Cheapie guns offend me!


June 22, 2003, 01:16 PM
How about you?

Now, before I get flamed for you Makarov and Bersa fans, let me add I have no problem with low-priced quality guns. But the guns that are obviously lacking in quality really bug me - Lorcins, Bryco, Jennings, Cobra, EAA Witness handguns (they may be okay, but I would not buy one), Charter Arms, and even Taurus (they may be getting better but the stigma will still take time to overcome).

If you enjoyed reading about "Cheapie guns offend me!" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
June 22, 2003, 01:39 PM
No they don't. Every citizen regardless of how much money they have should be able to buy a gun.

If all they can afford is a lorcin or Jennings, so be it, guns should not be only for the rich and elite of society.

On another note, you really saying a Taurus/EAA is on the same level as lorcin/jennings?

June 22, 2003, 01:42 PM
No problem with cheap guns for me. As long as a gun functions as designed and reliably, I won't complain about it. When they manufacture a model that is a POS from day one and never works, then we have trouble.

June 22, 2003, 02:00 PM

June 22, 2003, 02:15 PM
Hey, I feel blessed that I can afford Beretta, Sig Sauer, and Kimber. What if I couldn't? I'd be looking at some of the manufacturers you have mentioned.

June 22, 2003, 02:18 PM
Maybe you should talk to Dr. Phil.

Jay Bakerr
June 22, 2003, 02:21 PM
Cheapie cars offend me. Afterall, if you can't afford a Mercedes, Jaguar, Rolls, Cadillac, or Hummer... you shouldn't be driving.


June 22, 2003, 02:27 PM
Cars analogy... I would not buy a Yugo or a Hyundai new just because it was cheap...I'd get a used Toyota!

June 22, 2003, 02:30 PM
Don't we all buy within our financial limits? I'd love to have a Wilson/HK/Knight's but that's too much money, just like a mercedes or jaguar. If that's all you can afford it still beats a knife.

Where'd you get your handle, Min? Fan of Jordan or just coincedence?

June 22, 2003, 02:32 PM
Who's Jordan? Min is my first name...I'm Asian.

June 22, 2003, 02:34 PM
Cool beans, this typing at the same time.

Robert Jordan is an author. One of his characters is named Min, short for Elmindrada...which she thinks is entirely too girly. Coincedence is a wonderful thing. My curiosity is sated.

June 22, 2003, 02:46 PM
Hey, I've got a used Toyota too...:)
And I like Hi-Points for Plinking.:)

June 22, 2003, 03:01 PM
The Lorcin failed to feed and fire, with unfailing reliability. :mad:

The Hi-Point sorta worked, but shortly afterwards I bought a new Norinco 1911A1 for just a little bit more.

This has been a popular topic here on THR. While I would never begrudge somebody the right to own a defensive handgun, for the money spent, a nice used S&W revolver, a Makarov, Ballester Molina, or Taurus would serve the purpose much better. I've seen several S&W Model 10's for less than $175 in my local area that were very nice, and they'd handle +P .38 Special no problem.

Although, the Jennings/Bryco/Lorcin/Davis/Hi-Point family of firearms do have a heft and feel that *should* give them some knockdown power were they to be thrown at an assailant after jamming...

June 22, 2003, 03:05 PM
I am not a gun snob by any means, more like a middle-class gun owner. I buy CZ, Smith and Wesson revos, police trade-ins. It's just that when I see a Lorcin at the gun show it's like...yuck. If I guy only had a $100 to spend to buy a gun for self-defense, he should look into Eastern European surplus or something.

June 22, 2003, 04:21 PM
I am not a gun snob by any means, <snip> it's just that when I see a Lorcin at the gun show it's like...yuck.

Well, that's what it means to be a gun snob. :p

June 22, 2003, 04:28 PM
I could never understand why someone would want to trust their life to a gun that has a reputation for problems. A gun for self-defense should be one of the most important purchases you ever make in your life, and a quality gun will probably last you your whole life. So why isn't a quality gun worth saving for even if it takes you longer? I don't understand "can't afford." If you can afford to save $100, you can afford to save $500. It'll just take longer. Or buy a used quality gun for $200 and you only had to save twice as long. This is a no brainer. Apparently, many people have no brains.

If you're a collector and are curious, then OK. If you're a criminal and need a piece that you will have to drop somewhere than I understand. But for self-defense?

June 22, 2003, 04:38 PM
"Charter Arms,"

I have had several Charter Arms revolvers and while they were inexpensive, they were not cheap. For someone who is on a hard budget CA may be a good option to look at.

June 22, 2003, 04:53 PM
I don't mind the lower priced firearms. I think it is nice a poor person can have at least "some" protection. You should not have to be a rich snob to own a firearm.
BTW, I don't consider Taurus or EAA Witness low quality. I own several Taurus's and one 40 cal. EAA Witness and have had no problems with any of them.
The 2nd Amendment should cover all law abiding citizens. Affordable firearms helps to insure all citizens can have protection.

Jim Hall

June 22, 2003, 05:04 PM
My Taurus 92AF has choked down 1000rnds of cheap Wolf 9mm without a single malfunction or anykind. Something alot of high dollar guns couldn't do... I happen to like inexpensive, but good stuff. I don't like actual cheap stuff like a Lorcin or something either though.

June 22, 2003, 05:06 PM
Would it make you feel better if they sold a $75 gun for $500?

Glock owners seem to be happy with this.:)

M2 Carbine
June 22, 2003, 05:37 PM
A few years ago a woman in Houston killed a burglar (paroled murderer) with a cheapie gun. She got three shots off before it jammed. Hit him all three times and that was enough.

No doubt in my mind that piece of junk (as many of us think of those guns) saved her life.

From the story I got the impression that's all they could afford.
If I was her husband I would really try to buy her a better gun now.:)

June 22, 2003, 05:44 PM
You are one of the blessed few. Some people can't afford to save $100, and $500 is totally out of the question. Are you really recommending that these people spend their entire lives saving for a gun that they may have a very real need for today? Sure the cheap models may or may not work, but if that's all they can afford then they have every right to get one. A used revolver for $175 sounds like a very good deal, unless you don't have $175.

June 22, 2003, 05:49 PM
Anybody who buys a gun cheaper than mine is buying a junk gun.
Anybody who buys a gun more expensive than mine is a gun snob.

M2 Carbine
June 22, 2003, 05:58 PM

You are out of touch.
I can afford ANYTHING I want to buy but I can remember when $80 for a gun was way down on the list of things I had to spend money on.

To a person living from paycheck to paycheck, spending money on a gun that they may never need and can't afford to shoot, is a big expense even if it is under $100.

June 22, 2003, 05:59 PM

What's to say this hypothetical person isn't intent on buying a $500 gun, but rather than save $50 / month for 10 months, going without a gun the whole time, they instead buy a $100 Hi-point in two months and then start saving the $50 per month?

Should this person wait 10 months with no means to defend themselves? Or should that person pick up something that will serve a purpose while waiting to get the better tool? Granted, it'd take an additional two months to get to the point where they own a more expensive gun. But, two unarmed months followed by 10 not-so-well armed months is much better than 10 unarmed months.


P.S. That's what I did. I had a Hi-point .380 until I could afford to upgrade, and I felt good about it!

June 22, 2003, 06:00 PM
I'm not into telling people what they can and cannot buy. I'd advise them to buy a gun that works, and if they asked my opinion, I'd tell them that Ruger, Taurus, and Kel-Tec make very reasonably priced guns that work just fine. Heck, I've bought a Kel-Tec P-11 for $160.00, and it worked just fine.

June 22, 2003, 06:34 PM
What if we just buy your gun from you? :)

June 22, 2003, 06:50 PM
HK, if that's your plan, I hope you've got a huge bankroll. Cuz' that's a lotta guns you'll be buyin'.

June 22, 2003, 07:20 PM
Have I got a deal for you!

Mine have MSRP's ranging from $70 to $2,400.

Obviously my definition of "cheap" comes equipped with plenty of flexibility (although knowing what I do of your arsen... er, collection, you'd find my most expensive toy a screaming deal. ;) )

June 22, 2003, 08:13 PM
Guns that are so incredibly over-priced because of the hype given to them by the gun rags and media. I swear some of these gun manufactures must be paying movie studios for product placement. At least these cheapo companies are honest about what their products are worth. Of course, none of this is going to make me stop putting money into my HK mark23 fund.

June 22, 2003, 08:16 PM
If you don't like them, then don't buy them:scrutiny:

June 22, 2003, 08:31 PM
Cheap guns dont offend me, just like cheap cars dont.

Now people who blither and blather that cheap guns are equal to or better than their more expensive counterpart just to satisfy their own ego needs do.:neener:

Of course, those guys who blither and blather that their super expensive guns are better than less expensive ones merely becasue they carry a name also offend me!

Hey! Everyone offends me.

Even me!:what: :neener:


June 22, 2003, 08:44 PM
all I can say is I love this little Jennings J22... goes bang, no questions asked...

June 22, 2003, 08:50 PM
My sole pistol at this time is a Norinco 7.62x25 Tokarev, net price $85. Inexpensive, yes, cheap, not at all, it goes bang each time it needs to.

June 22, 2003, 09:07 PM
In the world of guns, the motto is true: You get what you pay for.

(Unless you come across a really desperate or unknowledgable seller who will let you reem him good on the price).

I can't afford, and really don't look at guns like the HK USP Tactical, $1700 DSA FALs (even though I want one), any Wilson CQC products, etc. By the way, I'm not rich at all - I scrape by myself.

But when I saw someone selling police trade-in Ithaca 37 shotguns for $160 (tax included) each, I bought two. Now to me, that is a good deal - a quality gun that is probably shunned by the general gun-buying public because it's ugly on the outside. I knew the old Ithaca's were good, they-don't-make-em-like-they-used-to shotguns.

I am now pondering the CZ 52 on sale at Aimsurplus for $109. See, I like guns like that. The reason I don't have a Makarov is because for a self-defense pistol I was willing to ante up the cash for a NIB, quality gun I can depend on in a life/death situation, in my case a Kahr PM9.

So, I don't look down on inexpensive, quality guns, but the pot-metal ones give me the creeps.

I apologize to those who have Taurus and Charter Arms. I actually don't have any experience with those brands. They are better than the Lorcins and Brycos, but they are also more expensive (give or take). Considering what the dealers charge for them at the gunshows, they are not the bargain one might think they are.

A used Smith and Wesson model 10 is a good buy.

June 22, 2003, 09:17 PM
A used Smith and Wesson model 10 is a good buy.

Only if it's in good condition and at a fair price. You have to consider all the factors before you make a blanket statement like that. Would a well worn, pitted, out of time model 10 selling for $400 be a good buy?

June 22, 2003, 09:21 PM
Used SW mod 10's... should be between $100-200, the closer to the $100 mark the better. As long as there's no major rust or pitting and timing is good, it is a good buy.

Happy now, Majic? You're not a lawyer are you?


June 22, 2003, 09:27 PM
I too dislike cheaply made guns. I would never buy a pos gun like a Jennings or a Lorcin or a Hi-Point, but if somebody else wants to then good for them.

I don't really buy the (it's all poor people can afford) arguement at all as there's plenty of better options out there than a Jennings or a Hi-Point for about the same price. You just gotta know. Knowledge is power! :cool:

Already nowadays a Hi-Point costs the same price as a Colt 1911 did in 1974. Really sad when you think about it. And now that same Colt in mint condition is going for $1,000.

June 22, 2003, 09:28 PM
I'm no lawyer, just a craftsman. Considering anyone can read our comments I wanted to make sure that someone with no knowledge of firearms didn't get the idea that any Smith & Wesson model 10 is a good buy.

June 22, 2003, 09:31 PM
Gotcha. Majic, I was just kidding...I got your point.

That said, I went to the gunshow today, and didn't buy any guns! :(

June 22, 2003, 09:44 PM
Gunshows around here are becoming a shooters get together. The prices on guns are so high that mostly new shooters are the only ones willing pay them. Most of us shop for parts, reloading supplies, and the occasional out of production models. You sometimes find a deal, but it's rare.

4v50 Gary
June 22, 2003, 09:55 PM
While I would be hard pressed to own any of the aforementioned guns, I would not disdain them if wielded by an assailant nor would I make disparing remarks about them if someone brought them to the range. I also recognize that if it's the only thing a person can afford, it's sure better than a rock or flipping the boid at someone whose intent is to pulverize you into the pavement. Like yourself Min, I'm not being a snob & it's just that I prefer higher quality guns.

Marko Kloos
June 22, 2003, 10:08 PM
I'll take a gun owner with a $100 pistol over someone who neither cares for the Second Amendment nor exercises it. I'll even take the company of a Lorcin owner over that of a $10,000 O/U Perazzi owner who thinks that shooting clay is the only reason anyone should ever need to own a gun.

Some people can't afford HKs and SIGs, and some don't have access to good advice on pro-gun boards. Looking down your nose at those people instead of giving them support makes you no better than the Perazzi owners who have no problems with "assault rifle" and handgun bans. :scrutiny:

June 22, 2003, 10:10 PM
Some people can't afford HKs and SIGs, and some don't have access to good advice on pro-gun boards. Looking down your nose at those people instead of giving them support makes you no better than the Perazzi owners who have no problems with "assault rifle" and handgun bans.

I never said I looked down on anybody. On the guns...yes. Not the people who buy them. (I consider them to be misinformed).


June 22, 2003, 10:36 PM
I want to know where everyone is finding these S&W mod 10's for $100-200? I hear about them continually on this board, usually by people trashing my Taurus, but haven't seen one since the mid 80's and those were pretty worn out police trade-ins.

June 22, 2003, 10:39 PM

June 22, 2003, 11:29 PM
At a place in Melbourne, FL called the Ammo Attic. Almost grabbed one of them, I still may, my last K-Frame Military and Police model became a PPC/Steel Challenge race revolver. ;)

June 23, 2003, 12:39 AM
Whatever the market wants is okay with me. Doesn't affect what I'll buy....

Byron Quick
June 23, 2003, 12:41 AM
So you're offended. Why, exactly, should I care?

June 23, 2003, 12:45 AM
So you're offended. Why, exactly, should I care?

Maybe I should have reworded that. The way I phrased my title seems to have ruffled some people's feathers. Sorry...

The guns don't really offend me per se, but rather, since I enjoy shooting and firearms I find the poor construction of some brands to be not to my liking.

June 23, 2003, 01:07 AM
Obviously you have never owned a Taurus or Charter Arms! Both are reasonably priced and reliable revolvers. Have been since the 70's.
As for the crack about Hyundais... my last one cost $7400 out the door in '88, went over 200,000 miles, cost me exactly 17.6 cents/mile to own counting EVERYTHING. A/C still worked when I gave it to a friend. Liked it enough to buy a new Sante Fe last week.

June 23, 2003, 01:10 AM

June 23, 2003, 02:54 AM
I guess I'm a gun snob, having never owned a hi-point, jenning, ket-tec, lorcin, taurus, EAA, etc. I buy S&W, H&K, SIG when I can, but when they don't make what I want, I buy CZ, Ruger, Beretta without any much thought. I also do and have owned some custom guns, and put money into gun related product. I've never owned my own shop, but worked in a couple. Owners called people that bought cheap (less than $200, new, non-surplus) pistols repeat customers, because if they ever shot the pistols, they would be back. People buy hi-point, jenning, lorcin, etc., assuming they will work. When I would try to get them to consider a police trade in model 10 or 64 for around the same money. They would always refuse, with reasons like "They wouldn't sell it if it didn't work., "You just get more commission off used guns." or my favorite "I'm not really going to shoot anyone, I just want to scare them." One gun shop manager refused to send these guns back for repair, but would for any other new gun. The reason why is simple, they didn't work more often than not. When/If I go into business for myself, I will bend over and kiss my own @$$ before I let a person leave my shop with a lorcin if I can find a way to get them something that works.

When it comes to defending my family, only my BEST, and that isn't good enough. I live in the most crime free place I can, my wife drives the newer more dependable car, if spending money could keep you out of harms way, we would be set for life. It can't, we aren't, but we are prepared for that.

I find guns like the witness, taurus, kel-tec to be ok, if proven reliable. But as long as I even THINK I'm getting something by spending extra, I don't mind. I'm not wealthy, I simply buy QUALITY as often a possible.

If spending an extra $25 to buy a CZ 75 instead of a Witness, makes people like me happy, I don't see the harm. There are more issues here.

I think that food stamps and WICA should work at the gun store (until we rid ourselves of such programs). I think the stockpile of M14's should be handed out to any single mother in public housing that is willing to get training on one. I think, "If you cannot afford a reliable firearm, one will be provided for you." should be heard by anyone that presses abuse charges against a spouse, child or parent. I think the millions of dollars being spent for "government sponsored voluntary disarmament reimbursement" should be spent to provide vouchers to ensure every American can afford to defend his/her home and family. If they are going to spend our money, might as well do it right.

Until that day come friend, do what you must. I'll help where I can. If you can’t afford a Glock, buy what you can. A good start will be supplying good carry ammo you're not using to your fellow forum mates that can't afford it. Would creation of an Airman's Attic or Goodwill List be out of the question? On the honor system, people who need could claim whatever was listed and pay only shipping fees. Forum members caught taking without serious need would be shunned, but it wouldn't really be policed. I'd be willing to kick it off with 3 1/2 boxes of 9mm 127 +P+ Ranger Talons, a HK USP 9/40 full-size holster, a Chip McCormick 10 shot 38 super mag, a pair of eagle concealment grips for round butt N-frame, 12 gauge slugs, 870 parts, and a hundred other things that I don't need, but somebody might? What say you? Not charity mind, just a long term, zero interest forgivable loans. Put it back on the list when you are done and post something when you can.

Sorry for the awful rant,


June 23, 2003, 03:29 AM
I am not too bothered by cheapie guns, but since I can afford more, and most cheapies have a horrible track record, I stay away. But if a Hi-Point carbine 9mm fell in my lap for like $50, I wouldn't throw it away. It needs a home like any other. But above all, I like some quality, Makarovs, my Hawes, etc. Lorcin and Bryco and stuff felt like the metal was zinc or something from a cap gun.

Byron Quick
June 23, 2003, 03:58 AM
I've seen my Charter Arms Target Bulldog put six shots in a group you couldn't push a .45 bullet through.

I own six S&W revolvers and one Ruger revolver...I've never seen one of them equal the accuracy of that Charter Arms Target Bulldog.

Now, to be honest, serious shooting has left a certain looseness in the old Target Bulldog. But back when it was tight, it was right!

Mike Irwin
June 23, 2003, 12:07 PM
I've got bigger and far more important things to worry about.

Carlos Cabeza
June 23, 2003, 12:38 PM
The Badguy can't tell the difference, only that he's equally bleeding and in need of medical attention. :cool:
I have a long standing hunting buddy who likes to tell me "The deer don't know" when referring to my $1000 .00+ Rem. 700 Custom to his 325.00 Rem. 700 entry level grade. I took him on his first gun hunt and he bagged a huge 10 pointer, while I went home with nuttin'..... That was 6 years ago yet I hear the story every fall. :rolleyes: :D
Chalk that 1 (one) converted ! ROGER !:cool:

June 23, 2003, 02:06 PM
I've got bigger and far more important things to worry about.

Well, good for you! You want a pat on the back? If you don't like a thread, don't post in it.

Tommy Gunn
June 23, 2003, 02:28 PM
I've seen several S&W Model 10's for less than $175 in my local area that were very nice, and they'd handle +P .38 Special no problem.

Ditto! :)

June 23, 2003, 03:02 PM
What bothers me more is the gun stores that will try to sell Jennings J-22 pistols (wife had one, total POS) for $150, when these folks could buy a Makarov for the same (or a little more) and have 1000times the firearm.

Let the buyer beware I suppose...

And then there's a huge local shop that has Steyr M's for $560..

Mike Irwin
June 23, 2003, 03:07 PM
"Well, good for you! You want a pat on the back? If you don't like a thread, don't post in it."

You may want to take some of your own advice, Min.

But that loud noise was the point rushing past you at a furious rate.

The point is that the COST of the gun shouldn't really play on anyone's mind.

What ARE the things that I, and the rest of us, SHOULD be worrying about?

1. Is my gun functional and reliable?

2. Is my ammunition fresh?

3. Have I practiced recently?

4. Are my skills to the level where the should be?

5. Do I have a COMPREHENSIVE personal protection plan?

Those are just a few of the things that all of us should be worrying about, well perhaps not worrying, but at least thinking, about on a regular basis.

June 23, 2003, 03:20 PM
Mike Irwin, I am a pretty laid back guy (I think), but I have to admit your post angered me a bit. I am just honest with my feelings, you know.

Sure, there are many factors to consider when choosing a firearm (particularly for self protection) than the cost.

My thread was not about firearms training, or else I would have said, "Cheapie guns and poorly trained people offend me."

It is up to the individual what he or she feels comfortable with, and I will not tell them otherwise - I believe in freedom. But, rather Iwas making a statement about the hardware only. The companies who make poor quality firearms are doing a great disservice to those who buy their products.

Mike Irwin
June 23, 2003, 03:26 PM

I understand that, and please also realize that my original post was NOT mean to be flip, or to anger you. It was a simple statement of MY feelings on the subject.

But, for me, it really still comes down to the fact that I've got other, and what I believe to be more important, things to worry about.

To take it a little farther, though, what's the cut-off between a cheap gun and an inexpensive gun?

I've got a Hi Standard Sentinel .22 revolver that could be thought to be a cheap gun. Yet, it's been reliable, accurate, and fun for many years.

It's so accurate, as a matter of fact, that I put a scope on it years ago and used it as a short range squirrel gun.

June 23, 2003, 09:18 PM

Define "cheap".

As improvements in manufacturing and machining continue to occur (companies are always interested in reducing costs) then supply catches up with demand and prices go down.

Is sheet metal construction "cheaper" than cast or forged? Tell that to the AK guys. Is cast "cheaper" than forged?

I consider poor design and engineering offensive. A la the AR. I still see no reason for the burned gases to be ported directed into the chamber. I consider the Glock offensive. Polygonal rifling and can't shoot lead bullets? Plastic frame that comes apart when a case ruptures with sufficient force?

(Flame suit on, I know I've gored a couple of sacred cows here)

Paying extra for a "name" offends me.

edited to add: I do want to thank you for starting such an interesting discussion.

June 23, 2003, 09:29 PM
Saw this Viper at auction for $120...

Look at them grips!


the sight just fell off... :neener: :evil: :p

June 23, 2003, 09:40 PM
I consider the Glock offensive. Polygonal rifling and can't shoot lead bullets? Plastic frame that comes apart when a case ruptures with sufficient force?

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH, Polygonal rifling is offensive???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Stop it, you're killing me....:evil: :evil: :evil:

Tommy Gunn
June 23, 2003, 10:20 PM
To take it a little farther, though, what's the cut-off between a cheap gun and an inexpensive gun?

Don't confuse quality with cost.

The Russian guns are cheap, but very good weapons. I really like the CZ-52 in 7.65x25mm.

The Ravens, Lorcins, Jennings, and et cetera are just junk and I can't imagine anyone wanting to produce such nonfunctional weapons.

June 23, 2003, 10:45 PM
I know they're cheap. I know people on the forums rant about them being crud.

I have several 'good' guns but also have a Jennings J22 and a Raven MP25. I've shot them alot. They feed and go bang as fast as I can pull the trigger - every time. They were maintained before I got them and I take care of them now. I carried them both for years. Never thought about them not going bang.

Sometimes 'cheap' guns are just that - cheap - not bad.

June 23, 2003, 11:01 PM
From what I've heard, Raven, Jennins, and Lorcin guns are "cheap". Hi-Point's are "inexpensive", but those of you that have actually shot them....are they "cheap" guns, or just low priced? Do they really belong in the same class as the Raven, Jennings, and Lorcin?

I'm not referring to the looks, finish, heavy slide, weight, etc. I mean, are they well built (therefore reliable and/or accurate) inexpensive guns?

June 24, 2003, 12:49 AM
There is a difference between good quality guns that are inexpensively priced, and poor quality guns that are also inexpensively priced. In many cases, a used gun from a better manufacturer might be priced about the same as a NIB gun from a manufacturer with a poor reputattion.

The problem is that the people who buy a defensive gun with price as the overriding consideration usually don't have the knowledge to know the gems from the junk. That's why they'll buy a Lorcin, because it's new, over a used, but well-maintained S&W Model 10. They would also usually avoid the mil surp guns, like the Makarov, because they aren't "new."

I'm not "offended" by inexpensive guns in any way. If someone asked me, I'd point them to what I think are the best cost per value guns out there. I am offended by the low quality products available and some of the people who reccomend them who should know better.

BTW, my defination of "low quality" is strictly functional. Guns that are unreliable when new, because of poor design, materials or manufacturing are what I consider low quality.

On a personal note, I have a HK P7M8, the very defination of a high quality, high price gun and a $125 Makarov. Of the two, I like and carry the Makarov more, even though it cost 1/10 as much as the P7. In fact, I spent the extra money to put better sights on the Mak, and I'm selling the P7M8. (e-mail me if interested in the P7)


June 24, 2003, 01:21 AM
Sisco, LOL:D

I don't care for anything poorly made. I think most people don't appreciate junk. OTOH most people like a bargain. We live in (USA) a disposable society so I guess some gun makers think disposable guns are okay:uhoh: I love a good bargain and hate overpriced junk. YMMV

June 24, 2003, 09:21 PM
gamegod86, What's so funny?

It was explained to me that you could not shoot lead bullets in a Glock because of the polygonal rifling. Because of the polygonal rifling the bbl leads up much quicker and more severely than standard land and groove rifling thus leading to overpressure situations much quicker than normal.

Everyone that I've talked to about the Glock said that if you want to shoot lead bullets in a Glock replace the bbl with one that has standard land and groove rifling.

It seems to me that this is a very poor choice from an engineering standpoint. To deliberately choose a bbl design that will lead to possibly dangerous overpressure situations.

June 24, 2003, 09:52 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love my Sig P220, but I would have no qualms at all reaching for my Taurus 617S in an emergency.

The Taurus is pretty much my wife's gun now - the "compact frame" fits her hand perfectly, she can outshoot me with it, and the 220 is a bit too big for her hands. That's why the shiney revolver lives on her side of the bed. :D

If money were really tight I'd probably be looking for a second-hand Ruger revolver.

June 24, 2003, 09:52 PM
min, get over it!:) I have a rather large gun collection. I own a Taurus 608 that out shoots quite a few, much more expensive revolvers in my safes.

June 24, 2003, 11:33 PM
I consider the Glock offensive. Polygonal rifling and can't shoot lead bullets? Plastic frame that comes apart when a case ruptures with sufficient force?


BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH, Polygonal rifling is offensive???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Stop it, you're killing me....

1. I think that the use of the word "offensive" in this context is funny. Was the Glock rude to you?:neener: ;)


Glocks can shoot lead. (I can't for the life of me figure out why you would want to, though. What am I missing? What's wrong with FMJ?) See above link. Glock apparently says lead=OK, reloads= not OK.
Just clean it when you are done, (which you really should do on ANY gun) and you will have no problems.

3. Please show me a picture of a Glock kB where Polymer frame failed. (not saying it doesn't exist, I just have never seen one)

Most of the Kbs I have seen photos of are because of the ammo, not the gun. ANY gun will blow up with bad ammo. This does not exclude Glocks, Sigs, or anything else.

I have several Glocks. I like them. Nothing wrong with Sigs, berettas etc.

I don't understand the vehemence that some people display when referring to Glocks. I mean, it's a Gun, an inanimate object. If you don't like someone's product, don't buy it.

FWIW, YMMV, not valid in all states, odds vary with number of participants, do not fold, spindle, or mutilate.


June 24, 2003, 11:40 PM
I think guns are like cars, you start out with the lower priced stuff and work your way up. My first pistol was a Taurus, now i have a Smith & Wesson.
But seriously, the more people who own and carry, the better.....
Right? :confused:

June 25, 2003, 12:12 AM
What offends me is some Dilbert with three hungry dirty kids and a pregnant wife plopping down $1000 for a Kimber instead of groceries for his family. Just work behind a counter in a gun shop and you will see it over and over.

June 25, 2003, 11:56 AM
Chew on some leaves, you'll get better.


George Hill
June 25, 2003, 04:12 PM
This thread has run it's course. It's done.

Buh Bye.

If you enjoyed reading about "Cheapie guns offend me!" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!