Sig,H&K, and Kahr Prices

[GunLvrNLearner]

As a newbie most will prolly consider this question very ignorant but to me when Glocks are considered tuff as nails and highly reliable and can be got for 500 and CZ's the same and even lower price what are the justifications for the much much higher prices of Sigs,H&K,Kahrs and other brands?? Just VERY curious Thanks

 

[MechAg94]

The Kahr I have is not any more than the Glocks, etc.. It is just light weight and very thin making it easy to conceal. It is reliable if kept very clean and has proven very accurate for me despite being smaller and shorter.

Sigs are just very smooth and well made pistols. Mine have proven to be very reliable, accurate, easy handling, and fun to shoot. If you want to try one, find one of the P6/P225 pistols that are being sold used. www.aimsurplus.com. I see used Sigs at shows in the $400 to $600 range.

H&K I have a used USP 45 I picked up in a trade. It is basically similar to a Glock in overall form, but operates more like a 1911. It is accurate and reliable, but blocky like a Glock. I don't have any complaints about it, but my Sig P220 is more fun to shoot. H&K is popular in military circles so I hear and supposed to be very, very rugged and reliable.
I have also had a P7M8 for some years. It is pretty accurate for a smaller 9mm and has been rock solid reliable regardless of cleaning frequency. I have been impressed with the reliability of H&K pistols, but I doubt I will ever own more than those two.

 

[MechAg94]

Also, the Springfield XD seems to be developing a good reputation. S&W M&P pistols and FNP pistols are also out there as new kids on the block.

 

[9mmepiphany]

there is a market for more expensive guns because they have features or exhibit workmanship which can't be found in lesser priced guns

 

[TexasRifleman]

Glocks are considered tuff as nails and highly reliable and can be got for 500 and CZ's the same and even lower price what are the justifications for the much much higher prices of Sigs,H&K,Kahrs and other brands??

Manufacturing in metal is nearly always more costly than manufacturing in polymer, all other things being equal.

That alone would account for most of it in the case of Sigs and HK.

For Kahr its simply volume, they are a much smaller maker than Glock even though they use polymers.

HK has always operated at a higher profit margin than just about any gun company so there's no surprise there.

 

[crushbup]

Don't HKs use polymer frames?

 

[VetteVert]

I take it you haven't shot them all? There are quite a few handguns in "the family"...dozens...only 1 glock. There is a reason. They may be tough and reliable, but they are not fun to shoot. Maybe they are with some custom trigger work, but then you are at the money of one of the better guns. JMHO...

VV

 

[TexasRifleman]

Don't HKs use polymer frames?

Sometimes but HK in general has always been, shall we say, "proud" of their work.

That whole "You suck and we hate you" thing

HK has, as I said, been able to operate for many years at a much higher margin I suspect than most gun makers because of the mystique they have been able to create around their brand.

I mean, good for them for doing it, it's what most people in business school are there to learn how to do successfully.

 

[Lookn4Brass]

I'll have to agree with VetteVert and MechAg94. The Sig is just plain easier to use for me, and as much as I respect and recommend Glocks, I don't enjoy shooting them. They are not something that I would like to spend a day with, shooting at the range. Been there, done that. For me they are just a workhorse, super durable tool for self-defense or law enforcement. (I've fired most of the models that they make). Some shooters are crazy about them, and I say that's great too. Go for it. Just not for me.

I never understood the fascination or reasoning for spending the money on a Sig-Sauer until I shot one - an old European market P220 in .45 acp that I was trying out actually for a friend to buy, not for me. It only took a few minutes of firing to "get it". I realized that this pistol design is the most natural with my hands. For me, the Sig design points better, goes back on target fastest for follow-up shots, and is much easier to shoot tight groups with - this is coming from someone who has tried almost every type of semi-auto pistol out there for the past 30-plus years. Right now I use the Sig-Sauer P239 model in 9mm for carry purposes, and I am planning on getting a P220 or P245 compact also. I've wanted a Sig P220 for a long time, and kickin' myself for not buying one sooner. It would have been worth the sacrifice. Besides, I buy used handguns whenever possible, to shave off $100.00 or so alot of times.

 

[TIMC]

I own a Glock 22 and a Glock 17 Both are nice relaible pistols that shoot well and I would trust my life to them.

I own an HK USP and it is reliable, feels better in my hand than the Glocks and runs circles around them in the accuracy department.

I own 2 Sig Sauers, a P-220 Elite and a Blackwater edition P-226. Both feel very good in my hand and have superb accuracy. The actions are ultra smooth and are great looking guns as well. the P-220 is my new prefered carry gun.

All will do the job if called apon but it is like cars do you want to drive a volkswagon, Lincoln or Mercedes. Each one is just a step above the other.

 

[usp9]

HK has always operated at a higher profit margin than just about any gun company so there's no surprise there.

TexasRifleman, with all due respect, I suspect you are making that up out of thin air. What exactly is HK's profit margin? Kahr's, Colt's, Glock's?

All HK pistols produced today are polymer frames. The P7M8 is out of production (or is it ).

Some of the cost difference is due to production methods that simply cost more, smaller production runs versus larger runs, options offered versus no options.

 

[45ACPUSER]

People will always take exception of costs! But, to each is own. If you want the Honda Accord of guns you buy a Glock, and if you want the Lexus you buy a HK!

 

[TexasRifleman]

TexasRifleman, with all due respect, I suspect you are making that up out of thin air.

You did read the part where I said "I suspect" this to be true right?

HK has always been well known as an extremely profitable company in the gun business. Who knows what their margin numbers are but it's not a stretch to believe they have good margins to do as well in the business as they do.

We're not talking about HK-USA but the global group of companies.

They are an absolutely massive company. They are the second largest manufacturer of small arms on the planet.

Here's corporate:

You want to believe they are barely getting by that's fine but any conventional wisdom would indicate they have very good margins.
And, if you want to believe the civilian market is so important to them that they'd run on slim margins then you can believe that too.

Few companies publish those numbers of course but it's not a leap of imagination to figure out who is making money and who isn't.

 

[usp9]

Who knows what their margin numbers are ...

That was my point. Facts are good, but please no conjecture. Neither you nor I have any idea as to the profit margins of gun manufacturers. Using an unknown, surmised "fact" as a reason to pan a particular gun is not useful to anyone.

 

[redneckrepairs]

Buy what you want and can make room for in your budget . If a glock or an xd meet your expectations and price point then they are fine guns for you. For myself i enjoy my HK , my Sig , my Kahrs and my Colts . I dont own a glock or an xd and dont feel short changed a bit . I do own a kel-tec which i enjoy and carry occasionally . If you cant see it then dont pay for it is my motto as i wear a timex and drive a chevy lol since i just cant see how a " better " watch or car would do a durned thing for me .

 

[CYANIDEGENOCIDE]

Being a fan of steel and 1911's and all that it pains me to say I think glocks are in the same league as low end Sig. I know that is going to be an unpopular opinion but for quality of fit and finish, and durability of materials I can honestly say my xd looks worse for wear than my 220 which looks worse than my glock.
Of course I would sell the glock in a heartbeat and not think about it, the Sig I wouldn't let go, ever.

 

[9mmepiphany]

as low end Sig

i'd be interested in finding some lowend sigs...where do you find them?

 

[CWL]

Glocks don't fit my hand. I hate the ergos of it and don't like the trigger ('tho I still own 2 of them)

HK USPs don't fit my hand either although I like the features of them.

Sigs DO fit my hand, but I can shoot my other pistols better than them.

Kahrs are good pistols, I have a P9 in stainless, but if I was going to use a singlestack, I'd rather it be .45ACP.

Are you beginning to understand why there are so many different brands and styles of pistols?
It's like asking if there is only one best brand of shoe, there isn't. Everything depends on needed application + the size/shape of your foot.

 

[csd4682]

I have a kahr pm9 you definatly pay for the fact that its tiny and is only 14 oz. but it also has better rifling that cheaper guns, including the economy line of kahrs, the cw's you can usually pick up for around 400.00 or less at a gun show. As for the others, I have not owned a glock, sig or hk. I have owned a cz, and think they are outstanding guns for the money, there are just too big for me to conceal.

 

[CYANIDEGENOCIDE]

low end Sigs

When you figure an 220 equinox is $1150, an X-5 is $2750, an elite platinum is $1215, X-5 tactical is $1715...Well I would call the plain jane p220 "low end".
so if you would like a "low end" sig brand new they cost about $750 or $200 more than a glock or xd in a comparable caliber.

I only say low end because inevitably someone will chime in with well my chrome plated, gunsmithed until you don't recognize it, sig equa-elite platinum X-6 not available outside the sig factory is far superior. Im trying to compare apples to apples

 

[9mmepiphany]

i wasn't sure if you meant the "plainjane" sigs, the CPO sigs (about the same price as glocks) or the currently available surplus P6 (about 1/2 the price of a glock)

 

[loop]

Reliability and accuracy are all that are required of a handgun. Glocks and its clones are lacking in accuracy. Cheap 1911s are lacking in reliability.

Take a look at CZs or 1911 for examples of accuracy and reliability. The combination is not cheap.

OTOH, neither is quality ammo.

 

[NGIB]

Folks bought Yugo's and folks bought Mercedes - both take you from point A to point B. It's personal preference...

 

[azwizard]

I've shot or owned most of the guns mentioned here and then some, I'm neither recoil sensitive nor do I want to take a beat'in just to have the lasted super wiz-bang gun to come along.

Lot's of people love Glocks, I don't. Seems like you either love them or hate them.

I have a really great 1911 A1, I shoot it very well. Wouldn't trade or sell it for any price but that's mostly due to sentimental value.

I've shot CZ's and they are surprisingly good? I say that from a ignorant point of view, We just never saw many where I'm from. Tried one for a buddy and was very impressed.

I had a Browning Hi-Power that I thought the world of and dumped a ton of money into making it an exceptional shooter. While out with another buddy who was looking for a new gun I got bored and started trying out the range guns, I tried the Sig's, Nice gun's but not as nice as my Browning. Tried the H&K USP's and had the same opinon of it as I did the Sig's....

Just for info, I shoot my Dan Wesson V715 as the most accurate handgun I own. Next up is my Browning BuckMark and until I tried a H&K P2000 in .40 S&W I would have ranked the Browning Hi-Power next.

The day I tried the H&K P2000 is the same day I sold my Hi-Power. Something about it just works for me. It is startlingly accurate FOR ME out to 25 yards and just plain comfortable to shoot all day.

But in the end it's what feels good in YOUR HANDS and what YOU SHOOT ACCURATELY So hit some ranges that rent guns or go out with some guys who have an assortment and spend some time shooting and figuring out what works best for you before you plunk down the money for your gun.

Don't settle, You'll just end up selling it and getting what you really wanted in the first place later anyway. But that's the round about way of guns...LOL

 

[Dot_mdb]

OK, let's see how Glocks compare to Sigs. Glocks are much thinner. Glocks have greater capactity for similar size. Glocks cost less. Glocks weigh less. Glocks are equally reliable. I don't know about accuracy but does it make any difference which side of someone's heart you puncture from 25 yards? You can talk about a difference or preference in trigger feel or grip angle but you can't make a Sig a better gun than a Glock.

Bill