The old "for the money" quality qualifier...

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brashboy

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
140
Location
Gainesville, FL
In another thread, the question was asked: is there a better DA/SA for the money than the CZ75? The consensus was, no way. But it got me thinking: what if we take price out of the equation? Different result?

I'm not sure I agree with the poster in the other thread who said the 75 is the Toyota Camry of handguns. Why is a Sig, for example, better because it is hundreds more? [Not picking on Sigs!!] The cost of a firearm is based upon production costs (labor, materials, facilities costs), with the name brand value baked in - and we all know that is a fact. No point having a fancy name brand if you can't charge higher prices for it. The same exact gun made in W. Europe (e.g., Germany) will almost always cost more than an identical one made here or - oh, Brazil. Just about every cost input imaginable is cheaper in Czechland than W. Europe, so the CZ can be made and therefore sold cheaper. Happy us! My CZ97B is gorgeous, flawless, low recoil, accurate as hell, and cheap - I mean, not expensive. No, it doesn't have spalted coconut grips, but so what?

I'm not knocking any high-end guns, but I don't accept that a Sig or Rohrbaugh or whatever is "better" than a CZ. Better for what? Is the quality really higher? The polish, finish or fit on a more prestigious brand may be a bit better, and resale is higher, but is that better? You pay up front for that resale value, partner, so I would eliminate that as a decisional point. You still lose money when you drive it off the lot.

The CZ feels and shoots great out of the box, is reliable as they come, and is used a lot of places for LEO and military carry. It shouldn't be penalized because it isn't $800 or $1,000. By comparison, do Glock owners feel their guns are the best "for the money" or the best, period? You can, maybe, get a Glock out these guys' cold, dead hands, unless you buy trade them a new Glock for it. I'm an XD man, but I don't really think it is better than a Glock, nor any other brand, either?

Suppose... prices of CZs went up to $800, or more, with slightly fancier finishes, grips and such. Would it become in a few years considered top rank b/c it is now top price?

I'm not saying the CZ is the end all, be all, just ruminating about this whole quality issue. There just seems to be an ironclad quality hierarchy in handguns. You know, like an earl is higher than a duke, which is higher than a baron, and so forth. As in, nice gun there, partner, but it ain't no Walther...

I feel much better now as I don flame suit...
 
I believe this as well. I know usually the rule of thumb is "you get what you pay for" but there are quite a few "cheap" guns out there that rival the "big boys."
 
In my opinion the true test of any gun is in competition. How many times do you see CZ 75s win any event? As far as that goes, how many time do you see a Sig or H&K double action win in todays competition??

jj
 
I don't accept that a Sig or Rohrbaugh or whatever is "better" than a CZ.
Click to expand...
The SIGs will be more polished. They'll have the toolmarks better cleaned up inside, and lots of similar little things that a CZ won't have. That doesn't account for all the price difference though, labor is a big factor you've touched on.

Comparing an 870 Wingmaster to an 870 Express is a good example. The WMs have chromed bolts, polished internals, polished bluing and nicer wood furrniture. The Express guns have less expensive matte blued bolts, much less interior polishing, some less expensive plastic parts in low stress areas, less expensive matte blued finish, and laminate or synthetic furniture. The Wingmaster is functionally no better than the Express in 99% of the conditions an average owner will encounter, but it is unquestionably a better made and finer shotgun than the Express.
 
I think every single Bersa Thunder .380 thread has a "for the money" qualifier. To me that's like saying "For the money a Yugo is a good car".

Keltec is the ultimate one...a $250 gun that turns into a $500 gun after fixes, repairs, shipping back and forth, $100 of "break-in ammo, etc, etc. The qualifier of course is "but their service is great!" It better be from what I read about the quality.
 
Taking price out the equation...put a Sig, a Kimber, a Springfield, a Para, a S&W, a whatever, and a CZ on the table...I'll take the CZ (which includes the Dan Wesson line of pistols).

As far as competition, the CZ is up there. Angus has won the Production Nationals and other major matches with his CZs, Matt Mink has won Area and National matches with CZs, Eric Grauffel has won World matches with a CZ clone (Tanfoglio).

If someone wishes to believe that their $800+ Sig is better than my $475 CZ or that their $1100+ Kimber is better than my $800 Dan Wesson, then let them...it just leaves more CZs for me.
 
The statement of "it's good for the price" also gets used when people talk about Savage rifles.

I personally hear it alot from people who have rather high-priced rifles. Albeit, Savage did go through a rough patch which did earn them some QA concerns, but those problems have been rectified.

Most complaints were about the :

1. Trigger
2. Stock
3. Accuracy

Even though these three problem areas have been addressed by the company, and the price has come up to reflect the work that has been done, I now hear people say "That is too much to pay for a Savage.":banghead:

For some people it will never matter how accurate, reliable, rugged, or consistent a product is.

CZ is a fine pistol. I also know people who won't have anything to do with them either.
 
Noxx, I hear you, but by paying top dollar for a brand name, you are paying through the nose - up front - for the resale. And not all high-end guns hold resale value that well. What really drives resale is the combination of quality and comparative rarity. Mere quality doesn't assure high resale where everyone is awash in the firearm.
 
Thanks a lot!

I went to my local gun shop and fondled a CZ 97. Now I want one!

*Turns to page six of want list*

It's funny that I've never considered CZ. I think it's because when I hear the name "CZ" I think "foreign 9mm." Perhaps it's the gun shops I frequent. There's only 2 or 3 CZ handguns at any given time while there's countless Kimbers, Springfields, Glocks, Smith & Wesson revolvers, etc.
 
The only difference between a "good for the money" gun and an expensive gun should be refinements, e.g, more polished metalwork and finish. It should still be functional, i.e., go bang every time, put the bullets where they are supposed to go, not break (at least not often) and last for many years. If it does not do these things, it is a bad gun, not a GFTM.

Originally posted by usp9:
To me that's like saying "For the money a Yugo is a good car".
Click to expand...
But the Yugo was a bad car, period. A good car like, say, a (fill in your favorite car here), might have cost twice, thrice or more times as much, but it will be reliable and last for many years. That makes the (FITB) the better GFTM. ;)
 
Noxx, I hear you, but by paying top dollar for a brand name, you are paying through the nose - up front - for the resale. And not all high-end guns hold resale value that well. What really drives resale is the combination of quality and comparative rarity. Mere quality doesn't assure high resale where everyone is awash in the firearm
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, and I'm certainly not knocking the function of quality built but less expensive arms like CZ.

The way I see it, once we've passed the point of the $200 pawn shop special, we're well into the realm of guns that "function" pretty much as reliably as any machine can be expected. Neglecting for the moment resale value (which I've never considered as I intend to keep everything I've bought) those minor differences in fit, finish, and polish are what I'll pay extra dollars for, if I want them.

To put it another way, once we've cleared (in the current gun market) the $500 mark, we're really reduced to talking about things that make the difference between a tool and a beautiful piece of machinery. Both of them will work just fine, one is built with more care than another.

The question is, is that "better"?

Well, if you're purchasing a gun for what it does, then no, it isn't.

If you're buying a gun for what it is, then arguably it is.

Of course a lot of that distinction is lost in simple price snobbery. For instance, I work with a guy who bought a Sig simply because I have Sigs, and when the conversation arises, he won't shut up about how much "better" it is than a Glock or a Kahr. I try to keep him off "my side" as much as possible. I hear the same from people who own boutique brand 1911's pretty much as a matter of course. Unfortunately, people who value an item enough to spend extra money on it, are often not content to simply enjoy it, but have to convince everyone around them it was worth the money as well. That's a shame, because it puts people who have bought a perfectly functional and well-made tool on the defensive, and in the long run turns some people away from appreciating the finer points of the "better" gun, rather dismissing those fine details as buyers-remorse justification for having spent the money.

I'm rambling a bit, but in short, I think every time this comes up almost everyone I know is a bit too touchy on the subject because everyone has their own money in the discussion somewhere.
 
"I hear you, but by paying top dollar for a brand name, you are paying through the nose - up front - for the resale."

I have yet to consider resale. I buy what I like that has an excellent reputation for reliability. Or maybe just what I need in the case of the 870 Express and synthetic 1100 to be thrown in the bottom of the duck boat.

I've been a fan of CZ since I bought one of the Turkish-contract 75B Military models with 2 hi-caps for $349. I added smooth Hogue grips.

I spent nearly $600 on a plain old BHP and then dropped a little cash putting Spegel grips on it. It was an even better gun once I bobbed the hammer and removed the mag disconnect.

Now I have a Rohrbaugh. I wanted a 9mm pocket pistol smaller than a 442 and about the same weight or lighter. I knew their rep, and when I finally saw one the quality was obvious. The gun works and is used daily.


"The question is, is that "better"?"

Heck yes, good tools don't come cheap.

"The price of everything and the value of nothing." - excerpted from a quote by Oscar Wilde

Buy good stuff and you won't need, or want, to ever trade it or sell it.

John

P.S. - I've had a P-32 since they were running in the 12xxx serial number range. The hardchrome is nice, the gun works and it's been carried daily for many years. I don't recall what I gave for it, but I've gotten every penny's worth out of it. Quality is where you find it - and I found it after I sent it back the first month to get the trigger axis fixed so it would fire.
 
Forgot to address...

"Suppose... prices of CZs went up to $800, or more, with slightly fancier finishes, grips and such. Would it become in a few years considered top rank b/c it is now top price?"

CZ has been top rank for many years, all around the world. I understand that there are folks who aren't up to speed on them, but that's okay, the guns are still superior. After they were introduced in 1975 the CZ-75 couldn't be imported into the U.S. due to the Cold War. The ones that did make it over here were going for around $1000. Very popular shooters.

John

P.S. - "Colonel Jeff Cooper, long-time advocate of the Colt 1911, hailed it as the best-designed double-action autoloader available. It has become one of the most popular pistols of its class. As Česká Zbrojovka claims, it is in service with "more Governments, Militaries, Police and Security agencies than any other pistol in the world.""
 
Noxx, I hear you, but by paying top dollar for a brand name, you are paying through the nose - up front - for the resale. And not all high-end guns hold resale value that well. What really drives resale is the combination of quality and comparative rarity. Mere quality doesn't assure high resale where everyone is awash in the firearm.
Click to expand...
You're not paying for resale. You're paying for the quality, for the increased expense of more hand labor, for the more expensive finish, and better internals in some cases.
 
When I was looking for a carry gun I rented what seemed like everything the local range had, which included a number of CZs. Apart from the P-01, I just didn't shoot the CZs very well compared to the alternatives. I was especially wanting to like the 97B but it and I seem ill suited to one another.

I haven't felt the urge to purchase them at their current price point and raising it wouldn't impact that one way or the other.

None of that means there's anything wrong with CZs. But if one notes he shoots different brands better he'll generally find another 100 or more bucks to get the one "calling his name". Sometimes, it'll work to where he's saving money - Ruger semis seem to be routinely diving under CZ pricing locally and numerous people seem happy with that choice.

I'd also conjecture that there's a degree of inertia involved. If one has had excellent results with everything that could be reasonably expected of a firearm, and saved a little money in the process, it's natural to conclude that any number of arcane forces are at work in those that paid more - peer pressure, cognitive dissonance, John Ruskin quotes playing through one's head like an irritating jingle, etc., when it might have been as simple as what the dealer had in stock or not liking the trigger on the CZ or wanting a .45ACP in a compact form factor.

Free market at work.
A SIG is "better" than a CZ if you shoot it better - doesn't matter why you shoot it better.
A Rohrbaugh is "better" if you're trying to conceal it.
A BHP is "better" if you prefer single actions and can't find a CZ75TacSport in stock.
A Ruger P345 is "better" if low price without sacrificing reliability is one's ideal.

There will always be people bagging on other's choices. If you want a better example of it, get thee to the reloading forum and post a "which progressive" thread. It'll make the CZ vs SIG vs et al look like a Sunday tea party.
 
the best

is going to be an opinion thing based on the values and position of the person answering. Some people see spending more than is needed to acheive their goal or need as really stupid. Other's see spending more to get marginal improvement as a desirable thing. Just depends.

"the best" would be more "valid" if you put it in terms of quantifiable parameters that can be tested and proven.

For instance "the best accuracy - one handed at 25 yards, 10 shots in 15 seconds, drawn from a strong side holster" and then you gathered data from a large number of shooter's results. This would rule out "perceived" accuracy which plagues this kind of question.

Or "the best durability" - ability to withstand impact from being dropped, fully loaded from 20 feet onto a concreate surface and still shoot and cycle normally.

Guess I'm feeling a little philosophical this afternoon. :rolleyes:
 
I think CZ's are excellent pistols for the money. I understand their appeal and loyal following. I like them very much and would consider owning a 75BD.

Yesterday I was at the range shooting my SIG P226 Navy 9mm and the guy next to me was shooting his CZ75 SP-01. I've shot CZ 75 B's before, but I was interested in trying his out. So we exchanged pistols.

The fit and finish on the SP-01 were good, but not comparable to the SIG. The trigger on the SP-01 was creepy, rough, and gritty. No comparison to the light, crisp SIG trigger and it was observed and acknowledged by the CZ owner. I really took my time with the CZ because I wanted to see how accurately I could shoot it. Accuracy was close but not equal to the SIG out to 15 yards but I found the SIG much easier to shoot because of the trigger. I'll chalk that up to my unfamiliarity with the CZ.

Shooting the 2 pistols, I felt the difference in quality. Is the CZ a fantastic pistol for the money? Absolutely. Is the SIG worth $300 more over the life of the pistol (say 20 years or more)? You bet'cha.

You get what you pay for.
 
"the best accuracy" would be nothing of the like in the above example. If you want the best accuracy, you would have to remove the error factor (humans) and use a Ransom Rest or something similar.

As far as durability, I've put over 7000 rounds through my SP01 in 6 months. No broken springs, no broken parts, no handgun induced issues (I have screwed up some ammo which was either too long or completely missed the priming phase)...the only thing it has done was wear out a recoil spring.
 
I have a CZ75B. (As well as SEVERAL other CZ's.)

I paid $274.50 for my CZ75.

I paid $412 for a Glock 19 w/ night sites.

I paid over $1,100 for my Kimber Warrior.

Is the Kimber worth the higher price?

YES, it fits ME better, and is (Almost, I wanted it in SS) EXACTLY what I wanted.

And resale is not an issue. I'm not gonna sell any of them.
 
It mainly depends on your personality.


Some people will be happier with the Mercedes, even though it's no better than a Honda. Other people will be happier with the Honda, even though it won't impress anybody.


Type #1: Values pride of ownership; willing to pay more; appreciates the exclusivity provided by high price; appreciates intangibles and flourishes.


Type #2: Feels like a sucker if he pays more for the same thing; doesn't like marketing hype; understands the machine well enough to know if he's getting a good one.
 
The cost of a firearm is based upon production costs (labor, materials, facilities costs), with the name brand value baked in - and we all know that is a fact.
Click to expand...

No, we don't all know that. You're using the word 'cost' to describe both the manufacturer's cost of production and the price paid by the consumer, and that's confusing.

The price you can sell a product for has absolutely no relationship to the cost of producing the product. The buyer determines the selling price, not the producer.

The selling price of a product and it's manufacturing cost have no relationship to the quality of the product. Selling price may have a correlation to perceived quality, but that's about it.

. . . we now return you to your regularly scheduled program . . . . :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Are high end 1911s worth the money?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
6K
daybreak
D
G
  • Locked
GLOCK vs. Sig Sauer
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
jlh26oo
J
T
  • Locked
P99 / P229, Quality in the name
Replies
22
Views
1K
NG VI
N
A
  • Locked
What is the best value in used modern semi-autos right now?
Replies
12
Views
938
boofus
B
CZF
  • Locked
The Pistol CZ 'Could Make
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Berg
B
Back
Top