Another that someone mentioned earlier is the Ruger No 1’s

They’re slick and once again, Ruger catches my eye

Their factory bluing could be it to me, idk but they get it right in my eye

Yes, yes it is.

I’m just the type, that if I had the money to buy a six-figure firearm, I’d wear the finish off and shoot anyone that tried to put it back on.

If i had that kind of money I'd buy a Weatherby and invest the rest of it bsck into whatever venture made me rich.

120,000 guns are for billionaires, far as I am concerned.

But they are nice!

Yeah, well, who doesn’t want to be a billionaire?

U right.

If i was a billionaire i probably wouldn't shoot nothing but $120,000 rifles. Keep a few weatherby's around for loaners.

I've always enjoyed the fact the $10 watches that I buy at Walmart keep better time than a ridiculously expensive Rolex. While the best Rolex watches offer an accuracy of plus or minus 2 seconds a day, a cheap watch with a quartz movement can cut that accuracy in half.

your really saying that a $10 watch will outperform a watch like a Rolex? I don't own a Rolex, but that's ridiculous.

we bought my son one of those $10 watches from Wal-Mart and my microwave keeps better time than it does.


Nothing wrong with a $10 watch, but the comparison isn't even close


Comparing $10 watches and 870 Remingtons to Rolex's and ultra premiuim O/U shotguns is laughable.

I think the point he was making is that sometimes, you actually sacrifice function for elegance/extravagance.

My nice Seiko watch actually keeps pretty poor time. I think it was $250-ish new, but I got it on clearance for about $75 or so. I lose about a minute a week. Pretty annoying actually. I eventually decided to go get a Citizen with atomic timekeeping that syncs with a radio signal every night to reset the time. So even though it does gain about 1.5 seconds a day, it's back to perfect in the morning. Love that watch.

Form usually follows function. Not always, but usually. If it doesn’t, the company is not likely to be around long. IMO that’s true of most all consumer goods.

The finest guns start with function as the baseline and the bling like engraving, stock quality, etc. is just the icing on the cake. There is nothing that compares to a true quality gun. The balance, action feel, solidity, all of it....

Open and shut a Yildiz.
Open and shut a Beretta.
Open and shut a Purdey.

Work the action on a Mossberg Patriot.
Work the action on a pre-64 Model 70.
Work the action on an early Rigby with a Mauser 98 action.

The differences immediately become apparent.

Now, are those differences worth the price? That all depends on everyone’s individual situation and priorities.

If the primary need is for something that keeps time and stays accurate then absolutely. The earlier quoted figures are correct, a quartz watch has better accuracy that a mechanical-built Rolex.

The world is full of guys who would quickly attest how much they value a firearm they picked up at a pawn shop because it has always performed flawlessly at every time of need. And then there are those who would never consider purchasing a firearm at a pawn shop. Neither is better or worse for it.

I'm reminded of the late Sam Walton who drove an old pickup to visit each of his stores. I was told by a co-worker who owned the Walmart account that Sam carried his dog in that pickup and that the dog had chewed all the plastic off the truck's steering wheel. I'm sure seldom did Sam feel a need for greater performance or looks warranted him replacing that steering wheel, much less the truck itself. It got him where he needed to go and that was mattered most.

so because Sam Walton drove around in a chewed up old truck, that means that's all a person needs?


His kids also own private planes, yachts and other toys....what does that say about dear old dad?

It doesn't take much to make some folks happy, while others can never have enough.

and that has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread. it was about aesthetics, not the cost of ones sporting arm.


you can have a rifle that many will find appealing visually and it not be overly expensive.



The Ruger rifle the OP was referring to is not a high dollar rifle by any means, although it is not a entry level rifle.



Maybe it would more acceptable if he let his dog chew on the stock for a bit.....

I’m actually pretty happy with the fact that so many of you guys like butt-ugly rifles. Leaves more pretty ones for those that don’t.

It's in the eye of the beer holder

I agree with you. Especially with that last sentence.

And now that you mention it, the yikdiz .410 sxs is probably one of the nicest looking guns in the $1500 price range (to me). I just want it because it's so light, would be a lot of fun to use for rabbit hunting and stuff like that. But I bet it would fail ten times over before a Perazzi.

Once again, very well stated.

I don’t understand why this is even up for debate. Those making six-figure firearms are not berating those that don’t have any desire to own them, nor are those that buy them. Why do the folks that have no desire to own them feel the need to turn their noses down on something so fine? I can’t imagine ever spending that kind of money on a firearm, regardless of my financial means, but I’ll always stop by the more expensive booths at any show to gaze at and, if allowed, handle the finer works of art. If you can’t appreciate that sort of thing, that’s fine. Just don’t act like it’s a sin for one man to own a gun that costs more than your single-wide.

I'd never stay in no damn trailer.

That's why I got me a van down by the river.

I have owned 2 Rolex watches. Horrible time keepers. That isn't why people buy them though...