Would you rather have a few $1000 guns or a bunch of $200 guns?

what fun is shooting junk, even if you have a ton of them? I'll take a few well-made, pricy guns to a bunch of made-to-a-price tin pistols ...

A lot of fun if you buy the right "junk"!:p Not to yank your chain too hard but I have some cheap guns that are just as much fun as my $2000+ rifles. As a wise man once said "It's all good".


I'd rather have more than $2500 worth of guns, but if I had to I'd probably have one nice rifle and two decent carry pieces. If there was enough left over I'd try to put together a fairly accurate rifle in .22LR. The real hassle, as mentioned earlier, would be finding decent optics. Probably have to go iron sights on the 22.
 
Judging from my collection the answer in my case is obviously "a bunch of $200 guns". Though that may change, now that I've realized that five $200 guns take up five times as much space as one $1000 gun. ;)
 
I prefer a modest number of $500 - $700 guns. Here the quality is very good and yet the price is still reasonable.

This has always been my approach. In today's money $200 doesn't buy you much. I've quite a few guns that I paid $200 or less for years ago that are worth several times that today however.

Though that may change, now that I've realized that five $200 guns take up five times as much space as one $1000 gun.

And often means having to buy ammo and reloading supplies for 5 different guns as well.

As I get older this approach has more appeal. Over the last 6-7 years I've been selling off lots of guns I've had for years and rarely used. In many cases I've simply kept a few I really use, or in other cases I've sold several to finance the purchase of 1 much better gun. Sold 5 guns 3 years ago and neted almost $2,500. Paid $1,100 for a Kimber and put the rest in the bank.
 
I believe you get what you pay for in most cases...so I do equate most gun prices with quality, and so far my system of thinking so works for me.

I'll go with quality over quantity. Give me one quality full sized 1911 for HD, and at least one smaller, lighter 9mm for CC....and I'd be ok.

I don't have a single NIB $200 gun, though my Ruger LCP came closest, followed by the NAA Pug.
 
My wants are not dependant on price. What I want are generally well made firearms or what I consider to be a well made firearm. So, I would have to say in reality, it would depend on the situation or need to be filled, available funds, and my sense of quality. In general, I would rather buy fewer quality guns than more cheaply made guns. I would rather save up for something I really want than accept something less than what I want.
 
Maybe at the $200 level it has merit, although a quality $200 used gun that may just need a little TLC would not necessarily be any less effective

You are arguing apples and oranges.... dead with a five dollar gun is dead.... My contention is that a better made and/or more refined gun may have less negatives that effect the accuracy of the shooter in a life or death engagement. If bottom of the barrel dollar equipment was the equal of top of the line then there would probably be few custom products.

Certainly at least in standard target shooting the bottom does not seem to be in any way the equal of the top.... But many would argue that a Glock or whatever plastic fantastic or other low end gun is the equal of a Les Baer or other product that definitively is more refined out of the box.

Thats fine argue it all you want, it wont change the facts. Im not arguing that even plastic fantastic cant be modified to shoot better but again that changes the investment into the gun.
 
I would rather have a gun that fills my need, whatever the price, and if I cannot yet afford it I do not buy it. I would rather have 2 $200 guns that worked than 2 $1000 guns that filled the exact same role.
For example, I recently purchased a Mossberg 500 for HD. It cost $250. Would I be any better served by purchasing a more expensive shotgun? Would a winchester throw buckshot into and intruder any better? How about a Bennelli? I certainly do not think so. :confused: If you want to spend more on a pretty gun, great, have fun with it, but do not act as though a cheaper gun can't get the same job done.
That said, I would prefer a smaller numbers of guns which meet my needs/wants. I am not and never will "hoard" lots of guns. Right now, I have one custom rebuilt Mauser rifle for hunting and one shotgun for HD. Next I want a compact pistol for carry.
I guess I would sum it up by saying that what I want the most is the cheapest reasonable option and the best deal. The whole reason I have yet to purchase that carry pistol is that I don't feel I can afford one that's good enough. What I really want is an HK because I like the way the UPS45C fits my hand and the way it feels to shoot it. My instinct is to avoid the "low-end" brands like Hi-point/Taurus as poor quality and therefore a waste of money, and to avoid the "high-end" brands that I wouldn't feel able to use and enjoy, I don't want to have to "shoot on eggshells" if you get my drift. Another knock against the high end brands to me is that they accomplish essentially the same task, but they cost you more. Will a Sako be more accurate than my 70 year old rebuild Mauser? Yes. Do I care? No, my target for that gun is Deer, the qualitative difference is not worth the extra price. Therefore, buying something more expensive than necessary is also wasting money.
What it comes down to is that it is about what you need/want the gun to do not what it costs. Find the best deal for what you need.
 
@BGutzman:

I would argue that what matters far more than the difference between a Glock 17 and a custom 1911 is the shooter.
Put that custom pistol in the hands of a poor/inexperienced shooter and he won't hit the BG anyway.
Put that glock in the hands of a master shooter and he will hit the BG anyway.

My point is that the qualitative difference is not enough to justify the price. I shot about 100 rounds through an expensive custom 1911 once, it was an over $2000 gun. Then shot 100 rounds through a Glock 19, and you know what? They both put about the same group on the target. I made more difference than the gun.

That said, I think their might be a worthy qualitative difference if one started digging up brands like Hi-point and Taurus/Rossi.
 
My point is that the qualitative difference is not enough to justify the price. I shot about 100 rounds through an expensive custom 1911 once, it was an over $2000 gun. Then shot 100 rounds through a Glock 19, and you know what? They both put about the same group on the target. I made more difference than the gun.

Well said 8MM.

BGutzman, while my "plastic fantastic" certainly does not have the refinement of any high end weapon, without any modification it perfectly serves the role for which it was purchased. It shoots everything I feed it, and I can put my shots well within 'moment of bad guy' at reasonable self defense distances and beyond. As 8MM said, the qualitative difference between mine and yours is not enough to justify spending the additional money to me.

I understand that most high end weapons are capable of accuracy that the guns I own are not. I understand that many are willing and able to pay the higher price for this. I am not. There are some who have the cheapest weapons available and would insist that they are as good as any. There are others who would insist if you do not have the best available you are putting yourself and loved ones at risk. I think most of us are somewhere in the middle; we have done the analysis of cost versus performance and chosen accordingly.
 
I prefer a modest number of $500 - $700 guns. Here the quality is very good and yet the price is still reasonable.

Me too, assuming the cost of accessories isn’t built into that and with one, a shotgun, exceeding that range and a few others, mostly 22’s, coming in under it.
 
only if the your getting a deal on the gun that is normally priced at 800 and you are getting it for 200. but other than that the last three I bought were at 400, 600, 1300. (This is not vindictive of a pattern to come) :D
 
I agree with the question of which guns bought when. I think I paid $180 for a SMLE III and two No. 4 Mk. 2 Enfields. At an average cost of $60 each they are well worth what I paid, even back then(20+ years ago). They were the ones that got me interested in the older military rifles. Since then I have added maybe five or six more to that collection including a M1 Garand that cost $300 when I bought it. I believe that was the most I paid for any of my older military rifles. All of them shoot just fine, probably better than my eyes allow for any more...

If you shoot much at all then the cost of ammo is a lot bigger factor in total cost than the firearm. Still, given the supposition that I didn't have anything and were given a budget of $2500 I would go for a decent workhorse shotgun like a Remington 870 or Mossberg 500, a good handgun, and the best rifle I could get for whatever I had left.
 
My point is that the qualitative difference is not enough to justify the price. I shot about 100 rounds through an expensive custom 1911 once, it was an over $2000 gun. Then shot 100 rounds through a Glock 19, and you know what? They both put about the same group on the target. I made more difference than the gun.

I agree with your statement to a point but Id rather stack the deck in my favor and have every possible advantage or at least no disadvantages. The accuracy of the shot is always king but if any of those lesser price pistols components compromises your shot or lowers your accuracy for any reason its still a risk.

I consider a higher dollar pistol with more refinement a way of lessing the variables that may affect the shot negatively...
 
I pose the question as I don't have space for lots of guns. I can buy a few really nice guns though. Ones I plan to have for 50 years.

I've been searching for a minimum number of guns to fulfill maximum number of roles.
 
Why choose? I have a few that cost quite a bit more than $1k as well as a bunch of cheap ones, and have no plans to get rid of any of them

+1

I generally buy what I like, be it $300 or $3000. Over the years you can end up with a large collection. When I was 30 I had 6-7 fire arms and never though I would own that many more, boy was I wrong. I averaged 4 guns a year for the next 30.
 
Quality, for sure

Think of the pre-64 Model 70 Winchester...they haven't gone down in price/value to users, dealers and collectors since 1964, and even in this tough economy have increased in price.

Yes, folks can shoot their Mosins and other milsurp guns well, but have a hard time selling them for what they paid for them, and will have to wait decades (centuries? Large supply, little demand) before they can make the kind of return on investment a good 70 gives year after year.
 
Depends?

Is the $2000 gun 10 times better than the $200 gun?
At what point is there a diminishing return for cost over quality?
Not to start an argument over brands but one can buy a very high quality, read accurate and reliable, firearm for a few hundred dollars. Plastic and metal injection molding have proven to be efficient manufacturing technics. And cost effective, too.
Shotguns, does the finely engraved game scene add to the quality of the lockwork? Rifles, most are based on an action designed in 1898. Will a K98k for $200 beat a pre '64 model 70? Handguns, maybe the most likely place to see cost and quality being equal is in revolvers. Pistols not so much.

To answer the OP, I'd rather spend just enough to insure having an accurate and reliable, and the rest on ammo.
 
Is the $2000 gun 10 times better than the $200 gun?
Depends on the Gun. Where it was bought also. Buy a $200 gun from someone hard up for cash or $2000 new gun from Gander may be the same thing. Apples to apples.
So the way I Buy guns new."yes it is 10 times better!
 
???

I see a rifle as a fine tuned instrament that MUST be extreamly accurate. So yes, a rifle ends up consting me a bit of money, especially if I get what I want instead of what I see as good enough.

As far as pistols and shotguns go, A pistol is rarely fiered past 25 yards (unless you do competition that is). And shotguns are rarely fired past 100. To spend several thousand dollard on a weapon that is so fine tuned that it could take out a fly out past 200 yards is unnessicary for a shotgun and pistol.

As far as reliability, a pumpgun such as a mossinberg 500 or remington 870 which could cost as little as $300 are plenty reliable. As far as pistols go, I find that design is more importand than anything. Even a relatively inexpensive 1911 will be very reliable and accurate within a reasonable distance.
 
Back
Top