As the price goes up, does the quality go up?

[Z400ACDC]

How much more accuracy and dependability are you getting when you pay more? Leave PRIDE of ownership out.

[Chris_B]

Lots. I'll sell you my Auto Ordnance for 2500 dollars. Trust me.

[UncleEd]

You might get more accuracy with a higher priced gun but reliability can be very iffy.

For instance, a Colt Government, around $850 to $900 brand new, will be highly reliable. Its accuracy, and I don't really know for sure, is probably 4 or 5 inches at 25 to 50 yards. A Wilson CQB, around $3,500, is doubtfully more reliable but its accuracy might be half or less at those distances.

Some Wilson parts may be stronger or more reliable but that's relative.

Question is, are you really interested in a 50-yard tack driver or a serviceable and reliable 1911 for less than a third the price?

The fans of the higher end 1911s such as the Wilson will vehemently attack my example but I doubt they can really prove it in a short term or long term way.

Are the Wilsons worth the money compared to the stock Colts? Certainly in terms of refinements and fitting and finishes they are because more hand fitting is involved. But what is that worth to you?

I asked this question on another forum: Would you rather have 4 Colts if you wanted them or just one Wilson?

[platform]

I was just discussing this on another board.

There is a notion of 'cheaper quality' as result of manufacturing process improvement.
A continuously improved manufacturing would result in 'cheaper quality'. This can manifest itself as 'improved' quality at the same 'infaltion adjust price' or 'significantly better quality' at a higher price

I believe a particular product design, can make it easier or harder to take advantage of 'cheaper quality'.

for example a glock or Sig 2022 designs take a much better advantage of cheaper quality, than say a 1911 for 10mm cartridge.

Because 1911 requires specialized 'tuning' to achieve quality. So it s quality is 'more expensive' then for other designs.

So you can get the 'same objective quality on average' at a significant discount if you are choosing a design that takes advantage of modern manufacturing and materials (because they do not require post-manufacturing tuning)

[TunnelRat]

Are we talking about 1911s in particular or pistols in general?

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Nothing really

Using the Ruger P95 or S&W SD series as a baseline---both are very reliable and accurate

Spending more will get you little over that and often times less.

They might be more refined or prettier but not much more reliable or accurate.

[TunnelRat]

They might be more refined or prettier but not much more reliable or accurate.

I beg to disagree.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

The answer, as with any product is yes, of course, generally...but with many small, and a few large, exceptions in either direction. Even the exceptions prove the general rule, because the price and quality are not inversely related; it's all still generally directly-related. For example, glocks are pretty junky in general build but reasonably decent guns. So are Hi-points. Hi-points should be priced about what they are. Glocks should be maaaybe $275 new, tops, for what you get. Ok, $300 tops brand new. Still, they're not at the very upper end of the spectrum in price like a Les Baer, so even though their quality is fairly low, and their price absurd, it's still *roughly* related to the quality - the price is much closer to the actual quality (only about $250 away), than it is to the price and quality of a Les Baer, which match ($3000 away). Most other products are more closely related between price and quality.

[SHE3PDOG]

Reliability is almost a non-issue with modern firearms (not always), but it is totally ridiculous to say that higher price ranges don't get you more. If all you are worried about is sending rounds down range with decent mechanical accuracy, then get whatever you want. With the higher price range, you generally get better triggers, tighter fits, increased accuracy at distance, and sometimes better durability.

There is a point of diminishing returns, but where that point is varies for everyone. Also, I wouldn't go as far as saying that guns that are only 50 or 100 bucks more are actually nicer, but a general price range can generally be set as a standard for quality.

There was a thread here not too long ago that asked if HK's are really worth the money. A lot of people, including me, think they are, but a lot of people think they are overpriced and no better than a Glock. People say the same thing about Sigs and higher end 1911's too.

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of cheaper guns, and I absolutely love my Glocks, but they aren't even in the same ball park as some more expensive guns. You do get what you pay for for the most part.

[jfrey]

I see it just like cars. A Chevy and a Cady will both get you where you want to go, but folks look at you in the Cady and wish they had one too. I can shoot my Glocks and hit what I'm shooting at very reliably. When I want to beat some hotshot at the range who thinks he can shoot, I pull out my Les Baer "Boss" with the two tone finish, mag well, and fiber optic sights. People want to hold it and shoot it just because of the looks. This gun will get the job done too, but no one wants to shoot my Glock because everyone has one and it ain't no big deal. Was the Baer worth the money? YES! You know how many Glocks I can buy for the price of a Baer? It's your money and it depends on what you want to spend it on. It does seem that the older I get the more my toys cost.

[David spargenator]

For reliability you wanna stick with sig, glock, ruger, and hk. They're all very close to one another as far as durability and reliability. Even tho the prices aren't even in the ball park with one another. When you pay more your just getting a nicer gun, that's gonna have a nicer trigger and nicer ergonomic feel to it. Kinda like mercedese vs honda. We all know honda will outlast any mercedese but the mercedese is just nicer

[TunnelRat]

When you pay more your just getting a nicer gun, that's gonna have a nicer trigger and nicer ergonomic feel to it. Kinda like mercedese vs honda. We all know honda will outlast any mercedese but the mercedese is just nicer

First off, I actually have seen a number of Mercedes with very high mileage. You see less because quite frankly less were sold compared to Honda. It can be done, it just costs money (though I see plenty of Hondas rust, German cars not as much). I also disagree that somehow more expensive guns won't last as long or only as long. I'd be willing to put money on an HK lasting longer than a Ruger. That's not a strike against Ruger, it's a result of the price. Now is a $3000 gun going to last 6 times longer than a $500 gun? No quite frankly I don't think so. It's a matter of degrees, but it is still there.

[MoGas1341]

I believe you have to put different firearms into 'groups' or 'families' if you will...

For example, a bolt action rifle, and lets use Ruger as an example. A Ruger American is not nearly as nice as a Ruger M77 with a laminate stock etc. They are made by the same company, but in a different 'trim level' so to say.

I would compare this to a Ford F-250 with a Powerstroke (work truck) or an F-250 with a King Ranch package... Same truck, one has a prettier wrapper!

I do believe however, that there is a point in price (and I haven't figured out where exactly it is, and if someone knows, please enlighten me) when you get into paying for decoration, name, etc, versus accuracy and dependability...

An example I would use on this topic is the Winchester Select Field 101 O/U I have. I payed $1000 for it 3 years ago NIB. If you handed me a $5000 Krieghoff (I wish) and told me to go shoot dove or skeet with it would I be able to tell you what the $4000 difference is? NO. I don't know how the Krieghoff's pattern, but I'm 100% happy/impressed with my 101. As far as reliability goes, well, it's kinda hard to make a hammerless O/U 'unreliable', or more reliable (than what I'm using) IMHO.

Krieghoff makes some fine guns no doubt, but I don't feel one would make me a better shotgunner.

To answer the OP's question, as price goes up, pay attention to the options getting added from the manufacturer's 'base model' such as free floated barrels, glass bedding, stock quality, jeweled bolts, bluing quality etc and then compare to what other manufacturers offer in the same price range. Some options are for accuracy, some for reliability (mainly in the pistol world) and some just to look pretty.

[LockedBreech]

For reliability you wanna stick with sig, glock, ruger, and hk.

That's too narrow and somewhat arbitrary. I enjoy all those brands, but off top of my head mainline guns from Beretta, Walther, FN, Smith & Wesson. and CZ have pedigrees of reliability just as strong or nearly so.

[Z400ACDC]

Guys, I am talking about pistols not automobiles. And lets get rid of PRIDE of ownership. I am talking about function of the gun, accuracy reliability. Do I get two times more accuracy and reliability out of an Sig 226 vs 2022?

[JimmyR]

There is, from as far as I can tell with my limited experience and a lot of forum reading, a positive correlation between price and quality (i.e. when price goes up, quality goes up). I would NOT be comfortable saying that the correlation is a perfect correlation (i.e. a gun that costs $1,000 is 10 times better than a gun that costs $100; a 1:1 correlation), just because, as has been said, most of your firearms from reputable brands (example price range $300-$800) are extremely reliable and of good quality.

What you are most likely to pay for when you pay more for a firearm is the same as when you buy anything else- the quality does increase (to an extent), but you are largely paying for a more individualized piece (more hand work and less machine work) and a name brand (Charmin vs. Wal-Mart toilet paper).

ETA: Lets also remember that we can't compare apples to oranges- comparing a 2022 to a 226 is fundamentally flawed, because one is a steel firearm and one is a polymer. Both materials have their strengths and weaknesses, but comparing the price just isn't reasonable.

[Z400ACDC]

It should not matter if the pistol is steel or polymer unless it effects quality. If a poly pistol is as accurate and reliable as steel, the target would not not know the difference.

[Hal]

Do I get two times more accuracy and reliability out of an Sig 226 vs 2022?

No.
Price and quality are not linear.

At some point you pay a lot more $$ for very minimal gain.

Nothing mysterious about this at all. Such is life and you find it true no matter what the product is - it's not limited to just guns.

[Walt Sherrill]

What you GENERALLY get with a higher price, is a higher level of fit and finish.

A crappy or poor design, nicely fit and finished, may be OK, but not as good as a better design without all of the pretty cosmetics.

A good design, nicely fit and finished, may be accurate, reliable, and pretty. And let the owner have some bragging points.

A good design with a lower level of finish and fit, may still be accurate and reliable, but not so pretty. No (or far fewer) bragging points.

There's no simple answer to that simple question.

The slow industry transition to polymer guns is making this an even more complicated question to answer.

[Kreyzhorse]

What you GENERALLY get with a higher price, is a higher level of fit and finish.

I agree with this, but would add that you also generally get better material and generally get a more reliable gun.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by unlicensed dremel

The answer, as with any product is yes, of course, generally...but with many small, and a few large, exceptions in either direction. Even the exceptions prove the general rule, because the price and quality are not inversely related; it's all still generally directly-related. For example, glocks are pretty junky in general build but reasonably decent guns. So are Hi-points. Hi-points should be priced about what they are. Glocks should be maaaybe $275 new, tops, for what you get. Ok, $300 tops brand new. Still, they're not at the very upper end of the spectrum in price like a Les Baer, so even though their quality is fairly low, and their price absurd, it's still *roughly* related to the quality - the price is much closer to the actual quality (only about $250 away), than it is to the price and quality of a Les Baer, which match ($3000 away). Most other products are more closely related between price and quality.

LMAO!! This post should be part of the "Mall Ninja" memorial!

[geetarman]

Price and quality are not linear.

At some point you pay a lot more $$ for very minimal gain.

Perfect examples are guitars. You CAN make music on cheaper instruments. It is easier and more consistent to play quality instruments.

There is no way to compare a Dean to a McPherson. You can play the same notes and they may sound very similar to an untrained ear, but that is where it stops. To get a little better sound and intonation, you will pay a LOT more money. You can get a Dean for a couple of hundred bucks. A Brazilian Rosewood McPherson will run you almost 15 thousand bucks. Are they worth it?

It really depends on what you want. I don't have the "hots" for a Wilson or a Baer and I also love my Glocks. I do have some Springfields and Dan Wessons that are VERY nice guns. I don't regret what I paid for them.

I am really getting into .22 lr rifles. Started with a Marlin 39A, then bought an older Winchester 9422, then bought a CZ 452, then a Ruger 77-22. Had them all worked on to get them to shoot pretty good.

Now, I am working on an Anschutz MPR 64 and am beginning to understand WHY people spend the money on them. I am beginning to understand why people spend so much on Lapua ammo. I shoot a lot of different brands but it comes back to Lapua Standard and Lapua Center X being the gold standard for me and this rifle.

What you spend on guns and ammo really depends on what you want to accomplish with them.

[pilpens]

As price goes up, quality goes up -- Mostly true and only to a point.
There is always the Law of Deminishing Returns.
Also, one must take into account for the purpose of the firearm and the cost that goes with it; to say that the extra cost of a bullseye spec 1911 compared to a GI spec 1911 is a waste because both are 1911s and will function and operate the same is not valid.

[lee n. field]

As the price goes up, does the quality go up?

It can, but does not have to.

Turn it around. From a given price point, as price goes down, eventually something must suffer.

[DavidAGO]

How much more accuracy and dependability are you getting when you pay more?

I think you have to also consider context in the equation. If you are an occasional shooter, just love to go to the range and shoot minute-of-tin-can and are not counting on perfection, then the answer may very well be no.

If you are looking for a duty weapon that your life may depend on and you will be practicing with it regularly for consistency with how you handle the firearm in a point and shoot capacity, then possibly.

If you are looking at it from a competition standpoint and you are wringing every bit of performance out of a firearm to really gain on MOA accuracy, then yes.

You have to look at the context. In any given market, price is usually divorced from quality to some extent. Just look at "assault weapons" just a few months ago, the price had nothing to do with quality or accuracy or dependability but on perception that they could not be bought any more, so price changed drastically.

David