A Good Gun For The Money?

[CDW4ME]

New Shield for $300
New Glock 35 Gen 4 for $400
I got those on Gunbroker and consider either a good gun for money.
That didn't count $20 shipping + $20 transfer fee, so more like $340 & $440 total.

[Cheapshooter]

In an email from RK Guns today (Rural King) I saw a perfect example of "good gun for the money" A while they last online special for the Taurus Spectrum. Limited to 3 patterns of black and grey they are $119.99 and shipped to a RK store near you for $12.99. No FFL fee when shipped to store.
A good pocket 380 for a hundred and thirty three bucks.

[CajunBass]

A good gun for the money is one that does the job, but can be purchased for a price that doesn't put a strain on the budget.

Many years ago, I wanted a Browning A-5, 12 gauge for deer hunting. I forget what they cost back then, probably $250 or so (mid 70's). It might as well have been a million dollars. I had about as much chance of paying one, as the other.

But I bought a Sears-Roebuck 12 gauge pump, with two barrels, for $99.00. That gun has served me for what? Say 45 years? It's put many a deer on the ground, as well as squirrels, rabbits and such.

It's an example of a good gun for the money.

[osbornk]

Originally Posted by Cheapshooter

In an email from RK Guns today (Rural King) I saw a perfect example of "good gun for the money" A while they last online special for the Taurus Spectrum. Limited to 3 patterns of black and grey they are $119.99 and shipped to a RK store near you for $12.99. No FFL fee when shipped to store.
A good pocket 380 for a hundred and thirty three bucks.

I went to my local RK and they had 5 different colors in stock for $119.99 plus tax and $2 background check fee. I was out the door with mine for $128 and change. It took me nearly 3 hours to get mine because there were so many people ahead of me buying them. They had run out of 380 ammo very early and the local Super Walmart was out also.

[rodfac]

Ruger's Wrangler has had some exceptionally fine reviews from some very knowledgeable people, both here and on other forums. As a matter of fact, I've not read a negative one...fit and finish are not what we've come to expect from Ruger's justifiably famous Single Six, nor Bearcat, but then this new entrant is less than 1/2 the price, and sports superb accuracy. YMMv but it fills a need for many shooters who want a single action but who's budgets are uncooperative. Rod

[osbornk]

Originally Posted by rodfac

Ruger's Wrangler has had some exceptionally fine reviews from some very knowledgeable people, both here and on other forums. As a matter of fact, I've not read a negative one...fit and finish are not what we've come to expect from Ruger's justifiably famous Single Six, nor Bearcat, but then this new entrant is less than 1/2 the price, and sports superb accuracy. YMMv but it fills a need for many shooters who want a single action but who's budgets are uncooperative. Rod

I think the Wrangler was made to compete with the Rough Rider and similarly priced single actions because they didn't have an "affordable" gun in that segment. It is not competition for the Single Six. It is priced more than the Rough Riders because of the value of the brand. I would consider one if I did not already have both a Single Six and a Rough Rider.

[briandg]

As said, you have a disconnect between the means to buy a top quality or lack of it.

A "good" gun can only be defined by the person buying it. Maybe a "good" gun is something that will reliably fire 99 percent of the trigger pulls and be able to hit eight inch targets at 50 feet. Maybe it means one inch targets. Maybe it also means that the gun is also aesthetically pleasing with good finish and fitting as well. I can define a 'good' gun, but I can already hear the scoffing and criticism of my definition of 'good'.

An inexpensive gun means different things to everyone. A day's pay? Week's pay? Maybe even a full month's or even quarterly income? I can also hear the arguments about why I should re-define my own personal definition of how much of my income I should be willing to invest in a nonessential or even luxury item such as a gun. The first gun that I bought cost about half of a weeks pay. Being on salary and working full days, wow, that pistol cost me about thirty-five hours of working time.


So, should I define reasonable as it cost me about three days of income back then? Or, as a whole lot of people here seem to believe, should it be defined as two weeks worth of income?

My thoughts would start out with a 'good' gun that is aesthetically pleasing, reliable, and accurate to a couple inches while still costing less than a weeks pay.

Once again, I can see people shaking their heads, rolling their eyes, and saying 'what a pinhead.

There is only one way to answer it. What is a "good gun for the money'.

A good gun for the money is nothing but a nonsense phrase, something that doesn't exist. Less than ten percent of the online population would agree with me probably if I held forth on what the good gun for the money is because we wouldn't agree on either one or both of the key words.

I drove a 4 cylinder Dodge dakota, manual transmission for twenty years, and I think it cost about $14,000. Boy, that was a fine truck. No breakdowns, performed all of my needs. It also fit my criteria of not costing an entire year's worth of income. Yes, I can hear it all over, the laughter and scorn. "Ha! He drove a DODGE? What a weenie! No Dodge is a good dodge! Not at any price!"

I will only reluctantly throw the words 'good' out most of the time, and I sure don't bother saying 'inexpensive.' I get tired of being told "aww, come on, that's garbage' if I say that old milwaukee is good beer.

I try to never tell someone that a product is good for the money. It always winds up in tears or even a broken nose if my advice is heeded.

"You said that these were the best golf balls available for the money, and my scores have just sucked since I listened you your bad advice!"

I'm not even going to touch what the words 'good enough' mean. I also never tell anyone "well, heck, that's good enough for someone like you!'

[briandg]

A good gun for the money is one that does the job, but can be purchased for a price that doesn't put a strain on the budget.

Many years ago, I wanted a Browning A-5, 12 gauge for deer hunting. I forget what they cost back then, probably $250 or so (mid 70's). It might as well have been a million dollars. I had about as much chance of paying one, as the other.

A friend of mine bought an auto five.

You can take it for granted that this fella has NO need to cut corners. He raises and trains golden retrievers pretty much as a paying hobby. He hunts geese all season long, in his words "it's only for the dogs. I wouldn't do it for myself alone" I asked once and he told me that he spends appr $2,000 annually just on ammunition for those hunts. He hunts with a 12 gauge and a 10. When he bought the A5 ten gauge, he was offered the thing 'as is' and $200 worth of repairs put it to rights. He said that he paid about half of msrp.

When we've talked about it he says that essentially "it's a good gun for the money."

Yes, you can knock a sandhill crane out of the sky at half a mile and you got it for a pittance.

I guess that he was right. A good gun for the money. At least in his world...

[Armybrat]

Ruger SR9 is a very good gun for $300-$350.

[veprdude]

"Good gun for the money" - The expectations match what you will pay for it.

"Great gun for the money" - Exceeds expectations for what you will pay for it.

"A Steal" - You have no business acquiring said gun for so cheap.

[briandg]

pretty well said. especially since you made it a personal matter.

"Good gun for the money" - The expectations match what you will pay for it.

[JERRYS.]

Mossberg maverick 88 is a good gun for the money.

[Skans]

I purchased a Dan Wesson D11 .357 revolver 99% in box. Serial number under 1300 made in 1969. I recall paying $400 for it. For that price, it would make an excellent carry revolver. But, in the condition its in, I intend on preserving it.

FWIW, these really early Dan Wesson revolvers had a very good quality high polish blued finish.

[m&p45acp10+1]

As of right now the Star BM seems to fit the bill.

It is all metal. SAO, A 1911 clone, and chambered in 9mm Luger so ammo is not problematic to find.

Price is under $200 I see a few on sites from about $149 to $179. With free shipping. Add the price of an FFL transfer. I will be buying 2 of them. I plan to have one as a range gun. The other will be stored for trade fodder on down the road when the surplus market for them dries up, and prices go up.



(I did not think the Mosin-Nagants I bought for under $120 6 years ago would be going for well over double that. I would have bought a few more of them if I had.)

[TruthTellers]

Be warned, this will be a VERY long post. You have been warned.

First of all, I was one of those who came out and defended the Heritage when Ruger announced the Wrangler, so I'm not surprised to hear someone is unhappy with their Wrangler purchase, but I'm sorry to hear that you are unhappy nonetheless.

I'd have to see one in person before I really bash the gun. At best I can say is months ago, I didn't buy into the hype and it seems there wasn't much to the hype because I'm not seeing many posts on gun forums praising the gun.

In fact, I'm not seeing any.

That said, I own a lot of handguns (mostly revolvers), both cheap and expensive, and out of all of them I own when I compare my near $600 .327 SP101 to two sub $300 vintage Charter Arms revolver, the Charters are better. That said, my $800 .45 Colt/.45ACP is worth every penny and compared to a Taurus Judge it's not even a question, but compared to my Leinad over/under derringer, the Judge looks like a Colt Python.

It's all relative and that relativity all resides in the eye of the beholder. The Wrangler was not a better gun than the Heritage revolvers that have been mass produced and have years upon years of proven use behind them, not too mention adjustable sights, 9 round models, and .22 Mag cylinders available. Will Ruger refine the Wrangler over time? Absolutely, but to think right off the bat that Ruger would make a better gun vs an experienced company like Heritage is asinine.

I bought a Charter Arms .32 Mag Professional last month, it was their first 7 shot revolver and first to ever use fiber optic sights. It's a great gun for the $330 I am evidently going to spend on it, the only problem is they have had a SNAFU at the factory and are making the shrouds too big and that's causing the front sight to be too tall and causing the guns to shoot 6 inches low at 7 yards. If Charter would fix this issue, for $330, the gun is a good one for the money. As it stands, given they're oblivious to the issue, it's not.

Buy any one of their revolvers that's not the .32 Professional and it is... compared to an SP101 at least.

I'm looking at buying other handguns because that's what I do and one of those that has caught my eye is the Zastava M70. It's a steel framed .32 ACP pistol and it's caught my eye because it has pretty decent sights for a .32 ACP pistol, is a steel frame, and costs about $220. Is a .32 a powerhouse caliber? Nope, but it can get the job done.

So, what other pistols are out there for $220? A Hi Point, SCCY, Taurus PT111, Ruger EC9s. All these pistols are polymer framed. Will they be around 60 years from now? IDK, probably not. Will you be around 60 years from now? IDK, probably not. Will the Zastava M70 be around 60 years from now? More than likely if given basic maintenance.

So what does that mean? It means for $220 you bought a gun that will live longer than you will and it's up to you to determine if that smaller caliber in the .32 is worth it to you vs the larger caliber that will maybe live as long as you do. If longevity is worth more to you than effectiveness, than the Zastava M70 is more of a "good gun for the money" than the poly pistols I mentioned. If effectiveness is worth more to you, than the poly pistols are better guns for the money.

It's all up to you and I think instead of focusing on what is a good gun for the money, you should contemplate on what a "bad gun for the money" is.

To me that's pretty simple: any Ruger SP101, any micro/pocket .380 (.32 ACP is better), any snub nosed .357 Magnum, any Marlin made after the year 2001, any Charter made between 1991 and 2006, and the list goes on.

I guess you could say I take a glass half full approach in that anything that's not proven bad is good versus anything not proven good is bad.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

Mossberg maverick 88 is a good gun for the money.

YUP, just got one on GunBroker for $113 plus shipping..

[HiBC]

Long ago I bought a Norinco SKS carbine NIB for $79.I felt compelled because AIM Surplus was selling Russian 7.62x39 for $69 a thousand,delivered.

I no longer have it,but it was a good gun for the money. Would I pay $400 for an SKS? No.

I really like M-1 Carbines.I used to find them under $100. I might pay as much as $500 for a good one now,but market is over $1000 .I just don't think an M-1 carbine is worth that,to me. There are AR and Mini 14 options.

Philipine 1911's IMO,are good value IMO,so is a S+WM+P. Sorry,but no chance I'm buying a $3000 1911. I don't question the fair price for custom hand work. I just can't justify paying for it. So I do my own.

Scarcity and "collectability" create ,IMO,a disconnect between how "good" a gun is and cost.

Folks who collect to hoard aren't real popular with me.They can,and have,ruined the price of 22 LR ammo.

Folks who collect gunsights just to possess them run the price of a proper sight for an antique restoration out of reach.I'm not going to pay$300 or $400 for an old barrel sight.


In the end,Quality boils down to how YOU FEEL about what you got for your dollar.

Unlike certain insurance products when we are talking about buying guns...the Makers try to identify a market,and present a product that will sell. I've never looked at a Wrangler.

If it does not suit you,instead of bellyaching at Ruger,just say "Not for me" and move on.

[RaySendero]

Good for the money = not applicable:

This one was FREE !!!

[SIGSHR]

An Dan Wesson Pistol Pac, preferably a Monson one, some of the Palmer ones are not so great. Interchangeable barrels, sights, grips, lets you mix and match to suit your needs, mood, fancy, or until you find the setup that is just right.

[JJ45]

Beretta 81...looks like some police surplus that are in pretty good to excellent shape for well under $300,,,and available right now, not 20 years ago

32 ACP, import marked, but it's a Beretta.

[Nathan]

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 guess the bucket ones would have been “good for the money” in their day.

[9ballbilly]

Completely subjective based on my own experience and preference, of course.

The best example of a "good gun for the money" that comes to mind are the used Ruger six series .357 revolvers. Since the introduction of the GP-100 and SP-101 the older guns have fallen by the wayside a bit and can usually be found at very reasonable prices for such well made revolvers IMHO.

I recently picked up a perfectly functioning 4" blued Security six with minor finish wear for $325.

[Don Fischer]

My though on a good gun for the money is the gun is junk but the price is right!

[Ricklin]

My good guns for the money come from a clueless local retailer.

I've bought 3-4 screaming deals.

The crown jewel is an LC Smith SBT. It is a first year SBT and is either 100 or 101 this year. Serial number is 4 digits, but the first is a zero.

I finally got out and shot some trap yesterday, The Smith stayed home, since the weather was wet. Instead I brought my 1940's Model 12 trap grade, which also came from that same retailer. The one that does not know that Winchester did not mark all trap grade guns the same way. Some model 12 traps are stamped on the receiver, and the later ones are stamped on the mag tube.

I paid less than half what these guns were worth. In fact I would not have paid such a low price to say your widow.....a large store should know better, that's just business.

[lee n. field]

Originally Posted by rep1954

What exactly dose “A good gun for the money” mean?

"I have $X," (usually small) "what's the best gun I can get for that money?"

It's a question one sees often in gun social media. "What gun for $X?"

Dose it mean that a bad gun sold cheap enough turns into a good gun?
Checking out the Ruger Wrangler with it’s outrageous hammer and trigger weight and painted finish that looks much nicer in pictures than in life I could see the good price connection but not the good gun connection and how much do gun writers get paid to say “good gun for beginners. I think there’s a big misunderstanding between “A good gun for the money” and a bad gun for cheap.
Just me venting after being a victim of all the hipe on the Ruger Wrangler.

One hopes for "good enough", that hoped for sweet spot at the triple point of price, function and customer support.