Ruger and Smith have seem to strike a nice balance between cost and quality with their new auto loaders. I recently bought a new Shield 9mm for under 400.00. Nice gun seems to be well made. I have used both Ruger and Smiths Customer Service Depts. ( for my revolvers) several times and they were excellent. That alone is worth the extra money. I tried to go cheap a few years ago and bought a Keltec 380, that was a mistake. Personally I think when it comes to guns, it is probably better to buy the best weapon you can afford.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gun Quality vs. Price. (advice wanted)
- Thread starter s1mp13m4n
- Start date
Guns are like all other products...,costs are tooling, labor and materials.
Price is marketing + hype. Hype is what we are doing on this website + gun rags + brand.
Marketing is where the company does research on what features that the market will pay for and packages them to maximize profitability.
Why Taurus is cheaper.....cause many of us say they are bad. Some of us have experience to back this up. Also, their feature set does not match a higher priced feature package.
In other words, they make a butt load of bottom end featured guns, don't warranty them well, customers complain online and Taurus pockets a butt load of your money. When you look at their feature set, you see super low costs, and a good profit gap between cost and price considering the volume.
Jump over to a S&W M&P or XD40, you will see a much higher level feature set for a $50 to $100 increase in price backed by companies that do care if their customers are -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- off.
Price is marketing + hype. Hype is what we are doing on this website + gun rags + brand.
Marketing is where the company does research on what features that the market will pay for and packages them to maximize profitability.
Why Taurus is cheaper.....cause many of us say they are bad. Some of us have experience to back this up. Also, their feature set does not match a higher priced feature package.
In other words, they make a butt load of bottom end featured guns, don't warranty them well, customers complain online and Taurus pockets a butt load of your money. When you look at their feature set, you see super low costs, and a good profit gap between cost and price considering the volume.
Jump over to a S&W M&P or XD40, you will see a much higher level feature set for a $50 to $100 increase in price backed by companies that do care if their customers are -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- off.
Ruger has a reputable for making bullet proof (excuse the pun) guns with anvil-like reliability backed by really good customer service. They aren't the fanciest or prettiest but they do what they were supposed to do and the company will fix it if it doesn't. To me that is worth a bit extra.
I have several Ruger's - pistols and rifles - and no complaints about any of them.
I have several Ruger's - pistols and rifles - and no complaints about any of them.
Pond James Pond
New member
Is there a particular reason the OP is after a single stack pocket gun?
They are very good at concealment. Very, very good.
But are they as good at shooting accurately, compared with a compact or sub-compact? Probably not.
Are compacts and sub-compacts bad at concealment? No, they are not.
If the OP's mind is made up, then fine. If it has been a decision based on purely the aspect of concealment, it may not hurt to consider other options that can perform very well.
By no means a criticism of the choice being assessed, but just a suggestion that other options may be available.
They are very good at concealment. Very, very good.
But are they as good at shooting accurately, compared with a compact or sub-compact? Probably not.
Are compacts and sub-compacts bad at concealment? No, they are not.
If the OP's mind is made up, then fine. If it has been a decision based on purely the aspect of concealment, it may not hurt to consider other options that can perform very well.
By no means a criticism of the choice being assessed, but just a suggestion that other options may be available.
"Is there a particular reason the OP is after a single stack pocket gun?
They are very good at concealment. Very, very good.
But are they as good at shooting accurately, compared with a compact or sub-compact? Probably not.
Are compacts and sub-compacts bad at concealment? No, they are not.
If the OP's mind is made up, then fine. If it has been a decision based on purely the aspect of concealment, it may not hurt to consider other options that can perform very well.
By no means a criticism of the choice being assessed, but just a suggestion that other options may be available."
Yes, I am considering other options. I like the Ruger SR9c from a shooting standpoint. It is comfy to shoot at the range and hold. I did not like the magazine disconnect idea. I am still on the fence about a semi auto with or without a manual safety on it. there are pros and cons for each. I am open to other ideas as well. The main reason that I want a handgun is for personal protection first, then home protection, and finally fun to shoot at the range. Concealed daily carry is my first WANT and reason for the handgun. That is why I was looking at the J frame revolver and single stack 9mm.
They are very good at concealment. Very, very good.
But are they as good at shooting accurately, compared with a compact or sub-compact? Probably not.
Are compacts and sub-compacts bad at concealment? No, they are not.
If the OP's mind is made up, then fine. If it has been a decision based on purely the aspect of concealment, it may not hurt to consider other options that can perform very well.
By no means a criticism of the choice being assessed, but just a suggestion that other options may be available."
Yes, I am considering other options. I like the Ruger SR9c from a shooting standpoint. It is comfy to shoot at the range and hold. I did not like the magazine disconnect idea. I am still on the fence about a semi auto with or without a manual safety on it. there are pros and cons for each. I am open to other ideas as well. The main reason that I want a handgun is for personal protection first, then home protection, and finally fun to shoot at the range. Concealed daily carry is my first WANT and reason for the handgun. That is why I was looking at the J frame revolver and single stack 9mm.
firefighter120
New member
I went with price. I researched a lot before I bought my first handgun about a year ago. It was a Taurus PT 111 G2. It got really good reviews, it shoots well and the only issues were with the first magazine and its been flawless since. I also have a Taurus PT 22 that has been flawless so far and I just bought a Ruger LCP Custom .380 which I haven't shot yet. I bought all of these guns in the 200-215 dollar range. I did spend a little more on my wife's gun. She has an Ruger LCR revolver because of its simplicity as she has very little gun experience. I would suggest looking at a lot of reviews and see if you could find a range that rents what you are looking at. As far as customer service, I have dealt with Taurus ordering extra magazines and it has been OK. Not great, but I can live with it. Good luck with your search !
If you are considering doubles stacks as well, I would try to shoot both and see what you prefer. One of the most common firearm forum posts are that with the right holster, anything is possible. I would agree with that statement up to a Glock 19 for me, but body type plays a role as well. FWIW my Glock 26 carries about as well as my G42 (IWB for both). If I wanted to stuff it in my pocket, the G42 would have the edge... But I never carry that way so it's not an issue. If this is your only purchase for the time being, I would recommend the double stack for both carry and range use.
You will constantly be aware of it for the first few months, and I'd be willing to be you are the only one who notices (ask me how I know). I prefer appendix carry as I don't have to worry about printing when bending over. Another benefit is the SR9c allows you to have an extended magazine for back up.
The manual safety for Rugers is not necessary to use, and I think it is small enough to be ignored (much like the Shield). The magazine disconnect would not be a deal breaker for me, although none of my handguns have that feature. Again good luck with your purchase.
You will constantly be aware of it for the first few months, and I'd be willing to be you are the only one who notices (ask me how I know). I prefer appendix carry as I don't have to worry about printing when bending over. Another benefit is the SR9c allows you to have an extended magazine for back up.
The manual safety for Rugers is not necessary to use, and I think it is small enough to be ignored (much like the Shield). The magazine disconnect would not be a deal breaker for me, although none of my handguns have that feature. Again good luck with your purchase.
Pond James Pond
New member
Yes, I am considering other options. I like the Ruger SR9c from a shooting standpoint. It is comfy to shoot at the range and hold. I did not like the magazine disconnect idea. I am still on the fence about a semi auto with or without a manual safety on it. there are pros and cons for each. I am open to other ideas as well. The main reason that I want a handgun is for personal protection first, then home protection, and finally fun to shoot at the range. Concealed daily carry is my first WANT and reason for the handgun. That is why I was looking at the J frame revolver and single stack 9mm.
OK, well then I'd suggest at least handling some of the sub-compcts on the market. They may be bigger than the LC9, but not so much and they offer a greater degree of shootability. Remember that, if you only have one gun, then home defence and personal defence are one and the same, with only the locale open to change. Range time should be practice first, then fun (although practice can also be fun too).
Handle a few, and see what you think: you may be pleasantly surprised. The Glock G26, for example, is pretty damn small for a gun holding 10rds and surprisingly easy to shoot well.
I own Berettas, Colts, Rugers, Smith & Wessons, Charter Arms, Taurus, Rossi, and many others. If they are for SD, all I care about is how well they work.
I have owned about twelve Taurii. Only one gave me problems. I mailed it to them, and they fixed it for free and mailed it back to me. The others have been fine. They tend to have mediocre triggers. A few of them have had great triggers, though.
I owned a Taurus 709. It worked fine. Unfortunately, after I took it to the range a few times I realized that my fingers were way too long for it - it was just a poor fit for me. I traded it in on a Ruger LC9, which fits me better and has functioned perfectly.
I am more of a revolver guy. I keep a medium-framed 357 for HD. For carry I prefer my hammerless 38 snub, or my shrouded 44 special. In extremely light summer clothing I will carry a 380 (the Kel-Tec that is extremely similar to the LCP).
38, 357, 44, 45, 32 magnum, 10mm, 40... they are all fine. If you do your part, they will do theirs. The handgun that feels best in your hand and that you shoot the best is the right one for you. For me that is a revolver, but everyone is different.
I have owned about twelve Taurii. Only one gave me problems. I mailed it to them, and they fixed it for free and mailed it back to me. The others have been fine. They tend to have mediocre triggers. A few of them have had great triggers, though.
I owned a Taurus 709. It worked fine. Unfortunately, after I took it to the range a few times I realized that my fingers were way too long for it - it was just a poor fit for me. I traded it in on a Ruger LC9, which fits me better and has functioned perfectly.
I am more of a revolver guy. I keep a medium-framed 357 for HD. For carry I prefer my hammerless 38 snub, or my shrouded 44 special. In extremely light summer clothing I will carry a 380 (the Kel-Tec that is extremely similar to the LCP).
38, 357, 44, 45, 32 magnum, 10mm, 40... they are all fine. If you do your part, they will do theirs. The handgun that feels best in your hand and that you shoot the best is the right one for you. For me that is a revolver, but everyone is different.
cougar gt-e
New member
Guns are like all other products...,costs are tooling, labor and materials.
Actually, the cost of MARKETING can be about the same as the other costs you listed!
On the taurus... I have a 740. It's fired about 2000 rounds without failure. However, when new there was a tight clearance with the slide stop making it hard to manually lock back. It locked back correctly every time in use. It took just a couple passes with a file to fix. The cause was a poorly bent angle on the MIM stop.
Aside from that, it's been a good gun.
Last edited:
Taurus still has somewhat of a reputation for lower QC standards, but from my own personal experience, I haven't seen it.
I have; Having seen enough of them come across my bench for repair, I found the insides to be crudely and roughly machined, and replaced enough parts due to breakage from improper heat treating to realize that, in fact, their QC stinks.
In fairness, I will say that I thought their revolver's trigger return system was innovative and better than S&W's.
At the end of the day, the choice is yours: Take the gamble to save a few bucks or not.
Aside from tooling, materials, labor, another big factor is HYPE.
Personally, I don't think a Glock 19 is any BETTER than a S&W SD40VE. Mostly same materials. Mostly same manufacturing processes. $200 difference in price. You break them down and get out the mic's and calipers, you won't find much difference in tolerances I'll assure you.
A lot of that $200 difference you pay for the Glock goes to cover the $300 bulk purchase price they would give a big city police department.
With the Glock you get much more aftermarket support. Is Glock service better than S&W? Probably not. Probably no worse either.
I think you'd find the 709 to your liking. The one weak point is, if you need service, you're going to wait. Don't think you can just order the parts from Taurus, they have a stupid "restricted parts" policy requiring you to send your gun in for a lot of minor problems.
Taurus had some spotty history. I think over the past five years they've really improved their overall quality and were building some very good guns. The PT111 and PT140 are good examples. The 709 and 740 got lots of good reviews too. Then this recall thing arose.
All the Best,
D. White
Personally, I don't think a Glock 19 is any BETTER than a S&W SD40VE. Mostly same materials. Mostly same manufacturing processes. $200 difference in price. You break them down and get out the mic's and calipers, you won't find much difference in tolerances I'll assure you.
A lot of that $200 difference you pay for the Glock goes to cover the $300 bulk purchase price they would give a big city police department.
With the Glock you get much more aftermarket support. Is Glock service better than S&W? Probably not. Probably no worse either.
I think you'd find the 709 to your liking. The one weak point is, if you need service, you're going to wait. Don't think you can just order the parts from Taurus, they have a stupid "restricted parts" policy requiring you to send your gun in for a lot of minor problems.
Taurus had some spotty history. I think over the past five years they've really improved their overall quality and were building some very good guns. The PT111 and PT140 are good examples. The 709 and 740 got lots of good reviews too. Then this recall thing arose.
All the Best,
D. White