Why Expensive Shotguns??

[PT111]

All I have to say is that you fella's shooting 25,000+ rounds a year at trap and skeet are already out of my financial range with just the cost of ammo, targets etc. More power to you, guess I'll just stick to my 870 and 1100 shooting doves and deer.

[castnblast]

uhhh, yeah, quick math puts that at over $125,000.00 + tax on just the ammo...Don't know about the targets, if he's shooting at a club, than that's right at about $250,000.00/yr on targets and ammo, and that's the "cheap" $4.50 ish/ box stuff...(which I doubt someone like that is shooting in the first place...) I'd love to be that guy....

[akr]

When you are just a gun fondler, all it costs is the price of the gun.

[Rembrandt]

Originally Posted by castnblast

uhhh, yeah, quick math puts that at over $125,000.00 + tax on just the ammo...Don't know about the targets, if he's shooting at a club, than that's right at about $250,000.00/yr on targets and ammo, and that's the "cheap" $4.50 ish/ box stuff...(which I doubt someone like that is shooting in the first place...) I'd love to be that guy....

Are you figuring the cost on shooting 25,000 rounds? If so, your math is a little off. I don't think they are referring to 25,000 rounds of trap or skeet...rather "25,000 rounds of ammo".

25,000 rounds of ammo divided by 25 shots per round would equal 1000 rounds of shooting.

1000 rounds of shooting = 1000 boxes of ammo (@ $4.50) would be $4500.00
1000 rounds of shooting @ $3.50 (targets & range fee) would be $3500.00
Total cost to shoot 25,000 rounds of ammo.......$8000.00

[Frank Ettin]

castnblast, I think you're over estimating the cost by a large margin. I read PT111's reference to 25,000 rounds to mean that number of shells/targets, not 25,000 "rounds" of 25 targets each. Most serious competitors will shoot between 20,000 and 40,000 targets a year, and some may shoot even more; but I can't imagine even the most dedicated shooters racking up over 600,000 targets in a year.

Our club charges members $5.00 for 25 trap targets, and non-members pay $7.00. Entry fees for competitions run higher. But assuming an average cost of $10.00 for 25 targets, 25,000 targets would cost $10,000. Factory shells at $7.00 for a box of 25 would add up to another $7,000. Of course, many shooters reload, and good deals on target shells in quantity can often be found (Most recently I bought 7,500 shells, or 300 boxes, for a little under $5.00 a box).

It's not a cheap hobby, but the cost is a long way from your $250,000/year estimate.

[ActivShootr]

1000 rounds of shooting = 1000 boxes of ammo (@ $4.50) would be $4500.00
1000 rounds of shooting @ $3.50 (targets & range fee) would be $3500.00
Total cost to shoot 25,000 rounds of ammo.......$8000.00

The look on your CPA's face...priceless.

[Davis]

"If you have to ask....I'd guess you can't afford anything better. Be happy with what you have, leave quality firearms to people who appreciate them."

That alone is a pretty elitist, snobbish attitude that turns me off, and probably a great many people. It is arrogant and frankly, I probably would not enjoy shooting anywhere near a man with that attitude. I have owned expensive firearms. My most expensive was $4,500 sniper's rifle. They don't do anything for me. Now, my most expensive firearm is an SVT-40.

My most expensive shotgun is a Savage 333 O/U made by Valmet. I see no value in a more expensive shotgun. Can I appreciate art? Sure. Come and look at my sword collection (I do not own replicas). You might really enjoy holding my French cuirassier's sword, or perhaps my basket-hilted broad sword from the 1700's. We could go with my one blade from the 1600's, or my several British cavalry swords from the 1700's to the 1800's. I have a particularly nice, if utilitarian, cutlass carried by the British navy and some nice spadroons of the same era. I know folks who collect bayonets, which is certainly something done by folks who cannot afford real swords, right? After all, if you can't afford the real thing, you buy a bayonet. Of course, this is not the case. And if a man cannot afford a British heavy cavalry sabre, I will not insult him for his lack of means. To do so is astounding arrogance.

However, I do not have an interest in shooting sports like skeet or trap. I hunt. Ducks, geese, rabbit, and the like do not care that my Savage 333 (or Savage 720 or Western Field 550) is a field gun and while attractive with good walnut and fits me like a glove, cost me less than $1,000. So, for me, I have no use nor need for expensive shotguns. I can afford them, but I have no use. And no, they are not Lambroginis compared to Yugos. They are perhaps a Rolls Royce compared to a Crown Victoria, but in the end, the extra cost buys the purchaser fancy wood, excellent stock-to-metal fit, deep bluing, fine engraving, excellent checkering, and the like. The extra money does not buy greater function.

The higher expense does bring bragging rights, but these are not tools for the duck blind and so do not interest me. See, my Cherokee takes me off road in every place that a Land Rover might go, except I actually take it those places.

By the way, I have a client who has a wall full of skeet trophies, who hunts in Argentina, who owns his own private skeet range (a real range, not just a pasture). He is a very wealthy man with a tremendous amount of acreage to his name. He shoots with a Remington 1100. He could write a check any day of the week for something more expensive. Interestingly enough, he competes with said Remington.

In any case, it is true there is reverse elitism. I know folks who are that way. But it is equally true that a man who has to compare his shotgun to a porche, and another man's to a yugo, is being a snob.

Davis

[Rembrandt]

Originally Posted by Davis

"If you have to ask....I'd guess you can't afford anything better. Be happy with what you have, leave quality firearms to people who appreciate them."

That alone is a pretty elitist, snobbish attitude that turns me off...

It was a tongue in cheek response to a post deriding those who spent more than he thought they should for a shotgun.....inpart using the old saying...."If you have to ask, you probably can't afford it"? No need to read more into it than there is. Folks who buy upper end shotguns know why they cost more....those who don't only see a price tag.

[Davis]

Okay, fair enough.

On the other hand, I do know why some cost more (but there is a point where you pay more for the name). I do understand the man hours that go into certain shotguns (or other consumer items). I do not value them. That others do is certainly fine. However, we can admit that once a certain level is passed, there is no utility gained by higher prices. It is indeed truth that a Krieghoff cannot kill ducks any better than a Valmet 412. Therefore, if a man's focus is to hunt ducks, the Mossberg 500 may actually fit the bill, whatever the price.

Get into competition, things are different. However, can anyone imagine an over/under with a birch stock, even if birch is a superior wood for shooting?

Davis

[SR420]

Why do folks with "cheap" shotguns feel a need to bash those with a gun worth more than there gun.
I can not remember a post that is titled "Why would you by a cheap shotgun?"

Yep ~

[akr]

Lessee now--a nice skeep gun and probably a nice trat gun.

[TexasSeaRay]

You called me on a comment I made, and I replied. What do you do for a living?

Well, let's see.

When I was in the service, I wore funny clothes, had webbed feet and went places all over the world. Didn't see too many Jeeps period, let alone Cherokees, in some of the remote parts of north Africa.

Saw a lot of Land Rovers, though.

Didn't see a lot of Jeeps in southeast Asia, Middle East or Central/South America. Did see a lot of old Chevy and Ford 4x4's. Oh, and a lot of Land Rovers.

When I was toting a gold badge with an eagle on it and spending time in Thailand, Laos, etc etc in some of the most inhospitable terrain imaginable, didn't see many Jeeps. In fact, can't recall seeing even one.

Saw a lot of Land Rovers.

When I was in advertising and right up until I retired, I saw a lot of Jeeps--in the parking garages.

I'm also a pilot. When I go see friends up in "bush country" (Northwest part of the continent), I don't see too many Bonanzas--or any low-wing planes, for that matter. See a lot of Cessnas and Piper high-wing taildraggers.

Just like when I carried a gun for a living, I didn't see too many $10,000 guns out there in the jungles and deserts. Saw a lot of cheap AKs, though.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump's mama, "Rugged is as Rugged does."

But those are just observations based on what I did for a living. And as we all know, on the internet, firsthand knowledge (as in, been there/done that) doesn't count for much.

Jeff

[Davis]

Doesn't at all matter. Imagine that, Land Rover being used in former British colonies. Yukon, I don't care what magazines you read, what playthings you have, what your friends drive, what games/competition you play. Sports may be your life, but off-road work is mine. None of that matters, though.

But, let's see, I cannot possibly know of what I speak. 13 years experience in the field is meaningless. Leave it at that.

Worry not, I shall avoid making any comment about shotguns because I do not shoot skeet, trap, or clays. Hunting ducks, rabbit, and turkey make me unsuitable. I shall also refrain from discussing off-road travel. Being a professional is meaningless. That the US Forest Service was one of the largest purchasers of the Cherokee is meaningless. That I work off road for a living is meaningless.

I am indeed wrong, I cannot know of what I speak. Glad we figured that out.

[castnblast]

uhhhh...yup...math's way off...I was wondering how on earth anyone could do that...I figured that on 25,000.00 boxes...my goof...I don't think even Tom Knapp shoots that much. I think the noodle would get a bit rattled shooting that much a year. It was late, and just got finished working on homework for my masters...in accounting...LOL!!! (just kidding...on the accounting part...)

[Laz]

You know, it seems to me that Davis, YukonKid, and TexasSeaRay have all had a range of fascinating adventures in their respective lives and each know a lot about the world they have inhabited. One holds the trunk of the elephant, one pats the belly, and one grabs the tail. I can't see there is any "wrong" here. Seems all three have reason to be grateful for the rich and varied lives they have been graced to enjoy.

[oletymer]

Land Rovers and Jeeps, Yeah that has a lot to do about the origina thread. Why don't you Einstein types go over to Motor Trend or something?

[Davis]

Actually, ole, my original comment had but one sentence dealing with said Cherokee. My point had been fundamentally that after one reaches a certain point, functionality of a shotgun does not increase with increased price. A work of art, perhaps, but it does not make it a more suitable shotgun.

Indeed, the point is that nobody sells over/under shotguns with birch stocks, even though birch is a superior wood for guns. That birch does not have the attractive grain makes it a utilitarian wood and is not very pretty is why o/u shotguns do not use it. Why would one choose a wood that is actually inferior? Because walnut is traditional, it is easily worked, is very handsome, and works quite well as a gun stock. It isn't the best, but it is the best looking. Works of art, works of art.

That can appeal to a great many. That is certainly fine by me. I have a wonderful spadroon with fine gilt inlay and a temper that is remarkable. Said sword has no value today other than appreciation for the craft used in making it. It was a real sword meant for real combat. It was not the bobble that hangs at the sides of officers and nco's while in parades or other dress occaisions. It was meant to kill. There were other swords just as capable but less pretty.

You see, every man has what he values and such value seldom is fully and directly related to utility. I value my Cherokee because it can take me everywhere the Landrover can go. It is light and has a very tight turning radius. I can get in and out of many places and I have indeed literally fought a forest fire with it, while also going through swamps. Just this morning I crossed a flooded ford with it. Water was being pushed over the hood (not snorkling depth, though) but it passed through just fine - and back again. It can go places many heavier trucks cannot. I value it, even though as is plainly demonstrated here, there are no bragging rights with a Cherokee.

The same is said of the over/under. I defy anyone to show an over/under stronger than the Valmet. Yet there are many here who might show something prettier. Said Valmet fits me wonderfully and kills ducks and geese with the best of them, and it is only a 2 3/4" chambering. I see no value in the expensive work of art that is not at home in my duck blind or walking through the bottomlands of mid-Mississippi on a rabbit hunt. It is a tool.

I spent a mere sentence on said Jeep. Yet, the Jeep demonstrates experience and knowledge. The same can be said of the Valmet or Savage 720, or even the Western Field which is a deluxe version of the Mossberg 500. Shall I say they are better? Not at all, nor have I. But, I did say, and still do say, that a duck dies no better under the loving taps of a Kreighoff or Browning than my Valmet. Because of that, I have no use for either of them.

Yet, I buy expensive historic swords. To each his own.

Davis

[YukonKid]

i dont see anything about shotguns in your post ole sounds like you are just commenting for the heck of it. I am a member of several off roading forums
as well as Jeep, Landrover and Chevy forums as well so i already got that covered.

As far as shotguns go, i believe that a cheap one will last a while, but there is a reason why it is cheap. They do not function as smoothly, or be as accurate as a rule (much like rifles) and will not point and swing as easily. So yes, they will work, and i have several cheap shotguns, but i also have some very expensive ones as well which work better for different things. I know for sure the action on a Citori Grade whatever will be much better then the action on a Remington Spartan. Its just the way it is. If you dont agree then go to a store where fine weapons are sold (cabelas) and see if you can feel the difference between a cheapo mess around gun and a fine tuned machine.

[YukonKid]

Way to keep the peace Laz, thank you for bringing me back around, although i knew it was stupid the whole time to be arguing this on a gun forum with people that obviously know guns better than 4x4's.

[Davis]

"arguing this on a gun forum with people that obviously know guns better than 4x4's"

Dude, leave it be. Graduate college, get your law degree, and enjoy life. You started this by latching on to a single sentence. That I have been driving off road professionally longer than you have been driving, period, should be of no concern to you. I drive the distance with a stock Cherokee, and have done so for more than 10 years now. Reality is what it is.

As to higher cost bringing greater accuracy, that is not always the case and you know it. In rifles, a Savage 110 that costs $300 will likely outshoot the Weatherby Vanguard that costs $450. (Guntests actually tested the Savage versus the Remington 700 and Winchester 70 5 years back and showed the Savage was the more accurate rifle).

But in truth, the Browning will be a better shotgun than the Russian or Turkish fare. It will not be better than the Valmet, though, even if the checkering is nicer. In any case, there is more to the o/u love than merely utility, else there would be birch-stocked o/u shotguns and the Turks, which are mostly fluff, would not be so popular.

Davis

[YukonKid]

Ok, I am letting it be. You are right, i did start this and i know i should not have. You being older does not in any way, shape or form make you better driver than me. Just throwing that in, if that was the case old people would not have their licenses take away Maybe one day we will see each other on the trail. From now on when i see a forest service man i will ask him is Davis
As far as rifles, i was meaning more of and Ed Brown quality weapon verses a run of the mill Remington 700. I know that there is always a reason why things cost the way they do, sometimes its just economics, but sometimes it because they are worth it. Like a Rolls vs. a Lexus. Both are quality cars. One is better than the other.

[Davis]

If you need to talk with a Forest Service man, well, I'm a consultant. I suppose the similarity would be a public defender.

That said, fair enough. We may have passed on the trail from time to time, as I have logged many, many miles on many trails. I also prefer the external frame pack, but have been told I have not idea what I am talking about. So, I'm pretty used to it (external frame packs start off lighter, sit off the back a bit and so keep sweat from building up, and allow much better and more secure external attachment of gear, and mine fits me like a glove, so much so that my shoulder straps serve only to keep the pack from falling backwards, all the weight (okay, 80% of felt weight) is on my hips). I also consider the best mess kit ever invented to be the East German kit. I like Danner and Columbia boots, but can hike in Walmart specials without pain (the trick is to soak them and then wear them wet for an afternoon so that they form to the feet).

In any case, while age does not necessarily make the better driver, doing it day in and day out for more than a decade does provide experience. All the same, it can be left as a difference in opinion and that is that. Truce.

Davis

[YukonKid]

I dont know how we started talking about backpacking but ok. I like Kelty internal frames. It keeps the weight centered on my hips better. The last time i was backpacking it was last winter in New Zealand (their summer) at the bottom of the southern island, the Routburn Track. It was a lot of fun. I dont mind boot make as long as they have vibrum soles.

And the Ithica 37 will out perform the mossy 500. There is a reason there is a 300 dollar price difference. Just like all other guns. Reasons why glocks cost less then sigs ect.

[Davis]

I'm not a Glock fan, but the SIG and Glock perform about the same. And, the CZ-75 is cheaper than either but performs as well, too. Indeed, the CZ-75 is proof that you do not always get what you pay for. Or, does anyone really think the Sig 226 is twice the gun the CZ-75 is?

By the way, mine is a Kelty external.

As to the Ithica, how exactly will it out-perform the Mossberg?

Davis

[YukonKid]

wow, now we argue over handguns in a shotgun forum

I have a Sig 226 and an HK USP, they are my only two centerfire autos (lots of revolvers though ) When i buy my guns i like to buy the best. No, i dont think that Sig is twice the gun that CZ is, but i shoot it better than i shoot CZ's and i think it looks better. When i get a 1911 i will most likely get an Ed Brown/nighthalk/Wilson/Baer because i think they are the best available. You get what you pay for.

The model 37 is a great gun. I have one and an 870 for the pump part of my collection (model 12 now on loan). The mossy left. It could not compete with the others, so it was cut from the team. It was slower, not nearly refined enough and was not as smooth as the others.