Gun heresies I need to unload ...

No. 6 is my favorite. I have encountered those guys for years. Whatever Dude.

Brief responses with some wild opinions of my own thrown in.

1. If we are talking new then S&W is even more overpriced because their products are inferior to Ruger.

2. Ruger MK series are inferior and more expensive than Buckmarks.

3. There isn’t really much difference between shotguns that all sell for about the same price used.

4. Generally agree if we are only talking .22 revolvers.

5. No experience with either of those wastes of time.

6. Weight vs power vs capacity has been played out as nauseum.

7. See No. 6.

8. Manufacturers would be better served loading standard ammo to the so called +P pressures like they did years ago and then start loading real +P for people to waste their money on.

9. See No. 6. Mostly the ad nauseum part.

This is a fun post. I don’t think you are fundamentally flawed in any of your opinions. You have just made a few hard choices that many folks don’t want to make because that would prevent them from getting another gun.

Drail said:

No. 6 is my favorite. I have encountered those guys for years. Whatever Dude.

Click to expand...

He does not understand that wonderful utopian world where we must love everyone also includes the armed forces. Some new recruits would not be able to handle .45ACP or .308. The same holds for .40 S&W and law enforcement. It too powerful.

I sold my Marlin Camp 45. It was a solid shooter but with open bolt, it shot so FILTHY I could not bear to clean it. No fun = sold.

WVGunman said:

heresy (noun): any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

*Gulp* Okay, here goes ...

1. Many Ruger products are overpriced whatever their quality. $450 for the blowback-with-a-plastic-stock 9mm PC carbine? It's a 10/22 with a bigger bolt, and the 10/22 sells for less than $300.
2. My Ruger Mark III with a bull barrel was only slightly more accurate than my Ruger SR-22. I say "was" because once I realized this I sold the Mark III.
3. When I'm holding/shooting them I can't tell the difference between a $200 Maverick 88 and a $400 Remington 870. And a cheap old Winchester 1300 has a faster, smoother action than either of those.
4. Those old .22 revolvers that Harrington & Richardson made before they went belly-up in the 1980s (The model 922, the Sidekick/929, etc.) are better values now than any new revolvers you can get for less than $350.
5. A used Marlin Camp Carbine is not a superior gun to a brand new Hi-Point carbine in the same caliber.
6. Given that a .45 ACP cartridge weighs literally twice what a typical 9mm round weighs and is much bigger, cutting your ammo capacity in order to carry a .45 makes no sense. The same logic applies here that led the U.S. military to get rid of 7.62 caliber for 5.56: Two smaller/lighter bullets are ultimately more effective than a single big one.
7. A six-shot .32 Magnum snubbie revolver is a better choice than a 5-shot .38 Special.
8. For what +P ammunition costs, most people would be better served spending the extra on regular ammo and practicing their defensive shooting. No one actually NEEDS +P ammo.
9. People debate "one shot stops" all the time but gloss over the obvious: If your first shot doesn't stop a gremlin shoot him again.

Whew! Well, I asked for it, so I guess let the flaming commence.

Click to expand...

1. I have 2 rugers. Both single six. One 22, one 357/9mm. The 357 is exceptional with all ammo. Both fairly older thus I think better quality.
Also have a strum ruger. Like it way better than the mark models.
3. Have numerous shotguns. For hunting I'll take my Ithica featherlight any day. For clay you can't beat my 110 year old Rem M11.
5. Camp carbine. Just a made up sell term. Never needed anything in camp. If I'm going to carry a carbine it will be the Marlin 44mag.
8. Never buy a 38. Get 357 and expand ammo capabilities.
9. Shoot till the threat is eliminated.

WVGunman said:

Two smaller/lighter bullets are ultimately more effective than a single big one.

Click to expand...

There are many instances where that is demonstrably untrue, especially in hunting. But also for defensive purposes; if we extrapolate from 15 9mm>8 .45, then 30 .22 mag>15 9mm, and we should all be running PMR-30s for defensive use, right?

Of course, the capacity paradigm has also changed quite a bit these days. I CCW a tiny single stack 9mm, but for home defense, I chose a 15 round .45 over the various 17-19 round 9mms of the same size.

Batty67 said:

I sold my Marlin Camp 45. It was a solid shooter but with open bolt, it shot so FILTHY I could not bear to clean it. No fun = sold.

Click to expand...

The Camp carbines fire from a closed bolt. It's a lightweight bolt and cycles fast, but closed nonetheless.

1. I think the Ruger revolvers are fairly priced, but as for almost everything else on their catalog? yeah I agree.

My own unpopular opinions:
1. The Kel-tec sub-2000s? Crap guns. They feel like GI Joe toys made full size, and they're difficult to aim with plus they're only popular because they fold in half at an affordable price.
2. Mil-surps in their original combat configuration are perfectly acceptable hunting guns. They were made both for a military setting, and for living off the land scenario. That bayonet lug? Useful if you need a little spear and you're out of ammo. No reason to sportize them unless they're in bad condition and you want to make a little work of art (some Sportized guns I have seen actually looked really good)
3. The 1911 is the pinnacle of modern firearms, because it is still the design that every modern design can trace their roots back to, and most guns are still compared to the 1911. Am I saying it's the best gun in the modern world? No, I admit it does have a few negative points. But as a gun that still holds up to the modern setting? Of course it does.
4. Smith & Wessons "classic" series is a insult to the craftsmanship of their older revolvers which this series was based. The classic series is still made with their modern tendacies of craftsmanship (which is below their older level) , so they're no classics. However I admit, I'd rather them be made the way they are rather than being an exact copy. This way we don't confuse the older collectible Smiths with the newer ones.

#1 agree with one stipulation. Ruger does make one value product, the LCP, they ain’t for everyone but those of us who do use them are grateful for them.

My heresy;

Revolvers aren’t inherent “works of art” because mass produced is just a common firearm, especially from the 60’s on up.

WVGunman said:

Heh. I just bought one.

Click to expand...

I though it would make a great jeep gun. I haven't bought one yet but might down the road.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if they are wrong.

Regarding heresy, and with no stones slung at any of the participants here, I constantly need to be reminded that while one is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own truth.

However, without opinions, regardless of truth content, discussion boards would be dull places indeed.

Sistema1927 said:

one is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own truth.

Click to expand...

^^^^THIS!^^^^

WVGunman said:

Given that a .45 ACP cartridge weighs literally twice what a typical 9mm round weighs and is much bigger, cutting your ammo capacity in order to carry a .45 makes no sense. The same logic applies here that led the U.S. military to get rid of 7.62 caliber for 5.56: Two smaller/lighter bullets are ultimately more effective than a single big one.

Click to expand...

The military is REQUIRED to use non-expanding bullets, mostly FMJ.

I DON'T use FMJ, and NEVER will.

1.22 are not any good!
2. Rugers stink!
3. Slugs are talk powerful for home defense.
4. My Guns are better than yours.

I wish people would stop repeating this over and over - the U.S. military is NOT "required to use non expanding bullets" because we did not sign that treaty - we simply agreed to abide by it. The U.S. may use any type of ammunition it wants (and does). The reason our military uses FMJ ball rounds is for feed reliability. Feed reliability is much more important than a bullet's terminal performance. I rarely carry a semi auto but when I do I carry ball ammo in my .45 because it works very well and feeds 100% in any gun I own.

1. Nothing that sells well in the free market is overpriced.
2. Slightly more accurate is a goal I endlessly pursue.
3. Very few more expensive guns would sell if cheaper guns were as good or better.

Drail said:

I wish people would stop repeating this over and over - the U.S. military is NOT "required to use non expanding bullets" because we did not sign that treaty - we simply agreed to abide by it. The U.S. may use any type of ammunition it wants (and does). The reason our military uses FMJ ball rounds is for feed reliability. Feed reliability is much more important than a bullet's terminal performance. I rarely carry a semi auto but when I do I carry ball ammo in my .45 because it works very well and feeds 100% in any gun I own.

Click to expand...

The U.S. voluntarily abides by the Hague Accords and always has. Use of BTHP rifle bullets required a JAG determination that they weren't designed to deform and hence DIDN'T violate the Hague Accords.

Mine is the 3006 has too much recoil for the performance. 308 nips at it's heels with less recoil. If you need more than 308, a 300wm is great.
My other one is I would rather use a H&R single shot than an 870. The 870 doesn't fit me, so 3 field loads bruise my shoulder.

Deanimator said:

The U.S. voluntarily abides by the Hague Accords and always has. Use of BTHP rifle bullets required a JAG determination that they weren't designed to deform and hence DIDN'T violate the Hague Accords.

Click to expand...

Not any more. The military will, since the adoption of the M-17/M-18, be using JHP ammunition, at least for its pistols.
https://loadoutroom.com/16493/u-s-army-adopts-hollow-point-ammo/

WVGunman said:

Those old .22 revolvers that Harrington & Richardson made before they went belly-up in the 1980s (The model 922, the Sidekick/929, etc.) are better values now than any new revolvers you can get for less than $350.

Click to expand...

I loved those old H&R revolvers, the top-break notwithstanding. I'll inherit one in mint condition at some point in the future...