Brands that you steer clear of?
- Thread starter Slater
- Start date
- Status
Schuey2002
Member
H&K!
Not!
Mastrogiacomo
Member
Kind of a hard thing to say. I have a Ruger New Single Six and it's been nothing but fun and reliable. I've got a Glock 19, I love the gun but it's not my favorite because of how it hits me off the head every so often with those spent shells -- which never happens with my Berettas -- of which I have four and one long gun. The 686 is an all-time favorite but I had a time there where the cylinder wouldn't close. Can't say I'd trust it for defense but I love it for the range, which is why I bought it anyway. It's a matter of opinion really.
However -- the 442 S&W I absolutely hated. I'd avoid small, lightweight guns if I'm going to avoid anything. I don't like small guns in general but other than that, I've found that most guns are reliable if you care for them and treat them right.
However -- the 442 S&W I absolutely hated. I'd avoid small, lightweight guns if I'm going to avoid anything. I don't like small guns in general but other than that, I've found that most guns are reliable if you care for them and treat them right.
standingbear
Member
Seems every brand has their lemons here and there...ruger p series are reliable but they rattle and have jus too much play between the slide and the frame.It doesnt mean I would steer clear of ruger though as my gp100 has been one of the best purchases Ive ever made along with a redhawk 44 mag and their mark 2 semi 22 pistol line.In fact,3 of the 4 handguns I own are rugers and the 4th being a makarov.
I havent had a glock or smith,tried them but for some reason they just didnt "feel" right for my interests...I might someday get 1 and try it out more than a mag full...interests change.
I would steer clear of guns that looked like they were shoved out in a hurry..meaning... deep milling lines and sharp edges on the frames.wont buy some brands "just because" everyone that has had em seems to find them worthy of nothing more than sticking them in a display cabinet with a huge sucker sticker markup in price.if another brand is cheaper,is just as reliable and does the same thing,the more expensive one is overrated in my opinion.
I would definatly steer clear of those un-named self destructing pieces of crap that most of us have heard about...even if the price tag is 20 dollars
I havent had a glock or smith,tried them but for some reason they just didnt "feel" right for my interests...I might someday get 1 and try it out more than a mag full...interests change.
I would steer clear of guns that looked like they were shoved out in a hurry..meaning... deep milling lines and sharp edges on the frames.wont buy some brands "just because" everyone that has had em seems to find them worthy of nothing more than sticking them in a display cabinet with a huge sucker sticker markup in price.if another brand is cheaper,is just as reliable and does the same thing,the more expensive one is overrated in my opinion.
I would definatly steer clear of those un-named self destructing pieces of crap that most of us have heard about...even if the price tag is 20 dollars
Son of John
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 30
Anything suitable?
Looks to me like there is nothing that hasn't left bad memories somewhere. This is like the 9 mm versus .40 or .45 crap that goes on all the time without resolution.
Maybe the opinions should be restricted to those who owned the lemons instead of going by what people have heard.
Here's my 2 cents FWIW:
To be honest, all guns are fine to me. I enjoy picking up and shooting just about everything. Some a little better than others. Few guns will work 100% in all roles. All guns being mechanical devices which get very dirty when shot have the potential to have a malfunction. You shoot the crap out of them at the range to try and make it happen there and not in a tight spot, fix the problem or get rid of the gun and move on.
My son and I share genes (I hope so) and he can't stand shooting some of the guns I like. I can't understand why this is, since we are similar on everything else. Since we are all different, there will be not much in common in replies to the original question and this will go on and on.
All that being said, I don't care much for snub nosed revolvers. Can't hit an aircraft carrier with any of them. They're great guns to carry if you never have to shoot them, say if you are a fat tv cop, but unless I was doing a Jack Ruby hit on somebody, I'd fare better throwing the GD thing.
Looks to me like there is nothing that hasn't left bad memories somewhere. This is like the 9 mm versus .40 or .45 crap that goes on all the time without resolution.
Maybe the opinions should be restricted to those who owned the lemons instead of going by what people have heard.
Here's my 2 cents FWIW:
To be honest, all guns are fine to me. I enjoy picking up and shooting just about everything. Some a little better than others. Few guns will work 100% in all roles. All guns being mechanical devices which get very dirty when shot have the potential to have a malfunction. You shoot the crap out of them at the range to try and make it happen there and not in a tight spot, fix the problem or get rid of the gun and move on.
My son and I share genes (I hope so) and he can't stand shooting some of the guns I like. I can't understand why this is, since we are similar on everything else. Since we are all different, there will be not much in common in replies to the original question and this will go on and on.
All that being said, I don't care much for snub nosed revolvers. Can't hit an aircraft carrier with any of them. They're great guns to carry if you never have to shoot them, say if you are a fat tv cop, but unless I was doing a Jack Ruby hit on somebody, I'd fare better throwing the GD thing.
jeff-10
Member
Did anyone mention CZ's? Also looks like people generally have negative feelings about every major revolver maker out there. Guess if we want quality we will have to buy a Korth.
russlate
Member
I can't talk about autos, but I am knowledgeable enough to offer an opinion on revolvers.
That opinion is that 30 years ago you needed to follow a checklist for defects when buying used. For the most part, though, a used gun in nice looking condition could be bought without doing the checklist and you'd get away with it 9 out of 10 times.
Today, just guessing, if you skip doing the checklist you'll get away with it 7 or 8 times out of ten.
I don't buy new revolvers today for the most part. But if I did, I would refuse to do so without doing a checklist, and then repeating it to see if I missed something the first time. Then I would buy it.
That opinion is that 30 years ago you needed to follow a checklist for defects when buying used. For the most part, though, a used gun in nice looking condition could be bought without doing the checklist and you'd get away with it 9 out of 10 times.
Today, just guessing, if you skip doing the checklist you'll get away with it 7 or 8 times out of ten.
I don't buy new revolvers today for the most part. But if I did, I would refuse to do so without doing a checklist, and then repeating it to see if I missed something the first time. Then I would buy it.
LynnKCircle
Member
I don't know; perhaps I've just been lucky.
But to those who say "No" to Ruger, I've owned a P89 and a BP Old Army. Both were very accurate and extremely reliable. In fact, the P89 was the most reliable semi-auto I've ever owned, since it never once jammed or misfed in perhaps 2000 rounds of the cheapest practice ammo possible -- as well as the +P rounds I used when carrying. But I sold it because I never could master the trigger when shooting off the bench combat style. Oh, I guess my results were sufficient, since they were invariably between a six and eight inch circle for fifty rounds at ten yards, but they were never good enough to make me feel good about them.
I still have the Old Army, and loaded with 30 grains of black powder it is one of the most accurate handguns I've ever fired out to 25 yards. In fact, just for the fun of it, I want to take it to the fifty yard range something during the next few weeks.
To those who say "No" to Taurus, I've owned a Taurus .22 lightweight revolver, a Taurus PT-22, and a Taurus PT-99. With factory magazines, the PT-99 has been nearly as reliable as the Ruger. The only ammo it didn't like was Sellor and Belloit. The PT-22 was consistently reliable for about 200 rounds, and then it began having problems until it was cleaned. The .22 snubbie, which I bought to use for training my wife how to shoot, had a fine DA trigger and a superb SA trigger out of the box. It had great accuracy for a 2" barrel and was as reliable as any revolver is supposed to be. I sold the PT-22 and the revolver (because my wife never did get interested, despite my repeated attempts) for new toys. I'm trying to sell the Taurus only because a Kimber has replaced it as my carry weapon.
To those who say "No" to Kimber, my current carry gun is a Kimber CDP Pro (4" barrel). It has been more magazine specific than any other semi-auto I've owned, but with factory magazines and the right aftermarket magazine (1 out of 4 Metalform) it has 100% reliability. I can shoot more accurately with it at 25 yards than with any other semi-auto I've ever owned, including the Taurus. It's not that the Kimber is more accurate (it probably isn't), but the SA trigger makes it far easier to control for me.
In fact, about the only gun I would never buy again was an RG-63 .38 special purchased in 1975 when I was still too ignorant to know better. It was so inaccurate I couldn't keep shots on an 8x10 sheet of paper at 25 feet, and lost so much power that it couldn't break an old-style coke bottle at five feet (the slug bounced off). That revolver was good only for one thing -- it utterly deflated the ego of any shooter who had pretensions of being a good shot. Luckily, they don't make these junkers any longer, though I guess some are still floating around in pawn shops.
But to those who say "No" to Ruger, I've owned a P89 and a BP Old Army. Both were very accurate and extremely reliable. In fact, the P89 was the most reliable semi-auto I've ever owned, since it never once jammed or misfed in perhaps 2000 rounds of the cheapest practice ammo possible -- as well as the +P rounds I used when carrying. But I sold it because I never could master the trigger when shooting off the bench combat style. Oh, I guess my results were sufficient, since they were invariably between a six and eight inch circle for fifty rounds at ten yards, but they were never good enough to make me feel good about them.
I still have the Old Army, and loaded with 30 grains of black powder it is one of the most accurate handguns I've ever fired out to 25 yards. In fact, just for the fun of it, I want to take it to the fifty yard range something during the next few weeks.
To those who say "No" to Taurus, I've owned a Taurus .22 lightweight revolver, a Taurus PT-22, and a Taurus PT-99. With factory magazines, the PT-99 has been nearly as reliable as the Ruger. The only ammo it didn't like was Sellor and Belloit. The PT-22 was consistently reliable for about 200 rounds, and then it began having problems until it was cleaned. The .22 snubbie, which I bought to use for training my wife how to shoot, had a fine DA trigger and a superb SA trigger out of the box. It had great accuracy for a 2" barrel and was as reliable as any revolver is supposed to be. I sold the PT-22 and the revolver (because my wife never did get interested, despite my repeated attempts) for new toys. I'm trying to sell the Taurus only because a Kimber has replaced it as my carry weapon.
To those who say "No" to Kimber, my current carry gun is a Kimber CDP Pro (4" barrel). It has been more magazine specific than any other semi-auto I've owned, but with factory magazines and the right aftermarket magazine (1 out of 4 Metalform) it has 100% reliability. I can shoot more accurately with it at 25 yards than with any other semi-auto I've ever owned, including the Taurus. It's not that the Kimber is more accurate (it probably isn't), but the SA trigger makes it far easier to control for me.
In fact, about the only gun I would never buy again was an RG-63 .38 special purchased in 1975 when I was still too ignorant to know better. It was so inaccurate I couldn't keep shots on an 8x10 sheet of paper at 25 feet, and lost so much power that it couldn't break an old-style coke bottle at five feet (the slug bounced off). That revolver was good only for one thing -- it utterly deflated the ego of any shooter who had pretensions of being a good shot. Luckily, they don't make these junkers any longer, though I guess some are still floating around in pawn shops.
Strings
Member
Funny... other then the pot-metal racist specials, the only guns I avoid are based on how they feel in my hand:
-S&W Autos (I have small hands, and these feel like there's too much gun above my hand)
-Sig 220 series (see above)
-Ruger P series (again, see above)
-New frame Glocks (the finger groves are essentially 180 degrees out of wack for me)...
-S&W Autos (I have small hands, and these feel like there's too much gun above my hand)
-Sig 220 series (see above)
-Ruger P series (again, see above)
-New frame Glocks (the finger groves are essentially 180 degrees out of wack for me)...
Stevie-Ray
Member
AMT!! :banghead:
Marshall
Member
I steer clear of Korth.
Regarding Korth revolvers, ...
...I once had a conversation with one of the best (he truly is) handgunners who happens to own quite a few handguns. He bluntly told me that the Korth revolver he owns is a good investment of money (because of spectacular worksmanship and beauty), but he would never consider it to be a first-rate choice for serious revolver shooting. He uses S&W revolvers for PPC shooting almost exclusively.
Personally, I don't think I'll ever purchase any product from Taurus, Kimber, Para-Ordnance, Beretta, Llama, Astra, Star. I also would never acquire the following handguns (or calibers): any .40 S&W pistol, Steyr M-series pistol, any newer CZ pistols (the original,early CZ M75 was a great gun, though), current S&W 3rd Gen. autos w/stupid, non-detachable rail, any S&W Sigma. I am highly opinionated, so I think the list is hardly complete.
I miss a lot of the great old guns like S&W M25-5 .45 Colt, M28 Highway Patrolmal .357, S&W M29 blue-steel et cetera.
...I once had a conversation with one of the best (he truly is) handgunners who happens to own quite a few handguns. He bluntly told me that the Korth revolver he owns is a good investment of money (because of spectacular worksmanship and beauty), but he would never consider it to be a first-rate choice for serious revolver shooting. He uses S&W revolvers for PPC shooting almost exclusively.
Personally, I don't think I'll ever purchase any product from Taurus, Kimber, Para-Ordnance, Beretta, Llama, Astra, Star. I also would never acquire the following handguns (or calibers): any .40 S&W pistol, Steyr M-series pistol, any newer CZ pistols (the original,early CZ M75 was a great gun, though), current S&W 3rd Gen. autos w/stupid, non-detachable rail, any S&W Sigma. I am highly opinionated, so I think the list is hardly complete.
I miss a lot of the great old guns like S&W M25-5 .45 Colt, M28 Highway Patrolmal .357, S&W M29 blue-steel et cetera.
DHart
Member
Wouldn't touch a Kimber since they went to Series II. Stopped buying them with the last run of Series 1's.
On the other hand, the late production models from Colt are fantastic 1911's... I can't stop buying these great pistols. I also love the older S&W revolvers, particularly the 13 and 65 with the firing pin on the hammer... yum!
On the other hand, the late production models from Colt are fantastic 1911's... I can't stop buying these great pistols.
I also love the older S&W revolvers, particularly the 13 and 65 with the firing pin on the hammer... yum!
Last edited:
VG
Member
AMT
CZ
Glock
I've had great experiences with SIG and S&W semiautos. All the M1911A1's I own are "antiques".
CZ
Glock
I've had great experiences with SIG and S&W semiautos. All the M1911A1's I own are "antiques".
Sean85746
Member
Old Dog said:
I must agree with you on the Taurus 85. I bought one a few months ago because the guy that owned it only wanted $100.00. It had the factory round butt grips, and the finish is still pretty nice.
I had only ever shot one Taurus wheel gun, and that was years ago. I never went back because it was CRAP. It was the model 66 Taurus.
But, I have to say...this little mod 85 is a shooter! It is as smooth as any of my J-frame Smiths, and the little bugger hits.
I am not going to run out and buy Taurus stock...but they have a winner in their little wheelies.
Nathanael_Greene
Member
I wish somebody would offer me a Taurus 85 for $100!
I paid about $160 for one in stainless (plus an extra set of grips, holster, and speed-loader), and I thought that was a pretty good deal.
I paid about $160 for one in stainless (plus an extra set of grips, holster, and speed-loader), and I thought that was a pretty good deal.
sm
member
My apologies to Tamara - I can't resist.
...don't forget that SIGs rust, 1911's jam, USP's break firing pins, Delta Elites crack their frames, and Berettas break their locking blocks right before putting the back half of the slide through your bridgework.
The faster most folks realize that all guns suck, the happier they'll be.
- Tamara.
...don't forget that SIGs rust, 1911's jam, USP's break firing pins, Delta Elites crack their frames, and Berettas break their locking blocks right before putting the back half of the slide through your bridgework.
The faster most folks realize that all guns suck, the happier they'll be.
- Tamara.
TRK2AJK
Member
i try to stay away from para ( or any double stack 45s)
i stay away from any 1911 copies (as all are copies if they do not say colt)
i do reccommend beretta 92 series pistols, best, most reliable, pistol i ever bought.
i stay away from any 1911 copies (as all are copies if they do not say colt)
i do reccommend beretta 92 series pistols, best, most reliable, pistol i ever bought.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
