Price is often considered to be a solid indicator of a firearm’s potential for good performance. If that were a hard-and-fast rule, my highly customized competition and carry model 1911s would shoot circles around my well-worn Springfield XD-S in .45 ACP, even with its aftermarket trigger. But, in reality, the XD-S offsets its lower capacity and slower split times by holding its own in accuracy and reliability at any distance. Don’t ask me how or why, it just does—and at a fraction of the cost.
The last few years of my Army career were spent neck-deep in the rapid prototyping, testing and fielding of precision-weapon systems for a small portion of the Special Operations community. Those developments covered the price spectrum, but once the manufacturers’ fluffy guarantees were stripped away from the equipment, there was little correlation between cost and performance.
I’ve seen parallel outcomes in my custom work, accurizing and tuning rifles and large-format pistols from manufacturers at every price level. The results are always strangely similar, regardless of make, model and cost. Minor problems show up at all price levels, but are most common in cheaper firearms. Regular examples include loose screws, improper headspace, poorly cut crowns and chipped or excessively rough feed ramps.
Unfortunately, major issues—especially with rifle barrels—have been most common in premium-priced guns. New barrels that show massive throat erosion within a couple hundred rounds, carbon-fiber sleeve failures and bores with significant damage caused during manufacturing have crossed my bench periodically over the years. While barrels are replaceable, the most expensive manufacturers tend to use proprietary component designs, making repairs very costly.
I saw both sides of the price-versus-performance coin while teaching a precision-rifle course last summer. One student brought a new, switch-barrel rifle made by a well-regarded manufacturer. Just the rifle, with .308 Win. and 6.5 Creedmoor barrels, set him back nearly $4,000. His .308 Win. barrel’s best groups were reasonable, hovering around 1 MOA at 100 yards. But, the brand-new 6.5 Creedmoor barrel, which accounted for 20 percent of the rifle’s cost, was another story. Open-tip, match projectiles would not print close enough to measure as groups and were quickly abandoned.
When polymer-tipped projectiles stopped feeding after two shots, we discovered that the rifle’s manufacturer missed a critical step in the chamber-reaming process. A 90-degree face was left at the front of the barrel’s throat where the angular leade should have been. That sharp edge sheared the bullets’ polymer tips, smashing them in place and causing successive cartridges to be damaged during feeding under the bolt’s closing force.
The other students had simpler rifles that were home-built or from lower-end and mid-tier manufacturers. They ranged in cost from $300 to $1,500 and, with the exception of a student-built gun with an undersize gas port, none had functional problems. Performance was good across the board with most of them besting the $4,000 rig’s .308 Win. accuracy.
I’ve seen similar results in some of the evaluations I’ve done over the years. The most recent example was from a pair of 26-inch barreled, 6.5 Creedmoor rifles: a Sako TRG-22 A1 and a Tikka T3x Ace. The T3x’s 100-meter average for five, five-shot groups, using three types of ammunition was .56 MOA to the TRG’s .63 MOA. While that’s a minor difference, and both showed excellent accuracy for off-the-shelf rifles, the Tikka achieved that win at less than a third of the cost (while weighing 2 pounds less) than the Sako.
Every manufacturer has problem guns from time to time, but how they handle warranty claims speaks volumes. In each of my past and present firearm-industry roles, I’ve encountered high-end firearm manufacturers that became very popular or won large government contracts, and then stopped taking care of the regular folks who put them on the map. Any manufacturer or custom shop with a reputation for making warranty service difficult should raise a big, red warning flag—especially when the products in question may be needed in life-or-death situations.
So, how do we discern good from bad before laying down hard-earned money? Personally, I place clever marketing people and well-compensated “influencers” at the bottom of my go-to list. Reviews from print and independent web sources can be good entry points for basic info, but some sorting of wheat from chaff is still required.
Seeking feedback from knowledgeable, legitimate product users is a good place to start. Try-before-buying opportunities are even better, though they’re often hard to find. Taking your time to do the best homework possible and not assuming paying more will equal more can save you from exchanging money for heartburn in the long run.
Read the full article here