4 ms·

I wonder why the cost didn't go down. Are they still hand-made like 120 years ago?

by ido 12y ago

yourapostasy 12y ago
Good question, I'd like to see the answer from more knowledgeable firearms enthusiasts. Likely because partly what is considered a "good" handgun advances with the state of the art, partly modern insurance and regulatory requirements drive up modern manufacturing costs, and partly because of market dynamics for the use cases a handgun is put to. If you were mass manufacturing a mid-19th century handgun, with no improvements in its tech or metallurgy, without having to pay for the operational insurance and regulatory overhead costs, and it was accepted by the firearms-purchasing public in the same per capita adoption rates as back when it was originally produced, I can easily see it being a lot less expensive. But the purchasing public seems to seek specific characteristics in modern firearms, these characteristics don't appear to align with "use old tech", and this tends to set a floor price from what I can tell as a casual user. Interestingly, replica mid- to late-19th century handguns sell for around the $600+ USD mark in the US, for the enthusiast market. Well-cared for, lightly-used firearms are reasonably close to quality as new for most non-enthusiast level users, and even many enthusiast users. So if inexpensive is what you are looking for, a used firearm from a trusted user goes for roughly half to 2/3 of new prices these days.
- BrianHutch 12y ago
  I think it definitely depends, the firearms purchasing public is as diverse as most other groups. As someone who collects both, I find it amusingly similar to camera gear. Nikon vs. Canon, Glock vs. Sig, 9mm vs .45 or was it APS-C vs. Full-Frame? In both cases there exists the mass-produced item most analogous to the "tree find". Glocks and DSLRs found at big box stores. Then there are collectibles such as Leica or something from the Springfield Custom shop, or Les Baer. I could go on. At any rate, I think some things haven't changed, craftsmanship is still valued and prized, but the common purchase is definitely of the more affordable items such as the mentioned $600 price point.
akgerber 12y ago
Firearms (along with sewing machines) were one of the earliest products to be mass produced with interchangeable parts. There wasn't a modern assembly line yet, but firearms weren't hand-made in the sense they were during the 1700s, where one gunsmith would forge every part down to the screws. That is probably one of the major causes of the declining prices noted in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchangeable_parts#Late_19th_and_early_20th_centuries:_dissemination_throughout_manufacturing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchangeable_parts#Late_19t...
scott_karana 12y ago
Winchester primarily sells to the upmarket sector these days: rather than "everyman" rifles, they sell to nostalgic or well-off collectors and hunters who want to have high-quality polished walnut stocks, beautiful blueing of the metal, and even engravings on some models. Somewhat like how muscle cars from the 60s have in some cases appreciated due to baby boomers. For contrast, Marlin sells a rifle functionally similar to the one discovered, also of vintage design (1894), for $729: http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/default.aspx?item=1894 http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/default.aspx?item=1894
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Winchester still makes that 1882 .44-40 rifle, albeit indeed as a nostalgic collector's item. If they made it for the "everyman" market - not unreasonable as many similar guns are - the price would drop to about $600 (between scale of production and elimination of premium finishing).
ctdonath 12y ago
Eli Whitney introduced (if a bit dishonestly) the notion of building firearms from interchangeable parts in 1801. So 120 years ago was almost a century after that, so the item in question certainly wasn't hand-made. Unlike most other products, there is really no room for cost-cutting of parts on a firearm. A dishwasher or vacuum cleaner may be cheaply made and still satisfy use for upwards of a decade until it breaks and the owner, with only mild annoyance, replaces it (speaking from personal experience of late); solid steel components both durable and replaceable progressively give way to breakable & irreplaceable parts, tolerated by society because prices drop. A firearm, however, has serious demands for durability and safety (breakage can gravely harm the user, directly or indirectly), necessitating solid steel parts meticulously milled (or comparably advanced polymers molded to likewise high standards); it still takes about the same amount of work to make one today as 120 years ago, with little room for cost-cutting. That durability also means they don't really wear out (taking decades/centuries instead of months or years), so older items retain their value and stabilize the price of new ones. Ergo, the cost - relative to other invariant standards like mundane labor or precious metals - has remained largely unchanged.
- refurb 12y ago
  A lot of firearm prices are driven by "willingness to pay". I can't find the source as it was a long time ago, but I remember reading that Glock can manufacture a handgun for under $200 (they sell for $600). If you think about it, a gun is nothing more than a collection of milled (or cast) metal parts. A certain level of precision is required, but the material and manufacturing costs (with automated CNC) are pretty small.

I wonder why the cost didn't go down. Are they still hand-made like 120 years ago?

by ido 12y ago

I wonder why the cost didn't go down. Are they still hand-made like 120 years ago?

Good question, I'd like to see the answer from more knowledgeable firearms enthusiasts. Likely because partly what is considered a "good" handgun advances with the state of the art, partly modern insurance and regulatory requirements drive up modern manufacturing costs, and partly because of market dynamics for the use cases a handgun is put to. If you were mass manufacturing a mid-19th century handgun, with no improvements in its tech or metallurgy, without having to pay for the operational insurance and regulatory overhead costs, and it was accepted by the firearms-purchasing public in the same per capita adoption rates as back when it was originally produced, I can easily see it being a lot less expensive. But the purchasing public seems to seek specific characteristics in modern firearms, these characteristics don't appear to align with "use old tech", and this tends to set a floor price from what I can tell as a casual user. Interestingly, replica mid- to late-19th century handguns sell for around the $600+ USD mark in the US, for the enthusiast market. Well-cared for, lightly-used firearms are reasonably close to quality as new for most non-enthusiast level users, and even many enthusiast users. So if inexpensive is what you are looking for, a used firearm from a trusted user goes for roughly half to 2/3 of new prices these days.

BrianHutch 12y ago
I think it definitely depends, the firearms purchasing public is as diverse as most other groups. As someone who collects both, I find it amusingly similar to camera gear. Nikon vs. Canon, Glock vs. Sig, 9mm vs .45 or was it APS-C vs. Full-Frame? In both cases there exists the mass-produced item most analogous to the "tree find". Glocks and DSLRs found at big box stores. Then there are collectibles such as Leica or something from the Springfield Custom shop, or Les Baer. I could go on. At any rate, I think some things haven't changed, craftsmanship is still valued and prized, but the common purchase is definitely of the more affordable items such as the mentioned $600 price point.

akgerber 12y ago

Firearms (along with sewing machines) were one of the earliest products to be mass produced with interchangeable parts. There wasn't a modern assembly line yet, but firearms weren't hand-made in the sense they were during the 1700s, where one gunsmith would forge every part down to the screws. That is probably one of the major causes of the declining prices noted in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchangeable_parts#Late_19th_and_early_20th_centuries:_dissemination_throughout_manufacturing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchangeable_parts#Late_19t...

scott_karana 12y ago

Winchester primarily sells to the upmarket sector these days: rather than "everyman" rifles, they sell to nostalgic or well-off collectors and hunters who want to have high-quality polished walnut stocks, beautiful blueing of the metal, and even engravings on some models. Somewhat like how muscle cars from the 60s have in some cases appreciated due to baby boomers. For contrast, Marlin sells a rifle functionally similar to the one discovered, also of vintage design (1894), for $729: http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/default.aspx?item=1894 http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/default.aspx?item=1894

ctdonath 12y ago
Winchester still makes that 1882 .44-40 rifle, albeit indeed as a nostalgic collector's item. If they made it for the "everyman" market - not unreasonable as many similar guns are - the price would drop to about $600 (between scale of production and elimination of premium finishing).

ctdonath 12y ago

Eli Whitney introduced (if a bit dishonestly) the notion of building firearms from interchangeable parts in 1801. So 120 years ago was almost a century after that, so the item in question certainly wasn't hand-made. Unlike most other products, there is really no room for cost-cutting of parts on a firearm. A dishwasher or vacuum cleaner may be cheaply made and still satisfy use for upwards of a decade until it breaks and the owner, with only mild annoyance, replaces it (speaking from personal experience of late); solid steel components both durable and replaceable progressively give way to breakable & irreplaceable parts, tolerated by society because prices drop. A firearm, however, has serious demands for durability and safety (breakage can gravely harm the user, directly or indirectly), necessitating solid steel parts meticulously milled (or comparably advanced polymers molded to likewise high standards); it still takes about the same amount of work to make one today as 120 years ago, with little room for cost-cutting. That durability also means they don't really wear out (taking decades/centuries instead of months or years), so older items retain their value and stabilize the price of new ones. Ergo, the cost - relative to other invariant standards like mundane labor or precious metals - has remained largely unchanged.

refurb 12y ago
A lot of firearm prices are driven by "willingness to pay". I can't find the source as it was a long time ago, but I remember reading that Glock can manufacture a handgun for under $200 (they sell for $600). If you think about it, a gun is nothing more than a collection of milled (or cast) metal parts. A certain level of precision is required, but the material and manufacturing costs (with automated CNC) are pretty small.