PSA Dagger?

JKP

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but has anyone shot the PSA Dagger?

I'm flush with striker fired pistols but it sure looks like a compelling price / quality balance. I'll likely never buy one but often get asked for a low cost recommendation.

breamfisher

I've read that they had some trigger pin issues or some kinda trigger issue initially.

It does bring up an interesting question:  how much is a Glock actually worth?  Not what will people pay, but how much do they cost to make vs. the retail cost?  The Dagger's basically a 3rd gen. Glock 19 clone, albeit with a different trigger.

Wambli Ska

No product can be priced strictly according to the price of materials and cost of manufacture.  Every company has an entire infrastructure that needs to be paid for.  

In the case of Glock that means global distribution and servicing, advertising/marketing/sales, R/D, etc.etc.etc.  Machinery to make precision molds, tooling for their mills and maintenance and upgrades to these machines.

So yep, can someone take an older gen Glock and clone it cheaper?  Sure they can.  But trying to apply those parameters to a Glock doesn’t work.

breamfisher

I'd wager Glock's already got most of that infrastructure in place, considering they're on Generation 5 of the product, whereas PSA is having to build all that up.  Costs of a lot of that stuff should have been already paid for, or largely paid for, since they've got 40+ years as an established company. I'd say with their reach, they already have the time to build up a global (and it truly is global) network for distribution, service, marketing, advertising, and whatnot. I know there's still a cost to maintain all of that, but the maintenance cost should be cheaper than the building costs.

I'm not saying Glock's not a better or worse firearm, but as folks have mentioned on this forum, the steel bits and slides are not rocket surgery.  The polymer frame?  Glock has well and truly figured out the "hows" of doing that.  So it gets you back to, "why does this cost more?  Is it because it's really that much better? Is it because I'm paying for other stuff? Is it because of higher profits?"  

bullsi1911

I’m 90% sure I’ll be getting one soon.  

Wambli Ska

No global corporation has infrastructure that’s “paid for”.   Glock has already built their infrastructure but they still have to maintain it.  And there is always a better machine, a better material, new design work, faster CAD computers…. Marketing/advertising and sales?  There is no more established brand in the world as Coca Cola.  Do you ever foresee them stopping advertising or product development?

Colt ran the old horse hide belt powered mills until the gears were nubs, failing repeatedly along the way, falling farther and farther behind the competition.  

The only corporate strategy that keeps a company alive is grow and improve, or die.  Glock is a prime example of this.   But it takes money to do so and all of it has to be factored into the cost of the product.  No aspect of the operation is ever “free”.

Bigslug

Ummm. . .not ENTIRELY Gen 3 Glock parts-compatible.  Take a look at the pins in the frame.

CHIRO1989

My uncle built an 80% version, Wolf brand, with the PSA slide assembly, he said good kit 

breamfisher

Wambli Ska said:

No global corporation has infrastructure that’s “paid for”.   Glock has already built their infrastructure but they still have to maintain it.  And there is always a better machine, a better material, new design work, faster CAD computers…. Marketing/advertising and sales?  There is no more established brand in the world as Coca Cola.  Do you ever foresee them stopping advertising or product development?

Colt ran the old horse hide belt powered mills until the gears were nubs, failing repeatedly along the way, falling farther and farther behind the competition.  

The only corporate strategy that keeps a company alive is grow and improve, or die.  Glock is a prime example of this.   But it takes money to do so and all of it has to be factored into the cost of the product.  No aspect of the operation is ever “free”.

Might not be paid for, but waaaay more of the infrastructure is in place and payments have been made than, say, SKYY or some other smaller maker.  I realize none of the stuff is free.  

I understand that bigger companies have more to pay for.  I'm just saying that if one company is selling their clone for $300 and another is selling the original for $500, there's a fair number of folks who are going to say, "Why is this one so much more?"  

JunkCollector

Bream you should be nicer to his kids.
I'd say a lot more higher ups eating cake myself. 

Wambli Ska

breamfisher said:

Wambli Ska said:

No global corporation has infrastructure that’s “paid for”.   Glock has already built their infrastructure but they still have to maintain it.  And there is always a better machine, a better material, new design work, faster CAD computers…. Marketing/advertising and sales?  There is no more established brand in the world as Coca Cola.  Do you ever foresee them stopping advertising or product development?

Colt ran the old horse hide belt powered mills until the gears were nubs, failing repeatedly along the way, falling farther and farther behind the competition.  

The only corporate strategy that keeps a company alive is grow and improve, or die.  Glock is a prime example of this.   But it takes money to do so and all of it has to be factored into the cost of the product.  No aspect of the operation is ever “free”.

Might not be paid for, but waaaay more of the infrastructure is in place and payments have been made than, say, SKYY or some other smaller maker.  I realize none of the stuff is free.  

I understand that bigger companies have more to pay for.  I'm just saying that if one company is selling their clone for $300 and another is selling the original for $500, there's a fair number of folks who are going to say, "Why is this one so much more?"  

Just to be clear.  I’m not debating your point.  People will question it for sure, I was just trying to explain that it is not a fair question.  Just the difference in cost between Global advertising campaigns and sending out PSA email blasts is massively significant.  Glock has to manufacture and hold a stock of 5 generations of parts to service the millions of guns already out there in service is another example of what many call “overhead”, but that term is misused.  It’s just cost of doing business under their model.  But again, I think we understand each other.  Just looking at it from a slightly different perspective.

breamfisher

Getting back to the OP, all I've read about the PSA issues-wise is that they had some trigger pin issues that PSA says have been resolved, but also heard... it hasn't.  People say if the pin walks, you can push the trigger in until it "clicks" and you're good to go.  Or, you can call PSA and they may send you a new trigger pin (lots of folks say PSA does this, I just don't want to imply they will.)

I'm interested in a Dagger.  I'd rather it be a 17 or 17L knockoff, but that's because it would be a nightstand gun, not a carry gun.  It's got a lot going for it... steel sights (not Glock polymer,) factory undercut trigger guard, textured grips, and at a good price.  I've read conflicting info on if it uses a traditionally rifled or a polygonal barrel.  I run lead bullets, so that is something to consider for me.  

Gene L

It's no Glock.  Give me the original.  Which had you rather have, a Ferrari or one of those "kit cars" with a Nova engine?  They can look similar but looks go only skin deep.  What is the possibility of selling the Dagger when the owner gets tired of it?  I almost always think of re-sale value on a gun as it's frequently the real worth.

breamfisher

Most of those kit cars are more reliable and less temperamental than a Ferrari, and are easier and cheaper to work on than the Ferrari.  But, much like Colt, the prancing pony has a strong influence on the weak minded....

breamfisher

JunkCollector said:

Bream you should be nicer to his kids.
I'd say a lot more higher ups eating cake myself. 

I'd be willing to bet a few people think they're eating cake.  Or that the higher cost is how they can sell to LE and military "so cheaply."  I really don't know how much LE and military costs are, what comes with the package, etc.  Just throwing out there what some folks say.

At the end of the day, an item is worth what you can sell it for.

Elk creek

I’d probably find a XD-9 defender series before getting one of those. I have theXD-9 defender love it

Gene L

breamfisher said:

Most of those kit cars are more reliable and less temperamental than a Ferrari, and are easier and cheaper to work on than the Ferrari.  But, much like Colt, the prancing pony has a strong influence on the weak minded....

More reliable?  Easier/cheaper to work on?  Oh, come now...the weaker minded are attracted to kit cars.  Me, I'll take the Ferrari and put up with temperamental. I would not have a kit car even if they were cheap...er.

JasonMPD

If for SD/HD, I have never understood the logic of "price v. quality balance."  It's quality, or it's not being purchased.  If for hobby/plinking, I guess go for it.

breamfisher

Looked at some videos about this firearm...

Seems the frame is just different enough to make holster fit problematic.  Also, copying a Gen 3 Glock, they use the Glock Frame Rail (not a Pic rail.)  That limits your light options.  

Uncle Fester

breamfisher said:

I've read that they had some trigger pin issues or some kinda trigger issue initially.

It does bring up an interesting question:  how much is a Glock actually worth?  Not what will people pay, but how much do they cost to make vs. the retail cost?  The Dagger's basically a 3rd gen. Glock 19 clone, albeit with a different trigger.

All the Glock patents are expired.  The only thing still protected from an intellectual property perspective is the “trade dress” (i.e. the look).  Essentially, the “Glock” is now this century’s 1911 until a better design comes along.

Almost all of the new striker fired pistols are simply new takes on the Glock system.  The different makes p will differentiate themselves by innovation (P365), quality, and price.

It will be interesting to see how well the budget designs do on the quality side. 

Wambli Ska

breamfisher said:

Looked at some videos about this firearm...

Seems the frame is just different enough to make holster fit problematic.  Also, copying a Gen 3 Glock, they use the Glock Frame Rail (not a Pic rail.)  That limits your light options.  

We have Kydex, we have heat guns…. No fit problems. 😁

breamfisher

I would wager that the venn diagram of those who buy these pistols and those who have kydex is small.

Remember, it's marketed as an affordable carry handgun.  By the time you go through all of this, you might be better off getting a used Glock Gen 3.  

bullsi1911

Ive been trying to buy one for the last several days.  They are out of stock, and wont take orders without stock.

I may end up building a polymer80 instead

breamfisher

From what I understand, a Polymer80 fits a standard Glock holster.  And it has a standard Picatinny sized rail.

Japhy

Competitors always have the advantage in the market, they simply purchase a working and usually refined model.  It is always less costly to copy than to create. The original creator incurs the expenses of designing from concept to finished product then refining and testing until the product is reliable those costs must be amortized over the life of the product at a profitable rate of return.

In current times with high precision CNC machining and high res 3d scanning little in the mechanical world is sacred. Over the past 30 years even patent protection has been insufficient.  Patents simply move inventions into the public domain. To that point a previous employer would not patent inventions likely be duplicated by Asian or European competitors due to the expense of obtaining the patent, then prosecuting infringement cases almost guaranteed to fail in foreign courts.  The world detests paying patent royalties to US companies.