RsqVet said:
Good gun for the money is a BS term writers and reviewers used to justify that is likely not a great product to begin with.
I disagree. It's not a BS term, and nobody who uses it claims that "a good gun for the money" is a "great" gun. Both terms are highly subjective anyway, but "good gun for the money" has -- as far as I know -- never been used to claim greatness.
Example: Some years ago I purchased a Yugoslavian Mauser M24/47, in 8mm Mauser. I paid $150 for it, excluding shipping and transfer fee. For chuckles, I put a short Picatinny rail on in place of the original ladder sight, and I mounted a $50 4x pistol scope on it as a "scout" scope.
I took it with me on a visit to a friend in another state, who belongs to a shooting club with a 200-yard outdoor range. For ammo I had a case of Ecuadorian mil-surp ammo. We went to the range, got the Mauser zeroed at 200 yards, and we both shot it quite a bit. Most of our groups were around 4 inches (2 MOA). Not good enough to win any prizes at Camp Perry, but not too shabby for an old mil-surp rifle with a cheap scope, shooting mil-surp ammo.
The only other person at the range that day was a gentleman with some kind of big bucks rifle that must have cost him several thousand dollars, with a suitably big bucks scope on it that also must have cost a thousand dollars or more. We were shooting the Mauser with the left elbow resting on the bench as a rest. Mr. Bigbucks was using a full-blown lead sled. His groups were (charitably) about a foot.
During a break when we went forward to check targets, he saw my target and asked what I was shooting. When I told him, he went back to the bench, packed up, and went home.
This is a true story. The question: which of the two rifles would you consider to be "a good gun for the money"?