Which Attribute of Guns is your LEAST favorite?


Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 14, 2008, 04:38 PM
In other words, of these attributes, which one is the MOST important that your gun(s) NOT have?

1. Fragile (Durable/Tough/Robust)
2. Unreliable(Reliable)
3. Ugly (Pretty)
4. Foreign (Domestic)
5. Expensive to Buy/Own (Inexpensive)
6. Heavy/Large/Unwieldy (Light/Handy/Small)
7. High Recoil & Blast (Mild Recoil and Blast)
8. Inaccurate (Accurate)
9. Other - Specify

You must pick ONE - the one that is more important than the others to you.

Parenthetically listed is the good corollary to the bad attribute.

See Poll (be patient until I post the poll please).

Mine is Fragility. I hate anything fragile. To me, guns are all about toughness and durability, and lasting generations, and working at the critical time(s) that the gun is needed, whether for hunting or self-defense. It occurred to me for the first time this weekend that I hate fiber optic sights such as the one on the shotgun I was toting around in briars and brambles and banging against trees. No, the F.O. front and rear tubes didn't break, but they very well could have and ruined my hunt, from being knocked around. Next chance I get, they're getting replaced with a brass bead and standard rear. To me, durability (lack of fragility) is even more important than gun reliability, because 99% of the time or better, you're only gonna need one shot, and so the rifle or shotgun or handgun doesn't even need to cycle, whether manually or by semi-auto operation, in order to effectuate it's purpose. I know that anything can break, but stuff on guns should be built to break few and far between in time, and only after thousands of rounds, and dozens of hunts or range trips. I'd put inaccurate #2, and unreliable as #3, and heavy/large/unwieldy #4.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Attribute of Guns is your LEAST favorite?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 14, 2008, 04:40 PM
Oops, I screwed up and forgot to put "post a poll". Sigh, maybe a mod can add or I can post a new one with a poll when I get a minute. But pick one of the nine please.

April 14, 2008, 04:43 PM
I do not like guns that are unreliable...

April 14, 2008, 04:46 PM
I choose...


Guns are like hookers, doesn't matter how they look...as long as they get the job done.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 14, 2008, 04:50 PM
CG, I think you misunderstood the question. If all that matters is they get the job done, then you would NOT choose UGLY as your answer - you answer the one that is MOST IMPORTANT to you that your gun not have. You don't care if your gun is ugly, so that's not the most important to you. Pick again. :)

I guess it's sort of a convoluted way to ask the question - let's try this. Pick the attribute in PARENTHESES above that it's most important to you that your gun DOES have.

Kind of Blued
April 14, 2008, 04:50 PM
I've found that there are enough aesthetically-pleasing high-quality guns in this world that one has no excuse to buy an ugly one.

It's not that I wouldn't buy an ugly gun if it were the best tool for the job, it's just that I don't think there is any niche that an attractive gun can't cover.

April 14, 2008, 04:52 PM
for me, it's a toss up between unreliable and fragile as being attributes that my gun SHOULD NOT have. i think those two also kinda go hand in hand.

April 14, 2008, 04:53 PM
It's tough to find a reliable, attractive pistol new in box for less than $200. Ugly pistols have their market.

Kind of Blued
April 14, 2008, 04:53 PM
The question was also phrased in a silly way... You would have to be a fool to say that it is "important that your gun not have" any of those. You should have made them either all positive or all negative, then formed the question.

More appropriate would be "which of these is the least important aspect in a gun?".

April 14, 2008, 04:54 PM
Well, a gun that is fragile isn't a gun - it's a poor excuse for a club. I suppose that I would choose #1 (Fragile) the way that the poll is written.

But my primary gripe among my reliable weapons is #7 (High Recoil & Blast). I don't mind recoil, but I find that excessive muzzle blast is a significant detractor...

April 14, 2008, 05:00 PM
Unreliable. For me reliable guns are not fragile and will work, always. You may need only 1 shot, or you may need to empty the mag to stop a threat. Thus, an unreliable gun is a liability to personal safety. All others are a secondary concern.

April 14, 2008, 05:00 PM
This thread is more complicated than it has to be...lol

April 14, 2008, 05:03 PM
Unreliable, with is often caused by fragility. That's why I hate KT pistols, especially the P3AT.

April 14, 2008, 05:11 PM
Most significant? Fragile & Unreliable are indistinguishable.
It's a safety tool - therefore, it MUST GO BANG EVERY DANG TIME. It must be robust enough to stand up to the most extreme (albeit not unreasonable) conditions and still function. If it doesn't go bang when I expect it to, it is little more than a very expensive and very poor club.

Comments on the other choices:
3. Ugly
"Pretty is as pretty does." "Form follows function." Truly ugly ones probably don't work reliably or appropriately.

4. Foreign
While I'd rather see "Made in USA", some other places simply do a better job. Culture is often linked to the tool's nuances; an AR15 is just plain a US-made item, while some other styles are best found from other sources.

5. Expensive to Buy/Own
Get what you pay for. You can get a lot for two digits - but know the limits. I'll pay four digits for something that's "right". Five digits is probably moving out of "tool" category and firmly into "collectable".

6. Heavy/Large/Unwieldy (Light/Handy/Small)
Depends on function. Home defense? AR15 SBR. Assured stop at a mile? Armalite AR50.

7. High Recoil & Blast
So long as it's not retna-detaching, fine. Suppressors are becoming a must-have for me, however: cutting noise & recoil is very desirable wherever possible.

8. Inaccurate
Relative to application. Less than minute-of-angle is mostly diminishing returns. Minute-of-bad-guy is usually enough. Less accurate than that is probably inadequate.
It's really only "inaccurate" if it's less accurate than I am.

9. Other - Specify
Declining value (Value retention) As I age, I find that few things really hold value, and I'm looking for things that do: stuff that's really enduring, that transcends hype, that can easily be sold for at least close to its original value (inflation etc. adjusted). Really good tools can always be sold/traded regardless of age, and can be used hard (though cared for) without having to be treated like a collector's item.

Sato Ord
April 14, 2008, 05:21 PM
There is no "one" thing that stops me from buying a gun. I start with the look and feel of the piece. That's what attracts me to the weapon while it's still in the case. Then I check the caliber and see if it is within the parameters I've set for what I'm looking for in a pistol or rifle. Then I check the reliability and accuracy of it. If all of that is satisfactory I look at several others to see how it measures up to those other brands I may be more familiar with. If everything meshes together and I have the means I buy it.

April 14, 2008, 05:25 PM

A weapon could be the perfect ideal in all other ways, but if it is insufficiently accurate for it's role then it is merely a public hazard.

April 14, 2008, 05:42 PM
Reliability/unreliability. If a gun doesn't work, it's nothing but an expensive club or paperweight (depending on size).

Ala Dan
April 14, 2008, 06:41 PM
#'s 2, 3, 7, and 8~! :scrutiny: ;) :D

with the MOST important being UNRELIABLE~! :( :eek: :banghead:

April 14, 2008, 07:12 PM
A weapon that has proven itself unreliable ceases to be a weapon.#2

April 14, 2008, 08:32 PM
Biggest turn-offs, in this order:

1) unreliable
2) uncomfortable (I've owned guns that were painful to shoot, shot them very infrequently)
3) Inaccurate
4) bad ergonomics
5) perceived recoil (often due to #4 or #2)

April 14, 2008, 08:36 PM
Noise. That's why I own a silencer and I am in the process of getting a 2nd. If I can't suppress it, I don't want to shoot it.

April 14, 2008, 08:39 PM
The biggest turn off for me is how expensive they are to feed.I'm starving myself here to keep my babies happy. :P
Realistically, an unreliable gun is a club, and a fragile club is useless. So I vote #1 unreliable, #2 Fragile.

April 14, 2008, 08:41 PM
Reliability is the key for any gun I own, particularly with pistols. I simply won't own a pistol that is picky about ammo. If it won't feed whatever crap I happen to throw at it, I won't keep it. Revolvers and rifles seem to be less prone to these kinds of issues, but I did "torture test" my "all-around" AR with mixed magazines to make sure it would feed and function with different rounds. My other AR is a target/varmint rifle and so gets a special dispensation from this rule as long as it feeds it's favorite rounds.

My Ruger P90 is pretty much the king of reliability. I have fed it crappy old handloads that no other pistol on the range would feed. Not only did it feed them, but I wasn't afraid of them on account of the guns strength. I should make it clear that I don't routinely feed my guns crappy ammo, but in some potential situations you simply can't be picky about the ammo you shoot. Realistically, all I mean is that I want HP and ball of varying bullet weights to all function equally reliably in my autos, to include mixed mags.

Shotgunally speaking, Once I bought my 870, I pretty much lost all interest in any other shotgun. My 870 is fits me perfectly, cycles wet or dry, shoots great, and is as reliable as the day is long. I have always dreamed of owning a Red Label someday, but for all intents and purposes I am a one shotgun man.

More appropriate would be "which of these is the least important aspect in a gun?".

Phrased that way, I would have to say the gun's country of origin is least important to me. Made in the USA is great, but a good gun is a good gun regardless of where it originated from. I would say that most CZ, Beretta, FN, Taurus, Benelli, Sako, Tikka, Mil-Surp, Howa, and XD owners would agree that country of origin isn't a particularly big problem.

April 14, 2008, 08:43 PM

April 14, 2008, 08:46 PM
Not really the gun itself but the cost to feed them is the aspect I dislike the most. Other than that reliablility and durbility followed by accuracy.

April 14, 2008, 08:51 PM
What do I not like most about my guns?
The fact that they say "FEED ME" all the time.

Sometimes I say back "food cost money", they don't listen.

#2, reliability. I had a $1000 1911.. it wasn't reliable, I got rid of it. I bought a $500 XD.. Never choked on a round once. Sorry 1911 fan boys, this guy will never be one because of that Sig.

Bad Penny 03
April 14, 2008, 09:41 PM
Ok...I'm not exactly sticking to the survey.
But heres my $.02:

#1 Crappy out of the box trigger pulls.
By far my biggest pet peeve.

#2 Crappy substandard finish.
I hate the way bluing rusts when you look at it.
I buy everything parked, matte stainless, etc.

#3 Crappy, poorly fitted furniture.
I hate the way AR 15 and AK handguards will work loose too.

#4 Not being able to get any decent looking AND functional furniture.
I love the FAL family, hate the stocks on most of them.
The pistol grip is raked back at too sharp an angle and the replacement after market stuff isn't that much better. The LOP is crap, and I can't get a cheek weld on it. same with HK G series.

#5 Safety/selectors in weird places.
HK G3... Nuff said.
If my thumb joint was "z" shaped I would be in biz.
Same with Metric FALs, and numerous others.
At least I can work an AK safety with my trigger finger...

#6 1911s that need to have throat/ramp jobs to feed JHPs

#7 Non-beveled mag wells.
Perfect example: HK G3- not only it is not beveled for insertion, but half the time they are so tight the mags don't drop free either.
Thats after you have to hit the mag release with your off hand [or repositioned firing hand ] when you should be reaching for your reload with it. Button or lever, neither are placed conveniently. Cocking lever in the forearm...yeah, great idea. [see #5]

#8 Non-beveled mag wells.
Yeah, see #7....why make everything as hard as possible ?

# 9 Huge [wide] magazine floor plates on pistols.
A pad on the bottom is good, having a hell of a time packing mags in pouches because they wont stack flat against one another is just lame.

#10 mag releases that can't be operated with the firing hand.

#11 Non-reciprocating bolt handles on semi's.
This should be #2. I really hate this.
Why do I need a forward assist again ?
Why not just make the bolt reciprocating so I can force the bolt open or closed as desired ? Clearing a malfunction in a rifle should be as easy as grabbing an auto-pistol's slide and working it.
+2 AK & M1/M1a/M14 for getting it right.

#12 Weapons that are a PITA to field strip.
This transfers to cars as well.
Why do I have to unbolt and remove my alternator to change the last spark plug again ?

Anyway...just a few...

April 14, 2008, 09:47 PM
No safety. I hate wanting a gun and finding out that it doesn't have a safety. For example, I would love to have a p2000 but I won't buy one because it doesn't have a safety. Being new to guns, I wont consider a gun without a safety.

April 14, 2008, 10:27 PM
I think MOST of the above have been taken care of by the major manufacturers on todays weapons. For me it's locks and cocking indicators.

April 14, 2008, 10:47 PM
Form always follows function.

Reliability. Reliability. Reliability.

If it goes click when it should go bang, it is nothing more than a cool looking paperweight. Which would you rather defend your life with? A gun that goes click, or a baseball bat?

I don't care if it looks like Hillary's hairdryer. I don't care if it has the triggerpull of a howitzer. I don't care if it's shaped like a tuba. When my life depends upon its function, A BULLET MUST COME OUT THE END OF IT.


All else is dross.

I can work on the other stuff at liesure. I can polish it, put on fancy grips, do this, or do that, but the bottom line?


XD-40 Shooter
April 14, 2008, 10:53 PM
Nothing is more frustrating than an unreliable pistol, which goes hand in hand with fragility.

April 14, 2008, 11:05 PM
My dislikes....

1. Inaccurate.

I get irked to no end if I have a rifle that is inaccurate. So much so that I will find that I stop shooting it.

2. Reliability.

As others have stated, it has to go boom when I need it to. However, I don't mean "bury it in quickcrete, jackhammer it out, beat the particles out of the bolt on the side of a tree, lube it with baby powder, and then go shoot it" kind of reliability. I mean if I keep it fairly maintained, I expect it to work.

3. Fragility. If it breaks a lot, it becomes a liability.

I can usually work with the rest-- if the rifle itself is worth it.

-- John

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 14, 2008, 11:11 PM
Should have added Non-Ergo/Ergo as a choice. And Bad/Good Trigger. And Lack of/Cost of aftermarket accessories. And perhaps fit/finish.

April 14, 2008, 11:14 PM
2. Unreliable(Reliable)

April 14, 2008, 11:21 PM
For me, it would have to be cr-e-e-e-py triggers and sharp edges/burs that cut the flesh.

April 14, 2008, 11:27 PM
I have four requirements,
Listed by importance:

1. Function/Reliability
2. Durability
3. Accuracy
4. Cost effectiveness (ammo first, then firearm)

Most of the time, functionality and durability go hand in hand.
It's hard to find a fragile rifle that is reliable. And likewise hard to find a durable rifle that functions poorly. (I'm talking main market rifles)

It must satisfy those 4 requirements completely, then I look at cosmetics, weight, collector's value, "tactical-ness" etc.

Not surprisingly, IMO, (centerfire) the Mosin nagant, followed by the mauser k89 are my "best" bolt rifles, and the sks is the best autoloader.

But hey! that's just me.

April 15, 2008, 04:33 AM
No, it's not just you. I am one of the bigger proponents of the MN you will find on THR. I allow that modern rifles probably do a better job at many things, particularly when it comes to accuracy. That being said, I will maintain until the day that I die that there is no more simple, tougher or more reliable rifle than ye olde Mosin Nagant. Move over to my Swedish Mauser, and even the accuracy part of the argument gets called into question, something that's also true of my Springfield 03-A3 and for that matter even my K31, although all three are more complex mechanically. Modern tactical rifles are cool and reliable, but I am a die-hard mil-surper.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Attribute of Guns is your LEAST favorite?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!