A Good Gun For The Money?

R

rep1954

New member
What exactly dose “A good gun for the money” mean?
Dose it mean that a bad gun sold cheap enough turns into a good gun?
Checking out the Ruger Wrangler with it’s outrageous hammer and trigger weight and painted finish that looks much nicer in pictures than in life I could see the good price connection but not the good gun connection and how much do gun writers get paid to say “good gun for beginners. I think there’s a big misunderstanding between “A good gun for the money” and a bad gun for cheap.
Just me venting after being a victim of all the hipe on the Ruger Wrangler.
 
Your question is highly subjective and all responses will be also. Determining value at purchase time also requires an accurate prediction of the future. "A good gun for the money" depends on the buyer's needs, preferences and budget. Personally, if I have a gun that I have enjoyed shooting for decades and it did not require expensive maintenance or repair, and I purchased it for a price that was close to Buds or CTD, then I have a good value. However, retail prices vary over time and moving parts wear out so a 'good value' when I purchase it may not be so a few years into the future.


I have known people that buy a gun, shoot it once and nitpick a flaw, and toss it in the back of the safe and forget it is there - out of sight, out of mind and not a waste. To them, because they get satisfaction out of the purchase and ownership, there is no waste and relative value is not something they would ever even think about.

Did you buy a Wrangler and not like it?
 
I’m with you. Cheap guns are VERY RARELY worth it, no matter how little they cost.

With that said, often people have mental blocks about spending money on certain things. A dude that will spend $2,000 on a TV won’t spend $500 on a gun. His problem, not mine. But when these guys ask for advice on what to buy, I’ll say something like, “Well, for that money, your best bet is ______.”

Is that sub $500 gun really the “best” in any way? No... except it is the “best” at costing less than $500.

If the single action revolvers (since that’s what you referenced) that are generally considered “best” typically cost $700+, then it’s totally unreasonable to think that a gun costing 1/3 of that will also be great. At least that’s how I see it.
 
Last edited:
Consider the Bersa Thunder (.380). Mine:
Might be mistaken at first or second glance with a $700 Walther PPK.
Out of the box has a far better trigger and far better sights.
Has never failed to fire.
Is absolutely unfussy about ammo.
Is remarkably accurate.
Doesn’t have any cheap feeling parts.
Isn’t very pretty and doesn’t have name brand going for it
Cost less than any of the currently popular .380s at $285.

So it’s a good gun at a low price.

A crap gun can cost a lot and is just a crap gun. It’s a crap gun at any price.

I had an old high point carbine in 9mm. It was ugly and had the redeeming feature of always going bang. I never found a use for it, but if one did .. I reckon it’s as good as any other pistol caliber carbine. Just 40 times uglier. Not really crap.. maybe it’s good for the money if you want a beater cabin carbine.
 
Last edited:
I put some more thought into this. As the OP said, this is a common question on the gun boards and I've never really thought it through.

Here are my thoughts:
All firearms have certain things in common. I know this is the Handgun board, but let's use bolt action rifles as our example for a moment. All of them have a barrel, a trigger group, an action, and a stock. Let's assume that a manufacturer can build an accurate enough barrel, on a functional action, with a decent trigger group for $150. Then you slap it in an injection molded stock and you have the Savage Axis for $300. It is a "good gun for the money". It will shoot fine, and it will load fine (usually). And for some, that's enough.

So, what's the difference between that $250 Savage and a $1000 Browning X Bolt, for example? They both have triggers, they're both available in stainless steel with an artificial stock, they both shoot well enough, they both take a detachable mag... so what's different? I'll tell you:

- The Browning has a much NICER stock (more stiff, fits the action better, is finished better, doesn't have plastic mold lines through the middle of it, isn't hollow and loud when tapped, etc).
- The trigger on the Browning doesn't have that AWFUL safety blade.
- The action is much slimmer, lighter, and machined better.
- The cycling action of the bolt much more smooth. It doesn't rock, rattle, and scrape.
- The finish of the steel is better on the whole gun (more polished, more smooth).
- The gun is balanced better.
- Etc.

Does the Browning kill game any more effectively? In most cases, probably not. But, is the user experience better in the process? Certainly yes.

This is an example of the 80/20 principle, which shows up in almost every area of life. You can get 80% of the performance with 20% of the money... but beyond that point, if you want to get better, the proportion of money/effort necessary for performance gains goes up dramatically.

You may agree or disagree on my comparison of those two particular firearms, but I think the principle is sound.

Now, let's get back to handguns. The principle still stands. Why do you think MOST casual shooters are fine with their stock, unmodified, relatively inexpensive Glocks, M&Ps, Taurus (yuck), etc while competition shooters spend thousands of dollars on heavily-modified STI, CZ, Tanfoglio, etc?

Because most folks are happy to only get 80% of the performance by spending 20% of the money.

That's the principle. So, when someone asks, "Which is the best gun for the money?" the question really is, "What sort of experience are you looking for?" And that is SUPER subjective.

I think we'd all agree that if someone is looking for a home defense gun, the answer to "what's the best gun for the money" IS NOT a $3000 STI race gun. Would that work? Sure would, but a $500 Glock 19 would work just about as well, for about 17% of the cost.

In conclusion, when someone asks me the "best for the money" question, I try to think, "Which gun that does the job they need done has the highest ratio of user experience to cost?" And that's my answer.
 
Completely dependant on purpose, and personal preference.
My Hi-Points, and Rough Riders are all accurate, and function well with no malfunctions. They are "good guns for the money" because they do what I want well.
I have other brands that are good, do what I want, but were much higher priced. They are also good for the price I paid.
An expensive status symbol or safe queen is not good for the exorbitant price some sell for to me. Other people may value the "look at me" factor much higher
 
Last edited:
I don't think "good gun for the money" is the right way to put it. Rather than that, I call them a good value. I don't consider most of my guns as cheap just because they are more affordable than the premium brands but I consider them a good value. I have several lowly models of Taurus, a Rough Rider, a Charter Arms as well as a RIA. They are all reliable and accurate and spending a lot of money on premium brands that do the same thing would only be for the bragging rights and prettier.
 
I paid about $120 on an old New England Firearms single shot 12 gauge a few years ago. That was a great gun for the money. A relative gave me a mint 60's era S&W Model 10 a few years ago. I would have been happy to pay $400 for it, great gun.
 
What exactly dose “A good gun for the money” mean?
Click to expand...

Here are some examples of a good gun for the money, in my opinion, that I have purchased in the last year.

Glock 19.5 with night sights - $450

S&W 640-3 - $250

S&W Shield 9 - $250

I am very careful with my limited funds so I am always on the lookout for deal on a gun I would like to have.

I have zero experience with the Ruger Wrangler mentioned in the OP so I have no comment on that.
 
O4L said:
Here are some examples of a good gun for the money, in my opinion, that I have purchased in the last year.

Glock 19.5 with night sights - $450

S&W 640-3 - $250

S&W Shield 9 - $250

I am very careful with my limited funds so I am always on the lookout for deal on a gun I would like to have.

I have zero experience with the Ruger Wrangler mentioned in the OP so I have no comment on that.
Click to expand...
I think they are more a good value rather than good for the money. Depending on the gun, a good value could cost $100 or $2000.
 
osbornk said:
I think they are more a good value rather than good for the money. Depending on the gun, a good value could cost $100 or $2000.
Click to expand...
I would humbly submit that one man's good value gun is another man's good gun for the money.
 
for new prices.....

Bersa 380s are more than good for the money.

RIA 1911s were more than good for the money but they are coming up in price for that very reason.

Charter arms are somewhat good for the money.

mind you, there are several good deals out there... S&W Shields are coming down in price is just one example.
 
I really don’t see the Glock 19 as fitting into the subject as it is a very good gun that is not trying to look better than it is by lowering the price. The Glock 19 is a great gun not needing any excuses for what it is.
 
A good gun for the money? Yeah, it may not be a real good gun. In my case it happens to be a Citadel, 9MM Tactical. I bought it because it was cheap. I did not expect it have the quality of a Colt or Springfield. BUT! it's been a blast, I did a trigger job, replaced the bbl bushing, the mag release, the safety, the ejector broke, I replaced it. Rear sight is so sloppy I used Locktite hoping that'll hold it in. I've fired some over 3000 round thru it and enjoyed every shot. It was a good gun for the money. My DW Valkyrie is also a Good Gun for the money. The only thing I've done to it is install a Colt sear spring. Everything good right out of the box. It would be a good gun for even more money.
Some cheap stuff works out for you.
I bought a Glock 19 last year, shot high, had to replace the rear sight, lucky I didn't shoot myself in the foot. Tried to get the roughness out of the trigger by doing the .25 trigger job. No success, replaced the trigger ass'y, connector and the piece that holds the connector. Still no good. Took it to a Glock armorer at GT where I bought it. He fiddled with it and finally took the trigger ass'y out of their display gun and put it in mine and it works. So far, it hasn't been a good gun for the money. Plus it eats my trigger finger, gonna have to wear a bandaid to shoot it. I really expected more from the Glock.
 
Last edited:
The answer to that question is going to vary dramatically from from one person to the next. I have pistols that I consider "a good gun for the money", some that were a good value, and some that are both. In my case, none were over $300 new and some were as low as $130 new.

Hype is not what sells me on any gun. Personally, I think hype is what leads to letdown.
 
I couldn't pull the trigger on the Wrangler either----looked it over closely but just kept on having the nagging feeling my $200 would be better spent on a new 10/22 instead----came home with a Charger for $250.
 
If any given gun does exactly what the buyer wants it to do well at a price the buyer is good with, it’s a good gun for the money. This will be different for each individual. A gun that I love for a good price, may be a termed a piece of crap to another that I overpaid for.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top