Quality or Quantity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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

IMHO Both Quality. Difference between Mercedes, BMW, RR, Bentley = Kimber, Springfield, Les Baer, Ed Brown, All Custom to different Degree. Not a Ford, Chevy Comparison = Colt, S&W, NOT a Toyota, Nissan = Taurus.

Not to say each won't get you where you want to go but some will hold their value better and with care get you greater mileage. I'll always pay more for quality. I'd rather have one Good gun that always goes bang and is accurate than 2 or more that have FTF, FTE, or other issues.

High end cars & guns have lemmons too.
 
Glockman, I would point out that you could own as many as three Glocks for the cost of one Baer. I don't think your going to be getting FTF, FTE and the rest, and you will have more than one good gun. Thats quantity AND quality, which is the where I am hanging my hat in this argument.
 
As has been said, low cost doesn't always reflect the quality of the gun.

And high cost doesn't always mean high quality.
You should hear my friend talk about his Wilson, it's X rated.:D


For $169 this Makarov will preform as well as many of my high dollar guns.
Maksquaretriggerguard.gif
 
My approach is to spend whatever it takes to get the quality necessary for the job. Self-defense type weapons should be as close as possible to perfect. What's your life worth? Perfect isn't cheap.

Hunting weapons don't have to be quite as reliable, so you have more options. Plinkers/range guns can be whatever strikes your fancy. I like mil-surps to tinker with, and quite a few types can be bought cheap. $90.00 Moisn-Nagants are an example of cheap, dead reliable, reasonably accurate but ugly that could be put in both categories.
 
Quality over and over again becomes Quantity. As has been stated, cost is
not always a reflection of such. There is no point in spending money on something
that I can't use over and over again with a favorable outcome.
 
Quality every time. Would rather have one custom built 1911 to my specs than 4 low end guns. Nothing wrong with low end well built guns either, and I have them, but I like Rolex over Timex, yet both keep perfectly good time.
 
I like to have a quantity of quality. you don't have to get it broke off your rearend to get a high quality gun. I know many very inexpensive guns that are very reliable, and very accurate.

why not both?

Heckler & Koch!!

simple, because you suck, and we hate you...
 
I hit that fork right in the middle I think. I have LOTS of guns, but I don't have any $3000 1911's, nor any $40 Bryco pawnshop .22's.

The majority of my firearms cost between $500 and $1100 and are made by fairly well-known, quality manufactures. Think, Smith, Sig, Glock, Springfield, Marlin, Ruger, Winchester, ect. No Nighthawks here. ;)

Ol' Tom Selleck said it very well in the season premier episode of Las Vegas (paraphrased)... "For the price of one sports car we can give away 10(?) trucks."

I like nice trucks. :cool: Sports cars are just over priced and not nearly as useful.


-T.
 
having only recently purchased my first firearm i definitely do not yet fall into the "quantity" camp

i like to think i purchased a quality firearm for my first (XD .40 sub compact)

i hope to make more quality purchases in the future, thus amassing a quantity of quality ;)
 
I'm more of a "firearms are a tool" person. I tend to buy lower cost but still fairly good quality firearms. I know I'll never own a Sig or Colt because I can own multiple firearms in their place. The other reason I do this is because I'm just getting back into the firearm scene after a decade hiatus and need to get my inventory back up.

Also have to keep the wife off my case as well.;)
 
When I was a gun noob, my first gun was a 4" Colt Lawman Mark III .357. I lost it in a fire and replaced it with a 6" Colt King Cobra .357. From those guns I assumed all were good, until I bought a $1000 Kimber Ultra CDP II. Biggest POS I ever shot, unreliable was the nicest thing I ever called it, even after 1100 rounds. Now after Kimber worked on it once, I've put 900 rounds through it without error. My next was a Rock Island .45, $306 and never a problem. CZ 75 $405, not one problem. Kel Tec PF9, $219 another POS. The frame had to be replaced after the first outing and the now repaired gun has an FTE problem. Quantity vs quality is an excellent subject, but why can't they all just work out of the box. The quality gun makers don't use the consumer as the R+D department, and the problem is an inexpensive gun doesn't mean cheap.(CZ) Mike
 
IT ALL DEPENDS! It is very rare for me to use only one criteria when I buy a gun. I am an opportunist, and thus base ny buys on what is available and its relative VALUE! I suppose if I won the lottery, the priority might shift to quantity, but somehow i doubt it. Even when I was heavily into buying to thwart the government and its attempt to ban as much as they could, I was still concerned with quality. Value usually is the over-riding consideration. Not just market value, but capability, accuracy, rareity, historical, and most importantly, its personal value to me. A purchase in February comes to mind. I happened to find a nice M-44, in a whole stack of similiar rifles. What made this rifle different was the almost new condition of all the parts, and the nice trigger. I didn't need another M-44, and it wasn't expensive, yet I bought it and twaked it into a fairly accurate carbine.
 
TimboKhan,

I thought we were talking 1911's?

BTW I love glocks but they'd be clasified as Hummers IMHO.
 
Quality first and second, once those needs are satisfied, quantity has a place, too. That said, a $5.00 tool beats no tool any day of the week.
Case in point, I took my kids fishing (they are very small) and my 4 year old managed to get her hair wrapped around the crank on the reel--in that case, a $1.00 pair of Chi-com needle nose pliars I bought for her little tackle box bailed me out in spades. In similar fashion, I've banked that a handy Yugo SKS trunk gun may be big help in a pinch sometime.

Another consideration, is value. Many milsurps are great value weapons that work fine and are reliable. I came around to this POV of late, last couple of years really. They don't all have to be $$$ guns. Weapons are a pride thing, sometimes, a status symbol; and on some level they become objects of ritual and spirituality--totems of those seeking contact with the warrior and hunter archetype. Sometimes when you're in the bubble it's a zen moment, sometimes it's a tool for utility.

My point is, if you have your quality needs met--get a little quantity--but buy some good-value quantity.
 
I buy quality at a good price. No sense in buying a cheap gun that costs more to fix than to buy. No sense in buying a gun that's dangerous to shoot, either.
I buy the medium-to-cheap guns of good quality. CZ, S&W, Springfield Armory, and Beretta. A Les Baer 1911 isn't likely to shoot better than my Springfield Armory GI model, because I'm a middling-to-mediocre shooter. Get hardware that works safely, first off - that will sometimes ixnay the use of Lorcins and their ilk. It allows the use of cheap Smith revolvers, Ruger autos, and practically every major brand in business. If you want to pay for extra goodies, by all means do so. Just remember that a Walther 2000 won't make you Carlos Hathcock. Guns just don't work like Viagra.
 
Before i started buying firearms, I was young didn't know any better,
Now I'm all about quality to a point that I don't go in the hole money wise.
 
I think, over time, it's more a matter of priorities. When I was young and single, and only had to answer to myself, then it was quantity. Did I need six revolvers all in the same caliber; no, but if there was something out there that I wanted, I'd just go out and get it.
But then I got married, went back to finish college while working full-time, had a mortgage payment, had a lot of other payments; and suddenly you realize that the free spending days are over. So you start selling off the duplicates, even the triplicates; start to focus more on quality over quantity. And in doing so, I think you kind of learn to be a bit more selective, a bit more discriminating in what you buy. In that way, it becomes more of quality, along with value consciousness, over quantity.
 
I agree with John Ross, author of "Unintended Consequences" and THR member. I've pasted an article below that he wrote about quality.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070129014144/www.john-ross.net/junk.htm

ROSS IN RANGE
Why Do People Buy These Things? or,
JR, the Gun Snob
By John Ross

Copyright 2005 by John Ross. Electronic reproduction of this article freely permitted provided it is reproduced in its entirety with attribution given.

This column probably belongs over in my "Gun Culture" section, but I think I'll put it here, since more people check Ross in Range (and I'm way overdue for a RIR column.) Any terms or gun designations you don't recognize, don't email me, that's what Google is for...

As most of you know, I teach shooting classes for people who want to get licensed to carry a gun for protection, and others who want to improve their skills and knowledge base. I use only high quality guns for teaching purposes. On a typical Sunday, the class will put 2000 rounds through about a dozen of my guns. We average about one jam per weekend, usually from a semiauto I haven't cleaned for some time as I wanted to see when it would complain. This is with steel-cased ammo, which is a bit more jam-prone than brass.

Having a range session every Sunday with a couple dozen students means I get to see what kind of guns (particularly handguns, though they can bring anything legal) the average CCW candidate already owns.

I have decided there are three basic types of gunowners that come to my classes:

At the one end, there are the people who think like I do. These people would rather own one (or one hundred) good gun(s), with good balance, trigger, and accuracy, than two (or two hundred) mediocre guns. Whether they have $200 or $200,000 in their bank account, they have S&W, SIG, Beretta, Walther, Glock, Kimber, H&K, CZ, Colt, or other quality guns in their range bag, and often several. (One of these guys brought an FN 5.7, which startled me a little. He was just as surprised when I pulled out mine...)

In the middle are the people who, I suspect, think of guns like they think of restaurants or cars: They'd never pay all that money for a steak at Morton's or a Lexus sedan when Ponderosa and Saturn are serviceable. These folks show up with Taurus guns a lot. I think these people are mistaken about their priorities, and that guns are unlike food or cars and are more like real estate, but I understand their thinking even if I disagree with it.

It's the third group that baffles me.

For some reason, a fair number of otherwise normal people who can obviously afford decent clothes and vehicles (not to mention another $200 for CCW training and permit) own some truly awful weapons.

Ever seen a Phoenix 9mm, made in Texas? I'd never heard of it, and Fjestad's used gun buyer's guide (which is very thorough) doesn't even list it. It's a tremendously clunky BLOWBACK design for the 35,000 PSI 9mm Parabellum cartridge. The owner was tickled to death to have paid $85 for it. For $15 more he could have had a CZ52, and owned a gun that felt lively in the hand, and that he could have confidence wouldn't put the slide into his forehead. On the plus side, the Phoenix didn't jam during the two magazines he fired out of it.

Jennings, Bryco, Raven, and Lorcin semiautos show up with regularity. Every one of them has jammed repeatedly, if they ever worked at all. Some, like the two yesterday, would not fire. The triggers would not reset. I am always asked if I can fix these problems. I never can. Then I am asked what I would give for the gun. I explain that as a dealer I have to take the trouble to enter the gun into my books and that means work I dislike. Since I don't want the gun myself, don't sell junk to my customers, and I don't do work I dislike for free, he'd have to pay me to take the gun. I then suggest waiting for a gun buyback program, although most communities have figured out what a moronic waste of resources they are.

I haven't seen a Clerke revolver yet, but I will. These pot metal pieces of junk sold new for $15 when Jimmy Carter was President.*

"Try this out," one middle-aged fellow told me yesterday afternoon as he handed me a carbine. At lunch this man had mentioned he sells sports memorabilia, autographs, and other collectibles. I don't know how successful he is, but he had a new pickup and a multicolored leather jacket that looked like it cost hundreds of dollars.

The gun was a Hi-Point 9mm. In terms of build quality and overall feel it was the worst long arm I have ever handled. He seemed pleased to have picked it up for $125. It was one of two guns he brought to the range. The other was a Bryco .25 Auto that wouldn't fire. I have to conclude that these are the only two guns he owns.

Do these people have no friends who are gun guys? People that they might ASK before they spent their money on junk? If you don't have much money, or if you don't think you should have to spend a lot to get a gun, that's fine. Spend your $125 to get an SKS, and have money left over for ammo! There are DOZENS of military surplus guns that are combat-proven designs available in serviceable to like-new condition. These are mostly rifles, but with the Makarov and CZ52 handguns available to sharp-eyed buyers for around a C-note, there is just no excuse for people to own ill-handling, unreliable, and potentially unsafe designs.

My friend Tim Mullin has a much broader knowledge base than I do on available gun designs (particularly semiauto handguns), and their relative strengths and weaknesses. Tim has written the Testing the War Weapons series of books for Paladin Press about his hands-on testing of just about everything out there: Handguns, rifles, submachine guns, and machine guns. (I provided many if not most of the full auto examples for him to evaluate.)

I have asked Tim to help me construct a list of recommended handgun choices at various price points, i.e. what should the buyer get if he is willing to spend no more than $200 total on gun, holster, and ammo. Then a $300 level, then $400, etc. Naturally the more expensive levels will have more choices. When we get the list together, I'll put it up here.

Remember, FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS BUY JUNK GUNS!

John Ross 2/21/2005

*2/27/2005 Update: A guy showed up with a Clerke today. He asked If I thought it was safe to shoot. I told him no. He asked what I would do if it were mine. I told him that since there aren't any more buyback programs, the gun has no collector value, and an unsafe gun is a liability, I'd destroy it. He told me to go ahead. I tossed it out on the range and blew it to pieces with my BAR. He thought that was cool.
 
I would go for quality over quantity, but remember that reasonable quality can be had for good price (for example the used Ruger Security Sixes I picked up for ca $200 each--accurate enough to take out criminal at any reasonable range--and no way in hell that I can wear them out)--same thing for the P90--first time at range hitting 65 yard plate with el cheapo reload 5 times out of 7
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top