Well, I'm aout to do another one of these PITA long winded things I'm known for, so I'll start by apologising. If you folks get sick of seeing it, just tell me to go away, and I'll likey comply.
That said, back to the torture chamber I go.
Something struck me square in the forehead tonite. I was doing some pricing, and I discovered that people are willing to pay a great deal of cash for a custom action. Some prices, as they applied to my project:
Farley: $1100.00
Stiller: $950.00
Bat: $1150.00
Stolle: $950.00
Borden: $1100.00
Surgeon: $1380.00
SGY Panda: $1000.00
RPA Quadlock: $1398.00
Nesika: $1225.00
Alternatively, someone will purchase a donor rifle for somewhere in the $300.00 to $700.00 range and pay at least that much over again to have it "fixed" for use in a proper custom project. Typically additng up to a cost very similar to prices above.
Then, these same people who plunked down over a grand for the action are only willing to pay a third of that price for a custom barrel. Prices, again, for the same basic rifle build, but not including chambering, threading, or crowning. (Price does include contouring however).
Krieger: $340
Hart: $360
Lilja: $420
Broughton: $320
Bartlein: $315
Pac-Nor: $312
Border, button: 235 Eu ($310.00 US)
Border, Cut: 347 EU ($457.00 US)
Kostyshya: $320
Lawton: $375
Shilen: $334
Spencer: $380
Rock: $405
Certainly, the barrel will wear and the action will be good for MUCH longer, however, considering the relative critical neccesity of the barrel in the final rifle, I would imagine prices would be more, or that actions would be a bit less expensive.
Ah well, the laws of economics are irrefutable. Effective demand vs oversupply has made barrels cheaper than actions.
But, I must wonder, given the boutique pricing some will pay for carbon wrapping on their barrels, would there be a market for a barrel that would be quantifiably superior to the offerings above?
Basically, this is an extension of the "musings on barrel life" thread. The conclusions I came to there boiled down to economic unfeasability of a truly ling lasting high accuracy barrel. I am wondering now, is that economic unfeasability an illusion?
Would people be willing to pay more for a barrel than they do an action if that barrel could shoot as accurately as the best of the above, provide more velocity in an equal length and last at least twice as long?
As near as I can tell, $1500 - $1800 is the range that the barrel would cost if I were to have it made in the following manner:
174-SXR with specific integrated heat and cryo treat
single point cut rifled
polygonal rifling
hand lapped
bore plasma nitrided
hand lapped again
turned down and carbon wrapped.
What the price means, is basically an increase in cost to build any give rifle of $1200.00. The benefits being:
Slightly, but not insignificantly better velocity
Significantly lower weight
Significanlty cooler temperature
reduced or eliminated barrel break in
slightly more consistant velocities (lower SD and ES)
approximately double barrel life.
So what it boils down to is would people pay $1200 for that list of benefits? More to the point, would ENOUGH people pay $1200 for that list of benefits OFTEN ENOUGH to make it a viable product?
That said, back to the torture chamber I go.
Something struck me square in the forehead tonite. I was doing some pricing, and I discovered that people are willing to pay a great deal of cash for a custom action. Some prices, as they applied to my project:
Farley: $1100.00
Stiller: $950.00
Bat: $1150.00
Stolle: $950.00
Borden: $1100.00
Surgeon: $1380.00
SGY Panda: $1000.00
RPA Quadlock: $1398.00
Nesika: $1225.00
Alternatively, someone will purchase a donor rifle for somewhere in the $300.00 to $700.00 range and pay at least that much over again to have it "fixed" for use in a proper custom project. Typically additng up to a cost very similar to prices above.
Then, these same people who plunked down over a grand for the action are only willing to pay a third of that price for a custom barrel. Prices, again, for the same basic rifle build, but not including chambering, threading, or crowning. (Price does include contouring however).
Krieger: $340
Hart: $360
Lilja: $420
Broughton: $320
Bartlein: $315
Pac-Nor: $312
Border, button: 235 Eu ($310.00 US)
Border, Cut: 347 EU ($457.00 US)
Kostyshya: $320
Lawton: $375
Shilen: $334
Spencer: $380
Rock: $405
Certainly, the barrel will wear and the action will be good for MUCH longer, however, considering the relative critical neccesity of the barrel in the final rifle, I would imagine prices would be more, or that actions would be a bit less expensive.
Ah well, the laws of economics are irrefutable. Effective demand vs oversupply has made barrels cheaper than actions.
But, I must wonder, given the boutique pricing some will pay for carbon wrapping on their barrels, would there be a market for a barrel that would be quantifiably superior to the offerings above?
Basically, this is an extension of the "musings on barrel life" thread. The conclusions I came to there boiled down to economic unfeasability of a truly ling lasting high accuracy barrel. I am wondering now, is that economic unfeasability an illusion?
Would people be willing to pay more for a barrel than they do an action if that barrel could shoot as accurately as the best of the above, provide more velocity in an equal length and last at least twice as long?
As near as I can tell, $1500 - $1800 is the range that the barrel would cost if I were to have it made in the following manner:
174-SXR with specific integrated heat and cryo treat
single point cut rifled
polygonal rifling
hand lapped
bore plasma nitrided
hand lapped again
turned down and carbon wrapped.
What the price means, is basically an increase in cost to build any give rifle of $1200.00. The benefits being:
Slightly, but not insignificantly better velocity
Significantly lower weight
Significanlty cooler temperature
reduced or eliminated barrel break in
slightly more consistant velocities (lower SD and ES)
approximately double barrel life.
So what it boils down to is would people pay $1200 for that list of benefits? More to the point, would ENOUGH people pay $1200 for that list of benefits OFTEN ENOUGH to make it a viable product?
