YUP, just got one on GunBroker for $113 plus shipping..
A Good Gun For The Money?
- Thread starter rep1954
- Start date
Long ago I bought a Norinco SKS carbine NIB for $79.I felt compelled because AIM Surplus was selling Russian 7.62x39 for $69 a thousand,delivered.
I no longer have it,but it was a good gun for the money. Would I pay $400 for an SKS? No.
I really like M-1 Carbines.I used to find them under $100. I might pay as much as $500 for a good one now,but market is over $1000 .I just don't think an M-1 carbine is worth that,to me. There are AR and Mini 14 options.
Philipine 1911's IMO,are good value IMO,so is a S+WM+P. Sorry,but no chance I'm buying a $3000 1911. I don't question the fair price for custom hand work. I just can't justify paying for it. So I do my own.
Scarcity and "collectability" create ,IMO,a disconnect between how "good" a gun is and cost.
Folks who collect to hoard aren't real popular with me.They can,and have,ruined the price of 22 LR ammo.
Folks who collect gunsights just to possess them run the price of a proper sight for an antique restoration out of reach.I'm not going to pay$300 or $400 for an old barrel sight.
In the end,Quality boils down to how YOU FEEL about what you got for your dollar.
Unlike certain insurance products when we are talking about buying guns...the Makers try to identify a market,and present a product that will sell. I've never looked at a Wrangler.
If it does not suit you,instead of bellyaching at Ruger,just say "Not for me" and move on.
I no longer have it,but it was a good gun for the money. Would I pay $400 for an SKS? No.
I really like M-1 Carbines.I used to find them under $100. I might pay as much as $500 for a good one now,but market is over $1000 .I just don't think an M-1 carbine is worth that,to me. There are AR and Mini 14 options.
Philipine 1911's IMO,are good value IMO,so is a S+WM+P. Sorry,but no chance I'm buying a $3000 1911. I don't question the fair price for custom hand work. I just can't justify paying for it. So I do my own.
Scarcity and "collectability" create ,IMO,a disconnect between how "good" a gun is and cost.
Folks who collect to hoard aren't real popular with me.They can,and have,ruined the price of 22 LR ammo.
Folks who collect gunsights just to possess them run the price of a proper sight for an antique restoration out of reach.I'm not going to pay$300 or $400 for an old barrel sight.
In the end,Quality boils down to how YOU FEEL about what you got for your dollar.
Unlike certain insurance products when we are talking about buying guns...the Makers try to identify a market,and present a product that will sell. I've never looked at a Wrangler.
If it does not suit you,instead of bellyaching at Ruger,just say "Not for me" and move on.
Last edited:
RaySendero
New member
Good for the money = not applicable:
This one was FREE !!!
This one was FREE !!!
Last edited:
9ballbilly
New member
Completely subjective based on my own experience and preference, of course.
The best example of a "good gun for the money" that comes to mind are the used Ruger six series .357 revolvers. Since the introduction of the GP-100 and SP-101 the older guns have fallen by the wayside a bit and can usually be found at very reasonable prices for such well made revolvers IMHO.
I recently picked up a perfectly functioning 4" blued Security six with minor finish wear for $325.
The best example of a "good gun for the money" that comes to mind are the used Ruger six series .357 revolvers. Since the introduction of the GP-100 and SP-101 the older guns have fallen by the wayside a bit and can usually be found at very reasonable prices for such well made revolvers IMHO.
I recently picked up a perfectly functioning 4" blued Security six with minor finish wear for $325.
Don Fischer
New member
My though on a good gun for the money is the gun is junk but the price is right!
A certain large retailer
My good guns for the money come from a clueless local retailer.
I've bought 3-4 screaming deals.
The crown jewel is an LC Smith SBT. It is a first year SBT and is either 100 or 101 this year. Serial number is 4 digits, but the first is a zero.
I finally got out and shot some trap yesterday, The Smith stayed home, since the weather was wet. Instead I brought my 1940's Model 12 trap grade, which also came from that same retailer. The one that does not know that Winchester did not mark all trap grade guns the same way. Some model 12 traps are stamped on the receiver, and the later ones are stamped on the mag tube.
I paid less than half what these guns were worth. In fact I would not have paid such a low price to say your widow.....a large store should know better, that's just business.
My good guns for the money come from a clueless local retailer.
I've bought 3-4 screaming deals.
The crown jewel is an LC Smith SBT. It is a first year SBT and is either 100 or 101 this year. Serial number is 4 digits, but the first is a zero.
I finally got out and shot some trap yesterday, The Smith stayed home, since the weather was wet. Instead I brought my 1940's Model 12 trap grade, which also came from that same retailer. The one that does not know that Winchester did not mark all trap grade guns the same way. Some model 12 traps are stamped on the receiver, and the later ones are stamped on the mag tube.
I paid less than half what these guns were worth. In fact I would not have paid such a low price to say your widow.....a large store should know better, that's just business.
lee n. field
New member
"I have $X," (usually small) "what's the best gun I can get for that money?"
It's a question one sees often in gun social media. "What gun for $X?"
One hopes for "good enough", that hoped for sweet spot at the triple point of price, function and customer support.
"...outrageous hammer and trigger weight..." A target pistol they ain't, but any new firearm requires a trigger job. You won't get 'target pistol' anything for $249 MSRP.
Cerakote is a bit more than paint. However, what you're planning on doing with the thing, a single action .22, is more important than it's MSRP.
And there are a lot of junkers that cost more. The MSRP does not equate to quality from any manufacturer though.
The Ruger Wrangler is a very poor man's SAA in .22 LR. It's really a big kid's toy.
Cerakote is a bit more than paint. However, what you're planning on doing with the thing, a single action .22, is more important than it's MSRP.
And there are a lot of junkers that cost more. The MSRP does not equate to quality from any manufacturer though.
The Ruger Wrangler is a very poor man's SAA in .22 LR. It's really a big kid's toy.
gbclarkson
New member
A taurus is a good gun for the money, if it works.
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. It means for a low price it's not comleate crap. Maybe...
Kind of like "combat accurate" or accurate enough for defensive use or some such BS that translates to the gun put most of the rounds on an IDPA target at 7 yards...
I don't understand cheap guns. I also don't understand prestige guns.. BUT I would rather have a quality item or 2 than a safe full of junk.
Kind of like "combat accurate" or accurate enough for defensive use or some such BS that translates to the gun put most of the rounds on an IDPA target at 7 yards...
I don't understand cheap guns. I also don't understand prestige guns.. BUT I would rather have a quality item or 2 than a safe full of junk.
I disagree that there is no such thing as "a good gun for the money" or that it is a BS term. I will admit that it can be a risk and what defines it can vary dramatically from one person to the next.
For those that think it is BS, have none of your guns been good for the money?
For those that think it is BS, have none of your guns been good for the money?
jackstrawIII
New member
Most on-point quote on the forums today.
Cheapshooter
New member
Couldn't be further from the truth. But then saying "A good gun for the money" is a rude awakening to the truth for gun snobs, and elitests that think if you can afford a thousand dollar gun you shouldn't have any.
My safe if shared by guns I bought at great, cheap prices, and guns I paid much more for. I guess some would call my E. German Makarov that cost me $169 "not a great product". No room, or do I wish to list every "good gun for the money" I have. But I don't consider any of them to be something I didn't get more than the price I paid. Even guns like my Hi-Points, and Rough Riders are good shooters, accurate, and reliable. In fact of the multiple 9MM pistols I have, some from "accepted" makers like Beretta, Glock, Sig, and Walther, my Hi-Point C9 is the most accurate. That in itself places the Hi-Point in the good gun for the money category.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
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.RsqVet said:
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"?
I've long been a fan of smaller caliber handguns, 32 and 38 in revolvers and 32acp and 380 in semi-automatics. One of the first semi-automatics I bought was in the early 70s, a Beretta model 70 in 32acp. It was a great gun, followed by a slightly smaller 1935. In the late 70s I bought a Beretta model 81 also in 32acp and it may have been my first DA/SA experience.
IIRC the Model 70 cost me just under $100.00 which was about $25.00 less than full retail. I don't remember what the 1935 cost but it was used and so likely not very much. The Model 80 was quite expensive though, about $150.00 I think. Now those were really expensive guns at the time, each was about a weeks wage.
Recently a friend has been begging for my Model 80 and when I saw the surplus 80s for sale at just slight more than what I paid for mine about four decades ago I gave in, gave him my old one and bought a new to me surplus. Well the new to me surplus looks better than mine did and shoots as well and I'm happy and he's happy.
I just replaced my Model 70 but that one cost me considerably more than what I paid back in 1974.
So we have a pool of five guns total, two Model 70s, two Model 81s and a 1935. All still work (actually the Model 70 from 1974 may or may not still be working; it went to a Forever Home).
The 1935 certainly has been and remains a "Good gun for the money". I carry it as my primary handgun quite often.
The first Model 70 was great and I sold it for almost what I paid for it so it too was a "Good gun for the money".
The second Model 70 was about the same as what many mid-range modern semis sell for but just has the style and flair that I like. It's one I carry far more often than guns that cost considerably more and I enjoy it, so again I'd say it is a "Good gun for the money".
The same case can be made for the two Model 81s. "Good guns for the money"
BUT a modern Cheetah at $600-$700 or so would not be a "Good gun for the money" right now for me.
That doesn't mean it would not be a "Good gun for the money" for someone else.
IIRC the Model 70 cost me just under $100.00 which was about $25.00 less than full retail. I don't remember what the 1935 cost but it was used and so likely not very much. The Model 80 was quite expensive though, about $150.00 I think. Now those were really expensive guns at the time, each was about a weeks wage.
Recently a friend has been begging for my Model 80 and when I saw the surplus 80s for sale at just slight more than what I paid for mine about four decades ago I gave in, gave him my old one and bought a new to me surplus. Well the new to me surplus looks better than mine did and shoots as well and I'm happy and he's happy.
I just replaced my Model 70 but that one cost me considerably more than what I paid back in 1974.
So we have a pool of five guns total, two Model 70s, two Model 81s and a 1935. All still work (actually the Model 70 from 1974 may or may not still be working; it went to a Forever Home).
The 1935 certainly has been and remains a "Good gun for the money". I carry it as my primary handgun quite often.
The first Model 70 was great and I sold it for almost what I paid for it so it too was a "Good gun for the money".
The second Model 70 was about the same as what many mid-range modern semis sell for but just has the style and flair that I like. It's one I carry far more often than guns that cost considerably more and I enjoy it, so again I'd say it is a "Good gun for the money".
The same case can be made for the two Model 81s. "Good guns for the money"
BUT a modern Cheetah at $600-$700 or so would not be a "Good gun for the money" right now for me.
That doesn't mean it would not be a "Good gun for the money" for someone else.