Firing collectables

[Winchester_73]

One of the greatest gun owner debates...

This debate arises occasionally in my own family. I myself have some guns I shoot a lot and some I rarely shoot. I buy guns based on price vs retail value and so I occasionally buy things that I have almost no plans of shooting. I just get the best value for my dollar and then either resell, trade or keep and admire/shoot. Anyways, my uncle has an uncle aka my great uncle, who he criticizes for rarely shooting most of his guns. My uncle on on the other hand, reloads and shoots skeet tournaments, combat etc and shoots many of his guns a lot, some guns in the 10s of thousands. Here are some of MY uncle's guns:

S&W 629
Kimber 45 - not sure which
Charter arms 44 special
S&W 41
Cooper 25-06
Winchester 1886 45-70 remake
Winchester 1885 (Browning made) 45-70 remake
Beretta trap 12 gauge
Winchester 12 28 gauge remake
Winchester 42 remake
Glock 26
Kel Tec 380
Beretta 28 gauge OU

He has other guns but you get the idea, all modern, mostly non collectible.

And then there's my great uncle aka his uncle:

Remington 1858 revolver
Remington No 6 rifle
Savage 99 straight grip 300 savage (pre WWII)
S&W 29-2 8 3/8 - fired but near mint w/ box
S&W 29-2 4 in - unfired NIB
Colt commander SS or nickel (not sure which) unfired NIB
Colt Diamondback, fired but NIB
Colt 3rd Series woodsman match target - stone mint in box
CZ 27 w/o nazi marks, mint with holster
Colt Buntline from the 60s, 98%
1917 Artillery Luger with shoulder stock - very nice, but I never saw it
Browning A 5 20 gauge - made in Belgium
Browning A 5 12 gauge - made in beligum (I think)
Winchester 70 243 pre 64 featherweight - all original
Winchester 63
Winchester 61
Winchester 9422 unfired NIB

And of course, he has some others. I simply can't remember them all, for either guy.

Anyone can see that the collections are very different from an age perspective as well as a value perspective. My uncle doesn't respect the value of guns IMO and also doesn't understand the idea of investing in firearms. My great uncle also inherited some of those guns so selling it because "if you don't shoot it, you don't keep it" is out of the question. I understand both sides of the argument but people who must shoot all of their guns usually either A) do not invest in guns with hopes of making $$$ B) look at guns as simply tools C) have no concept of simply "collecting" firearms D) mostly own modern firearms where it doesn't matter either way.

In many cases IMO its perfectly acceptable to have a safe queen or 2 as long as there are other guns that are shot regularly. I have a friend who almost never shoots and owns 200+ firearms. He is totally a collector. I think the middle road is the best which is how I handle my firearms collection. Not all guns have to be shot regularly to be appreciated or admired.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

My uncle doesn't respect the value of guns IMO and also doesn't understand the idea of investing in firearms.

Nor do I, even though I have collected guns and admire many of the "collectible" ones. I've had some pretty nice Lugers and a choice Radom or two -- but decided that other ways of "investing" were likely to be more rewarding.

Generally speaking, you've got to be a very discerning collector to hope to even break even, over time, on a gun collection. I'm not sure I'd ever learn enough to be good enough, to make it worth my while.

Being lucky helps, too: my best Luger came from a neighbor who had a "bring back" his uncle got in WWII. It was pristine. The neighbor didn't want the hassle of trying to sell it to other collectors. I gave him a fair price, explained what I was doing, and sold it later. I made a pretty good profit on that SHORT TERM deal; the dealer I sold it to probably made a pretty fair profit, too. (In this transaction, I acted like a dealer, not a collector.) I think the only people who make much on "investment" or "collectible" guns are the dealers who cater to the collectors' habits.

The problem is inflation -- it eats up the "profit" of even those guns that have appreciated greatly in value.

Example: a gun you bought for $900 in 1980 would have to sell for $2300 for 2008, so that the money received would buy what $900 bought in 1980. And that assumes no profit!! BUYING POWER is the key measurement. The effect is similar for shorter periods, too. Most of us don't see anything LIKE THAT in increased value.

Check out this website for more info. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ The data here is based on ACTUAL inflation data for the periods entered. It's only good through 2008, as 2009 data won't be available until next year.

 

[koolminx]

I have several relics, or antiques as you will adn I shoot them as often as I can get ammo for them.

A firearm has a purpose, and to me personally, it muse be shot. Simple.

It was made for firing and I do that. Plus I have no qualms firing 22 short ammo through a piece designed for .22 L (which aren't available anymore), as I enjoy cleaning my pieces as much as firing them.

To Us, Our Own I always say...

 

[Winchester_73]

Generally speaking, you've got to be a very discerning collector to hope to even break even, over time, on a gun collection. I'm not sure I'd ever learn enough to be good enough, to make it worth my while.

Even though I don't make a living at it, I think its worth my while. I enjoy the hobby - finding new things and meeting new people. Regarding hoping to break even, if you don't buy MSRP its relatively simple to make $$$ on firearms provided you know about them. I may collect guns but I pay dealer prices so I can always make something on them when I sell. Yesterday I bought a really clean functional H&R American 38 S&W for $35. I look for deals like that, I don't buy brand new and hope it appreciates in value. The adage that one has to remember when investing in guns is to buy LOW and sell HIGH.

Being lucky helps, too: my best Luger came from a neighbor who had a "bring back" his uncle got in WWII. It was pristine. The neighbor didn't want the hassle of trying to sell it to other collectors. I gave him a fair price, explained what I was doing, and sold it later. I made a pretty good profit on that SHORT TERM deal; the dealer I sold it to probably made a pretty fair profit, too. (In this transaction, I acted like a dealer, not a collector.) I think the only people who make much on "investment" or "collectible" guns are the dealers who cater to the collectors' habits.

See in this situation you bought LOW but you sold LOW as well. Selling a gun to a dealer is never wise unless you need the money that day. If you would have sold to a collector you probably could have made more because with a dealer, you'd be lucky to get 60% of fair market value. Many non FFL collectors such as myself make money on guns. Have you ever been to a gun show? The average show has less than 50% FFLs meaning it is mostly compromised of people who are not dealers, just people who to try to make some money on the side in the gun business. I know many people who are non FFL holders who make pretty decent money in the firearms trade.

The problem is inflation -- it eats up the "profit" of even those guns that have appreciated greatly in value.

Example: a gun you bought for $900 in 1980 would have to sell for $2300 for 2008, so that the money received would buy what $900 bought in 1980. And that assumes no profit!! BUYING POWER is the key measurement. The effect is similar for shorter periods, too. Most of us don't see anything LIKE THAT in increased value.

I agree. I once told a friend this who believed that if the MSRP goes up, you made money. I told him about inflation and he didn't get it at first. After a long while debating on whether his glock 23 appreciated in value (he bought it in the early 90s for approx $400) he understood "inflation", at least I hope. There are several guns in the last 20 or so years which have beat inflation, such as the Springfield 03 and sub types and the Enfield 1917s. Also I believe history shows that lugers have beat inflation. My grandfather bought a WWII refurb 45 for $20 in the 50s or 60s. The list goes on and on. Paying full price for something and hoping to beat inflation isn't easy but its far from impossible. You have to understand the business. You also have to factor in the small group of people who regularly OVER pay for firearms, IE the rich, the ignorant, etc. If you buy the "right" guns, someone will always buy it from you, usually at a profit for yourself. Another good quote to remember is that you can never over pay for a firearm, you simply bought it too soon.

Since shooting, reloading etc is rather expensive over time, its nice to be able to make money with the hobby to offset some of the expense.

 

[peejman]

Guns are meant to be fired, cars are meant to be driven. Occasionally they break. Such is life.

I recently learned that one of my handguns is worth considerably more than I thought it was. I won't shoot it as often, but I'll still shoot it.

 

[Hardcase]

Three of my guns fit into the "fired on occasion" category:

My dad's Janssen and Sons SxS shotgun, because it's old and delicate and only eats black powder shells. Some old farmer probably paid the princely sum of $8 or $9 back in 1900 for it. Dad couldn't have paid much more in 1945.

My great grandfather's Colt Lightning rifle. It was made in 1884, the first year that Colt produced them. I shoot it once or twice in the summer, maybe a total of 30 rounds a year. It does just fine with .38-40 cowboy loads.

My great great grandfather's 1862 Colt Contract rifle that he carried in the Civil War. One round, once a year on Independence Day. I wish that I had the guts to shoot it more often, but it's almost 150 years old and I figure that I'm not pushing my luck at one round a year.

I've got two rifles that are regular shooters - a pair of Winchester 1906s that belonged to my grandfather. My wife and I use them every week for silhouette shooting. One was made in 1906, the other around 1930. They shoot so doggone straight and shoulder and aim so well that they're two of the funnest guns that we've ever shot.

I'm not sure that I could stand to own a gun that I could never shoot. I look at those beautiful engraved rifles at Cabela's and think about how nice it would be to have a fancy old Winchester 1895, then realize that it could never be shot. I couldn't do it.

 

[Claude Clay]

Walt & Winchester-- you bring inflation to the table, thats is good

also there is the opportunity cost of money.
and the compounding of interest makes it such that we are doomed almost always to lose on anything we purchase.
i aim to enjoy what i purchase and in the long run i seem to break even.

sell or trade what i have for about what covers inflation and the fun i have had shooting them covers the opportunity cost.

 

[Sevens]

I have never bought nor purchased a collectible firearm-- well, to the point where shooting it might compromise it's "value." (I suppose many firearms could be considered collectible, to a point...)

But I do have two heirlooms in my collection that were passed on to me by relatives. One in particular has some dollar worth and certainly has some historic significance, and that's my Grandfathers pre-model 10 nickel plated S&W.

I've shot it a few times and I will always make sure that anyone in my family who is interested in actually shooting it gets that chance if they wish... but otherwise, I've decided that I no longer have a reason to ever shoot it again. Simply put, it just doesn't do anything that I can't accomplish with another piece, namely my circa '82 model 10. And all the joy I get from this revolver is in handling it and admiring it.

I obviously reserve the right to change my mind 10 or 20 years from now and put 40 rounds through it if I feel like it, but right now? I just can't see the point in doing so considering a simple risk/reward equation.

 

[greensteelforge]

I suppose there are lots of reasons to buy a gun, and shooting is certainly the obvious dominant reason. Whether or not I choose to shoot an antique has allot to do with it's value, but if I could afford to easily absorb the loss in the event of damage, I'd shoot everything I've got. Some people can afford to drop $100,000 plus on a Holland & Holland gun and take it into the field, I, on the other hand, would prize a weapon like that to the point of only shooting it rarely. Most of us are not able to accept the possibility of ruining the value of our aged sticks, and prefer to keep them as historical pieces. I can't see anything wrong with either argument.

 

[koolminx]

You would actually BUY a weapon (if you could afford it) for that great sum and then shoot it LESS than you would shoot a $25 dollar firearm????

What is wrong with this world! You don't buy an Enzo Ferrari for $3 million bucks to look at it. You buy it to drive 200 MPH any dang time you want!

The same should go for a rifle that cost 100K bucks!

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Walt & Winchester-- you bring inflation to the table, thats is good

also there is the opportunity cost of money.

Agree with your comments. That wasn't intended to dissuade people from buying guns, or from buying collectible guns, but to help a few folks realize that a gun that sells for more than you paid for it isn't necessarily making you money...

(I've had more than one guy brag to me about buying a gun 10 years ago for $500 who felt he had made a good profit when he sold it for $700 a week or two ago...)

If you really want an investment, mutual funds will do far better over the long term -- even when the market goes to crap, as it has recently. Except for a few lucky types, guns as investments are far less likely to give you a positive return.

But if you're really into enjoying guns -- enjoy them, and ignore the "investment" factor. (While not necessarily a good investment, they CAN BE a good source of ready cash, when you need it.)

 

[gyvel]

Well, I went to the range last week with a Japanese Type 26, a British Revolver No.2 Mk1, a Husqvarna M1907, a Webley Mk I, and an M1934 Beretta. Collectibles? I guess so, but they are all good, sturdy guns and they were made to be fired, and none was in such pristine condition that firing would do any damage.

Jim, Where did you get the ammo for the Type 26?

 

[gyvel]

Example: a gun you bought for $900 in 1980 would have to sell for $2300 for 2008, so that the money received would buy what $900 bought in 1980. And that assumes no profit!! BUYING POWER is the key measurement. The effect is similar for shorter periods, too. Most of us don't see anything LIKE THAT in increased value.

What gun cost $900.00 in 1980, other than a Luger Carbine or a Grade III A-5???

 

[gak]

I'm in the "depends" camp.

Some examples:
NO: Blackpowder era Colt SAA, especially Cavalry, Artillery or other special inspector or other cartouche. Hesitant on other BP just 'cause don't shoot BP and otherwise wary of cautions on load. But, I'd buy one "just to have" and admire if I had the means/opportunity.
YES: good condition smokeless-era SAA, esp post 1900, if not otherwise a special model. Still hesitant; current and 2nd Gen Colts and repros abound.
NO: Any original Win 1873, ca. Pre 1890/1900, just 'cause of "old west" historical value.
YES: good condition late '73 or '92 Win. Exception, original trappers (92s, 94s) just cause so rare and pricey. I'd stll think about the '73 as a no. You see so few also that are even post 1900 production, they're also in the rare and precious category...and quality Italian repros abound if you gotta shoot a '73.
YES: original/GI M-1 Carbine, unless a very rare NIB or other "one off," 'cause so many made and general shooting doesn't seem to harm them a bit (and no one save Fulton types have yet to equal with a repro, and they use original parts anyway).
YES: virtually any M-1 Garand.
YES: virtually any Pre 64 Win--70s, 94s, etc., incl Pre-War bolts, 94s, most 92s as mentioned.

 

[Webleymkv]

Unless I have reason to believe that shooting a particular gun will be unsafe or likely to cause damage to the firearm, I will shoot one in moderation. Most of the collectible firearms that interest me are vintage models which are extremely unlikely to be found in unfired condition, so shooting in moderation won't adversely affect the value. So long as appropriate ammo is used in limited amounts, I see no harm in shooting.

 

[orionengnr]

If I own it, I shoot it, and carry it.
If I don't shoot it or carry it, it's gone. There are many guns that can attest to this...