Which Attribute of Guns is your LEAST favorite?

I do not like guns that are unreliable...

I choose...

Ugly

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

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.

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.

MDeViney:
It's tough to find a reliable, attractive pistol new in box for less than $200. Ugly pistols have their market.

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?".

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...

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.

This thread is more complicated than it has to be...lol

Unreliable, with is often caused by fragility. That's why I hate KT pistols, especially the P3AT.

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.

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.

Inaccurate.

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.

Reliability/unreliability. If a gun doesn't work, it's nothing but an expensive club or paperweight (depending on size).

For Me, It Would Be

#'s 2, 3, 7, and 8~!

with the MOST important being UNRELIABLE~! :banghead:

A weapon that has proven itself unreliable ceases to be a weapon.#2

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)

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.

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

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?".

Click to expand...

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.

Reliability!!

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.