Thread: The WORST Firearm You Ever Owned

Originally Posted by gadgetman

In the states they are all cheaper and many people buy a lot of firearms.

in the States Malin 60 is about 160 while 10/22 is about 260, quite a big difference. here I think the difference is about 15%.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

The reason so many gun shops sell so many Rugers is likely that they will make more money from them,

That must mean 10/22 is more popular then, if people are more willing to pay a bigger profit to the shops than Marlin. In fact more shops stock them should lead to more competition and therefore lower profit for 10/22 than Marlin.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Picking just the NZ market is not good practice as we are very small and affected more by supply (availability), advertising and tradition.

I am not trying to decide which rifle should win the "rifle of the century" award. I am just saying 10/22 is the most popular semi 22 in New Zealand. For better or for worse people like it more here than the Marlin, it is that simple.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

The ammo tolerance is a bit of a red herring. You always want to find out what your rifle (centrefire and rimfire) likes the best and use that. Point of impact will tend to shift if you change ammo, though if your grouping is not that great it may not be noticed.

Not everyone does that, plenty of people do not shoot enough or care enough to find the best ammo. What they do is grab whatever they see and shoot for the weekend, then 6 month later go do shoot at a different place and buy some more last minute ammo. You may not care for ammo tolerance. That is completely fine (in fact, I personally do not either as all I shoot is CCI subs or SV). But there are many who find ammo intolerance annoying.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

in the States Malin 60 is about 160 while 10/22 is about 260, quite a big difference. here I think the difference is about 15%.

And in the US the Marlin greatly out sells the Marlin. As said it is more an availability and marketing issue here.

That must mean 10/22 is more popular then, if people are more willing to pay a bigger profit to the shops than Marlin. In fact more shops stock them should lead to more competition and therefore lower profit for 10/22 than Marlin.

No. It just means that the shops push the Ruger more in order to make more money.

We used to mainly buy British cars here. Was it because they were great? No, they leaked oil, most needed a recondition at about 80,000km, ... It was because it was all that was available due to trade agreements.

I am not trying to decide which rifle should win the "rifle of the century" award. I am just saying 10/22 is the most popular semi 22 in New Zealand. For better or for worse people like it more here than the Marlin, it is that simple.

Again, they just hear more about the Ruger because of marketing and tradition. But only here.

Not everyone does that, plenty of people do not shoot enough or care enough to find the best ammo. What they do is grab whatever they see and shoot for the weekend, then 6 month later go do shoot at a different place and buy some more last minute ammo. You may not care for ammo tolerance. That is completely fine (in fact, I personally do not either as all I shoot is CCI subs or SV). But there are many who find ammo intolerance annoying.

Those are the people the gun shops like. They don't know any better and are therefore easily persuaded into buying something that isn't the best for what they really want to do.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

No. It just means that the shops push the Ruger more in order to make more money.

you are putting the cart before the horse. how do you make more money if the market does not want to buy it? Your theory is fundamentally incompatible with the current economic theory of supply and demand. in the same vien, would you suggest the reason Tikka T3 is the most popular bolt action centrefire because shops get more profit from selling Tikka T3 than other guns? and cannot possibly be that T3 is the most popular gun in the eyes of the consumers?

Originally Posted by gadgetman

We used to mainly buy British cars here. Was it because they were great? No, they leaked oil, most needed a recondition at about 80,000km, ... It was because it was all that was available due to trade agreements.

You have already acknowledged that it is not analogous then why make this analogy? British cars were the only option because of the trade agreement. But has there ever been a trade agreement with Ruger to not sell Marlin and Norinco and CZ semis in New Zealand?

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Those are the people the gun shops like. They don't know any better and are therefore easily persuaded into buying something that isn't the best for what they really want to do.

Be that as it may, the point is simply that there is a large body of consumers who do not turn their minds to the more nuanced analysis and would just settle for the more "robust" product. This is not just the case for guns, the same goes for many other types of products. Corolla has never been the fastest, or the cheapest, or the most economical, or the most stylish small car. It is reliably and robust. People can go on years without proper service and maintenance schedules and they would still run. An European car owner may well say that is not the right way to treat a car, my fiat which I service once every 6 month or 3000 km has just been reliable.... yet Corolla is the most popular small car in New Zealand. Fiat is not.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

you are putting the cart before the horse. how do you make more money if the market does not want to buy it? Your theory is fundamentally incompatible with the current economic theory of supply and demand. in the same vien, would you suggest the reason Tikka T3 is the most popular bolt action centrefire because shops get more profit from selling Tikka T3 than other guns? and cannot possibly be that T3 is the most popular gun in the eyes of the consumers?

The big appeal to kick the T3 market off was a marketing ploy. They simply put in a guarantee of accuracy. When you look at the guarantee is states that it is guaranteed to shoot the factory load at the factory range and achieve a certain result, making the guarantee useless anyway. It is also the appeal of European/Scandinavian quality. That kicked off the momentum and the NZ company that imports them promoted them well.

You have already acknowledged that it is not analogous then why make this analogy? British cars were the only option because of the trade agreement. But has there ever been a trade agreement with Ruger to not sell Marlin and Norinco and CZ semis in New Zealand?

I did not say there was no analogy, quite the opposite. You will find that there is a trade agreement between a New Zealand wholesaler and and overseas supplier. A lot depends on how well the guys at our end promote products. What I was pointing out was that sometimes the market is driven by what is put in front of consumers and that the guys dealing with the Marlins have been lax here.

Be that as it may, the point is simply that there is a large body of consumers who do not turn their minds to the more nuanced analysis and would just settle for the more "robust" product. This is not just the case for guns, the same goes for many other types of products. Corolla has never been the fastest, or the cheapest, or the most economical, or the most stylish small car. It is reliably and robust. People can go on years without proper service and maintenance schedules and they would still run. An European car owner may well say that is not the right way to treat a car, my fiat which I service once every 6 month or 3000 km has just been reliable.... yet Corolla is the most popular small car in New Zealand. Fiat is not.

The trouble is that with a lack of promotion the consumer has unwittingly settled on the less robust product here manly through lack of knowledge/choice. As far as vehicles go the Marlin would equate well to a Corolla in price and function. Just imagine if Toyota NZ decided we didn't need cars that size here and didn't import and promote them?

I think Gadgetman my friend, we have fundamentally different view of how the market works. I believe in free market, I believe that while marketing has its place, ultimately the consumers know what they want. you appear to believe that whatever market share each product has is the result of better or worse marketing strategy and merit plays a small (or non-existent) part. that view, to me, is almost like a conspiracy theory, so we will just have to accept that we disagree.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

I think Gadgetman my friend, we have fundamentally different view of how the market works. I believe in free market, I believe that while marketing has its place, ultimately the consumers know what they want. you appear to believe that whatever market share each product has is the result of better or worse marketing strategy and merit plays a small (or non-existent) part. that view, to me, is almost like a conspiracy theory, so we will just have to accept that we disagree.

We have a freeish market. There are a few bigish fish in our small pond that import these things. They have agreements with overseas suppliers that they will be the only ones the supplier will supply in our country, same thing happened in the PLB market with RescueMe. It is difficult for many to work around these restrictions. Not that hard to understand when you look at it.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

I think Gadgetman my friend, we have fundamentally different view of how the market works. I believe in free market, I believe that while marketing has its place, ultimately the consumers know what they want. you appear to believe that whatever market share each product has is the result of better or worse marketing strategy and merit plays a small (or non-existent) part. that view, to me, is almost like a conspiracy theory, so we will just have to accept that we disagree.

Believing that marketing doesn't make a big difference to sales volumes seems pretty naive to me. Based on your own supply/demand reasoning, if the marketing didn't work then companies wouldn't be spending so much money on it.

To use the car analogy - most of the European manufacturers market themselves in NZ as 'premium' products, with prices inflated accordingly. In Europe most of their range are taxis and sales rep cars, its only the top models that are 'premium'. But its 'German quality!' and thats good right? Not necessarily reflected by real-world data, but the marketing departments keep pushing that line and enough people hear it often enough to maintain the idea in general public perception.

Marketing strategies work on a large enough number of people to make a big difference.

Another angle on the Marlin / Ruger subject are the people in our shops that sell these products.
I have walked into many different sports shops over years . Every time I ask about what semi auto .22 do you recommend straight away they say 10/22. As soon as I elude to the fact I am pretty knowledgeable on the subject and I know they are generally inaccurate POS then the story changes.
A lot of people that walk into these stores are very much in the salesman hands, if some twat dressed in a Camo shop uniform tells them it's the shit then it must be the shit.
On the flip side if that's all that whole salers are bringing in and you have a very limited choice then what the hell else can you recommend to a customer ?

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

in the States Malin 60 is about 160 while 10/22 is about 260, quite a big difference. here I think the difference is about 15%.


That must mean 10/22 is more popular then, if people are more willing to pay a bigger profit to the shops than Marlin. In fact more shops stock them should lead to more competition and therefore lower profit for 10/22 than Marlin.


I am not trying to decide which rifle should win the "rifle of the century" award. I am just saying 10/22 is the most popular semi 22 in New Zealand. For better or for worse people like it more here than the Marlin, it is that simple.



Not everyone does that, plenty of people do not shoot enough or care enough to find the best ammo. What they do is grab whatever they see and shoot for the weekend, then 6 month later go do shoot at a different place and buy some more last minute ammo. You may not care for ammo tolerance. That is completely fine (in fact, I personally do not either as all I shoot is CCI subs or SV). But there are many who find ammo intolerance annoying.

We have NZ's biggest 10/22 fanboy right here. Calm down bro - the thread is about the worst firearm you have ever owned.... for a lot of people that is a 10/22. Don't take it personally

Originally Posted by Nickoli

We have NZ's biggest 10/22 fanboy right here. Calm down bro - the thread is about the worst firearm you have ever owned.... for a lot of people that is a 10/22. Don't take it personally

I think you should attack the topic, not the person. in any event your attack is misplaced. I have said repeatedly that I think 10/22 is inaccurate and overpriced. I have no problem with many people finding 10/22 to be the worst gun they had - it would be a natural consequence of having the largest number in the pool. I am merely trying to give a balanced view that to improve accuracy does not cost "twice the cost of the gun".

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

I think you should attack the topic, not the person. in any event your attack is misplaced. I have said repeatedly that I think 10/22 is inaccurate and overpriced. I have no problem with many people finding 10/22 to be the worst gun they had - it would be a natural consequence of having the largest number in the pool. I am merely trying to give a balanced view that to improve accuracy does not cost "twice the cost of the gun".

I repeat: calm down bro - there is no attack in what I said.
Balanced view in this thread isn't required: by it's very nature if a large number of people think the 10/22 is the worst they have had, it will be unbalanced.
Calm down - go hunt or shoot something; not everyone on the internet is going to tell you what you want to hear.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

I repeat: calm down bro - there is no attack in what I said.
Balanced view in this thread isn't required: by it's very nature if a large number of people think the 10/22 is the worst they have had, it will be unbalanced.
Calm down - go hunt or shoot something; not everyone on the internet is going to tell you what you want to hear.

While I said mine one shoots minute of rabbit out to 90 yards, my mates one could only hit a 2 litre milk bottle 2/5 times. I put it down to his shit shooting. Only mods done to mine is $30 trigger polish/lighten. But in saying that, never really changed anything

Originally Posted by oraki

While I said mine one shoots minute of rabbit out to 90 yards, my mates one could only hit a 2 litre milk bottle 2/5 times. I put it down to his shit shooting. Only mods done to mine is $30 trigger polish/lighten. But in saying that, never really changed anything

Mine had a backwards barrel. About 2 inches in front of the chamber it tightened up to about .20 to .21 then about an inch later went out to .23. (clearly made last thing friday evening before knock off). It meant that the bullet was swaged down just after leaving the chamber and barely touched the rifling after that. Made it a 3" barrel with a 12 inch solid steel flash suppressor / front weight. Had they turned the barrel around and chambered the other end the barrel would have tightened up at the muzzle and possibly been a real tack driver.....