bugs11

My wife calls it the " economy of quality" . It' s better to spend the money up front for something that does the job right the first time. If you don' t, you just end up wasting your money and time on an inferior product. Having said that, don' t over buy either, that' s a waste of money at the other end of the spectrum. Remember it' s better to have too much and not need it, than not have enough at all and there' s always the trade in/re-sell factor to consider.

plainsman

I' ll agree with about 80% of whats been said so far,but it seems like a lot of guys are using price tags as a sort of bragging rights[you paid $400 for that SAVAGE?Well I paid $1800 for my Sako] type of deal.Does that mean at 300 yrds. the Sako is gonna' kill that deer that much deader? Definately not!! With the price of some guns out there I' d expect them to do everything but cook the meal!!! Yes there is a point about paying for quality,but after a certain point it just gets way out of hand. $200 duck calls? $2,300 binoculars?,not even if I did have the money!! At what point do we lose common sense, or for that matter, get it back?

James B

I agree with you Plainsman. There is paying for what you get and then there is just plain snob apeal. The latter does not do much for me.

diyj98

We could all hunt with a $40.00 Turkish Mauser and still kill game, but that doesn' t mean the Turk is " just as good" as a $400.00 rifle. I' ll go along with those that have poste that you generally get what you pay for in guns and optics. I' ve owned a number of Savage rifles, but they are not in the same class quality wise as Tikka, Sako, etc. Just as a Bushnell Trophy 3-9 isn' t the same qualty as a Leupold 3-9.

maytom

I agree with Mauser!! Comparing a Mossberg to a Browning shotgun for instance. The Browning, while costing much more, is more precisely made, the fit and finish, etc. So yes, while it does cost more, your getting more for your money at the very same time. Variety is what makes the world go round. If you feel that the additional cost, fit, and feel of a gun makes you a better shot, go for it.

propmahn

" you get what you pay for" applies to a certain type of person, at least in my humble opinion. the type of person that enjoys the action smoother, the glass clearer, that last 5 minutes of hunting light. if you dont fall into this category then you are just as happy with a savage or a handi-rifle as a remington 700 or a tikka or a sako. some people fall into this category and some dont. and even then some people are in that category on one product and not the next. as well, some people can afford to be in the " you get what you pay for" category, and this is for various reasons like: 1) they' ve got the basics covered and now want something nicer, 2)got the money. Some people dont want to spend twice as much on a rifle because they would rather have 2 savages than 1 tikka, or any substition like that. for some people the tikkas worth it, for some people they rather have 2 savages.

TScottW99

I just like that quote

Ruger-Redhawk

In most cases you do get what you pay for.In others you' re paying for the name.There is no way to compare a Tasco,or Simmons scopes to a Leupold.But you' re going to pay for the Leupold.That' s one case of getting what you pay for.You can' t compare a RG,Arminus or FIE handgun to a Smith,Ruger,Sig.Glock etc.There again you get what you pay for.Quality is not cheap. If you want it,you' ll pay for it.I buy Rugers,Brownings, Leupolds and other quality products not to impress anyone but to have the best equipment I can afford (or can' t afford). I don' t look down on someone who doesn' t dig deep in their pockets to buy top of the line stuff.Yes I would say in most cases you get what you pay for.Sometimes cutting corners costs you more in the end.I' m not saying go over board.I would rather have one quality firearm,scope etc then two of the low end products. Right or wrong that' s just me.
Ruger Redhawk