Ruger Wrangler ($176.00) vs. Ruger 5435 LCRx ($470.00)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Company A produces a firearm that performs well , has a great reputation , and is durable enough to hand down through multiple generations.

Company B produces a firearm of similar style for 1/3 the price , using cheap materials and many shortcuts in machining and assembly.

Company A must be evil.

Makes sense to me.
 
When people are willing to part with $500 + for half plastic item full of stamped parts why not?
 
Why would someone assume that because a company offers a hideous low priced gun to customers who just want a low priced gun, that the company must be gouging on other product lines? That makes no sense.

If the market supports the pricing of the other higher priced guns, then obviously people are choosing to pay for the fit, finish, or other characteristics that they find desirable. That doesn't mean they are being gouged. It means they choose to spend their money on what they'd prefer to own.

I wouldn't pay $100 for that thing. But I'm sure plenty of folks will be happy to own one.
 
People need to realize that you're not just paying for the conglomeration of parts and the material that went into making them. You're paying for the R&D which is often times considerable. You're paying for expensive milling machines, casting equipment, molding equipment, finishing equipment, all the associated maintenance, the facilities they are housed in, utilities, liability insurance, all sorts of taxes and fees associated with just running a business. Then you have to pay for all those people who come together to make it happen. It's astonishing that Ruger is able to produce a firearm that we can buy for less than $200. Quit griping about your fellow Americans making a living and go buy one and shoot it. Despite what those on the other side of the political aisle would have you believe, profit is not evil.
 
I think you're assuming that the incremental raw materials cost is the primary driver of cost in these firearms. That's unlikely at best. It's a bad assumption.
I made no such assumption. Quite the opposite in fact. It's clear that raw materials, processing and the rest of the costs associated with cost of sales has little to do with Ruger's pricing on the LCRx, based upon the readily apparent costs and the pricing of their new Wrangler.

Ruger charges what the market will bear -- even if that means gouging. If the market further softens, I predict further erosion of firearms pricing, as there is plenty of margin to cut.
 
Why would someone assume that because a company offers a hideous low priced gun to customers who just want a low priced gun, that the company must be gouging on other product lines? That makes no sense.

No assumption. See posting #1. The cost to produce the LCRx is comparable to the Wrangler, yet the sales price is hugely different. There's simply no way to tap-dance around that. There are a number of reasons for this on both ends. With their new Wrangler, Ruger must be extremely aggressive on pricing, given the existing competition in that market. That means a lot -- very aggressive, existing competition is the very factor that keeps Ruger out of the shotgun market. On the other hand, there's little real competition (and demand I suspect) for the LCRx, and what there is tends to be traditionally designed/built (forged) revos that tend to be expensive themselves.

If the market supports the pricing of the other higher priced guns, then obviously people are choosing to pay for the fit, finish, or other characteristics that they find desirable. That doesn't mean they are being gouged. It means they choose to spend their money on what they'd prefer to own.

They are being gouged -- whether they know/admit to it or not.
 
Not a big Ruger fan so I have no pony in this race. Having said that Ruger is not gouging other lines to pay for the Wrangler.
I didn't say that Ruger is gouging on one product line to underwrite another. That's YOUR assertion.

Why not say that Ruger is gouging Redhawk buyers to supplement LCRx? None of these guns are premium firearms.
I didn't say Ruger was gouging on one product to "supplement" another. However I compared the the Wrangler and the LCRx because in terms of manufacturing and sales costs, they are comparable, yet their prices differ wildly. A Redhawk is not comparable to a LCRx in its cost to manufacture.
 
Company A produces a firearm that performs well , has a great reputation , and is durable enough to hand down through multiple generations.

Company B produces a firearm of similar style for 1/3 the price , using cheap materials and many shortcuts in machining and assembly.

Company A must be evil.

Makes sense to me.
Your comments might make you feel good, but they have no place in this thread.

Like it or not, I'm comparing two different products from the same manufacturer with similar production costs, yet they are priced very differently.
 
When people are willing to part with $500 + for half plastic item full of stamped parts why not?
In a sense, you're absolutely right. Charge what the market will bear -- maximize the sales price/volume ratio.

That doesn't mean however that Ruger must be maintaining absurdly high margins on the LCRx -- unless of course they are dumping Wranglers under cost to build market share and hammer their existing competition, with plans to raise prices once they have driven them from the market -- which I seriously doubt they are.
 
I made no such assumption. Quite the opposite in fact. It's clear that raw materials, processing and the rest of the costs associated with cost of sales has little to do with Ruger's pricing on the LCRx, based upon the readily apparent costs and the pricing of their new Wrangler.

Injection molding costs money. Design of a novel lockwork costs money. Heat treating cylinders to stand up to centerfire loads costs money.
 
Injection molding costs money. Design of a novel lockwork costs money. Heat treating cylinders to stand up to centerfire loads costs money.
So does die-casting. Die-casting tooling is also typically more expensive (neither is cheap.) Ruger is likely using something like Zytel for the LCRx's grip frame and Zamak for the Wrangler's grip frame. Again, very comparable.

The design amortization of the LCRx/unit isn't all that much. Ruger is a master of taking other company's designs. Anyway, I'm sure it's been paid for by now.

I'm comparing 22s. I suspect the heat treat for the cylinders for the Wrangler and the LCRx (either .22 or CF) are identical.
 
Your comments might make you feel good, but they have no place in this thread.

Like it or not, I'm comparing two different products from the same manufacturer with similar production costs, yet they are priced very differently.

Ok , I will revise---
Company A produces a composite centerfire double action revolver at a fairly high price point. Said company experiences significant market acceptance and success with that product.

Later on , Company A produces single action rimfire revolver , also composite but of different materials than the earlier centerfire revolver , and aimed at a lower priced market. Initial market reaction to the new product is positive.

Company A must be evil.
 
So does die-casting. Die-casting tooling is also typically more expensive (neither is cheap.) Ruger is likely using something like Zytel for the LCRx's grip frame and Zamak for the Wrangler's grip frame. Again, very comparable.

The design amortization of the LCRx/unit isn't all that much. Ruger is a master of taking other company's designs. Anyway, I'm sure it's been paid for by now.

I'm comparing 22s. I suspect the heat treat for the cylinders for the Wrangler and the LCRx (either .22 or CF) are identical.

Ruger uses lost wax investment casting. Not die casting.
 
No assumption. See posting #1. The cost to produce the LCRx is comparable to the Wrangler, yet the sales price is hugely different. There's simply no way to tap-dance around that.
Charging competitive prices for a market item that has a good demand is not gouging. It's making a profit. Which a company needs to do to stay in business. If you view that as gouging then I recommend you never buy anything ever again because you are being gouged on everything. You fail to acknowledge this.

And I'm sorry but the LCR, regardless of it's low cost to produce still had to be designed, developed, casting and tooling had to be developed, and employees needed to be paid, for a new gun to exist that didn't exist prior to its creation. Ruger has been making SA guns for decades and likely already had a lot of the investment made. The LCR and LCRx development cost money. Plain and simple.

On the other hand, there's little real competition (and demand I suspect) for the LCRx, and what there is tends to be traditionally designed/built (forged) revos that tend to be expensive themselves.
And you don't think that J frames with exposed hammers constitute real competition for the LCRx? Umm...….. ok.
 
Last edited:
Ruger uses lost wax investment casting. Not die casting.
No. You are wrong.

Ruger uses IC on a lot of their firearms -- they are known for using ICs rather than forgings. However as I noted on the Wrangler grip frame they use Zamak/zinc die-castings. The Wrangler's cylinder frame however is an aluminum part -- either IC or MIM.
 
Last edited:
Charging competitive prices for a market item that has a good demand is not gouging. It's making a profit. Which a company needs to do to stay in business. If you view that as gouging then I recommend you never buy anything ever again because you are being gouged on everything. You fail to acknowledge this.

They're gouging. Many gun companies are gouging on many different models. It's not until hardcore competition hits a market that prices at least begin to reflect their actual COGS. The AR15 is a good example of a platform with serious competitive pressures.

And I'm sorry but the LCR, regardless of it's low cost to produce still had to be designed, developed, casting and tooling had to be developed, and employees needed to be paid, for a new gun to exist that didn't exist prior to its creation. Ruger has been making SA guns for decades and likely already had a lot of the investment made. The LCR and LCRx guns cost money. Plain and simple.

Ha! The development costs of the LCRx were trivial in the overall scheme of things. I suspect its tooling costs were similar to the Wrangler. I'm sorry, but that's plain and simple. As far as the Wrangler, Ruger just copied its competitors -- they are well known for doing do.

And you don't think that J frames with exposed hammers constitute real competition for the LCRx? Umm...….. ok.

Wow, read what I posted abve. J Frame Smiths are relatively expensive -- they're traditional forged revos. They don't provide much price pressure on the LCRx. That was my entire point that you completely missed.
 
Last edited:
If I were to choose one product that was gouging, it would be the Ruger LCP ll. $256.00 current price at Buds. 10oz Pistol, with a aluminum frame. Why is that gun's cost more than a Wrangler? Is the Wrangler a cheaper made gun than the LCP? A whopping $75.00?
I guess from Ruger prices alone, we can assume the quality of a Wrangler is not even the quality of a LCP. And the cheap little LCP does not even have a set of sights.
 
CraigC writes:

It's astonishing that Ruger is able to produce a firearm that we can buy for less than $200.

Isn't it? Ruger has a reputation for "over-building" their revolvers. While that's a good thing with hard-shooting centerfires, it's not necessary at all for a .22 plinker. I'm glad they took a chance on this.
 
Wow, read what I posted abve. J Frame Smiths are relatively expensive -- they're traditional forged revos. They don't provide much price pressure on the LCRx. That was my entire point that you completely missed.
I didn’t miss your point at all. I just think you are flat wrong.

I’ve seen j frame versus LCR/x threads on THR and other forums consistently since the LCR and LCRx came out. That makes sense since they fill nearly the same niche. If people are debating between the two models then that constitutes competition which absolutely does put price pressure on the LCRx.
 
The design amortization of the LCRx/unit isn't all that much.
Ha! The development costs of the LCRx were trivial in the overall scheme of things. I suspect its tooling costs were similar to the Wrangler.
I'm going to ask again, how do you know that?


They're gouging. Many gun companies are gouging on many different models.
Price gouging is a liberal concept. Borne out of a complete lack of understanding or respect for a free market economy. In this context, it just makes you come off as a Ruger hater.


As far as the Wrangler, Ruger just copied its competitors -- they are well known for doing do.
A copy of what, exactly? The Wrangler is a New Model Single Six with an aluminum frame and zinc grip frame.

It's comical that you call yourself an engineer and yet continually say that Ruger is well known for copying its competitors. Everything is based on whatever came before it. Sure, the LCP is very similar to the KelTec but so are several others. Like the S&W Bodyguard .380. It's no more a "copy" of the KelTec than the Single Six was a "copy" of the Colt SAA. Sorry but "copying" is not what Ruger is well known for. Was Colt "copying" Ruger when they designed the New Frontier or Frontier Scout?


The Wrangler's cylinder frame however is an aluminum part -- either IC or MIM.
I would think someone who calls themselves an engineer and presumes to know about Ruger's manufacturing processes would know that MIM is not applicable to frames.
 
Too early to have a beer, along with it
Says who? :D

I disagree with the notions that have been presented by the OP because they are based on opinions and no data. He can say he's right all he wants. But guess what?
073F1ED1-3DDD-4C11-AFF1-E78D05523397.gif

But why would I waste my time anymore, or his for that matter?
 
Last edited:
Seems Both sides of this coin are doing nothing but speculating without any real data and nothing but opinion. I suggest a stale mate and move on.

P91TmJ2.gif
 
Last edited:
Wow, read what I posted abve. J Frame Smiths are relatively expensive -- they're traditional forged revos. They don't provide much price pressure on the LCRx. That was my entire point that you completely missed.

You can get a S&W 642 for a little over $300…

You do realize there's a huge difference in the parts and lock work between a single action .22 and a double action revolver with a swing out cylinder right? I'm sure they're making good money on the LCR's but to say to say the production costs are similar with no evidence just seems silly. Have you ever stripped a DA revolver down to all the individual components? Do you know how many individual components are in each gun?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top