Why are revolvers so expensive?

[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

 

[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
Materials and Machinery
Transportation
Environmental regulations and controls
Manufacturer's profit
Wholesaler's profit
Retailer's profit

Thats why

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

 

[Zundfolge]

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

Except that import of firearms made in China has been banned.

Also, I doubt the Chinese could maintain the same high standards of quality that are expected by S&W customers. Even if the Chinese could magically maintain the same standards, S&W wouldn't sell their guns for $200, they'd continue to sell them at the price the go for now because people that buy S&W are willing to pay that.

People that don't mind lower quality in a wheelgun buy Rossi or Taurus.


Several years ago when I was working at a print shop, we had a manufacturers' rep for an industrial hand cleaner swing by to sell us a case of their wares. Its a marvelous hand soap that is basically a bright green paste with these little plastic micro beads in it that stripped off ink and other nasty stuff almost by magic. We paid about $25 for a 64oz bucket of the stuff. The rep explained to us that the manufacturer makes a variation on this same product that doesn't have the green coloring in it and instead has a perfume in it, they sell this stuff to Estée Lauder who resells it in tiny little 3.4oz tubes for $22 as a super exfoliating face cleaner. Apparently the green coloring costs more than the perfume too.

See, cost of production is NOT a major factor in prices to the end consumer.

 

[wuchak]

Semi auto pistols also outsell revolvers. In the case of the Ruger MK vs Bearcat, there are a lot more people who want a semi-auto .22 than a small frame SA one. Unloading and loading .22 shells one at a time gets old, no matter how nice the gun. They simply cannot move the volume to get the economies of scale. Revolvers also have a lot more steel in them then semi-autos. This steel is more expensive to buy and more expensive to machine and heat treat. Even if a material like aluminum is used for the frame you have the cost of a steel barrel and fitting it inside the aluminum frame. Revolvers also have to be made to much tighter tolerances. Unlike a semi-auto where chamber to barrel alignment is not an issue since they are one piece a revolver has to have between 5 and 10 chambers be able to rotate into precise alignment with the barrel. You can buy drop in barrels for a semi-auto, you cannot buy drop in cylinders for a revolver. As others pointed out if a semi-auto is produced with this level of tolerance the price far exceeds that of a revolver.

 

[Zundfolge]

hmm ... seems to be a forum glitch here ... my post just disappeared

Edit: Nope, its back

 

[G. Freeman]

Yes, revolver prices has gone up the roof as well. In the early to mid-1990's, you could buy a brand new (retail) S&W 586, 625, etc. for as low as $350. And when they go on sale, they go even lower than that. I used to remember a lot of those model 60's going on sale for $300.00. I bought a Ruger GP-100 in the mid-90's for $350.00.

The Python commanded premium prices, but I still bought one for $640.00 which at time was almost double the price of other revolvers.

The prices now are just sickening because quality has not necessarily improved.

 

[robsc]

Freedom isn`t free.

 

[ArmedBear]

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?"

I am a pretty hardcore economic libertarian, and I think I "get" markets.

What you don't seem to understand is that manufacturing cost is a very important part of the equation. If revolvers cost $500 to produce, and the wholesale price is $400, there would BE NO REVOLVERS.

The fact that Glock can sell something that costs $75 to produce for $500, and Ruger can sell something that costs $200 to produce for $500 -- those are market-driven prices.

However, there are essentially no more American SxS shotguns, when there once were many. The reason is because they cost more to produce in America than people are willing to pay for them.

One misconception of the Information Age is that commodities are all really cheap to produce. They're not.

Furthermore, if Ruger could sell good revolvers for $200 each and get an acceptable ROI, then they would -- because it would drive their market share up to 95%+ -- unless S&W figured out how to compete, or unless the revolver is a luxury good with a reverse demand curve (the Tanqueray Effect).

Markets most certainly do set prices -- but consumers are not the only participants in markets, at least when you're talking about tangible goods that cost significant amounts of money, both up front investment and ongoing costs, to produce.

 

[Zundfolge]

My point is that the prices are set by the buyers. If an asking price is too high then you don't make any sales until you lower your price. If the price is too low you sell out in short order and if you're smart you raise your price. In either example its the buyers that drive the price.

Manufacturing costs may determine whether a product is viable or not, but you still have to find people that think X product is worth Y dollars in order to exist in the marketplace.

If the cost to produce is higher than the market is willing to pay then yes, that product will disappear (or at least become so small as to be a niche market ... like vacuum tube home stereos for example).

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Revolvers to this day require a lot of handfitting, and that's expensive.

Take a look at a revolver to see why. When you cock it, the next chamber comes into line. That's done with a fairly long mechanical linkage, and small parts have to cause major movements. It's very difficult to make parts that just drop in.

 

[Crawdad]

I used to think that revolvers were overpriced too, until I pulled the sideplate and grips off one and watched everything work. It's honestly amazing - when you pull the trigger or cock that hammer, so many things are happening at once, in such precise timing, that it's really sort of staggering.

Good revolvers are like fine mechanical watches.

 

[woad_yurt]

It's very difficult to make parts that just drop in.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but lots of makers did it. Millions of Harrington & Richardson .22 revolvers come to mind. M1 Garands and Mauser K98ks mix & match parts pretty well also. I have 2 CZ 52s that were made in different years and I can mix those parts without issue.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but "reasonably" priced revolver manufacturers are now foreign, as are tool & hardware makers, auto parts makers, etc. Cheaper foreign labor is a big culprit.

Didn't Samuel Colt achieve parts interchangeability way back when?

 

[logical]

They cost more than $200 because you are incorrect in saying they are simple and could be made for $200. They are a complicated set of parts made from expensive raw materials on expensive equipment to form a product that is subject to very high liability insurance costs. It may be $75 worth of raw material but if it has to be made on $3 million worth of equipment in a $1 million facility. I will agree that Smith's list prices for some new revolvers are out of control, but at least for now there are thousands of new or near new $4-500 revolvers from Smith and Ruger that were made 20-30 years ago all over Gunbroker and the forums. I have a dozen Smiths and Rugers from the 70's and 80's, all purchased NIB in the last 8 years, and haven't got more than $450 in any single one of them.

 

[Hawk]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but lots of makers did it. Millions of Harrington & Richardson .22 revolvers come to mind. M1 Garands and Mauser K98ks mix & match parts pretty well also. I have 2 CZ 52s that were made in different years and I can mix those parts without issue.

American Handgunner has made their Nov/Dec 1978 issue available as a PDF for free download. It includes Mas Ayoobs "Industry Insider" column which has some interesting notes on H&R's and IJ's interchangable parts.

I would suppose a pertinent observation for 2009 is that H&R and IJ are no more. I don't know exactly how they came to be gone but, for whatever reasons, they represent failures in the marketplace and would therefore be a poor template for anyone else looking to hit a similar price point.

 

[wep45]

revolvers expensive??? if you want quality (i.e. S&W) you have got to pay for it........if you want cheap..........

 

[Daizee]

Why are revolvers so expensive?

Because they're better. :-D


But seriously... S&W has continually lowered the cost to manufacture their guns, and continually raised the prices beyond [what I perceive to be] the rate of inflation.

Also, re-tooling is expensive. Make something long enough and your equipment will wear out, requiring expensive replacement in today's dollars, not what you paid 40 years ago when you started.

-Daizee

 

[LTR shooter]

Back to the OP question - When a plastic framed auto pistol built with stamped steel internals can cost $600 or more then it should be easy to understand the cost of a quality revolver.

The 1994 vintage 686-4 revolver I own is equipped with forged steel components , the difference in cost to forge a revolver frame and injection mold an plastic auto pistol frame or machine an aluminum frame is significant in itself. And this is just one component. And the major forged components are heat treated adding to the cost.

The barrel shape on autos is a simple round tube with chamber - all one piece. A revolver usually has 6 individual chambers obviously separate from the barrel which must be as close to indentical with each other and hopefully line with the barrel very precisely. Sloppy tolerances will not allow this , precision machining or as in the "old days" - proper hand fitting , is not cheap. The profile of the revolver barrel usually includes the front sight or sight ramp , under lugs/ejector shrouds. A good deal of machining.

A semi-auto can contain many inexpensive to mass produce steel stampings that simply drop-in and perform remarkably well. The slide on my old Sig was formed in a stamping process , very cost effective yet the pistol was about $170 more than my Smith & Wesson at the time.

Smith has taken a lot of heat producing revolvers with MIM hammers/triggers which are cheaper to produce. The oldest Smith I have is 2000 vintage and it does indeed have the newer MIM trigger/hammer but it is probably the most accurate conventional handgun I have ever owned and for the $520 price in 2000 it could fire a powerful round with far superior accuracy than any semi in that price range at that time.

 

[VonFatman]

Because like a divorce, they are worth it.

Bob

 

[dispatch]

All other things aside. If people want to buy it at the price asked- that’s a fair price.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Perfectly true. A thing is worth what a willing buyer will offer and a willing seller accept.

 

[nachosgrande]

OK, now I understand. Didn't know there was so much going on in there. Makes sense. Now I know why Hi Point doesn't have a line of revolvers. What I have a hard time understanding is how those close tolerances were able to be met when they were initially manufactured in the mid 19th century. Any gun manufacturing historians out there know that one? But then again, that would explain why each one cost several months salary for the average American.

 

[BlayGlock]

Revolvers have more moving parts than semi-autos and are usually have more metal. I agree that S&W is over-priced and that most of the "value" is percieved by die-hard S&W fanboys, not that they aern't nice. I have several Taurus revolvers, they have help up just fine with no problems and I feel you get a better value with them. Sure is hard to beat a Ruger GP-100 as well. Anyway that is my opinion.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What I have a hard time understanding is how those close tolerances were able to be met when they were initially manufactured in the mid 19th century.

First of all, labor, even skilled labor, was incredibly cheap in the 19th Century.

Next, Colt had worked out a system where much of the work was done using jigs and special tools he designed -- much of it was done by women. Only the final fitting was done by skilled craftsmen.

 

[nachosgrande]

Wow Vern, that one may be construed as sexist. I was more referring to the technological aspect of it, though, not the skill of the workers. I didn't know their tools were able to manufacture to such tight tolerances.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Wow Vern, that one may be construed as sexist.

Well, Gol Dang that ol' Samuel Colt as a sexist, anyway!!

But at the time, it was looked at as a great advancement -- factory jobs for women were nonexistant until he started hiring.

I was more referring to the technological aspect of it, though, not the skill of the workers. I didn't know their tools were able to manufacture to such tight tolerances.

I thought I made it clear -- those parts which demanded tight tolerances were hand-worked by skilled workmen. But most of the manufacturing process was using special tools and fixtures that brought the gun to the point where the skilled workmen took over.