Why Are Guns So Expensive?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Using minmum wages as a guidepost I belive guns are cheaper than ever. Back in 1974 I was in high school working a minimum wage job and saved up enough money to buy my first rifle. I bought a Remington 700 ADL, a cheap scope, mounts, leather sling and 1 box of ammo. Total cost was $250 OTD. At 1974 minimum wages I worked 131.5 hours to pay for the gun. At todays minimum wages a kid working the same number of hours would earn $953. In 2012 I can spend $600 and have a better rifle and scope and have $350 left over.
Once more. Why does a Leatherman tool that cost about 50 bucks in 1990 still cost 50 bucks when a Ruger MKIII cost $185 in 1990 and now costs over $300?

I'm talking price, you're talking buying power. Apples/oranges.
 
Last edited:
"Real dollars?"

OK, then let's discount the prices of those goods that are the same as they were 20 years ago. I gave plenty of examples.

The fact of the matter is that many things cost the same today as they cost 20 years ago without adjusting for inflation. Some like the 92F actually cost less.

Inflation is an absolute non-issue in this discussion if it's not considered for all products compared.
 
Gun prices have clearly, absolutely not spiraled up in price in real dollars. Let's please put this incorrect assumption to rest.

Then we can talk about a concept known as "economies of scale."
What does "economies of scale" have to do with this?

If anything the market for guns is larger today affording larger/"better" economies of scale which equates to lower costs and (and at least in theory) possibly lower pricing.

Next?
 
If anything the market for guns is larger today affording larger/"better" economies of scale which equates to lower costs and (and at least in theory) possibly lower pricing.

Next?

Nice try, but economies of scale have everything to do with this.

You have mentioned the Leatherman repeatedly. Again, it is a red herring. The markets for Leatherman tools and firearms have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The Leatherman was first released in 1983. It was a new product and was expensive--a lot of new tooling had to get paid for. However, Leatherman tools fulfilled an unmet need and the lack of competition (for a time) meant that they could expand sales immensely. Therefore, the Leatherman had tremendous potential to exploit economies of scale to reduce the price over time as volume increased from zero to whatever millions they are now.

The Colt Single Action Army has been made (not always continuously) since 1873 (I also get to cherry pick an example.) The market for new SAAs has been steady but stable for a long time. Since 1983 there simply has not been the explosive increase in demand to drive production volume up so that Colt could take advantage of economies of scale. Moreover, the SAA is a far more complex machine to build than the Leatherman, so there is less Colt could have done to reduce the price without compromising quality.

Make sense?
 
I forget where I read it, but The ratio of sales was 70% to governmental agencies and the balance on the commercial market. A contract to an agency for a large quantity of product makes a stable income source. The commercial market is much less stable, supply and demand take over pricing and profit margins.
 
Nice try, but economies of scale have everything to do with this.

Do you even know what "economies of scale" means? I ask that given your comments...

You have mentioned the Leatherman repeatedly. Again, it is a red herring. The markets for Leatherman tools and firearms have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The Leatherman was first released in 1983. It was a new product and was expensive--a lot of new tooling had to get paid for. However, Leatherman tools fulfilled an unmet need and the lack of competition (for a time) meant that they could expand sales immensely. Therefore, the Leatherman had tremendous potential to exploit economies of scale to reduce the price over time as volume increased from zero to whatever millions they are now.

On really? Red-herring, huh? I gave several examples. All "red-herrings", huh? In all actuality they are great examples. They are all made in the USA. Made out of steel and most are sporting goods. FWIW, I'm sure Leatherman's production was fully ramped-up LONG, LONG before 1988 (that's 20 years ago.)

Those same "economies of scale" can and have been exploited in gunmaking as well.


The Colt Single Action Army has been made (not always continuously) since 1873 (I also get to cherry pick an example.) The market for new SAAs has been steady but stable for a long time. Since 1983 there simply has not been the explosive increase in demand to drive production volume up so that Colt could take advantage of economies of scale. Moreover, the SAA is a far more complex machine to build than the Leatherman, so there is less Colt could have done to reduce the price without compromising quality.

Are you suggesting that Colt's procurement and manufacturing processes would really be that different and yield materially lower costs if there was some incremental level of greater demand? I seriously doubt that would be the case. Possibly a little, but not much. If you like, we can break the procurement and manufacturing process down step by step if you like.

Ruger makes more single action revolvers then ever before and their prices are at a all-time high despite an increased market demand.


Make sense?

Why is it that Ping golf clubs are the same price or cheaper today then they were in 1988? How come Leopold scopes are 2-3x more expensive today like Ruger revolvers?
Next?

Here's a concept for you. Market demand allows greater EOS. Yet not all companies take advantage of increased EOS. Many cannot due to financial limitations and increasing one's spending in PP&E in order to increase EOS and hopefully reduce costs isn't always the best idea based on measures like IRR -- particularly in markets like gunmaking.

"Make sense?"
 
Last edited:
Once more. Why does a Leatherman tool that cost about 50 bucks in 1990 still cost 50 bucks when a Ruger MKIII cost $185 in 1990 and now costs over $300?

Has that tool been changed, improved or been redesigned in the last 20 years or do they use the same dies, the same equiptment and same steel recipe? Many companies have a time period for their ROI (return on investment) and anything produced after that (in the same product) is now pure profit. Maybe the time of return was 5 years and the last 15 years has been clean profit and there was no need to raise prices or maybe the competition has come out with a similar product at the same price so raising the price would decrease their sales. Technology also plays a huge part. Computers that cost $2000 10 years ago now go for $400 with more and better features. If the price of a car tripled in the last 20 years, the true cost has actually gone down due to the fact that they now have 8 or 12 air bags, ABS, and TC, they all have cruise control, power windows and locks, Blue Tooth, etc. Add the costs of these items add to that base cost and the cost has not risen as much as it seems. Each item you wish to compare is unique in it's production costs. Competition, R&D, supply and demand and technology all play a huge part in the final cost. In the 60s, the newest color TV may have cost $500 and today that same $500 buys a nice flat screen with inputs for all kinds of toys. There is no blanket answer for all the items we buy.

I'd venture to say that the $500 Glock was produced 20 years ago was very similar to the $500 Glock sold today. Yes, they had Gen 2 and Gen 3 now but for the most part it was the same gun produced from the same blueprints on the same machines by the same people. Competition and the advance of technology have allowed competitors to sell at the same $500 range so that is where the price is now "set".
 
Leatherman was grossly overpriced to begin with because they had a great idea and markerted the idea. They lost their hold on the market because of competition and could not increase their price because the market would not bear it.


Rather than our continuing to read your obviously slanted psots why don't you just tell us what you think we want to know? You have done nothing but bait and tyr to get people to come to you rway of thinking. Fine!

The US gun manufacturers have colluded to raise the price of their guns far above the other durable goods produced in the USA. They have done this because they are money grubbing scum and are living in the lap of luxury while the poor working man can barely affod to buy a new 1911 every now and again.

We need to continue to ignore the other figures presented that refute your theory because....they refute your theory. Guns are not over-priced when compared to gun prices 20 years ago.

Please tell us what conclusion you want us to come to as this is getting to be very "trolly".
 
Kynoch,

I appreciate your dogged refusal to let facts get in the way of a good theory. It's been fun trying to find new ways to explain the same basic concepts of markets and manufacturing to you. Keep at it! I want to see where you're going with this--clearly, not it's anywhere logical, but it's entertaining all the same.
 
When I was a punk kid on Oahu in '74, I remember the 12oz cans being one dollar.

Eh Brah! I stay there too in '74 - punk kid in paradise. Riding "Da Bus" cost $0.10. Made for a highly mobile childhood as the beach was only a dime away.

My dad was in the Air Force stationed at Hickam AFB, then we moved to Texas. It was only then I began to notice firearms prices.
 
I actually did some price comparing and only found ammo prices to have raised significatly for some calibers such as 45 Colt, etc. 9mm for example seems to have gone down when comparing todays dollars to years ago when if first came on the scene. 22LR is another that has gotten very little change in price. New gun calibers like 40, 454, etc are fairly new on the scene so expect higher prices but those will drop a bit over time. Guns have gone up about the rate of inflation as near as I can see however the demand for some models and specific calibers have made some hard to find at the moment too. We are living in a time in US history where demand is high due to mostly scary thoughts of the future and that will also eventually pass one way of the other. Now that is my opinion so take it for what it is worth.
 
Ruger makes more single action revolvers then ever before and their prices are at a all-time high despite an increased market demand

HUH? Did you miss the concept about supply and demand?? If your statements are true, then the increased demand will allow Ruger to charge as much as the market will bear

But if you go back and do the inflation calculator, you will see most guns prices from 20 years or so to today are relatively the same
 
HUH? Did you miss the concept about supply and demand?? If your statements are true, then the increased demand will allow Ruger to charge as much as the market will bear

Don't worry, if his reply to you is anything like the ones I've gotten than you're in for a bunch of hand waving and hilarious attempts at condescension as he tries to reexplain simple concepts you clearly already understand.

Our OP is trying to make a point, just hasn't settled on which one yet. All you can be sure is that he definitely doesn't agree with you, whatever you have to say. I love the internet!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top