Quoted:
Tldr

Quoted:
OP reminds me of my mother. If someone did something she wouldn’t have done, or had an opinion she didn’t share, they were wrong.

Insecure people will go to great lengths to justify why their decision to spend a lot of money (or very little money) on an item they wanted was “the only right decision” and to “prove” that anyone who made a different decision, or had a different opinion, was wrong.

Believing something must be intrinsically good or high quality because it is expensive, and that something must be intrinsically bad or low quality because higher-priced items of the same type exist, is simply not logical. There are a lot of reasons why one product might be inferior or superior to another, and some of those reasons are entirely subjective based on the needs and desires of the people buying it, but MSRP is certainly not a guaranteed indicator of quality.

OP will be starting a new thread shortly, explaining why his $15,000 Taylor Swift tickets were “totally worth it” and that anyone who has ever paid less than that to attend a concert just wasted their money.

Quoted:
When it comes to money, I am more concerned about what I am willing to spend on a thing than what I can afford. I am not willing to spend the money on a so-called "upper tier" AR, even ehough I know I could afford one if I wanted, especially considering how much I have spent on ARs in general over the last 20 years.

I bought my first one 22 years ago as  factory rifle - a Bushmaster I bought from friend - but since then I have assembled 40 of them (and still have 33).  I did that, usually starting with a stripped lower and upper receiver, not looking for the "utimate save my life rifle, when shit goes bad", but because I enjoy assembling ARs from parts, I enjoy taking them to the range and shooting the hell out of them, and I even enjoy figuring things out when something does not work right (which has been rare, but has happened occassionally).

Quoted:


1.  Surplus bolt.

Some people like history and they are not being made any more.  Also they are generally high quality

2.  Cheap Modern Sporting Rifle.

Most people won't fire more than 200-1000 rounds through them and then keep 100-500 rounds for "emergencies".

$50 in mags, $20 sling and $90 SIG red-dot will cover everything they want.  Spare mag can go in back pocket or $5 mag pouch in belt.

3.  Cheap pistol or revolver.

No cheap revolvers around unless you get a heritage .22 or the like.  I carried a Ruger EC-9s for a few years and I only paid about $230.  Nothing wrong with that for concealed carry.

4.  Hunting shotgun.

Some people hunt.

In fact I just bought a 20 gauge Maverick 88 youth for about $200 new.  Short enough for home defense, but still has adjustable chokes for hunting.  It will do everything Iight need it for.

5.  Not mentioned:. Cheap hunting rifle.

I have a old Remington 660 in .243 that I bought many moons ago as a SHTF hunting rifle.  Has a decent scope on it and will work pretty good as a mid-range sniper rifle.  Light weight/light recoil will be appreciated as I get older.  Can still hunt everything in my area.

Quoted:
Some of my 98Ks, K-31s, LEs are worth as much or more as an expensive modern hunting rifle and shoot every bit as good, and accurate.  Just depends on what people like, and what their budget is.

Quoted:


There is the logical fallacy. Companies often build to a market. A glock costs no more to manufacture than a Taurus.  Glock however couldn't sell $200 guns in the USA. Historical fact. They're marketing guru, simply doubled the price, and they took over the market.

Quoted:


There is the logical fallacy. Companies often build to a market. A glock costs no more to manufacture than a Taurus.  Glock however couldn't sell $200 guns in the USA. Historical fact. They're marketing guru, simply doubled the price, and they took over the market.

Quoted:


How do you know that a Glock costs no more to manufacture than a Taurus? Labor alone is significantly more expensive in Austria and Georgia than it is in Brazil.

Quoted:
OP hasn't seen the milsurp market in 15 years.  

$150 won't get you a Carcano that was pulled from some hut in Ethiopia that you can't actually shoot because a: there's not ammo or clips, and b: it's full of goat shit and wasps.  

Quoted:
The old axiom ‘quantity has a quality all its own’ is still true.  Would you rather have 5 guys with PSA builds covering your ‘6’ or 1 guy with a DD?

Quoted:
The old axiom ‘quantity has a quality all its own’ is still true.  Would you rather have 5 guys with PSA builds covering your ‘6’ or 1 guy with a DD?

Quoted:
I would disagree, a 500 buck AR, most likely will do everything a 1500 buck one will do, except maybe last 20k rounds. It may not be as well finished, might not be quite as accurate but the difference between 2 inches and 1.25 with good ammo wont mean crap when shtf.

Same thing with ammo, sure 1k of 77 grain match ammo at 1 inch is great, but having 4 k of wolf 55 at 3 inches would be better.

Then we get in to the high end guns that wont even function on wolf. I can see some snob running around with his 2k AR bolt action due to it not cycling on the 55 grain wolf ammo that he can find.

Quoted:



The only AR15 (out of 20ish) I’ve ever had a problem with was a Colt 6951 that they shipped without tightening the barrel nut.  That’s unless you count a severely over gassed BCM barrel.

All of my other PSA, Sabre, BCM, RRA, etc uppers have been fine.

Quoted:
The mentality of having one or two high quality guns is the same as the wisdom of having all your eggs in one basket.

It completely ignores history and reality.

Quoted:
OP may have a point about quality uppers/parts on an AR.  With a few tools and a vice anyone can build a premium upper for a bargain price with some thrifty shopping.

But, even the disparaged Palmetto features chrome lined FN barrels on "premium" uppers.  Good value for a hard use barrel.

Lowers?  As long as the parts are mil spec or better, I can't understand why anyone would pay a premium for a gucci roll-mark.  

Old 870s and BPS shotguns are the tits and OP is clearly wrong.  I have 5 or 6 for various uses.

There are no cheap mil-surp bolt guns these days so that's a moot point.

I carry glocks which I consider a pretty cheap pistol. Did piece together a PSA 19 clone.  It seems fine  (0 malfunctions) but not enough rounds (less than a thousand) to really evaluate.

OP posted 10 years too late IMO.  Though, other than for proof of concept trial guns, I, likewise, wouldn't choose the cheapest option.  I'm also not spending 1500 for a roll-mark.

Quoted:
I'm still waiting to qualify this high round count. Again, use vs abuse. Are we talking mag dump after mag dump until it's glowing,  or normal use over decades?

I figure on my p226, about 50k rounds over a couple decades. It's on its second barrel and 4th set of springs. Still going strong.

Quoted:

And if it's confiscated? Stolen? Breaks? Catastrophic failure?

Maybe read up on folks like IRA, French resistance, VC, or any of the underdogs in history and how they viewed tools like firearms.

Quoted:
The impetus for this post isn't really the prevalence of cheap guns, but rather a related attitude that their advocates tend to adopt. In discussions about the relative desirability of different guns, it's common for "budget option" advocates to accuse other interlocutors of being "elitist" or "gatekeeping" certain areas, and that the cheap guns are necessary since real working men can't reasonably afford the "name brands." In many cases, however, I don't think this is true. It's often the case that cheap gun collectors spend more on their arsenals than their "elitist" counterparts. The smaller individual transactions necessary to amass such an arsenal are more mentally palatable, but one can get nickel-and-dimed to death very easily. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with buying cheap guns if you want to, but don't pretend you couldn't have done otherwise.

Before I continue, I should define what I mean by "cheap guns." For the purposes of this post, they'll fall into two categories:

1) Used, obsolete guns available for low prices. These may be of high quality, but they're of little value for social work. Milsurp bolt actions and old hunting shotguns are the most prolific. These can be worth owning, but owners often complain of being unable to afford modern combat weapons despite having already spent substantial funds on these. It should go without saying that guns for social work must be prioritized over toys.

2) Modern guns that exist purely as cheaper alternatives to preexisting designs. "Cheap" EBRs and pistols are distinguished by not offering any unique or innovative features, and they wouldn't be made if not for their price points. Bargain bin semi atuo shotguns also fall into this category. The process for buying one of these essentially involves finding a name brand with a feature set one likes, and then finding the closest budget alternative. For example, it's reasonable to expect to pay north of $1100 for a quality AR-15, but a distinct class of significantly cheaper alternatives with similar features exist for those unwilling to make such an investment. Let the "just paying for a name" coping commence!

When it comes to "anti-elitist" elocutionists, it's rare for them to own just one or two cheap guns. More often, the cheap guns serve as a means of entry to "gun collecting." One can only get so many "great deals" before they start to add up. It's interesting to examine just how quickly one can cross over the threshold of having spent enough money to afford some very nice guns.'

Here's an example of an archetypical budget collection of four guns:

Milsurp Bolt Action: $150

Cheap EBR: $500

Cheap Pistol or Revolver: $250

Used Hunting Shotgun: $250

The total cost of these guns is $1150. It's important to note that the various types of ammunition and accessories necessary to use these guns means that, in practice, the cost of owning this collection for a couple years should be around $2000 assuming the owner shoots very little. If the owner actually shoots a lot, the need to replace frequently broken parts will further drain his finances.

Assuming, however, that this person only needed to spend $1150, they're still getting very little for their money. Police trade-in Glicks and M&Ps were historically around $350 in the most desirable calibers of 9mm and .45 ACP, meaning that one could have purchased one and outfitted it with a high quality weapon light and holster for little more than the cost of the cheap EBR alone. Even with used Glizzies in the $400 range, a respectable iron-sighted carry setup with spare mags can easily be assembled for under $700, with the option of installing an optic later. One decent pistol is worth more than all the milsurps in the world in terms of practical utility.

EBRs, however, are still important. A quality AR-15 setup isn't cheap, being at least $1500 before the costs of magazines, load bearing gear and combat ammunition are even considered. In my opinion, an EBR needs to have these features to be truly optimal:

Unmagnified aiming capability
Flashlight
Sling
3x or greater magnified aiming capability (lowest priority by far)

With the advent of high quality but relatively inexpensive dot sights, however, one can more easily achieve all the other categories before adding a magnifier later.

It seems surprisingly rare for cheap EBR owners to have just one. Unlike many cheap handgun owners who merely buy a gun and enough ammo to fill the magazine before leaving it somewhere for their kid to find, cheap rifle shooters usually display some level of gun enthusiasm. The usual Walmart version of a standard fighting EBR is often accompanied by a pseudo-retro rifle and another normally configured rifle distinguished only by the owner's belief that it constitutes some kind of sniping weapon thanks to the "Recce" trend. (Seriously guys, what the fuck is a recce rifle? Every mid length AR with magnification seems to qualify.) It's especially worth noting that the cheap "Recce" gun's LPVO and mount usually cost more than a high quality dot/magnifier combo. Furthermore, cheap short stroke piston EBRs often meet or exceed the costs of high quality AR-15s and AKs. Maybe Tokarev was an "elitist."

I think I've rambled long enough to make my position vaguely understandable. Can you afford to miss months of precious live and dry training with the high quality handgun you'll always want just to get some geriatric guns that'll languish in your closet for want of ammo? I'd say "No!" and I know this because I've fallen victim to it myself. Instead of buying a brace of milsurps years ago, I should have bought a soulless Glick and some extendoes. I did later.


APPENDIX A- The AK Platform

The value proposition of cheap USA-made AKs is probably the worst out of any category. These things were never that much cheaper than quality kit builds or decent imports like un-converted Saigas, MAK-90s and WASR 10s, even factoring in the increasing need to replace the latter rifle's trigger group as Century switched from the sometimes problematic TAPCO G2 to the absolutely piss-poor RAK-1. I wouldn't buy the latest generation of WASR due to the absolutely hideous cast gas block, but used WASR 10s still come up for sale around $800 regularly, even the most desirable (imo) 10/63 model. $800 is a fairly typical price for today's "value brand" AKs. The most important aspect of AK buying has always been patience, so don't think you need to spend what most gunbroker boomers are asking. Prices on unconverted Saigas actually seem to have come down a bit in recently years, probably thanks to many prospective buyers refusing to overpay.

If you want a smallbore AK, however, I'm sorry to say that you're facing a difficult situation. The SLR-106 was the most sensible way to scratch this itch in the latter half of Trump's term, but it's been discontinued and replaced with a more expensive, heavier milled model. Arsenal SAMs are some of the smoothest operating rifles on the planet but they're not cost or weight efficient. The Polish Beryls have a 1:9 twist


APPENDIX B- Rifles and Guns

Anyone thinking I've committed some offense by referring to various rifles as "guns" should consider that, since the latter word and its ancestors entered English, it's referred to firearms in general. A handgun can indisputably be called a "gun." A machine gun can indisputably be called a "gun." A shotgun can indisputably be called a "gun." Why would a rifle be any different? The military can tell me how to speak about guns when they stop mounting ACOGs so far forward that they'll never see the full field of view.

https://i0.wp.com/cms.sofrep.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Soldier-United-States-Army-Army-M4a1-Carbine-2540213.jpg?fit=960%2C640&ssl=1
This is not an isolated incident.

God Bless you and yours this thanksgiving!

Quoted:



Strawman fallacy. Never advocated low quality triggers or parts.

Why would I want a Beretta A400?  Might spring for a 1301, but I doubt I've missed out on killing any birds because of my hunting gun choices.

Quoted:
I would never dismiss a bolt action combat style rifle like a Mauser or Lee-Enfield as obsolete. They are potent self defense weapons in hard hitting rifle calibers. Outclassed by self loading rifles to be sure but hardly obsolete unless perhaps facing another small unit with more rpm firepower. I’m biased an Irish Contract Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk 2 is one of my favorite rifles afield or for plinking.

Quoted:


Obviously, you haven’t seen pictures of some of the stuff those groups used.

Sometimes they had high quality weapons, but not mostly.