So to redirect this. When is it appropriate to suggest persons not upgrade their [stock/undamaged, but not necessarily new] gun and instead replace it and then upgrade the new gun later.
When operating by the caveat that AEGs with no version in the £300-400 price range exist, I struggle to find any AEGs (excluding ICS/TM) in the £160-£280 price range which appear to be good value when compared to an AEG in the £80-160 price range or £280-400+ ranges.
I always feel like the general advice for AEGs given here is buy cheap or buy expensive for your first gun, so spend £80-140 or £280-450, rarely are users without specific preferences advised otherwise and often advice indicates buying cheap to ensure the eventual 3-6 month later expensive purchase is done with better knowledge of airsoft.
Which brings me to this thread, most people asking about upgrades are not holding guns in the £280-400+ range and if they are they're put down quickly unless evidence of personal experience is adduced. Those asking about upgrades on cheaper guns are generally encouraged because when something goes wrong the loss is minimal and as noted above sometimes a mergre £100 upgrade budget + labour can hugely improve an £80-160 gun quite efficiently. Or alternatively depending on resources they're direct to buy in the £280+ ranges.
So why is it that we're a bit hit and miss on the on mid range guns. I have received the general impression that rarely can a £160-£280 gun be brought up to the quality of a gun in the range above that for the same costs but that the cheaper guns can.
So should mid range guns be upgraded at all, or just replaced with expensive guns? Do mid range guns even have a place in airsoft (when their form factor is far from unique.
Just rambling because the other day I wanted to tell someone to scrap their guns - as others eventually did.