Opinions on firing a rare or expensive gun?

[44 AMP]

$1800 is neither rare nor expensive.

While its not rare, today, $1800 is still considered expensive by some of us. Especially those of us who don't make a lot of money.

The most expensive gun I ever bought was $1500, and it cost more than the car I was driving at the time. However, that was some time ago. (and that $1500 gun sells for nearly double what I paid, on today's market )

Ask yourself one question, IF that rare, expensive gun suffers damage from shooting it (or being handled) what do you actually lose??

And, remember to figure in that the value of a gun in dollars ONLY matters when buying or selling. If YOU are planning on selling it at some point, then damage will cost you potential value.

If you aren't, then what is the possible loss? Reduced (potential) value of your estate?? Is THAT a serious concern to you??

Do you think one of your heirs is going to say "gee I wish Dad hadn't shot that rare Luger, now its only worth $3000 instead of $4000!..."

And even if they did, what would that matter to you, then???

 

[RickB]

I have a 1st Generation Colt Frontier Six Shooter, inherited from dad, and though it was restored at the factory in the '50s, it still has a 120yo cylinder, so I shoot it very rarely, and then, only with blackpowder cartridges.
It might not be extremely valuable, but I would feel very bad if I blew it up. I have fifty rounds loaded for it, and suspect they were loaded fifteen years ago, so maybe I'll never shoot it again, or save it for my 75th birthday, or something.

 

[JWT]

Probably would do limited shooting with a rare gun but would fire an expensive one just like any firearm I own. The few relatively expensive guns I own dod not get treated any differently than my others.

 

[P5 Guy]

WHAT!

Why buy a firearm you'll never shoot?

 

[reddog81]

Did you buy it to shoot or buy it to collect? Has it been shot before? I could see being hesitant to shoot an unfired 120 year old Colt SAA, but a Luger that has been fired 1,000's of times and carried in a holster for years, it seems like shooting a couple of boxes through it probably isn't going to decrease the value much.

I have shot stuff I recently purchased that was NIB unfired from the 70's, but they weren't $1,800 guns to begin with. It all depends on your personal preference.

 

[BoogieMan]

Expensive definitely depends the buyer. Rare is more of a market issue. It also depends on the build of the gun in question. There are some that are more likely to have a failure and harder if not impossible to repair. I wouldnt hesitate to take a new $10k Kriegoff out for some clays. I likely wouldnt shoot a $5k Arrow Cross marked Luger.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...$1800 is not rare and expensive..." Is in my house. snicker.
However, $1800 is not unusually expensive for a firearm these days. M1A Loaded runs more than that. Plain old Standard starts at $1686. BNIB.

 

[FITASC]

Expensive definitely depends the buyer. Rare is more of a market issue. It also depends on the build of the gun in question. There are some that are more likely to have a failure and harder if not impossible to repair. I wouldnt hesitate to take a new $10k Kriegoff out for some clays. I likely wouldnt shoot a $5k Arrow Cross marked Luger.

Exactly, and it doesn't have to be super expensive, if rare, to not want to shoot it.

I shoot with folks who shoot some very expensive shotguns. One gent's K-80 has the Apollo moon landing engraved on it. Cost all in was around $110,000 for that gun, and he shoots the snot out of it every weekend.

 

[highpower3006]

I have several guns that I don't even think about shooting. My 1916 matching number Broomhandle comes to mind. If something happens to a numbered part, the value plummets severely.

I am not a subscriber to the school of thought that every gun I have needs to be shot.

 

[lamarw]

I checked my response based upon personal value to me in the form of provenance and lack of available replacement major components.

I have fired exactly five rounds through the firearm to determined its operational capabilities.

So my criteria is replacement vs. purchase price. So every situation stands on its on.

 

[spacecoast]

Depends on the situation and the firearm -

A $2500 Luger with several moving, numbered matching parts subject to recoil? Not likely.

A $2500 Colt SAA with few moving parts subject to recoil? No problem.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I personally wouldn't buy a gun that I didn't intend to shoot... unless I intended to sell it so I could buy something I *could* shoot.

I don't collect... anything... for looking at. I don't know why. I just have no interest in looking at things that otherwise have no purpose.

Somehow though, there seems a difference to me between a modern, highly custom $2,000 or $20,000 or $200,000 gun and one that has some sort of "no longer made" rarity that makes it valuable. Most guys buying a $100,000 modern firearm do indeed intend to shoot it and (ask the NFA guys) can shoot through several thousand $$ in ammo in a weekend. By that standard, an $1,800 *anything* isn't expensive. I know guys with cars that cost that much to have the brakes replaced. It doesn't stop them from driving... but it might stop me. It's all relative.

 

[Jim Watson]

I sold my 19th century guns to collectors, too easy to break $$.
I still have one unusual but not real valuable rifle I only shoot occasionally for fear of breaking something irreplaceable. But I do shoot it.

 

[Rich_357]

I would have some other questions/qualms.

If the gun had never been fired, I probably wouldn't be the first. But most guns of any age have been fired, especially military guns, so yes, baring problems, I would shoot it.

I fall in that camp as well. If it’s no longer available as new, uncommon and unfired, I am not going to be the first to fire it unless I have no other alternative.

If it’s common, shoot the snot out of it. If it has already been fired, go for it but be aware of things that could fail.

The best of both worlds is to buy two, one shooter and one safe queen. I have a few SKS rifles that won't shoot but I have one that I do...it works for me.

 

[blabablab]

To clarify from my end, If they are still manufacturing a firearm, then I fire it to no end, because I can simply buy another one and they will make more. I would feel bad if I broke a firing pin on a matching luger though, is my point....

Also, I am both a collector and a shooter. It is an internal struggle. Some of my guns I wont touch without gloves on, and others I will treat it like it owes me money....

In short, it looks like the poll agrees with my initial thoughts which is to shoot it, but limit it to a certain amount.

 

[Remington74]

The only gun I would not shoot would be something that parts are hard to come by or a good gunsmith for that model would be difficult to find. An example might be a pristine Colt Lightning.

Other than that, shoot it.

 

[Wyosmith]

I make guns that sell for in the $4500 to $6000 range. Not all of them, but many of them are in that range. I have a tendency to be more friendly to those that are buying my high end work because they are going to USE them!

Gun can be artful, but I am making GUNS, not sculptures and paintings. If the only reason to buy one was the beauty I would not put the time I do into tuning the locks and inletting the barrel perfectly. But I want my guns to shoot accurately and reliably as well as look good.

That is one of the many reasons they take so many hours to make.

My wife has one gun that is "too nice to shoot". It is a C96 Mauser "broomhandle" in such good condition it looks unfired. Now because it is old and rare and in such good shape, no bluing wear at all and no marks on it of any kind, we have decided not to fire it, but it is about 100 years old and totally original. If you can find a gun that is about 100 years old and looks unfired it's probably best to leave it unfired.

So I can see the wisdom in not shooting some guns It is for sale for the same reason. We are shooters, not collectors. So we'll let a dedicated collector have it, and we'll buy other guns that we can shoot.

So my answer is................... "it depends".

But in most cases guns of a value of $2000 and less are OK to shoot as long as they are cared for. I often hunt with rifles I make and some of them are in the $4000 range, but they are GUNS, and that what they are made to do.

I often hear people say a gun it too valuable to fire when they are driving a truck or car that costs $50,000. Shooting my $4000 to $6000 rifles for 15 years will not drop their value at all, if you take good care of them, and in every case I know of so far, guns I made 10-20 years ago are selling for 2X to 3X more than the customers paid for them.

So someone will worry about firing a $5,000 gun but not worry about driving a $50,000 car?
That doesn't make sense to me.

Especially when we all know that a $50,000 car will probably be worth LESS than one of my high end guns in 20 years.

 

[Don P]

My thought is buy them shoot them. If you can afford the purchase price then you can afford the price to pay someone to make the part that broke when shooting the firearm.

 

[GarandTd]

I wouldn't want a gun I couldn't fire. I appreciate old guns far more than new or modern ones. Part of the appreciation is in the quality and craftsmanship and the ability of said guns to continue to function almost indefinitely with proper care and maintenance. New and modern guns may do the same, but I'll not be alive long enough to see that.

Also, value is really up to the individual. Several of my rifles are really not that valuable in the current market, or, rare for that matter, but to me are irreplaceable.

 

[lewwallace]

Some of the ones I shoot are 120+ yrs old. All Webleys! Some are rare, some are expensive and some are both! But I've done tons of research and would never think of firing till I have the proper reload data! And then its not like I'm going to the range and run 500 rounds thru 'em!