1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The inexpensive firearm for defence line of reasoning....

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by saturno_v, Oct 9, 2012.

  1. saturno_v

    saturno_v Well-Known Member

    I actually subscribe to that, let's say "school of thought".

    Before you say it....yes any firearm that I trust my life to it has to be dead reliable and accurate and you have to be comfortable in shooting it that is a given, I know.

    Many people carry very expensive pieces or such pieces are placed for "defence duty" inside the house (nightstands, drawers, etc...)

    Often the usual question on forums pops out: "Can the whizbang semi-auto military style rifle (take your pick) modified this way be used for home defense??" Other than just the consideration about the danger of losing a potentially precious and hard to replace semi-auto military style (thinking about the current candidates in the upcoming election) who really need a military rifle to handle most defense situation?? A good shotgun or a handy lever action rifle is all us ordinary people really need....

    As you probably already figured out, the "inexpensive firearm for defence" argument is that in the unfortunate event of actually discharing your gun, there is a very good probability that you may lose your weapon or at minimum it could go though some rough handling before being returned to you.....I know in case of legal expenses, that is the least of your problems but why adding up to the ordeal the loss of that Les Baer you spent almost a month of salary to buy?? (yes I know a range master that uses a Les Baer as a concealed carry weapon)

    In my case, the 3 pieces that are up for defence duty (carry or home) are among the least expensive firearms of my collection.....a Mossberg 500 shotgun, a Kel Tec P-11 and a Bersa Thunder 40 full size

    Again, they are hyper reliable and accurate anI love them but I can afford to lose them without a second thought if the manure hit the proverbial fan....

    What is your take on this??
  2. The Lone Haranguer

    The Lone Haranguer Well-Known Member

    The price of a firearm is largely irrelevant, as long as it is reliable.
  3. ZGunner

    ZGunner Well-Known Member

    I think I can see where you're coming from on this.

    But honestly if someone breaks into my home and I need to use deadly force to protect myself and everything in my house, I don't think I'll worry or care too much about what happens to my firearm afterwards. If the police confiscate it, so be it. At least I'll be around to complain about how long it take to get back.

    But no it doesn't take a $2000 custom pistol to defend a house. It could be a $80 shotgun or even a $20 Maglite. Either way my main concern would be my own safety and the safety of innocent bystanders.
  4. saturno_v

    saturno_v Well-Known Member

    Obviously safety and having the right tool for the job is the most paramount concern...however, you have to decide which are the guns to keep at ready (meaning out of the safe and in the right places or on you) for the task.....make that choice
  5. 12131

    12131 Well-Known Member

    Yup, as far as I'm concerned, also.
  6. Surf

    Surf Well-Known Member

    This is your answer PERIOD, cost be damned. And it is not your business in how much someone spends on defending themselves. You are placing a certain amount of importance on cost of the weapon. Cost be damned. So what if someone happens to be more comfortable with a weapon that costs more money than another weapon. Cost is not the factor, comfort and proficiency level is what matters. The rest of your questions are answered already. What kind of a price do you place on your life? So what if the weapon costs a bit more. If it served its purpose in the hand of the user, be damned the cost. It isn't gone forever, if you used it justly. If it wasn't justified cost of the weapon is the least of your worries. I will continue to humor you.

    I didn't know that this was a usual question that "pops out". Maybe it does to the less informed, but if I am going to use a weapon for home defense, why should I not give myself the greatest advantage possible? Are you saying that my life or the lives of my family are not worth enough to gain the advantage of what modern technology available to the civilian market has to offer, even if it is similar to what is being issued to the military? What is this semi auto, military style, BS comment? Us ordinary people? Really?

    This is about the most ignorant statement that people wish to bring up. Who the eff cares, if I used my Les Baer to save my life. I am alive and that is what matters.

    Good for you. The problem with people presenting your argument is, who are you to tell anyone what they should chose to defend themselves and what it costs? What is your creds to suggest or question what others chose to do? Shouldn't you be more happy that people are at the least taking up the responsibility of their own personal protection and not how much they are deciding to spend on it? I know people that waste a lot more money every single day on things that are of far less importance than tools that may actually save your life.
  7. rduchateau2954

    rduchateau2954 Well-Known Member

    I have a used Mossberg 500. Not worth much and no sentimental value.

    For one, it lives in random places in the house with no protection. It's gonna get nicks and scratches, collect dust, etc.

    The other thought is that if god forbid I ever have to use it for what it's intended it will be taken by the police and be a long time, if ever before I get it back. While it is in their care who knows how it will be treated.

    As far as accuracy goes, I am not sure how that is important for home defense. I can tell you that in the heat of the moment I won't be accurate. That's why I have a shotgun with an OC choke and 00 buck. The furthest shot in my house is under 10 yards. I am pretty sure I am not going to be looking for the sights.

    I know it will go bang when I pull the trigger. I plan on getting a mounted light for it. Put the bad guy in the light, pull the trigger, rack and repeat.
  8. 45_auto

    45_auto Well-Known Member

    Who really need a fire extinguisher in their kitchen to handle most cooking situation?

    Who really need seatbelts or airbags in their car to handle most driving situation?

    I guess that call is up to you ..........
  9. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    That's a slippery slope and can be taken as an elitist view. Look at your use of "ordinary people". What's not ordinary about about the fact that not everyone is capable or able to operate a lever action rifle. What about those that aren't able or capable of doing it effectively? Semi auto pistol? Plenty of folks are challenged by the slide. Then there are the caliber choices.

    A light semiauto carbine is easer to operate than your examples and when loaded with light 5.56 ammunition has been proven over and over again to have less risk of injury to people in other rooms. Lever action rifles with pistol ammunition have more wall thickness penetration as do the handguns you use.

    I'll concede that you don't have to hang tons of accessories off of any reliable firearm to make it effective for a homeowner, but the out of hand rejection of 5.56 carbines flies in the face of test after test and thread after thread.
  10. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Well-Known Member

    I think you answered your own question here. Bottom line, it's your money, do whatever you feel like is best.

    I wouldn't expect to hear from a member on this site. That's dangerous talk for our cause.
  11. Husker_Fan

    Husker_Fan Well-Known Member

    I've always been fond of my cosmetically challenged K-Frame S&W .38s. They were "cheap," both $250 a four years ago. Both are incredibly reliable, accurate, and easy to use.

    I have a more expensive HD Shotgun, but it does tripple duty on turkey and waterfowl with a barrel swap.
  12. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    If the cost of the gun is what I give up in exchange for my life, I'll call it the best bargain I ever heard of. A few hundred, a few thousand really fades into the background when you factor everything into the actual cost of a defensive shooting.

    AND, I'll bet you a buck, if you ever DO use a gun in a defensive shooting, you can call that gun maker, and they will at least work with you on the cost of replacement. Their product saved a life. Good PR.
  13. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    "Cost be damned" when it comes to safety sounds good, but for the vast majority of people, cost will always be a factor. If it weren't, everyone would be driving around in late model bank-vault Mercedes Benz cars with a couple dozen airbags and multiple camera blind spot monitoring (if they went out at all) and would be living in a fortress with high walls, Dobermans, fancy electronic security rigs, a machine gun nest or two, and a couple of drones in the air keeping watch over it all, 24-7.

    Have you ever met a guy who's got a "cost be damned" array of home defense set-ups, tricked out firearms included, who says it's all to "keep my family safe" but who loads his children up unbelted in the cab of his pick-up, or in the back, and drives them all to the wherever they're going? I know people like that. Are they really focused on family safety?

    The point is, home defense is far more about mindset than about technology, and includes firearm technology. Use the firearms that you feel are best, but don't neglect layered defense, and--most importantly--pay attention to your way of looking at "defending your home." Most people who would break in have no wish to hurt anyone--they're just petty thieves and will probably flee when confronted. At any rate, it'll be way more expensive to defend your decision to shoot a person over some stuff than to file an insurance claim for new stuff.

    Regarding the use of high-dollar guns in SD/HD roles: If you decide to shoot another person, regardless of circumstances, the price of the selected firearm is the least of your worries. So spend your money how you see fit. Own whatever firearms you want to own and can legally own, and keep on pushing for RKBA to be protected so the rest of us can own the firearms we want to own. Don't ever fall into the "who really needs an AR?" trap. Whoever wants one has the right to own one, or a hundred, and that's all the reason he requires.

    If absolute reliability is a criteria for a defensive firearm--well, good luck with that. Always remember: Firearms are mechanical devices designed and built by people; no matter how expensive or highly rated, and no matter how many failure-free rounds they have fired to date, they are always liable to fail. That includes every gun in your safe. Period. End of argument.
  14. JohnBT

    JohnBT Well-Known Member

    "What is your take on this??"

    I carry insurance deductibles between $1k and $5k, so I tend to think that losing a gun after a shooting would be just like paying an insurance deductible. It's a possible future expense to be budgeted and just part of the cost of living.

    I asked my homeowner's policy rep if I could raise the deductible from $5k to $10k, but she said it would take the vote of some board or other to have my request approved. High deductible = much lower premium. (Then she said, "Can you afford that much?")

    Speaking of Les Baers. I had to look; a Les Baer Premier II lists for $1905. If that's "almost a month's salary" then that person certainly should watch their expenditures.

    In conclusion, I guess it all depends on what you can afford and want to afford.
  15. waterhouse

    waterhouse Well-Known Member

    I use what I shoot best and am most comfortable with. I would not describe any of my defensive firearms as cheap. I am not concerned about their cost if I have to use one and it gets taken.

    If it took a month's salary to pay for, and I use it to defend my family, I will gladly save up for another one.

    This is not to say I believe an expensive gun is necessary. I used to carry a les Baer as well, but found a less expensive gun I shot better, so that us what I use.
  16. Rob0321

    Rob0321 Well-Known Member

    If only there was an insurance plan that covered this type of event...

    Going "cheap" on a defensive weapon because you might lose it is like getting a car without airbags because it is expensive to get them fixed after they deploy.
  17. MedWheeler

    MedWheeler Well-Known Member

    Beatledog7 writes:

    I have used these exact same analogies and point previously. I have never yet seen the algorythm that is so often used in the "what's your life worth?" argument by people who say that, regardless of all other factors, a gun has to exceed a certain price point to be suitable for defense of life and limb. Many a bad guy has been driven off, captured, or put in the ground by "Granny's little .22" or other "lesser" guns.
  18. nulook45

    nulook45 Well-Known Member

    The wifes gun is a .38 special smith and wesson we got for less the 1/4 of what a new one cost , my pocket gun is a .22 rg model23 i got at a yard sale for 20 dollars one high quality one not so high quality , but when shtf both will do the job asked of them . as for using an AR inside the house wouldnt hesatate one second . because if that has to come out it really has hit the fan and its all out war. so while id use a 5.56 inside its mostly regulted to both inside and outside threats. the ..38 and .22s take care of the rest .
  19. hardheart

    hardheart Well-Known Member

    I would say firstly that it is the business of anyone with internet access as to what you own and what you paid if you are going to inform the entire planet by posting about it. Righteous indignation has little weight when the only way for someone to know what you do is by you blasting it out to the web on public websites.

    People who pay little justify frugality by pointing to intelligence in spending only what it necessary and having the transferable skills to make up for the limitations created by equipment choice. People who pay a lot justify the expense by pointing to intelligence in buying the best available and pointing out the superiority of the tools and the warranties/reliability. This is nothing specific to firearms, but very common in discussions of what we accumulate - firearms, automobiles, cell phones, pens, watches, anything.

    The value of your life in no way equates directly to the value of your firearms. As mentioned by beatledog, the firearm choice is one of many, and a very small part of our efforts to stay alive day to day. Your life must not be worth much if you have an old or poorly maintained vehicle, or if you live in an area with frequent natural disasters and harsh inclement weather. You must not value your life in you live in an urban area with lots of crime, or if you are in a rural location with limited access to emergency services. Whatever your choice, it obviously is not as good as mine, because I spent more and got better, or spent less and am more skillful than you. This is sometimes how the arguments go, in more or less respectful tones.

    But mentioned in some replies is not about the need for defense, or the most appropriate type of implement, but that by even questioning the utility or appropriateness, access to it can be questioned and thereby threatened. Of course, perceptions, tastes and preferences are what control costs to begin with. Some guns cost more than others because people are willing to pay more. We know what elections do to supplies and prices, along with inflation and currency exchange. The firearms might actually be cheaper if they weren't threatened or perceived to be threatened (ammo costs are going up next year, lead will be banned, buy our inventory now!) to begin with, or available to more people under less oppressive laws.

    But then we'd have less to argue about.
  20. saturno_v

    saturno_v Well-Known Member

    I think some of you guys took my post in the wrong way....

    First of all I love military style rifles and I do own many of them so I'm not advocating not owning them. As a matter of fact, I'm scared that given the current crop of candidates, the days of buying a military style semi-automatic weapon may draw to a close.....

    Maybe there are situation where for someone are very appropriate, depending on the environment.

    Where I live, my CCW instructor told me, "if you take a shot longer than 5 yards, in general, you are going to have a lot of explaining to do"

    When I did advocate use of relatively inexpensive firearms, that included a Glock or a used Beretta and similar....I'm not advocating a Hi-Point to be sure....and it is not only a matter of cost....I meant also easy to replace...

    Finally, reliability and accuracy is the most important aspect, I cannot stress this point enough...
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012

Share This Page