How much is significant?

[Technosavant]

In a handgun thread, Will Beararms brought up an interesting point regarding the cost of magazines vs. their inclusion with the new gun. That got me to thinking...

How much of a price difference is enough to make you balk when considering otherwise generally similar guns?

For example... you are looking at gun A and gun B (could be pistols, shotguns, whatever). Gun B costs a bit more. What is the amount of cash that would make you think "You know, I don't think I want to pay that much more for gun B over gun A"?

I should add that the two guns, for the most part, are substantially similar. We aren't talking a Rohm wheelgun vs. a S&W Performance Center (or a Stoeger vs. Krieghoff, or anything else like that). Within a given chunk of the market, what amount of money starts to be a real factor in your buying decision?

Note: I didn't include percentages because we tend not to think that way usually... $200 is $200 whether you're talking $400 guns or $2000 guns.

 

[BarryLee]

If the guns are “generally similar” than it would seem the only reason to spend more is purely emotionally. For instance someone who is a “S&W guy” will pay whatever is necessary to get their preferred brand. So, it seems like the purely rational choice is the cheapest gun that will meet the specific requirements, but obviously many of us spend much more than necessary because we simply want to. So, I guess my point is that when emotion comes into play money is not an issue and folks will spend whatever they have to.

 

[FrankenMauser]

There really isn't a simple answer to that question.

Even if you're comparing two 'substantially similar' handguns, there are always differences: Ergonomics. Warranty support. Customer service. Brand reputation. Recall history. Country of origin. Accessory availability. Peculiarities of one handgun (unsupported chamber vs fully-supported, 'backward' safety operation, etc). And more...


Now, if you take two handguns that are essentially the same thing, such as the Browning BDA 380 and Beretta 84BB (if they were still available).... it eliminates a lot of those factors. And in that case, I might pay just a bit more for the better looks of the Browning* ...but not much.


*(Wood grips and the Browning Buck Mark, vs Beretta's ugly plastic grips with their ugly emblem.)

 

[NavyVet1959]

Well, there was more than a $300 difference between a S&W 686 and a Taurus 617 and that was enough to make me go with the Taurus instead. Those two are substantially the same gun as far as I'm concerned.

Also, the Beretta 92 is at least $100 more than the Taurus PT92 and I have gone with the Taurus on it, even though I had previously purchased a Beretta 96FS. Considering the fact that the Taurus was made on Beretta machinery, I think a good argument could be made that they are "substantially the same gun".

To the best of my recollection, I've never spent more than $700 on a handgun and other than perhaps a new M1A, more than $1000 on a rifle.

 

[Technosavant]

There really isn't a simple answer to that question.

True, but there's not too many ways to ask it. Some guns are effectively identical to each other (say, the S&W M&P and Glocks) when it comes to mechanisms and features. Others may have rather more difference. But sometimes we may end up trying to pick between a couple or three guns... other factors than just price will factor in, but this is an attempt to quantify just how big a role price may play.

 

[surveyor]

depends...
the closer they are to each other, the less the price diffrence spread..

best example I can come up with is mossberg 500 vs remington 870

both same stock, color, finish, barrel length, choke, etc..

somewhere around 50 bux maybe a little less on this for me..

the more the diffrences, the bigger the spread..

charter arms undercover vs S&W 637

same barrel length, caliber, etc..

100 to little more..

rock island M206 38 vs a S&W 36

about 150-200

kind of a hard question..
not a set answer..

 

[8MM Mauser]

True, but there's not too many ways to ask it. Some guns are effectively identical to each other (say, the S&W M&P and Glocks) when it comes to mechanisms and features. Others may have rather more difference. But sometimes we may end up trying to pick between a couple or three guns... other factors than just price will factor in, but this is an attempt to quantify just how big a role price may play.

The M&P and Glock were so similar when I was deciding that I had to shoot both quite a bit to determine that I shoot Glocks better even though I like the feel of M&P's and the S&W heritage of the gun better. The price was not substantially different, but I must say that had the M&P been way cheaper I still probably would have gone Glock simply because I shoot it better. If I shot both the same then of course I would pick S&W if it was cheaper.

When it came down to it for me to pick what I would buy for a carry gun my choices were more between kinds (single-stack 9; double-stack nine, snub revolver) than between brands or prices. I actually picked the most expensive thing on my own list.

So no price difference wouldn't be a big deal unless it was egregious for the same product.

 

[2123]

I've yet to spend $2000.00 on a handgun. But, I've come close to that amount with extras figured in, that I bought after the initial purchase.

99.9% of the time, I know what I want and approx. what it's going to cost me. I'll never own any handgun that costs anything near, let's say $2500.00 or more.

You get to a point where you're paying for bling and a name. If you are relatively accurate with a firearm, you'll be accurate with most anything you pick up. No firearm guarantees you accuracy, if you can't shoot worth a damn to begin with.

Someone mentioned a Taurus and a S&W being substantially the same gun. What can you say to something like that, other than knowing that you know better, and you're glad that you're not that guy.

When it comes to firearms, never discount the importance of price differential, especially when you're looking at one intended for self-defense use.

I prefer to pay a little more and be confident in my purchase, rather than spend a little less and wonder if I did the right thing.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Note: I didn't include percentages because we tend not to think that way usually... $200 is $200 whether you're talking $400 guns or $2000 guns.

I completely disagree with your logic here. When shopping for an entry-level .22LR revolver for use in teaching NRA classes, the $75 (or so) difference between a Taurus Model 94 and a Charter Arms pushed me to buy the less expensive Taurus even though I believe the Charter Arms is a better pistol.

However, if I were shopping for a mid- to high-end 1911 in the $2000 and up price range, I would absolutely spend an extra $200 to get what I want as opposed to "close." The difference is only 10 percent. But ... if the difference were $500 (25 percent) my decision would be a lot more difficult. For me, it very much is a question of percentage rather than dollars.

 

[Oruglock]

As well as the gun & magazines, you sometimes have to figure in the case and other extras.

My M&P9 and Springfield XDm included a speed loader, holster and magazine holder as well as the magazines. I don't use them, but they added value if I ever need to. However they also pushed up the case size, so I'm now buying smaller cases to keep just the gun and magazines locked in when not in use (and also locked in a safe).

My RIA 1911 case is a perfect size for my needs, so I'm getting the same cases via Amazon.

The speedloader that came with the M&P is the best I've used and I use it to load all my magazines. That, plus three magazine included, made the M&P9 range kit the best value of all my purchases in the $400-600 range.

 

[Gbnk82]

For me it really comes down to the guns if they both perform to the same level or not..if you have two guns both just as accurate both just as reliable and basically the same in every category I'll go with the cheaper no matter what the difference and spend the extra on ammo/accessories.now if gun b is basically the same design as gun but gun b is of much higher quality then I'd be willing to spend a good amount more..honestly it's hard to put a price on quality and I'd much rather spend the extra for something that is proven and reliable than skimp out to save a few bucks on the bargain brand just to regret it down the road..

Trust me I learned very fast that you end up spending much more money in the long term when you settle for a gun because of price because chances are you end up regretting it and eventually spend more to get the one you wanted in the first place..buy once cry once

 

[JimmyR]

How much of a price difference is enough to make you balk when considering otherwise generally similar guns?

All things being equal, if I am choosing between two guns, the cheaper will win. Since all things are never equal, however, I make my decision based on which gun I like better in my bidget. I look at things like previous reviews of the gun, quality of the brand, availability of accessories and extras, ergonmoics, shootability, etc. Generally, in the end, one of these factors will outshine the rest, and I will make my decision.

 

[ballardw]

I traded away a pistol partially because after 3 years I couldn't find additional magazines. The pistol was a relatively new model but besides the somewhat slow practice of shoot 7 rounds and reload magazine a single magazine is a point failure waiting to happen.

Unless it's going to be mostly a collector and shot very seldom if I can't find at least 3 magazines I'm passing.

 

[Jim243]

Usually the price point difference on two similar guns I am looking to buy is more that $50.00, like the Beretta 92 FS (Blued) ($650.00) and the Taurus PT-92 (Stainless) ($495). But that is only one of the factors involved in my decision. Quality and reliability also play a part in which one to chose. Both are basically the same gun and both have excellent reputations, both use Mec-Gar magazines so the choice was easy. The additional cost for the better brand name did play a part in my choice. If they were the same price, I probably would have gone with the Beretta even though I liked the stainless finish with wood grips better.

When earlier this year looking for a home defense shotgun the choice came down to a Weatherby PA-459 ($449) and a Benelli Super Nova tactical ($499) again basically the same gun (most likely made in the same plant in Turkey). The prices were so close that I do not think price made a difference, but the Weatherby had a railed rear sight where the Benelli was a tapped rear sight and even though the Benelli took 2 3/4. 3 & 3 1/2 inch slugs I did not see the 3 1/2 inch slugs as an advantage. I would say that the rail and sights on the Weatherby as well as the camo stock made the difference for me.

Price does play a big part in my decisions as well as features that come with the gun.

Jim

 

[mavracer]

I don't really have one, I get what I want.
While I have several Ruger SAs and I think they are more refined, more durable gun I still spent a grand on a Colt.

 

[Skans]

I don't know about the rest of you, but anything more than $5 is significant to me.