cheap gun bashing

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find this whole discussion a bit puzzling, and dominated by a false dichotomy, to wit: Either you must think all guns that go bang are of equal utility, or you must regard all guns below X price point or quality level to be garbage.

I think your insisting on a dichotomy is unrealistic as there are varying criteria that anything from a gun to a tool (we'll get into that analogy in a moment) have to meet. I love my .22's, for example, but the finest .22 LR rifle in the world isn't going to drop big game. Or medium size game. A given gun, or anything, for that matter, must be judged solely on how it meets all criteria of the particular use to which it is being put. Does it do the job for which it is obtained successfully? Does it meet all/most/some of the criteria. Some guns that have a low price point might very well meet the purchaser's needs in all areas, in which case it is a better gun for them because it saves them money while accomplishing their goal, meeting that need.

I'm not a contractor or construction worker. I do some odd jobs around the house. I need, for instance, a drill. I need it to work the 6 times a year I get it out, and I need it to hold onto drill bits, and I need it to make them go round-and-round in a clockwise fashion. I have a Ryobi drill that I got fairly cheaply at Home Depot. It does this. Because of my level of skill/involvement/usage, that's enough for me.

I own a Ryobi drill as well. And a Makita and a Black & Decker.. Why three drills, you ask? Well, the Ryobi is cordless, so that's handy, the Makita is corded but also is a hammer drill. The Black and Decker is a big old 1/2" corded drill that is great for mixing the occasional 5 gal. Home Depot bucket of stucco/concrete/plaster for whatever little home project I might have. Mixing mud would burn out the Ryobi and the Makita, but they're all drills. Each of my drills whirs and spns the chuck, but they aren't of equal utility. Price has nothing to do with it, so it's not an either/or based on only two deciding factors.

If someone wants a gun that goes bang and generally stabilizes the bullet, and feeds a new round from the magazine the vast majority of the time, then there are a lot of guns these days that will meet that criteria. The list of guns that will perform, or support user's performance, at higher levels is shorter... and tends to have higher average prices. I don't think it's an either/or choice.
No, a Hi-Point is not the equivalent of an SVI, or even a Sig. If it were, nobody would buy the more expensive guns, or at least not in sufficient volumes for the makers to stay in business. But it might be adequate for the person who just wants to have "a gun" in a "real caliber" that could be used to fire a few rounds in a dire emergency. And if money is tight, good enough is good enough.

The problem is the imprecision of the English language in fine. "Cheap" used to refer to low price only, but many things that were cheap were also of low quality, not just lower quality in comparison to a high quality item of the same type.
Let's take Hi Point as an example, they are inexpensive, not as well made as many guns costing more, especially in fit and finish, however for the purpose for which I recommend them at the shop (nightstand gun) they are better than a SIG, S&W or even a Taurus because they meet the owner's needs. A gun in X caliber that will reliably go bang when they hopefully will never need it. I also tell people that a defensive firearm is most like one other purchase a person could make, a fire extinguisher. It's something you buy that you hope you will never need to use. I don't target shoot with my defensive firearms, I have other guns better suited to that purpose.
I agree completely with your closing thoughts, good enough is good enough. I didn't buy any of my guns to impress someone watching me shoot them at a range. I do admit to buying and carrying the Anaconda at work because I want to impress the heck out of any orc that might want to try to rob the pawn shop, maybe urge them psychologically to go elsewhere or to maybe give up the idea of being an orc at all and go honest.
 
FlSwampRat, I think we're actually saying the same thing. Your post has the tone of disagreement with me, but then I struggle to figure out where we differ... Then again, I'm not all that smart.
 
FlSwampRat, I think we're actually saying the same thing. Your post has the tone of disagreement with me, but then I struggle to figure out where we differ... Then again, I'm not all that smart.
We are pretty much saying the same thing, I was merely, in my humble and overly verbose manner disagreeing with your statement that it was a dichotomy, which is a two sided issue, I was saying that it was a bit more complex than that with the example of the three drills. Multiple factors involved, not just two.
That, and I sometimes like the sound of my own typing.... ;)
 
FLSwamprat.....two points I’d like to take exception to....”the finest 22LR in the world isn’t going to take big game”.....I remind you of the Eskimo woman who killed the largest bear on record (for many years). With a 22.
And. “Hi-Point......not as well made”......Respectfully point out that they must be very well made to shoot as well as they do with out fail, and with the warranty.....

Sorry, just nit-pickin’ this eve.
 
We are pretty much saying the same thing, I was merely, in my humble and overly verbose manner disagreeing with your statement that it was a dichotomy, which is a two sided issue, I was saying that it was a bit more complex than that with the example of the three drills. Multiple factors involved, not just two.
That, and I sometimes like the sound of my own typing.... ;)

Yeah, my point, perhaps inartfully expressed, was that it is NOT a dichotomy - just that people in the thread are acting like it is. Again, I think we’re in furious agreement.
 
FLSwamprat.....two points I’d like to take exception to....”the finest 22LR in the world isn’t going to take big game”.....I remind you of the Eskimo woman who killed the largest bear on record (for many years). With a 22.
And. “Hi-Point......not as well made”......Respectfully point out that they must be very well made to shoot as well as they do with out fail, and with the warranty.....

Sorry, just nit-pickin’ this eve.

Perhaps I should have added "dependably or reliably". A lucky shot, no doubt, will take down lots of things. Or, if you do doubt, let's go hunt some griz with your choice of any of my double deuces. I'll be in the armored car.
If a Hi Point was as well made as a high end pistol Sig, HK et al would go out of business because no one would be buying them, or, at least, not in the numbers needed to keep the companies afloat. Fit and finish are a part of the equality equation. They are, for what they are designed to be, very well made. I am not contending that they aren't. I sell them. I recommend them. Please refer to my final paragraph and re-read it. I was in no way denigrating the Hi Point guns.

The problem is the imprecision of the English language in fine. "Cheap" used to refer to low price only, but many things that were cheap were also of low quality, not just lower quality in comparison to a high quality item of the same type.
Let's take Hi Point as an example, they are inexpensive, not as well made as many guns costing more, especially in fit and finish, however for the purpose for which I recommend them at the shop (nightstand gun) they are better than a SIG, S&W or even a Taurus because they meet the owner's needs. A gun in X caliber that will reliably go bang when they hopefully will never need it. I also tell people that a defensive firearm is most like one other purchase a person could make, a fire extinguisher. It's something you buy that you hope you will never need to use. I don't target shoot with my defensive firearms, I have other guns better suited to that purpose.
I agree completely with your closing thoughts, good enough is good enough. I didn't buy any of my guns to impress someone watching me shoot them at a range. I do admit to buying and carrying the Anaconda at work because I want to impress the heck out of any orc that might want to try to rob the pawn shop, maybe urge them psychologically to go elsewhere or to maybe give up the idea of being an orc at all and go honest.

At least, I'm assuming that is my post about which you are nit picking. You didn't quote my original so I am not sure about which one you're a-picking. I never claimed that Hi Points aren't well made for a gun at that price point. Certainly they are far superior to some other guns at the same price point.
Are you taking issue with my statement "not as well made as many guns costing more"? Are you positing that a Hi Point is equal in OVERALL quality to a $1000+ pistol? Note that I also said "for the purpose for which I recommend them at the shop (nightstand gun) they are better than a SIG, S&W or even a Taurus because they meet the owner's needs" for lots less money spent on them.
 
Last edited:
Surprised that no one brought up the Bersas. While not as inexpensive as a Hi Point, they are priced cheaper than a lot of mainstream firearms and get the job done. I base my opinion on owning a .380 and .22 Thunder models at one time. That, plus I usually hear more accolades than criticism when people post about them.

The only reason I sold my .380 was because I upgraded to a Sig 232. Sold the .22 because I just prefer rimfire plinking with revolvers.
 
Last edited:
Surprised that no one brought up the Bersas. While not as inexpensive as a Hi Point, they are priced cheaper than a lot of mainstream firearms and get the job done. I base my opinion on owning a .380 and .22 Thunder models at one time. That, plus I usually hear more accolades than criticism when people post about them.
The only reason I sold my .380 was because I upgraded to a Sign 232. Sold the .22 because I just prefer rimfire plinking with revolvers.
Kevin, I have mentioned before that my cc is a Thunder 380. I love it. fantastic gun for the price point! There's nothing about my Bersa that I don't like, and they even make a Thunder 380+ now with a stack magazine, although mine is the old single stack. Got 3 Mec Gar mags for it from ebay for $20 apiece.
 
I've noticed that especially in firearms related chat forums that some, possibly many owners of entry level hardware, firearms, reloading equipment and so forth try to make the case that many if not all of those that have more costly hardware are as a group snobs and you know, really either don't know what they are doing or sit all day in their Barcalounger and are experts in only their imaginations. They are not pure thinkers, they are far from being the salt of the earth, they trying in vain to purchase success.

There is such a thing as "reverse snobbery". It's called proletentiousness. :neener:
 
Large, and heavy.
You forgot ugly.
That said, they point well, have efficient combat sights, and shoot flawlessly.
Yep! It's why I recommend them for folks looking for nightstand guns. Not going to cc the gun, take it to the range a lot for target shooting, etc. For what they are at the price point for which they sell, they're a great buy.
 
Another vote for the Hi-Point here. Owned a carbine and a guy brought in one of their .40 pistols that he and a few of us burned a lot of ammo through. Went bang every time, and if need be, you could actually beat someone with it. I also thought it would be a great platform for one of those joke pistol bayonets as well, but a light on it would make more sense as a nightstand piece.
 
High Point places a steel insert in the receiver at the stress points. Yet, I see some budget guns that get high Praise that won't spend the money on this. Why? And they get stress cracks all the time. I suspect most people that bash Hi Point have never really shot one. Just typical internet crap. My brother loves his CZ, but also braggs about how well his High Point held up under a whole lot of abuse. Ruger budget gun or High Point. Right now if I had to decide, it would be the High Point.
 
What does price have to do with anything?

If someone could really only afford a $200 Pistol and was shopping I would point them to a...

Local
Micro - Ruger LCP $179
Subcompact - Ruger EC9S $199
Compact - Taurus G2C $174 (After $25 Rebate)

To many people disparage things they have no direct knowledge of. I own all of the above (except my Taurus is a G2) and have immediate acquaintances that own at least 6 more. All work.

Of course if you had $300 I would suggest a...

Local
Subcompact Shield M1.0 9mm $275
Compact Ruger Security 9 Compact $299

Online
Subcompact Walther PPS M2 $279
Compact M&P .40 M2.0 Compact 3.6 $300

The only one I have no direct experience with is the Walther but enough friends speak highly of it for me to put it on the short list.

I'm not about to claim a Shield or PPS M2 is cheap junk because it's $200 less than a G43.
 
Last time I went shooting a few weeks ago, I brought a couple of my cheap guns, SAR K2 P and Cm9 Gen2 9mm's, and a couple of my expensive guns, a Sig 220, 226 SSE, and an ex NYPD 226 I converted from DAO to SA/DA. The guys next to me were making fun of the two SARS which together cost me $510, half what the 226 SSE did. The K2P is a decent gun, especially for the money, but the CM9 G2 is just a fantastic gun for any price and at $250 shipped, it's a crazy bargain. Mine has a couple of thousand rounds through it now, and unless the ammo is bad, it shoots great, it's accurate as the 226's are, and it's my "house gun". I let those guys next to me shoot it, and they were looking at buying one from CDNN. I like it better than my friend's CZ P-07, which the CM9 G2 is sort of a clone of. The CM9's DA trigger is better than the P-07's is, and the SA trigger is about the same. My gun after 2000+ rounds has no real visible wear on it, except for a shiny spot on the barrel. I'm thinking about buying another CM9 G2 I like it so much.
 
I personally don't care how anyone chooses to spend their money. No one gets my opinion on their firearm choice unless they ask...

I will say though I find it funny when people insist that they can't afford average priced "expensive guns" ($500ish) but end up buying and basically collecting multiple inexpensive firearms. You can't say that you can't afford a $500 gun but over 6 months you buy 3 or 4 $2-300 that perform in the same role. That's a matter of priorities or perhaps preference but not budget. Maybe that's semantics, but it's just a pet peeve of mine.
 
As a child, two of the guns I had access to was a Colt single action, a $125 gun and a Ruger flattop .357 made in '56, a $45 gun. If the Ruger never captured my imagination in quite the same way, it had better sights, was more powerful, 357 vs. 38 Special, and the coil springs, no matter how much I drug it out of the leather, never broke. Noting the individual superiorities of the Ruger felt disloyal, and caused me much childhood trauma. I was a long time accepting Bill Ruger's genius, and that when he designed his revolver that he would have the original as a model and do what he could with what was available to make his superior in every way he could.

If I understand the point of this thread, it's that I should accept those who choose to rely upon any sort of plastic that comes along as a social equal, a kind of egalitarianism run rampant. It's an interesting notion. One that I had not heretofore considered. It shouldn't be that hard. One of my favorite little rifles that I hunt with often is a little Winchester single shot in 32 WCF, a ten dollar rifle in its day.
 
The K2P is a decent gun, especially for the money, but the CM9 G2 is just a fantastic gun for any price and at $250 shipped, it's a crazy bargain.

As I have mentioned elsewhither on here, my concealed carry piece is a Bersa Thunder .380. For an under $300 gun in store I think it's a great bargain. I got mine cheaper as 1) it was used and 2) the rear sight adjustable blade was missing. As it is purely a defensive piece and I don't think I need to defend myself from someone more than 25 feet away (beyond that, they're not really threatening my life and that's the only reason I can use deadly force) I didn't think it would be a huge problem. First day at the range with it I put the first two mags in a 5" circle at 20'. Good enough for me.
Funny thing is that twice I have overheard people at the range mistake it for a PPK. I don't bother disabusing them of their 'knowledge", esp when they're in the next port and only three or four feet away.
I also remember, back when Lethal Weapon first made the Berettas popular, there were two guys blazing away at a silhouette target maybe 20-25 feet in front of them (in violation of the range rules of sharing a target). Curious, I swung my spotting scope down their way and they had maybe two in the black. No idea the total number of rounds expended. I did notice some bits of ceiling tile falling now and then. Packed up my stuff and left.
Don't care how fancy a gun you have if you're that bad at aiming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top