Why do most people want to dump on inexpensive guns?

I almost dumped on a gun because it fell out of my pants while at the toilet. Maybe I should get a Glock 'cuz according to Sam Gerard those things shoot underwater.

I don't understand though why people will buy 3 or 4 or 5 cheap Jennings, Brycos, Hi-points, etc

Click to expand...

now that one I agree I can see buying one to have something to shoot then save your money for something better .
As far as hi-points go the distributor is 60 miles from here and the factories are 80 miles so there are a lot of them around here out of the 50-70 hi-points I shot/seen/know of, I have seen one that had to be sent back to the factory and they fixed it no questions ask. where as at least 1/3 of the 10-15 taurus auto's I know of have been sent back I sent a pt-22 back 3 times. B.T.W. A taurus 22 revolver is my most used gun
I am the old fart in our little town that will take the time to help the youngin's with gun questions and problem's so I get a lot of them coming by with I got a new gun want to go shoot it with me? living in farm country I is not unusual for a parent to buy a pistol for 17-18 year old. some places shooting is still good clean fun, to see a 18 year old with a smile on his because he is wearing out a pop can with his new pistol then the next see him dejected because being excited he got on the internet to look up shooting and some one says it is a peice of crap Irratates me
Roy

I inherited a Jennings 22. (Is free cheap enough?) Anyway, once I figured out which ammunition it was happy with it, I've managed to run 100's of rounds through it without a jam. 'Course its a itty bitty thing and not very accurate out beyond 5 yards but fun to shoot occasionally. It's very small and I can almost get three fingers on the grip when I shoot it.

It is a low quality gun to be sure. Since it's a 22, not much good for self defense either. Don't think I'd bother buying one, but my price-point for one is right around $0.

Something else, why should only people with disposable income get to have something for self defense? Seems to me, those on the lower end of the economic spectrum should have the ability to defend themselves as well.

My point is, some here think since $300-$500 is nothing for them or an amount they can save up in a month or two it is the same for every one it isn't there are a bunch of people that would haved to save for a year and a half to get close to paying that much. some folks need to walk a mile in the mans shoes before you pass judgement on the items he buys. Today I can work a weekend and pay for a glock(god forbid lol) I get that oportunity about every other week. 22 years ago I rode 10 speed over 20 miles round trip to work for over a month before I rounded up the money to buy a junk car and caught nile perch in a cast net to suplement the groceries , so I know how tough it can be. I also know that if shooting is in you blood ( or anything else you enjoy for that matter)and you are working your a$$ off just to make it by, with nothing to enjoy it gets mighty depressing so cheap gun to shoot once in a while beats the hell out of nothing

Click to expand...

Whoa, buddy. Who ever said our lives were all roses and daisies? I'm not at all financially secure. I don't make what I'd call even moderate wages.

My first pistol was a Browning Hi Power MkIII for $589 OTD. I saved for 3 years to get it.

I won't knock somebody in my financial circumstances for buying a cheaper gun, and driving a nicer car than I do. It's all a matter of priorities. Personally, I'd rather have 1 really nice gun that rides in custom leather, not have cable, and drive my Saturn. If you're happy to have a Hi Point C9 that lives in Uncle Mike's nylon, more power to you.

We all get to make that decision for ourselves, and that's cool. Drive what you want, eat what you want, and shoot what you want. I won't tell you how to do it, and I expect the same thing in return. But being poor doesn't necessarily mean one must choose a cheap gun.

To each his own.
Wes

There will always be gun snobs who trash on other peoples "cheap" guns, simply because they can't afford to spend 800+ on a high end 1911, SIG, or H&K. I consider Jennings and Bryco to be cheap, due to their track record of being low quality guns, but I'd rather be armed with a Jennings than nothing at all. I'll stick to what is proven like Glock, Beretta, Ruger, and Smith & Wesson. For those of you who can afford to spend 800+ on a handgun, congrats, but please don't bash those who buy guns with lower price tags. I've seen too many guys at the range with their high end guns clearing jams, and having to clean their guns after every 100 or so rounds, while I'm blasting away with my 500 dollar Glock and Beretta.

So what are people to do? Blow smoke up peoples back side, and tell them, it's ok to own a crap gun, and if you ask for our opinion we should lie to them and tell them that have a quality gun and man did they get a great deal...

I think there needs to be a national crap gun list, if you buy a gun on that list, don't cry if someone tells you it's crap. Hell I own an old ROHM .22 short. You want to talk about a crap gun, it fits that description if you ask me, but you sure as hell won't see me have a 7 page thread asking why people crap on my ROHM... I already know it is crap and I have accepted it and moved on, like some of you should. :banghead:

I find myself in complete agreement with Redhawk1 and as such feel compelled to "in the spirit of friendly guidence" urge all those who've purchased low end firearms such as Ruger's to smell the rose's and buy something of real quality and value...

When I started to carry all I could afford was a Bryco 380. Now I have a Wilson Combat on order and just set up a work order for a Pistol Dynamics gun. I'll carry both because I like them and I have the opportunity to get them. Right now I carry an SP101 and a Para LDA.
Cheaper guns have and will continue to save a lot of lives but if I can get a more expensive one, why not go with the quality and leave something for the kids and grandkids to carry when it's their turn.
I don't have a problem with moderately priced guns or high end ones, we all belong to the same club.
"The Family of Arms"
If I'm in a mall during a shooting and get some help from one or more of you, I'm not going to check your gun to see if it qualifies to back up my WC or PD.
Buy what you can afford to spend and shoot well with.

John4me05, all that matters is you are happy.

People believe more money = more quality.

I wont spend more than $600 on a pistol, $500 on a shotgun. The guns in that price range meant all my needs and are still quality built. (Beretta 92FS, Glock26, Mossberg 590).

Any gun is better than not having one at all

Check this video out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzXR24J1wgE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhgwHQCJwWw&feature=related

inexpensive i bought a llama minimax 45 acp---stainless steel everything, it will last forever ,fires every time , fairly accurate 360.00 like new and to top it off its real perty

I don't understand that either....Jennings are well made weapons and I would have no problems with it as my go-to gun for ccw.

I picked up this one several years ago and it never FTF, with any ammo.


I just call it an Eddy Brown, but it's Jennings.

Hmmm....

Maybe because my experience with one Rossi, four Kel-Tecs and one Charles Daly have all been negative (or to say it another way, POS)?

Could that be it?

Yeah, that could be it.

Jennings, Bryco, Davis, Raven ... etc. They all take a beating, especially in forums. Easy to snipe away when your behind a keyboard. (oops I think I just sniped )

Now with that said ... your inexpensive (cheap) guns have been around almost as long as guns have been around.

Some are pure "crap" with potmetal parts, and crummy workmanship. Some are OK and generally functional, but they don't hold up to heavy use.

Others are solid as a rock and run up some impressive round counts before any significant maint. is needed.

Within a given brand you have what I refer to as "Good Day and Bad Day" production. With the former you have a useful little shooter, and the latter a paper weight.

Highpoints are a little different breed. They are relatively inexpensive, but they are reasonably made from good materials, and the company really does stand behind their warranty. Other, less expensive, guns, if they work that's great, but watch out for metal fatigue on the critical parts, and if they don't work ... your gonna have a hard time getting them fixed or you'll end up spending more than the gun is worth on fixing it.

What a lot of the "Internet Snipers" and even the Gun Shop/Show "jaw boners" fail to understand or appreciate (or just plain ignore) (sniping again ) is that there are a lot of people out there that do really need to have a gun, but those folks have very limited finances. And this has long been the case. So they buy what they can afford and hope it works when they need it.

Absolutely ... if you can afford a better gun, buy it ... don't go cheap for the sake of cheap. But remember, even the higher $$$ guns can have problems, so if your looking to the used market be careful. If your buying new ... regardless of make/model/cost don't forget the break in period. Put some rounds through it so that you have a better working familiarity with your gun as well as a good run in and function test. I'd also suggest a "break in" if it is a used gun.

My experience... Hi-Point=good, Bryco/Jennings/Jimenez=good, Davis/Cobra .45acp=good, others=bad, Raven=good, HP22/25=bad, most others like Lorcin, Sundance, Talon are bad.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=389180&highlight=t200
http://shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=43768
Here is a nice, inexpensive pistol that I am sure nobody would dump on.

I owned both guns referenced by the OP when I was young and poor. I paid I think the princely sum of $75 for the pair.

The Hi-Point was the better weapon of the two by a wide margin. Heavier than sin, abysmal trigger, flimsy magazine, but always went bang and seemed more accurate than the sights and trigger let it be. Never a jam or problem, I'd buy another if I *had* to buy a $100 handgun and only US-made stuff was available. Please note I would not buy this if I had (a) more funds (b) more choices, but within the 'I have a hundred bucks and need a gun now' parameter it has no equal. It reminded me of the American-made VP70z without a large capacity feeding device and the Euro pricetag or any prestige whatsoever.

The Bryco 59 .380 thing, well....it ran. It ran 100%. How or why I'll never know, maybe it had a good magazine or it didn't sin in a past life. That's about all I have good to say about it, trigger was horrible, safety or accuracy I wouldn't trust with somebody else's life if I had a presidential pardon already presigned in my hand. Yes, it was all metal. Then again, so are $2 Harbor Freight tools, and the Bryco/Jennings machining was on par with them. I would *not* buy one again. I'd buy a RG-22 first. That says something. Getting a positive grip on it while not getting slide bite was difficult at best, and sights were there in name only.

I traded them both even across for a SKS. I made out like a bandit by any standard.

Please understand, I love cheap guns. I love good cheap guns even more, but the fact is they generally don't come hand in hand and the quantities and varieties are extremely limited.

Cheap guns are like cheap stereos, yeah, you'll recognize the song playing. You'll still enjoy it probably. But it lacks refinement, subtlety, depth, and things that make things worth owning and using.

The fundamental difference beyond construction (which would influence longevity if you're going to shoot the thing regularly) and aesthetic things are worth the extra cash in many cases. Consistency in grouping, trigger pull, reliability, availability of accessories and magazines (ever notice how *expensive* accessories are for cheap guns? They make buying things for my MP5 seem...cheap), sights, and other things make up the difference.

A cheap vs midranged priced gun example: I can shoot a Ruger P-series gun minute of B27 all day long at 15m. My groups will suck, my followup time will be bad, and it'll run until I'm sick of loading magazines. I can do the same thing with my Sigs until it's not fun to shoot any more, or I'm out of my range ammo for the day, except I can do the same at 50m with better control, speed, and consistency. The Ruger's blockiness, average at best trigger, and topheaviness contribute to inaccuracy and consistency issues the further out I shoot. It doesn't make a Ruger 'less' of a gun if your needs include drilling bad things to 15m and you don't shoot regularly, or you're not at a point where you can outshoot that particular gun.

Same thing applies in the mother of all cheap gun vs expensive gun wars: 1911s by various manufacturers and importers. I can shoot a mil-spec 1911 with the ugly short issue sights. I can shoot it moderately well. I could defend myself adequately with one. I can feel the grit in the trigger, can't put rounds in nice ragged holes because of the low sights, especially in poor lighting conditions, and the grips, controls, and whatnot don't fit my hand as well. It's why I sold my Springfield 1911, it was a good gun in that it ran with any ammo and had an average trigger, but it just wasn't exceptional, and compared to the early Sig non-railed GSR 1911 with obscenely good parts (before Sig started cheaping out on them), Novak sights, and a trigger that rivals anything I've shot including the 2k+ customs, it was like firing a BB gun. I'm sure some folks are happy with the cheapies for their needs, again, their needs probably aren't mine, just like people who hate the Sig 1911 for one reason or another buy the 2k+ customs while I spend that on NFA toys.

At the core, you can always apply one of the basic rubrics to cheap/expensive guns. Anyone with a cheap gun will almost always be willing to trade straight across for something high-end, even if it couldn't be sold for the profit. High-end buyers, even if shielded from loss artificially in this scenario, wouldn't - or necessarily even trade what they have for something further up the food chain.

And in the end, if you're happy with your boombox CD player, pre-assembled PC, and Jennings, it's your choice.

Just please, for the love of god, don't make it mine

Well, used cars are not crap guns....

If my used car breaks down, or won't start I do not go somewhere. If the crap gun I buy to defend myself does not fire when I need it I could die. I guess you could find a way to say the same thing about the car, but that would really be reaching. (I just bought a 1993 Honda to commute in and save gas money, it was cheap but not a crap car)

HOW MUCH you pay for anything is not always the best indicator of what it is worth or how long it will last. The Honda was a quality product when it was new, and it is still a quality product. We will also see a number of high dollar cars of 1993 sitting in junk yards, because they were crap cars.

That's why you see so many gun snobs.

Click to expand...

I see just as many gun snobs on crap guns as expensive guns. People threw that out to try to attempt to disparage another party. If it makes people feel better about themselves to use those tactics then enjoy yourselves.

Because it's easy and requires no thought?
Because it's human nature to make fun of anything one may not like?
Because some people have "Jennings envy" (and who wouldn't)?
Because "mine is always better than yours", doncha know?
Because people need to inflate the worth of what they personally prefer?
Because we have no fancy tail feathers to fan out with which to impress one another?
All of the above?

Hey.....enjoy what you enjoy. Shoot what you like to shoot.
I have a HighPoint around also, never failed to feed or fire. Wish I could say the same for some of the more expensive guns I own.

At the end of the day, it's pretty hard to deny that a $1300 Kimber or whatever is a better pistol than a jennings, raven, lorcin, or whatever dropgun is all the rage now. The bottom line is that there are a number of reasons that those guns cost more, though there is admittedly part of it due to brand image, but marketing types like me see that as positive (plus it's better for your resale value should you part with it).


And the only people whose taste in firearms i rip on are my friends. the second he says he wants to get a tapco stock or whatever for an SKS, he's going to hear it.

You Tend to Get What You Pay for

A Columbus man was killed this evening when, witnesses told police, he tried to rob a couple in a North Side parking lot.

Thomas E. Goldsmith Jr., 27, was pronounced dead at the scene around 5 p.m. Franklin County records had addresses for him on Roche Drive and Linden Avenue on the North Side.

Witnesses told police that Goldsmith approached a couple in their car at Kenmore Square Apartments holding a gun and demanded money from the man at the steering wheel, witnesses said. Goldsmith's gun misfired and the man in the car, identified as Deandre R. Henry, began shooting his own gun.

Click to expand...

The complete article

While there are any number of possibilities, statistically, I feel safe betting my money that Goldsmith was using a cheap handgun. If so, it was fortuitous that it was the bad guy who was ill equipped.

Just Stop it:

If I lay a H&K 9 down on the table next to a Jennings 9 and tell you you can have whichever one you can snatch before I do for free, what are you going to go for? Anyone who says Jennings is just lying to win the argument. Better is better, period. No amount of "just as good" whining is going to change that, no amount of character assasination about people who measure their self esteem by the quality of their belongings is going to change it either.
Better a cheap gun than a cheap attitude tho. I Love my P-85 (When I bought it, it was cheap, anyway...)
Cheers, TF