The cost to produce something has nothing to do with it's value.
I believe that actual value is a situational judgement call.
When you pay for internet, cable, cell phone service, or computer software you're paying for air. You get nothing tangible and it costs nothing to manufacture.
I don't consider this to be accurate, because you are paying for a service, and it definitely costs something to manufacture in order to be able to provide the service. What good is your cellphone without the network, towers, and switching hardware? Those cost money to create and maintain. That's what the cost of the service pays for (plus all other corporate expenses and their profit).
My point about polymer frame guns is that, once your R&D costs are recouped, actual production costs are significant less than conventional metal and therefore, they could be priced lower than they are, and still keep the same profit margin found in metal guns, but they aren't. They are (or were) priced slightly lower than metal frame guns, but their profit per unit is higher, or so it seems, to me.
What's the big difference between revolver and semis? How about 6 (or 5) chambers instead of one? All of which must line up with the barrel within acceptable tolerances. The mechanism for doing that is more complex than the mechanism that feeds ammo into the single chamber of the semi auto.
That's a big point right there, especially today, when demand for revolvers essentially only comes from the private sector,. Note that cost for high end DA .22 revolvers is higher than the comparable models in centerfire calibers. The main reason is less demand.
Why is the 9mm Luger round the cheapest centerfire you'll usually find? Because they make so much of it. Volume means they can make lower profit on each individual piece but still make money, overall.
Uncle Ed,
the prices I listed came from the Gun Digest 28th Anniversary 1974 Deluxe Edition.
(and yes, I bought it new..
)