Buying cheap guns vs. buying good guns cheap

[Hobie]

I've been around a while now. The result of my "experience" is that I have opinions, strong ones. One is that when you buy cheap you buy twice (at least). When you pay the cost of the good quality item you usually buy it once.

Recently, Blaine bought up the purchase of a $100 gun for an off-the-record trading item. It was a cheap gun. It will always be a cheap gun. It is NOT a good gun cheap. You could buy the gun he mentioned in perfect condition for $100 and it wouldn't last as long as finish challenged, abused GOOD gun. Somebody mentioned that they wouldn't put the good gun in the tackle box. I would. I would rather have a tool on which I could count than one on which I was waiting for breakage.

What do you think? Are you one of those who buys a beautiful, quality gun and leave it in the house only to hunt with the cheapest thing you could find in the gun shop?

[jdad]

I've learned this lesson a time or two, especially with optics.

[SFRanger7GP]

I was headed in this direction with my post on "changes in gun interests". I hunt with my nice firearms and don't think twice about it. I never use my gun as a brush buster or walking stick so it has never been a big issue. Also, I don't mind a few "character marks" as long as I am the one to put them there. Life is too short and I work too hard to have cheap guns. I often hear from friends "how can you hunt with something so nice?". It's easy. I deserve it.

[MrMurphy]

Exactly.

My Marlin .44 is my "hunting gun" insomuch as I have a dedicated one. Being the same age as me, someone else used it, though not hard, before I acquired it. I don't mind the odd ding or scratch on the stock. It's been used, not worshipped. And i bought it to use. Was out day before yesterday looking for signs of wild pigs on my friend's pastures. Not hunting, but if something popped out at us, we wanted some firepower. I wasn't bashing my way through brush with it, but I wasn't overly worried if it picked up an odd scratch.


The "good vs cheap" thing, since i tend to focus more on the black rifles, shows up in optics and mounts. I'm perfectly willing to drop some serious money, where necessary for an optic and mount. My life has depended on them before. For a .22 at the range? No, i'll probably go cheap. But for an AR that may someday be used in a fight? I'll drop $600+ and not even blink......on just the optic.

For hunting rifles? They're meant to be used. A good 700 and a nice high end scope getting a few dings and scratches show you're not a guy who just pays to whack an animal, you went out after it.

[J Miller]

A gun is a tool. I'd rather buy a good tool that's been used and will continue to work than a cheep one that might not work and will break.
When I was younger I went through that phase where I couldn't afford the good gun, so I'd buy a cheep one just to have one. I learned the folly of that pretty quick.

I never understood the idea of buying a nice or new gun then being afraid to use it. That's just kind of counter productive to my way of thinking.

Buy good ones, they're more than worth it.

Joe

[Don McDowell]

What do you think? Are you one of those who buys a beautiful, quality gun and leave it in the house only to hunt with the cheapest thing you could find in the gun shop?

If you had ever seen the holster wear, muzzle blue shot off and lock bolt ring around the cylinder of my new Frontier 44 special.....
Besides all that guns with honest wear on em got a story to tell.....

[Blaine]

Holy Stuff, I'm really in the barrel this time

[Tycer]

I do not buy cheap tools.

For me, a gun is a tool. One that must fit me. Whatever needs to be done to make that tool fit me and work perfectly will be done without regard to collectibility with the exception of true antiques that are unmodified when I receive them.

Also I like the phrase " A gun is a lifesaving device like a parachute. When you go buy a parachute you don't ask for the cheapest one. Ditto with a gun."

[Chas.]

There are some in betweens. I couldn't afford FA, which is arguably the best, so I bought Rugers. But I have every confidence they'll get the job done.

[gamekeeper]

Holy Stuff, I'm really in the barrel this time

[rogn]

There are many degrees of cheap and inexpensive. Long ago, I purchased a Mossberg pump to use with steel shot, since double guns dont mix with steel, and proceeded to shoot it 10000 or 20000 times with only 1 issue. The purchase price was $82.50. When I was a young teen I bought a CHEAP 22 revolver for $12.50. It was dangerous to shoot the blasted thing with lead spitting out of the cylinder gap, the trigger pull changing as the soft steel wore. If you wanted to hit the inside of a barn you needed to close all the doors. I finally took a sledge to it to keep it from hurting someone. Two examples of low costs one good one terribly bad. The cheap stuff may well fail at a critical moment, even a life threatening one-such as self defence. A manufacturer of custom benchrest actions summed it up neatly. " buy the best and cry just once"

[rangerider7]

Give me a quality older gun with good honest wear over any new one today anytime.

[SFRanger7GP]

"buy the best and cry just once". I like that. Everytime I take out my really nice stuff to shoot, hunt or just hold while watching a good movie (anyone else do that?), I am always reminded why I spent that much money. It was worth it.

[rjohns94]

The firearm has to function flawlessly for its intended purpose, be durable (unless a wall hanger, which I don't own), and have its own intrinsic beauty. The beauty part is in the eye of the owner. My WWG is not a pretty thing, except in design, function, and versatility. It has no wood. It has a kevlar stock. The sights are big and bold, there is no blueing. It is scoped (quick release). But it will go to Africa with me. The model 55 is beautiful, even though its 85 years old and shoots an enemic 30 wcf but its the apple of my eye. I don't buy cheap and I recommend others do not. I would wait till I could afford quality.

[COSteve]

It sounds to me like all the posters are really saying that 'best value' is better than 'best price'. I couldn't agree more, however, that doesn't necessarily mean that one needs to buy the most expensive item, even at a good price. I'm more drawn towards items that are best/good values rather than cheap or expensive.

I buy my vehicles new and drive them till they worn out but I don't buy them with all the bells and whistles; rather the ones that have value to me. Yes, I owned a new Cadillac once but found I was happier with a new Chevy.

I'm that way with guns. I think Rossis are good value leverguns. Are they heirloom quality? No. Do they need to be? No. I'd rather have my Rossi than an original '92 for 8-10 times the price, not because the Winchester isn't a good rifle, but more so because it isn't worth that much to me. I.e. it's not the best value at this time.

That's not to say I don't appreciate a top grade fancy gun. Fact is that I'm considering giving myself a birthday present of a brand new 'Barbeque' Cimarron levergun just because I admire their look and feel. An authentic 1873 while nice just doesn't fit my idea of a 'best value' gun primarily because I don't buy and sell them, I only buy and shoot them..... a lot. Putting thousands of rounds through an antique is both asking for breakage or wearing them out, both of which lower their investment value.

I have no quarrel with anyone who collects the real antiques, because for them they are the 'best value' and it's right that they go with them. I just don't share the same passion for them.

[.45colt]

"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of a low price is forgotten" - Benjamin Franklin.

[SFRanger7GP]

It has been referenced in this and other threads that people often use the "cheap gun" as the "old beater" gun for the tackle box or the truck gun. Has anyone ever kept a gun in their tackle box? I have never understood that. All of my tackle boxes or too full of stuff I "need" to outwit a fish and keep my equipment running. My handgun is on my body in a holster or pocket in case I ned it. Then there is the infamous "truck gun"; to beat around in the truck. Something else I don't understand. Why are you going to beat the heck out of something your life may depend on? I have carried a truck gun since I could drive. Aside from the unavoidable marks and wear acquired from more exposure outside the gun safe, I have never had one beat up. However, I know people that do that. I have also seen many of these "old beater guns" not function.

[darkwater]

I'll buy the good value guns, myself...have 4 Rugers, a Remington, a Mossberg and hopefully soon a Marlin. They are well built and durable, but you don't pay all that extra just for a polished fit and finish.

[adirondakjack]

A gun is a tool. I'd rather buy a good tool that's been used and will continue to work than a cheep one that might not work and will break.
When I was younger I went through that phase where I couldn't afford the good gun, so I'd buy a cheep one just to have one. I learned the folly of that pretty quick.

I never understood the idea of buying a nice or new gun then being afraid to use it. That's just kind of counter productive to my way of thinking.

Buy good ones, they're more than worth it.

Joe

While I appreciate a nice looking gun, as with any tool, a used but properly functioning GOOD ONE is a thing to have. I'd rather use my 100 yr old Starrett mics than brandy new Chinese.....

[Hobie]

A friend of my grandmother put it this way, "save a penny and pay a pound."

[Blaine]

A friend of my grandmother put it this way, "save a penny and pay a pound."

It's a done deal.... Bite Me

[BenT]

Sometimes you have to learn on your own. I 've been told by people that things are junk that I have not had any problems with, cars , tools ,etc. I have not had any problems with the Heritage. Even I was at the gunshop when a 15 year kid and his mother was trading in his Ruger 10/22 for a Heritage. I tried to steer him towards a used Ruger Mark II or single six . But they were more money and the kid left with the Heritage. I listen to what people have to say and decide based what I'm going to use it for and how much use it's going to get.

By the way my granfather kept an H&R in his tackle box for Musky. Because when fishing alone it was easier just shooting it in the head along side the boat than trying to drag it in with the net by himself.

[Blaine]

Sometimes you have to learn on your own. I 've been told by people that things are junk that I have not had any problems with, cars , tools ,etc. I have not had any problems with the Heritage. Even I was at the gunshop when a 15 year kid and his mother was trading in his Ruger 10/22 for a Heritage. I tried to steer him towards a used Ruger Mark II or single six . But they were more money and the kid left with the Heritage. I listen to what people have to say and decide based what I'm going to use it for and how much use it's going to get.

By the way my granfather kept an H&R in his tackle box for Musky. Because when fishing alone it was easier just shooting it in the head along side the boat than trying to drag it in with the net by himself.

A few years ago, the Henry .22s were catching Hades here, and now they are often recommended

At first look, the RR has an "industrial" fit , but the trigger is just fine, if not good. I'll work the action for a couple hours tonight watching TV and break it in a bit, maybe I can shoot it this weekend. If it's no good, it cost what a tank of diesel did today

[El Chivo]

In many areas, including the gun world, there is the choice between toy and tool. For hunting, I pick tool, I would rather drag a cheap, plain rifle through brush and over rocks, to lower it down a cliff on a rope before I jump down after it. I like my H&R Youth for hunting and carrying, it's light, substantial, simple, practical, and an accurate shooter.

I have a few pretty guns that I use only at the range. My favorite Winchester has a nice walnut stock, nice bluing, shoots well, and jams up every few rounds. It and my other Winchester occasionally lose metal pieces from inside before going out of action. My Marlins have given me fits on outings because particles of brush fall in the open action and jam it up. They cost a lot more than my H&R and are probably considered better guns but for hard use are not the best choice. And you can pay even more for fancy versions of the same rifles, but that doesn't make them more reliable or tougher.

For hunting I'll go with the simple, well made rifle that can take a beating, and it's nobody's business what I paid for it.

[OldWin]

As a lover of old guns a little wear doesn't bother me in the least. I find older guns with a little wear somehow look better than real minty examples and are way more useful. With a real minty older gun most of it's value is in it's condition and there is too much stress in taking these afield. I have an old 92src 38-40 with not one lick of finish. It has a good bore and tight action but is really quite sad looking. I have 7 other 38-40's but use and get more enjoyment from that old carbine. Quality shows through the wear. I would much rather have worn steel and dinged walnut than new aluminum and birch.

[madman4570]

Cheap has several different meanings to me!

Cheap---(poorly made gun)few years back at Gander mountain I picked up a Rossi .270 rifle single shot rifle.(Cheaply made and yes cheaply priced) looked like someone tried building a gun from a 10th grade wood/metal shop class. No Thanks!

Cheap---(rugged, well made new gun priced extremely competitivly)example a H&R buffalo Classic/ or a very well made older gun used and priced very reasonable due to its not the prestigous or the "in thing". Example a Ithaca 37, Winchester 37, heck even a nice older Stoeger Uplander, all tank tough and rugged as they come.Would buy them in a heartbeat.Another example Kel-Tec P32(it gets carried every day and with the exception of dropping the mag pulling back the slide and blowing through it very infrequently,it gets nothing.It is very reliable at least mine is(love it)is it cheap ? (yep,cheap priced)

I do tend to keep the very fancy expensive guns as sort of safe queens maybe for the range instead of out in the rain storm running around in the woods. But I also wont use junk.

If the gun is well made with a proven reliability and its priced very reasonable thats my win/win!(whether its new or used)
Use it/use it often/dont beat it on purpose/ but if its my hunting/carry weapon and the finish needs protecting have no problem just Dura-Coating it if required.as long as it aint rusty or the wood about shot, but is a nice sturdy looking gun in sprayed flat black even from a spray can? yep---- I'm happy.

[Tumbleweeds II]

I get the drift, though, and I agree that saving money by buying junk is no bargain. Learned my lesson the hard way on that when I was young and poor, and bought cars that were neither new nor all that well maintained. As the guys on Car Talk say, "The cheapest guy ends up paying the most."

What I need to do is sit down and make a list of the guns I really want, and trade everything I have (that doesn't fit the list) toward acquiring them. Trouble is, the list keeps running to multiple pages.

[Marvin S]

I view guns in different categories. There are ones that are tools, they are mostly plastic types with either frames or stocks made from it. They are kind of like a black and decker drill.I have exactly one of these types, a Beretta A390 12ga that is my water fowl gun.

Then there are your average guns like a Ruger black hawk, with the aluminium grip frame and ejector rod housing. These are decent using guns but don't really talk to ya. Like most of the stuff made these days.

Then there is the older all steel and wood guns made when people where proud of what they made. You guys know the ones I speak of. These are works of art but still beg to be shot and go hunting, but there is no need to be careless or abuse them. These are the ones I use the most because I bought them, they feel and look right. So may as well enjoy them while I can. I grew up poor and just drooled over the nice stuff that I could not afford, so when I was able in life to buy the things I wanted I did. Just a single guy with different priorities

[Joe S.]

I typically buy marlins. Dependable and affordable. The older ones get me going. Not a huge fan of the new stuff although sometimes, ya just have to.

[AJMD429]

You guys have me convinced. . .

I like to keep a gun in the truck when I'm out 'fire-wooding', in case of a feral dog pack or coyotes or whatever, although I've only taken a few shots in several years, and I usually have a side-arm if needed for personal protection. Unfortunately, even in a padded case, the gun vibrates a bit, and there are peened-in areas on the stock where the tire-jack keeps tipping and hitting it, and the occasional moisture that gets in from my leaky rear window somehow ups the humidity just enough that there's a sheen of rust I have to bronze-wool off every few months. Last time I used the gun, it was muddy out, and as I pulled it out of the case, I slipped, and smacked the trigger guard on the running board of the truck, mangling it a bit, but it still works.

However, instead of the cheap ($75), old Sears breakopen 7mm Mauser that was loose from the day I got it, even though it hits minute-of-coyote with the 4x Wal-Mart scope, I've decided to swap it out for a good Ruger No. 1 that I have in 7mm Remington, with a really nice Leupold scope. The $750 gun's stock is beautiful, and the fitting superb. I'm sure it will be more accurate, and more reliable, than that old rattle-gun I've been using.

I see the light now. . .

[shooter]

I buy my guns to use them. I have a couple that are mainly range guns, but most of the others get carried in the truck, the woods, etc. I take care of mine, but expect them to have a few dings or scratches pretty quick after I get them from walking around in the brush, crossing fences, and the other things that come with woods bumming. I learned quite a while ago to buy the best I could afford and not have to worry too much about it rather than buying the cheapest I could get and having a bucket full of problems. I do think there are cheap guns out there that are decent though.

[Russiancowboy]

I believe CoSteve put it best. It's all about the value to the user. I have several guns that are low value. High Point, RG-66, Heritage RR, Rossi 92. They work. They have value to me. They are not or never will be Heirlooms. I suppose I just knew what to expect when I purchased them. I have finer firearms that I bring when I might need them. Anything else is just for fun. I guess the difference for me in quality and value is in range and field use. I hope I didn't muddy the waters too much.

[olyinaz]

Penny wise and pound foolish is just that - foolish. I generally look for value or that point at which upwards price buys intangibles only.

That said, I'm not impervious to the chirping of the little cheap birdie! I own two High Point 9mm carbines and the boys and I have a ball blasting with them out in the desert at some wildcat shooting ranges. "Cheap cheap cheap!"

Cheers,
Oly

[Im3wheeln]

I have to agree with CoSteve also, and have typically purchased guns that I thought were the best value to me. I don't hunt, I can't carry (I live in SoCal), so all my guns are just toys. Sure I'd like a high end custom whatever, but I'm not willing pay that high a price tag to punch holes in paper. That's not to say I buy the cheapest thing out there, but I've bought a few Rossi's, couple of Remington 870s, and recently a Uberti Colt replica, and as long as they go boom when I pull the trigger I'm happy.

[Paladin]

I do not buy cheap tools.

For me, a gun is a tool. One that must fit me. Whatever needs to be done to make that tool fit me and work perfectly will be done without regard to collectibility."

A very lasting feeling when you need one to work and it won’t.

[gak]

I'm in the same camp as a lot of you, and like COSteve's response in particular also. I used to make the mistake (more often than I do now, but still occasionally slip) of buying cheap 'cause I felt I couldn't afford the better, instead of just waiting til I could. I had a Taurus .38 for years--actually fine enough gun, just didn't "do" anything for me and as a result just sat--under the guise of affordability, as I easily (quickly and regularly) squandered the difference between it and a nice Smith on other "lesser" items. The Ben Franklin quote's a great one and hits the nail straight on. I long, long ago forgot and lost any appreciation about what a great savings that Taurus was, Btw, I did finally rectify things with that specific situation and got a stellar (and now becoming rare-ish) pre-lock 65LS-Ladysmith .357 that I think is the best of them all in the "pure goodness" department and goes on my hip just about anywhere. Wasn't cheap, but I also have long forgotten (forgiven) the price difference.

[AJMD429]

All kidding aside, it seems like the 'essence' of this is that whatever you're needing to use the firearm for is the determining issue that really changes the definition of 'good' and 'cheap' on a case-by-case basis.

A gun you may need to defend your life with HAS to work flawlessly, so for that application, reliability determines what 'good' is. If ones with better fit and finish are no more reliable, then they have no advantage in that case.

A gun you are only going to use to plink with HAS to be fun to shoot, and excessive misfires would detract from that, but perhaps there the more important issue is to be 'cheap' enough that you can afford two of them so your two kids can plink at targets together.

A gun you hunt deer with needs to work reliably as well, but in that case, weather-durability may define 'quality', so a stainless/synthetic 'generic' Winchester with less craftsmanship, but the same overall design, vs. the 1930's vintage beauty, may be the one to have, probably at a third the price.

However during the good weather, since the aesthetics of a fine firearm ARE part of the 'hunt' experience, that vintage masterpiece should go afield, perhaps on that day being the 'best' gun, whereas on a day you had to come inside and instead of helping the kids with their homework, strip down the gun and dry everything off, it wouldn't be as 'good' a gun, even though it wasn't 'cheap', either.

So - I'm going to keep the No.1 in the house, and the old breakopen in the truck, after all...

[Markbo]

When I get rich enough to buy guns based solely on rarity or beauty and won't take them out and shoot them, I will buy guns that will shoot - well - ahead of what they look like. I am an accuracy buff and don't particularly care of it is 100 years old or brand new. I don't choose one over the other because that limits what is available to me and I am not a collector.

I am an accumulator. So long as the guns I buy shoot accurately, I will shoot them and sometimes that entails going outdoors (WHAT!?), even in inceleent weather (WHHAAAAAAAT!?!?) and very, very occasionally getting scratches or little spots of rust on them. (OH MY GOOOOOOSHH!).

Comes with the territory of not being rich I suppose.

[Streetstar]

Was just in this dilemma with my recent muzzleloader purchase---- for those who saw the thread, i bought an Encore ML . I agonized over the decision a little , because ML season is not a passion of mine, -- just an excuse to get in the woods a bit earlier (same as bow season for me).

It was a dilemma because T/C and others have good, serviceable muzzleloaders that would serve my needs well for much less money ----- but i knew i would just buy the Encore later anyway because i like them, so i bit the bullet. (hence the "buy once, cry once" methodology i guess)

Sad thing is, as much as i am chomping at the bit to get to my spot, responsibilities with work and a house i am building may keep me out of ML season --- oh well, nothing says you cant use a ML in ragular rifle season later in November i guess if a fella just has to try it out

[Jason_W]

What is the definition of cheap? A Marlin is pretty inexpensive when compared to a Uberti, but I've always had good luck with Marlins.

[jlchucker]

What would we categorize the Rossi Model 92 series of leverguns over the past few years? Just asking, for the purposes of this discussion.

[86er]

Let's see..... I hunt with a High Grade 1886EL, oh by the way I modified it with a scout scope mount and XS sights and my shotgun of preference is my Purdey that is worth somewhere near $60K. Yes, you will see me walking through brush with it and it has been known to have been knocked off a tailgate when it wasnt full of bird blood. I'm probably in the "buy the best you can afford and use it how you need to" catagory.

[FWiedner]

I don't mind saying out loud that not all of my guns are pretty. They are all serviceable and every single one is a rock solid shooter.

I admit that not all of my guns get frequent exercise, but I don't see the point in buying or owning a gun that will never be used. I might make an exception for a treasured family heirloom. Even then, everyone whom it gets handed down to should be required to know how to use it and take care of it.

I don't buy junk. But I do occassionally buy "cheap", i.e., inexpensive, and all of my guns are ""nice" guns, IMO.

[Lastmohecken]

What would we categorize the Rossi Model 92 series of leverguns over the past few years? Just asking, for the purposes of this discussion.

That question could start an argument, but I will throw in my 2 cents worth, anyway.

This brand seems to be either loved or hated. I think maybe the newer ones are better, but I have bought two new Rossi 92s in the past, and I was not happy. Both were jamming pieces of junk, and I took them back to the dealer and made him trade back with me. I will never buy another one. People make their living slicking these guns up, for cowboy shooters, etc.

I ended up with a Browning 92 and I have been very happy with it, although I paid the price of at least 2 brand new Rossi's for it. Life is too short to put up with junk, although others seem to be happy with the Rossi. I recond it can be a serviceable gun, but you better plan on an action job.

[COSteve]

What would we categorize the Rossi Model 92 series of leverguns over the past few years? Just asking, for the purposes of this discussion.

That question could start an argument, but I will throw in my 2 cents worth, anyway.

This brand seems to be either loved or hated. I think maybe the newer ones are better, but I have bought two new Rossi 92s in the past, and I was not happy. Both were jamming pieces of junk, and I took them back to the dealer and made him trade back with me. I will never buy another one. People make their living slicking these guns up, for cowboy shooters, etc.

I ended up with a Browning 92 and I have been very happy with it, although I paid the price of at least 2 brand new Rossi's for it. Life is too short to put up with junk, although others seem to be happy with the Rossi. I recond it can be a serviceable gun, but you better plan on an action job.

I have a different experience with the Rossi and Browning '92s. Yes, the Browning is a beautiful rifle and shoots like a dream (a good friend has one and I've shot it some). It's likely worth the extra $$ it costs to most, however, it isn't currently made so finding even a used one is getting very difficult.

As I've said, I have two Rossis, a carbine and a rifle. Out of the box, while stiff, both shot anything I loaded into them without a single problem past being stiff. Their triggers were heavy, about standard for new guns these days. Brand new, both cost less than a 'lightly used' Browning and they are available new many places. So cost and availability wise, the Rossis are easier to actually own and shoot. Now as to both rifles' quality. I can only speak for the newest Rossis, those made in 2009 or newer. I've slicked up both of mine per Nate's DVD and the result was fantastic. Both the actions and the triggers are great. In addition, I've also slicked up a neighbor's who shot mine twice and had to buy one for himself as his first ever rifle. Of that small sample of three, I've found that after slicking them up per Nate's DVD, I've made all three run superbly.

All three are slick with great triggers and can take 357mags as fast as I can cycle the lever. All three will feed short 38spl 1.460" OAL if cycled more slowly, however, if I load the 38spl long at 1.500" OAL or more, they also feed as fast as I can work the lever. All three shoot very accurately, even out to 300yds. I'm very satisfied with the fit and finish of the steel and the wood, while not walnut, is pretty good on all three (as you've noted in the pictures I've posted showing by two Rossis). The std sights were serviceable but I wanted to update them to more precision ones so replaced them with Marbles.

My friend's Browning had to go back to the factory when new because it balked at chambering JFP ammo with an OAL shorter than about 1.550" (some 357mag loads). It wouldn't feed 38spl length loads at all as they would jam in under the lifter and in the action. Once back from the factory, it will now feed any 357mag cartridge but still won't feed std length (1.460") 38spl at all but will feed cartridges of 1.500" OAL if cycled more slowly. His example is a great shooter out to about 150yds but longer it's accuracy starts to fall off. His sights, while better than the Rossi std ones, aren't as good as the Marbles I have on my Rossis now. I was unable to hit the 300yd steel target with his Browning using my ammo that I could reliably use to hit with my Rossi carbine.

All in all, I think the Browning is a slightly better finished piece with beautiful walnut stocks and better std sights than a stock Rossi. Operationally, the three Rossi examples I've use are more reliable cycling various types of ammo, both 38spl and 357mag and are more accurate at long range. As I did, you can add better sights to the Rossi that surpass the Browning's for under $50 but you can't add a new barrel to the Browning to make it shoot as well as the Rossis for double that.

Truthfully, If I could find a NIB Browning for only $100 more than my Rossi carbine, I'd buy it to add to my collection, assuming I'd use it as a shorter range fun gun because of the name and it's beauty. Browning apparently never made a 24" oct bbl rifle version so that is unavailable at any price so buying a Browning instead of my 24" Rossi isn't even possible.

My feelings are that if you want a good shooting, very strong, reasonably affordable, rifle or carbine to use frequently, the Rossi is a great choice. However, if you're more into collecting fine rifles that you may or may not shoot that often, then the quest for a Browning carbine is more your forte. Finally, these are just my personal observations with a sample of only one NIB Browning and only three recently made NIB Rossis and your mileage may vary, possibly greatly.

[Old Time Hunter]

A Mosin-Nagant at $69 is cheap in my eyes and it is definitely a heck of alot more reliable than most of those high priced ones.

And tell me the REAL differences between a Glenfield 30A and a Marlin 336 except the price....

[Lastmohecken]

A Mosin-Nagant at $69 is cheap in my eyes and it is definitely a heck of alot more reliable than most of those high priced ones.

And tell me the REAL differences between a Glenfield 30A and a Marlin 336 except the price....

No doubt there are lots of traps out there. I recond I have experienced issues with just about every major brand at one time or another. A Glenfield or a Nagant is what it is, and will probably give good service, but nowdays it seems that there are so many new offerings out there that come up short in fit, finish, and reliability, all in the effort to offer something cheap to the consumer that they will buy, at least once, anyway. And there is a market for that stuff, and it will probaby go bang when you pull the trigger, but I see more instances of broken parts and reliability issues on the cheaper made offerings, not to mention they just look like stuff a lot of the time, but even the big names are comming out with this low end stuff, or importing it under their name, these days. Maybe that is what the average consumer wants, but not me.

[wm]

My dad used to say price was what you paid, and value was what you got. I think that is exactly what this comes down to.

I can buy a lightly used Heritage Arms 22 revolver for $150 or I can buy an older, neglected Ruger Single Six for $200. Which one will still be shooting 5000 rounds later? Which one would be worth taking to a gunsmith and investing $100 in new parts and labor into at that point?

Those are the questions that I ask myself when I consider buying a firearm. But is there a place in this world for the Heritage quality firearms? Sure. It keeps people from driving up the price of the Ruger Single Six up!

But seriously if you are comfortable with the Heirtage then buy it and enjoy it. I
can honestly say the revolver that really taught me how to shoot a handgun was a FIE/Arminius 22lr. It was accurate and I think I must have shot 10,000 rounds through that gun one spring summer & fall back in 1990. I paid $85 for it at gun show (passed over a top break H&R 22lr that was $10 more to buy it) and I sold the Arminius 2 years later for $75.

If I had bought the better material & better made H&R I would probably been just as happy and would still have the revolver. It would probably be sitting buried in the back of the gun safe because I would think it has too much sentiemntal value & I could never replace for what I have into it.

In this case I probably came out $ head buying the cheaper 22 but by the time I parted with the Arminius it was starting to have issues and you sure don't want that in a firearm you are counting on for serious purposes.

Wm

[Cast Bullet Hunter]

It is summed up well by the above quote from Benjamin Franklin, and this from John Ruskin:

"It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money — that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do."