Inexpensive gun vs Expensive gun is it just VANITY ?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Inexpensive gun vs Expensive gun is it just VANITY ? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:32:47 PM EDT

Talking to a friend of mine on the way to Gander Mountain for there sale on 223 ammo(100rd's for $30.00 ,American Eagle) and started to discuss the difference between the different 9mm handguns.His point is that a $300.00 9mm does the same exact same thing as say a H&K or Sig that goes for a $1000.00 .Both guns shoot the same round and hold as many rounds as the other are reliable and except for being a little more refined and "shiny" does not see the point in spending 3x's as much.Is you choice more based on vanity and the look at what I can afford factor than the actual perceived quality of the expensive gun ?

Does he actually have a point or is he full of it, tell me what do you think about the subject ? As for me I'm all about the shiny factor.(Price equals nice,most of the time)

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:39:47 PM EDT

[#1]

No, he does not have a point.

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:42:13 PM EDT

[#2]

If you set it on a shelf and look at it, sure the $300 gun is just as good as the more expensive gun. If you intend to use it, be aware that 99 times out of 100 you get what you pay for.

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:44:32 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
No, he does not have a point.

First post nails it again ......
That's what I think but he was trying to convince me and it just was not working,Doe's any body else feel the way my friend thinks ?Try to convince me that my Hi-power is as good as an inexpensive pistol.

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:45:43 PM EDT

[#4]

Ya, it definetley has nothing to do with the quality of parts in the gun

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:45:58 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
If you intend to use it, be aware that 99 times out of 100 you get what you pay for.

This is correct, the exception being engraving and all the other cosmetic horseshit which
adds nothing to the overall functionality and effectiveness of the gun.

Give me a well-made, matte finished, highly reliable firearm over a "One of..." display queen
any day of the week.

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:46:10 PM EDT

[#6]

1000 round later the Glock, Sig, HK and Beretta. will still be working like new if not better then new.. 1000 rds later the Hi Point will be a lapped out piece of shit.. I watched it happen

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:48:19 PM EDT

[#7]

The only other people that would think that way are people who have no idea what there talking about or there just trying to talk up there cheap gun they bought, trying to convince themselves and others it's "just as good"

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:51:11 PM EDT

[#8]

you are paying for quality.

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:51:24 PM EDT

[#9]

Well buy what you want and hope you don't find out the hard way that you were wrong.

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:51:27 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
1000 round later the Glock, Sig, HK and Beretta. will still be working like new if not better then new.. 1000 rds later the Hi Point will be a lapped out piece of shit.. I watched it happen

I'm not knocking his choice of buying a Ruger P-95 that Buds gun shop has for $299.00, but can you compare that gun to a Sig or H&K ? I shot the Ruger and it seems like a good gun for the money ,but to compare it to a more expensive pistol I don't know ?

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:53:25 PM EDT

[#11]

I think the HK45 is worth $900.

I think the Glocks and the M&Ps are worth $450.

The hard thing for me was deciding if I wanted to buy 1 HK45 or 2 Glocks.

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:54:05 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Your friend drives a yugo and shoots a hi point doesn't he

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:54:30 PM EDT

[#13]

Some of it probably depends on how much you would use it also. Maybe the Hi Point pistol will never be shot 1000s of times? I dunno. But you do pay some for a brand name in some cases. With that said I wouldnt buy a Hi Point.

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:55:04 PM EDT

[#14]

Guns are like anything else.

Generally you get what you pay for.

Yeah, sometimes you can get a good gun for cheap, and sometimes an expensive gun sucks, but those are exceptions not the rule.

Any gun that has been on the market long enough will reach its equilibrium price.

I've seen decent guns go for cheap, and as people realize their quality the prices steadily climb (damn, wish I would have gotten in on the ground floor).

I've seen shitty expensive guns, the new "whiz bang flavor of the week" start out high in price and slowly fall as people realize that the hype was just that, hype.

That said, due to the law of deminishing returns, a $1000 gun is not necesarrily twice as good as a $500 gun. A good mid range gun will give you the most bang for the buck (no pun intended), as it has both functionality and reasonable price. Go too cheap and you'll regret it. Go to expensive and you'll short yourself money for ammo, training, etc.

Not to mention, you won't care a whole lot when you put a big old scratch on your $500 gun, where you may cry if you gouge the hell out of a $3000 one.

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:59:04 PM EDT

[#15]

Would you rather buy the $100 parachute, or the $1000 parachute? What's your life worth?

Same logic applies for guns used in self-defense.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:06:04 PM EDT

[#16]

Yes and no. I believe there is a minimum you should spend, $400 -$500 will get you something trustworthy and dependable. Less if you find a deal on a good used piece. I had a friend who bought a Lorcin .380, after the first 50 rounds the firing pin broke. His next pistol was a USP .40. I doubt I will ever pay a grand for a handgun, the most I ever paid was $650 for my USP .45, 13 years ago. Come to think of it, I've only bought that, a S&W target pistol and a G31 new. Everything else has been used.

ETA: when I say used I mean slight wear marks, not a raped basket case.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:07:26 PM EDT

[#17]

The only real answer is yes and no.

A $200 handgun will usually not be as good as a $500 handgun. The factors are what type of metal is used? Is it cast or forged? How tight are the tolerances? A Glock or Sig slide is better material than a HiPoint.

Once you exceed $500 then usually the guns are made from quality materials. At that point things like the amount of machine work, design, and attention to detail are involved. Think about three 1911 specific handguns that are similar.

Les Baer for $1500
Wilson Combat for $2600
Nighthawk for $4000

All of these guns are made from decent quality metal. All of them work most of the time. Is the extra detail on the Nighthawk better to look at than the Les Baer? Sure. Will it affect function? Probably not. Will they all dead bad guys? Yes. Is anything wrong with the Wilson? No. Why would it cost $1400 less than the Nighthawk? Its just lacking cosmetics that do have some advantages but are not essential.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:07:56 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
1000 round later the Glock, Sig, HK and Beretta. will still be working like new if not better then new.. 1000 rds later the Hi Point will be a lapped out piece of shit.. I watched it happen

1st post and this
I have tried to shoot out the barrel in several 10/22s
Never did it

XD40 still shoots when I pull the trigger
Same with my PD trade in Glock 22

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:10:18 PM EDT

[#19]

Tools- you get what you pay for

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:11:46 PM EDT

[#20]

Its a good point.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:13:00 PM EDT

[#21]

If the $300 gun he was referring to was the S&W Sigma series, then yes, it would be hard to beat that gun for the price. It is a very durable handgun.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:13:44 PM EDT

[#22]

What about Kimbers and new Sigs? Do they actually warrant the prices they command despite recent problems in their QC?

Its more important to evaluate what you are getting for your money, not just who's name is on the slide. For $500 I can get a standard Springfield 1911 that will almost definitely work out of the box. For twice the price I can get a pretty Kimber that has to be sent back 3x's if I happen to hit the suck lottery.

For the same $500 I can pick up a Glock that carries twice the ammo of a 1911 and is pretty much guaranteed to work the first time and every time until the life of certain parts is exceeded (springs, trigger parts, etc).

ETA with Rugers semi's I would be wary. They don't have the best track record.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:15:57 PM EDT

[#23]

The pistol in question is a Ruger P-95 ,I own some Ruger guns and there good but to compare a ruger to a H&K or SIG ?

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:17:22 PM EDT

[#24]

To a point price reflects quality and past that point its vanity. A 5000 dollar beretta trap gun will outlive its owner as will a 75,000 dollar engraved kreighoff..... one only "needs" the beretta but most would love to have the k gun.

As for pistols, xd/glock is as cheap as I will go unless I'm in a death match that requires the use of a home made mace with a pistol replacing the spikey ball, then I'd pick a high point.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:17:39 PM EDT

[#25]

It's like Duluth Trading co or Nordstrom's pants. Yes they do the same job as a pair from Wal-Mart, but they last longer, under tougher conditions and are easier to wear (use). Now if you only wear them one or two days a year, who cares. But I'd rather have one good gun that lasts and is easy on the hand after hundreds of rounds rather than a cheaper gun with lots of sharp edges that gives blisters...

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:19:12 PM EDT

[#26]

You get what you pay for, but at some point you have to determine if you are paying for more reliability and durability, or features you may/may not want, bling or a fancy name.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:19:18 PM EDT

[#27]

Is a $1000 gun that has a nice trigger, night sights, points naturally in your hand and feels like an extension of it worth more that a $300 one that feels like a rough 2X4, has poor sights and a crappy trigger?

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:22:31 PM EDT

[#28]

Hi point sucks.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:23:54 PM EDT

[#29]

i would take a M&P(~$500) over a Sig(~$900) any day.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:25:01 PM EDT

[#30]

I used to think I was smarter than everyone else in the world too, and refused to pay for "expensive crap." I learned the error of my ways. I don't buy the nicest stuff available, and I try to buy used when I can, but I'd rather have one used Springfield TRP with 5,000 rounds through it scratched to hell and carried daily, than any 10 Hi Points.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:26:09 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
The pistol in question is a Ruger P-95 ,I own some Ruger guns and there good but to compare a ruger to a H&K or SIG ?

I would carry a Ruger (especially the P95D) with no problems. The 95 is a bit bulky but gets the job done. So considering this is the pistol your friend was talking about, then yes he has a point.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:32:29 PM EDT

[#32]

Glock 19 will cost me 400 w/o night sights and 3 mags.

Sig 229 9mm will be 700 to 800 w/o night sights and 2 mags.

HK would cost more than the Sig.

I have carried a Glocks for the last 10 years. They have worked great for me. I have owned Sigs from the mid-1990's to today. I have carried a Sigs few times. The Glock is the perfect gun for me. The 228 is the perfect gun for my partner. Saves me 400 ish dollars to carry what I like.

I would never try to save money and carry a Ruger auto.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:34:16 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
1000 round later the Glock, Sig, HK and Beretta. will still be working like new if not better then new.. 1000 rds later the Hi Point will be a lapped out piece of shit.. I watched it happen

I'm not knocking his choice of buying a Ruger P-95 that Buds gun shop has for $299.00, but can you compare that gun to a Sig or H&K ? I shot the Ruger and it seems like a good gun for the money ,but to compare it to a more expensive pistol I don't know ?

That Ruger is a shooter

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:39:06 PM EDT

[#34]

When you live pay check to pay check this is a sound argument. It even holds some water to an extent.
But if you are educated in your purchase, know what you need and make an inteligent purchase than I would say the extra money is well spent.
Back in the day I only bought Colt and S&W because it was a gamble with any thing else. They were not cheap.
Now there is a lot more quality stuff out there. The market is competetive and the quality is up. Also even HK came down to earth with there USP's

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:41:47 PM EDT

[#35]

It seems the Ruger P-95 is a good pistol by the feel of it and I think he does have a point with some things that you are paying more for the name and rep than actually getting more for the money,BUT I think I would spend more for the shiny stuff than settle for anything that does not "turn me on"But as the saying goes "To each his own"

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:47:43 PM EDT

[#36]

No. The question is does it do exactly the same thing (fit, aim, shoot, etc) - 10-50k times in a row.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:49:17 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
It seems the Ruger P-95 is a good pistol by the feel of it and I think he does have a point with some things that you are paying more for the name and rep than actually getting more for the money,BUT I think I would spend more for the shiny stuff than settle for anything that does not "turn me on"But as the saying goes "To each his own"

A tale of two .45s: I bought a 'Cz' TT 45, paid $330 for it. Not CZ, the other one, that used to make motocross bikes back in the '70s. The gun appeared to be identical to a Witness Polymer Compact. The gun was not beautiful, but it ran like a clock, never had a malfunction with it. I also bought a Colt Combat Commander, beautiful gun, paid twice what I did for the TT. That Colt was a POS, constant malfs, couldn't hit the side of a barn with it when it did shoot. I wound up selling both, glad to be rid of the Colt. Often wish I'd kept the other one. I took a loss on the Colt, made money on the TT.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:53:44 PM EDT

[#38]

A CZ-82, Makarov, Tokarov, used PD weapons are all pretty much in the High Point ballpark price wise, no need to go cheap with reliable mil-surps and PD trade-ins on the market.

IMHO anyone who would spend 4-5K on a .45 just has $$$ to burn and is part of the "look what I got" crowd.

Posted: 9/6/2010 1:56:19 PM EDT

[#39]

450 dollar gun.......Goes bang everytime. Won't win any beauty contests though

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:04:19 PM EDT

[#40]

Yes and no.

He may have $1000 and nobody to support - he gets fresh baked ciabatta with Boars Head roast beef (ie. HK) and it is well worth the extra $.
You may have $10 and 2 starving kids - you buy 99c bread on sale and frozen chicken legs (Ruger/CZ) and it does the job just as well.

You tell him he wasted his money and you are wrong. He says you should get better quality and he is wrong.

I believe it's the same for pretty much anything you get as long as it serves its intended purpose. Buying 1c rotten meat ($50 Lorcin) would be stupid and worthless even for someone with $1 to his name. Buying $500 kobe beef mixed with gold flakes (Korth) would be stupid, but still considered worthwhile for someone with $1B.

From now on discussions on "which gun is better for the money" should be judged with percentage of disposable income in mind instead of $ amount. I bet 75% of us would be better served with the $500 gun than the $200 or $1000. That doesn't mean the $500 is better for the other 25%, whether it be too much or not nice enough.

"Would you rather buy the $100 parachute, or the $1000 parachute? What's your life worth?

Same logic applies for guns used in self-defense."
-limaxray

-Not necessarily. I don't jump out of planes so if I want to keep a parachute in my closet for "just in case" and some company offers $100 deals with good reputation and reliability, I would get that. I have gas masks that got good reviews from a reputable distributor and they aren't the best money can buy. Will my life depend on them? Maybe, but I don't have enough money to get more than what seems will work just fine.

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:07:10 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
It seems the Ruger P-95 is a good pistol by the feel of it and I think he does have a point with some things that you are paying more for the name and rep than actually getting more for the money,BUT I think I would spend more for the shiny stuff than settle for anything that does not "turn me on"But as the saying goes "To each his own"

Ruger P series pistols aren't what the cool kids are shooting but they work period.

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:12:37 PM EDT

[#42]

The P series is big, ugly and bulky. Having said that, it is an extremely reliable and solid built gun at a very affordable price. For home defense, it would be a very good choice.

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:15:51 PM EDT

[#43]

Buy once cry once

I went with HK as my first handgun and have NEVER regretted it.

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:23:19 PM EDT

[#44]

I thought my Taurus milpro was s smoking deal. Shot really, really well and I liked the ergos.

That is until something screwy happened with the striker block and I started getting light strikes.

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:29:04 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
If the $300 gun he was referring to was the S&W Sigma series, then yes, it would be hard to beat that gun for the price. It is a very durable handgun.

This... There are a few low-priced handguns out there that are truly good guns. The Ruger P series is a gun I would not hesitate to trust.

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:31:15 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Talking to a friend of mine on the way to Gander Mountain for there sale on 223 ammo(100rd's for $30.00 ,American Eagle) and started to discuss the difference between the different 9mm handguns.His point is that a $300.00 9mm does the same exact same thing as say a H&K or Sig that goes for a $1000.00 .Both guns shoot the same round and hold as many rounds as the other are reliable and except for being a little more refined and "shiny" does not see the point in spending 3x's as much.Is you choice more based on vanity and the look at what I can afford factor than the actual perceived quality of the expensive gun ?

Does he actually have a point or is he full of it, tell me what do you think about the subject ? As for me I'm all about the shiny factor.(Price equals nice,most of the time)

I don't know any reliable $300 9mm handguns.

Maybe if comparing a $800 model to a $1500 model, he might be closer to right.

Reliable is reliable, price is price. Sometimes you can't get reliable at said price.

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:32:42 PM EDT

[#47]

An HK or Sig is worth the extra money. No, a 300 dollar pistol does not do everything just as good as a HK or Sig.

They are just excellently crafted, they're extremely reliable. You get what you pay for.

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:33:41 PM EDT

[#48]

Ruger is about as cheap as you should go if you want a gun for shooting. If you just don't have the money to spend on "nice" it will do the job just fine.

Sometimes, though, it is worthwhile to spend a little more.

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:40:37 PM EDT

[#49]

My buddy lurks here once in a while and I don't want to piss him off but I wanted to see who was the asshole in today's little discussion.It seems to me from reading what everybody's been saying that we are about equal assholes on this subject.I'm an admitted gun snob and there is no cure from what I can tell for me ,but I'm OK with it.All that really matters is he's happy with his gun .MAZEL TOV

Posted: 9/6/2010 2:43:55 PM EDT

[#50]

Guns, just like most anything else, have a wide range of prices for nearly functionally identical items. They also have a wide range of build quality and component quality. In most things in life I am usually a "value" shopper, in other words I buy the lowest cost item that has an acceptable build quality to suit my needs. When it comes to handguns there is no doubt that Glock, the Springfield XDs, and S&W M&Ps are all great values. Guns are the one item that I splurge unnecessarily on higher cost/marginally better quality guns, so I own a bunch of HKs. I also own several CZs, I see them as a fantastic value.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Inexpensive gun vs Expensive gun is it just VANITY ? (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us