Quality or Quantity?

[Seancass]

so which is it for you? NOT what do you prefer, what DO you DO?

do you have to have that Kimber because it says kimber on it and you already know it's good, that it'll hit where it points and go boom every time?

or do you prefer to buy 4-10 cheap guns and see if they're any good, repair the frequently and enjoy all the jams and lack of accuracy. and maybe even find a great gun in the bunch.

and i don't just mean pistols, your whole collection included.

and yes, we all know that not everything good is expensive, so look at your safe and generalize.



as a younger shooter with only a little money, i went "quality" first. now that it's time for more, i wonder if i should go high quality or buy more guns and check more options of the list. For example: a S&W460 or a 44 BP Colt, a Ruger 454, and a cheap rifle. not that i can even afford any S&W, just an example.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I kill threads too! Sorry if it happens to this one. If the two choices were quantity and quality, I guess I go for the latter.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As Townsend Whelen was wont to say, "Only accurate rifles are interesting."

Why would anyone want an inaccurarate, unreliable gun?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Why would anyone want an inaccurarate, unreliable gun?

I had a Walther MPL for many years. It was a complete piece of junk frankly.
Unreliable, inaccurate and ugly.
When it was running though it was much fun and I wasted many thousands of rounds of 9mm with it.

I paid a whopping $300 for it in 1984.

Sold it for $5500.

Inaccurate and unreliable does not mean it has no value, and quantity can mean rare rather than by the truckload

 

[glassman]

Quality first and foremost...quantity comes over a period of time.

 

[littlegator]

This reminds me of when I was a kid playing soccer. The argument was what was more important - power or finesse. My response was, why can't you have both? Therefore, quantity and quality.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Quality time at the range.

And I agree with littlegator...Quality and quantity do not have to be mutually exclusive. K31, M1 Garand, Stevens 200, SKS, Saiga, Soviet Union Surplus, etc.

My suggestion is to pick a shooting competition or two and spend some time shooting against other shooters. It's the best way to get better and learn the craft.

 

[Ala Dan]

For Me

Quality over Quanity anyday~!

 

[sb350hp]

As for me I am in the middle of the road. While I will not purchase a "cheap" firearm I do look for quality ones at a reasonable price. My budget does not allow for customs SAs, Kimbers or the like. I have been pleasantly surprised by the performance of the two Taurus pistols I have (quality so far and inexpensive). Time will tell!
I would love to have a nighthawk or Wilson but just don't have the $$ unless I sell everthing I have or a kidney.

mmm anyone want a kidney for say 2k

 

[M2 Carbine]

I spend whatever it takes to get the quality and preformance I want. It doesn't matter if it costs a lot or a little as long as it's up to the standard I want.

I've got five Kimbers.

 

[browningguy]

Actually I also think you are making a significant mistake in your thinking. Low price doesn't mean junk. Examples are the Bersa .380 and the EAA Witness series pistols. To most they are just as functional and well built as the more expensive guns they mimic. Another example is the Keltec SU16 rifles, a bunch cheaper than an AR but they run fine and make great plinkers.

I have all of the above, and Gr. III and IV BAR's, several custom bolt rifles, several AR's, HK SLB2000, Browning 1885, and a handful of BHP's etc. Just because you can appreciate a bargain doesn't mean you are buying crap. With the kids out of college I have enough spare money to buy pretty much what I want, but I just don't see the value in a lot of the "quality" guns. And I still do look at value for the money no matter what the price.

 

[nwilliams]

Both, I have a good quantity of quality guns

I don't buy junk and I buy more than I should (at least financially speaking)

Although I will admit that I've owned some real dogs over the years, but generally speaking those don't stay long in my collection. I'll also admit that I like having a large collection, I don't believe you can ever own too many guns, also I believe that one man's trash is another man's treasure. Quality like beauty is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

Value-wise I wouldn't trade in my entire collection for one gun just because its considered better quality than anything I own. I'd rather have thirty, twenty or even ten quality guns over one, two or three super high quality ones. Of course the opposite can be true also, I'd rather have one high quality gun over ten junk guns, for example I'd rather have one Glock than ten Jenning's.

The fact is I own about thirty guns in my collection, none of them are the best out there within their particular category. Why? Because not everyone can ever fully agree that any one gun is the absolute best over all the others.

 

[Tokugawa]

Do not confuse quality with price- they may be the same and they may not be- I have had very expensive guns that did not work worth a damn, and inexpensive ones that were a joy to use- reliable and accurate.

 

[XavierBreath]

Quality does not mean expensive, although it can. Quality is a very subjective notion, one that means different things to different people. Most experienced gun owners define quality as reliable, accurate, durable, and maintaining value in the marketplace.

I do not always buy quality. Some of my guns would classify as quality weapons to some folks, junk to others.

I have never opted for quantity, although, over time I have accumulated a few guns. Some would say I own a lot of guns. I have seen larger collections.

Quality is what you percieve it to be.
Quantity is also what you percieve it to be.

Buy what you enjoy and don't worry about it. When you stop enjoying it, sell or trade it off. It ain't about what you have. It's about the enjoyment you get from it.

 

[larry_minn]

I feel I went with best of both worlds. First was Glenfield model 70 (IIRC) .22. A monkey Wards "mossberg knockoff" had double feed problems till light (twist) of action rails. Then S$W and Glock.
None were $$$$ fancy but all work.

 

[Nolo]

Quality. But it'll end up being quantity and quality, as I intend on being fabulously wealthy.
My Mosin qualifies for quality, methinks.

 

[XD-40 Shooter]

Here's my definition of quality pistols and I didn't spend $1000 on any one gun to get it.

Quality Shotgun = my Mossberg 500 12 gauge, paid $200 new in box.

Quality Pistol's = my XD-40 and my Taurus Mil-Pro 40, $500 and $350 respectively.

Quality Rifle = My SKS and Marlin 22 magnum. The SKS goes bang every time, shoot's a 3-4" group at 100 yards, built like a tank, and it can take some abuse and keep on tickin'. I paid a whopping $150 for this thing, I love it.

Quality 22 rimfire pistol = my Ruger 22/45, bought it used for $150, its in mint condition and is very accurate.

Quality Revolver = my taurus tracker 357 mag, very tight, very accurate, very comfortable to shoot, bought it 5 years ago for $400 out the door.

This is my definition of quality guns and I didn't spend a fortune on them. I have no use for $1000 kimber's and such, don't need'em or want'em.

 

[Just Jim]

One mans quality is another mans quanity What some see as quality is just another gun to others:banghead: So if your going to ask the question you have to define what you mean by quality.

jj

 

[brandyspaw]

As I've gotten older I have been replacing many of my cheaper guns for
more quality pieces. Kind of a swap up from quanity to quality as it were.

For example, in the old days I had several different type of 1911s (mostly Colts) but not so anymore. These days I still have one Kimber and one Colt for 1911s but I have also been aquiring some nice semi-custom 1911s such as a Les Baer and a Wilson Combat. For me, at least, its worth the trade off for a lot fewer guns but certainly some much nicer ones.

 

[jpwilly]

You forgot about the COOL Factor! A neat gun could be cheap or expensive low quality or good quality. I.E. I've purchased cool guns that were okay quality (my Romanian PSL for example) and paid more than I could have gotten a another quality firearm for. Foolish? NO I wanted one becasue they are cool and shoot the same stuff I feed the Nagants 3 of them. I also have a US built AK and two AR's that are high quality. Bottom line I BUY COOL GUNS in Quantity!

 

[22-rimfire]

I generally lean toward Quality over Quantity. Both are subjective terms and subject to individual preferences. You can have both quality and quantity if you are a steady buyer and you don't sell one gun to buy another.

 

[Noxx]

I tend toward the higher end in pistols... if you discount my soviet mak and my spanish 1911 *cough*, but in rifles I'll snap up anything interesting that's inexpensive. That explains why I have a closet full of mosins.

 

[TimboKhan]

I own a lot of guns, so quantity applies by default I guess. That being said, I firmly believe in getting a good value, which does not at all translate into having to fix up a crappy gun. Cost should not be an indicator of function, in my opinion.

 

[glockman19]

Quality over Quantity. I'll Never own some manufacturers guns.

 

[Geno]

Quantity is simple to express and understand universally. Quality needs defining, because it is relative to the purchaser's expectation.

Take a Baer-buyer and a Kimber-buyer. Each says that they want quality, but they are fundamentally different 1911s. How so? Pick up a Baer and a Kimber, each with 5,000 rounds fired. Manipulate the actions.

Most 1911 aficionados agree that some 1911 manufacturers are about bling, others are about tradition, and yet others are about a point of point-of-rationality. Choose your "quality" standard.

Quality to me, is a 1911 that is as-close to Mil Spec as can be. But, I am under no illusion that $$$$$ or shiny surfaces equals quality.