Why are revolvers so expensive?

[nachosgrande]

Not trying to be smart here, just curious from a manufacturing standpoint. It seems to me that somebody could put out a decent .357 for around $200. There aren't too many moving parts like an autoloader, and they're just steel and rubber. You can get a Ruger 10/22 for less than $200, a Mossberg ATR 100 for less than $250, I would think you could do a revolver for about the same. Now, I have shot Rugers, S&W, and Taurus, and I do understand the differences between them, but how much of it is manufacturing, and how much of it is just paying for name?

 

[Hawk]

There aren't too many moving parts like an autoloader, ...

Not all the time.
Maybe not even most of the time.

Personally, I find myself wondering how revolvers are as cheap as they are.

Once you get the "simpler than semi-autos" out of your head, the pricing may fall in place for you. Operational simplicity should be kept distinct from manufacturing simplicity.

With the exception of the REX and an officially unannounced Ruger, they don't get to use polymer. Economies of scale are restricted to MIM, CNC and EDM for the most part.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Well as was said, not any good place to swap out metal for plastic - lots o' steel in them.

The reason S&Ws in particular are so high is pure inertia/ brand loyalty, etc. These days they are not one iota better than much cheaper Taurus and Ruger; in fact definitely inferior to Ruger and about the same or inferior to Taurus. They've cheapened as much as they can AND ALSO raised the price at the same time - pure goodwill/brand name loyalty / marketing at work there. S&Ws are not BAD, by any means, but not as good as they used to be, and not even as good as much cheaper ones nowadays. Nomex on!

 

[Master Blaster]

The reason S&Ws in particular are so high is pure inertia/ brand loyalty, etc. These days they are not one iota better than much cheaper Taurus and Ruger; in fact definitely inferior to Ruger and about the same or inferior to Taurus. They've cheapened as much as they can AND ALSO raised the price at the same time - pure goodwill/brand name loyalty / marketing at work there. S&Ws are not BAD, by any means, but not as good as they used to be, and not even as good as much cheaper ones nowadays. Nomex on

Your opinion, and we all know what opinions are like.

 

[mr.trooper]

Winslow, i agree with you on the Ruger portion of your comment, but speaking from experience with Taurus, there is no comparison. Even with a lock (OH MY GOD!) a S&W is twice the revolver a Taurus is, because at least the Smith can make it 200 rounds without breaking. My personal experience.

 

[18DAI]

Well said Dr Tad.

 

[Hawk]

Nomex shielded opinions notwithstanding, I get the impression the OP would still be asking his question in an alternate universe with no S&W, no used Colt, no Korth, no Manurhin, no STI and no Freedom Arms. In other words, considering only Taurus and Ruger, revolvers still cost too much in comparison to semi-autos.

At least I think he'd still have the same question.

As example, just using Ruger:
22/45: MSRP = 324, Bearcat = 501, Single Six Convertible = 519
P95 9mm: MSRP = 424, GP-100 = 616

Why is the Bearcat more than the 22/45?
Why is the GP-100 more than the P95?

Same question, no "S&W versus Taurus" derail needed, n'cest pas? Actually, finding semi-autos that cost more than the revolver examples is pretty easy, but revolvers seldom comprise the lowest price tier. The OP is hunting 200.00 revolvers - neither Ruger nor Taurus offer much comfort in that regard.

So why not?

 

[Hawk]

Well said Dr Tad.

Only insofar as its value as a thread derail is concerned.

It barely brushed up against the OP's question.

Your comment didn't even do that much.

"S&W versus Ruger/Taurus" pricing has about as much relevance to "Revolver versus Semi-auto pricing" as fried pies have to do with nuclear warfare. But I guess I'm beginning to understand how "I'd never buy a revolver with a lock" can be considered a valid response to "What type of lawn grass grows best in Montana?".

Must be an internet gun board thing.

 

[spike404]

"I'd never buy a revolver with a lock"

I'll show my ignorance.

What is a "revolver lock"?

 

[pps]

Once you get the "simpler than semi-autos" out of your head, the pricing may fall in place for you. Operational simplicity should be kept distinct from manufacturing simplicity.

+100

Revolvers are my favorite handgun to use...well, maybe a tie with the 1911 I sold years ago. Most of my usage is target hunting and SD, in that order.

Why are they so expensive? Because we'll pay it...at least I will. Are they superior to auto loaders? I don't think so...but a question like that is like being asked who is my favorite child. Love em all.

 

[ArmedBear]

Assuming decent quality, the most expensive common firearm is the side-by-side shotgun, followed by the over-under shotgun. These are simple firearms, carried over from a simpler time. It's not the parts count that makes them expensive; it's the manufacturing cost.

An autoloader may have a lot of little parts, but most of them can be spit out of a machine ready to go and slapped together on an assembly line.

Note that a finely-fitted 1911 isn't cheap, either. The difference is that all revolvers need to be made that way. You can't have plastic frames and stamped internals.

The beauty of, say, a Glock or an 870, is that the parts are not too expensive to make, but the guns work well, and they last. That's the result of mid-to-late-20th-century industrial engineering.

The revolver is a mid-19th-century development, and it still has to be made in much the same way as it was when Sam Colt patented it. Furthermore, when a company tries something new to improve on the process (e.g. MIM parts in new S&W's), the gun community howls about the loss of craftsmanship and quality.

 

[lawboy]

Revolvers are mechanically more complex than autos. Why there is a widespread perception otherwise baffles the hell out of me.

 

[Zundfolge]

This thread further illustrates why so many here really don't understand economics.


Revolvers are expensive because people are willing to pay the price for them. Period.

The market determines the price of any good, service or commodity. The market is nothing more than the sum total of decisions made by individual consumers.

Manufacturing cost, materials cost, complexity of manufacture are all small parts of the equation, but the primary driving force on the price of revolvers (or shoes, or televisions or anything else) is; "what will the market bear?"

Believe me if Glock could get away with selling their pistols for $1500 each, you can be guaranteed that the price on Glocks would be $1500.

 

[18DAI]

I'll defer to your expertise in derailing threads Hawk.

Oh, Kentucky Rye #31 flourishes in Montana.

 

[Hawk]

What is a "revolver lock"?

Welcome to the forums!

In the specific case of that which shall not be named, I'd suggest going to the search function, select "advanced".

Enter "lock" in the keyword field, restrict the search to the revolver forum, restrict the search to thread titles only. If you filter by 1 year old and newer you'll get 46 hits.

About one per week.
They're relentless.

 

[Hawk]

This thread further illustrates why so many here really don't understand economics.


Revolvers are expensive because people are willing to pay the price for them. Period.

The market determines the price of any good, service or commodity. The market is nothing more than the sum total of decisions made by individual consumers.

Very true.
However, in the specific case of revolvers there has been at least one conspicuous case where cost of production exceeded that which the market was willing to pay resulting in the product going the way of the buggy whip.

Glock may or may not have the option of dropping their product to 35.00 if market forces went in that direction but Colt never had that option.

Which is why there are no Pythons. If it costs 1,000.00 to produce and the market allows 900.00 it can not be made up for in volume.

We may therefore conjecture with relative impunity that a top-end revolver, employing hand fitting, does indeed cost around 1,000.00 or more. We don't know what the cost of Glock is or it's relationship or lack thereof to the market but, with revolvers, we can make a pretty good guess within certain narrowly-focused cases.

Yet, we have regular threads proposing the resurrection of that failed product with no obvious indication that anything would be different this time. Not as regular as "lock" threads but regular nonetheless.

Oh, Kentucky Rye #31 flourishes in Montana.

Thanks. I was thinking of retiring there. Or Thailand.

 

[Hawk]

double tap

 

[Hawk]

Yipes!

 

[texas bulldog]

Why are they so expensive? Because we'll pay it...at least I will. Are they superior to auto loaders? I don't think so...but a question like that is like being asked who is my favorite child. Love em all.

ah, come on now...you know you have a favorite deep down. just don't ever tell 'em that.



j/k

 

[texas bulldog]

Why are they so expensive? Because we'll pay it...at least I will. Are they superior to auto loaders? I don't think so...but a question like that is like being asked who is my favorite child. Love em all.

ah, come on now...you know you have a favorite deep down. just don't ever tell 'em that.



j/k

 

[Hawk]

.....

 

[Hawk]

.....

 

[Master Blaster]

Salary Expenses
Electricity
State, Local, and Federal Taxes.
Licensing
Rent or mortagage payments
Employee benefits
Workers compensation Insurance
Legal Liability
State and Federal Regulations and licensing fees
General overhead and administration

Thats why

 

[Hawk]

Good to see I'm not the only one, MB.

 

[Master Blaster]

Salary Expenses
Electricity
State, Local, and Federal Taxes.
Licensing
Rent or mortagage payments
Employee benefits
Workers compensation Insurance
Legal Liability
State and Federal Regulations and licensing fees
General overhead and administration

Thats why

Of course if S&W outsourced production to China....then the $200 would be feasable