Over the years I have surfed many forums and am always amazed at the answers many give for purchasing firearms scopes, etc. It always seems to be high end dollar stuff that most will recommend but are not owned by the individual making the recommendation. My most recent purchase was a RRA predator and though I have the funds to by more expensive brands I purchased what was a reasonably priced firearm. I am able to shoot .683 MOA 5 shot groups with hornady superformance rounds. I have several low end firearms such as Taurus and higher end stuff such as colt and wilson. They all get the job done. I beleive that you should master your skills by purchasing a reasonable firearms and with the few extra hundred dollars save by ammo and master your skills. Would like to know your thoughts and why on this topic. Thanks for reading my post.
Name Brands...Are they worth $$$.
- Thread starter ms6852
- Start date
- Status
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
Name brands are supposed to project an image of quality and value. Even good brands can put out bad products, and you can find quality products from relatively unknown companies.
SwampWolf
Member
Buying "name brands" often will offer a better resale value down the road. I'm not suggesting that resale value is the most important consideration when purchasing a firearm or an optic, only that it might figure into some people's buying strategy.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
This seems to be so broad a set of generalizations as to be neither provable nor refutable.
As n.w. said, everybody makes a lemon now and then, and even a very low-end company can put out something that doesn't fail from time to time.
Until you have an object in hand, and in fact, until you've put it through the use for which you bought it, you really can't say how well that object will meet your needs. So, we base purchases on getting the features we want for the price we can afford, colored by the reputation the object or its maker has earned.
Any idiot can try to buy skill by spending a lot of money on something that far exceeds his/her skills or the duty to which he/she will ever subject that item.
Conversely, those who use their tools extensively and vigorously can easily make a poor purchase, costing them extra money, frustration, loss of effort, or worse, by trying to save a buck where they should have known better.
Do most people buy something that exceeds their needs? Yup! Should they? Of course. It sure is better to have something better than you need than something that wasn't quite good enough.
"It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money...that is all. When you pay too little you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot ... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder it is well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better. There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell for a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey." -- John Ruskin
As n.w. said, everybody makes a lemon now and then, and even a very low-end company can put out something that doesn't fail from time to time.
Until you have an object in hand, and in fact, until you've put it through the use for which you bought it, you really can't say how well that object will meet your needs. So, we base purchases on getting the features we want for the price we can afford, colored by the reputation the object or its maker has earned.
Any idiot can try to buy skill by spending a lot of money on something that far exceeds his/her skills or the duty to which he/she will ever subject that item.
Conversely, those who use their tools extensively and vigorously can easily make a poor purchase, costing them extra money, frustration, loss of effort, or worse, by trying to save a buck where they should have known better.
Do most people buy something that exceeds their needs? Yup! Should they? Of course. It sure is better to have something better than you need than something that wasn't quite good enough.
"It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money...that is all. When you pay too little you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot ... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder it is well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better. There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell for a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey." -- John Ruskin
The title of your post should not have been "name brands". There are no generic firearms. You probably should have said "higher priced brands".
Firearms are kind of like wine in that you don't have to have the most expensive brand in order to get what you like, want or need.
But sometimes you can go way too cheap and then you end up "getting what you paid for".
Firearms are kind of like wine in that you don't have to have the most expensive brand in order to get what you like, want or need.
But sometimes you can go way too cheap and then you end up "getting what you paid for".
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Personally, I think in the world of firearms, we have enough folks (millions of them!) out there field-testing the various products on the market, that most of us can make a wise choice that is truly cost-effective, if we are willing to do the research.
If we don't have time or interest to do so much research, then maybe we'll spend a bit more than we think we strictly MUST and get something we're confident exceeds our needs.
The most important point is to get out there and SHOOT it! Even the lowliest Olympic Arms AR-15, or the most boogered CAI-built WASR, or most Bryco-ish Jennings .22 is perfectly sufficient for leaning in a closet or sitting in the bottom of your sock drawer.
If we don't have time or interest to do so much research, then maybe we'll spend a bit more than we think we strictly MUST and get something we're confident exceeds our needs.
The most important point is to get out there and SHOOT it! Even the lowliest Olympic Arms AR-15, or the most boogered CAI-built WASR, or most Bryco-ish Jennings .22 is perfectly sufficient for leaning in a closet or sitting in the bottom of your sock drawer.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Hmmm... that could be a thread subject in itself! There certainly have been some gun brands that were perhaps equivalent to our modern "generic" store brands.
Many stores sold guns under either their store name, or a generic house brand name, or sometimes under the name of a popular spokesman: Wards, Western Field, Glennfield, Sears, Western Auto (I think), Ted Williams, come to mind. (Mostly these were made by other, better-known firms like Marlin.) And there were a WHOLE lot of turn-of-last century shotgun brands sold in hardware stores that were mostly made in Europe by a few makers who would brand them whatever the seller wanted.
(As an aside, I shot a round of 'clays with my Dad and bro-in-law over Thanksgiving, and was picking up crap as we walked as I'm wont to do. I managed to find a small pile of Ted Williams branded 12 ga. hulls! Showed them to my Dad and he had a good laugh. No idea when they last appeared on store shelves, but some reloaders keep stuff forever!
)T.R.
Member
I've had very good luck hunting in rough country with Simmons scopes.
I've had very good luck hunting with lower cost PMP ammo from South Africa.
I've had very good luck dressiing and skinning deer with Schrade knives.
I've had very good luck hunting with regular olive drab warm colthing by CarHart. I've never felt the need for latest camo gear and my success is proof.
TR
I've had very good luck hunting with lower cost PMP ammo from South Africa.
I've had very good luck dressiing and skinning deer with Schrade knives.
I've had very good luck hunting with regular olive drab warm colthing by CarHart. I've never felt the need for latest camo gear and my success is proof.
TR
oneounceload
member
Are "better" brands worth the money? Yes, IMO, they are.
The most expensive tool in your tool box is the one you spent the least amount of money on.
Personally, I believe my sig line from Aldo Gucci to be spot on
The most expensive tool in your tool box is the one you spent the least amount of money on.
Personally, I believe my sig line from Aldo Gucci to be spot on
Last edited:
Onward Allusion
Member
YES a brand name is worth every cent. BUT I'm not talking about only top-tier brand names like Colt, Ruger, S&W, Remington, Sig, or Beretta. I'm talking about well known names with plentiful parts and great to decent customer service. I include Glock, Taurus, Kel Tec, Heritage, H&R 1871, Mossberg...etc when I refer to brand names.
Have you ever tried getting repair or parts for a ATI C45 or the other host of Turkish, Israeli, Philippine or surplus guns??? I have! It is almost impossible for the mere mortal. Customer service, well what customer service? I have learned my lessons the hard way. I will never buy any gun that does not have a bountiful supply of spare parts, mags, or a customer service department.
DM~
Member
When it comes to scopes, i've always pushed Leupold or Zeiss Conquest...
There's a reason for that, when i'm out hunting in all kinds of weather from fall into winter, most times for weeks at a time, i NEED equipment that's RELIABLE!! Sometimes i didn't see another human being all the time i was in the bush, i had no radio or phone, and usually there was NO way i or anyone else could walk out of where i was.
I've seen MANY cheaper scopes fail, but i've not seen a Leupold or a Zeiss fail in the field, so i recomend what i KNOW to be good reliable scopes.
Are some cheaper scopes reliable? I'm sure there are some, but i don't want to be out in the bush, putting my life on the line, takeing a chance on a brand of scope that has a LESS chance of reliability than my Leupolds and Zeiss scopes that i KNOW are reliable.
Why not spend the $$ for a better scope? You can do like i have always done and just keep that scope! If you sell that rifle, you will have a better scope for the next rifle too!
DM
There's a reason for that, when i'm out hunting in all kinds of weather from fall into winter, most times for weeks at a time, i NEED equipment that's RELIABLE!! Sometimes i didn't see another human being all the time i was in the bush, i had no radio or phone, and usually there was NO way i or anyone else could walk out of where i was.
I've seen MANY cheaper scopes fail, but i've not seen a Leupold or a Zeiss fail in the field, so i recomend what i KNOW to be good reliable scopes.
Are some cheaper scopes reliable? I'm sure there are some, but i don't want to be out in the bush, putting my life on the line, takeing a chance on a brand of scope that has a LESS chance of reliability than my Leupolds and Zeiss scopes that i KNOW are reliable.
Why not spend the $$ for a better scope? You can do like i have always done and just keep that scope! If you sell that rifle, you will have a better scope for the next rifle too!
DM
Sav .250
Member
I think more than one company is living off it`s past successes. The era when fit,finish and quality ment something has long gone. Just look at past and present offerings.
No wonder "used" is not an offensive term. That seems to be where the quality is.
No wonder "used" is not an offensive term. That seems to be where the quality is.
DAP90
Member
I think name brands are worth it. Generic items are almost always at the bottom of the market space. To get there something had to give; and you can bet it all doesn’t come from the profit margin.
The bottom end stuff is almost never worth the money but there are numerous mid tier products that still far exceed the average shooters capabilities and requirements.
The other thing is that for consumer products this year’s mid tier item may have been last year’s high end offering. That’s a bit of an exaggeration but you get my point. I don’t think it’s as true with firearms but it can be with things like scopes.
The bottom end stuff is almost never worth the money but there are numerous mid tier products that still far exceed the average shooters capabilities and requirements.
The other thing is that for consumer products this year’s mid tier item may have been last year’s high end offering. That’s a bit of an exaggeration but you get my point. I don’t think it’s as true with firearms but it can be with things like scopes.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
If you look at what is reported to be going on with Marlin and Remington (maybe Kimber?), that may be so. Or, at least, they are hoping for their "political capital" built up by a century of solid reputation to help carry them through a rough patch as they try to adapt to the modern marketplace. Others (S&W comes to mind) seem to have weathered similar rough patches when quality was low and come into a modern era of brilliance where their products are actually more consistently good than in some times past.
Well, we do have to be careful with the rose-colored glasses a bit. There are still some manufacturers putting out firearms that are technologically superior, and aesthetically the equal, of just about anything built in the past. And some who have sadly had trouble making the jump to modern methods and materials. But don't forget that there was always junk on the market, for folks who only cared about (or could afford) lowest price. We remember fondly the GREAT old guns, but memory blurs or erases the record of the cheap European revolvers and no-name shotguns that grandpa tossed in the creek when they broke, or which still sit at the very back of some of our gun cases.
And the good stuff costs money. It sure did way back when, and it does today, too -- though I believe that the actual real (relative?) cost of quality firearms today is much lower than in any previous era.
And this somewhat comes down to what "quality" means to the buyer. There are millions of beautiful old deer rifles on the used racks of tens of thousands of dealers across the country. Nice fit and finish, solid wood & steel. That's quality, right? And you can buy a brand new bargain Savage/Stevens rifle today for about two days' pay that will out shoot any 50 of those used rifles (guaranteed by the factory to shoot nice groups) -- plastic parts and all! That's quality, too...right? Which do you value more?
Same could be said of a terrific old (whichever you prefer) pistol. Do you really want to put grandpa's army surplus 1911 up against a Glock in a shoot-'till-malfunction test? But that old 1911 has more quality, right?
We live in new times. Not necessarily worse, just different.
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
Why is this argument so often tossed around on this board? As if to suggest that people who buy nice guns simply can't afford ammo. The two are generally unrelated. I can say absolutely that if I had cheaper/fewer guns, I wouldn't shoot anymore often than I do now (which is almost every weekend).
Your argument is akin to suggesting that new drivers should all buy Yugos, and with the money they save, buy some gas and drive around a lot.
Ghost Tracker
Member
The Free Market System, while not always immediately, will ALWAYS answer this question. World Class Clay Sportsman shoot (primarily) VERY expensive shotguns, not because they're trying to impress the competition, but because they don't break & can be rebuilt after multi-thousands of rounds. The U.S. Army uses Colt M4 carbines because part failure is far too potentially expensive to go cheap. Rolex watches weren't always status symbols, they once were worn by men (and Amelia Earhart) who's very lives depended on the MOST ACCURATE, MOST DEPENDABLE timepiece they could buy, regardless of the price. So, while I've got nothing against my; Remington Shotgun, Stag AR15 or self-wind Seiko watch, if I miss on Station 3, blow a shot on a coyote or show-up late for church it's NOT going to change my life. If I'm making more "intense" decisions (like my CCW, ammo, holster & belt) you can BET I've spent the money to buy THE BEST I can get my hands on. I would much rather have 2 top-quality handguns than 6 mid-grade models. Your results may vary.
JustinJ
Member
The same standard one expects in a gun or accessory for plinking, hunting, competition and self defense should not be the same.
One doesn't always need to own a firearm to have evidence suggesting it is better than another. Milspec is a perfect example of this. I didn't need to shoot a Colt AR before understanding that it is generally a better firearm than a non-milspec AR. Some guns are above milspec in theory but often new designs don't pan out so with milspec I at least know what i'm gettting.
The biggest mistake i see though is way too much emphasis on anecodtal personal experience. For example, Keltek owners often claim a model is great because theirs has been reliable in spite of the numerous reported issues others have experienced. If 90% of Keltek owners are satisfied but 10% experience problems how can one recomend such a gun? 10% failure rate in a machine one's life may depend on is insane.
One doesn't always need to own a firearm to have evidence suggesting it is better than another. Milspec is a perfect example of this. I didn't need to shoot a Colt AR before understanding that it is generally a better firearm than a non-milspec AR. Some guns are above milspec in theory but often new designs don't pan out so with milspec I at least know what i'm gettting.
The biggest mistake i see though is way too much emphasis on anecodtal personal experience. For example, Keltek owners often claim a model is great because theirs has been reliable in spite of the numerous reported issues others have experienced. If 90% of Keltek owners are satisfied but 10% experience problems how can one recomend such a gun? 10% failure rate in a machine one's life may depend on is insane.
It seems the answer is sometimes. Heh heh helpful no?
All I know is for some reason with guns many people will have ONE bad experience and dismiss (or actively hate) the brand because of it. There is an odd concept in the gun culture that guns are supposed to be perfect 110% of the time or they are junk. I never understood that.
I've read about such scenarios many times here and have taken them all with a huge dose of salt because I've had bad experiences with what everyone considers high quality guns.
Take the S&W 629 I own for instance. The cylinder would bind up when it got warm (after about 18 shots) I sent it back to S&W and they returned it with telling me everything was fine with it. It did the same thing the next time I shot it so I sent it back a second time, this time they replaced the cylinder. Seems the one charge hole was out of spec. THEN when they sent it back the stuck it in an unpadded card board box which resulted in the rear sight being broken. When I sent them an email about THAT issue I got back a snooty reply with a few too many Sirs telling me where I could buy a new sight.
I was pretty pissed about that BUT I don't think S&W makes junk based on my ONE experience.
All I know is for some reason with guns many people will have ONE bad experience and dismiss (or actively hate) the brand because of it. There is an odd concept in the gun culture that guns are supposed to be perfect 110% of the time or they are junk.
I never understood that.I've read about such scenarios many times here and have taken them all with a huge dose of salt because I've had bad experiences with what everyone considers high quality guns.
Take the S&W 629 I own for instance. The cylinder would bind up when it got warm (after about 18 shots) I sent it back to S&W and they returned it with telling me everything was fine with it.
It did the same thing the next time I shot it so I sent it back a second time, this time they replaced the cylinder. Seems the one charge hole was out of spec. THEN when they sent it back the stuck it in an unpadded card board box which resulted in the rear sight being broken. When I sent them an email about THAT issue I got back a snooty reply with a few too many Sirs telling me where I could buy a new sight. I was pretty pissed about that BUT I don't think S&W makes junk based on my ONE experience.
I believe in "you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get." This holds true about 95% of the time for me.
I spent 10 years in computer and peripheral sales and sold lots of high end Sony and cheap low end eMachines computers. Never once did I hear, "I wish I had bought the eMachine, not this Sony." But I heard it plenty the other way around.
I spent 10 years in computer and peripheral sales and sold lots of high end Sony and cheap low end eMachines computers. Never once did I hear, "I wish I had bought the eMachine, not this Sony." But I heard it plenty the other way around.
USAF_Vet
Member
I've got an eighty dollar Ever Best 20 gauge single shot in my cabinet that disagrees with you. But being a generic gun doesn't mean it isn't worth while. That beat up old depression era shotgun is one of the smoothest shooting, most accurate guns I own.
To the OP:
High price does always mean quality, and low cost does not always mean junk. Consider Remington, one of the most well known brands of firearms in the world today. Their QC has got to pot, in a lot of cases. Marlin has been a great company, but with their buy out, their quality is going down hill. You just aren't getting the value from your money anymore.
Now, some people will still buy a more well known name with a lot of history behind it, who is currently offering a product inferior to past products, based on name alone. Tthat's their problem, and if they don't do a bit of research beforehand, they get what they deserve.
On lower cost guns, be in Hi Point, Jennings, Lorcin, etc, you often get what you pay for as well. I am an owner of a Hi Point JHP .45, previous owner of a 9mm carbine. Both have functioned flawlessly. Both have done exactly what I expected them to do. My .45 is my night stand gun, and it serves that purpose well. It's capabe of hitting minute of bad guy at 15 yards and closer. I didn't buy a tack driving target pistol, I bought an inexpensive gun that I don't mind having confiscated to sit in an evidence room at the local Sheriff's department. I've used it enough to rely on it in a bad situation, and continue to practice with it. Many Hi Point owners probably shoot their guns more than I have/ do and they function flawlessly.
Quality is as much a personal perspective thing as anything else. I find my Hi Point to be a quality weapon. Some people wouldn't be caught dead with one. I read on another forum someone say something along the lines of "I'd rather be shot dead than defend myself with a Hi Point." Absurd. but hey, some people are all about the image they present and how they appear to other people. Thats on them, and I feel sorry for them. I'm not even remotely embarassed by my low cost guns. Nor am I delusional about their monetary value. Resale is a big aspect of firearms for those who see their guns as an investment. I do not. I've never made money selling a gun.
I would like to get what back what I put into them, but even that is a slim chance.
I buy what I can afford. If I can afford a custom Dan Wesson, sweet. If all I can afford is a used Hi Point, so be it.
As far as recommendations, I only stand behind the products I have used or own/ed. It is a bit bothersome when people who have never even so much as held a (insert manufacturer product here) and rant for or against the product.
Anyway, do a bit of research. Make an educated purchase.
JohnBT
Member
"I beleive that you should master your skills by purchasing a reasonable firearms and with the few extra hundred dollars save by ammo and master your skills."
I see what you're getting at, but does everybody have to follow your advice?
I mean really, after I follow your advice and save a few hundred bucks on a gun, what do I do with the other $38,454 in my checking account? Seriously.
Can I buy what I like? Please?
I bought this spiffy Swiss Army Pistol this year. Maybe I'll get another one.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=462407
A 40-year-old military surplus gun and it was only $2499.95.
I see what you're getting at, but does everybody have to follow your advice?
I mean really, after I follow your advice and save a few hundred bucks on a gun, what do I do with the other $38,454 in my checking account? Seriously.
Can I buy what I like? Please?
I bought this spiffy Swiss Army Pistol this year. Maybe I'll get another one.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=462407
A 40-year-old military surplus gun and it was only $2499.95.
wvshooter
Member
Ruger is a "name brand" and so is H&K. Big difference in price between these two but they are both high quality manufacturers. Just depends on how much you want to spend.
Excellent. You nailed a number of key points.If you look at what is reported to be going on with Marlin and Remington (maybe Kimber?), that may be so. Or, at least, they are hoping for their "political capital" built up by a century of solid reputation to help carry them through a rough patch as they try to adapt to the modern marketplace. Others (S&W comes to mind) seem to have weathered similar rough patches when quality was low and come into a modern era of brilliance where their products are actually more consistently good than in some times past.
Well, we do have to be careful with the rose-colored glasses a bit. There are still some manufacturers putting out firearms that are technologically superior, and aesthetically the equal, of just about anything built in the past. And some who have sadly had trouble making the jump to modern methods and materials. But don't forget that there was always junk on the market, for folks who only cared about (or could afford) lowest price. We remember fondly the GREAT old guns, but memory blurs or erases the record of the cheap European revolvers and no-name shotguns that grandpa tossed in the creek when they broke, or which still sit at the very back of some of our gun cases.
And the good stuff costs money. It sure did way back when, and it does today, too -- though I believe that the actual real (relative?) cost of quality firearms today is much lower than in any previous era.
And this somewhat comes down to what "quality" means to the buyer. There are millions of beautiful old deer rifles on the used racks of tens of thousands of dealers across the country. Nice fit and finish, solid wood & steel. That's quality, right? And you can buy a brand new bargain Savage/Stevens rifle today for about two days' pay that will out shoot any 50 of those used rifles (guaranteed by the factory to shoot nice groups) -- plastic parts and all! That's quality, too...right? Which do you value more?
Same could be said of a terrific old (whichever you prefer) pistol. Do you really want to put grandpa's army surplus 1911 up against a Glock in a shoot-'till-malfunction test? But that old 1911 has more quality, right?
We live in new times. Not necessarily worse, just different.
I would only add on to what you cited by noting that there are some aspects of quality that can be expressed mathematically with probabilistic functions. And I believe that there is a relationship between higher probabilities of failure and lower price. Which is not to say that every high-priced piece is reliable nor the opposite being uniformly true. But in general it seems to be so.
Separately, many (myself included) also value the 'feel' and the 'fit' of a firearm when describing quality. The HK P7 series is an example of high price, a most excellent feel regarding fit, finish, machining, mechanical design, etc. I am willing to pay for that aspect of quality. Again, not all pricey items possess that aspect of quality, but quite often pricier items do.
B
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,708
I read a quote somewhere once...since I don't remember it verbatim, I will paraphrase:
"You don't always get what you pay for, but you never get what you don't pay for."
I believe that this has a fair bit of merit.
"You don't always get what you pay for, but you never get what you don't pay for."
I believe that this has a fair bit of merit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
