Bullsinflation

Perusing the great Gil Hebard book the catalog portion is as interesting as the shooting articles.  This particular edition (16) is dated January 1964, and I was interested in how prices changed since then.

22LR ammo was 80 cents / 50.  That seems like a bargain but factoring inflation today's prices are actually (amazingly) better.  Dusting off the CPI calculator:

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

$0.80 in 1964 bought what $7.81 does today.  Note recently you can buy CCI or Aguila 22LR for $4.00 or less - so in real (inflation adjusted) terms, ammo is half as expensive now.

What about guns?  SW 41 was made then and now.  In 1964 it was $100 - which in 2023 dollars is $976.82.  These guns new are about $1200 now, so they were a better deal then (and one can argue better made, though that is another topic).

These are just two items and there were many for sale in the catalog.  I suspect real price changes over time (ie inflation effects) are greater in products produced by labor and less when produced with automation.  This could explain the ammo/gun difference, and other items (my 2017 Tahoe cost less in inflation-adjusted dollars than my 1997 Ford Explorer, and the Tahoe is way better IMO).  Straying further off-topic, delving into this you will find that common grocery food items are much cheaper now in real terms - again likely to automation in farming, food processing, etc.  So not everything is worse now!

Using the calculator $1 in 1964 is now worth $9.77.  I was a kid then and recall that a dollar was a good slug of money, but I was surprised it was worth about $10 today.

Great topic! When I first started working in sporting retail in 2003, I had a cheat sheet listing ammo prices vs. wages at our largest local employer (CCI iron ore mining) per year. When someone would really start beating me up with the ol' "I can remember when ammo was XX cheap. You guys are robbers charging these prices" nonsense. I would offer to sell them ammo at the same percentage of an hourly wage of the year they were lamenting about. The cost adjusted in this way would have been about 10x more in "the good ol' days" dollars.

I agree with the author of the thread that the prices of pistol targets and other shooting equipment are going up all the time. But it's not just in the shooting world-it happens in many other areas too. I think one of the reasons for this phenomenon is inflation. The prices of everything go up over time because the cost of production, transportation and other services also go up. In addition, prices can be affected by various factors, such as changes in exchange rates, changes in tax rates, and other economic factors. Nevertheless, I think it is important to remember that quality shooting equipment can last a long time and justify its price. It is important to choose quality equipment that can last a long time. In the long run, it may be more economical in the long run than buying cheaper equipment that may not be as reliable and durable. Overall, I think the Bullsinflation issue is a real problem we face in the shooting world, but there are solutions to minimize its impact on our budgets and choose quality equipment that can last long and reliably.

This is an interesting topic.  I feel like even thought the prices are high the cost of guns is more favorable today.  Also worth noting that investments have out paced inflation.  $100 invested in the S&P 500 in 1964 is over 28,000 today.

This is a multivariate problem, consider at least supply and demand.. Which conceptually looks much different for these consumer products in 1964 vs 2023.

EdgardoRohrbaugh wrote:I agree with the author of the thread that the prices of pistol targets and other shooting equipment are going up all the time. But it's not just in the shooting world-it happens in many other areas too. I think one of the reasons for this phenomenon is inflation. The prices of everything go up over time because the cost of production, transportation and other services also go up. In addition, prices can be affected by various factors, such as changes in exchange rates, changes in tax rates, and other economic factors. Nevertheless, I think it is important to remember that quality shooting equipment can last a long time and justify its price. It is important to choose quality equipment that can last a long time. In the long run, it may be more economical in the long run than buying cheaper equipment that may not be as reliable and durable. Overall, I think the Bullsinflation issue is a real problem we face in the shooting world, but there are solutions to minimize its impact on our budgets and choose quality equipment that can last long and reliably.

This is what happens when you get ChatGPT to create your posts.

While prices have remained ok, according to the OP, quality has really taken a plunge, except where CNC machining enters the picture. In general, Americans settle for quantity over quality.

I've been fishing for Dungeness crab pretty much full time since I got out of the service. In 1980 it took almost 200 crab to buy a model of 1955 25-2 revolver. 200x2x.50. Today I can buy that exact same collector revolver for 120 crab 120x2x5.00. That's only 3 good crab traps. Who in their right mind wouldn't trade crab for guns at those prices? Keep eating crab everyone. There are more guns I'm looking for.

Scammers are now using Chat GPT to boost their post count on topics they don’t know anything about in an effort to seem more legitimate? 
Take me back to the days of iron sights and 230gr hardball!!!

willnewton wrote:

EdgardoRohrbaugh wrote:I agree with the author of the thread that the prices of pistol targets and other shooting equipment are going up all the time. But it's not just in the shooting world-it happens in many other areas too. I think one of the reasons for this phenomenon is inflation. The prices of everything go up over time because the cost of production, transportation and other services also go up. In addition, prices can be affected by various factors, such as changes in exchange rates, changes in tax rates, and other economic factors. Nevertheless, I think it is important to remember that quality shooting equipment can last a long time and justify its price. It is important to choose quality equipment that can last a long time. In the long run, it may be more economical in the long run than buying cheaper equipment that may not be as reliable and durable. Overall, I think the Bullsinflation issue is a real problem we face in the shooting world, but there are solutions to minimize its impact on our budgets and choose quality equipment that can last long and reliably.

This is what happens when you get ChatGPT to create your posts.

What good can come from artificial intelligence, to me I see nothing special about fake things like A.I. Though it's worked to bastardize the truth in a lot of things I used to put my trust in. Don't pull the wool over my eyes and say it's the truth and the way of the future, I'm not buying into it, this is for camouflage or deceit to hide something.
 This is my opinion only.
Stan

BE Mike wrote:While prices have remained ok, according to the OP, quality has really taken a plunge, except where CNC machining enters the picture. In general, Americans settle for quantity over quality.

In strict terms, quality for most guns actually went up not down.  What has changed is the result of better machining and tolerancing compared to the fitting at assembly that was done in the 1960s.  Out of the box, today most pistols will hold the 9 ring easily at 25yards and a lot will hold the 10 ring.  It sure as heck wasn’t that way in the 1960s.

LenV wrote:I've been fishing for Dungeness crab pretty much full time since I got out of the service. In 1980 it took almost 200 crab to buy a model of 1955 25-2 revolver. 200x2x.50. Today I can buy that exact same collector revolver for 120 crab 120x2x5.00. That's only 3 good crab traps. Who in their right mind wouldn't trade crab for guns at those prices? Keep eating crab everyone. There are more guns I'm looking for.

Crab fishing around here has been pretty bad since the Paleocene, and it wasn't that good before either.

LenV wrote:I've been fishing for Dungeness crab pretty much full time since I got out of the service. In 1980 it took almost 200 crab to buy a model of 1955 25-2 revolver. 200x2x.50. Today I can buy that exact same collector revolver for 120 crab 120x2x5.00. That's only 3 good crab traps. Who in their right mind wouldn't trade crab for guns at those prices? Keep eating crab everyone. There are more guns I'm looking for.

If, "we are what we eat", a lot of folks would say that I'm crabby enough and sure don't need any more.

Wobbley wrote:

BE Mike wrote:While prices have remained ok, according to the OP, quality has really taken a plunge, except where CNC machining enters the picture. In general, Americans settle for quantity over quality.

In strict terms, quality for most guns actually went up not down.  What has changed is the result of better machining and tolerancing compared to the fitting at assembly that was done in the 1960s.  Out of the box, today most pistols will hold the 9 ring easily at 25yards and a lot will hold the 10 ring.  It sure as heck wasn’t that way in the 1960s.

I thought I addressed the CNC issue. No offense, but when did the accuracy standard for bullseye pistols and ammo change from 50 yards to 25 yards? Back in the day, nobody was testing for accuracy at 25 yards, so likely there wouldn't be a good comparison. I started out with a Ruger MKI and only shot .22 for years. When I started shooting centerfire, I bought a new Colt Series 70 Gold Cup. Right away it needed a trigger job and after a while, I got to the point of being able to reasonably call my shots at SF. It seemed that a lot of my shots weren't on call. To make a long story short, Ken Buster, then of the All National Guard Team, along with his pistolsmith, convinced me that I needed better equipment. I doubt that out-of-the box pistols today have improved that much.

I think you're right about the machining process making a better or more exact pistol under SAMMI specs for mass production. I also believe the 25 yard accuracy is now standard in general, but it won't make a better or more accurate pistol for a bullseye shooter. It takes a bullseye gunsmith that knows how to fit and build one, I haven't seen a mass produced CNC'd bullseye pistol coming from the major gun makers yet. The bullseye pistolsmiths have their own secrets or tricks to the way they build them in the old days as they do now. They build inch and a half guns at 50 yards period.
Stan

I looked up a few other guns that were in production in 1964 and still are (see table).  As you can see the SW41 is much more expensive now (in real / inflation adjusted dollars), Python is slightly more now, Gold Cup is much more now, Ruger MK (I vs IV) is less now, and Sig 210 is about the same.

As to quality vs time, though I have no personal experience the Sig then was made in Switzerland and the old guns are reputed to be much better than current 210.  What about the Python?  The re-introduced new Pythons had some problems initially, but with that ironed out are they as good as old hand-smithed models?

You also read that old SW41s are better than the modern ones, though I can only speak to one particular current SW41 - mine.  Out of the box it was very unreliable, with frequent stovepipes, FTF, etc.  Sent it back to SW twice, which along with changing the recoil spring (lighter) finally made it reliable (with CCI SV and Aguila).  I sent it to Alex Hamilton for trigger job and they found that the barrel was not rifled concentrically.  I didn't notice this, and though I probably will never shoot well enough to have noticed I had Alex reline the barrel.  Not what I would call well made!

I see this post is about inflation adjusted prices, and perhaps for the most part maybe nowadays isn't so bad for buying the guns and some of the ammo needed for the sport.  However, one thing that is a lot worse now is the availability and wildly fluctuating prices for reloading components needed for center fire.  I got into reloading around 2013 when the crazy shortages were starting for primers and powder.  According to the old timers (I'm not there yet) they used to be able to go to the store and buy a pound of powder and a couple of hundred primers when they needed them - sort of how you go the the store to buy milk, bread, and eggs.  Now, you need a search bot to try to find those components and if you are lucky enough to find them buy in bulk spending hundreds if not thousands. That seems to be the new normal. Case in point large pistol primers.  I think that is doing more to hurt the sport than anything else.  I ain't buying that it is cheaper to shoot now than 1960s-1970s when it comes to center-fire portion of the game which is a big part of the equation.

Primers aren't $80 or more per 1000 because of inflation.

As someone pointed out on another forum a couple days ago, one can easily find 22lr ammo for 6-7 cents per round. That's
- more brass than a primer cup needs
- priming compound
- powder
- a lead bullet
- more complex component forming and assembly than a primer

It isn't "inflation" making primers cost more than 3 cents apiece.

pgg wrote:It isn't "inflation" making primers cost more than 3 cents apiece.

As long as people keep buying them, they will stay up there.

At the risk of defilement here is a savory (and salient) tidbit from that era

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8rCy173y7Y

DA/SA wrote:

pgg wrote:It isn't "inflation" making primers cost more than 3 cents apiece.

As long as people keep buying them, they will stay up there.

Today (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) 2 companies in the US manufacture primers.  Winchester and Vista Outdoors (Remington, CCI , and Federal).  Where CCI, Remington, and Federal used to compete, they now don't.

chopper wrote:I think you're right about the machining process making a better or more exact pistol under SAMMI specs for mass production. I also believe the 25 yard accuracy is now standard in general, but it won't make a better or more accurate pistol for a bullseye shooter. It takes a bullseye gunsmith that knows how to fit and build one, I haven't seen a mass produced CNC'd bullseye pistol coming from the major gun makers yet. The bullseye pistolsmiths have their own secrets or tricks to the way they build them in the old days as they do now. They build inch and a half guns at 50 yards period.
Stan

To me the positive of better machining and CNC'ing is to make a better starting pistol for a newer bullseye shooter.  And more affordable.  Much more important in my opinion.  I feel it's just as important to bring shooters in and grow (or at least maintain) attendance in our sport as being top of our game.

I'm starting my third year now, and if I had to have an inch and a half gun, I wouldn't be in it because I couldn't afford it.  Running a Ruger MkIV w/ volquartsen trigger, And stock Springfield Range Officer (just recently added a KC roll trigger), I don't feel under equipped.

The inch and a half guns are for those with the skills, experience and consistency to use them their potential.  And for those who can afford them...

I remember When Mounds and Almond Joy were 10¢ 

james r chapman wrote:I remember When Mounds and Almond Joy were 10¢ 

And the outrage when nickel candy bars went to 7 cents.  That was a big deal when your allowance was a dime.

When I was  little kid I can remember my Dad going down the road because instead of paying 20 cents for gas he found it for 19 cents. Damn I'm getting old.

Bill