Does firing a gun substantially lessen it's value?

Not unless it is gold plated...as a collector I'd rather have it in good shape with box and all the paperwork. I don't collect comemorative firearms.
 
Can't and won't are different issues. Won't involves a choice.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Note the reason I said can't!

Also, a new gun that is NOT shot is just a piece of metal and/or plastic! Kind of like a new hammer that never pounds a nail.

Collector guns can be considdered art, not tools. Art is for admireing.
 
I'm going against the grain here and say no. There are a few caveats. One is if it is a name brand gun with a good reputation. Another is time. Sure if you buy a gun today and try to sell it tomorrow, you'll lose a little if it's been fired. Wait 20 years and it may be worth double what you paid even if you've been shooting it all those years.

My Colt MK IV Series 80 45 is a good example. I paid 379 in 1984 and shot the pee out of it and have carried it ever since. I see them for 800 to 850 typically. I've turned down 600 for it.

Another would be my first Ruger RH (SS 5.5") 44 Mag. I paid 285 for it in 1988? Look at them now. 500+ for used ones.

I don't own collectibles because life is too short to leave the '57 Chevy in the garage. :cool:
 
Also, a new gun that is NOT shot is just a piece of metal and/or plastic! Kind of like a new hammer that never pounds a nail.
Click to expand...

To some. But not me. I do have new hammers I have bought that have never pounded a nail (yet). I use hammers a lot and they are in waiting for the need since hammers seem to get misplaced on the job.

The main reason that guns in general increase in value is inflation. Very few increase at a rate greater than inflation without significant collector interest. All you need to do is look at the prices on new guns and compare those to prices 5, 10, or 20 years ago.

Wait 20 years and it may be worth double what you paid even if you've been shooting it all those years.
Click to expand...

If you are lucky that is. Collectors look for guns that have not been shot for 20 years. They buy those and shoot them and save the nice ones for the future. It also depends a lot on how well you have taken care of it and just how much you have been shooting it for "all those years".
 
Last edited:
As confusus would say: man who can afford gun affected by this delemma wouldn't need ask question.:D

Pretty much like a car - drive it off the lot and it is worth less.

I traded ONE gun when I was young and miss it to this day so the sale value of my guns is only important to who ever inherits them, their mine forever.
 
You know, if I buy a gun to shoot, I don't really care if it looses value the minute I shoot it. I am using it and using it has value to me.

I also collect to a limited extent. Once I consider a gun a collector piece, it never gets shot again by me. That is not a problem since I have more than enough to fill any voids that might be present because a gun is dubbed a collector piece to me.

Only a few guns I own might be considered of collector interest that I shoot; they include a High Standard Victor and a Colt Trooper Mark III (357). Many are desireable, but I shoot them because that's why I bought them in the first place.
 
Buying a gun that is never shot is like having a car that has never been started. Will it or won't it? Some of us can't live with having a product that we don't know whether it is functional or not.
 
I'll step on the "Depends on the Gun" Bandwagon too.

Look at slightly used Ruger LC9's or Diamondback db 9mm's - they sell for about $50 less than a new one, if you can even find a used one.

A new Colt Mustang that has only been fired a few times will still fetch a premium, because its difficult to get a new one and people don't want to wait.

I'd say that, on average, putting 100 rounds through a gun (one that is not a dime-a-dozen), as long as the gun has all of its box, papers, tags, etc. will not devalue the gun much in the long run. Those are just my thoughts, and it really does depend on the gun.
 
Boatme98 said:
I think most new guns are probably test fired, so there's a slim chance of having a "unfired" gun these days. If I'm wrong, I'll be quickly corrected.
Click to expand...
Despite the fact that most guns are fired at the factory, they are nonetheless considered as "unfired" unless someone fires them after they arrive at the gun shop. For a mass-produced "commodity" such as a Glock or a Kimber 1911, firing won't significantly reduce the value of the firearm. Other guns may be more affected.

As an example, the original Colt WW1 replica, the Model O1911, was a limited production run of 4000 pistols. I looked at one once in a small, rural gunshop. The shop owner made a point of telling me that he hadn't even racked the slide because he expected a Colt collector would buy it, and he didn't want there to be any marks on it that didn't come from the factory.

What I find ironic is that most people who participate in "gun" forums agree that guns are intended to be shot, so go ahead and shoot them. But many of these same people will pay a hefty premium for an older, out-of-production gun if it hasn't been fired. To me that's a logical disconnect. If their argument is that keeping a gun unfired doesn't add (or retain) value, why are they willing to pay more for unfired?
 
The collecter market is confusing to me. Some guys pay over $600. for a well used Winchester 94 carbine. Scarse? Not hardly since these have been made by the millions. Yet a slightly used commemorative model 94 with deluxe walnut and fancy engraving sells for less because it was fired a few times. Go figure.

Jack
 
Buy a glock for 500 bucks. Shoot it constantly for a year. Go to Gander Mountain and offer to sell it to them for 400 dollars. Leave Gander Mountain with $150 bucks. Go back the next day..see your glock on sale for $300.

Values seem to lessen drastically when you own them, but magically are valued more once they leave your hands. =)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top