testtest

Quality/Price Ratio for Pistols, Do Higher Priced Pistols Mean Better Quality?

G

gfan1984

Elite
Ok this seems to be an age old question, but do Higher End (aka Higher Priced) pistols mean better quality and reliability? The reason I ask is because I have researched and have asked many gun owners this question and I seem to get every answer under the sun. I get the definite "Yes they do!" to the "NO! Don't waste your money on fake quality" I have two pistols, SAR B6 9mm, and a Springfield 1911 Mil-Spec Defender. Both are considered mid-range as far as price goes. I have not had any malfunctions or FTF or FTL on either gun after putting about 300 rounds of ammo through both pistols. I even buy the cheaper ammo (CCI Blazer Brass and/or Federal). So I ask the members of the board what your answers would be. Also I have heard the answer of, "What are your getting the pistol for? If it's just a range pistol, buy a cheap one, if it's for home defense buy a high end one." That answer to me makes no sense, because I use it for both home defense and I shoot the pistol at the range to practice, why would I buy a cheap pistol just for the range?

To also give another example, I grew up hearing how Taurus is the worst firearms makers and everything they make it is a dud. Now a days Taurus isn't even the cheapest firearm maker anymore and a descent amount of people think "some" of their pistols are a great quality for the price tag. I have also talked to some pistol owners who have said they have paid for a high end pistol and never use it or sell it. (Mainly because of multiple factors ergonomics, feeding issues, FTF, or the firearm is picky about the type of ammo).
 
You get what you pay for. At this point of my life I have no use for sub quality pistols. After a long career as miIitary and LEO, I choose, maintain, and train with my firearms as if my life depends upon them. As i have told my students, if you choose a defensive handgun based on the cheapest price, you have your priorities mixed up. I have seen enough failures with certain low end brands on my range to have a very low opinion of them. I want a gun that has been battle tested and that I can hit with. Building quality is not cheap. If you want just a cheap range toy, have fun with that but for myself I fail to see the point. From my point of view, why would I want to shoot overpriced ammo in a cheap range toy when I could be using that ammo to hone my skills with my defensive guns? Chances are as civilians we will never need to use our defensive handguns in lethal conflict. But if you do need it, you need it very badly and it needs to perform. This is where quality counts and cheap guns make no sense.
 
I'm with Hayes. I generally research my purchases pretty heavily and stick to ones with a proven track record.

Usually those aren't "Cheap". The exception being the Masada S. $450 out the door and I now have a much higher round count on that one than even the VP9SK and that little bastard just keeps getting better and better ( for me).
 
It depends.
Is a Glock less quality or reliable than say a Staccato or Wilson Combat?
Glock 17 is what, $500, $600 bucks. Staccatos or WCs are like $2500
Is the quality of the more expensive better?
Is anyone going to say they don't trust their lives to the Glock?

A Ruger LCP is roughly half the cost of a Glock 43. Is the 43 really that much better?
 
Almost decided I wasn’t going to explain my position on this ques (and it is indeed an age-old one).
But I will anyway.
One reason it never gets resolved is the definitions: what does “quality” and “high end” mean to each individual?? I’m still trying to find out what defines a “match grade barrel” , Lol.
Right now, being involved in elder care for my folks while just a few shorts yrs away from my own retirement , any expense north of $500 requires careful consideration for me. So in the gun world, the majority of hardware is “high end”. For me.

I’ll say this, Gfan: I own a couple Ed Browns and a WC.
But my two most reliable pistols are my S&W SD9s and my plain ol’ Rock Island 1911 in .45…
Both eat any kinda ammo, both have almost never failed me on the range after break in period (if even needed). Both are plenty accurate, for both my typical range distances (60’ or less) and home protection (max 30’ based on my home layout & most likely scenarios).
Just throw in’ this out for consideration..
 
My practice and recommendation is to buy from well established manufacturers with a reputation for quality. Price matters, but for a self defense gun a history of proven reliability is more important than price. I think you can trust Springfield Armory, even though some may call them medium priced. Like you, I think you should practice with your self defense gun. Unless you do an awful lot of shooting, wearing it out is not likely. That being said, cheaper guns may show wear more quickly.

If I feel it is necessary for me to be armed, the gun needs to work if I need it.
 
somorris said:
My practice and recommendation is to buy from well established manufacturers with a reputation for quality. Price matters, but for a self defense gun a history of proven reliability is more important than price. I think you can trust Springfield Armory, even though some may call them medium priced. Like you, I think you should practice with your self defense gun. Unless you do an awful lot of shooting, wearing it out is not likely. That being said, cheaper guns may show wear more quickly.

If I feel it is necessary for me to be armed, the gun needs to work if I need it.
Click to expand...
Amen, SoMo…
 
PAGunGuy said:
It depends.
Is a Glock less quality or reliable than say a Staccato or Wilson Combat?
Glock 17 is what, $500, $600 bucks. Staccatos or WCs are like $2500
Is the quality of the more expensive better?
Is anyone going to say they don't trust their lives to the Glock?

A Ruger LCP is roughly half the cost of a Glock 43. Is the 43 really that much better?
Click to expand...
Glocks are dead nuts reliable. But for me the ergonomics are terrible, and my God, they are ugly! 😉
 
HayesGreener said:
You get what you pay for. At this point of my life I have no use for sub quality pistols. After a long career as miIitary and LEO, I choose, maintain, and train with my firearms as if my life depends upon them. As i have told my students, if you choose a defensive handgun based on the cheapest price, you have your priorities mixed up. I have seen enough failures with certain low end brands on my range to have a very low opinion of them. I want a gun that has been battle tested and that I can hit with. Building quality is not cheap. If you want just a cheap range toy, have fun with that but for myself I fail to see the point. From my point of view, why would I want to shoot overpriced ammo in a cheap range toy when I could be using that ammo to hone my skills with my defensive guns? Chances are as civilians we will never need to use our defensive handguns in lethal conflict. But if you do need it, you need it very badly and it needs to perform. This is where quality counts and cheap guns make no sense.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, for me personally I will never buy a firearm that is cheaper than $350. However I will never buy a firearm that is $1,000 just because that model has a gold plated frame, when the standard model is about $250 cheaper. I guess I should have explained a bit more, I was just wondering if the extra bells and whistles of having fancy grips and Rose gold triggers was really necessary when the base model was tired and true and still reliable.
 
So I guess I should sell my Sigs and just buy a Hi-Point Yeet Cannon. Pretty sure I'd need to do meth for a year before considering that. Case in point the Taurus vs. the S&W revolver, yeah they do the same thing, but one has a trigger that is usable and the other belongs in a gym to work out your finger strength. Buy quality, cry once.
 
bangnburp said:
So I guess I should sell my Sigs and just buy a Hi-Point Yeet Cannon. Pretty sure I'd need to do meth for a year before considering that. Case in point the Taurus vs. the S&W revolver, yeah they do the same thing, but one has a trigger that is usable and the other belongs in a gym to work out your finger strength. Buy quality, cry once.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with that. I like I said in an early reply I should have been more specific, I just don't see the need to paying more for a Rose Gold Trigger on an already very reliable and established Pistol, when I could get the base model with the same quality for a lot cheaper.
 
gfan1984 said:
I agree with you, for me personally I will never buy a firearm that is cheaper than $350. However I will never buy a firearm that is $1,000 just because that model has a gold plated frame, when the standard model is about $250 cheaper. I guess I should have explained a bit more, I was just wondering if the extra bells and whistles of having fancy grips and Rose gold triggers was really necessary when the base model was tired and true and still reliable.
Click to expand...
I think SIG got it right with their Legion models. They upgraded important functional items like grips, triggers, and sights but didn't go all New Orleans whorehouse pimp with them. They cost a little more but the upgrades make sense. SA has done the same with their TRP 1911 models but I am undecided about the recent versions of them
 
gfan1984 said:
I agree with you, for me personally I will never buy a firearm that is cheaper than $350. However I will never buy a firearm that is $1,000 just because that model has a gold plated frame, when the standard model is about $250 cheaper. I guess I should have explained a bit more, I was just wondering if the extra bells and whistles of having fancy grips and Rose gold triggers was really necessary when the base model was tired and true and still reliable.
Click to expand...

I think putting a price limit ( lower or higher ) as a general rule is fine. It is true you get what you pay for. Or more accurately, high quality products generally cost more. There are obviously exceptions. Demand to some degree dictates price so something can be high quality and attractive to YOU, but it isn't generally popular so the price is lower. And the inverse is also true.

Also I have gotten really good deals on guns that were "Gently" used.

It is true though, I won't pay much attention to a handgun that sells new for $350. In truth the only reason I began researching the Masada S is because I am an IWI fan boi and their products have a good reputation. All the reviews on the Masada that I could find were positive, many comparing it favorably to the P365XL. I took the chance and I'm pretty happy I did. It is by far the gun I carry most and I paid a third of what I paid for the gun I was carrying at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top