Expectations too high for $400?

[ArmedinAZ]

Has anyone else considered that maybe we're expecting too much of a $400 weapon? The SR9 has settled in at that number and the 9c is going to be there too. The Sigma is in that range (or less) and the Taurus striker guns are around there. Probably others I forget too. Point is that for $400 what can one reasonably expect? Flawless operation? A 1911 type trigger pull? Pinpoint accuracy? Probably not.

There are 2 ways to judge anything, it's performance based on it's price, or it's performance period. For example:

"It shoots 2" groups but it was only $400 so that's good enough for me"

or

"It shoots 2" groups and that is unacceptable to me at any price"

I got serious about semi-autos a year ago and here in Az you can buy/sell face to face so it's easy to try out different platforms. I've owned 5 different plastic striker pistols and 4 different hammer fired metal pistols and find that I personally value quality over price or brand. I now own 4 different brands of pistols that have a permanent home. No more new $400 guns for me (unless it's a good deal on a $600 gun :wink: )

Some things we'll never agree on but sure love to argue about. :lol:

 

[Cheesewhiz]

Armed, I like this post but I think the SR9 is better than a Sigma or a Taurus.
The most important aspect in the long run for any pistol is reliability, that's my opinion. I can enjoy a gun that may not have everything going for it but most of my pistols are good guns that cost more than $400.
The reverse could also be said, there are some $1000 guns I wouldn't pay $500 for.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Some folks have unrealistic expectations.

There is no reason to expect a $400 gun to be as "good" as a $1200 gun. It may be so, but one shouldn't necessarily expect it and denigrate the less expensive gun in direct comparison to the more costly example. Would one expect a Camry to outperform a Corvette?

By the same token, just because a gun costs $1200 doesn't necessarily mean it will materially outperform the $400 one, but I'd certainly expect it to. Otherwise, what's the point in paying $1200 in the first place?

JMHO

 

[ArmedinAZ]

I agree with what you both are saying. Just wondering what is a reasonable expectation for a $400 weapon? Maybe the SR9 series are performing as well as should be expected for a $400 gun in 2010.

Not intending to compare a $400 gun to a $1000 gun here, there should be a huge and obvious difference in quality and performance. You may not like the $1000 gun but the difference should be plainly visible. Anyway, not the intent of the thread.

 

[BuckJM53]

The wild card in all of these conversations about expectations with regard to accuracy at a specific price point is the ability of the shooter. A great marksman will generally get the best out of whatever gun they are shooting (whether $400 or $2,500), while a poor marksman will generally not come close to getting the best out of a $400 gun, but may get decent (but no where close to the best) results out of an expensive gun that is inherently more accurate. Accordingly, when I'm making a decision to purchase a gun (and analyzing the accuracy), my only concern is what the gun will do off of a Ransom rest, as I want to know what's ultimately possible. When I hear guys saying what size groups they can or can't shoot with a particular gun I'm considering, I take it with a grain of salt :roll:.

 

[NixieTube]

I think of it a little differently: look at what you get for $400. Mine is very accurate and the only "troubles" I've had were really caused by people telling me the trigger pull and magazine release were "stiff." I thought they were a little stiff too, but I just adapted to them and made a few subtle changes as per the threads here, and they improved, to the point that they added even more value to the pistol.

This isn't a competition gun out of the box, let's face it. It wasn't designed to be one. But for what you get in the box for $400, it's pretty darn competitive.

If I had had $800+ when I went to purchase a 9mm handgun, a wallet full of cash, I probably would have bought a new Sig from my local dealer, and I have no doubt I'd have been very happy with the Sig. I don't buy guns online in Massachusetts not just because a lot of people aren't willing to ship them here but also because our local gun dealers need all the support they can get, so I pay a little more. I didn't have that much to spend to buy a Sig, and I didn't want a used pistol for the purposes I had in mind. I wanted a new, modern 9mm high-capacity handgun that was fully MA-compliant and it really helped that it had lots of great features and a grip that felt just super.

Half as much money to spend, and I received a pistol that in some ways is better than a Sig but in a couple of ways shows it's "newness" and price point. I can live with the downside on this gun very easily, and the upside is that having owned the gun and shot it for more than 6 months now, I would have paid more for it, not less. Mine has never malfunctioned, and given the feature set I can live with the fact that it took a little tinkering to really make it "sweet."

YMMV, but for $400 my expectations were exceeded.

 

[TexasFats]

One more thing: Many guns, at all price levels, can be a bit picky about the ammo that they are fed. If you only buy cheappo "Independence" brand ammo, don't expect any gun to group well, since my experience with that brand is that its quality is too poor.

Also, a gun may shoot one brand or weight bullet very well and not be able to hit a bull in the rear with a bass fiddle with some other bullet weight of even premium ammo shot from a machine rest.

Why do you think that serious target shooters spend so much time tuning their guns and working out exactly the right load?

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Definitely a reasonable position. As I said in another topic/forum recently, there's a reason there are $500 guns, $800 guns, and $1200 guns.

I will also add that on the high end of the spectrum, you pay a lot more for incremental "improvements". That is, the difference between a $400 gun and an $800 gun are a lot more apparent than that between a $1200 gun and a $1600 gun, or maybe even a $2000 gun. And how much the shooter can appreciate those differences definitely contributes to the equation.

-- Sam

 

[ArmedinAZ]

Great discussion so far, thanks for the thoughtful comments!

Texas, good point about ammo, but I venture that most people who buy a $400 gun are going to want it to run on cheap ammo. Maybe not print 1" groups at Revhigh :wink: yardage but at least go bang and cycle.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Good point.

If a gun will go BANG every time you pull the trigger and you can hit a paper plate at twenty feet every time, it's a very likely candidate for a self-defense weapon regardless of price.

 

[NixieTube]

Also, one other thing: It's an American-made product (except for the magazines) and I was glad to be able to buy something with so many features from a company that does a lot of its casting work in a state near my home. I'll forgive a couple of minor annoyances for that.

Newport, New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die"), home of Pine Tree Castings:

http://www.ruger.com/casting/F-Overview.html

 

[gatorhugger]

Interesting. So for $400 what do I expect huh?
For $400 if it will go bang it's good right?
Is that the argument?

Well if I could not buy better for $400 you would have a point.

Fortunately I can buy a P89 for under $400 which makes the SR seem like a toy, and I can buy a used Glock that has a better trigger for $400, and for $250 I can buy a sigma which is just as good.

So the next time someone comes on here and asks if $350 is a good price for like new P89, say Hell yes!!!
Because if anyone thinks an SR9 is worth $400 but a p89 is not has lost their mind.

 

[TexasFats]

Great discussion so far, thanks for the thoughtful comments!

Texas, good point about ammo, but I venture that most people who buy a $400 gun are going to want it to run on cheap ammo. Maybe not print 1" groups at Revhigh :wink: yardage but at least go bang and cycle.

That Independence junk would not even cycle my Walther PP (1969, Ulm proofmarks, imported by Interarms) reliably. It was all that they had at the range.

 

[NixieTube]

I think the argument is whether or not me, the customer is satisfied with the gun I got for $400 or so, when all things are considered and in the fullness of time. The argument is really: "Were our expectations of a $400 gun overblown?" and my point was "For $400 you get a lot."

I don't think anyone mentioned a P89 being a good gun, bad gun, or even put a price on it. I don't think a P89 makes anything look like "a toy." I'll guarantee there are people right here on this forum who can take their SR9s and use them to shoot groups that are inside yours with a P89 on the same target.

Why?

Because they're better sportsmen

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Gator, don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I said. What I said was . . .

"If a gun will go BANG every time you pull the trigger and you can hit a paper plate at twenty feet every time, it's a very likely candidate for a self-defense weapon regardless of price."

If that meets your requirements, then the gun is "good" for its intended purposes. If you have more stringent requirements, it may take "more gun" to meet them. I did not say anything about a P89. They are a fine gun.

 

[gatorhugger]

No I was just thinking about how many times people say p89's are not "worth" $350.
Yet, this thread says if expectations are met for $400 then that is a good deal.
I agree if expectations are met for $400 then that is fine.
I just was going off on a tangent(hijack) about everyone that says a P gun is not worth $400 and in the same breath make a statement that an SR9 is worth it because it goes bang.
To me any gun that I have complete confidence in is worth $400.

 

[ArmedinAZ]

Interesting. So for $400 what do I expect huh?
For $400 if it will go bang it's good right?
Is that the argument?

Well if I could not buy better for $400 you would have a point.

Fortunately I can buy a P89 for under $400 which makes the SR seem like a toy, and I can buy a used Glock that has a better trigger for $400, and for $250 I can buy a sigma which is just as good.

So the next time someone comes on here and asks if $350 is a good price for like new P89, say Hell yes!!!
Because if anyone thinks an SR9 is worth $400 but a p89 is not has lost their mind.

Let's consider guns that are in production right now, not used guns. Not disagreeing with you but that's a whole different universe full of possibilities.

 

[gatorhugger]

Yeah I know. The threads about SR's not P's.
Its just a sore point with me everytime I hear a P isn't "worth"
$400, but a SR is worth it.
Wait and see, someday P's are gonna go way up when people realize it's a gun that ALWAYS goes bang AND has a decent single action trigger,and is durable as a mack truck.

 

[revhigh]

Ya know ... you guys make a good point .... at an under $400 street price, this puts Ruger in the same class pricewise as HiPoints and Keltecs and Sigmas. Now before everybody goes all wacko, I said PRICEWISE. Street price of an equivalent M&P, XD, Glock, entry level CZ 75B, and even the new SigPros etc, are all $100-150 MORE (at least) than the street price of the SR9.

Of NEW guns in the $400 and under class, I believe the SR9 would probably be the best choice if that is your absolute top end price range.

The only problem is, if you add $100 to the $400 price range you are now in a group of guns that far surpass the SR9 in almost every category .... vastly better FACTORY triggers, higher levels of accuracy, better reliability with no gunsmithing needed to yield a useable/acceptable gun, no recalls, no huge variances between different guns of the same model, and higher levels of general refinement, like slide 'releases' that actually release the slide. Specifically the Glock and the CZ right at the $500 price point.

Personally, if I was going to spend $400 on an SR9, I'd much rather spend $259 for a brand new P95.

I have a potential trade in the works right now for a P95. Not sure if it's going to work out, but I'm looking forward to trying a P95 out for an extended period.

REV

 

[gatorhugger]

Yeah I would rather spend a hundred less for a 95 as well.