Well said. I agree. We have picked up some great ones for almost nothing from ffl's at auctions. Sigs, Kimber's, real Colt 1911's and others. OBTW. I bought my old H and R 22 in the 70's. Lol.
good post!
Life is too short to own cheap guns.
- Thread starter zerosoma
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Blaze
How about the Rock Island Armory GI M1911A1? Less than $330.00 online. Anyone own one? shot one?
I see slightly better reviews from the Tisas 1911.
How about the Rock Island Armory GI M1911A1? Less than $330.00 online. Anyone own one? shot one?
I see slightly better reviews from the Tisas 1911.
Originally Posted By: zerosoma
I think my post is being misunderstood by some (as usual). When you cheap out on guns these days (not back in 1920 when you bought yours) they're bound to have problems. I think most people know this but many forget or refuse to accept it. An example ... Buying a SCCY pistol vs saving an extra $200 for a Baby Glock or a SIG. Is the SCCY a bad gun? Prolly not. But it won't be the same level of quality as the other two mentioned, and may have issues.
It's much better to save the dough and buy something that will last a lifetime vs a Saturday night special. Get what I'm saying?
I think people get what you are saying but just don't agree with you. You are still measuring a firearm's quality based on cost. You may not think you are but clearly you are. Cost does not always add up to good or bad quality. There are affordable guns that are very good. A gun doesn't have to have rare and exotic woods, fancy engraving, expensive alloy construction, and be hand made and assembled by Tibetan Monks to be a quality and dependable firearm either( pretty big exaggeration but I hope you see my point ). You can get a good gun, made affordably, and have it be dependable and last.
Stoeger vs Benelli is a classic example that defies your logic. Same company and very similar shotguns that share some components and design features. Stoeger shotguns are made in India of lesser materials and the fit and finish is not quite as good. The Benelli is made in Italy of better quality material with better fit and finish. No one would say a Benelli is a bad firearm although they have some problems at times. Many however say a Stoeger is based on your type of logic and just assume they are poor quality. I had people teling me don't buy the Stoeger spend the extra $700 for a Benelli or you will be sorry. I have to say had I spent the extra $700 for a very similar gun that said Benelli instead of Stoeger I would have been disappointed. This SToeger is a great gun.
Too many think because it cost 1/2( or even less than 1/2 )of the other one and wasn't made quite as good that is must be a poor gun. Just not true. Cost does not = good or bad quality. Chances are better with a more expensive gun but not a 100% safe bet.
The $$$ of a firearm is not in indication of the quality. The gun may not look to be as refined either but just because the mfg saved some $$$ by not making it look as good or used some slightly lesser materials does not mean it won't be a good gun. Cheap guns can actually be good guns. By the same token very expensive guns can be failures.
I think my post is being misunderstood by some (as usual). When you cheap out on guns these days (not back in 1920 when you bought yours) they're bound to have problems. I think most people know this but many forget or refuse to accept it. An example ... Buying a SCCY pistol vs saving an extra $200 for a Baby Glock or a SIG. Is the SCCY a bad gun? Prolly not. But it won't be the same level of quality as the other two mentioned, and may have issues.
It's much better to save the dough and buy something that will last a lifetime vs a Saturday night special. Get what I'm saying?
I think people get what you are saying but just don't agree with you. You are still measuring a firearm's quality based on cost. You may not think you are but clearly you are. Cost does not always add up to good or bad quality. There are affordable guns that are very good. A gun doesn't have to have rare and exotic woods, fancy engraving, expensive alloy construction, and be hand made and assembled by Tibetan Monks to be a quality and dependable firearm either( pretty big exaggeration but I hope you see my point ). You can get a good gun, made affordably, and have it be dependable and last.
Stoeger vs Benelli is a classic example that defies your logic. Same company and very similar shotguns that share some components and design features. Stoeger shotguns are made in India of lesser materials and the fit and finish is not quite as good. The Benelli is made in Italy of better quality material with better fit and finish. No one would say a Benelli is a bad firearm although they have some problems at times. Many however say a Stoeger is based on your type of logic and just assume they are poor quality. I had people teling me don't buy the Stoeger spend the extra $700 for a Benelli or you will be sorry. I have to say had I spent the extra $700 for a very similar gun that said Benelli instead of Stoeger I would have been disappointed. This SToeger is a great gun.
Too many think because it cost 1/2( or even less than 1/2 )of the other one and wasn't made quite as good that is must be a poor gun. Just not true. Cost does not = good or bad quality. Chances are better with a more expensive gun but not a 100% safe bet.
The $$$ of a firearm is not in indication of the quality. The gun may not look to be as refined either but just because the mfg saved some $$$ by not making it look as good or used some slightly lesser materials does not mean it won't be a good gun. Cheap guns can actually be good guns. By the same token very expensive guns can be failures.
Last edited:
So, let's redefine terms.
Cheap is pejorative, it implies poorer quality.
Inexpensive guns can be of good quality, even if their cost is low.
So, I would agree that life is too short to own poor quality guns...and I think that's what the OP meant by cheap...
Cheap is pejorative, it implies poorer quality.
Inexpensive guns can be of good quality, even if their cost is low.
So, I would agree that life is too short to own poor quality guns...and I think that's what the OP meant by cheap...
I start here talking about shotguns as an example, as that's what I've been shooting more the last few years. You can buy a nice Winchester model 12 for ~$500-600. Although I don't think that is an inexpensive gun for most folks, it is on the lower end of the scale compared to the array of options when talking shotguns. Sure you can buy your Mossberg Maverick for less than half the cost. New 870's are less in most trims. A new Wingmaster or BPS will set you back a bit more.
I might be a snob, but the Winny is the quality gun of the lot. You can also get a very nice Ithaca 37 for less than a new 870. The Wingmaster and the BPS are nicely finished guns by today's standards, but quality/balance wise I'd rather have a M12 or Ithaca 37. Heck I've got a pretty nice Remington 31, that I wouldn't trade for two new 870's. Each his own.
Having a few "hardware store" guns is the basis of any decent gun collection. Find quality guns that fit you and your budget. You won't regret holding out a bit for a deal on a quality gun. Having said that there is not much purpose in having more that 2-3 of these type guns. Either stop there and be happy, or start moving up in quality/price.
The same goes for pistols. At some point it becomes pointless to keep buying $500 dollar guns. That's why there are $1000 and $2000+ guns in all platforms. pistols, shotguns and rifles. For someone just buying their first couple of guns $500 seems like a lot to spend, but it takes most a while to see the bigger picture. I could afford to buy a few $400-600 dollar guns a year, but I choose not to anymore. I simply have enough of them, and three $500 guns are not as good as having one $1500 gun to me at this point.
If I were going on an extended canoe expedition and there was a good chance of losing gear or damage, I might buy one of those mavericks, though.
I might be a snob, but the Winny is the quality gun of the lot. You can also get a very nice Ithaca 37 for less than a new 870. The Wingmaster and the BPS are nicely finished guns by today's standards, but quality/balance wise I'd rather have a M12 or Ithaca 37. Heck I've got a pretty nice Remington 31, that I wouldn't trade for two new 870's. Each his own.
Having a few "hardware store" guns is the basis of any decent gun collection. Find quality guns that fit you and your budget. You won't regret holding out a bit for a deal on a quality gun. Having said that there is not much purpose in having more that 2-3 of these type guns. Either stop there and be happy, or start moving up in quality/price.
The same goes for pistols. At some point it becomes pointless to keep buying $500 dollar guns. That's why there are $1000 and $2000+ guns in all platforms. pistols, shotguns and rifles. For someone just buying their first couple of guns $500 seems like a lot to spend, but it takes most a while to see the bigger picture. I could afford to buy a few $400-600 dollar guns a year, but I choose not to anymore. I simply have enough of them, and three $500 guns are not as good as having one $1500 gun to me at this point.
If I were going on an extended canoe expedition and there was a good chance of losing gear or damage, I might buy one of those mavericks, though.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: zerosoma
I think my post is being misunderstood by some (as usual). When you cheap out on guns these days (not back in 1920 when you bought yours) they're bound to have problems. I think most people know this but many forget or refuse to accept it. An example ... Buying a SCCY pistol vs saving an extra $200 for a Baby Glock or a SIG. Is the SCCY a bad gun? Prolly not. But it won't be the same level of quality as the other two mentioned, and may have issues.
It's much better to save the dough and buy something that will last a lifetime vs a Saturday night special. Get what I'm saying?
I think people get what you are saying but just don't agree with you. You are still measuring a firearm's quality based on cost. You may not think you are but clearly you are. Cost does not always add up to good or bad quality. There are affordable guns that are very good. A gun doesn't have to have rare and exotic woods, fancy engraving, expensive alloy construction, and be hand made and assembled by Tibetan Monks to be a quality and dependable firearm either( pretty big exaggeration but I hope you see my point ). You can get a good gun, made affordably, and have it be dependable and last.
Stoeger vs Benelli is a classic example that defies your logic. Same company and very similar shotguns that share some components and design features. Stoeger shotguns are made in India of lesser materials and the fit and finish is not quite as good. The Benelli is made in Italy of better quality material with better fit and finish. No one would say a Benelli is a bad firearm although they have some problems at times. Many however say a Stoeger is based on your type of logic and just assume they are poor quality. I had people teling me don't buy the Stoeger spend the extra $700 for a Benelli or you will be sorry. I have to say had I spent the extra $700 for a very similar gun that said Benelli instead of Stoeger I would have been disappointed. This SToeger is a great gun.
Too many think because it cost 1/2( or even less than 1/2 )of the other one and wasn't made quite as good that is must be a poor gun. Just not true. Cost does not = good or bad quality. Chances are better with a more expensive gun but not a 100% safe bet.
The $$$ of a firearm is not in indication of the quality. The gun may not look to be as refined either but just because the mfg saved some $$$ by not making it look as good or used some slightly lesser materials does not mean it won't be a good gun. Cheap guns can actually be good guns. By the same token very expensive guns can be failures.
Correction to my comments above. Stoegers are made in Turkey. Sorry. Also found out some are made in Brazil too.
Originally Posted By: zerosoma
I think my post is being misunderstood by some (as usual). When you cheap out on guns these days (not back in 1920 when you bought yours) they're bound to have problems. I think most people know this but many forget or refuse to accept it. An example ... Buying a SCCY pistol vs saving an extra $200 for a Baby Glock or a SIG. Is the SCCY a bad gun? Prolly not. But it won't be the same level of quality as the other two mentioned, and may have issues.
It's much better to save the dough and buy something that will last a lifetime vs a Saturday night special. Get what I'm saying?
I think people get what you are saying but just don't agree with you. You are still measuring a firearm's quality based on cost. You may not think you are but clearly you are. Cost does not always add up to good or bad quality. There are affordable guns that are very good. A gun doesn't have to have rare and exotic woods, fancy engraving, expensive alloy construction, and be hand made and assembled by Tibetan Monks to be a quality and dependable firearm either( pretty big exaggeration but I hope you see my point ). You can get a good gun, made affordably, and have it be dependable and last.
Stoeger vs Benelli is a classic example that defies your logic. Same company and very similar shotguns that share some components and design features. Stoeger shotguns are made in India of lesser materials and the fit and finish is not quite as good. The Benelli is made in Italy of better quality material with better fit and finish. No one would say a Benelli is a bad firearm although they have some problems at times. Many however say a Stoeger is based on your type of logic and just assume they are poor quality. I had people teling me don't buy the Stoeger spend the extra $700 for a Benelli or you will be sorry. I have to say had I spent the extra $700 for a very similar gun that said Benelli instead of Stoeger I would have been disappointed. This SToeger is a great gun.
Too many think because it cost 1/2( or even less than 1/2 )of the other one and wasn't made quite as good that is must be a poor gun. Just not true. Cost does not = good or bad quality. Chances are better with a more expensive gun but not a 100% safe bet.
The $$$ of a firearm is not in indication of the quality. The gun may not look to be as refined either but just because the mfg saved some $$$ by not making it look as good or used some slightly lesser materials does not mean it won't be a good gun. Cheap guns can actually be good guns. By the same token very expensive guns can be failures.
Correction to my comments above. Stoegers are made in Turkey. Sorry. Also found out some are made in Brazil too.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
So, let's redefine terms.
Cheap is pejorative, it implies poorer quality.
Inexpensive guns can be of good quality, even if their cost is low.
So, I would agree that life is too short to own poor quality guns...and I think that's what the OP meant by cheap...
Bingo, he nailed it!
So, let's redefine terms.
Cheap is pejorative, it implies poorer quality.
Inexpensive guns can be of good quality, even if their cost is low.
So, I would agree that life is too short to own poor quality guns...and I think that's what the OP meant by cheap...
Bingo, he nailed it!
Originally Posted By: zerosoma
Originally Posted By: Astro14
So, let's redefine terms.
Cheap is pejorative, it implies poorer quality.
Inexpensive guns can be of good quality, even if their cost is low.
So, I would agree that life is too short to own poor quality guns...and I think that's what the OP meant by cheap...
Bingo, he nailed it!
BUT the OP keep saying don't cheap out spend the extra $$$$ for better quality. To me the OP equates quality with cost.
Not being a jerk or trying to start anything. Just discussing.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
So, let's redefine terms.
Cheap is pejorative, it implies poorer quality.
Inexpensive guns can be of good quality, even if their cost is low.
So, I would agree that life is too short to own poor quality guns...and I think that's what the OP meant by cheap...
Bingo, he nailed it!
BUT the OP keep saying don't cheap out spend the extra $$$$ for better quality. To me the OP equates quality with cost.
Not being a jerk or trying to start anything. Just discussing.
Originally Posted By: FXjohn
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
So far, I've resisted the $3000 Ed Brown I lust after and stuck to my Glocks. No regrets.
only because you don't know what you're missing
Some guy once tried to sell me his $300 pool cue. I replied that I don't shoot $300 pool. Nor do I shoot $3000 pistol.
That guy did let me play a couple of games with his expensive cue. It was great, but I didn't rate the expense.
However, I have beaten people at pool while using a push broom stick with the broom still attached. I think the key in anything is to find something that works and have the skill to make it work. If it doesn work, it is worthless.
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
So far, I've resisted the $3000 Ed Brown I lust after and stuck to my Glocks. No regrets.
only because you don't know what you're missing
Some guy once tried to sell me his $300 pool cue. I replied that I don't shoot $300 pool. Nor do I shoot $3000 pistol.
That guy did let me play a couple of games with his expensive cue. It was great, but I didn't rate the expense.
However, I have beaten people at pool while using a push broom stick with the broom still attached. I think the key in anything is to find something that works and have the skill to make it work. If it doesn work, it is worthless.
Sigh you guys are high maintenance...
lol
lol
Originally Posted By: whip
I think the OP blocked me, so I'm not sure he'll see this. To me, guns are heirlooms. My father will pass his guns to me, and I'll pass mine on to my son. I don't need the greatest gun, but I will spend the money on the right gun. If I spend the money up front and get a good gun, I can use it all I want, and still pass down a valuable tool to my son. Guns typically hold their value, so i think it's a good idea to do your homework, and buy the best quality gun for the money.
He will see it now if he has you blocked. Since I quoted it.
I think the OP blocked me, so I'm not sure he'll see this. To me, guns are heirlooms. My father will pass his guns to me, and I'll pass mine on to my son. I don't need the greatest gun, but I will spend the money on the right gun. If I spend the money up front and get a good gun, I can use it all I want, and still pass down a valuable tool to my son. Guns typically hold their value, so i think it's a good idea to do your homework, and buy the best quality gun for the money.
He will see it now if he has you blocked. Since I quoted it.
Originally Posted By: FXjohn
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
So far, I've resisted the $3000 Ed Brown I lust after and stuck to my Glocks. No regrets.
only because you don't know what you're missing
Now you're making me feel bad. I went so far as to gradually stash $3k in cash so I could buy it without anyone (you know who I mean) noticing the money. Meanwhile, my son, who has less disposable income than I do, had added a high end Colt AR+all accessories and a nice Walther 380 to his collection this year. I'm torn on the value of spending so much on a gun when I've got four perfectly good ones already.
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
So far, I've resisted the $3000 Ed Brown I lust after and stuck to my Glocks. No regrets.
only because you don't know what you're missing
Now you're making me feel bad. I went so far as to gradually stash $3k in cash so I could buy it without anyone (you know who I mean) noticing the money. Meanwhile, my son, who has less disposable income than I do, had added a high end Colt AR+all accessories and a nice Walther 380 to his collection this year. I'm torn on the value of spending so much on a gun when I've got four perfectly good ones already.
Originally Posted By: satinsilver
Originally Posted By: whip
I think the OP blocked me, so I'm not sure he'll see this. To me, guns are heirlooms. My father will pass his guns to me, and I'll pass mine on to my son. I don't need the greatest gun, but I will spend the money on the right gun. If I spend the money up front and get a good gun, I can use it all I want, and still pass down a valuable tool to my son. Guns typically hold their value, so i think it's a good idea to do your homework, and buy the best quality gun for the money.
He will see it now if he has you blocked. Since I quoted it.
Thanks! I owe you one!
I've had an Ed Brown catalog sitting on my night stand for about 6 months. I look at it a lot. I'd love to have one of his guns, but that is a lot of money.
Originally Posted By: whip
I think the OP blocked me, so I'm not sure he'll see this. To me, guns are heirlooms. My father will pass his guns to me, and I'll pass mine on to my son. I don't need the greatest gun, but I will spend the money on the right gun. If I spend the money up front and get a good gun, I can use it all I want, and still pass down a valuable tool to my son. Guns typically hold their value, so i think it's a good idea to do your homework, and buy the best quality gun for the money.
He will see it now if he has you blocked. Since I quoted it.
Thanks! I owe you one!
I've had an Ed Brown catalog sitting on my night stand for about 6 months. I look at it a lot. I'd love to have one of his guns, but that is a lot of money.
To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart:
'I may not be able to tell you what a cheap gun is, but I know one when I see it...'
Cheap guns are guns that are produced with a heavy constraint on cost of production. Of course the production of any retail product involves trimming costs to offer value and match a price point. The difference with 'cheap guns' is almost every cut in production quality and material cost has been made to achieve a product for the lowest cost possible.
In a worst case scenario even the design of the gun was short changed, or not good enough to overcome the shortcomings of poor production techniques, quality control, or materials that are used.
Some features that I commonly found on 'Cheap Guns':
Poor Fit and finish.
Poor balance of the firearm.
Substitution of pot metal for steel/alloy in parts.
Inaccuracy of the firearm.
Low grade wood on stocks and grips.
Short service life due to durability issues.
Safety issues with function of the firearm.
Replacement of parts with 'plastic' (yes, I know many will disagree with this one, but this is my post! And yes, I do own a polymer gun, btw. It's not a 'cheap gun' but not really high quality either)
Guns that are significantly heavier than they need to be, due to poor design or materials. (Not guns that are supposed to be heavier for target purposes)
Triggers that have excessive creep, heavy break, gritty, etc..
Guns that have little to no parts support, basically because they are disposable. Or the importer/producer has gone out of business.
'I may not be able to tell you what a cheap gun is, but I know one when I see it...'
Cheap guns are guns that are produced with a heavy constraint on cost of production. Of course the production of any retail product involves trimming costs to offer value and match a price point. The difference with 'cheap guns' is almost every cut in production quality and material cost has been made to achieve a product for the lowest cost possible.
In a worst case scenario even the design of the gun was short changed, or not good enough to overcome the shortcomings of poor production techniques, quality control, or materials that are used.
Some features that I commonly found on 'Cheap Guns':
Poor Fit and finish.
Poor balance of the firearm.
Substitution of pot metal for steel/alloy in parts.
Inaccuracy of the firearm.
Low grade wood on stocks and grips.
Short service life due to durability issues.
Safety issues with function of the firearm.
Replacement of parts with 'plastic' (yes, I know many will disagree with this one, but this is my post! And yes, I do own a polymer gun, btw. It's not a 'cheap gun' but not really high quality either)
Guns that are significantly heavier than they need to be, due to poor design or materials. (Not guns that are supposed to be heavier for target purposes)
Triggers that have excessive creep, heavy break, gritty, etc..
Guns that have little to no parts support, basically because they are disposable. Or the importer/producer has gone out of business.
CZ SP-01 Shadow 9mm factory tuned. Great example of spending a bit more and getting a lot. 3 mags instead of one, factory tuned gun with a bunch of little improvements and extras. Premium of about $300 (100 would be spent on two mags) over a regular CZ SP-01.
It's a super slick all steel gun that makes 9mm recoil feel almost like a 22.
I wouldn't spend 3k on their Czech Mate target pistol, but the Shadow is well worth it. Very good shooter. Something like this vs a low dollar 9mm is a big difference. Ammo costs too much to shoot cheap guns if you can afford at least one good gun.
It's a super slick all steel gun that makes 9mm recoil feel almost like a 22.
I wouldn't spend 3k on their Czech Mate target pistol, but the Shadow is well worth it. Very good shooter. Something like this vs a low dollar 9mm is a big difference. Ammo costs too much to shoot cheap guns if you can afford at least one good gun.
Originally Posted By: zerosoma
.... I got a rude awakening when I realized how much it was malfunctioning and how it could fail when I needed it most in a CCW situation. I did carry it for a few months, thank GOD I never had to draw it.
So now, you tell me what's more dangerous - not owning a gun or relying on a gun to dissolve a situation by pulling it out, escalating the situation, and having it fail?
I guess I misunderstood, or you're mixing apples and oranges.
No one in their right mind would ever suggest that you carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise, that might not fire when you most need it. But just out target shooting for the fun of it, a misfire or two or three doesn't ruin my day - I clear the weapon and try to determine what, if anything, I did to cause it. I have about as much fun shooting Hi Points at paper targets as anything else. And mine don't jam - but I'm not trying to threadjack you, you're not the first to report a jam o matic.
I'm blessed to own a lot of weapons. I've not found any real relationship between cost and reliability, once you exclude things like Phoenix or Jiminez, or that stuff. I have found that some guns are tolerant of poor shooting techniques or poor grip strength and some aren't.
My $0.02 cents: make sure your carry weapon will shoot and cycle reliably, quickly, and accurately when you are one handing it with your weak hand - because that may be how you wind up having to use it when it really counts.
.... I got a rude awakening when I realized how much it was malfunctioning and how it could fail when I needed it most in a CCW situation. I did carry it for a few months, thank GOD I never had to draw it.
So now, you tell me what's more dangerous - not owning a gun or relying on a gun to dissolve a situation by pulling it out, escalating the situation, and having it fail?
I guess I misunderstood, or you're mixing apples and oranges.
No one in their right mind would ever suggest that you carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise, that might not fire when you most need it. But just out target shooting for the fun of it, a misfire or two or three doesn't ruin my day - I clear the weapon and try to determine what, if anything, I did to cause it. I have about as much fun shooting Hi Points at paper targets as anything else. And mine don't jam - but I'm not trying to threadjack you, you're not the first to report a jam o matic.
I'm blessed to own a lot of weapons. I've not found any real relationship between cost and reliability, once you exclude things like Phoenix or Jiminez, or that stuff. I have found that some guns are tolerant of poor shooting techniques or poor grip strength and some aren't.
My $0.02 cents: make sure your carry weapon will shoot and cycle reliably, quickly, and accurately when you are one handing it with your weak hand - because that may be how you wind up having to use it when it really counts.
Originally Posted By: Win
My $0.02 cents: make sure your carry weapon will shoot and cycle reliably, quickly, and accurately when you are one handing it with your weak hand - because that may be how you wind up having to use it when it really counts.
Beretta 92
Pretty large but I've gotten used to it and feel 'comforting' carrying it.
My $0.02 cents: make sure your carry weapon will shoot and cycle reliably, quickly, and accurately when you are one handing it with your weak hand - because that may be how you wind up having to use it when it really counts.
Beretta 92
Pretty large but I've gotten used to it and feel 'comforting' carrying it.
I agree...steel is real and wood is good. I enjoy Smith & Wesson and Ruger (single action only) revolvers. I just can't warm up to the polymer handguns.
One thing about nicer firearms is that is you do/want to sell, it's a whole lot easier.
One thing about nicer firearms is that is you do/want to sell, it's a whole lot easier.
Originally Posted By: Slick17601
I agree...steel is real and wood is good. I enjoy Smith & Wesson and Ruger (single action only) revolvers. I just can't warm up to the polymer handguns.
I've never gotten the whole Glock/XD craze. I can agree (bitterly) that they are reliable enough for every day use, but I can't get over the feel and the striker-fire type triggers. Yes, they're consistent...but a DA/SA is so much better to work with IMO. I think it's the fact that a lot of Glock owners are fanboys, and XD owners think their guns are the best on earth because it has a grip safety. I fired my mom's boyfriend's XD and it was okay, the trigger was crisp, but I wouldn't buy one unless I found a stupid ridiculous deal on it. He fired my Beretta 92 and it was too complicated for him - there were too many buttons and stuff. I chuckled a bit and helped him get his first couple shots off. He handed it back to me after missing by a few feet. Some folks just aren't DA/SA. I on the other hand think they're great.
Still not entirely sold on polymer guns, but they're starting to come around. I'd buy a Smith SDVE before I'd buy a Glock, it feels better and even though the trigger is abysmally worse, everything else about it trumps the glock. Other polymer guns I'd buy? PX4 Storm (frame), SP2022 (frame), M&P Shield.
I'm a DA/SA guy all around though. The most important thing is the "take-up" on the trigger and feeling that initial pressure right before you break that trigger. When you can predict that trigger break, shots are more consistent. When you're fighting too long of a trigger pull (like the DA on my 92FS...I'd like to bust its balls) you pull so long you make a sandwich while you're waiting for the break, and then it comes too quickly. Gotta put a D spring in that sucker. Back on topic though, most "good" guns are going to have a decent trigger mechanism with a crisp break. Other "value priced" guns (i.e. the SD "Value Enhanced" 9/40) may not.
I'm also a bit tipsy from some good old lager right now so I'm long winded. Hope you all have a good night.
I agree...steel is real and wood is good. I enjoy Smith & Wesson and Ruger (single action only) revolvers. I just can't warm up to the polymer handguns.
I've never gotten the whole Glock/XD craze. I can agree (bitterly) that they are reliable enough for every day use, but I can't get over the feel and the striker-fire type triggers. Yes, they're consistent...but a DA/SA is so much better to work with IMO. I think it's the fact that a lot of Glock owners are fanboys, and XD owners think their guns are the best on earth because it has a grip safety. I fired my mom's boyfriend's XD and it was okay, the trigger was crisp, but I wouldn't buy one unless I found a stupid ridiculous deal on it. He fired my Beretta 92 and it was too complicated for him - there were too many buttons and stuff. I chuckled a bit and helped him get his first couple shots off. He handed it back to me after missing by a few feet. Some folks just aren't DA/SA. I on the other hand think they're great.
Still not entirely sold on polymer guns, but they're starting to come around. I'd buy a Smith SDVE before I'd buy a Glock, it feels better and even though the trigger is abysmally worse, everything else about it trumps the glock. Other polymer guns I'd buy? PX4 Storm (frame), SP2022 (frame), M&P Shield.
I'm a DA/SA guy all around though. The most important thing is the "take-up" on the trigger and feeling that initial pressure right before you break that trigger. When you can predict that trigger break, shots are more consistent. When you're fighting too long of a trigger pull (like the DA on my 92FS...I'd like to bust its balls) you pull so long you make a sandwich while you're waiting for the break, and then it comes too quickly. Gotta put a D spring in that sucker. Back on topic though, most "good" guns are going to have a decent trigger mechanism with a crisp break. Other "value priced" guns (i.e. the SD "Value Enhanced" 9/40) may not.
I'm also a bit tipsy from some good old lager right now so I'm long winded. Hope you all have a good night.
Originally Posted By: zerosoma
Originally Posted By: Slick17601
I agree...steel is real and wood is good. I enjoy Smith & Wesson and Ruger (single action only) revolvers. I just can't warm up to the polymer handguns.
I've never gotten the whole Glock/XD craze. I can agree (bitterly) that they are reliable enough for every day use, but I can't get over the feel and the striker-fire type triggers. Yes, they're consistent...but a DA/SA is so much better to work with IMO. I think it's the fact that a lot of Glock owners are fanboys, and XD owners think their guns are the best on earth because it has a grip safety. I fired my mom's boyfriend's XD and it was okay, the trigger was crisp, but I wouldn't buy one unless I found a stupid ridiculous deal on it. He fired my Beretta 92 and it was too complicated for him - there were too many buttons and stuff. I chuckled a bit and helped him get his first couple shots off. He handed it back to me after missing by a few feet. Some folks just aren't DA/SA. I on the other hand think they're great.
Still not entirely sold on polymer guns, but they're starting to come around. I'd buy a Smith SDVE before I'd buy a Glock, it feels better and even though the trigger is abysmally worse, everything else about it trumps the glock. Other polymer guns I'd buy? PX4 Storm (frame), SP2022 (frame), M&P Shield.
I'm a DA/SA guy all around though. The most important thing is the "take-up" on the trigger and feeling that initial pressure right before you break that trigger. When you can predict that trigger break, shots are more consistent. When you're fighting too long of a trigger pull (like the DA on my 92FS...I'd like to bust its balls) you pull so long you make a sandwich while you're waiting for the break, and then it comes too quickly. Gotta put a D spring in that sucker. Back on topic though, most "good" guns are going to have a decent trigger mechanism with a crisp break. Other "value priced" guns (i.e. the SD "Value Enhanced" 9/40) may not.
I'm also a bit tipsy from some good old lager right now so I'm long winded. Hope you all have a good night.
Dude. You are a major league gun snob. Wow.
Originally Posted By: Slick17601
I agree...steel is real and wood is good. I enjoy Smith & Wesson and Ruger (single action only) revolvers. I just can't warm up to the polymer handguns.
I've never gotten the whole Glock/XD craze. I can agree (bitterly) that they are reliable enough for every day use, but I can't get over the feel and the striker-fire type triggers. Yes, they're consistent...but a DA/SA is so much better to work with IMO. I think it's the fact that a lot of Glock owners are fanboys, and XD owners think their guns are the best on earth because it has a grip safety. I fired my mom's boyfriend's XD and it was okay, the trigger was crisp, but I wouldn't buy one unless I found a stupid ridiculous deal on it. He fired my Beretta 92 and it was too complicated for him - there were too many buttons and stuff. I chuckled a bit and helped him get his first couple shots off. He handed it back to me after missing by a few feet. Some folks just aren't DA/SA. I on the other hand think they're great.
Still not entirely sold on polymer guns, but they're starting to come around. I'd buy a Smith SDVE before I'd buy a Glock, it feels better and even though the trigger is abysmally worse, everything else about it trumps the glock. Other polymer guns I'd buy? PX4 Storm (frame), SP2022 (frame), M&P Shield.
I'm a DA/SA guy all around though. The most important thing is the "take-up" on the trigger and feeling that initial pressure right before you break that trigger. When you can predict that trigger break, shots are more consistent. When you're fighting too long of a trigger pull (like the DA on my 92FS...I'd like to bust its balls) you pull so long you make a sandwich while you're waiting for the break, and then it comes too quickly. Gotta put a D spring in that sucker. Back on topic though, most "good" guns are going to have a decent trigger mechanism with a crisp break. Other "value priced" guns (i.e. the SD "Value Enhanced" 9/40) may not.
I'm also a bit tipsy from some good old lager right now so I'm long winded. Hope you all have a good night.
Dude. You are a major league gun snob. Wow.
- Status
