Quantity VS Quality??

[prime8]

My buddy loves cheap guns.. Doesnt matter what it is, if he can buy it for 100-300$ hes all over it. His reasoning is that his old lady wont pitch a b@tch.. I say buy a few quality guns and you may spend less!! Quality is subject to personal scrutiny, but if all you own is military surplus, then you have NO quality...Just my oppinion!

[techbrute]

As you said, a person's idea of quality will differ. What's not quality about an SKS?

[fisherman66]

I was with you all the way until you said milsup. Nothing unreliable or of lesser quality in a milsup. In fact I think they offer the most quality for the dollar.

[Marlboro Man]

but if all you own is military surplus, then you have NO quality

pretty bold statement. :eek:

[Leif]

My preferance ... as much quality as I can reasonably afford.

That having been said, to each their own. If you like to collect Jennings, then collect Jennings.

As I imagine most people will, I do have to disagree with the comment about milsurps lacking quality. Certainly, milsurp rifles that are completely shot-out and in such a state of disrepair as to be unsafe lack 'quality' when compared with a current factory production rifle that works safely. But beyond that, many former military rifles often have proven themselves to be very durable and of high quality. Modern does not automatically translate into quality.

Hey, Davenport, I know that town!

[squrm]

Then he can trade up once he's got more than he wants...but otherwise let him have his cheap guns...he's happy, she's happy...besides, once she get acustomed to him coming home with guns all the time, maybe he can get her used to bringin home better guns.

[Servo77]

Most of what we as consumers assume is "quality" is subjective. How do you define quality? Accuracy? Longevity? Function? Reliability? Refinement? Most of what you get in the high $$$ guns is often simply refinement. Prettier, smoother, etc. But not always performance and not always longevity.

I have seen plenty of old and new mossbergs beat to snot yet they still function and shoot as well as more expensive guns. In the local gun store, Savage is most often the name spoken when someone wants to know some advice for an out of the box accurate rifle (w/o regard to costs most of the time). As for milsurps, consider the Swiss K-31....it is beautifully machined and exceptionally accurate.

I have a few of what I consider "high-dollar" weapons, but honestly, none of the more expensive stuff outperforms similar less expensive stuff. I still reach for the mossberg when taking a trip into the hunting fields (mainly because it works, and I am not worried about banging it around as I am with my browning and remington).

If you buddy likes cheap guns and they work for him, who cares? If that is how he desires to collect things, then good for him. If you want more $$$ guns, then good for you. Too each his own.

Besides, I think milsurps are one of the best values on the market when it comes to bang for the buck.

[prime8]

Im not saying military rifles are not quality, But surplus? They are fun to shoot, I own an M-44 (Nagant) Its in good cond., got it for 60$ Its only WORTH 60$ A spanky shiny new M1 would be nice.. Even used M1 sell for at least 400$ Made the same year, same surplus, but the M1 retained its value! I personally dont like aks.. I know, through a hand full of sand in it... blah blah.If it couldnt hit the broadside of a barn w/o the sand, how the heck does it matter? Please, I mean no disrespect to ANYONES oppinions. This just happens to be mine..

[squrm]

Hey prime, I'd heard all the lack of accuracy issues with the ak but after purchasing the cheapest wasr10 in town, i love the heck out of it. It's more accurate than people give it credit for...sure, you won't be shooting golfballs at 600 yards, you should be able to hit a person around there. Best $300 shtf insurance, ever.

[Limeyfellow]

Then how about something like the Springfield 03, Kar98 Mauser or Lee Enfield, where they were shooting with ironsights at 800 yards and taking down targets. People always seem to compare semi automatic assault rifles meant for much shorter ranges against high cost long range target and hunting rifles when we have surplus out there that refined and smooth, can shoot under an MOA and distances that most people require a scope for. Its after all hard to outshoot a K31 Swiss and can outdo rifles worth any times their worth in accuracy and refinement.

[Leif]

No offense taken. Certainly, there are some people who argue 'old is better' without regard to the fact that there are variations in quality within the category of 'old' (or 'milsurp'). Some designs are better than others; some rifles saw more use and abuse than others. All of these factors add into the mental equation that people use to arrive at the idea of 'quality' or the lack thereof.

Comparing a M44 Nagant to an M1 Garand is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. They are completely different rifles, made under completely different conditions. Their price in the milsurp market has much more to do with perceived desirability and other marketplace issues than with perceived issues of quality.

I will say, however, I used to own an SKS and really did not enjoy it. I found the stock to be far too short and the whole contraption to be very front heavy (this was the Yugo 59/66 version); it was not particularly accurate, either. Nevertheless, I wouldn't say it lacked in quality, at least in relation to its price. The rifle was built like a tank; everything functioned exactly as it was intended (OK, I never did get to try the grenade launcher part), repeatedly without failure.

[Leif]

prime8, you should try to define what you mean by 'quality' since it is such a subjective term.

[Zeroman_IR]

Things are a little different here in Ireland. Much stricter gun laws, combined with high prices overall tend to mean that I spend that little bit extra to buy guns. Add to that the fact that my local unfriendly firearms officer doesn't like the idea of private ownership of guns (at all), and when I buy a gun I think of what I can afford, double it and then save til I CAN afford it :D
Because I know that I won't be getting or changing a gun again for a long time.

[prime8]

HEY how you know Davenport? The movie Black Sheep? John Deere? Got lost here?? just kiddin its probably all that pride fighting stuff.. I realize its almost all opinion.. I just wanted to hear other peoples oppinions.. But your right quality doesnt have anything to do with price. I like alot of things (ie) M1, fn/hk, ar-30 (armalite)/not a 15, D eagle 44 mag, colt 45 sig 40 s&w 357, ed brown, knight, and Im sure there are many more out there.. Hell I know I havnt seen, or fired every gun ever made> I just have an oppinion on what ive experienced.Im not even the best shot in the world, but I am a fmr marine and I think that stands for somethin.

[Leif]

I spent the majority of my childhood in Davenport; had a number of relatives who worked for John Deere. Many fond memories. Been to Whitey's recently? I could use a Boston right about now. :D

I don't have the greatest range of experience, either, just going on the basis of what I have owned and what I have read, like most people. Out of curiousity, when you say you're friend is buying lower priced guns, what is he buying?

[Mikeyboy]

No quality in Military surplus??? What somehow a used bushmaster is better that a army surplus M-16??? A used copy of a M1 carbine in better than an Army issue??? I think you meant to say LOW PRICED Military surplus which is usually Soviet bloc stuff vs. the more expensive American Military designed weapons. Or is this a New vs used debate.

[prime8]

whiteys, happy joes, and rudys... man im gettin hungry..

[prime8]

yes thats about what im sayin I dont care for my ar- 15. I have no use for it.. its not as accurate as the m16, its too small, and I cant hunt with it... and you can only shoot at so many targets.. Im not a cop, meaning, Im not bumrushing into peoples houses in the middle of the nite so its kinda useless..looks cool, but thats not enough.And if someones using a rifle for home defense I suggest you let your neighbors they might wanna move.. (unless you live on a farm/ wide open spaces) or your first name is osama!!!

[Leif]

Ah yes, sauerkraut and Canadian bacon pizza, the epitome of quality. I miss Happy Joes dearly. ;)

I really can't comment too much on ARs, since I have no practical experience with them, but your argument doesn't seem to be about quality so much as about appropriateness of purpose. Just because the AR isn't suitable for this, that, or the other purpose doesn't detract from the potential quality of its manufacture. For example, a Ruger 10/22 is a rifle of decent quality and is appropriate for plinking and hunting. However, it is not appropriate for Olympic level competition (in its factory configuration) or self-defense, as there are more appropriate choices for those venues. However, that bears no relation to the quality of the 10/22 in and of itself.

[Houndog]

Quality vs. quantity? How about quality and quantity? I want high quality firearms - lots of them.:)

Seriously, I've always found that unlike many other things, with firearms you can often get high quality/performance for not a lot of money; and conversely, sometimes you can spend a lot of money without necessarily getting something that's singificantly higher in quality than a lower priced alternative.

For example, as others have pointed out, the Schmidt Rubin K31 is a high quality rifle. Extremely well designed and well made. Although stocks can be beat up, bores are usually excellent and most guns haven't been shot much. Capable of 1-2 MOA. Yet, these high quality rifles cost under $100.

On the opposite end, some guns can be very expensive, not because of their extraordinarily high quality, but because of their limited availability.

Finally, to the extent that additional money does buy you greater "quality", whether it's worth it depends on the individual. Many people buy a handgun for home protection. After they buy it, the gun sits unfired in their bedroom dresser for 20 years. Someone like that shouldn't spend a lot of money on a gun and doesn't need high quality.

On the other hand, someone who shoots competitatively and puts 15,000 rounds a year downrange needs a high quality gun that is accurate, reliable and will stand up to a great deal of use.

[P-990]

I think part of the problem is arguing that less-expensive means lower quality, which is not always truthful.

The K-31 is a great example. As are many of the Mauser 98 variants floating around. Granted some can be real junkers, but something like an unissued Yugo M48A can be a real jewel. Feed it good ammo instead of surplus machine gun stuff and they can shoot very well indeed. Almost tempting to spend the $$ on one, have it drilled and tapped and replace the stock with something a little more streamlined. 8mm Mauser can pack quite a wallop when properly loaded...

M-1 Garands and Carbines are funny creatures though. You can't get near a decent one around here for less than $700 at the gunshops, if they have one. A CMP rifle will run you less, but you have to wait for them and don't get to see the thing before you buy it. Some of the Rack Grades I saw out at Perry did not inspire me to trust the luck of the draw. I pretty much figure buy a Rack grade and plan on replacing the barrel if you are serious about shooting it.

Then there are things like NEF Handi-Rifles, used Marlin and Winchester lever guns. In these parts, if you pay more than $350 for a used Marlin, you didn't look hard enough. $300 cash in hand will get you a nice, barely used firearm.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you look around and know what you're looking for, less expensive doesn't mean lower quality.

[Marlboro Man]

I have a pretty large quantity of firearms that are of high quality and most of which were purchased for under $500-600. :) In my opinion, if you are purchasing firearms that exceed $1000 then you either are a collector or you have a need for a customized firearm to achieve extreme accuracy for competition. That's just my two cents though for what it's worth. :)

[TX_RGR]

Iv'e heard it said the an SKS, because of the way it was built, forged, milled parts and so on, would cost thousands of dollars if built the same way today. You may actually get more "quality" from milsurp then you would from say, a new Springfield. Don't let age, or price influence your decision.

[Toney]

I don't think you'll find a better wal-mart rifle at any cost that will be better than a $69 k31!!!

[Brother in Arms]

Perhaps you should buy a Swiss K-31 or a Swedish Mauser. You may reconsider your point on the debate of qaulity.

Brother in Arms

[dfaugh]

As long as the gun does what I expect it to do, I'll go for quantity.

Interestlingly, my most used guns are also my least expensive. And the most accurate gun I currently own is THE least expensive.

[TPAW]

One man's junk is another man's treasure! ;)

[Scribe]

I've owned four Mauser 98s, three in 7.62 NATO, one in 7.92. All shot where I pointed them, never yet had a stoppage with factory ammunition, and they load sweet and smooth from a stripper clip.
I recently handled an AIA No4 MkIV and boy was I impressed. But they go for £750 over here, whereas a good surplus No4 in .303 will set you back around £250, if you shop around around.
My question is this. The AIA may be better, but on a purely cash basis, is it 200% better?