In response to a post lamenting the cost of current-production S&W revolvers:
Like the 1911, it was designed in a time when labor was cheap, with the
only overhead for your workforce being the amount of money you put in
their pockets every payday.
There were no HR departments or pensions or scholarship programs or
paternity leaves or paid sick time or any of that other stuff. No OSHA
and no EPA to monitor plant emissions. You could pay people a
squat-oh-nine a day to inspect the work and if they didn't do a good
job, fire them and hire the next one standing at the factory door.
I was taking a little Mauser 1910 .25 apart to take some pictures the
other day, and the amount of machining and (no doubt) hand-fitting that
went into that pocket pistol that sold for a pittance in its day was
just practically obscene to modern eyes. Every single part of that gun
was whittled from a block of steel. For every Mauser 1910 that came out
the factory door, there were probably two more in the form of iron
filings and metal chips on the factory floor. It was like looking at
gold leaf toilet paper.
And in response to a post lamenting the price tag on used Smith revos:
The market for medium-frame centerfire Smiths was artificially depressed
through the Nineties and into the early Aughties as the glut of po-po
trade-ins moved through the market like a pig through a python. This
coincided with a lot of people getting into Smith collecting because it
was the workingman's alternative to collecting Colt's. Up until just ten
years or so ago, the only Smith Hand Ejectors that brought big money
were prewar large-frame guns and some rare and hard-to-find variants.
Now the police trade-in supply has pretty much dried up, and this
coincides with Smith collecting becoming a respected discipline within
the larger avocation of firearms curating. Prices will only be going up.
(Personally, I'm pretty much priced out of the Hand Ejector market. It
was fun while it lasted, though.)
Look on the bright side of things: You could be a Colt's
fan. Pythons and Diamondbacks have always been expensive, but they've
gone off-the-charts looney tunes flat-out crazy in the last few years.
Half the Pythons I've seen lately have been stickered for more than I
paid for my Subaru.
33 comments:
Time to start looking for Single Sixes!
You laugh but... Have you checked out Gunbroker prices on the first generation of Ruger DA revolvers lately? People are starting to want real money for the Security/Speed/Service Sixes.
Couple of thoughts:
1.A bunch of the old guys that have lots of guns are going to go to their reward within the next decade or two and eventually the market will depress again when only a small minority gives a rat's backside about these sort of wheelguns.
2. Don't forget the government regulation part of that equation that caused costs to rise.
3. Or the inflation either.
+1 on the Ruger sixes. I've seen that myself. I think, though, that S&W has driven their own used market by selling their new revolvers with the Infernal Lock. I recently purhcased a 642 without the lock, and the sales guy said that S&W was going to discontinue the practice of selling the lockless version because it makes the lock version look like inferior product.
I personally think S&W made a mistake discontinuing the K frame .357 2 1/2" pistols. They're a good CCW option for those set on carrying a revolver. Milder recoil than a J snubbie with +p ammo and good sights make an attractive package. With the escalating price of those still on the market a pricey choice though.
This is depressing as my collection still needs another S&W .44 Mag.
Things never worked out to buy one between my 44th and 45th birthdays like I wanted to.
I'd love to make the .44 happen for $500 or less but I just don't think it will.
The Rock's comments strike me as right on.
TheRock,
"1.A bunch of the old guys that have lots of guns are going to go to their reward within the next decade or two and eventually the market will depress again when only a small minority gives a rat's backside about these sort of wheelguns."
The same way interest in Peacemakers dried up when all the old cowboys died? ;)
Bob,
" I recently purhcased a 642 without the lock, and the sales guy said that S&W was going to discontinue the practice of selling the lockless version because it makes the lock version look like inferior product."
Yeah, that sounds like gun store gossip to me.
Only a certain amount of old smiths, or old anything, were made. As collectors buy them and put them on shelves, the market naturally becomes smaller and what people can get for the few remaining goes up.
we will see a "collectors" market for pre-internal lock guns starting soon. I don't see how the lock makes them inferior unless the lock signifies lower overall quality of the product.
If S&W doesn't want to make 2.5 inch barrel K-Frames, I am sure Taurus and other revolver makers will continue to fufill that market niche.
About the hand fitting. Most of the big manufactureres then valued their workforce. Often you didn't get a job making products until you had apprenticed and worked your way up. My Granfather worked at Colt's between WWI and WWI. When working on the gun floor they found out he was allergic to the oils and grease used on the guns. Made him quite ill. Colt's did not fire him and hire the next guy in line. They valued their employees. They trained him to run and maintain the trains that moved materials back and forth between the various building of Colt's plant.
Found a beautiful condition 29-3 83/8th for sale at my local gunnery. Went back the next day and bought it. I've seen some nice S&W's come and go. Problem in NJ is the wait between finding something you want and getting a permit. Supposed to be a 30 day wait.. more like 12 to 18 weeks. Some day I'll live in a free state
My introduction to the Colt Python was back in the 80s, a co-worker had one. One pull of the trigger was enough to make me fall madly in love with it. What a joy to shoot. If I could own any single pistol, with money no object, that would be it. Of course, money is the stumbling block, so I will just have to continue to dream, and pray every night that Colt decides to start making them again. They are missing out on a gold mine there.
On the lock/no-lock issue with 642s, I had heard the other rumor, "S&W is going to stop making them with a lock". And yes, I heard it in a gun store.
And they are well built guns, to boot. Most med. frame revolver fans who own the Rugers, hang on to 'em.
I know how you feel. My Bullseye coach had a 4" blued Python that was a joy to shoot, even w/magnum loads. But Colt would never be able to make them again, the hand-fitting is a skill that takes decades to master, and Colt deserted the civilian market in favor of govt. Contracts in the 70's.
There's a great bit from "How Green Was My Valley"-
"But in those days money was easily earnt and plenty of it. And not in pieces of paper either. Solid gold sovereigns like my grandfather wore on his watch-chain. Little round pieces, yellow as summer daffodils, and wrinkled round the edges like shillings, with a head cut off in front, and a dragon and a man with a pole on the back. And they rang when he hit them on something solid. It must be a fine feeling to put your hand in your pocket and shake together ten or fifteen of them, not that it will ever happen to anybody again, in my time, anyway. But I wonder did the last man, the very last man who had a pocketful of them, stop to think that he was the last man to be able to jingle sovereigns.
There is a record for you.
It is nothing to fly at hundreds of miles an hour, for indeed I think there is something to laugh about when a fuss is made of such nonsense. But only let me see a man with a pocketful of sovereigns to spend. And yet everybody had them here once. "
Labor was cheap, and yet well paid.
Certainly all the semi-socialist stuff we have today adds to the cost of employing labor, but then in the old days those costs went into the pay packets of employees instead. There was nothing to socialise the workers' risk, so they had to plan on it and cover it themselves. And they did- savings banks, mutual aid societies, insurance, Elks and Woodmen of the World.
Look at the houses they built. Working people today can't put up places like that.
And the employers didn't think the labor cheap either. They were constantly trying to eliminate hands with mechanism. Even then, men were more costly than machinery.
The modern stuff, all the costs you talk about, bear on the worker much less directly than they did then.
The parasites' cut is the real cost. The workers then weren't keeping 20% of the population for nothing, or a vast government to administer it. One way or another, that third comes out of the workers' paycheck and the boss has to cover it nowadays too.
Employers were not particularly evil back then. But they could fire people who annoyed them without being punished.
A typical cheap revolver in 1900 cost about $20 ... which would be 15.47 ounces of silver ( each 90% silver dollar had .7736 troy ounces in it ).
At today's quote, that would be $309.44.
"Colt deserted the civilian market in favor of govt. Contracts in the 70's."
Um...
All I know is that if I can find a Smith K-Frame in Shooter Grade for @ $400, I tend to buy it. They just work.
"A typical cheap revolver in 1900 cost about $20 ... "
Yeah, no.
In the 'teens, a Colt 1903 Auto, not a low-end piece, went for a hair over $20, while $16 would buy you a Remington 51. The Smith & Wesson New Century "Triple Lock", arguably the Cadillac of handguns for its age, cost $21.
A Hopkins & Allen pocket revolver ("The Kind Cops Carry!™") was nine and a half bucks.
Oh, and...
"Employers were not particularly evil back then."
Did I say they were?
If only Gun-Futures were sold on the commodities market. "The latest crop-report on excavated Mosin-Nagants is in, and prices are going up!"
Bubblehead Les, my price point is $200 but I'm cheap and influenced by the very conditions Tam has blogged about.
I've heard we have Rick Grimes to blame for the skyrocketing prices of Colt Pythons.
OK then, about a hundred and a half 2014 dollars for a cheapie.
Still within today's price range.
I think the issue here would be changes in what is cheap, and what is not.
Competent labor and materials are dear today. Automation and some outsourcing does seem to be holding down inflation adjusted costs, albeit at the expense of detailed workmanship.
( And the evil comment was just anti-marxist sarcasm ... and no, you are not a marxist, unless we are talking about Groucho Marx )
If you want a good shooter instead of a safe queen, purchase a used S&W Model 15-4 K38 Combat Masterpiece instead of a Colt Diamondback.
Adjusted for inflation alone, what sold at a certain price 35 years ago would cost four times as much today. The increased cost of labor is offset by the savings incurred by the use of CNC machining which also yields tighter tolerances.
Yes, old world craftsmanship created many wonderful things. How 'bout the more recent offerings from Colt and Smith, specifically the Gold Cup and the M69? Have you had an opportunity to evaluate either of 'em/heard good or bad things from your friends in the biz?
Sigman I've owned two of them the first was acquired in 84 right after I got out of the army in AK but got sold or traded the current one I bougght when I started shooting again after deciding race cars ate too much of my money and this one is going no where. It's a very comfortable gun to carry and with a couple speedstrips and maybe a Model 36 in my offhand pocket I feel suitably prepared for pretty much anything short of a war zone and as a plus I can shoot it more accurately than this damnedable M&P 9.
I'm also very pleased at the way it's appreciating. I bought it in it's original box with the cleaning kit even for 275.00 eight years ago and it's just about doubled since. Now I just need some better grips. I would have preferred a square gripped gun but the choices at auctions are limited.
Ed,
"If you want a good shooter instead of a safe queen, purchase a used S&W Model 15-4 K38 Combat Masterpiece instead of a Colt Diamondback."
What, like this one?
Tam,
Yes, like that one. Good decision and great price! Thank you for the link.
I purchased a 4 inch barreled Colt Diamondback new in 1978 because it was heavily discounted by a local high sales volume gun shop and was less expensive than a new S&W model 15-4 Combat Masterpiece. Both are good revolvers, but one is more favored now by collectors than the other. I sold the Colt several years later because I was not shooting it much. Why? I discovered the lower cost per round and higher performance of 9mm Luger rounds, plus magazine changes were much quicker and less frequent than using speedloaders or speed strips when reloading:
http://www.ballistics101.com/9mm_vs_.38special.php
If I needed to buy a new comparable revolver today, the S&W 686 would probably be my choice. The 686 has a MSRP of $829, much less than what I paid for my Colt Diamondback when adjusted for inflation. Plus, the 686 is constructed of stainless steel and can handle both .38 Special +P loads and .357 Magnum rounds. Ballistics By The Inch shows that the S&W Model 686 has better performance than a Colt Diamondback with the .38 Special round:
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_764964_-1_757787_757787_757787_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
Ballistics By The Inch also shows that a 4 inch barreled S&W 686 has better performance than a 6 inch barreled Colt Python with the .357 Magnum round:
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html#RW
BTW I still have my J-frame stainless steel S&W Model 60 snubbie despite owning 9mm Luger pistols.
Gotta love them Model 14 & 15 Smiths... My buddies Diamondback doesn't impress me as much as a Combat Masterpiece does. 38 Special still does the job
What are these model numbers of which you speak? ;)
Post a Comment