Many and Cheap Vs Few and Expensive

[GeorgePlaysAirsoft]

as with all aspects of my life - distinctly mediocre! A middling amount of guns of basically medium quality, whatever that means. 

 

[Impulse]

I think it depends. I'm generally a fan of "few and expensive", but I do also have two cheapo guns which work well too. For me though, I play sniper or dmr, so those generally require a lot of time, care and money if you really want to be serious about it.

 

[Lozart]

The diminishing returns curve is true at the extreme expensive end but not in the average price range.

For example, a CYMA AK might shoot 90% as well as an LCT or E&L for a quarter of the price.

Compare that to cars or bikes.  That would be equivalent to a Skoda being almost as fast as a BMW or Audi.

Much of the price in a RIF is the quality of materials and appearance rather than actual performance.

The law of diminishing returns is always true no matter where you start from. That's why it's a law.

Value for money on the other hand is rather subjective. Yes a CYMA may well be almost as good as an LCT/E&L in terms of usable performance but it's only money well spent if that's your only criteria. If you want performance AND looks then the decision making process changes. Which is where the car analogy comes in again, if you want a 3 series BMW then no amount of "but the Skoda is just as quick and costs less" will sway you (personally I think they're both gopping but there you go).

 

[EDcase]

The law of diminishing returns is always true no matter where you start from. That's why it's a law.

Value for money on the other hand is rather subjective. Yes a CYMA may well be almost as good as an LCT/E&L in terms of usable performance but it's only money well spent if that's your only criteria. If you want performance AND looks then the decision making process changes. Which is where the car analogy comes in again, if you want a 3 series BMW then no amount of "but the Skoda is just as quick and costs less" will sway you (personally I think they're both gopping but there you go).

Very true that the 'feel' and finish is subjective which is why I left it out of the criteria.  The actual BB flinging ability is the only quantifiable trait compared to price.

Can't account for people spending stupid money on stupid things like gold AKs ?

 

[Lozart]

Very true that the 'feel' and finish is subjective which is why I left it out of the criteria.  The actual BB flinging ability is the only quantifiable trait compared to price.

But that's the whole point isn't it? You don't just buy things for their performance, what it looks like is just as important for a lot of people so those subjective parts will always come into play. As far as "quantifiable" goes, fit and finish, reliability and ergonomics are all easily measured things. Outright performance is easily improved upon but basic tolerances in the body or flaws in the design aren't. I would suggest that the FPS/RoF/range are fairly low down on the list of things I look for as long as it isn't just basically terrible because I know I can fix that (although that is also the one area where the law of diminishing returns really does kick in). For example, my CYMA EBR was...OK in terms of performance when I got it. I bought it because I wanted an M14 EBR, the G&G one was too pricey and the gas one was too impractical and lacked performance. I've since improved the FPS, range and accuracy fairly easily and for not a lot of money but it doesn't actually get used all that much because at the end of the day it's still an unbalanced, long, heavy beast of a gun. I won't get rid of it though because it looks great and performs well! Thing is, had I actually been able to get to grips with it in a store before I bought it online I would very probably not have bought it because it is just so unwieldy!

 

[Adolf Hamster]

the feel argument has a lot of weight to it, we aren't generally willing to sacrifice everything including feel and looks in the name of performance.

for example g&g's speedsoft abominations are a case in point where the design has been made entirely without compromise towards making them as practical for effeciently slinging plastic downrange as possible and yet the result is something very few regular airsofters would want to buy.

the same applies for example with a polymer bodied g3 or m249, lots of folk would dislike them because they don't feel right, regardless of the fact that a lighter gun is better practically speaking than a heavier counterpart.

i do agree with lozart's philosophy that once you're happy enough with the internals of guns, you tend to preferr exterior quality over performance purely because you know the latter is something you can sort out.

 

[EDcase]

Yep,  that's why we love airsoft so much.

Playing itself is fun and the equipment caters for so many tastes.

 

[Adolf Hamster]

Yep,  that's why we love airsoft so much.

Playing itself is fun and the equipment caters for so many tastes.

this is true, and lets not forget proficiency at a certain game style counts for a lot.

it's the universal truth of airsoft that the flashiest bestest gnu on the field won't stop you getting pinged in the ass by some kid with a rental ak because he's a sneaky bugger.