A Good Gun For The Money? - Page 3

T. O'Heir · August 19, 2019, 01:49 PM

"...outrageous hammer and trigger weight..." A target pistol they ain't, but any new firearm requires a trigger job. You won't get 'target pistol' anything for $249 MSRP.
Cerakote is a bit more than paint. However, what you're planning on doing with the thing, a single action .22, is more important than it's MSRP.
And there are a lot of junkers that cost more. The MSRP does not equate to quality from any manufacturer though.
The Ruger Wrangler is a very poor man's SAA in .22 LR. It's really a big kid's toy.

SIGSHR · August 19, 2019, 02:36 PM

Yes, define "good". One of my favorites is a 1950s vintage H&R 800 Lynx 22 semiautomatic. ACCURATE ! Paid about $100 for it.

gbclarkson · August 19, 2019, 07:59 PM

A taurus is a good gun for the money, if it works.

RsqVet · August 20, 2019, 01:41 AM

Good gun for the money is a BS term writers and reviewers used to justify that is likely not a great product to begin with. It means for a low price it's not comleate crap. Maybe...

Kind of like "combat accurate" or accurate enough for defensive use or some such BS that translates to the gun put most of the rounds on an IDPA target at 7 yards...

I don't understand cheap guns. I also don't understand prestige guns.. BUT I would rather have a quality item or 2 than a safe full of junk.

GarandTd · August 20, 2019, 11:01 AM

I disagree that there is no such thing as "a good gun for the money" or that it is a BS term. I will admit that it can be a risk and what defines it can vary dramatically from one person to the next.

For those that think it is BS, have none of your guns been good for the money?

jackstrawIII · August 20, 2019, 01:30 PM

Quote:

I would rather have a quality item or 2 than a safe full of junk.

Most on-point quote on the forums today.

Hawg · August 20, 2019, 04:48 PM

Quote:

You know how old gun stores have s&w 5 screws under the counter with a $1000 price tag, then at the end of the counter is a 5gal bucket of rusting revolvers.

I wish I could find place with one of those buckets.

Cheapshooter · August 20, 2019, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Good gun for the money is a BS term

Couldn't be further from the truth. But then saying "A good gun for the money" is a rude awakening to the truth for gun snobs, and elitests that think if you can afford a thousand dollar gun you shouldn't have any.
My safe if shared by guns I bought at great, cheap prices, and guns I paid much more for. I guess some would call my E. German Makarov that cost me $169 "not a great product". No room, or do I wish to list every "good gun for the money" I have. But I don't consider any of them to be something I didn't get more than the price I paid. Even guns like my Hi-Points, and Rough Riders are good shooters, accurate, and reliable. In fact of the multiple 9MM pistols I have, some from "accepted" makers like Beretta, Glock, Sig, and Walther, my Hi-Point C9 is the most accurate. That in itself places the Hi-Point in the good gun for the money category.

**Aguila Blanca** · August 20, 2019, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RsqVet

Good gun for the money is a BS term writers and reviewers used to justify that is likely not a great product to begin with.

I disagree. It's not a BS term, and nobody who uses it claims that "a good gun for the money" is a "great" gun. Both terms are highly subjective anyway, but "good gun for the money" has -- as far as I know -- never been used to claim greatness.

Example: Some years ago I purchased a Yugoslavian Mauser M24/47, in 8mm Mauser. I paid $150 for it, excluding shipping and transfer fee. For chuckles, I put a short Picatinny rail on in place of the original ladder sight, and I mounted a $50 4x pistol scope on it as a "scout" scope.

I took it with me on a visit to a friend in another state, who belongs to a shooting club with a 200-yard outdoor range. For ammo I had a case of Ecuadorian mil-surp ammo. We went to the range, got the Mauser zeroed at 200 yards, and we both shot it quite a bit. Most of our groups were around 4 inches (2 MOA). Not good enough to win any prizes at Camp Perry, but not too shabby for an old mil-surp rifle with a cheap scope, shooting mil-surp ammo.

The only other person at the range that day was a gentleman with some kind of big bucks rifle that must have cost him several thousand dollars, with a suitably big bucks scope on it that also must have cost a thousand dollars or more. We were shooting the Mauser with the left elbow resting on the bench as a rest. Mr. Bigbucks was using a full-blown lead sled. His groups were (charitably) about a foot.

During a break when we went forward to check targets, he saw my target and asked what I was shooting. When I told him, he went back to the bench, packed up, and went home.

This is a true story. The question: which of the two rifles would you consider to be "a good gun for the money"?

jar · August 20, 2019, 09:07 PM

I've long been a fan of smaller caliber handguns, 32 and 38 in revolvers and 32acp and 380 in semi-automatics. One of the first semi-automatics I bought was in the early 70s, a Beretta model 70 in 32acp. It was a great gun, followed by a slightly smaller 1935. In the late 70s I bought a Beretta model 81 also in 32acp and it may have been my first DA/SA experience.

IIRC the Model 70 cost me just under $100.00 which was about $25.00 less than full retail. I don't remember what the 1935 cost but it was used and so likely not very much. The Model 80 was quite expensive though, about $150.00 I think. Now those were really expensive guns at the time, each was about a weeks wage.

Recently a friend has been begging for my Model 80 and when I saw the surplus 80s for sale at just slight more than what I paid for mine about four decades ago I gave in, gave him my old one and bought a new to me surplus. Well the new to me surplus looks better than mine did and shoots as well and I'm happy and he's happy.

I just replaced my Model 70 but that one cost me considerably more than what I paid back in 1974.

So we have a pool of five guns total, two Model 70s, two Model 81s and a 1935. All still work (actually the Model 70 from 1974 may or may not still be working; it went to a Forever Home).

The 1935 certainly has been and remains a "Good gun for the money". I carry it as my primary handgun quite often.

The first Model 70 was great and I sold it for almost what I paid for it so it too was a "Good gun for the money".

The second Model 70 was about the same as what many mid-range modern semis sell for but just has the style and flair that I like. It's one I carry far more often than guns that cost considerably more and I enjoy it, so again I'd say it is a "Good gun for the money".

The same case can be made for the two Model 81s. "Good guns for the money"

BUT a modern Cheetah at $600-$700 or so would not be a "Good gun for the money" right now for me.

That doesn't mean it would not be a "Good gun for the money" for someone else.

**JohnKSa** · August 21, 2019, 12:09 AM

In descending order of quality:

1. Amazing gun.
2. Great gun.
3. Good gun.
4. Good gun for the money.
5. Acceptable gun.
6. Not a bad gun.
7. Not a bad gun for the money.
8. Too expensive for what it is.
9. A bad gun.
10. I wonder if I can get the full $25 price at the next gun "buy back" event.

GarandTd · August 21, 2019, 09:25 AM

#8 makes me laugh because some good quality guns probably fall into that category.

pete2 · August 21, 2019, 09:55 AM

Good gun for the money is same-same as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If I buy it I have deemed it worth what I pay for it. Recently, a S&W 617 and a Ruger Wrangler. Both are good guns for the money. The 617 cost 3-1/2 times what the Wrangler cost and it's worth it but I still like the Wrangler too.

Don Fischer · August 21, 2019, 10:51 AM

A good whatever for the money has always hit me as an ugly slam at whatever the product is. Good for the money suggest's for more money you can do a lot better. I think that depends on what you expect of the product. Is this a gun your gonna throw behind the seat in your pickup? maybe it's just a gun to go out and plug some animal with once a year? So how much gun does either of those require? In fact to get either one, why would you pay a premium price? Imagine some duck hunter that love's hunting in the rain and slogging through the mud to get there buying a $100k Purdy to shoot his ducks with! In his case I would suspect a $250 Mossberg 500 would be a better choice but then again I don't have $100k to spend on a shotgun. Near as I can tell both the Mossberg and the Purdy do pretty much the same thing, they fire a shotgun shell! How about the deer hunter. Is it worth the money to spend $2500 on a custom hunting rifle or will a $300 rifle do the same job? Oh yes, trigger! For a mere $2200 you get a great trigger in the custom, a great trigger you'll probably never need! Put me in mind of the old Savage 110 kit gun. Worst trigger I have ever shot by a long ways! But somehow the people who bough them found them to be awfully accurate,,,,with a junk trigger! Is a $2500 custom rifle worth the money? If you have $2500 and want it it is! Wonder if that $2500 rifle is as accurate as the Savage 110 kit rifle?

I think a guy should but all the quality he thinks he need's weather it really adds anything of value or not. I bet the guy that spends a lot of money on one probably take's almost as good of care of it as the guy with his mod 110! How about that scope? Rumor say's you need to spend more on the scope than you do the rifle. Where do you find a scope tht cost's more than $2500? Of course you could get an $800 Leupold and it's a good scope for the money! So is my Leupold/Redfield $175 scope! How about a Tasco world Class, about $75! Is it a good scope for the money? I mean what d you expect for $75?

I'm sorry, that "for the money" phrase just rub's me the wrong way! I'll go to my room now! :-)

UncleEd · August 22, 2019, 09:45 AM

JohnKSa's list 1 through 4 describes
just about any Smith, Ruger or Colt
revolver.

jetinteriorguy · August 22, 2019, 05:34 PM

If it's accurate, reliable, durable, and you shoot it well, no matter what you paid its a good gun for the money. If it doesn't meet that criteria, no matter how much you paid, it wasn't a good gun for the money.

TruthTellers · August 24, 2019, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RsqVet

Good gun for the money is a BS term writers and reviewers used to justify that is likely not a great product to begin with. It means for a low price it's not comleate crap. Maybe...

Kind of like "combat accurate" or accurate enough for defensive use or some such BS that translates to the gun put most of the rounds on an IDPA target at 7 yards...

I don't understand cheap guns. I also don't understand prestige guns.. BUT I would rather have a quality item or 2 than a safe full of junk.

Is a used Glock at $360 a good gun for the money vs a new one at $500? Yup, cuz it's the same damn thing.

Ruger LCP is under $200 new, does that mean it has to hit bullseye at 15 yards every time like a Sig P238 can? No, it just has to make the schizo bum who's trying to stab you thinking you're a gov't agent trying to abduct him stop trying to stab you.

Not all cheap guns are junk, but all junk guns are cheap.

sigarms228 · August 25, 2019, 02:05 PM

IMO such a term is open to interpretation and a lot depends on the expectations and needs of the end user and probably not a strong endorsement by the person using the term.

To me it means something that is not top tier or probably even second tier but functional while somewhat rough around the edges with decent reliability and durability, though not close to being the best. Something that would not be chosen by professionals or those that demand top performance and hold up to hard and extended use.

elsancudo · August 25, 2019, 07:14 PM

A very good gun for the money (concealable) is a Taurus GS2 with the recoil assembly changed out along with the striker guide with Lakeline LLC parts. Get an excellent, long-lasting handgun for about $250 total that way.

spawndn72 · August 25, 2019, 08:20 PM

A good gun for the money is any gun that is the best in its price range.

osbornk · August 26, 2019, 08:58 AM

Quote:

To me it means something that is not top tier or probably even second tier but functional while somewhat rough around the edges with decent reliability and durability, though not close to being the best. Something that would not be chosen by professionals or those that demand top performance and hold up to hard and extended use.

I think it simply means it is a good value whether it is a $100 purchase or a $5,000 purchase. A good gun for the money might be a top of the line and very valuable gun that is a good value.

sigarms228 · August 26, 2019, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by osbornk

I think it simply means it is a good value whether it is a $100 purchase or a $5,000 purchase. A good gun for the money might be a top of the line and very valuable gun that is a good value.

LOL, that is why I said it is very open to interpretation.

I would never refer to my HK45 as a good gun for the money but rather an outstanding pistol.

To me saying "a good gun for the money" is like getting setup for a blind date and being told "has a good personality".

Armybrat · August 26, 2019, 07:36 PM

A lot of posters here are trying very hard to overthink the OP’s question by “interpreting” it with some weird logic.

Yes, opinions will vary, but please employ the KISS Principle.

Drm50 · August 26, 2019, 09:09 PM

I'm like TruthTeller, cheap guns are not interesting or dependable. A good quality gun that you get cheap is a deal, not a cheap gun.

BillSussman · August 27, 2019, 03:52 PM

When I hear the phrase "A good gun for the money" I always think of the Norinco 1911!

August 19, 2019, 01:49 PM	#51
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	"...outrageous hammer and trigger weight..." A target pistol they ain't, but any new firearm requires a trigger job. You won't get 'target pistol' anything for $249 MSRP. Cerakote is a bit more than paint. However, what you're planning on doing with the thing, a single action .22, is more important than it's MSRP. And there are a lot of junkers that cost more. The MSRP does not equate to quality from any manufacturer though. The Ruger Wrangler is a very poor man's SAA in .22 LR. It's really a big kid's toy. __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

August 20, 2019, 11:01 AM	#55
GarandTd Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2016 Location: Rural PA Posts: 1,639	I disagree that there is no such thing as "a good gun for the money" or that it is a BS term. I will admit that it can be a risk and what defines it can vary dramatically from one person to the next. For those that think it is BS, have none of your guns been good for the money? __________________ 22lr, 20 gauge, 8mm Mauser, 35 Remington, 30-06, 5.56x45/223, 9mm, 380acp

August 20, 2019, 09:07 PM	#60
jar Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2001 Location: Deep South Texas Posts: 1,669	I've long been a fan of smaller caliber handguns, 32 and 38 in revolvers and 32acp and 380 in semi-automatics. One of the first semi-automatics I bought was in the early 70s, a Beretta model 70 in 32acp. It was a great gun, followed by a slightly smaller 1935. In the late 70s I bought a Beretta model 81 also in 32acp and it may have been my first DA/SA experience. IIRC the Model 70 cost me just under $100.00 which was about $25.00 less than full retail. I don't remember what the 1935 cost but it was used and so likely not very much. The Model 80 was quite expensive though, about $150.00 I think. Now those were really expensive guns at the time, each was about a weeks wage. Recently a friend has been begging for my Model 80 and when I saw the surplus 80s for sale at just slight more than what I paid for mine about four decades ago I gave in, gave him my old one and bought a new to me surplus. Well the new to me surplus looks better than mine did and shoots as well and I'm happy and he's happy. I just replaced my Model 70 but that one cost me considerably more than what I paid back in 1974. So we have a pool of five guns total, two Model 70s, two Model 81s and a 1935. All still work (actually the Model 70 from 1974 may or may not still be working; it went to a Forever Home). The 1935 certainly has been and remains a "Good gun for the money". I carry it as my primary handgun quite often. The first Model 70 was great and I sold it for almost what I paid for it so it too was a "Good gun for the money". The second Model 70 was about the same as what many mid-range modern semis sell for but just has the style and flair that I like. It's one I carry far more often than guns that cost considerably more and I enjoy it, so again I'd say it is a "Good gun for the money". The same case can be made for the two Model 81s. "Good guns for the money" BUT a modern Cheetah at $600-$700 or so would not be a "Good gun for the money" right now for me. That doesn't mean it would not be a "Good gun for the money" for someone else. __________________ To be vintage it's gotta be older than me!

August 21, 2019, 12:09 AM	#61
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,992	In descending order of quality: 1. Amazing gun. 2. Great gun. 3. Good gun. 4. Good gun for the money. 5. Acceptable gun. 6. Not a bad gun. 7. Not a bad gun for the money. 8. Too expensive for what it is. 9. A bad gun. 10. I wonder if I can get the full $25 price at the next gun "buy back" event. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

August 21, 2019, 09:25 AM	#62
GarandTd Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2016 Location: Rural PA Posts: 1,639	#8 makes me laugh because some good quality guns probably fall into that category. __________________ 22lr, 20 gauge, 8mm Mauser, 35 Remington, 30-06, 5.56x45/223, 9mm, 380acp

August 19, 2019, 02:36 PM	#52
SIGSHR Senior Member Join Date: September 13, 2005 Posts: 4,700	Yes, define "good". One of my favorites is a 1950s vintage H&R 800 Lynx 22 semiautomatic. ACCURATE ! Paid about $100 for it.

August 19, 2019, 07:59 PM	#53
gbclarkson Senior Member Join Date: January 4, 2014 Location: None of yer business, sonny Posts: 440	A taurus is a good gun for the money, if it works.

August 20, 2019, 01:41 AM	#54
RsqVet Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 2005 Posts: 2,474	Good gun for the money is a BS term writers and reviewers used to justify that is likely not a great product to begin with. It means for a low price it's not comleate crap. Maybe... Kind of like "combat accurate" or accurate enough for defensive use or some such BS that translates to the gun put most of the rounds on an IDPA target at 7 yards... I don't understand cheap guns. I also don't understand prestige guns.. BUT I would rather have a quality item or 2 than a safe full of junk.

August 21, 2019, 09:55 AM	#63
pete2 Senior Member Join Date: May 15, 2012 Location: Texas Posts: 2,566	Good gun for the money is same-same as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If I buy it I have deemed it worth what I pay for it. Recently, a S&W 617 and a Ruger Wrangler. Both are good guns for the money. The 617 cost 3-1/2 times what the Wrangler cost and it's worth it but I still like the Wrangler too.

August 21, 2019, 10:51 AM	#64
Don Fischer Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2017 Posts: 1,868	A good whatever for the money has always hit me as an ugly slam at whatever the product is. Good for the money suggest's for more money you can do a lot better. I think that depends on what you expect of the product. Is this a gun your gonna throw behind the seat in your pickup? maybe it's just a gun to go out and plug some animal with once a year? So how much gun does either of those require? In fact to get either one, why would you pay a premium price? Imagine some duck hunter that love's hunting in the rain and slogging through the mud to get there buying a $100k Purdy to shoot his ducks with! In his case I would suspect a $250 Mossberg 500 would be a better choice but then again I don't have $100k to spend on a shotgun. Near as I can tell both the Mossberg and the Purdy do pretty much the same thing, they fire a shotgun shell! How about the deer hunter. Is it worth the money to spend $2500 on a custom hunting rifle or will a $300 rifle do the same job? Oh yes, trigger! For a mere $2200 you get a great trigger in the custom, a great trigger you'll probably never need! Put me in mind of the old Savage 110 kit gun. Worst trigger I have ever shot by a long ways! But somehow the people who bough them found them to be awfully accurate,,,,with a junk trigger! Is a $2500 custom rifle worth the money? If you have $2500 and want it it is! Wonder if that $2500 rifle is as accurate as the Savage 110 kit rifle? I think a guy should but all the quality he thinks he need's weather it really adds anything of value or not. I bet the guy that spends a lot of money on one probably take's almost as good of care of it as the guy with his mod 110! How about that scope? Rumor say's you need to spend more on the scope than you do the rifle. Where do you find a scope tht cost's more than $2500? Of course you could get an $800 Leupold and it's a good scope for the money! So is my Leupold/Redfield $175 scope! How about a Tasco world Class, about $75! Is it a good scope for the money? I mean what d you expect for $75? I'm sorry, that "for the money" phrase just rub's me the wrong way! I'll go to my room now! :-)

August 22, 2019, 09:45 AM	#65
UncleEd Senior Member Join Date: April 13, 2013 Location: N. Georgia Posts: 1,150	JohnKSa's list 1 through 4 describes just about any Smith, Ruger or Colt revolver.

August 22, 2019, 05:34 PM	#66
jetinteriorguy Senior Member Join Date: April 28, 2013 Posts: 3,176	If it's accurate, reliable, durable, and you shoot it well, no matter what you paid its a good gun for the money. If it doesn't meet that criteria, no matter how much you paid, it wasn't a good gun for the money.

August 25, 2019, 02:05 PM	#68
sigarms228 Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 2011 Posts: 1,768	IMO such a term is open to interpretation and a lot depends on the expectations and needs of the end user and probably not a strong endorsement by the person using the term. To me it means something that is not top tier or probably even second tier but functional while somewhat rough around the edges with decent reliability and durability, though not close to being the best. Something that would not be chosen by professionals or those that demand top performance and hold up to hard and extended use. __________________ “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin

August 25, 2019, 07:14 PM	#69
elsancudo Member Join Date: July 25, 2010 Posts: 57	A very good gun for the money (concealable) is a Taurus GS2 with the recoil assembly changed out along with the striker guide with Lakeline LLC parts. Get an excellent, long-lasting handgun for about $250 total that way. __________________ Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.

August 25, 2019, 08:20 PM	#70
spawndn72 Member Join Date: July 13, 2007 Posts: 95	A good gun for the money is any gun that is the best in its price range.

August 26, 2019, 07:36 PM	#73
Armybrat Senior Member Join Date: May 10, 2009 Location: Round Rock, Texas Posts: 976	A lot of posters here are trying very hard to overthink the OP’s question by “interpreting” it with some weird logic. Yes, opinions will vary, but please employ the KISS Principle.

August 26, 2019, 09:09 PM	#74
Drm50 Senior Member Join Date: November 10, 2014 Posts: 1,382	I'm like TruthTeller, cheap guns are not interesting or dependable. A good quality gun that you get cheap is a deal, not a cheap gun.

August 27, 2019, 03:52 PM	#75
BillSussman Member Join Date: August 8, 2019 Posts: 34	When I hear the phrase "A good gun for the money" I always think of the Norinco 1911!