I didn't mind paying $1900 to $2700 (NIB) for some of the 91's and 93's that I own because they are great rifles and not made anymore by HK. And they are just plain fun to shoot. (Some of the clones may be nice at prices much lower, but I do not own any to form an opinion.)
Like many of the posts on this thread I, too, do not think the AR platform rifle is anything special to command the prices some manufactures are demanding, gas tubes or direct impingement. Not being active military I doubt I will keep any of my weapons submerged for prolonged periods before needed. I also have yet to store any of my rifles in a barrel of sand. Hell, I don't even shoot in the rain anymore. So what does the gas tube on the HK do for me that the gas tube on my $1400 Sig 556 Commando doesn't? (Before anyone yells I am also an HK nut and know the comparison is not a good one.)
I have a Colt SP-1 that I have put more lead through than all of my other rifles combined - never had a single jam, misfire or misfeed. $477 out the door in 1979. Probably worth a grand now. I just don't have the same environmental issues that could make owning a MR at 3X the price be a smart move.
HK better realize that speed to market is a must. I would have bought on the hype at a higher price. Not anymore. Remember the Scars that were going for $7K initially on Gunbroker? Can you say buyer's remorse? What about the average joe out there that doesn't even care about the the differences between a MR and a Bushmaster? Think they will be paying $3K+ for a MR556 that always shoots compared to a M4 clone at $999 that always shoots?
I, too, must now acknowledge the wisdom of Chopstix Kid. $1500, not a penny more. HK take note: even that price is time dependent. And if the people on this site have doubts, just who will pay more?
Reply With Quote
