Reasons we find to not buy some firearms, not to include brand

Old Dog

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
10,867
Location
on Puget Sound
Another thread got me thinking of the several silly reasons I find to not invest in certain firearms. In another thread, the OP noted that he didn't like a certain model of a striker-fired pistol because he found one feature (that doesn't affect reliability, accuracy or durability) off-putting.

Not intended to single out certain brands (inevitably some threads turn into brand-bashing, either because of the snob effect - "I only buy quality high end firearms" -- or the manufacturers, who, for whatever perceived reasons, draw out the nay-sayers and haters, don't need to mention any names).

Anybody else found that they don't want to buy or own a firearm for reasons that have nothing to do with the company's or the model's reputation for reliability, accuracy or durability?

Maybe an otherwise innocuous cosmetic feature (I.e., tiny little circle or seam indicative of MIM, or the little QR code on the frame, or a tacky logo) or possibly a design feature that you just prefer not to have on your guns (i.e., only comes with frame-mounted manual safety or doesn't have controlled round feeding in the case of a bolt action rifle or you don't like the position of a manual safety or the motion to take it off/on safe).

Herewith some of my pet peeves, factors that have stopped me from buying otherwise worthy firearms (and prodded me to sell or trade off some as well). And yes, all are totally subjective and most of them are purely cosmetic in nature.

- Warning labels on the firearm. I simply decided not to buy anymore firearms that have the lawyer warnings anywhere, i.e., "Read Manual Before Use. Available from Sturm-Ruger, etc...," "Warning: Capable of Firing with no magazine" or "Read Instruction Manual Before Shooting." There's more'n a few makers known for this.
- Laser lettering or painting on a handgun's slide, receiver or frame is something else I decided I hated. Give me good ol' fashioned rollmarks. Taurus is a good example. Used to have nice, discreet rollmarks and a decent looking logo, but went to a very cheap-looking lettering and a silly new bull's head representation.
- Billboards. Give me the discreet small lettering on a Dan Wesson 1911 over the huge billboard of any pistol with half or three-quarter in lettering whose markings take up the whole slide (sorry, I hated the large rollmarked Series 70 Colt 1911s, among others). Additional points against if all the verbiage includes lawyer warnings.
-The trigger dingus. Okay, so I do own some Glock pistols. But for some reason, the blade sticking out from the trigger face annoys the crap out of me, mostly because I don't see it as a safety feature and I also like a smooth trigger face. I also don't like hinged triggers.
-The Lock. On principle also (in the same category with lawyer warning labels), but the pimple on the sideplate is something I just loathe beyond the cosmetic blemish.
- Rails and front-cocking serrations on 1911s. Spawn of the devil.
- Action-bar release tabs on the front of a shotgun's trigger guard. Yeah, looking at one maker (and its copiers) in particular, but there's a better, more ergonomic location.
-Matte stainless. Just my own thing, but I like my stainless handguns shiny and blingie. And easier to polish out the random scratches.
 
Can't stand the S&W lock, I own several Smiths but none with that hole needlessly in the side of them.

Safety on a lever gun which wasn't designed that way. I tend to buy Henry stuff now due to that.

Billboard warnings are unpleasant but don't run me off typically.

Silly paint jobs, like flames on the muzzle are a no-go.
 
-Matte stainless. Just my own thing, but I like my stainless handguns shiny and blingie. And easier to polish out the random scratches.
There you go - I like matte stainless, and if I had two identical stainless firearms sitting in front of me with the only difference was one was shiny stainless and the other was matte stainless, I'd choose the matte one. :)
Then again, I might be kind of an oddball about such things; when it comes to rifles, particularly hunting rifles I like matte stainless with synthetic stocks. And as sacrilegious as it may have been, I replaced the broken wooden stock with a synthetic stock on a Belgium made Browning A-5 that was gifted me. ;)
 
This thread made me think of a YouTube comment I came across a few weeks back. I just spend 30 minutes trying to find it again lol.

I think we have become sort of spoiled premadonnas when it comes to firearms.

pljw6ZR.jpg

This is how people from other countries view us when we are nitpicking and fussing over every little thing with regards to firearms.
 
I find the unreachably short thumb safety on most poly-semis to be a tactical hazard, not a feature. A thumb safety must be operable from a full firing grip, or it's disqualified from carry.
 
I've got bad case of new gun want-itis BUT there doesn't seem to be anything out there that I don't already have covered and anything I might get would be more of the same and therefore just a waste of money for me----there are a couple more places I need to look to see if anything catches my interest but I kind of doubt it.
 
While I like Kimber 1911's, I sold the ones I had and went with Springfield's. To have a really nice 1911 with a non ambi safety is ridiculous, especially when your a lefty. Plus it makes them look lopsided..

well.. when your left thumb isn’t long enough to use a ambi safety…. It just becomes a needless hanger-on.

I would agree on the front slide serrations, I would add to that diagonally-cut serrations. And billboard advertising on slides.

I don’t do decockers or slide mounted safeties, nor do I particularly care for DA autos.

Bright stainless has its place… as does matte stainless.

No locks!
 
I will not buy a certain brand of revolver just because of a certain level of smarminess that seems to follow that brand and it’s loyal customers.

Even though I have owned several and still have one in the safe I just can’t get excited about AR-15s. Perhaps it’s the round or rounds they fire. Perhaps it’s how they somehow became almost mythological in reputation in the past 20 years. I just don’t get it.
Maybe I need to assemble another one then maybe I can join the cult….:evil:

I have no intention of buying guns that are blatant copies of a certain striker fired black pistol that everyone loves to hate while vaunting their pistols that are copies of the original.

I think that about covers it for me. Dang it’s hard not naming names. :D
 
Well OP, other than not buying a certain series due to my perception of slide lift…..

I won’t buy or retain guns that I don’t find utility or value in. Both are obviously user-defined terms.

For example, I don’t have any “range only guns” or BBQ guns because I prefer my range time to be practical. I won’t buy a $6K 1911or a $3K revolver. I won’t buy a collector type gun.

I did buy a “70’s Win 94 in 30-30 recently. Got it for $550 so I felt it was a deal and a great gun to teach folks about lever action rifles (when ready to step up from my Henry .22’s).

Another recent situation, I bought a Staccato P Duo to try out the platform and see how I adapted to it. Very nice gun…I shot it fine, and I kinda wanted it to become an HD use gun (too big to carry for me) but I couldn’t get used to that grip and operating the safety. I probably could have worked on it a lot and overcome the issues but I’m not gonna do that at this point in life so I sold it to a good friend.

I’m a frugal person. I will pay up for a quality gun but I’m not buying a $3000+ gun just to sit in my safe.

I have some guns that do sit in my safe more than the others but they are “teaching guns” (.22’s, revolvers, and non-SF guns come to mind). I keep them to stay current and introduce friends to them during range visits.
 
Last edited:
I personally won't buy any gun that's been painted, powder coated or otherwise decorated with the Flag or with ridiculous art work. I am also not an AR15 fan, even though I have a couple. They sit in the safe. They seem to shoot well, but I don't get along with the ergo's all that well. Too old school, I guess.
 
At first I read the title and thought “no I’m not that picky,” then I read your examples and thought “wow I have so many of these!”

-I don’t like 1911s with angled cocking serrations. This sadly excludes most.

-I don’t like billboard import marks on the receiver on surplus rifles.

-I don’t like cheap pressed checkering.

-I don’t like checkering that’s too angular in shape or has weird details.

-I don’t like stainless long guns.

-I don’t like safeties added to older designs (eg. Win94, Marlin 336/94, Rossi 92, etc.)

-I don’t like pistols with ugly backstrap contours. (Browning hi power or 1911 have elegant lines, cz75 has a straight section in the middle of its curve, for example.)

There’s probably more but that will do for now.
 
Good list op.

I'll add - plastic triggers. Just no.

Also can't stand plastic or cheap / unusable sights. I do make an exception for traditional revolver fixed sights even though they can be borderline unusable.

You mentioned 'the lock' but also really any integral lock. Several manufacturers do it and they all stink.
 
Zamak.

If you ever had your favorite toy train disintigrate in your hands, you'll understand.
While all Zamak is equal some Zamak is more equal than others. I have quite a few Gillette dual edge blade razors that have a Zamak head to position and control those really sharp edges that were made during the Korean War and are still being used today. In fact several were bought and used by my dad and I still use them myself.

The fault is not Zamak but rather Zamak built to be cheap and disposable.
 
Back
Top