A Good Gun For The Money?

There is a difference between cheap and inexpensive...some pistols are sold "cheap" because they happen to come from cash strapped countries selling off surplus and as a consequence become very good values. Of course, you have to get them at the right time to take advantage.

The best example is the PM Makarov. Another may be the CZ82..in long arms, the SKS, etc.
 
The problem with looking for a "good gun" for the money, is that almost any decent weapon will get the job done that you're looking for, but when you purchase a gun you're making an investment into your own safety. Atleast that's how I look at it.
 
rep1954 said:
What exactly dose “A good gun for the money” mean?
Click to expand...
To me it means a firearm that does everything it's supposed to do, reliably, without being made more expensive than it needs to be by fancy extras and/or supercalifragilisticexpialidocious finishes. For example:

Many years ago, I visited a friend in another state and we went to the range. He let me try his Colt Officers ACP, and it was love at first sight. I wanted one, but the OACP was by then out of production, and I couldn't afford the prices people were asking for used one. I found a Colt M1991A1 Compact at a local gun shop. It's the same gun as the Officers ACP, but it has a plain, dull finish instead of being nicely polished and blued, or stainless, and it has rubber grips instead of nicely checkered hardwood grips. I bought it on the spot. I still have it, and it's in my carry rotation.

It's a good gun for the money.
 
My example of "good gun for the money", which also qualifies as a good value, is my Sar(Sarsilmaz) K2P 9mm. Brand new in a branded, molded, lockable plastic case it cost me $279+tx. 17+1 capacity in MecGar mags, front/rear slide serrations, ambi safety, adjustable sights, chrome barrel, durable finish, and 100% reliable after more than 3000 rounds. This pistol still blows my mind. It was my 1st handgun.
 
New Shield for $300
New Glock 35 Gen 4 for $400
I got those on Gunbroker and consider either a good gun for money.
That didn't count $20 shipping + $20 transfer fee, so more like $340 & $440 total.
 
In an email from RK Guns today (Rural King) I saw a perfect example of "good gun for the money" A while they last online special for the Taurus Spectrum. Limited to 3 patterns of black and grey they are $119.99 and shipped to a RK store near you for $12.99. No FFL fee when shipped to store.
A good pocket 380 for a hundred and thirty three bucks.
 
A good gun for the money is one that does the job, but can be purchased for a price that doesn't put a strain on the budget.

Many years ago, I wanted a Browning A-5, 12 gauge for deer hunting. I forget what they cost back then, probably $250 or so (mid 70's). It might as well have been a million dollars. I had about as much chance of paying one, as the other.

But I bought a Sears-Roebuck 12 gauge pump, with two barrels, for $99.00. That gun has served me for what? Say 45 years? It's put many a deer on the ground, as well as squirrels, rabbits and such.

It's an example of a good gun for the money.
 
Cheapshooter said:
In an email from RK Guns today (Rural King) I saw a perfect example of "good gun for the money" A while they last online special for the Taurus Spectrum. Limited to 3 patterns of black and grey they are $119.99 and shipped to a RK store near you for $12.99. No FFL fee when shipped to store.
A good pocket 380 for a hundred and thirty three bucks.
Click to expand...
I went to my local RK and they had 5 different colors in stock for $119.99 plus tax and $2 background check fee. I was out the door with mine for $128 and change. It took me nearly 3 hours to get mine because there were so many people ahead of me buying them. They had run out of 380 ammo very early and the local Super Walmart was out also.
 
Ruger's Wrangler has had some exceptionally fine reviews from some very knowledgeable people, both here and on other forums. As a matter of fact, I've not read a negative one...fit and finish are not what we've come to expect from Ruger's justifiably famous Single Six, nor Bearcat, but then this new entrant is less than 1/2 the price, and sports superb accuracy. YMMv but it fills a need for many shooters who want a single action but who's budgets are uncooperative. Rod
 
rodfac said:
Ruger's Wrangler has had some exceptionally fine reviews from some very knowledgeable people, both here and on other forums. As a matter of fact, I've not read a negative one...fit and finish are not what we've come to expect from Ruger's justifiably famous Single Six, nor Bearcat, but then this new entrant is less than 1/2 the price, and sports superb accuracy. YMMv but it fills a need for many shooters who want a single action but who's budgets are uncooperative. Rod
Click to expand...
I think the Wrangler was made to compete with the Rough Rider and similarly priced single actions because they didn't have an "affordable" gun in that segment. It is not competition for the Single Six. It is priced more than the Rough Riders because of the value of the brand. I would consider one if I did not already have both a Single Six and a Rough Rider.
 
As said, you have a disconnect between the means to buy a top quality or lack of it.

A "good" gun can only be defined by the person buying it. Maybe a "good" gun is something that will reliably fire 99 percent of the trigger pulls and be able to hit eight inch targets at 50 feet. Maybe it means one inch targets. Maybe it also means that the gun is also aesthetically pleasing with good finish and fitting as well. I can define a 'good' gun, but I can already hear the scoffing and criticism of my definition of 'good'.

An inexpensive gun means different things to everyone. A day's pay? Week's pay? Maybe even a full month's or even quarterly income? I can also hear the arguments about why I should re-define my own personal definition of how much of my income I should be willing to invest in a nonessential or even luxury item such as a gun. The first gun that I bought cost about half of a weeks pay. Being on salary and working full days, wow, that pistol cost me about thirty-five hours of working time.


So, should I define reasonable as it cost me about three days of income back then? Or, as a whole lot of people here seem to believe, should it be defined as two weeks worth of income?

My thoughts would start out with a 'good' gun that is aesthetically pleasing, reliable, and accurate to a couple inches while still costing less than a weeks pay.

Once again, I can see people shaking their heads, rolling their eyes, and saying 'what a pinhead.

There is only one way to answer it. What is a "good gun for the money'.

A good gun for the money is nothing but a nonsense phrase, something that doesn't exist. Less than ten percent of the online population would agree with me probably if I held forth on what the good gun for the money is because we wouldn't agree on either one or both of the key words.

I drove a 4 cylinder Dodge dakota, manual transmission for twenty years, and I think it cost about $14,000. Boy, that was a fine truck. No breakdowns, performed all of my needs. It also fit my criteria of not costing an entire year's worth of income. Yes, I can hear it all over, the laughter and scorn. "Ha! He drove a DODGE? What a weenie! No Dodge is a good dodge! Not at any price!"

I will only reluctantly throw the words 'good' out most of the time, and I sure don't bother saying 'inexpensive.' I get tired of being told "aww, come on, that's garbage' if I say that old milwaukee is good beer.

I try to never tell someone that a product is good for the money. It always winds up in tears or even a broken nose if my advice is heeded.

"You said that these were the best golf balls available for the money, and my scores have just sucked since I listened you your bad advice!"

I'm not even going to touch what the words 'good enough' mean. I also never tell anyone "well, heck, that's good enough for someone like you!'
 
A good gun for the money is one that does the job, but can be purchased for a price that doesn't put a strain on the budget.

Many years ago, I wanted a Browning A-5, 12 gauge for deer hunting. I forget what they cost back then, probably $250 or so (mid 70's). It might as well have been a million dollars. I had about as much chance of paying one, as the other.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine bought an auto five.

You can take it for granted that this fella has NO need to cut corners. He raises and trains golden retrievers pretty much as a paying hobby. He hunts geese all season long, in his words "it's only for the dogs. I wouldn't do it for myself alone" I asked once and he told me that he spends appr $2,000 annually just on ammunition for those hunts. He hunts with a 12 gauge and a 10. When he bought the A5 ten gauge, he was offered the thing 'as is' and $200 worth of repairs put it to rights. He said that he paid about half of msrp.

When we've talked about it he says that essentially "it's a good gun for the money."

Yes, you can knock a sandhill crane out of the sky at half a mile and you got it for a pittance.

I guess that he was right. A good gun for the money. At least in his world...
 
"Good gun for the money" - The expectations match what you will pay for it.

"Great gun for the money" - Exceeds expectations for what you will pay for it.

"A Steal" - You have no business acquiring said gun for so cheap.
 
I purchased a Dan Wesson D11 .357 revolver 99% in box. Serial number under 1300 made in 1969. I recall paying $400 for it. For that price, it would make an excellent carry revolver. But, in the condition its in, I intend on preserving it.

FWIW, these really early Dan Wesson revolvers had a very good quality high polish blued finish.
 
As of right now the Star BM seems to fit the bill.

It is all metal. SAO, A 1911 clone, and chambered in 9mm Luger so ammo is not problematic to find.

Price is under $200 I see a few on sites from about $149 to $179. With free shipping. Add the price of an FFL transfer. I will be buying 2 of them. I plan to have one as a range gun. The other will be stored for trade fodder on down the road when the surplus market for them dries up, and prices go up.



(I did not think the Mosin-Nagants I bought for under $120 6 years ago would be going for well over double that. I would have bought a few more of them if I had.)
 
Be warned, this will be a VERY long post. You have been warned.

First of all, I was one of those who came out and defended the Heritage when Ruger announced the Wrangler, so I'm not surprised to hear someone is unhappy with their Wrangler purchase, but I'm sorry to hear that you are unhappy nonetheless.

I'd have to see one in person before I really bash the gun. At best I can say is months ago, I didn't buy into the hype and it seems there wasn't much to the hype because I'm not seeing many posts on gun forums praising the gun.

In fact, I'm not seeing any.

That said, I own a lot of handguns (mostly revolvers), both cheap and expensive, and out of all of them I own when I compare my near $600 .327 SP101 to two sub $300 vintage Charter Arms revolver, the Charters are better. That said, my $800 .45 Colt/.45ACP is worth every penny and compared to a Taurus Judge it's not even a question, but compared to my Leinad over/under derringer, the Judge looks like a Colt Python.

It's all relative and that relativity all resides in the eye of the beholder. The Wrangler was not a better gun than the Heritage revolvers that have been mass produced and have years upon years of proven use behind them, not too mention adjustable sights, 9 round models, and .22 Mag cylinders available. Will Ruger refine the Wrangler over time? Absolutely, but to think right off the bat that Ruger would make a better gun vs an experienced company like Heritage is asinine.

I bought a Charter Arms .32 Mag Professional last month, it was their first 7 shot revolver and first to ever use fiber optic sights. It's a great gun for the $330 I am evidently going to spend on it, the only problem is they have had a SNAFU at the factory and are making the shrouds too big and that's causing the front sight to be too tall and causing the guns to shoot 6 inches low at 7 yards. If Charter would fix this issue, for $330, the gun is a good one for the money. As it stands, given they're oblivious to the issue, it's not.

Buy any one of their revolvers that's not the .32 Professional and it is... compared to an SP101 at least.

I'm looking at buying other handguns because that's what I do and one of those that has caught my eye is the Zastava M70. It's a steel framed .32 ACP pistol and it's caught my eye because it has pretty decent sights for a .32 ACP pistol, is a steel frame, and costs about $220. Is a .32 a powerhouse caliber? Nope, but it can get the job done.

So, what other pistols are out there for $220? A Hi Point, SCCY, Taurus PT111, Ruger EC9s. All these pistols are polymer framed. Will they be around 60 years from now? IDK, probably not. Will you be around 60 years from now? IDK, probably not. Will the Zastava M70 be around 60 years from now? More than likely if given basic maintenance.

So what does that mean? It means for $220 you bought a gun that will live longer than you will and it's up to you to determine if that smaller caliber in the .32 is worth it to you vs the larger caliber that will maybe live as long as you do. If longevity is worth more to you than effectiveness, than the Zastava M70 is more of a "good gun for the money" than the poly pistols I mentioned. If effectiveness is worth more to you, than the poly pistols are better guns for the money.

It's all up to you and I think instead of focusing on what is a good gun for the money, you should contemplate on what a "bad gun for the money" is.

To me that's pretty simple: any Ruger SP101, any micro/pocket .380 (.32 ACP is better), any snub nosed .357 Magnum, any Marlin made after the year 2001, any Charter made between 1991 and 2006, and the list goes on.

I guess you could say I take a glass half full approach in that anything that's not proven bad is good versus anything not proven good is bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top