"For The Money"

B

BigMikey76

New member
I hear people say frequently that a gun is good "for the money." I know what that means, so I don't need an explanation, but I am not sure I agree with what it implies. I think a gun (or a car, a stereo, a steak, or anything else for that matter) is either good or not good. If it does the job it is intended for with an acceptable level of reliability, it is good. If it doesn't, it isn't. I know there are many other things that people take into consideration, like fit and finish, aesthetic appearance, simplicity of design, etc., but I say these things are subjective, and not a true measure of whether a gun is "good."

Let's take my PT111 G2, for example. It has proven itself reliable, therefore I call it a good gun. In that arena, it is just as good as my P-07. Is it as nice? Not really. Does it have the same fit and finish? No. Is it as fun to shoot? Uh-uh. But it is still "good," therefore I carry it as a defense weapon.

My point, after all of this rambling, is that calling a gun good "for the money" seems to imply that it shouldn't be held to as high a standard as a more expensive gun. I disagree with that.

What, if any, slack are you willing to give a gun just because it is cheaper?
 
None.

I don't buy a gun based on price. For my Single Actions, I'll pick Colt, Ruger, or if I can find one, a USFA or a Hammerli made Virginian.

I don't go for the Heritage line nor the stainless steel Single Actions. So far, I've leaned on American made guns instead of imports or foreign owned.

Bob Wright
 
I will be watching this. I've heard good for the Money everywhere. It's like a Savage vs Weatherby rifle debate.

I bought a good for the Money Smith and Wesson Sd9ve for around $350 and I like it and it hasn't ever failed. Sure there may be better but reliable is reliability. Just like the guys that talk about those ugly hipoints. If it goes bang and doesn't fail does it matter?
 
I hear people say frequently that a gun is good "for the money." I know what that means, so I don't need an explanation, but I am not sure I agree with what it implies. I think a gun (or a car, a stereo, a steak, or anything else for that matter) is either good or not good. If it does the job it is intended for with an acceptable level of reliability, it is good. If it doesn't, it isn't. I know there are many other things that people take into consideration, like fit and finish, aesthetic appearance, simplicity of design, etc., but I say these things are subjective, and not a true measure of whether a gun is "good."

Let's take my PT111 G2, for example. It has proven itself reliable, therefore I call it a good gun. In that arena, it is just as good as my P-07. Is it as nice? Not really. Does it have the same fit and finish? No. Is it as fun to shoot? Uh-uh. But it is still "good," therefore I carry it as a defense weapon.

My point, after all of this rambling, is that calling a gun good "for the money" seems to imply that it shouldn't be held to as high a standard as a more expensive gun. I disagree with that.

What, if any, slack are you willing to give a gun just because it is cheaper?
Click to expand...

I think people are really saying it is a "good value" when they say "good for the money". I bought a SD9VE instead of the very similar Glock 19 for $200 less. I don't think I am giving up anything but consider it a good value. I don't think I gave up anything when I bought a TCP instead of a LCP other than saving $100 which I also consider a good value. I bought a Rough Rider instead of a Single Six and had enough money left over to partner it with a Henry Lever Action rifle. I think the only thing I give up when I buy a cheaper gun is the brand name that gun snobs adore. I will die Glockless and Rugerless with no regrets.
 
calling a gun good "for the money" seems to imply that it shouldn't be held to as high a standard as a more expensive gun.
Click to expand...

Good for the money to me means its a bargain for what you get. As far as slack goes, if its unreliable, difficult to use and maintain, or not very accurate I don't keep it for long.
 
Reminds me of a recent thread that was on another forum I frequent. The forum is related to acoustic guitars and you will see that "good for the money" a lot over there.

Anyway.. a member put up four recordings of four different guitars. He did not disclose what the guitars were, just the sound clips. He put up a poll to see which people preferred. Two of the guitars were pretty even in the polls. One guitar was not far behind. The last guitar only got about 4% of the votes.

Turns out the guitar people liked the best? It was a $350 Asian made guitar, a guitar that a lot of people called "good for the money".

The 2cd and 3rd place guitars were also in the $300-$400 price range and also fall in the category of "good for the money" on the forums.

The guitar that came in dead last? A $8,000 USA made Martin custom guitar.

Clearly the phrase "good for the money" sometimes can mean "great for less". It was fun reading the responses of the voters once the guitars were revealed. A lot a backtracking and discussion of how the recording must have been faulty. Even when they, themselves, chose the winner, they still complained! lol
 
"My point, after all of this rambling, is that calling a gun good "for the money" seems to imply that it shouldn't be held to as high a standard as a more expensive gun."

I tend to preface the "for the money" part with something like, "You probably won't find better gun," and take the implication to be that it's easy to spend more money for an equal or inferior gun.
 
that calling a gun good "for the money" seems to imply that it shouldn't be held to as high a standard as a more expensive gun.
Click to expand...

I think you are looking at it the wrong way, but of course, two different folks saying its a good gun for the money could mean two opposite things.

When I hear, or use the phrase, what I think of is that OVER and ABOVE the minimum standard (works, reliable, etc.) you are getting some thing more.

Something you usually don't get until you PAY more. Fit, finish, features, whateer it is, you are getting something more than you paid for.

Also means you won't get significantly more until/unless you pay significantly more. Like Colt and S&W revolvers in the 70s, DA midsize .357 (Trooper, vs M19), when the S&W was $140, the Colt was $188. The S&W was a "good gun for the money".

OR, someone might use the phrase to describe the "best you are gonna get for that kind of money". You kind of have to get it from context. :D
 
When I say "good for the money" I am referring to something like my TriStar. It does everything a CZ does, is reliable, and looks (almost) as good doing it. It might have Cerakote instead of a beautiful blue or stainless finish and the CZ will feel a little more refined but for the difference in price I'll take the TriStar. Not that I don't still want a CZ but aside from reliability, if a gun gets you 90% performance for 50% of the money......Well I'll get around to more expensive prettier guns sooner or later but for now "good for the money" is good for me.
 
B

In my opinion....good for the money means its a decent value...and yes, it implies that lesser guns are not good. To me, if I say the gun is good for the money, it means to me, its the gun that is the entry level point of a smart purchase.

I can also say that guns that are often more expensive will give you the extra's -- that if you want to pay for them -- better fit and finish, better internal parts, better quality triggers, better sights, etc.../ are a good value as well...and better guns than the entry level gun "that is good for the money"....

Personally, I buy what I want - at the price point it takes to deliver that level of quality and esthetics...but each of us has to answer that question...what kind of quality and esthetics do you want - and what does it cost / it may or may not be the same gun....

For the sake of the discussion - I think the entry level 1911 that is "good for the money is a Springfield TRP for about $ 1,450"....and most of the 1911's offered below that price level by Springfield, Rock Island, Kimber, etc ..are not worth the money or good.../ many of the guns above that $ 1,450 are not worth the money either...Les Baer, Nighthawk, some Kimbers, etc....but when you get up to Wilson Combat at around $ 3,500 or so like their CQB model, they are worth every penny and come with a 1" guarantee at 25 yds.../...now Wilson Combat also makes a Super Grade model up around $6,000 plus - and no, I don't think they are worth the money...over what they consider to be their mid range priced guns like the CQB.....you may disagree...but that's what I think my money is worth - buying a 1911 that is worth the money...$ 1,450 will get you a TRP that is a good gun - not a great gun - but worth the money in my view..../ but $3,500 is a better value for a Wilson CQB because at that price point it delivers all the extras...better fit and finish, better internals, a better trigger, better esthetics...in my view.

With my money, its the Wilson CQB ...is where I'll spend it / but like I've told my son( who is still raising kids, etc and has bills that I don't have now) ...there is not really anything wrong with the TRP at $ 1,450. TRP is a good gun for the money....CQB, if he could afford it - is a better gun for the money.../ but its his money - and his choice.
 
Last edited:
Guess I can't really get on board with the OP's take or I'm just not quite seeing it clearly the way that he is.

Example that occurs to me: S&W SD9VE or Sigma or SD-9 or whatever they are calling them these days. This pistol is blocky, less attractive, and far lower priced than an M&P or other polymer duty/defense pistols in the same market niche.

I say it is a good gun for the money and my reasons are:
--feeds, shoots, extracts, ejects-- runs properly
--hits to point of aim
--backed by a major gunmaker
--large cost savings from market leaders

What you don't get:
--refined trigger pull
--scads of magazines and volume deals on more
--night sights
--grip options
--extra controls (ambi, extended, choices)
--large aftermarket support for holster & accessories

For the type of guy who visits and posts at TFL daily to have deep conversations about the handgunning and shooting lifestyle, this gun doesn't carry it's weight all too well. But for someone on a tight budget needing a home defense handgun to learn and practice shooting, there is a LOT here to like.

Seems to make the phrase work very, very well.
 
my sd9ve was NOT reliable, hate to say it. but my Tri-Star is the most reliable gun I own, right up there with my AR15's. the price you pay for a tristar is the crappy "blueing" if you even call it that, more like paint. but it's an awesome gun, with a sexy trigger. the plastic grips on my tristar are also cracked, but it has seen nearly 10k rounds, with never a single malfunction.

my pt111 is an awesome gun for the price, 100% reliable, so far at close to 1000 rounds, the finish is "kinda" sucky, but good enough, the sweat does increase wear on the blue. but I think it's the finest choice in it's size/weight/capacity class and I think it shoots just great, a bit snappy, but so are any other tiny 9.

my Taurus 605 poly has also been "good for the money", the poly frame still looks new, has seen also around a thousand rounds, lots of them being full on magnums and still shoots straight and also 100% reliable for sub 300$.

I have no issue with cheap guns as long as they fit my hands, carry well if need be, and don't weigh a freaking ton like a hi-point.

my hi-point carbine is an AWESOME deal, accurate, reliable. its a pain to disassemble, but has a great warranty and interesting options for optics etc. also reliable, although we did have an issue with the trigger at one point that was easily remedied, but it was still an issue, which makes it NOT 100% reliable. but a PCC for 300$ is pretty cool.

I have had great luck with cheap guns and none have had to be sent back to factory except a sccy, which I find was NOT worth the cheap cost......because it BROKE a half dozen times.

so if a gun is comfortable, fits the role you need it for AND it's cheap...go for it, whats the issue?
 
A good gun for the money . . .

BigJimP said:
In my opinion....good for the money means its a decent value...and yes, it implies that lesser guns are not good.
Click to expand...
I'm going to differ with BigJimP here, but only slightly. I agree with the "decent value" part, but to my mind, "good for the money" doesn't imply that cheap guns aren't good, but simply that they aren't as good as more expensive ones.

To me, "good" isn't really a yes or no question. There are degrees of good. Is a Rock Island 1911 a good pistol? I think so. I've read that they are. Is it as good as a $3000 Wilson Combat 1911? Probably not. Is it as good as other pistols in the same general price range? If so, I'd call it a good gun for the money.
 
It obviously means different things to different people.

I wouldn't want to call a firearm "good for the money", or any kind of good, if it didn't function safely and reliably.

But that's just me. :)
 
A good gun for the money...

...basically means that it is a compromise. It will be a gun that works well, reliably and accurate enough but will not stand a comparison with the overall good guns.

High end often means a lot more money for a little bit of high end. My son got a RIA Tactical that is a lot of bang-for-the-buck and shoots just a little less well than my P210-6. Let's say he shoots the RIA at 90%, speed and accuracy combined, of the P210. The P210 costs over four times as much as the RIA. The difference in finish and built quality is tremendous.
 
I Think it´s a matter of terminology.
Two guys are on the fireing line with targets 10´distance and both hit the red with five shots. One has a $150 budget gun the other a $1500 gold plated job...so
Who has a good gun?
Who has the better gun?
Who has the nicer gun?
 
All your responses are subject to conjecture, when someone uses the term and you are confused ask that person his/her meaning, it may differ from perceived understanding. Now back to a forum relating to firearms.
 
"Good for the money" basically means you are giving up something...the value of what you are giving up makes it acceptable. For example, I'm fine with a scratched pistol if I plan to Cerakote when I buy it!

Or, a rough fit gi 1911, is fine as long as it shoots accurately and is reliable.
 
When I think of a gun being good for the money what I am usually thinking of is the gun is better than most guns of its price point. This could mean I find the gun more accurate or maybe is just comes with more accessories, but I find it better in some way.
 
I would not buy an inferior make of gun, so the phrase with its suggestive meaning here never enters the picture. Where hand guns are concerned, I'm a strict Smith & Wesson snob. In my world, the gun is always perfection because it is a Smith & Wesson. I just try to get it for the lowest price because I am an unapologetic capitalist pig. I primarily collect vintage Smith & Wesson N-frames. Good for the money simply means I got it for the current market value or less. I have some that I got well below market value, so those are great for the money. Any vintage Smith & Wesson you can buy at or below current market value is a far better investment than buying gold. Hope this biased perspective helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top