When I buy firearms, I tend to focus on the demonstrated quality of the firearm rather than the price point. Personally, I wouldn't want a gun on the basis of it being "a good gun for the money"....I'm more inclined to focus on whether on not it's a good gun and the price of it is a distant secondary consideration. But that's me....others have different expectations for the firearms that they buy.
Everyone is different in their firearms preferences but I have never had a totally satisfactory experience buying "budget-friendly" firearms.
I do the same -- i.e. buy as much gun as I can afford. That said, there tends to be diminishing returns past a certain pricepoint. When it comes to lowers and their requisite parts, though, milspec is milspec. So what makes a $300 complete lower that's fitted with a milspec buffer tube and milspec lower parts kit better than a $129 complete lower that's also fitted with a milspec buffer tube and milspec lower parts kit? Typically two things: 1) finish (often expressed via furniture) and 2) what the buyer is willing to pay.
That's the nice thing about AR's -- milspec is milspec. Granted, a lot of them claim to (key words: 'claim to') exceed military specifications, but as long as milspec (or more accurately, MIL-SPEC if you want to get technical) is maintained as a floor for part quality/interchangeability/interoperability when choosing what to buy, there's hardly a wrong/bad choice when it comes to functionality. Form/finish is a different matter -- one that's always in the eye of the beholder.
The very definition of 'quality' entails standards being in place … and measurements against those standards. Thus, 'quality' entails something measurable, quantifiable, and verifiable; it is not subjective. What I'm driving at is:
- beyond the objective, measurable fact as to whether something was or wasn't built to MIL-SPEC, perception of 'quality' is subjective sans substantial design, test, and proof/demonstration efforts that produce a demonstrable and measurably superior result. (Most AR's and AR parts on the higher end lack the proof/demonstration component that would allow you to both trust AND verify/validate that they are measurably superior to their MIL-SPEC equivalents, hence the subjectivity in most cases.)
- perceived (and especially measurable/verifiable) 'quality' improvements tend to be tied to higher prices (due to design, testing, proving/documenting, and other such costs) … which means you can't really say you tend to focus on 'quality' rather than the price point since they're almost always related ... especially in cases where a demonstrable and measurably superior result has been produced.
Sadly, much of what's to be had in the AR-world touts how much better it is than X, Y, or Z ... but it's rare to see actual, demonstrable proof of these claims, as the only effective way for vendors to do so is through destruction testing to the point of failure … while under close observation (i.e. high speed cameras using appropriate instruments to measure temperatures, pressures, and other such forces) resulting in the production of observable, verifiable proof of superior quality. Most companies just don't do this testing AND serve up the evidence, thereof. With no evidence of such claims for us to verify, we'd be fools to consider the claims to be … facts. And without verifiable facts, well, the 'quality' improvements about which we're talking are merely subjective perceptions, aren't they?
Put another way: much of what's purchased 'because it's better' … tends to entail a leap of faith on the part of the buyer. I do it just like the next guy does … size something up to determine if it'll suffice for the given task, ideally using personal anecdotes, posted or stated experiences of others who have used/owned/had the same firearm or part, and some good, old-fashioned educated guesswork combined with an occasional prayer. I also try various things, myself, as experimentation can be fun -- but the guns and/or parts with which I do this are NOT things on which I stake my life!
Surreal
P.S. I'm not trying to pick nits. Rather, I'm underscoring that in nearly all cases, buyers are buying based on the perception of quality rather than on actual, by-definition, measurable, observable, verifiable 'quality'.