Why are Browning Rifles so expensive? - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > General Rifle Discussion >

Why are Browning Rifles so expensive?


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-10-2009, 03:29 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3486 Times on 1612 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M14sRock View Post
A good rule of thumb is to spend as much on the scope, as you did on the rifle, or more.
What?!?!

Look, I have some of the higher priced project guns on the board here and even I wouldn't advocate spending the same amount of cash on optics as I did on my builds.

Sweet Jesus man, that is doubling the price of your weapon.

Good glass costs money. No doubt about that. However the truly elite scopes are probably 10% OR 15% BETTER at double, or triple the price.

Now, if you have $3K to spend on the new luminated reticle Schmidt & Bender - kudos to you. But unless you are shooting for a living ( meaning someone is paying you not to miss ) a good quality scope is going to get you on the same paper.

The Chey-Tac Intervention Rifle System is arguably the best production sniper platform on the planet right now and it comes from the manufacturer with ballistic software AND a pda for getting you on target out to 2500 yards. They are running a Nightforce on their $14K rifle system. That scope can be had for about $1600 to $1800.

I'm just saying - there is a WORLD of scopes out there that don't cost $2K that get the job done.

JD
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2009, 03:55 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
M14sRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,541
Liked 36 Times on 26 Posts
Likes Given: 48

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillinger View Post
What?!?!

Look, I have some of the higher priced project guns on the board here and even I wouldn't advocate spending the same amount of cash on optics as I did on my builds.

Sweet Jesus man, that is doubling the price of your weapon.

Good glass costs money. No doubt about that. However the truly elite scopes are probably 10% OR 15% BETTER at double, or triple the price.

Now, if you have $3K to spend on the new luminated reticle Schmidt & Bender - kudos to you. But unless you are shooting for a living ( meaning someone is paying you not to miss ) a good quality scope is going to get you on the same paper.

The Chey-Tac Intervention Rifle System is arguably the best production sniper platform on the planet right now and it comes from the manufacturer with ballistic software AND a pda for getting you on target out to 2500 yards. They are running a Nightforce on their $14K rifle system. That scope can be had for about $1600 to $1800.

I'm just saying - there is a WORLD of scopes out there that don't cost $2K that get the job done.

JD
I absolutely stand by the statement. Cheap glass sucks.

The performance of the rifle can only meet the performance of the scope.

For basic hunting a $200 Wally World Leupold Rifleman scope will serve well. Rugged, weatherproof, decent glass. But they do fall off in low light pretty drastically. And almost every shot I've taken while hunting has been in low light. For the same reason I tossed my $500 spotting scope into the safe and bought a $1500 scope. The low light performance was lacking. And I was prepared to spend more if needed, but did not feel the need.

Did I want to do this? Hell no. But it was obvious that the cheap gear was not performing. And when even a short weekend hunting trip ends up costing me several hundred dollars, the cost of the gear gets amortized.

Show me one competitive shooter who has an expensive rifle with cheap glass on it.

I'm a big believer in upgrading gear as funds allow. Buy the best you can afford, and upgrade it when you can.
M14sRock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2009, 04:03 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
stalkingbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bloomfield,Ky
Posts: 3,756
Liked 108 Times on 75 Posts
Likes Given: 41

Default

I think that translates to the less you spend on a rifle, the more in proportion to spend on optics. That's because you're not going to get decent optics for under 150$-regardless if you spend 100$ or 300$ on the rifle. As you go up the scale, the price difference shifts. I've never had over a 800$ scope-regardless of what I spent to build the rifle (which is incidentally much less than most people spend due to me doing it all myself). I DO however put 200$ optics on my "serious" .22s. Up to a point, you get what you pay for in optics. Where you put that breakpoint is up to you. After that, the name/rep comes into play somewhat IMO. Just don't put a 30$ scope on a 700$ rifle and expect it to perform to it's limit.
__________________
Sometimes you earthlings REALLY amaze me!
stalkingbear is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2009, 04:04 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3486 Times on 1612 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

I think you are confusing "good" with "elite".

I would agree that a $200 scope isn't going to give you the same light transmission as an $800 scope.

Then again, the $200 Rifle isn't going to shoot like the $800 Rifle.

But, to say that the rule of thumb is to spend on the scope what you spend on your rifle is outright crazy.

I have a $1000 Leupold on my 7mm Custom, and that is about what the action cost. That scope is WAY more than I need, but it was the scope I wanted. I would love to have a $3K S&B Tactical - but need? Not so much.

Take a quality piece of glass, like Leupold made right down the road in Oregon and put it along side a Zeiss or Swarovski. Take the average shooter to any range and let them shoot with all three scopes. They are all going to have a favorite scope, or a favorite reticle, but will any of them be able to tell you exactly what they are getting for the money and why they like Brand X?? I highly doubt it.

There are some good scope makers and there are some not so good scope makers, but the difference between good and elite is double or triple the price, and you are not getting double or triple the scope.

JD
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 06:43 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
M14sRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,541
Liked 36 Times on 26 Posts
Likes Given: 48

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillinger View Post
I think you are confusing "good" with "elite".

I would agree that a $200 scope isn't going to give you the same light transmission as an $800 scope.

Then again, the $200 Rifle isn't going to shoot like the $800 Rifle.

But, to say that the rule of thumb is to spend on the scope what you spend on your rifle is outright crazy.

I have a $1000 Leupold on my 7mm Custom, and that is about what the action cost. That scope is WAY more than I need, but it was the scope I wanted. I would love to have a $3K S&B Tactical - but need? Not so much.

Take a quality piece of glass, like Leupold made right down the road in Oregon and put it along side a Zeiss or Swarovski. Take the average shooter to any range and let them shoot with all three scopes. They are all going to have a favorite scope, or a favorite reticle, but will any of them be able to tell you exactly what they are getting for the money and why they like Brand X?? I highly doubt it.

There are some good scope makers and there are some not so good scope makers, but the difference between good and elite is double or triple the price, and you are not getting double or triple the scope.

JD
The first 3 lines of your latest response seem to validate my point. And I do not say the "THE rule of thumb is to spend as much on your optics as your rifle", I said "A GOOD rule of thumb...". And I still agree with that. The greatest rifle in the world won't shoot to anywhere near its' potential with marginal glass on it. The glass is ONE crucial element of having an accurate system.

Why spend a lot of money on a rifle only to top it with low quality glass? Makes no sense. A $1,000 Leupold is a great, world class scope. But it still won't run with a $3,000 Schmidt & Bender. Compare them side by side at dusk, and just beyond, and you can immediately see the difference. Or just buy an IOR scope and get the best of both worlds. S&B quality at a Leupold price.

I'm not bagging on Leupold, and probably own at least 30 of their scopes. At one time I could have been the poster child for Leupold products, and still have them on most of my hunting rifles and .22's. And I use their range finding binos for hunting and have never had a problem.

I have a $600 Savage heavy bbl .223 with a $900 scope on it (mounted in $150 rings). This seems completely reasonable to me because the rifle shoots well enough to warrant that scope. It would not realize its full potential with a $200 scope on it.

But I also have a sporterized No4Mk1 Enfield in an ATI synthetic stock ($75) topped with an S&K mount ($59) and a ($169) Leupold Rifleman 2-7 (in $15 rings). That rifle initially cost me $50, and with all the doodads probably maxes out at about $300 total, and is perfect just the way it is.

So it is completely reasonable to spend as much (or more) on the optics, as I did on the rifle.

Life is too short to rely on cheap glass.
M14sRock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 12:34 PM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Stafford, Virginia,The state of insanity.
Posts: 14,043
Liked 38 Times on 32 Posts

Default

M14 the next time I need a scope for my rifle you can buy me a $2000 piece of glass OK.

Like I have said in other threads. I think the sweet spot is the $300 to $600 range for the normal shooter/hunter. Oh when I build my 6mm Dasher is it going to have a $300 scope on it hell no it is going to get a Leupold target, Night Force, or a March. But this is going to be a full on custom built bench gun for whackin varmints a long ways away. I am going for a stiller action Bartlin barrel .262" neck it will be throated for one bullet and will be in a SG&Y or McMillan Stock.

There are times you need to spend that kind of money on a scope and there are times you don't need to. My Bushnell elite 4200 I Got for $550 works great for what I do with it. Same as the Nikon Monarch 6.5-20x44mm can whack gound hogs at 250+ yards. Why should I spend $1000 more to get a nightforce when the nikon does the exact same thing? That nightforce will not make a better shooter out of me. Hell I go whistle pig hunting with a guy that has a full on custom built 338 Edge with a Nightforce the dude can't hit the side of a barn at 50 yards with it let alone a whistle pig at 600. So tell me why did he need a $1800 chunk of glass on that rifle? Hell Another buddy has the fancy remington 700 VSSF in 243 with a leupold vx-III 6.5-20x50mm and I still out shoot him with my cheap glass. Hell I could out shoot him with a POS BSA on my 223. So i guess that kills your expensive glass theory sorry.

What is cheap to you is not cheap to me. You say a $500 scope is cheap. I say that is a great piece of glass. I would rather have a Bushnell elite 4200 over the POS leupold I had on my varmint rifle. Oh the leupold was a good piece of glass but for the same price my Bushnell was by far a much better scope.

If you want everyone to spend that much on a scope hows about you start buying them for us.

I know guys that have shot more and killed more game than you can even think of and they did it all with a $50 Chinese Tasco scope.

Last edited by cpttango30; 08-11-2009 at 12:40 PM.
cpttango30 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 02:54 PM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
M14sRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,541
Liked 36 Times on 26 Posts
Likes Given: 48

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpttango30 View Post
M14 the next time I need a scope for my rifle you can buy me a $2000 piece of glass OK.

Like I have said in other threads. I think the sweet spot is the $300 to $600 range for the normal shooter/hunter. Oh when I build my 6mm Dasher is it going to have a $300 scope on it hell no it is going to get a Leupold target, Night Force, or a March. But this is going to be a full on custom built bench gun for whackin varmints a long ways away. I am going for a stiller action Bartlin barrel .262" neck it will be throated for one bullet and will be in a SG&Y or McMillan Stock.

There are times you need to spend that kind of money on a scope and there are times you don't need to. My Bushnell elite 4200 I Got for $550 works great for what I do with it. Same as the Nikon Monarch 6.5-20x44mm can whack gound hogs at 250+ yards. Why should I spend $1000 more to get a nightforce when the nikon does the exact same thing? That nightforce will not make a better shooter out of me. Hell I go whistle pig hunting with a guy that has a full on custom built 338 Edge with a Nightforce the dude can't hit the side of a barn at 50 yards with it let alone a whistle pig at 600. So tell me why did he need a $1800 chunk of glass on that rifle? Hell Another buddy has the fancy remington 700 VSSF in 243 with a leupold vx-III 6.5-20x50mm and I still out shoot him with my cheap glass. Hell I could out shoot him with a POS BSA on my 223. So i guess that kills your expensive glass theory sorry.

What is cheap to you is not cheap to me. You say a $500 scope is cheap. I say that is a great piece of glass. I would rather have a Bushnell elite 4200 over the POS leupold I had on my varmint rifle. Oh the leupold was a good piece of glass but for the same price my Bushnell was by far a much better scope.

If you want everyone to spend that much on a scope hows about you start buying them for us.

I know guys that have shot more and killed more game than you can even think of and they did it all with a $50 Chinese Tasco scope.
I think you are creating drama where none exists. I have stated in my posts that the $200 range Leupolds are fine scopes and suitable for most hunting rifles. No issues there.

But I also believe that putting cheap glass on an expensive rifle makes no sense. If I was going to do that I'd just pick up the Savage rifle combo with the Simmons scope mounted at Big5 and be done. $400+/- for the whole package, and it works fine.

And a $50 Tasco can be a capable scope, too. But it does not compare with good glass on any level.

Gear will never be able to compensate for lack of skill (as evidenced by your friend with the NF), but skill coupled with excellent gear is an unbeatable combo.

Using your logic, there is no reason to buy a Browning A-Bolt, or even a Remington 700, when a Savage 110 can be had for several hundred dollars less. It is just as accurate, available in the same calibers, and works perfectly.

Life is too short to use cheap glass. Not from a "snobbery" point of view, but from a practical point of view. Good glass gives the shooter a noticeable edge in dusky, low light conditions.

Do I like having to spend big bucks on a good scope? Hell no. But in comparing them the difference is plainly seen.
M14sRock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2009, 02:06 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 10
Default

Somehow this turned from a discussion about the relative merits vs cost of two rifle brands to attacking opinions on scopes. Was someone trolling for a fight?

For my 2 cents, I haven't been able to find examples of a $400 delta between Rem and Browning for rifles at the equivilant points in the respective vendors product lines. You do see this if you compare say the Browning SS Stalker (synthetic) to the Remington SPS, but they are not equivilant rifles - the 'matching' Remington would be (IMO) the XCR which has a MSRP delta of approx $100. You may find Rem offers deaper discounts to some mass retailers strictly based on volumes - this is not unusual and applies to many products besides rifles.

The arguments about relative expense/merits of scopes are apples/organges comparisons. The bottom line for any manufacturer is that light transmission (which is where the cutting edge technology lies) costs. To get equivilant light transmission performance, the unit is going to cost in the same range of $$$ - there are no free rides. Can you or the average hunter tell the difference in a Leupold VX7 that costs above $1k vs the same in a VX3 or VX2 that is in the $400 or $300 dollar range respectively? In most cases probably not, but for some, they can. Like recoil sensitivity - your mileage may vary.

Opinions were asked for and were given in that spirit - the response, particularly to M14sRock appears to be inappropriate to the question unless someone was trolling for fight. IMHO
cyendrey is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2009, 02:57 PM   #29
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 19,235
Liked 6784 Times on 3605 Posts
Likes Given: 506

Default

as to the original question.

the reason that browning prices are higher is that they are trying to take market share from other companies but are spending money like mad and have larger overhead with smaller profit margins as they may not be selling as many rifles as other companies. they are most likely trying to keep their quality up while advertising. to stay in business and make a profit they have to meet certain price points in order not to go out of business.

this leaves the question to the buyer: is a browning actually better than other brands and worth it to me to spend more on that product??

its one thing the government of the united states does not and never will understand. the free market and consumer should be left alone to decide.
JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2009, 09:03 AM   #30
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TXnorton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Katy,Texas
Posts: 1,376
Default

Well I, for one, am convinced. My next bolt action hunting (note - not sniper!) rifle will be a Browning. I'll go buy it just as soon as my current Remington M700 BDL in .30-06 wears out and will not drop that deer dead on the spot with the first (and only) shot!

Only one problem here, I bought that M700 in 1977, and I have probably fired 2-3,000 rounds through it (I am guessing a bit here, because I really did not keep count over the past 32 years). And darn it, it keeps dropping them white tails where I shoot them. So I guess the grandson will have to buy that Browning for me after I am long dead and buried.
__________________
TXnorton
TXnorton is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Less expensive alternative to ar-15 Dan The Man Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion 29 01-06-2012 01:12 PM
Building an AR...is this barrel expensive? JimGiven AR-15 Discussion 5 12-19-2009 06:57 PM
Expensive site R-BOLT The Club House 4 08-01-2009 05:29 PM
How Expensive Are Full Auto Weapons? ghostie NFA/Class 3 & FFL Discussion 44 04-27-2008 11:14 PM



Newest Threads