I appreciate the fact that these companies are striving for excellence, but to me regulation is what's killing the quality in firearms today - many firearms manufacturers (or other manufacturers) are becoming ISO or Sigma certified and then calling it "good enough" as if that's a replacement for paying more for qualified employees, tighter tolerances, etc...
As with any gun - the major difference in what you want vs. what you have to pay is what do you intend to do with this firearm? If its a toy, then get something cheap, break it out at the range or to impress friends 3-4 times a year and sleep well at night because you did the right thing.
If its for self-defense then quality makes a difference. Here's the problem - higher quality stuff costs more to produce than crap. But if its more expensive, it doesn't necessarily mean that its high-quality.
If its super-cheap, you can bet your ass that its not high-quality though. It may be "good enough" for what you're doing, and no offense to anyone who has had a cheaper gun and reports that "I've had no issues with mine and I've had it for 5 years", but I rarely see examples of hundreds of sub $300 (new) guns making it to 1000rds without a failure.
I don't personally consider a gun "tested" until it reaches 500rds or so - many on here consider their pass/fail number to be much higher (like 1000-2000rds).
That's when a firearm has truly passed every test and proven itself - not the end of its life - you should expect (or demand) that many trouble-free rounds out of something that you're planning on using to defend your life. If your gun does that and it only cost $200 - then awesome. I would bet that not all guns out there of that exact same model do the same thing though - its damn near impossible to achieve that level of reliability and not be spending more than $200 per gun on manufacturing, qualified employees, QC, Engineering and Development, advertising, etc... I would say that quality is hit or miss in those guns.
Think about the Honda Accord (pre 99 and post 04) - not the most expensive car on the road, but it was a friggin tank. It lasted forever and had very few catastrophic issues (if taken care of properly). It cost more than the Taurus, but worked much better over time and had far fewer issues long-term (not knocking fords, I've owned several and still own an Explorer).
Look at the Accord from 99 through 04 with their horrendous 5-speed automatic transmission problems - that was unacceptable from a name like Honda (especially with the Accord), but it proves that every now and then even the known reliable makers of anything let budgetary concerns get the best of them and pump out some crap.
Information is your best weapon against owning crap. Not necessarily spending more money blindly - but don't expect to get something that hasn't been proven and have it work as well as proven quality stuff.
