Quality of firearms and the price point?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread made me think about when I worked for a printing company back in the 80's. They gave us a "Quality" seminar. The main thrust of their seminar was that if your finished product was better than what the customer expected you had wasted time achieving that level of perfection. I'm not even sure how that applies here but it was the first thing that popped in my head after reading the OP's post.

As far as quality I am more interested in reliability & adequate accuracy than I am in having the best fit & finish. I own handguns made by Ruger, Kahr, Springfield XD, The original Dan Wesson & Taurus. Some are nicer than others but they all work. That is my primary concern.

I really like Marlin rimfire rifles. They are usually inexpensive but they also work & are as or more accurate than more expensive products. I don't care if the stock is pristine or not. Most of mine have birch stocks anyway.

I also like my Mossberg 500 & my USRAC post 64 model 70 Ranger that has a birch stock. I know the Pre 64's are nicer but I don't think any of the deer I have killed would be any deader.

Of course quality means different things to different people if a firearm works & is accurate I'm happy. If it looks good that is just an added bonus. But I am a shooter not a collector & different folks have different priorities.
 
This has just become too much of a side show. If some of y'all are so unhappy here then why post or visit? My question is purely meant to provoke some thought. It is never our goal to drive people away but if you are unhappy why not find a place that is a better fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top