Overpriced Milsurp?

['88Scrat]

Went to a local show today and couldn't help but notice that the price of milsurp firearms (especially American milsurp) seems ridiculous.

Is the demand for these really as high the dealers have their prices or they just marking up and hoping someone is stupid enough to pay?

This seems especially true of the M1 Garand and M1903. I saw MANY M1s that were field grade at best with a sticker of $1200 and the cheapest 1903 (which looked like it had been through a swampy rock quarry judging from its condition) had an asking price of $900.

Same can be said of the 91/30s I saw there as well, even ones that were in at best questionable condition had stickers on them for $175. I remember only a few years ago I bought my great condition 1934 Tula (hex receiver) for only $100.

What is happening?!

 

[Ricekila]

Anything at a show is over priced to begin with --

Remember when Mauser's were $90. --- except for the sudden popularly of one model 6.5 mm Carcano that routinely sells now for $900 to $1100. ( ? ) --- Carcanos sold for $20 --

Sooooooooooooooooo - it stands to reason $50. Mosins are now $150. + for fair ones ----- the prices will only go up --

 

[44 AMP]

What is happening?!

Its the law of supply and demand.

Supply of good condition milsurp rifles has been going down since they were released for sale. Springfields, Krags, Mausers, SMLEs, and the others, once plentiful, and cheap, now scarce and expensive.

Same thing is happening to the Soviet design guns, Slower, still at this point, but it will happen, eventually.

Basically, beginning with the 50th anniversary of WWII, interest in, and demand for good condition milsurps (US, especially) has surged, and the supply is essentially fixed.

And the bulk of that supply has already been sold and resides in the closets and safes of people all across the country. Individual rifles come up for sale, as the owners pass on, or just pass on their guns, but the supply of rifles for dealers is scraping the bottom of the barrel,

Whether or not it actually is, demand for something scarce makes it more valuable. The $300 Remington Rand 1911A1 of the 80s was the $29.95 pistol of the 50s, and an $800 pistol after Saving Private Ryan. I have no idea what they go for today, but its the same process. Cheap and everywhere when no one really wants them, scarce and expensive when in demand.

 

[Yung.gunr]

Yup, and the 7.62x54r ammo is way more expensive now and you can't find it in spam cans for the most part. Surplus can't last forever and there are more and more people getting into guns (contrary to what MSM wants you to think). But, I've hear it said there are WAREHOUSES of ammo and guns still in Russia that they can't get to us because of Obama's EO.

No such thing as cheap surplus anymore.

 

[mag1911]

That original condition late war Remington Rand normally runs $1500-2000 in 2017. You can double that plus for the early war versions.

 

[Wyosmith]

Yeah..........all things go up is seems and seldom go down.

But if they price their stuff at a level that doesn't sell they either don't really want to sell it, or they will drop the price in the future.
Like a house that's on the market for 10 years.
Guess what..................it's priced too high.

Simple High school level economics.

I can ask $10,000,000,000 for an RG "Saturday Nigh Special" all I want to.
It's doubtful I'll sell it however.

In an economy that is truly free, over priced simply means not for sale. Let them keep their guns if you don't think they are worth the price. If someone takes a gun to gun shows over and over and over and never sells it it's because they have not found the right customer or the price is too high. If you have something really special you need that special customer, but if it's a common rifle and it doesn't sell you are pricing it too high.

If however others do think they are worth it, especially of lots of folk think they are worth it, and they end up selling.............they are worth it!
Worth is determined by buyers, NOT sellers!

That's how economics work.

 

[lamarw]

Here is another example: http://www.gunbroker.com/item/645236452

 

[tsillik]

I can't believe them 1911's bring that kind of money on a gunbroker auction, or bring that money period ! terry

 

[Don Fischer]

Couple thing's to remember. Most gun shows are attended by seller's doing it for a living but don't have a store to care for. And a lot of uneducated people go to those show's because they thing they will get the best price on what ever they by. Just isn't so.

But some time's there are deals. Last gun show I found a Timney trigger for my 788, $110. But new price on the computer is over $150! Show before that I found Win rifle primmer's for $20 a brick. Should have bought every thing he had but only bought one and didn't need it. I've got close to 25,000 rifle primer's stored away right now!

 

[T. O'Heir]

Gun shows are like that. Guys who think their junkers are worth the prices they see on-line for good to excellent condition stuff. Worse up here where some guys think U.S. values apply.
However, the fact remains that no M1 Rifles have been made since the mid 50's. No 1903's since W.W. II. Supply and demand will drive prices for junkers up now that the good to excellent stuff has been bought up by those of us who are, um, older(paid $175Cdn for my M1 and my '03A4.). Stuff in even 'good' condition is worth way more than $1200.

 

[zipspyder]

M1 Garand or M1 30 Carbines have been overpriced for a while. Not even worth looking at with those prices. Gunbroker is an even bigger joke when adding up cc fees and shipping. The market will self adjust itself or not. I can live with the toys I have.

 

[44 AMP]

The other thing I forgot to mention, is the buying power of our money. It inflates the number of dollars asked, but not the actual value.

Also matters what you are paying with....

100 years ago, a $20 gold piece would get you a new Colt SAA revolver, and change back. Today that same $20 gold piece will still get a new Colt SAA, but a $20 Federal Reserve Note ($20 bill) won't even get you a full box of factory ammunition. Nor will $20 "worth" of gold, at todays prices.

Some of us geezers can still remember a time when the price of gold was $125/ounce. And stable. Because it was fixed by law. We also remember gasoline at $0.37 per gallon and $0.20 MacDonalds hamburgers.

That hasn't been the case since...Nixon, if I remember right.

 

[lefteye]

President Harry Truman was in his first year of office when I was born. Gas prices always ended with 9/10ths of cent - today that would be recognized as an inefficient pricing system for the pump, the cash register and the paper work. Hamburgers at Henry's Hamburgers were 15 cents and not much thicker than a nickel. The covered wagons woke me up at dawn. Well, maybe the wagons weren't covered and were being pulled by little boys on the driveways and sidewalks. Oh, and I inherited four Arisakas., two 38s and two 99s. Two were sporterized with Douglas barrels and "modern" sporter stocks. One of the 38s was all original except no bolt cover. It was in great condition. One of the 99s was original except the forend of the stock had been shortened. All Mums were partially ground.

 

[ballardw]

44AMP wrote

Some of us geezers can still remember a time when the price of gold was $125/ounce. And stable. Because it was fixed by law

$32 and we weren't allowed to buy/own it except as jewelry or dental work.

Maybe I'm just an older geezer or paid more attention when young...

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

100 years ago, a $20 gold piece would get you a new Colt SAA revolver, and change back.

According to the CPI inflation calculator that $20 in 1917 is $418.35 today.

No Colt SAA made today, but you can buy a new Pietta reproduction for less than that!

 

[the possum]

According to the CPI inflation calculator that $20 in 1917 is $418.35 today.

Then that calculator is clearly wrong. A 20 dollar gold coin from 100 years ago contains just shy of an ounce of gold. Gold is currently $1250 an ounce.

 

[carguychris]

^^^ The calculator is based on the value of the dollar, NOT the value of gold. The two have not been tied together since the U.S. abandoned the gold standard (a topic which I hope we can mutually agree NOT to discuss here, at the risk of irrecoverable and probably fatal thread veer. ).

 

[thallub]

Some of us geezers can still remember a time when the price of gold was $125/ounce.

President Roosevelt banned the private ownership of gold in 1933. Private ownership of gold became legal in 1975. For many years the US government valued gold at about $35 per ounce.

Bought my first gold for $44 per ounce in 1974 or 1975. BTW: The US president retains the authority to ban the ownership of gold.

 

[the possum]

^^^ The calculator is based on the value of the dollar, NOT the value of gold. The two have not been tied together since the U.S. abandoned the gold standard

I didn't say anything about the gold standard because I don't care. In practical terms, somebody buying anything for $20 a century ago was trading a 20 dollar gold piece for it. That ounce of gold is worth a lot more than $418 today. We don't really need to use a calculated index that factors in the price of a pound of nails or a dozen eggs when we're directly comparing the money itself.

Interesting side note-
Last weekend our community hosted a heritage festival, and one of the attractions was a harness shop that was closed up and left pretty much untouched for the better part of 100 years. They displayed a receipt from the late 1890's (if I'm remembering correctly) where the shop owner paid his journeyman worker $50 for his entire years' wages. I plugged that into another inflation calculator, and it came up with $1462.26 equivalence. Anyone think they can hire a craftsman, even at beginner wages, for less than $1500 per year today?

 

[carguychris]

In practical terms, somebody buying anything for $20 a century ago was trading a 20 dollar gold piece for it. That ounce of gold is worth a lot more than $418 today. We don't really need to use a calculated index that factors in the price of a pound of nails or a dozen eggs when we're directly comparing the money itself.

Perhaps. However, the post by Armed_Chicagoan to which you were responding discusses the CPI index—based on the nails and the eggs—and NOT the item's value in gold. Armed_Chicagoan is clearly discussing fiat dollars—or at least this seems clear to me.

Your assertion that the CPI is "clearly wrong," based on the value of gold, is facile given that the value of gold in fiat dollars is not fixed. They are fundamentally different ways of calculating value.