Are you good folks taken aback when a gunwriter praises a $3,000.00 rifle or $4,000.00 shotgun as being "reasonably priced" or within the budget of most hunters and shooters? I certainly could not and would not pay that amount for any rifle or shotgun.

I have reduced the number of gun magazines I buy for the same reason. When a publication names a "Gun of The Year" that costs as much as my used SUV, we part company. Once in a blue moon, a gun magazine may run a half-baked article on buying used guns. They focus on new guns.

I shop the used gun racks on a regular basis. When I find domething I like, I haggle with the gun shop. Usually, it is possible to get discounts if you are a frequent customer. Just the idle thoughts of an idle fellow. Take care...
Oberndorf

You make a valid point, but I feel a need to point out something. Publications do not make money off of subscribers and newsstand sales, except indirectly. By that I mean the money comes from advertisers, and if advertisers don't see a return on their cost of advertising their money is put elsewhere.

This is a fact often bemoaned and scorned, but it is nothing more than a fact of business. Magazines and writers know which side their bread is buttered on -- and we'd all better know the same, or we'll starve! I think most of them know what their advertisers want, and what their readers want. The two are not always the same, but most make at least some attempt to strike a balance between the two that will keep readership up and advertising $$$ coming in.

And, yes, I do believe there's such a thing as a "reasonably priced" $3000 or $4000 rifle, if comparable rifles typically go for $12000 or $14000. Don't mean I'M buying one! :)

Pisgah is right: magazines stay in business from ad money. And there are no ads for used guns.

"Reasonably priced" depends on quality and the economy. There's no shortage of people buying campers, ATVs, flat-screen TVs, fancy cell phones, luxury cars and trucks and other toys that -strictly speaking- they don't need or could get a lot cheaper. But they still buy 'em. How are guns any different? And why should they be?

I would guess that a lot of people that say they can't afford a $3,000 gun have spent more than that on a collection of average firearms.

I am reminded of an old man I used to work for; he invited me to his home to look over his gun collection. He had 30-40 Ruger model 77s. He took them out of his beautiful, built in, cabinet one at a time and handed them to me to admire. "This is a Ruger Model 77 in .243, this is a Ruger Model 77 in 30/06..." and on and on.

Not to play "one up" but there's a guy locally with a climate controlled concrete vault rivaling Fort Knox. In it are Weatherby rifles. At least one each of every variation they've ever made. Mostly unfired.

I'd bet he'd describe every single one as reasonably priced. By his standards, he may be right.

At the polar opposite is my little gun safe. The two dozen or so guns in there were all reasonably priced - by my standards. And not a single Weatherby.

I have to agree with you and have also reduced the number of gun magazines that I buy. I am down to two, which are The American Rifleman and Guns Magazine. Sadly, some gunscribes have lost touch with their audience, or go off in to usless discussions of overworked topics. If some of the guns they praise are "reasonably" priced, then they make a heck of a lot more money than I do.

Today with the internet there is less need for gun magazines. We can find out as much or more for free on sites like this and on various websites.

Finally, the folks that write about guns often get them them at a discount or for free. How can they be objective? All the best...
Gil

Just remember every new gun you see praised by a gun writer will be a used gun down the road somewhere. Those are what's in my gun safe and I'm as proud of them all as if they were those 3000 dollar brand new guns.

I sure agree about the objectivity of folks that are wined and dined and given free samples of all the new guns to shoot and are invited to company hunts to write about how great those free guns with free ammo kill free deer, whooee I don't know if I'm mad or jealous.

I know there's certainly more than 3000 bucks sitting in my gun safe, but it took over 40 years of scrounging, selecting, saving and trading to get it there. I don't read a lot of gunmags anymore and put much more value into your guys experiences and comments than any of the gun rag writers.

Got friends who'll spend 2-3,000 on a new TV without a second thought. My TV was free, by the way....

"Reasonably priced" just depends on your wallet. For anything.

Take it from me, guys; there are NO free guns for writing articles. I know that's the common belief, but if you believe that, you'll believe in elves. They don't exist, either.

I seldom review guns, so I can be above suspicion here. A writer gets a loaner gun when it's his turn on the waiting list. He might be allowed use of it for as little as a week or two, at the end of which is must be sent along - either back to the company or to the next writer in line. On rare occasions (and I DO mean rare) the writer may get sole use of a gun. But it's still absolutely a loaner. When he's finished doing the review, it either goes back or he can buy it out of his own pocket. The discount is seldom more than 20% off the MSRP. In other words, the same or MORE than he could get the same gun from a dealer.

Really.

Are you good folks taken aback when a gunwriter praises a $3,000.00 rifle or $4,000.00 shotgun as being "reasonably priced" or within the budget of most hunters and shooters? I certainly could not and would not pay that amount for any rifle or shotgun.

I have reduced the number of gun magazines I buy for the same reason. When a publication names a "Gun of The Year" that costs as much as my used SUV, we part company. Once in a blue moon, a gun magazine may run a half-baked article on buying used guns. They focus on new guns.

I shop the used gun racks on a regular basis. When I find domething I like, I haggle with the gun shop. Usually, it is possible to get discounts if you are a frequent customer. Just the idle thoughts of an idle fellow. Take care...
Oberndorf
IMHO, most of what the so called "gun writers" put into print is barely useable as liner in the bottom of the bird cage.

Lots of gun companies offer "pro deals", substancial discounts on guns to dealers. They also offer plenty of sales incintives. Sell "X" number of a certian models, and get your name put in a hat for a free one. Leupold gives pro deals to dealers, but you have to have your name engraved on it, directly from them. Their bread is buttered by the dealers, not the writers. And do you really think the guns they "test" are off the shelf? If that was the case, Ruger wouldn't allow them to print the test targets.

Everything that could be written about guns, has already been writen. The good ones have already been made. Its down to pure economics. Make them for as little as possible and put them at a price point that the typical buyer will spend. Why do you think you can still get an 870 for $230.00?

I stopped reading most gun magazines because they are so repetitive. 9MM vs. 45 acp. How many times was that beat into the ground? 270 vs. 30-06. Here we go again. Now its short mag vs. standard action. Sporting Classics is my read now. Great stories, photos, and who gives a crap what caliber it was.....

I can't afford a $3,000 firearm.

That's not to say there isn't plenty of folks out there with disposable incomes that can, though. Would imagine with today's income levels that such a cost would compare with my forking over several hundred for a similar one 30 or 40 years ago. Yeah, if I had the same equalivant income, I'd probably put the money on the counter and be happy with the purchase.

Like faucettb says - today's premier firearm will be tomorrow's used gun bargin.

Yes you could Ken. You'd just have to sell all your swedes :p :p :p

Seriously, I'd rather have $3,000 worth of turk mausers than one $3,000 rifle. But that's just me.

we've all gotta eat, even the prostitutes.
seriously tho, new gun sales is pretty much what keeps the industry going. the number of reloaders has been in a continual decline for years (unfortunately) and accesories is too small of a slice of the pie. why do you suppose some of the gun rags are running ads for sex aids and that sort of thing? i don't particularly care for savages, and i think the short magnums are unnecessay and therefore in my opinion pointless, just the same, if people keep buying them because they like what they read about them then at least it keeps things moving the right direction.
i've got a couple $1500 rifles and i'm thinking about a rem 40x single shot for myself for christmas, but thats about as wild as it gets for me. funny thing is, my go to gun is an old small ring mauser i bought for about $90 and put a hundred dollar stock on and rebarreled myself with a shilen bbl. if i was to try to sell it today i'd be lucky to get $250 for it, i'll never sell it tho. it's too valuable, if you know what i mean.