Aside from agreeing with AtoMaki, here's a few other thoughts.
I want to be able to have large groups on inferior opponents. For preference, not just with poor stats, but with objectively inferior equipment as well. Could I just use more easily available equipment? Yes, but sometimes it just doesn't get the point across.
In particular, I want to be able to to introduce vapid aristocrats with gear that is mechanically worthless but in-game valuable. One example could be a gilded, gem encrusted dueling pistol with inaccurate (after all, the point of the duel is not to kill your opponent but to prove your courage/his cowardice) and only a single shot. A toy which costs more than many acolytes see in a year but which is mechanically worthless.
And sometimes I want to be able to dump acolytes on a feudal world, with no high tech gear, possibly even with orders to blend in. Which means primitive weapons only, and no fancy explosive quarrels either.
Avaliability is as much a balancing factor as anything else. Crappy gear has high availability. There, no need to introduce needless imbalance.
..and I personally think this is an extremely poor argument. In an industrial society, guns are going to be orders of magnitude more available than eg. crossbows, not because crossbows are an objectively better weapon, but exactly because thy are inferior. The idea that more easily available means worse is ridiculous.
Factories and mass-production means that the most available option should be the most effective, in the sense of price per effect, or more colloquially "most bang for the buck".
Even the Imperium of Man impliments this (to some degree), by mass producing cheap lasguns for cheap soldiers and more expensive bolters for more expensive superhuman genetically modified beakies.
Which is also why I oppose the mixing of availability and price which is the unfortunate effect of the new influence system. That was a bad system in RT, but there it made some sort of sense that "You can afford it, question is only if it's available."