Are Glocks the cheapest guns made?

>>32801562
Cheapest like lowest cost manufacturing...no there is worse

>>32801562
I would call them mid range, considering the exponential price scale

but the cost of manufacture (though necessarily quality) is remarkably low

File: nonowa12.png (116KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 450x450px

>>32801562
>cost of manufacture (though necessarily quality) is remarkably low
This, OP. They just mark up the price (like all gun companies) like Jewelers do.

>>32801562
No. Hi-point....makrov... Darengers

>>32801882
it's the sign of great engineering that they can mark it up so much, and that people still choose it over guns in the same price bracket

not only that, nobody seems to be able to make an even cheaper gun
they just mark up a more expensive gun muh less to get any market share

>>32801882
Need to watch that keyboard when you drunk type, anon. You accidently added an "elers" in there.

>>32801562
Not the cheapest, but damn near close.

I've heard a G19 acually costs $120 to manufacture.

>>32801973
No. its a sigh of a very active marketing campaign.

>>32802089
Not with military testing. Marketing isn't the reason it passes all durability and reliability tests with flying colours.

>>32802089
well that certainly wouldn't hurt
but the glock holds it's own as a weapon, and the low low manufacturing cost keeps it commercially unbeatable

glock can at any time make deep discounts by store or region, to squash competitors deals and products
they can even sell aftermarket at a loss

File: Bloods.jpg (149KB, 780x498px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 780x498px

>>32801973
>marketing
>ads
>reputation
>SEALs 19 rumor
>Glock brand Glock name engraving
Pretty much all you're paying for. Same goes for any gun
Engineering is pretty fucking simple at this point. They chose a way that works and they've stuck with, hardly ever deviating from it or trying to improve it, to the point where it's just average engineering at best, and the risk to try to improve it would probably result in more money loss than it's worth. Back straps, finger grooves, that double recoil spring gimmick, and textures don't count either.
My guess for the cost of making a Glock would be somewhere between $100 to $150. So unless you're a retailer or military firearms contractor, you're going to be (over)paying 2/3rds (+ tax) more than what those plastic guns cost.

>>32801973
>nobody seems to be able to make an even cheaper gun
Because just like Youtube, for example, it's hard to break into the gun market like it's hard to become a famous Youtuber these days. By the time your indie company has milled a slide, manufactured parts, and fabricated a polymer/metal frame a couple of thousand times over, selling it for cheap would be just throwing out money because no one is going to buy your no name gun. To convince a large proportion of this niche market to buy cheap guns would be damn near impossible, I mean just look at Hi Point. They're cheap guns that actually work but no one wants to buy them because they're not some tacticool name brand gun that they're familiar with, and it's because of that they remain ugly bricks with no improvements made to them.

>>32802160
that's a goddamn lie
cheapos like hi points are the go-to for poorfags

File: 1485010765110.png (165KB, 500x440px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 500x440px

>>32802168
>go-to for poorfags
Which make up a small percentage of the active gun buyer community, not enough to make a difference or increase revenue to the point where Hi Point can risk making some improvements. I'm talking about the enthusiasts, hobbyists, and collectors for the most part, the majority who think Hi Points stink.

>>32802140
Not necessarily, the drop in price could make consumers think the product has degraded in quality.

Here's the reverse as an example, when grey goose was way cheaper nobody really cared about it because it was viewed as cheap vodka, then they increased it in price and it sold like hotcakes, because people started thinking "Wow, this must be really good vodka"

So the opposite maybe true as well, if it weren't then why hasn't glock done this yet?

>>32802160
did a glock fuck your wife or something, why all the hate

if the free market upsets you, buy a makarov
glock has some great advertising teams, marketing strategy, and they broke a lot of ground

I remember when everyone used to rag on polymers when glock first came out, even /k/ bought into that
back then /k/ used to be the 1911 fan club

>>32802202
haha it doesn't often happen that way

if SIG runs a 9mm sale in austin, the next day glock does the same by offering a discount to a local supplier if they buy more than normal
failing that they do a cashback
this creates a "sale" rather than just being a cheaper option

that's what was being glocks decision to make one modular gun in man calibers, rather than try and sell several models

now that's good business, but it was glocks design prowess that allowed them to do it

>>32801562
Nope, thats an advertising scheme put out by glock.

The handguns are 530$+ brand new with standard sights. Compared to everything else that is either same price where you purchase for the name(sig, hk, walther, cz) or cheaper with better stock parts(ruger, sphinx, arex).

>>32801562
Glocks are the cheapest guns ill buy

>>32802183
>Which make up a small percentage of the active gun buyer community,

Nah they just make up a small percentage of people who talk about guns online. Most gun owners don't obsess over them like forum users do.

>>32802055
I believe it since the police contracts sold them at $300. If they never got that deal I doubt people would be willing to pay $600 for these things anymore.

>>32801882
>market price should be cost of production
Drink bleach

File: canik_55_tp9sa.jpg (47KB, 604x698px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 604x698px

Conik 55 TP9SA $300 new.

See Hickok45's jewtube review.