Price VS Quality

E

Eric Larsen

New member
Great threads on TFL Wheels section right now. Some involve "price vs quality" guns and questions. I just thought Id expand on this very briefly.

We have many price ranges of guns...lets say snubbies for instance. Price usually has a direct relation to quality....or so
it seems. Charter Arms, EAA Windicator and Rossi seem to
be in this lower price area moreso than others......Charter Arms
guns have a good rep but people understand its not a "World
Class" and quality gun. "Finish sucks and they shoot loose" comments are common, yet they still have a good following etc.
EAA Wind..seem to be fairly good overall. I played with one the other day and Ill add, it seemed to be very well made. Good reviews here...especially for the money.
Rossi...Ill jump in here
Ive had 2 and shot the hell out of them...Great guns, great meaning easily as accurate and mechanically nice as my Ruger.
I wouldnt hesisitate to own or recommend a Rossi gun.

In a nutshell, price isnt really inherent to quality in regards to these gun...the EAA is the cheapest, Charter is next and then
Rossi......go figure.

Next we have the "everyone wants" class of guns...snubbies again. Ill say Ruger, Taurus and S&W guns are here...
This covering IMO, prices from 300 $ on up and is easily the
most sought after price range and the one of the most controvesy
regarding quality.
Taurus gets hit alot for quality...Ill tell ya, Ive owned them and Ill own more. Great guns regardless of the price...like you hear about CZ in a way. Pick up a 650 CIA and try the DAO trigger...youll be impressed. IMO, flames are heading my way:D...most who slam Taurus have probably never owned one, are mostly pre agreement S&W guys or just plain got a bad gun.
Ruger....who can really say anything bad about there revolvers?
In a way..they are like any other Ruger gun...they really do nothing wrong! The SP/GP guns are built like tanks and are very good guns, period. The are well made and very dependable..
they arent building the newest greatest lightest knarliest guns out there...they dont need to or want to. Ruger knows where it wants to be and is there.
S&W has a very diverse following...my first rev. was a Highway Patrolman...what else can I say! I have a snubbie and have shot more S&W wheels than I can remember or count.
I like these guns...most are good and quality guns. Fit and finish are usually first rate and the triggers on some are what sexual fantasies are made of ;) ! S&W quality is NOT what it used to be...that is a statement of my own from my own experience. I saw a NIB Sc 340 try and twist its cylinder right out of the gun a couple of months ago at a local range. The gun actually went down range out of frustration from its new owner....not good!
Wanna see what I mean...pick up a 66-2 and pull the trigger...
Oh Ya...smooth, light and perfect. Now pick up a 60LS and try it...
You will see what I mean. The Taurus CIA is closer to the 66-2 than the S&W J frames of current production.

Again, IMO the same holds true here. Taurus is the best priced in "these guns" and generally people are very happy with them.
Ruger is next on the finacial totem pole with very very little problems and here comes S&W with the more pricey guns...a
good gun but is it better than the others...for more money?

Regardless of what you favor or buy. You run the risk of getting a bad gun. After falling in love with and owning CZ guns, the compact I bought gave me the kinda head aches that you take Percodan and a Vodka chaser for! Do I hate them...nope! Will I buy another...its already on the way! Who did I ask about these guns before I bought another? It was a sorted talk between me and my trigger finger :D We both won.

Shoot well
 
I can kinda agree with you, and certainly will not flame you.

Your point on Taurus being decent is an understatement IMO, the last couple I have seen and shot are leaps and bounds better guns than current S&W guns. The Taurus designed auto is for the most part a POS though. PT145 anyone? I thought not. Rossi is not bad, but far from great. Charter? No thanks. Ruger builds tanks, but they shoot great.

I guess what I am getting at is price does = quality until you add S&W or Colt to the mix. I have not seen or shot a new production Coltr or S&W that I would pay for. Otherwise I think a few more bucks gets you a better gun.

Just my opinion, no flame incitement intended.
 
Greeting's All,

Eric, no flames coming from here my friend.:D In all honesty,
I did not give Tauri International a fair shake with that boat
anchor model 82, .38 Special that I wrote the review on. I
have examined a couple of Taurus 650's as of late; one was
emaculate with good lock work, fit and finish and so on. The
other looked more like a nickel finished weapon that was
starting to lose it's coat. Maybe Taurus uses a different
grade of stainless steel (?), I really can't say. One of the
650's had a smooth, crisp, clean double action. The other
one, I was not able to try. These three weapons are all
that I can base my opinion on; as I have NO experencie
with other model's.:( :eek:

As stated before, my wife has a Rossi stainless snub .38
Special; and I forget the model number. Comparing it to
the two Taurus 650's; the Rossi's matte stainless finish
is superb, and would rival that of S&W's. Lockwork and
fit and finish are excellent.:D Here again, I have not been
able to test other Rossi revolver's. But based on this very
limited testing, if I didn't have a pre-agreement S&W
model 60 Chief's Special .38; I would look at an older
Rossi, before looking at a new Taurus.:) The reason
I said "older" is because as I understand it, Taurus
and Rossi have merged.:eek:

Like a lot of folk's on this forum, when it comes to revolver's;
I'm a Smith & Wesson man. True fact, in some case's
the newer Smith's are not up to snuff; when compared to
older S&W revolver's. But, I have one example to offer to
those that make that statement. I will put the workmanship
of my 1999 manufactuered Smith & Wesson 629-5, "Classic"
.44 magnum; against any S&W revolver from the previous
period. I don't particulary care for the use of MIM part's
in my weapons; but as long as they work, hey its O.K.

Never really cared too much for Colt revolver's, as they
always seemed to operate backwards to me. Some say
that Colt revolver's don't require a double lock-up, cuz
the cylinder rotates into the frame; rather than away
from it, like Smith & Wesson's. I guess that is a very
debateable subject in its-self?

I concur with your findings regarding Ruger revolver's.
Built like a "Sherman tank" and utterly reliable. Price
on NIB Ruger's ain't half bad either. One of the most
beautifully crafted firearms I ever owned was a SS
Security-Six, complete from the factory with Pachmayr
grip's. With it's 4" barrel, and fully adjustable target
sight's; it was a shooter.:cool: And at the time, it was
available at a fraction of the cost of a S&W model 19.

Well Eric, that about wraps things up from this end.
Stay safe, shoot straight, and may all your bullet's
land in the X-ring.:D :cool: :)

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
Be VERY careful when you claim that S&W's quality isn't what it used to be...

You'll likely have charges of rampant bias leveled against you for your temerity...
 
Mike, I know...the nerve! Its just my opinion and Ill stand by it.
Ive shot smiths for over 25 years on and off. My dad had a PC large caliber that was the cream of the crop...Ive seen and shot newer ones that just arent as good as they used to be. I checked out a very clean 66-2 the other day at a local shop...oh my god! I forgot how good the triggers were......It needed some tightening up by a good smith or I would have bought it.
I played with enough new and old to stand by my statement.
Functionally, Ive had no bad experience with S&W guns directly...but mechanically they arent as smooth and fluent as they used to be. I still bought a new one......It doesnt mean I wouldnt trade it for a really clean 940/640/66 if given the chance.
Shoot well
 
Eric,

I think you're dead on, between the (eye) balls, accurate in your post. I own several CZ's, as well as "Tauri", Rugers and Smith's ... Well said Eric.

Gunner
 
"I played with enough new and old to stand by my statement."

Silly boy.

You should know that even examining literally thousands of Smith & Wesson revolvers (as I have) puts you in absolutely NO position to judge their QC decline over the years.

It's all bias, bias, I tells ye!
 
In a few cases, the extreme strength and excess weight of a Ruger will let it do things that other guns in it's class can't. The .357Mag SP101 is an example, you can shoot at least small amounts of the monster 158/180/2000grain range full house hunting loads in it in a pinch, recoil will be pretty wild but it allows you to use these for woods defense. (3" barrel preferred.)

You flat-out can't do that in a TI/SC snubgun, and you'd be nuts to shoot that stuff in a stainless S&W or Taurus J-class.
 
Quality happens - or doesn't. Some people know it when they see it, and some don't. It must just be what they call the luck of the draw.

As far as which years produced better products - who knows? S&W? They're not telling, are they?

Not too long ago a local dealer had their annual S&W Days sale weekend. As a part of the hoopla, they bring in a Performance Center gunsmith and invite their customers to have him look over a gun and do a little tuning by hand or parts replacement if necessary. I always go just to watch him work and usually try to spend 2 or 3 hours if I can. Great guy. I'm on a mission to get him to retire from S&W and set up shop in Virginia.

This time around, not having a problem S&W to take in, I took a 2-year-old 442 that I bought used, but like new, just to get an opinion on the trigger pull. It was and is so slick that I thought it had been worked on. His opinion was that it is stock, but was one of the best you can get with the luck of the draw and has broken in just right(gunsmith talk= "parts mating perfectly").

The next customer had a long-barreled, stainless, .44Mag. S&W blaster that was spitting lead worse than ever. He'd had it 6 or 7 years and it had been spraying shooters to the right and left.

No forcing cone. Zip, nada, none. Send it back.

I guess it helps to know how they're supposed to work.

John
 
OK...Ill admit I spoke from the hip on the quality comment. They still make nice guns or I wouldnt own one. IMO, its still pretty much the case...but you all have good points...K? MIKE?
Shoot well
 
I have a Rossi 972 and two of the Windicators,both in .357 mag.I would take the Windicators over a friends 686 anyday.As for the Charter Arms revolvers-well-:barf: i'll pass.
 
About that OLD S&W shooters crack/ We may be old, but that doesn't mean we can't still think young.:D :p

My experience has been that Ruger builds the Volvo of hadnguns, both Pistol and Revolver. You're never going to get all excited about them, and they just do what they're supposed to. Hell, Volvo still has an engineering teams testing to see if Round really is the best shape for a wheel.

But there is just something about the older Smiths. I simply believe that the very height of revolver technology is the Smith & Wesson N and K framed revolvers. They are just so close to perfection that I can't see anyway they could be improved.

And on the New Classics from the PC. I had a chance lately to shoot one of the new 1917's. It was as nice as my 1917's that were made in 1917. But it wasn't better.

That's why I believe that that the older S&W were so good. Grab any 1911 Colt, made in 1911, and assume that it has only ORIGINAL PARTS. Then grab a S&W revolver from the same period. Dollars to doughnuts, the revolver will be in better shape, more reliable and more accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top