I noticed that I hear people react to high priced 22lr (including myself) with:

That's a lot for a 22... But then I kind of questioned why exactly that is.

 

For example I was considering a S&W 617, but it's over $700 and in my mind it was

too much for a 22. But that particular revolver from what I can tell is constructed

just as solid as any other S&W revolver so shouldn't it be just as much? Should

a smaller caliber necessarily dictate a lower price?

 

I guess it makes sense on some auto pistols though since the slide is usually aluminum

and not steel which is far easier to machine and cheaper. Just wondering your thoughts.

Man, if I'm gonna pay seven bills for ANY handgun, it's gonna be a big honkin' hunk of .357 steel along the lines of an S&W 686.

 

My ISSC M22 cost a bit over $300 new, and that for me was a more than fair price for a target/plinking handgun. Yeah, if I was shooting competitively, seven large for a super-competitive .22 probably wouldn't be unrealistic -- but right now I ain't, so it is.

 

I think, too, in the case of the 617, it's got the high price tag BECAUSE it's an S&W. It's kind of like bitching that a Mercedes costs a year's salary.

well, the 617 is built to same specs as any other smith wesson revolver, except chambered in 22lr.

 

As far as other guns, you can ask why is a plastic glock as much or more than an equivalent solid metal gun?

 

There are 22lr guns that go for close to 1k if not higher. Higher quality, match grade guns can go for more than that.

i always try to justify how much it costs with how long im going to have the rifle for, helps me sleep at night. lol

i always try to justify how much it costs with how long im going to have the rifle for, helps me sleep at night. lol

this!

For me, the .22LR is what I shoot the most, so I want the one that feels the best in my hand. That is what I want. I think it is human nature to think that one would not want to pay as much for his or her "toy" gun as for a defensive handgun in a larger caliber, even though it might have more steel, etc.. Again, the .22 is probably the most used gun in many people's collections, if for nothing else, just because they can afford to shoot it more often and it would be the goto gun for teaching a new person to shooting how to handle a gun.

 

That said, if you were trying to put together a versatile battery of firearms, a defensive gun would probably be higher on most people's list than a .22, and a .22 rifle would probably be more valuable than a pistol or revolver.

 

I only shot one once, but I loved it and will spend the money on it some day... I really want a CZ Kadet, but I cannot justify getting it when there are so many things to get before it. I would also like to get an M1A, but if I did, I would hardly have the opportunity and finances to really practice with it.

 

Now why is the CZ Kadet more than the larger caliber siblings?

I think most all handguns are overpriced. Supply and demand in a free market. My understanding is that the gun manufacturers make the lion share of the profits and the gun stores don't make much as the profit margin on guns is pretty low. I read that Glock costs Glock like $50 to manufacture. Obviously, there are R&D and capital costs to recoup but it comes down to what the market will bear.

I noticed that I hear people react to high priced 22lr (including myself) with:

That's a lot for a 22... But then I kind of questioned why exactly that is.

 

For example I was considering a S&W 617, but it's over $700 and in my mind it was

too much for a 22. But that particular revolver from what I can tell is constructed

just as solid as any other S&W revolver so shouldn't it be just as much? Should

a smaller caliber necessarily dictate a lower price?

 

I guess it makes sense on some auto pistols though since the slide is usually aluminum

and not steel which is far easier to machine and cheaper. Just wondering your thoughts.

 

Lots of factors enter into the pricing of a handgun (or any other product, for that matter). The initial design, cost of materials, manufacturing, assembly, testing, quality control, desired return on investment, advertising, demand and competition. It's much like the difference in price between a Chevrolet and a Cadillac or a Volkswagen and an Audi. Ultimately, it's up to the market place to determine if the product succeeds or fails at the price point being offered. The buyer gets to decide if the value justifies the price.

 

I happen to have a S&W 617 and I think it is one of the best 22LR revolvers I have owned. That's my opinion and I have no regrets having spent $650+ to acquire it.

While I will agree I would like to play less for my handguns, heck I'd like to pay less for everything but it is what it is and they will get what the market will allow. I do know many of the low and midrange 22LR handguns can be reasonable, the higher end ones are up there, but you do get what you pay for. I haven't bought any high end 22's but if I did I would hope the performance was in line with the cost, and if so I would say I am saving money shooting a 22 so it's not that bad in the end..

I think most all handguns are overpriced. Supply and demand in a free market. My understanding is that the gun manufacturers make the lion share of the profits and the gun stores don't make much as the profit margin on guns is pretty low. I read that Glock costs Glock like $50 to manufacture. Obviously, there are R&D and capital costs to recoup but it comes down to what the market will bear.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the R&D on the Glocks was recouped a long time ago. I don't think Glocks are overpriced though. They are some of the most reasonable guns you can buy price wise. I believe you get a lot of bang for your buck when you buy a Glock. Funny though, I don't own one. Not yet anyway.

It depends on how they are built. You can get away with zinc slides & such on .22lr pistols. Hell, I've heard of brass barrels on older .22s. The reason the S&W cost as much as a "regular" pistol is because its made like a "regular" pistol, wheras the rest arent. The dedicated pistols like the MKIII, neos, and buckmark are very basic. They are direct blowback with fixed barrels and such. Direct blowback is cheap.

Mainly because they are an introduction into the sport and an introduction to a certian manufatures line up.

 

This is where it all begins and ends..

I like what I like. I don't really consider price until it is over $1k. Then I start looking at the whole package.

If I had to guess:

 

First, I think some guns just have more metal. A S&W 617 is 40-ish ounces of precision stainless steel (on my short list since I shot one) while trigger parts in a Ruger 10/22 seem like cutouts from an aluminum can, though I still dig the 10/22. Larger calibers demand more metal of higher quality, as the chambers and actions must be stronger. Guns like the Kadet, even though they shoot the smaller caliber, still have a lot of metal and moving parts, which require machining and fitting, hence the higher cost.

 

Second, I think there is a bias against the 22. Many guys would scoff at paying $1,000 for an Biathalon ANSCHÜTZ (I'd buy one at that price), but gladly pay twice as much after accessories and optics for an (IMAO) inferior AR.

 

My $0.02.

well, the 617 is built to same specs as any other smith wesson revolver, except chambered in 22lr.

As far as other guns, you can ask why is a plastic glock as much or more than an equivalent solid metal gun?

 

There are 22lr guns that go for close to 1k if not higher. Higher quality, match grade guns can go for more than that.

 

That's easy... because if they price them too low, then folks will develop a perception that they are 'too cheap'. I think this happened to the HS2000 (Springfield XD) when it was first released in the USA... they priced it at like $250 and most people compared it to other pistols in the price range instead of it's actual merits. But when Springfield re-branded it as the xD and buffed the price, they began selling. At least that's what I heard, but may not actually be the truth.

 

Shoot, even as someone who owns several Glocks and trusts them, I would be wary if the price just dropped to $250/ea... first thing I'd wonder is "what's wrong with them?" Even though it's the same exact pistol that was once $500...

 

Shoot, even as someone who owns several Glocks and trusts them, I would be wary if the price just dropped to $250/ea... first thing I'd wonder is "what's wrong with them?" Even though it's the same exact pistol that was once $500...

 

I'd just buy twice as many of them!