Well, it seems as though this thread is going to drift a little. But what the heck. No one is shooting much right now. Everyone's bored and looking for something to talk about, and this is a good topic to play around with.


So, what is "high quality" when it comes to guns? What makes a gun "medium" or "low" quality?


I think it depends on how you want to define "quality". If quality is measured by accuracy, dependability and durability, there are a lot of high quality guns out there. Some are quite inexpensive and many of them would be considered "cheap" or at least "inexpensive" so far as cost goes.

Consider the lowly CVA Wolf. Is it accurate, dependable and durable? Sure seems to be. I can think of nothing more accurate, dependable and durable than my TC Renegades. Twenty years ago TC Renegades and Hawkens were THE high quality muzzleloaders.

On the other hand, if quality is defined by aesthetics (fit, finish, style, elegance?) you can't help but run in to the problem of personal taste. I suspect almost all of us on this forum would agree that a custom made flint longrifle is mighty pretty, and would probably think of it as a high quality gun (even though a CVA Wolf may outshoot it all day long). Some guys find a fully camo patterned in-line with a thumbhole synthetic stock gun a thing of beauty. Yet, not all of us would agree on that. But we would all agree that it's accurate, dependable and durable.

So, what makes a "high quality" gun in your mind?