Cheap or inexpensive?

[WTM]

I was off-line for recreational computing purposes for a good part of the summer due to work, yesterday I reviewed a discussion on the Hi-Point pistol line that was held in June. There seemed to be two strong opinions expressed in that discussion. First, a Hi-Point was just a piece of junk, like a Jennings/Bryco pistol. The second opinion was that the Hi-Point filled a niche for individuals needing/wanting an inexpensive pistol.
How does one define the difference between a "cheap" gun and an "inexpensive" gun?
For me a Jennings/Bryco is a cheap gun because my only experience with one was watching it fall apart before the first magazine of 10 rounds was emptied. Actually it was a 12-rd mag but I doubt Superman could have gotten more than 10 into it. Second magazine split upon first loading attempt. First shot the little orange colored loaded round indicator "shot" out the back of the pistol. Several shots into the magazine the "nickel" plating started removing itself from the frame. Accuracy, there wasn't any. Target looked liked someone had used 9mm shotshells and even that was badly patterned.
Inexpensive guns include my Makarov which cost approximately the same as a Jennings but has good accuracy and is very well-made. No parts following off it after many rounds.
As for the Hi-Point I have no experience with pistols. I do know they are heavy in the hand from having held one, but is it cheap or merely inexpensive. In my area the Hi-Point pistols sell for $99 for the .380; $149 for the 9 mm; $169 for the 40 S&W or 45ACP. WTM

 

[JohnBT]

Inexpensive = usually reliable and sort of accurate, but hastily made.

Cheap = go ahead, they're your fingers and eyes.

John

 

[Jim Watson]

There is a British expression that I like for such products:
Cheap and nasty.

The HiPoint is not a spot on a makarov, tokarev, or US name brand police tradein. Avoid it.

 

[g21forme]

A kel-tec is inexpensive and a jennings is cheap and that is the best example I can think of.

 

[albanian]

A Kel-Tec is not inexpensive but somehow it is cheap. Hi-Point is better in every way than a Kel-Tec and they ARE inexpensive. You can find a Hi-Point for around $100 and while it may not be pretty, it will work. A Kel-Tec cost $200-300 and doesn't have as good of a track record as the Hi-Point.

Personally, I wouldn't want to stake my life on either but if I had to make a choice between just these two guns, I would take a Hi-Point in a heartbeat. A Makarov or a Bersa would be a much better way to spend $150-250 in my book. I hate Maks but they do work and are made well. Bersa is perhaps the best inexpensive CCW on the market. For the money, I don't think it can be beat. They are small, light, reliable and very accurate.

Hi-Points are plastic, sheet metal and pot metal so no matter how well they work, the materials are cheap. Maks are all steel so they hold up well. Bersas are alloy and steel and they hold up as well as a steel gun. Kel-Tecs are made of plastic, and some type of metal the appears to be steel but is actually a type of peanut brittle that breaks when you are not looking. The sad part is, they don't even taste good.

 

[JoeHatley]

A security guard wanna-be just shot his finger off at my local range a few days ago!! He didn't know a Hi-Point would fire out of battery...

Good news is.. the hospital was able to reattach his finger... just about a half inch shorter.

Inexpensive handgns have their place, Cheap guns do not!!

Joe

 

[g21forme]

well to be honest I've never heard of a hi-point being superior to a kel-tec but if you say so

 

[themic]

why did he put his finger in front of the barrell and pull the trigger? out of battery or not, that seems like a scary thing to do.

 

[cratz2]

My admittedly limited experience with HiPoints has been generally very favorable. I'd still with standard pressure ball loads in either 9mm or 45ACP. Might try some Golden Sabers in the 45. They are ugly and they are clunky, but with strictly spec ammo, the 9mms and 45s seem to be consistantly reliable.

As for KelTec, I've owned five and have had very, very few problems with any of them. Some folks just seem to have agendas against certain brands for whatever reason.

For my money, for a range gun, home gun or holster carry gun, I'd rather have a Blugarian Mak than a Hi Point or a KelTec. Or try to scrape a few more nickels together and get a used Taurus PT92 or EAA Witness.

 

[P95Carry]

Bryco - Jennings - Raven etc ...... ''cheap'' ..... and I tend when using cheap to imply somewhat ''shoddy''. This is reflected in materials choice and useage, design and overall engineering assessment.

''Inexpensive'' OTOH is something that has a very moderate cost in the grand scale of gun prices but - nevertheless shows engineering quality and fair to good materials choice and useage. A Mak is perhaps the ideal example. I'd also include my Marlin 60 .. best value .22lr rifle available in my book... definitely inexpensive but .... not ... ''cheap''

Thus in my book ... 'cheap'' is no complement for a gun!!

''Inexpensive'' more usually is... re value vs quality.... at least up to a point.

I'd go one step further which is ... top end high cost pieces are not guaranteed by default to be always special or worth the tab .... IMO.

 

[mod12]

you know albanian, you prove the old adage "it's better to keep your mouth shut and be considered a fool, than to open it and prove you're one". congratulations.

 

[Majic]

A security guard wanna-be just shot his finger off at my local range a few days ago!! He didn't know a Hi-Point would fire out of battery...

You can't really blame the pistol.

 

[RichardinNC]

albanian

Maybe you will bless us with the actual facts behind your opinion? Although I am new to this forum, I belong to several others and have some experience with Kel-Tec and Glock. Kel-Tecs are on the cutting edge of autopistol design. They are well made, using modern manufacturing methods, and use high qualilty materials. They are not a beginners gun, despite their size. They require above average gun handling ability and experience if they are to be fired without problems. Have I identified the nature of your problem with them? Let us know how many you own and the level of your experience with them.

 

[orangeninja]

Guys.....how about laying off Albanian for a bit. He is entitled to his opinion like everyone else. Also, experience varies.....

I for one as most probably know who've read my posts...had a Glock 22 that SUCKED....does that make Glock bad? Nope...will I trust another Glock 22? Nope. But many love it.

I also owned a Bersa without a flaw....not that it is better than a Glock...but if I was a typical consumer, who did not read a lot of gun rags...I would assume from my experience that a Glock was a $550.00 jam-o-matic and a Bersa was a $175.00 reliable wonder. Thank God for Guns and Ammo showing me the error of my ways.

 

[albanian]

"albanian

Maybe you will bless us with the actual facts behind your opinion? Although I am new to this forum, I belong to several others and have some experience with Kel-Tec and Glock. Kel-Tecs are on the cutting edge of autopistol design. They are well made, using modern manufacturing methods, and use high qualilty materials. They are not a beginners gun, despite their size. They require above average gun handling ability and experience if they are to be fired without problems. Have I identified the nature of your problem with them? Let us know how many you own and the level of your experience with them."

Gladly,
I owned a Kel-Tec P-32 80K SN#. It was unreliable after about 50rds or so so I did the "fluff and buff", that didn't help much. It could not get through a mag without at least a few FTE jams. I sent it back to KT for repairs and it worked for about 100rds and started having the FTE jams again. Back to KT it went but this time they fixed the jam problems by replacing the entire upper half of the gun. That was fine with me because it seemed to fix the jamming problems. It worked fine until the trigger axis broke (a not uncommon problem in this gun) which made the gun totally unusable until it was fixed. I didn't want to pay for shipping again and wait two months for the gun to get back to me like the last time I sent it in so I ordered the parts I needed and installed them myself. I shot a mag or two to make sure it worked and traded it at my local gunstore. It was an unreliable, poor quality gun that was not inexpensive. When you factor in the added cost of shipping it back to KT 2 times and all the hassle it caused me, it was downright expensive for the little use I ever got out of it.

It was easy to carry but if a CCW is not reliable, it is not worth having. Kel-Tec makes a shoddy gun that sometimes works and that seems to be enough for some people. I am very familiar with guns and handguns in particular, maybe there is some special knowledge that I am lacking in order to make a Kel-Tec not jam and not break it's parts but it must be a well kept secret. I don't normally make blanket statements about an entire gun companies product line based on one gun but as this is there bread and butter product that they have sold more of than any other gun, I feel my experiences are valid. I have heard plenty of complaints about the P-32 that make it clear to me that I did not get the only bad one out there. I can't say for sure what percentage of Kel-Tecs or P-32s are unreliable but I bet it is far higher than almost any other centerfire handgun being made today.

These are only my real life experiences based on facts so I can understand why you would not understand.

 

[JohnBT]

Kel-tecs are not expensive and my P-32 still works after one early problem that was fixed...sn 12xxx. Based on a sample of one, I'd say that they are great guns. I've heard more complaints about Kimbers over the years (extractors, adjustable sights, tight chambers).

Here's how I figure expensive vs. not expensive:

Expensive = more than a monthly car payment (when I had one anyway).
Not expensive = less than a monthly car payment (or the cost of my pocket knife).

What's a Hi-Point? Do they make a 10-ounce pocket pistol that's 3/4 of an inch wide?

Happy Monday Morning everybody.

John