Cheap pistol for personal protection

[Styx]

kmw1954 writes:



I agree.

What I don't see in news stories are accounts of people who attempted to defend themselves with firearms, but failed because of their guns' price point, accounts in which it can be definitively argued that, had their guns been more expensive, the outcome would have been different.

True... Same at the range. I've fired many rounds through inexpensive and experience guns. The bullet fired from both put holes in the paper just the same. Both fired 100% of the time. No doubt in my mind that both would get the job done in a self defense situation

 

[kmw1954]

kmw1954 writes:
I agree.

What I don't see in news stories are accounts of people who attempted to defend themselves with firearms, but failed because of their guns' price point, accounts in which it can be definitively argued that, had their guns been more expensive, the outcome would have been different.

Better yet go to Chicago, Milwaukee, Memphis or Baltimore and ask the survivors how many would have had time to pull a gun and defend themselves. There is no defending an ambush, drive-by or stray fired shot. I don't care what kind of gun you have in your waistband.

Again, being a law abiding citizen I do not expect to be drawn into a gun fight.

 

[kmw1954]

Depends on your definition of cheap.
A pot metal special could be more of a liability if brandished---and it breaks or you shoot yourself accidentally(anyone remember the German import RG?)
A good gun doesn't have to be expensive---all it has to do is work safely.
If it can't then it may well be simply a comfort until you actually need it.

Yes Cheap is completely subjective and has much more to do with the perception of the viewer. We could be together and viewing the same hamburger, one thinking that's the tastiest looking burger I've ever seen and the other thinking I wouldn't feed that to my dog.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Except for the magazines and the sights.

I’m just as guilty. I think I have only one gun that I haven’t done anything to, and its not a Glock.

They're still factory magazines

 

[Trunk Monkey]

When I first started buying guns I bought cheap guns and I found out that they worked just fine, until they didn't. Until you start actually putting rounds through them. Until you start looking for aftermarket support.

I would never own or recommend a Taurus because I've owned a Taurus and found it to be a subpar gun.

Like the OP I'm on a budget, if $200.00 is all I have to spend on a gun I can't afford to throw it away on a gun I'd never trust my life to. I especially can't afford to throw it away when I can wait a week and get a used Shield (which is a gun I don't like but I would absolutely trust) for $250.00.

Those of you who want to tell me how reliable your Taurus is I invite you to take a high round count class with it. The last time I took a class the guy next to me was carrying a Millennium G2 and I watched him spend the day doing Tap, Rack, Bang drills. I don't think he fired two rounds in a row all day long.

So no, I'm not going to trust my life to a "cheap" gun

 

[kmw1954]

Those of you who want to tell me how reliable your Taurus is I invite you to take a high round class with it. The last time I took a class the guy next to me was carrying a Millennium G2 and I watched him spend the day doing Tap, Rack, Bang drills. I don't think he fired two rounds in a row all day long.

Taurus PT92C, build date 11/98, bought used, I have almost 2k rounds thru it and it goes with every trip. I have no idea what the previous owner put thru it.

But then I'm not going to trust my life to ANY gun.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Taurus PT92C, build date 11/98, bought used, I have almost 2k rounds thru it and it goes with every trip. I have no idea what the previous owner put thru it.

But then I'm not going to trust my life to ANY gun.

Ok I said HIGH round count. I know people that literally shoot that much in a weekend. And there are classes out there where they tell you to bring that many rounds to the class.

2000 rounds in how long have you owned that gun?

 

[kmw1954]

2000 rounds in how long have you owned that gun?

3 years and haven't shot since July of last year because of some medical issues.

So exactly how many people Do you know that shoot that much in a weekend? I don't know any competitive shooters and I will bet most people don't. What class requires you to bring 2k rounds? So what would your guess be for the average round count for the for the average gun owner? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

3 years and haven't shot since July of last year because of some medical issues.

So let's say 2000 rounds over 24 month period. That's an average of 83 rounds a month. Not a high-round count by any metric.

So exactly how many people Do you know that shoot that much in a weekend? I don't know any competitive shooters and I will bet most people don't.

I freely admit that the people that I'm thinking about shoot competitively. And I doubt that very many of them shoot a full 2000 rounds every weekend but I'm certain it happens because I hear them talking about it.

Having said that, even though I'm referencing competitive shooters I don't know a single person that shoots round counts like that that's doing it with a Taurus.

What class requires you to bring 2k rounds?

There are a couple of classes at gunsight that they want you to bring 2000 rounds to. They're two or three day classes but they're out there.

So what would your guess be for the average round count for the for the average gun owner? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly?

Average? About 200 rounds a year if that. Your average gun owner probably buys a J frame and one box of ammunition for it. Maybe takes it to the range once to make sure it works. Then takes it home, loads it up, puts it in the sock drawer and it sits there for 50 years with the rest of that box of ammunition.

THR is (IMO) comprised mostly of people who are above-average gun owners and I would be willing to bet you that most of us don't go through a thousand rounds in a year.

But, none of that has any bearing on my main point and my main point is that most of the people that say that Taurus products work fine and they've never had a problem with them only put about 83 rounds a month through them. They've never actually put them to any hard use.

 

[P5 Guy]

Your average gun owner probably buys a J frame and one box of ammunition for it. Maybe takes it to the range once to make sure it works. Then takes it home, loads it up, puts it in the sock drawer and it sits there for 50 years with the rest of that box of ammunition.

I have bought a couple of them, nothing beats a 50 year old NEW IN THE BOX gun.

 

[Styx]

When I first started buying guns I bought cheap guns and I found out that they worked just fine, until they didn't. Until you start actually putting rounds through them. Until you start looking for aftermarket support.

I would never own or recommend a Taurus because I've owned a Taurus and found it to be a subpar gun.

Like the OP I'm on a budget, if $200.00 is all I have to spend on a gun I can't afford to throw it away on a gun I'd never trust my life to. I especially can't afford to throw it away when I can wait a week and get a used Shield (which is a gun I don't like but I would absolutely trust) for $250.00.

Those of you who want to tell me how reliable your Taurus is I invite you to take a high round count class with it. The last time I took a class the guy next to me was carrying a Millennium G2 and I watched him spend the day doing Tap, Rack, Bang drills. I don't think he fired two rounds in a row all day long.

So no, I'm not going to trust my life to a "cheap" gun

So, in a nutshell, you don't trust guns you never owned and have no experience with because of your very limited experience with couple of budget guns you purchased years ago that had problems, so that means every budget priced guns ever made can't be reliable... Makes absolutely no sense...

Budget guns work just fine until they don't? Hear that tactic all the time too whenever someone with a budget priced firearm says they had 1k, 3k, 5k, and so on through their pistol... Those who purchased more expensive firearms will offer the rebuttle, based on nothing, that it's still a matter of time before it self destructs. No matter how many trouble free rounds the owner has through theirs, the naysayers already hhame their minds made up, and nothing will change it. They'll simply use another negative canned response.

Like I said, I owned a Ruger LC9 Pro and a few Shields, and both had problems out the box. Never had a single problem with the current Taurus firearms I've owned. The only complaints about them I ever hear is from people who don't own them, have no experience with the model in question, but feel like they're experts and know for a fact that they're not dependable.

I mean your whole argument is baseless. You have zero clue or knowledge on how many rounds the several thousands of Taurus owners put through their firearm, you have zero experience with the the pistol, you can't point to any design flaws or other issues with the pistol, yet you're making a bunch of assertions based on assumptions.

 

[RedlegRick]

While I am far from an expert, I carry a similar weapon daily and fire it at least once a month (50-100 rounds). I've also shot both types he asked about, one I was considering buying from a fellow club member. With a sample size of two, my observations are limited, but this is what I experienced.
The Ruger was a bit too small for my hand, was a lot smoother externally, and 'felt' more sturdy to me, as well as being a bit better with recoil impulse.

The Taurus was 'rougher', still well made, but while it was slightly bigger, it didn't feel as natural in my hand and recoil impulse seemed a bit harder. Other than that, they're pretty much the same thing as each other. In the end, I opted to stick with what I carry now, a Kel Tec PF-9.
Personally, I feel OP's decision should be made more on having his family members 'shake hands' with both types to see which feels better in the hand or, if price is the final decision factor here, which costs less.

Both weapons he mentioned are perfectly acceptable for the intended role, as are the other brands/models suggested. Regarding his son's arm issues, I don't think it's as big a deal as some make out. I have arthritis in my hands and even when it's bad, I have no problems with operating my EDC, nor would there be that much an issue with the others, save the Ruger owing to its smoother outline.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

So, in a nutshell, you don't trust guns you never owned and have no experience with because of your very limited experience with couple of budget guns you purchased years ago that had problems, so that means every budget priced guns ever made can't be reliable... Makes absolutely no sense...

Budget guns work just fine until they don't? Hear that tactic all the time too whenever someone with a budget priced firearm says they had 1k, 3k, 5k, and so on through their pistol... Those who purchased more expensive firearms will offer the rebuttle, based on nothing, that it's still a matter of time before it self destructs. No matter how many trouble free rounds the owner has through theirs, the naysayers already hhame their minds made up, and nothing will change it. They'll simply use another negative canned response.

Like I said, I owned a Ruger LC9 Pro and a few Shields, and both had problems out the box. Never had a single problem with the current Taurus firearms I've owned. The only complaints about them I ever hear is from people who don't own them, have no experience with the model in question, but feel like they're experts and know for a fact that they're not dependable.

I mean your whole argument is baseless. You have zero clue or knowledge on how many rounds the several thousands of Taurus owners put through their firearm, you have zero experience with the the pistol, you can't point to any design flaws or other issues with the pistol, yet you're making a bunch of assertions based on assumptions.

Did you read the part of my post where it said I don't own Tauruses now because I did own Tauruses then and they sucked?

Why does the fact that I don't like Tauri I want spend my money on him threaten you so much?

 

[Styx]

Did you read the part of my post where it said I don't own Tauruses now because I did own Tauruses then and they sucked?

Why does the fact that I don't like Tauri I want spend my money on him threaten you so much?

This is a discussion forum, and I'm stating my opinion just like you are stating yours. I read your post. Did you read mine? I clearly addressed the fact that you owned a Taurus several years ago. You also stated that because of your bad experience several years ago, you refuse to even try anything they offer now, yet you bash a gun you do not own, and have zero experience with as "sucking?"

If you accually owned a (current) one , if there there was a design flaws, if there were a bunch of YouTube videos, articles, forum post, social media post, and other documented issue that you could cite to back up your opinion of the firearm the OP is interested in, then I could take you seriously. You just see the name Taurus and automatically, without having any experience or first hand knowledge of the gun in question, scream that it sucks and it's crap.. You'll even go as far as to suggest to those who do own them and have actual experience that their gun isn't relaible...

 

[Trunk Monkey]

This is a discussion forum, and I'm stating my opinion just like you are stating yours. I read your post. Did you read mine? I clearly addressed the fact that you owned a Taurus several years ago. You also stated that because of your bad experience several years ago, you refuse to even try anything they offer now, yet you bash a gun you do not own, and have zero experience with as "sucking?"

If you accually owned a (current) one , if there there was a design flaws, if there were a bunch of YouTube videos, articles, forum post, social media post, and other documented issue that you could cite to back up your opinion of the firearm the OP is interested in, then I could take you seriously. You just see the name Taurus and automatically, without having any experience or first hand knowledge of the gun in question, scream that it sucks and it's crap.. You'll even go as far as to suggest to those who do own them and have actual experience that their gun isn't relaible...

But I do have experience. I sat there an watched the guy's G2 go Bang, click, tap, rack, BANG, click, tap, rack BANG, click
All day long.

Based on what I witnessed and my own experience I decided I wasn't wrong when I decided never to purchase another Tarus product again

 

[ATLDave]

In my opinion, there's no such thing as a "cheap" personal protection gun. Even if the gun is free, in order to be proficient, you're going to have to run some real money through the gun in the form of ammo.

I have no basis for an opinion on the two options offered, so I will leave it at that.

 

[Styx]

But I do have experience. I sat there an watched the guy's G2 go Bang, click, tap, rack, BANG, click, tap, rack BANG, click
All day long.

Based on what I witnessed and my own experience I decided I wasn't wrong when I decided never to purchase another Tarus product again

Oh okay. You witnessed one that had problems therefore all of them are junk. Nevermind the hundreds of reviews and accounts from those who had no problem.

This is kind of a venting thread. I owned pistols from several manufactures including 6 Taurus firearms within the last few years starting with the PT111 G2. I now only one 3. but all but the Model 85 is a safe queen. Six out of six have been flawless. Nothing broke and zero malfunctions.

With that said, my wife is interested in getting her CCP and a pistol of her own. She owned a Taurus Slim in the past, but with me being influenced by Taurus bashing, I stirred her towards the Ruger LC9s Pro after she tried one at the range. I ordered myself a Walther PPS M2 LE. Well we had our first range trip with both guns and my relatively new Shield 45 Performance Center. The dots on the Walther's luminescent sights fells out with the first mag. The mag release on her LC9 became very difficult to push, it started to get light strikes, and then later the trigger gave out completely. Pull the trigger and absolutely nothing happens. No sound, no nothin'.To top it all off, when I got home and went to clean the Shield, the captured recoil spring came apart...

In all the years that I've owned firearms, I've never had a problem and never had to use warranty services. If I had to do it all over again, I'd just kept my mouth shut, ignored the naysayers and snobs, and just purchase Taurus Slim like she was wanted in the first place.

They're man made. Some will have issues. Just because one fails for whatever reason does not mean that everything the manufacturer EVER produces will be junk. I'm sure that other range goers seen my wife and I struggling with a new out the box Ruger. I'd make the same point if they went running around saying that the LC9 sucked. I look at the big picture. Based on the rave reviews from actual owners of the LC9, I came to the conclusion that I just got a bad one instead of running around bashing Ruger and calling everything they make junk.

 

[kmw1954]

But I do have experience. I sat there an watched the guy's G2 go Bang, click, tap, rack, BANG, click, tap, rack BANG, click
All day long.

Based on what I witnessed and my own experience I decided I wasn't wrong when I decided never to purchase another Tarus product again

So how do you know it wasn't the guys reloaded ammo? Did you ask him about it? I have an expensive Tanfoglio Witness 45acp that absolutely hate reloaded ammunition and has that same kind of reaction. Now I know that Witness is not a Cheap pcs. of junk.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Oh okay. You witnessed one that had problems therefore all of them are junk. Nevermind the hundreds of reviews and accounts from those who had no problem.



They're man made. Some will have issues. Just because one fails for whatever reason does not mean that everything the manufacturer EVER produces will be junk. I'm sure that other range goers seen my wife and I struggling with a new out the box Ruger. I'd make the same point if they went running around saying that the LC9 sucked. I look at the big picture. Based on the rave reviews from actual owners of the LC9, I came to the conclusion that I just got a bad one instead of running around bashing Ruger and calling everything they make junk.

I'm sorry if my comments made you question your poor life choices

 

[kmw1954]

View attachment 842867

I'm sorry if my comments made you question your poor life choices

Yes Pictures say a thousand words, all very clear now.

 

[P5 Guy]

Glock 26 and 34 are fine for self-defense. And the 34's 17 round magazines work well in the 26.

 

[bgw45]

I'd like to expand the vision a little. I shoot 1911s as my preference. A friend let me shoot a CZ and I got hooked. I also did not own a 9mm until I bought a couple of CZs. Went looking for a clone and bought a SAR B6PC. It has been totally reliable, decent trigger and quite accurate. The SAR B6Ps, available now, sell for less than $250.

If you get a chance to look at/shoot one, it could be worth your time.

 

[Tallball]

I bought a Taurus PT99 in 1989 and had no trouble with it until an ex-GF banged it repeatedly into the tailgate of my truck (long story). Taurus replaced the whole upper slide inexpensively. Other than when damaged, I don't recall it ever malfunctioning. Its trigger isn't quite as good as my Beretta 96, but its sights and safety are better. I have no idea how many rounds have been put through it. It is in the thousands.

My Taurus 66 that I bought nearly new in 1988 was stolen around 2000, and I replaced it with a 689 (fancier version of the same model) that was also used, made in 1990. I have no idea how many thousands of rounds I put through both of them combined. The 66 had an excellent trigger. The 689 has one that is pretty good.

I've owned about a dozen Taurus handguns. One gave me trouble. It took two trips to the factory, but they eventually got it running right. The triggers have been about equally divided between great, okay, and stiff. The older ones have tended to be better.

My G2 has functioned perfectly through hundreds of rounds and I wouldn't hesitate to use it for SD.

IMHO, if you get a good or decent Taurus, it will be good or decent. In the much less likely event that you don't, they will eventually make it right. That is my experience since 1988. I am not a fanboy. Most of my more expensive handguns (S&W, Colt, CZ, etc.) have better triggers, but other than one used and defective example, my Taurus handguns have been reliable. Some have been excellent. Other than long guns, my preferred HD firearm is still my Taurus 689.

Taurus Model 689

• Tallball
• Jan 7, 2018
• 1

 

[MedWheeler]

Two thousand rounds is two thousand rounds, no matter the time frame across which they were fired. If they were fired trouble-free, then the owner has every right to claim a "2,000-round, trouble-free gun."

 

[MedWheeler]

kmw1954 writes:

Better yet go to Chicago, Milwaukee, Memphis or Baltimore and ask the survivors how many would have had time to pull a gun and defend themselves. There is no defending an ambush, drive-by or stray fired shot. I don't care what kind of gun you have in your waistband.

True, but this thread is about the gun you actually can use for personal defense. Cases in which one's gun isn't used are not relevant unless the quality of the gun is the only reason it was not used (for example, the gun fell apart into pieces as it was being drawn.)