Top tier, second tier, and so on...

[JLawson]

Hey y'all, we were discussing today which handgun manufacturers we considered to be "second tier."  It's easy for me to list some of the top tier makers - S&W, Sig, Beretta, Springfield, Colt, etc.  It is harder for me to decide who is second tier.

What are your thoughts?  Is there a third tier... and who would be there?

[PegLeg45]

I'd have to weigh that a spell to come up with a set list. With modern manufacturing processes these days, the lines have definitely been blurred significantly from what it was a few decades ago.

[fightingquaker13]

I think this is a question that requires defining terms first (yes I'm an academic geek, can't help it ). But seriously, before you say something is "the best" you have to answer the the question "Best for what"?
I'll put it this way. I can say, I think without contradiction, that the Colt Pyton .357 was the best all around revolver of its type, period. It was sui generis. But now that its gone? Well, the Smith is smooth and light and I like its trigger. On the other hand, the Ruger is more durable, will handle a steady diet of hot loads and their CS (on the occasions its required) is better. Plus they are cheaper. Advantage....? Well, damned if I know, but unless you want to punch paper I'd buy a Ruger. If you do, I'd buy a Smith. I like this thread and would like to hear more responses. Maybe we can lure BAC back.
FQ13

[JLawson]

Two of the gun makers that garnered the most discussion were Taurus and Charter Arms.  I don't currently own guns from either one of them and they do not appear on my "to buy list."  I don't consider them to be bad products... just not the best you can buy.  I guess, in my opinion, that makes them second tier.

[JLawson]

Hmmm.... definitions.  I guess the things that I think about when considering this question would include (in no particular order): reliability, durability, quality control, accuracy, aesthetics, and consistency.  Consistency is very important - and can be used to describe all of the other qualities - consistent reliability, consisitent quality control, etc.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Two of the gun makers that garnered the most discussion were Taurus and Charter Arms.  I don't currently own guns from either one of them and they do not appear on my "to buy list."  I don't consider them to be bad products... just not the best you can buy.  I guess, in my opinion, that makes them second tier.

15 years ago I'd have agreed. Now I'm not so sure. Think of Hyundai. It used to be a cheap Korean ripoff of Honda. But they were cheap and offered a 100,000 mile warranty. Now they have lived up to tha,t and are priced only a little bit below Toyota and Honda. I'm wondering if it might be the same for Charter and Taurus. I've not shot either in a very long time so I am asking for feedback, not stating an opinion. I am just saying that sometimes its worth while looking at what we think of as second tier because if you look down your nose, you might be missing something really good. Rock Island 1911's spring to mind. Yes they are made in the Phillipines, but I think you are getting more gun for your dollar than if you buy a Ruger or a Remington. Just my .02.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Hey y'all, we were discussing today which handgun manufacturers we considered to be "second tier."  It's easy for me to list some of the top tier makers - S&W, Sig, Beretta, Springfield, Colt, etc.  It is harder for me to decide who is second tier.

What are your thoughts?  Is there a third tier... and who would be there?

WOW! good question.
It would depend on specific criteria, but while I agree with most of your choice for top tier I would replace  Springfield with Glock.
While Glock may lack the esthetic appeal of the other top tier makers, it is an outstanding performer, and  their own design.
I would consider the second tier to consist of Those who make reliable clones of other 's designs, placing Springfield, Kimber and Rock Island Armory all on the same level with Taurus and Charter Arms.
These companies are all lacking either originality, or else while the quality is acceptable the workman ship is not up to first tier standards.
For the 3rd tier I would say companies like Hi Point, Cheap, bulky and clunky, but still retaining high reliability.
At the bottom of the barrel would come the .25 ACP crap, Rohrbaugh,and other pistols with either poor reliability, excessive ammo sensitivity, or extremely short performance life.

One thing I notice in my own list is that price has little to do with it, the Glock I classed as Top tier is around $500 while the Rohrbaugh, I put as "bottom of the barrel" is several thousand.

[fightingquaker13]

WOW! good question.
It would depend on specific criteria, but while I agree with most of your choice for top tier I would replace  Springfield with Glock.
While Glock may lack the esthetic appeal of the other top tier makers, it is an outstanding performer, and  their own design.
I would consider the second tier to consist of Those who make reliable clones of other 's designs, placing Springfield, Kimber and Rock Island Armory all on the same level with Taurus and Charter Arms.
These companies are all lacking either originality, or else while the quality is acceptable the workman ship is not up to first tier standards.
For the 3rd tier I would say companies like Hi Point, Cheap, bulky and clunky, but still retaining high reliability.
At the bottom of the barrel would come the .25 ACP crap, Rohrbaugh,and other pistols with either poor reliability, excessive ammo sensitivity, or extremely short performance life.

One thing I notice in my own list is that price has little to do with it, the Glock I classed as Top tier is around $500 while the Rohrbaugh, I put as "bottom of the barrel" is several thousand.

Well said and I agree. Your inclusion of Glock as innovator is noted, as, more importantly is a disregard for price. Just because its expensive doesn't mean its good and the reverse is true. Is there anyone here who can honestly say they wouldn't rather carry a Glock or a Rock Island Arms as their primary SD weapon rather than a Kimber Solo? Would you trade either of the aforementioned $500 pistols for the $750 Kimber? I know that I wouldn't. We all have our favorites, but I think that to be "top tier" you need to offer something different and something reliable. It has to be made to do the job its designed for and do it reliably. (Ie., it goes bang every time and offers consistent performance, good, bad or mediocre I should know what I'm buying) , and the price point should be no more than what the quality demands. I think Glock, Ruger, Bond and Smith fit that bill quite nicely. The others, its a bit of a tradeoff. But that said, if it will do the job it says it will do at a realistic price point, I'll look at it.
FQ13 

[tombogan03884]

I was going to use the Kimber Solo as an example of the bottom of the barrel because it is so finicky about ammo, but I decided to leave them in level 2, their own design may be crap, but they seem to have excellent workmanship when copying Colts product.

[kmitch200]

I'm wondering if it might be the same for Charter and Taurus. I've not shot either in a very long time so I am asking for feedback, not stating an opinion.

I have two Taurus guns, a PT1911 and a 45 Colt single action. (Taurus single actions are now discontinued)
Both are solid performers, but the single action is load picky for accuracy. The 1911 has been flawless. It could be finished a little prettier but for 500 bucks it doesn't shoot THAT much different than my $1200 1911s.
They are copies of other designs like Tom mentioned but Taurus has some new small models that a friend of mine loves.

I'll put it this way. I can say, I think without contradiction, that the Colt Pyton .357 was the best all around revolver of its type, period.
Well, the Smith is smooth and light and I like its trigger. On the other hand, the Ruger is more durable, will handle a steady diet of hot loads and their CS (on the occasions its required) is better.

I will argue that.
I think in a S&W Mod 27 or 586/686 vs Python duel the S&W comes out on top.
I don't have any CS experience with Ruger because I only own a couple of their 22s but Smith and Wesson CS - the ONE time I had to use it was excellent. Lifetime warranty on any gun with their name on it....that's hard to beat.
As for the Ruger durablility, yes they will take a beating, which is a good thing as long as you like farm machinery.
Look at revo competitions - you will be hard pressed to find anything but S&Ws and those guns get a HELL of a beating.
My Smiths have taken quite a lot of use and abuse. They are still working just fine.