[–] Clitorally_retarded 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
Rifles are known technology that was largely mastered over 100 years ago, but really advanced in the 40s and 50s. Since then, there's not a lot of new proprietary tech in a rifle. Pistol makers are constantly trying to innovate to squeeze more into a handgun sized package with better ergonomics and reliability. There are huge contracts to be had with police forces and civilians always want something new. Since there's more innovation in the handgun market, there's more proprietary IP.
[–] drakesdoom 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago (edited ago)
The cost isn't the material price it is the precise machining. A rifle generally doesn't have more parts and they often have larger tolerances.
[–] 4065034? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
One point is economy of scale. A large manufacturer building for a large market can produce quality at lower cost. The Ruger American rifles are my favorite example. My RA Rimfire is amazing at the sub300$ price point. However they're making thousands of them. So they have the tooling investment.
Let's say I only wanted to make one. How much would it cost to machine the receiver and barrel? To mould the stock?
There's also a corresponding price associated with some brands that exceeds the actual value. HK is an example of that in my opinion.
[–] zaitcev 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
There are some historic references for low-volume guns. Mike Krause produced something about 20 of .45 caliber Lugers. Each ended costing about $4500 in 1990s dollars. But a DI RMWXtreme sells for only $1150, because the custom content is limited to the lower cut on the CNC machine, which is amortized across all of their products.
Good point, http://www.hallowellco.com/single.htm a more recent reference here if you look at some of the prices, like the price on the 6mm 'rail' gun, those are pretty much always low volume/completely custom. $4500 for that one. Some of the other stuff is only that expensive due to the artsy stuff.
[–] Pacawac 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Actually, neither pistols or rifles are complicated or costly to manufacture for the most part. The rest of the cost is business and marketing related. So those costs would be pretty consistent. And companies charge what the market can bare. Its supply and demand. They would sell all weapons for $5k a piece. But if S&W charges $500 then Glock has to be in the same wheel house within a certain percentage. For example, Glock may say that their brand is worth 15% more than S&W, so that's whay they charge.
Source: I argue with pricing folks everyday in another.industry.
I got into an arguement with a coworker on ipads one day. He said he bought 2 ipads for his kids. He said that they cost too much!!! I said, "No they don't, you bought 2 of them. If you thought they were too expensive, you wouldn't have bought them". Basically thry charge as much ad they think can or want too to get their target sales. There is a balance. Could they sell a bunch more if they only made a dollar off each one? Yes, but that lowers your available operating cash too.
[–] Dark_Shroud ago
[–] watch_listed 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago
Rifles are generally simpler in operation or have the moving parts spaced out more whereas pistols and revolvers have more moving parts in a small space that need to all work together for it to function correctly.