost $0?

 

[Loomis]

Good point. We need some of those freebies here. Used to be that surplus military rifles were sold cheap to citizens since, after all, it was our tax dollars that bought them in the first place.

We need some more of that.

 

[notorious]

I think we should be given free "Universal" rifles from Nobama because if he is giving out free "Universal" health care as a RIGHT, then I want my rifle under the 2nd Amendment, which is an express right in our Constitution, rather than some legal fiction made up by the liberals.

 

[orchidhunter]

To many regs. There is not much profite per gun, you have got to sale a lot of them. orchidhunter

 

[brassdog]

Time....to design, manufacture and sell.

Money....Initial costs of tools and materials.
(Nobody's extending credit on materials in this economy.)

Labor....Still have to have someone who knows what they're doing. (Not getting the right labor will get you up the creek without a paddle. Just think about Century Arm, Loricin and etc.)

Also, don't forget supply and demand. With the economy down, the cost of materials have gone up resulting in less products to distribute. However the fear of gun ban politics have driven the sales of guns upward.

Food for thought...

 

[notorious]

The price of gas also drove up prices of guns, no? It seems to have driven up the cost of everything else, like groceries, cable, cell phone service, gunsmithing labor, etc.

 

[BikerNut]

Why Are HANDGUNS So Expensive vs. Why Are Guns So Expensive

The only thing that has struck me (for quite some time now) are why good quality handguns -- especially revolvers -- are so expensive in relation to your average rifle.

Last Summer I was all set to buy a Ruger GP100... or a Beretta 92SF... couldn't decide. Then I realized that for just $100 more than the cost of either handgun, I could get an AR-15. So rather than plunk down $700 for another pistol, I plunked down $799 for a DMPS Panther Classic.

I still want another handgun, but I'm glad I opted this time for the AR instead.

 

[Sicari]

Fewer factories are set up to manufacture revolvers . Revolvers (decent ones at least) are more difficult to make than most other firearms.

 

[Limeyfellow]

BHP FAN
''You can tell they are overpriced by the flood of cheap imports and home grown companies hitting the market with their competitive products.
Oh wait, there arent any of those...''

It doesn't help that they banned a lot of the imports with the 1968, 1986, 1989, 1993, and 2001 bans on the imports of many foreign firearms from a whole bunch of countries (mostly China) and last was the ban on many parts such as barrels, just because someone decided the design had not enough sporting purposes.

Before the 93 ban, China accounted for between 33% and 50% of firearm sales in the whole of the United States, because they were so considerably cheaper. A great example would be the M14 semi automatic clones that cost a four hundred Canadian dollars across the border and used to be on sale in the US for that price, while domestic companies were charging three or four times that much. Nowadays they made importation of firearms outside of Curio and Relics extremely difficult.

 

[Zoogster]

''You can tell they are overpriced by the flood of cheap imports and home grown companies hitting the market with their competitive products.
Oh wait, there arent any of those...''

There was. Some were poor quality and some were decent, but they ended up with the "saturday night special" label and were generaly put out of business.

Guns that are "too cheap" get purchased a lot by lower income areas. Lower income areas often have more violent crime for a given region. The result is a lot of the guns used in crimes in those areas (often stolen) end up being primarily guns only low income people would buy leading to the conclusion the cheap gun is the problem.

The restrictions of course don't work (and would restricting a constiutional right be acceptable if they did?), but that does not matter with antis' logic.
We have seen the same places now just using higher quality firearms in crimes in spite of the bans, but still the result remains the same when a firearm is priced low.
Low price firearms end up used in more crimes because they are purchased by more low income areas with high crime. So there is more of them to be stolen and misused in the places where the highest amount of theft and misuse happens. If however cheap firearms are not available, the people still purchase more expensive models that still end up used in crime.
In fact when the average criminal used a cheap .25 that jammed all the time the criminals were less dangerous. Now in places without cheap or poor quality firearms because they have been legislated from existence criminals are primarily armed with quality reliable firearms in more destructive calibers.


Many "junk guns" were of poor quality, but a savy consumer could locate many that were reliable especialy with lower pressure cartridges or strong steel in important areas and they were perfectly safe.

Compare those "saturday night special" or "junk" guns with a polymer gun that melts at even lower temperatures, can withstand even less pressure, but have higher costs (and have better quality control). A Glock (a fine reliable design) cost little more than $100 to make some years ago. Some of the machinery is expensive and needs maintenance so that should be factored into raw material costs, but in general making something with plastic molds even with small metal parts is cheaper than making something of solid metal. The metal components of plastic guns are the primary cost in materials.
They could sell such a product well under the price tag of quality steel firearms, but instead they simply make more profit.
It is obvious why many companies were happy to move from quality metal or metal and wood firearms and develop quality polymer guns, or at least do so in addition to thier regular lineup.
A Smith & Wesson or Ruger revolver costs more to make than one of thier polymer semi auto lineups, but they can price them similar. Meaning they have far more profit potential on the polymer market.


If companies were to sell those firearms for just above cost however they would quickly be the "criminals' choice". Not really because more criminals were choosing them though. Simply because more lower income people would purchase them, the people most often victimized and stolen from. So the violent criminals would predominantly be using what they aquired from thier most common victims. Whatever the poorest segment of society is armed with is usualy what become the most common guns used by criminals.
Antis would point out that brand was used in the majority of crimes. People would bring lawsuits against them, and pressure legislators to ban "saturday night specials" and "junk" guns.
They would be targeted just for providing a low cost firearm just like the "ring of fire" gun companies were.
Various excuses, tests and other techniques would be used to add other logic behind such bans to make it sound acceptable and not discriminatory. Just like the CA "approved list" tests. The whole purpose of the approved pistol list in CA is to artificialy keep firearms at least a certain minimum price. They outlaw cheap guns by banning the most cost effective materials for low pressure designs.
When companies deviate from that minimum price they can suffer additional wrath.

It really is no different than the origins of the "saturday night special" term. Which originaly refered to guns so cheap that even poor blacks could afford them. Hence the original source: "Niggertown Saturday Night". Most blacks at the time of that saying could only afford the cheapest of firearms because they were usualy the lowest income bracket.
Of course since most crime victims are in the lowest income areas the firearms that would end up stolen and then used in most violent crime would be those poor blacks' guns. So a term was coined for those "too cheap" firearms.



So the bottom line is if anyone forms a company to mass produce an ultra cheap firearm and sells it for just over cost, planning to make just adequate profit from sheer bulk sales they will be targeted. They will be harassed by the ATF disproportionately. They will be harassed by lawsuits disproportionately. They will be hassled with more legislation targeting them or thier firearm models.
So it becomes a market few want to exclusively cater to.
It becomes the most infringed portion of the market.


As for imports? Various pieces of legislation are specificly designed at limiting the flow of cheap imports. Sometimes importers find ways to work within those intended limitations and still import cheap firearms, but the intent of legislation is to stop it. Why do you think the point system exists for imported handguns?
One reason is to exclude cheap firearms. Why do you think it gives fewer points for something in .380 or less? Because lesser calibers are easier to build cheap firearms for. Most cheap handguns in previous times used such calibers. Calibers that can reliably function in simple cheap blowback designs. They cannot simply say "no guns that are too affordable", so they figure out what the most affordable guns have in common and they restrict models with those features with things like less points on the point system.
(If a handgun does not have enough points it cannot be imported into the US.)
China was a source of cheap (decent quality) firearms. Thier imports were greatly restricted. From AK designs, to knockoffs of many proven reliable designs. Norinco produced lots of cheap guns sold in bulk.
Cheap guns are not welcome and reasons to restrict that import were found. All thier other cheap products are fine, but firearms? No, cheap firearms are not welcome.
Poison pet food, dangerous baby formula, toxic toys, none of it results in long term bans. Guns are different.
It goes on and on. The import restrictions on various rifles is designed to limit the importation of cheap affordable and capable firearms. They are designed to ban cheap "assault weapon" imports even of firearms perfeclty legal in the US. They don't always succeed as companies create models with features that still meet the minimum import requirements just to export to the US, but the intent was to ban them.
That is why people have to buy nuetered designs and then add various numbers of American parts if they convert them to stay 922(R) compliant. They cannot just be imported in a configuration that would be perfectly legal in the US because the import laws are designed to prohibit those type of weapons. Nor can accessories or changes that are perfectly legal just be done without buying several unnecessary "American" parts in addition just to have the right part count.
So you cannot just import crates of bulk AKs in standard configuration (and semi auto only.)
That limits many surplus rifles around the world from being cheaply imported to the US and sold cheap.


If you try to cater to the ultra affordable segment of the market and soley provide the cheapest firearm the market will buy many people will be unhappy with you and make things difficult for you.


Here is an excellent demonstration of what I am saying written in a very anti-gun manner: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/ring/companies.html

An article discussing the growth of the "ring of fire" companies. It is written in the early 90's by left leaning PBS individuals and this was the anti mentality that motivated the steps that have essentialy destroyed that market since then.

 

[notorious]

Nicely done!