How people justify paying too much (Heritage Rough Rider versus Ruger Single Six)

[Fine Figure of a Man]

In summary

Rough Rider; A glued together pot metal, noisemaker similar to the cap gun I had as a child with a silly little safety and a melting point lower than a polymer gun.

Single Six; A quality firearm, for those that know the difference, that will last several generations and is not embarrassing to own.

 

[MedWheeler]

bassjam writes:

That's funny! I never knew there were such laws!

Yep. Some states, such as Illinois and South Carolina, passed laws aimed at keeping "cheap" guns out of the hands of those people they felt would be most likely to use them, which they believed would only be thugs and gangers. Since price points change, they went after material of construction. The laws required the metals be of a quality that would withstand exposure to a certain level of heat without melting, knowing that the zinc and aluminum alloys used in those "cheap" guns they were trying to ban would not pass.

I'm not sure how many of these laws, however, pre-date the arrival of polymer-framed guns, or why they continue to be exempt (well, actually, I do know, but that's for another discussion.)

 

[Master Blaster]

The Rough rider is a piece of Junk. You are paying $200 for a gun that is worth $20 so you are paying 10x more than the gun is worth. It is not a bargain.
The single six is worth the $450 they charge because it is made of high quality materials to high accuracy and durability standards just like a Ruger center-fire revolver.
Because of it's accuracy and the quality construction the Ruger will be 10x as satisfying to own and shoot so at $450 it is a bargain compared to a rough rider.

By the way we live in a free market economy expensive guns are worth the price if people are willing to pay it. If they were not worth the price then the company would go out of business. The Rough Rider appeals to folks who are cheap and are willing to pay 10x too much for a piece of junk based on a faulty analysis on their part.

 

[Fiv3r]

I have a cheapie .22 revolver. It's an imported Plinkerton pot metal SAA clone that weighs every bit as much as my .357. It's never been that reliable, turning the cylinder is so rough that it almost feels like turning the crank on a wind up toy. It's too heavy to be useful as a woods gun, not accurate enough for the range, and lining up the chamber to pop out the empties is a tedious exercise in frustration.

I think I paid $120 for it 10 years ago. I only still have it because I can't seem to literally give it away at trade in. It just sits in my work bench drawer largely forgotten.

Actually it turned me off .22 revolvers for a long time. I've wanted a bearcat for years, but between the price and the bad taste in my mouth, I always end up with a centerfire in its place.

I'd pick a Ruger at $100 over MSRP before I buy another budget revolver.

 

[chicharrones]

Even though I've never bought a Heritage revolver and do prefer Rugers, I think there is a place for an inexpensive handgun like a Zamak framed Rough Rider. When I was in my 20s with little money to spare, I'm pretty sure I would have bought a Rough Rider back then.

Price is exactly why I bought a used Beretta Bobcat .22LR from a pawnshop in the early '90s. While not a reliable gun, it seemed worth the $120.00 or so that I gave for it.

I have a friend that bought a used Rohm or RG revolver in the early '90s as well. It fit the need at the time. Which was we both wanted to plink for as little money as we had in our pockets that week.

I can tell you, neither gun is now serviceable as they are worn out. A Ruger revolver would have definitely lasted longer. But, when you don't have the money for a Ruger and you don't want to use credit, it's one way to go.

 

[RugRev]

Getting back to the original poster initial comments about "common knowledge" it really should be relabeled as common justifications or platitudes. So, there I agree.

Getting to specifics down a ways how products are priced by a manufacturer starts with the rate of return on investment necessary to undertake the project (determined by the cost of the capital of the firm). A profit goal is established dictated by anticipated volume times the profit margin of the gun. This has to exceed cost of capital. This will determine suggested price. One must then add to that the cost of the channels of distribution and retailer profit to get to a list price. This may not be the market price which is where supply equals demand for that specific gun! Does that gun compete with others from other manufacturers that are similar. Maybe and maybe not. To use an economic term the product is differentiated due to style, design, size, weight, perceived quality, reliability
(wonder how many police agencies used Rohm revolvers back in the day) and a whole host of other attributes. To the degree the product is differentiated (real or perceived) will allow some latitude
in pricing in that particular market segment e.g. medium priced revolver (Ruger) compared to high priced (Colt) so there are limits. Is there a real difference in attributes to justify the price difference?
Maybe and maybe not. Does it matter, Depends upon the individual. When I purchase a .357 medium frame revolver for defense I want reliability, a certain amount of accuracy, decent sights, a
decent action that can be tuned, a good fit to my hand, aftermarket accessories to enhance it to suit me and so on. Do I need all of this? No, but that cuts down on the functionality and/or
enjoyment of the item. Here the economist employed a hypothetical term (util) which assumed utility could be divided into units. One sought to maximize the utills per dollar spent or minimize
the dollars spent to achieve a certain level of utils. Here one could assign imaginary utils to such things as dependability, action quality and so on.

So, is the person logical in spending more or less for a specific item? It all depends upon the total utils (value) to the individual for the dollars spent compared to available alternatives.

 

[everydefense]

I had been eyeing a .22lr revolver for some time to add to my lineup for use as a training tool, along with other .22lr firearms I have. I have never seen a Heritage Rough Rider "in real life" before, however, the price was too good to ignore: I bought one last week for $111 online, free shipping, and $15 transfer fee. I plan to pick it up early next week, so I guess that will be the moment of truth to see what exactly I purchased for $126 "out the door". If nothing else, I will use it for a few years and keep an eye out for higher quality gun. Based on past experiences, I feel pretty confident someone in town would buy it from me for $100-150 (used) on Armslist... assuming the barrel doesn't fall off

 

[Sistema1927]

Let's not be guilty of doing what some of the enemies of freedom have done in the past, and that is "divide and conquer".

Some people can only afford a $125 gun, for others the sky is the limit. For some families, the only way that they are going to teach the next generation is to use a $125 gun. This is no different from the situation that existed when the antis wanted to bad cheap "Saturday Night Specials". They actually enlisted the good will of some gun owners, convincing them that there was no place for these "junk" pistols. Never mind that the single mother, living in public housing, and with a limited budget, had a far greater need for a self defense weapon than most suburbanites. She, and others like her, were effectively disarmed when these inexpensive self-defense weapons were banned. Would a Rohm revolver hold up to hundreds of rounds? Of course not, but it might just be enough to be the difference between life and death.

So, there is a place for Hi-Points, and there is a place for Holland & Holland shotguns, and everything in between. Let us never condemn people for spending their money as they see fit in order to exercise their God given right to self-defense.

 

[MedWheeler]

Sistema1927 writes:

Let's not be guilty of doing what some of the enemies of freedom have done in the past, and that is "divide and conquer".

This.

I'd bet money that the governments of those locales that limit legal handguns to those on a list enlist at least some gun-knowledgeable people in creating these lists, and that some of those enlisted are even gun-rights supporters. Yet they, too, would disarm some members of the populace simply because they lack the funds and/or the enthusiasm held by themselves.

As I've mentioned before, there are countless firearms-enthusiasts who will tell someone they need to "save up for six months if it takes that to get a 'good' gun" to go armed, yet they themselves won't walk out the front door tomorrow without theirs.

 

[CraigC]

Some people can only afford a $125 gun, for others the sky is the limit.....

On the other hand, if all you can afford is $125, can you really afford to waste it? A wise man once said, cheap is too expensive.

 

[ThomasT]

If you want to know the true value of a RR gun buy a new one from your local gun store for the sale price of $100 and then take it back unfired 3 months later and see how much they offer you for it. I think you will be shocked. I would be surprised if they offered half of what you paid for it.

 

[Dave T]

If you want to know the true value of a RR gun buy a new one from your local gun store for the sale price of $100 and then take it back unfired 3 months later and see how much they offer you for it. I think you will be shocked. I would be surprised if they offered half of what you paid for it.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of the stores that sold a RR for $100 wouldn't want it back. To sell it as a used gun the asking price would be so low you would have to give it to them for free to make it worth their while to do the paper work to log it into their books.

Dave

 

[danez71]

Let's not be guilty of doing what some of the enemies of freedom have done in the past, and that is "divide and conquer".

Some people can only afford a $125 gun, for others the sky is the limit. For some families, the only way that they are going to teach the next generation is to use a $125 gun. This is no different from the situation that existed when the antis wanted to bad cheap "Saturday Night Specials". They actually enlisted the good will of some gun owners, convincing them that there was no place for these "junk" pistols. Never mind that the single mother, living in public housing, and with a limited budget, had a far greater need for a self defense weapon than most suburbanites. She, and others like her, were effectively disarmed when these inexpensive self-defense weapons were banned. Would a Rohm revolver hold up to hundreds of rounds? Of course not, but it might just be enough to be the difference between life and death.

So, there is a place for Hi-Points, and there is a place for Holland & Holland shotguns, and everything in between. Let us never condemn people for spending their money as they see fit in order to exercise their God given right to self-defense.

I keep bringing this up myself.

We do it to ourselves, in a variety of ways, about as well as the Anti's do it to us.

 

[everydefense]

If you want to know the true value of a RR gun buy a new one from your local gun store for the sale price of $100 and then take it back unfired 3 months later and see how much they offer you for it. I think you will be shocked. I would be surprised if they offered half of what you paid for it.

Why would you ever sell a gun to a gun shop, though? Private sales get you way more bang for your buck by cutting out the middle man. I realize that wasn't the point of your question, but it does have an effect on the outcome of the scenario you presented.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

There was a time when all I could afford was a five hundred dollar car. I wasn't offended when people laughed at it or made fun of it.
If all someone can afford is Hi-Point, Heritage, etc. that's fine.
Getting hurt feelings over a cheap gun = Snowflake.

 

[Old Dog]

Uh, yeah, but weren't you the one who earlier said this:

In summary

Rough Rider; A glued together pot metal, noisemaker similar to the cap gun I had as a child with a silly little safety and a melting point lower than a polymer gun.

Single Six; A quality firearm, for those that know the difference, that will last several generations and is not embarrassing to own.

Entry level guns are like entry level automobiles. If someone chooses to continually improve their choices, they eventually gravitate toward quality. For those who start without much capital, being forced to buy "cheap," most eventually learn. For those who maintain that cheap is "good enough," who are you to pass judgement?

 

[Big7]

Chinesium

You owe me a keyboard.. And a monitor.

I've been in manufacturing for a WHILE and have been looking for a word to describe just that.

 

[JohnKSa]

Let's not be guilty of doing what some of the enemies of freedom have done in the past, and that is "divide and conquer".

The fact that I can tell the difference between a quality gun and a firearm made primarily to be accessible to those who can't afford to buy a good quality firearm doesn't mean I think that zamak guns should be banned, voluntarily taken off the market or even legally restricted more than those made of titanium, aircraft aluminum and steel.

The fact that I am willing to be honest and point out that there are guns on the market which are essentially functional garbage (or maybe not even all that functional) and am willing to point out which ones fit into that category doesn't mean I'm suggesting that they shouldn't exist or that there should be laws against making/selling/buying/owning/importing them.

Let's not be guilty of pretending that the ability to discern quality is equivalent to being anti-second amendment or that the willingness to be honest about the durability and functionality of some firearms must be the same as willingness to ban them.

I'm not going to be buying any firearms with zamak parts anytime soon, nor will I be recommending them to family or friends, or to anyone, for that matter, who can afford better. But I strongly support the second amendment and believe that companies should be able to make, and people should be able to buy, really low-quality but highly affordable firearms.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Uh, yeah, but weren't you the one who earlier said this:


Entry level guns are like entry level automobiles. If someone chooses to continually improve their choices, they eventually gravitate toward quality. For those who start without much capital, being forced to buy "cheap," most eventually learn. For those who maintain that cheap is "good enough," who are you to pass judgement?

How is this different from what I said?

 

[FROGO207]

A loooong time ago in another world my first handgun was a .22 Jennings. At the time it was better than a pointed stick and easier to carry than a baseball bat. And I had just enough cash to buy it one payday. I could have purchased the .25 ACP version for the same cost but the .25 ACP ammo was so much more expensive. I still have that pistol and it still shoots as well as it ever did. Thankfully I never had to fire it to save my life but the reality that it was in my hand and pointed at someone and caused an attack on me to stop will forever make me grateful I was able to own it at such a low price. Things are MUCH different now.

 

[Fast Frank]

Some states, such as Illinois and South Carolina, passed laws aimed at keeping "cheap" guns out of the hands of those people they felt would be most likely to use them, which they believed would only be thugs and gang bangers.

This kind of thinking always amazes me: "People I don't like have cheap nearly worthless guns, so let's make cheap nearly worthless guns hard to get." Now those same people that I still don't like have a glock 40 because that's what is available.

BRILLIANT!

In my mind, the Single Six and the Rough Rider are not the same gun, and the difference in price is not connected any more than the difference in price between any other dis-similar items. Yes, a football stadium costs more than a pack of gum. So what?

 

[jnichols2]

Unfornutely, I don't have either a Rough Rider or a Ruger Single Six. So I'll use .22 handguns that I know.

My first .22 was a Walther P22. Imagine a Walther with German engineering for $300.
It took me MANY hours of work and 400 rounds to get it to fire a magazine without jams.
After I got it running, I found out the slide was zinc (pot metal), and would crack "when not if".
It's the worst value handgun I have out of 42.

Next was a Ruger Mark IV for $450. Super accurate, never jams. Great value, one of the best.

Then came a S&W M17 revolver. Long and heavy, sleek and beautiful, and pinpoint accurate.
It cost $862, a fortune for a .22 revolver. But I love it, admire the craftmanship, and love to shoot it.
Many folks would call me crazy for paying so much, but to me it was worth it. To me, it's a real good value.

Last, a S&W M&P .22 Compact, for when the Walther dies. At $350, its only slightly more than the Walther.
It shoots like a dream, and has never jammed. It's what I had hoped the Walther to be. Great value.

Of course, I have a different outlook on money than I had 30 or 40 years ago.
I slaved for 50 years to save for the future. During that time, I never owned a gun or boat, etc.
One day I realized that "today is the future I have been saving for". I started buying some of the things I wanted.

 

[Saleen322]

This thread is REALLY about what passes for common knowledge or "common sense" in the gun world, and my suspicion that much of that is really people just repeating what they've heard elsewhere, with no data to back it up. For simplicity's sake, I'm looking at this through the lense of two well-known guns, the Rough Rider and the Single Six. (I have owned both)....

I don't have the spare money to waste it on the Rough Rider. If you buy the RR, you SPENT less money. If you buy the Ruger, you invested your money and not only got a better revolver, you can get your money back (more?) after using it for 10 years or so if you chose. If you are short of cash, buy a used Ruger and again you can sell it much easier than a Rough Rider. I have yet to see big demand in the used RR market. YMMV

 

[SamT1]

I wish I had bought a rough rider or 4 back 10 years ago maybe when a Academy had them for $100 on Black Friday. Instead I bought a Rossi 357 for $200, I traded it for a Honda 3 wheeler!

The reason to buy a rough rider is that you can buy one, some targets and lots of ammo for the same money as a better gun. That’s assuming funds are limited.
It’s a poor investment in the long run.
It’s not a bad buy, the price is right, but in 10 years you’ll have lost half your money if the barrel doesn’t fall out . That single six will probably be worth more dollars than today due to inflation.

Rough rider, enjoy it, shoot it out, move on

Single six, enjoy it, pass it down, sell it and maybe get some interest on your money (doubt it’s above inflation unless it’s still in 95%)

Look at all the cheap bolt guns around now. Rem 770, savage axis, those things can kill game and punch paper as good as anything. But the resale on them even 5 shots away from new is horrible.

In the moment cheap guns can accomplish the same thing as more expensive ones. Long term they are a bad investment unless it’s truly underrated and that’s why it’s cheap.

 

[<*(((><]

My first .22 was a Walther P22. Imagine a Walther with German engineering for $300.
It took me MANY hours of work and 400 rounds to get it to fire a magazine without jams.
After I got it running, I found out the slide was zinc (pot metal), and would crack "when not if".
It's the worst value handgun I have out of 42.

Last, a S&W M&P .22 Compact, for when the Walther dies. At $350, its only slightly more than the Walther.
It shoots like a dream, and has never jammed. It's what I had hoped the Walther to be. Great value.

Umarex and Walther merged not to long ago, at about which time Umarex started producing cheap firearms for different makers (Colt's .22lr M4, S&W M&P .22, Walther P22, GSG's MP5 .22lr knockoff, etc). If you want the quintessential Walther engineering it can be still had out of their Ulm plant in Germany that produces their whole PPQ line.

Lucky for you, you bought the S&W .22 COMPACT (made in US don't know if the materials are different but I imagine they are better) as the standard S&W .22 is made right alongside the Walther P22 in the Arnsberg Umarex plant in Germany.

The Smith and Wesson M&P .22 is to the S&W .22 Compact what the Walther PPQ .22 (made in the Ulm plant alongside the whole PPQ line) is to the Walther P22 (made in the Umarex plant in Arnsberg alongside other pot metal wonders such as the S&W M&P .22, the GSG .22, and Walther P22)

I have the Walther PPQ .22 (it has an aluminum alloy slide rather than a zamak (zinc) slide and steel frame inserts) and there is worlds difference between it and the P22.