its 1957, would you have bought one of these?

Armory » General Firearm Discussion

Site Notices

2024's Favorite CCW? | PSA Micro Dagger

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - its 1957, would you have bought one of these?

Posted: 5/19/2015 11:21:05 PM EDT

bare in mind that $175 was the equivalent of $1470ish today

Posted: 5/19/2015 11:21:53 PM EDT

[#1]

my bad, meant for GD not Genral firearms discussion

Posted: 5/19/2015 11:25:27 PM EDT

[#2]

No. Besides I was only six.

Posted: 5/20/2015 12:25:31 AM EDT

[#3]

Probably not, I think every new design is stupid at first.

Posted: 5/20/2015 12:56:43 AM EDT

[#4]

No. I do not particularly like the FAL.

Posted: 5/20/2015 1:10:03 AM EDT

[#5]

Posted it in GD and I'll post it again.

Colt 601

Posted: 5/20/2015 3:19:01 AM EDT

[#6]

One problem, Sputnik; it's 1957...

"The Model 601 was the first "AR15 Model" produced by Colt . Manufacturing started in December of 1959,

with the first 300 rifles being produced, and continued until the summer of 1963. Changes made by Colt in

the production process would include; painting the furniture green (after approx 100 were made), different

roll markings, and changing the aluminum alloy from 7075 to 6061. Less then 14,500 were produced."

If I had been 16 or older in 1957, I'd have wanted one for certain, and undoubtedly would have been following the NATO trials in American Rifleman. Being as the M14 (or clone) was unavailable to civilians, it would have been the very best option available in a battle rifle. In my experience, though, I didn't have that level of funding available until I was 18, but that would allow me to get both

and pickup a Colt AR15 as well.

haha

Wasn't that around the time SGN had StG-44's, MG-42's, and PPSh-41's available inexpensively?? Yeah, I'd have been broke then too!

lol

I wonder if one could have contacted IMI and ordered a full-size UZI back then, straight from Israel. I know legally you could.

Posted: 5/20/2015 4:28:09 AM EDT

[#7]

No, but I'm glad you preempted the inflation calculator nimrods.

Posted: 5/20/2015 9:06:10 AM EDT

[#8]

No.

Posted: 5/20/2015 9:06:55 AM EDT

[#9]

Yes, absolutely. There was nothing else available to the US civilian like that at the time.

Posted: 5/20/2015 2:12:21 PM EDT

[#10]

Hell yeah!

Posted: 5/20/2015 2:20:17 PM EDT

[#11]

Probably. Though I would promptly fill out a form 1 and wait for it's return.

Posted: 5/20/2015 2:23:33 PM EDT

[#12]

I like to think I would have

Posted: 5/20/2015 2:40:53 PM EDT

[#13]

Probably.

Posted: 5/20/2015 8:20:33 PM EDT

[#14]

I'd hope I would have the presence of mind to get two.

Posted: 5/20/2015 10:50:47 PM EDT

[#15]

No but my grandpa would!!!

Posted: 5/20/2015 11:48:38 PM EDT

[#16]

A dozen of those, a 20mm cannon, and a pallet of same said 20mm ammo.

Best,
JBR

Posted: 5/24/2015 1:57:44 PM EDT

[#17]

Would have been $175 for the rifle and $200 for the select fire tax stamp also.

CD

Posted: 5/24/2015 8:54:02 PM EDT

[#18]

Since I was 5 years away from being born yet, probably not.

Posted: 5/25/2015 11:34:59 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:

Would have been $175 for the rifle and $200 for the select fire tax stamp also.

View Quote

According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, that would equal (in 2015 monies):

$1,473.48 for the rifle and $1,683.98 for the NFA tax stamp, for a total of $3,157.46 in today's currency.
That $200 tax stamp has been getting cheaper every year since 1934.
Rifles.... There have been price, quality, and manufacturer/reputation fluctuations, but all said I think now is a very good time to purchase rifles price-wise.
So yeah, just like today, I'd have saved up as hard as I could and probably purchased one. From 1957, it would be worth a WHOLE lot more if purchased as a select-fire, and a bit more if purchased as a semi-auto.

Posted: 5/26/2015 7:12:41 AM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, that would equal (in 2015 monies):
$1,473.48 for the rifle and $1,683.98 for the NFA tax stamp, for a total of $3,157.46 in today's currency.

That $200 tax stamp has been getting cheaper every year since 1934.

Rifles.... There have been price, quality, and manufacturer/reputation fluctuations, but all said I think now is a very good time to purchase rifles price-wise.

So yeah, just like today, I'd have saved up as hard as I could and probably purchased one. From 1957, it would be worth a WHOLE lot more if purchased as a select-fire, and a bit more if purchased as a semi-auto.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Would have been $175 for the rifle and $200 for the select fire tax stamp also.

According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, that would equal (in 2015 monies):
$1,473.48 for the rifle and $1,683.98 for the NFA tax stamp, for a total of $3,157.46 in today's currency.

That $200 tax stamp has been getting cheaper every year since 1934.

Rifles.... There have been price, quality, and manufacturer/reputation fluctuations, but all said I think now is a very good time to purchase rifles price-wise.

So yeah, just like today, I'd have saved up as hard as I could and probably purchased one. From 1957, it would be worth a WHOLE lot more if purchased as a select-fire, and a bit more if purchased as a semi-auto.

It was still $200 back in the 1930's?? Damn, did not know that. Wow, they really hated guns back then. We thought we had it bad now??? And honestly... 'greatest generation' my ass...

I'd say YES, but only if I was sent back in time from present day. Otherwise who knows. But currently I have so far well over that into guns (calc'd into modern money) that even back then I'd probably buy three and a pallet of ammo.

Posted: 5/26/2015 3:49:04 PM EDT

[#21]

I'd be curious to find out how many they actually sold. I can't imagine more than a few hundred, if that. In 1957 the US gun market was still very much a domestic concern. Foreign guns often struggled for market share. Plus that was serious money in 1957.

Has anyone ever seen one of these in the wild?

Posted: 5/26/2015 3:59:03 PM EDT

[#22]

Assuming your conversion rate is accurate, I probably would not have been interested based on the price. I didn't pay anything near that for the FAL I have now. Interesting ad, though. Thanks for sharing.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - its 1957, would you have bought one of these?

Armory » General Firearm Discussion

Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us