Very low priced non-proprietary pistol?

[Varminterror]

No one (except you) mentioned an 80% anything. Changing the story to show us how smart you are?

I'd venture he mentioned the 80% because you're building a Glock clone, and the ONLY remotely affordable Glock clone frame today is an 80% grip frame.

Maybe @Solomonson has me on his ignore list? As I've asked twice, but haven't gotten a response yet...?

You made the proposition:

I'm sure a $199.99 or less Klock 17 would be possible with very decent margins.

Since you're sure of it, and since you're lambasting anyone who doesn't share your opinion, show us how smart YOU are...

Can you elucidate the pathway to change that? How to get a serialized Glock clone grip frame for $49.99? Currently, polymer80 lowers run $150, with a remarkable current sale for $70. Lone Wolf Timberwolf frames run $199 currently for a stripped frame (this is a complete, serialized part).

Our current world is this: $200+ for a slide. $150+ for a frame (not counting this current "one time only sale" on the 80% G17 frames). $150+ for a barrel. The ancillary parts, currently, are $150+. That's $650. Even with a consumer realizable price of $70 - the current sale on Polymer80 frames - we're talking $570 to build a glock clone today.

What is our first step in reducing the manufacturers' production cost of ANY SINGLE ONE of those components above, to reach your $199.99 goal?

Or alternatively - what is your recommended first step in reducing the consumer price of ANY SINGLE ONE of those components above? The retail prices of Glock's haven't gotten cheaper over the years, they've only gotten more expensive to the consumer. So whether production costs were reduced or not, the competing product pricing of a factory Glock will ALWAYS remain to drive the cost of a Glock clone - in lay terms - if a retailer can fetch a higher margin because the competing alternatives are higher priced, he'll charge the higher price and pay those increased profits as dividends to investors with a smile on his face. So effectively, the question becomes: what's the pathway to eliminating competitive capitalism in the US?

 

[Varminterror]

I believe the actual design was owned by the U.S. government, not Colt.

The original design was owned by Armalite (makes sense right - why would Colt name their design "Armalite Rifle"?), subsequently licensed to Colt, and subsequently others until the patent expired. The Gov was effectively a licensee, NOT a "design" owner. There's a difference.

 

[tipoc]

The basic patents that Armalite held on the AR10 and 15 began to expire about 1989 or so. At that time Lewis Tool and Machine Co. (LMT), Bushmaster, and Knight's Armament began making variations of the rifle. Others followed. These were all more or less small companies that had resources and capital for investment in the new machinery and tooling needed or they contracted out with those that did. (Pine Tree Manufacturing, owned by Ruger early on did investment cast aluminum receivers for ARs, as did others). That was 27 years ago.

There are a lot of reasons for the rise of the AR and that's an interesting discussion but off topic here. I think though that the more you look into it the more the op seems to have a mistaken impression of what happened.

The same is true of handgun manufacturers and Glock and polymer framed striker fired pistols. Think it thorough.

If someone could produce in their home a viable pistol for $200. What would it have to offer that would make it sell able? Why would anyone buy it when for $100 more factory produced guns new in the box are available? When used guns are available? If it is a niche gun I can see it. If unique in some way I can see it.

The other aspect is why build it as other than a hobby? To market it costs money. It's not simply making back the money you invested in time and parts. Packing and shipping are a part of the cost as well. The price point would have to be worth it. A $200.00 MSRP may not make that for a home.

 

[goon]

I'd venture he mentioned the 80% because you're building a Glock clone, and the ONLY remotely affordable Glock clone frame today is an 80% grip frame.

Maybe @Solomonson has me on his ignore list? As I've asked twice, but haven't gotten a response yet...?

You made the proposition:



Since you're sure of it, and since you're lambasting anyone who doesn't share your opinion, show us how smart YOU are...

Can you elucidate the pathway to change that? How to get a serialized Glock clone grip frame for $49.99? Currently, polymer80 lowers run $150, with a remarkable current sale for $70. Lone Wolf Timberwolf frames run $199 currently for a stripped frame (this is a complete, serialized part).

Our current world is this: $200+ for a slide. $150+ for a frame (not counting this current "one time only sale" on the 80% G17 frames). $150+ for a barrel. The ancillary parts, currently, are $150+. That's $650. Even with a consumer realizable price of $70 - the current sale on Polymer80 frames - we're talking $570 to build a glock clone today.

What is our first step in reducing the manufacturers' production cost of ANY SINGLE ONE of those components above, to reach your $199.99 goal?

Or alternatively - what is your recommended first step in reducing the consumer price of ANY SINGLE ONE of those components above? The retail prices of Glock's haven't gotten cheaper over the years, they've only gotten more expensive to the consumer. So whether production costs were reduced or not, the competing product pricing of a factory Glock will ALWAYS remain to drive the cost of a Glock clone - in lay terms - if a retailer can fetch a higher margin because the competing alternatives are higher priced, he'll charge the higher price and pay those increased profits as dividends to investors with a smile on his face. So effectively, the question becomes: what's the pathway to eliminating competitive capitalism in the US?

I'm just entirely winging it here, but I'd think if S&W can make a poly frame striker fired semi-auto and turn a profit in the $250 range (S9VE), Glock probably could too. People pay for "more" with Glock - the "proven" reliability, the huge aftermarket support with common accessories everywhere, and even the hype to some extent. Glock could cut prices and still turn a profit... I'm not sure how much, but I'd think it would be very hard to build a non-Glock Glock frame and get it in my hands with a full part is kit (like we do with AR's) for less than S&W's competition, or at a price where Glock couldn't beat a small upstart.

The SIG P-320 may have potential since the "reciever" is just a steel insert with rails and fire control parts. Especially once milsurp parts and contract overruns start to come into the market.

Not sure what Solomon's attitude problem is about either. It'd be nice if you could build your own Glock for $200, but I don't see it happening - especially in today's cutthroat market with retail prices trending downward. I'm just making observations, and 80% Glock frames & S&W S9VE's were the closest comparisons I could think of.

 

[BSA1]

I'm just entirely winging it here, but I'd think if S&W can make a poly frame striker fired semi-auto and turn a profit in the $250 range (S9VE), Glock probably could too.

What makes you think Glock can't do that now with their current models?

Don't confuse actual manufacturing costs with market retail price. Why should I sell my product at $200.00 when I sell them for over $400.00? As a businessman my main goal is too make a profit. The more profit the better. Glock was first on the market and came to dominate the market through very effective marketing.

People pay for "more" with Glock - the "proven" reliability, the huge aftermarket support with common accessories everywhere, and even the hype to some extent.

The O.P. has ignored the comment I have made twice about what he is proposing is building a gun of parts from miscellaneous manufacturers which are of unknown quality, is assemble by someone with unknown gunsmithing skills with no warranty and parts support when not for not more I can buy a new S&W M&P.

 

[Varminterror]

What makes you think Glock can't do that now with their current models?

Don't confuse actual manufacturing costs with market retail price. Why should I sell my product at $200.00 when I sell them for over $400.00? As a businessman my main goal is too make a profit. The more profit the better. Glock was first on the market and came to dominate the market through very effective marketing.

The O.P. has ignored the comment I have made twice about what he is proposing is building a gun of parts from miscellaneous manufacturers which are of unknown quality, is assemble by someone with unknown gunsmithing skills with no warranty and parts support when not for not more I can buy a new S&W M&P.

This is the major issue. There's no reason to think anyone who could produce a Glock Clone Kit at lower cost than the current costs would ever sell theirs at such a marked discount compared to fair market price, which TODAY, is dictated by the purchase price of a factory Glock pistol. So as long as Glock keeps selling pistols over $600, their barrels, frames, slides, and internal parts kits will all tally up somewhere around the same price as the factory model.

Any manufacturer entering into that market in a capitalist market and charging ~30% what they COULD charge is a fool, and won't be long lived in the market. Any retained financial advisor (small firm), controller, or CFO would slap anyone who came into their office and suggested they sell a parts set worth $600 for a sum total of $200.

 

[goon]

Agreed - no one is going to sell a handgun that people will pay $500 for at a discounted price, and selling them as "parts kits" just needing a frame would probably save the consumer very little. Glocks do have a bit of customizing going on, and that results in some take off parts, but not really a critical mass to put enough second hand parts on the market cheap enough to support a market on frames only.

I wish we'd see dirt cheap ways to just snap a good handgun together and send 9mm ammo downrange, but for now... probably not yet.

 

[45_auto]

since Glock was foolish enough to serialize the piece of plastic forming the grip frame as their receiver

Since you obviously aren't a fool like Glock, which other component of the Glock design would you propose to serialize that would comply with 27 CFR 478.92?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.92

27 CFR 478.92 - How must licensed manufacturers and licensed importers identify firearms, armor piercing ammunition, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices?

By engraving, casting, stamping (impressing), or otherwise conspicuously placing or causing to be engraved, cast, stamped (impressed) or placed on the frame or receiver thereof an individual serial number.

 

[Sig Bill]

*cough*HiPoint*cough*

 

[Varminterror]

Since you obviously aren't a fool like Glock, which other component of the Glock design would you propose to serialize that would comply with 27 CFR 478.92?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.92

Um... How about the metal internal chassis, like the Sig P250/320, or the Ruger LCP? As doing so gives ultimate freedom for manufacturers to produce aftermarket GRIPS for pistols, which do not constitute the pistol itself. Drop a set of rails into the design, instead of relying soley upon a polymer FCG housing, and serialize it. Bingo bango - modular pistol which would have had a chance at the M17 solicitation...

 

[lysanderxiii]

Right again. Like with the AR15, it leads to lower prices. Great for consumers, not as great for producers.

There must be some profit in it, otherwise everybody wouldn't be making them....