What's your "never buy" gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read a lot of comments about not liking the glock because it has no safety. I love them for that reason. It forces you to treat the gun like it should be treated. If you hate a gun because it has no safety then you probably shouldn't be around guns. The most important safety for any weapon is the one inside your skull.

Let the flames begin!
 
Overpriced, badly engineered guns fit the category, so Any AR/15.

This had me spitting my beverage out. :D

the only kind of gun I can never see myself purchasing, is a safe queen. My guns are all acquired to be used, be it for fun, training, or defense of life, limb and freedom.
 
... so they can feel good about themselves

Such threads are a form of release. The initial post inquired about what guns you wouldn't buy regardless of reason. It is quite easy to recognize such threads and either participate in them or stay away from them if they offend your sense of superiority.

There are many reasons for not wanting to buy a particular gun-not all are related to the functionality of the item. They might range from dislike of cheap, non traditional construction regardless of how functional the end product might be to rejection of the ethics, business practices and general demeanor of the person or persons who manufactures and/or markets the product.
GUNS2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I own Glock and Ruger and have had no problems out of either. I have to second (or third ) the comment above: "The most important safety for any weapon is the one inside your skull."

AMEN
 
I will not buy anything made outside of the USA.

Don't buy much do you?

Actually there is no never buy gun, if the price is right any gun is to be considered. I've bought Jennings/Bryco in the 10--15 dollar range, and really never had any issues with them. Had more feeding problems with Kimber, Springfield 45's till I got the magazine and reloading issues sorted out.

All firearms are up for consideration depending on price, makes the pile bigger but I now purchase less, pile is approaching 200 pcs. Every thing from a Raven to a Kimber customized with match barrel ect., .22cal to .45 acp.
 
The M1911 in any form.

It can't reliably shoot hollow points as issued. It still won't with $$ of modifications by the best gunmakers around. It's single stack and doesn't carry sufficient ammo. It's single action and has redundant safeties that require users to practice heavily in order to gain familiarity under stress.

It's heavy, machined old school technology that even Browning improved on later because it wasn't good enough. First the A1, then the Hi Power. That fixed two defects, adding double action and double stacked magazines. It became a true combat pistol.

The highest rated combat 1911 versions in the '70's and '80's were the ASP and Devel versions, with some others right behind. Most of the better rated ones were double action, double stacked.

It's only by the fortunes of timing that we don't carry Glocks in the military, they weren't able to compete. It's also no wonder the 1911 was rightfully dumped for a double action double stack. All the guns in that competition were superior and have had long histories of adoption and sales internationally.

1911's are like capes. Real superheroes don't wear them. :evil:
 
If you hate a gun because it has no safety then you probably shouldn't be around guns.

Quite the sweeping generalization of folk who don't happen to share your preferences.
 
WASR AKs ...... I figured that although it is an entry level AK, it will be reliable and work properly every time because it's an AK ............ WRONG! It's been a money pit. I paid $400 for it and I've put $70 into it so far. For about $200 more, I could have got an arsenal and called it good. I've done my research on the AK platform, and I love what it's all about. I should have saved a few extra buck and got a brand that was universally considered as top of the line, instead of an entry level rifle that had a higher possibility of being a lemon.
 
Quite the sweeping generalization of folk who don't happen to share your preferences.

Exactly. The reason I say it is to get people curious about what I am going to say next. Its what I use to quantify that statement that I really want people to notice.

Think about it. What reason do people have for hating handguns with no safeties? Unless there is a massive defect in the gun it will not go off unless you pull the trigger. If you HAVE to have a safety on a handgun then it means you have a tendency to pull the trigger in an unsafe manner or you don't trust yourself around handguns. If you suffer from any of those two things then you should not be around handguns.

That said, I should probably add a disclaimer that this only applies to handguns where the trigger should be covered by a holster or case of some type until it's time to use it. I understand that hunting with a rifle requires a safety as there are all kinds of things that can yank a trigger out in the field. But with a handgun there is never a good excuse for the trigger getting pulled unless its on purpose.

Now, there are some that might say that safeties help keep children from getting hurt, but I argue that if a kid gets their hands on your loaded handgun then there was something grossly wrong with the safety residing inside your skull. In fact, that was the whole point behind my post. I just want people to use their brains before anything else. Relying on the mechanics of a weapon to keep you safe is an unsafe practice.

Anytime I let someone shoot my handguns I warn them that there is no safety on the gun at all to make sure they never point it at anything that they don't want to shoot. Most of them point out that my guns do indeed have safeties that work just fine. I politely tell them that my guns are all to be treated as though the safety doesn't work. That way they aren't inclined to become complacent and it teaches the first lesson of firearm safety which is to never point it at anything that doesn't need to be destroyed regardless of whether the gun is "safe" or not.
 
Glock: no safety, underbuilt, and prone to catastrophic failure. Far too common, overrated, and over-produced. There's just too many strikes against Glock, and too many better handguns. And for those who would argue, I do not believe the Glock's trigger design should legally qualify as a safety. It is not one, as it will not protect against accidental or inadvertent pulling of the trigger, or a foreign object inside the trigger guard. Therefore it fails at the primary and original purpose of safeties. My dislike of Glocks is thus well-founded.

How many have you owned?

Did you shoot your foot?
 
Any lever rifle with a crossbolt safety. Big button just sitting there ruining otherwise elegant simplicity. I am talking to you Marlin.

Though not around anymore a clip feed Savage 99. I mean seriously, the brass spindle magazine is what gives it that extra panache.
 
Ohh I almost forgot. A mossberg 835. They took the glock concept of making your firearm feel like a piece of roughcut 2x4 to a whole new level. The 835 is more akin to a 4x6.
 
lot of hate for the Glocks...
as far as safety goes depends on how you look at it.
you lose your small motor function under stress, ive seen more then one person fumble with safeties.

Safeties = time

ok, Jennings, bryco, derringer type

+1

Hence why I own a S&W M&P 45 that has absolutely no safeties. One problem with safeties is they make you feel safe, I like to know my gun is always loaded and dangerous when unholstered. I also like to know my gun will go boom in a life and death scenario and not to have to fiddle with a grip, strong DA pull and manual safety switch when my fine motor skills are in the crapper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top