Cheapie guns offend me!

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Min

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
915
Location
Houston, TX
How about you?

Now, before I get flamed for you Makarov and Bersa fans, let me add I have no problem with low-priced quality guns. But the guns that are obviously lacking in quality really bug me - Lorcins, Bryco, Jennings, Cobra, EAA Witness handguns (they may be okay, but I would not buy one), Charter Arms, and even Taurus (they may be getting better but the stigma will still take time to overcome).
 
No they don't. Every citizen regardless of how much money they have should be able to buy a gun.

If all they can afford is a lorcin or Jennings, so be it, guns should not be only for the rich and elite of society.

On another note, you really saying a Taurus/EAA is on the same level as lorcin/jennings?
 
No problem with cheap guns for me. As long as a gun functions as designed and reliably, I won't complain about it. When they manufacture a model that is a POS from day one and never works, then we have trouble.
 
Hey, I feel blessed that I can afford Beretta, Sig Sauer, and Kimber. What if I couldn't? I'd be looking at some of the manufacturers you have mentioned.
 
Cheapie cars offend me. Afterall, if you can't afford a Mercedes, Jaguar, Rolls, Cadillac, or Hummer... you shouldn't be driving.

J.B.
 
Cars analogy... I would not buy a Yugo or a Hyundai new just because it was cheap...I'd get a used Toyota!
 
Don't we all buy within our financial limits? I'd love to have a Wilson/HK/Knight's but that's too much money, just like a mercedes or jaguar. If that's all you can afford it still beats a knife.

Where'd you get your handle, Min? Fan of Jordan or just coincedence?
 
Cool beans, this typing at the same time.

Robert Jordan is an author. One of his characters is named Min, short for Elmindrada...which she thinks is entirely too girly. Coincedence is a wonderful thing. My curiosity is sated.
 
I once owned a Lorcin and Hi-Point.

The Lorcin failed to feed and fire, with unfailing reliability. :mad:

The Hi-Point sorta worked, but shortly afterwards I bought a new Norinco 1911A1 for just a little bit more.

This has been a popular topic here on THR. While I would never begrudge somebody the right to own a defensive handgun, for the money spent, a nice used S&W revolver, a Makarov, Ballester Molina, or Taurus would serve the purpose much better. I've seen several S&W Model 10's for less than $175 in my local area that were very nice, and they'd handle +P .38 Special no problem.

Although, the Jennings/Bryco/Lorcin/Davis/Hi-Point family of firearms do have a heft and feel that *should* give them some knockdown power were they to be thrown at an assailant after jamming...
 
I am not a gun snob by any means, more like a middle-class gun owner. I buy CZ, Smith and Wesson revos, police trade-ins. It's just that when I see a Lorcin at the gun show it's like...yuck. If I guy only had a $100 to spend to buy a gun for self-defense, he should look into Eastern European surplus or something.
 
I am not a gun snob by any means, <snip> it's just that when I see a Lorcin at the gun show it's like...yuck.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what it means to be a gun snob. :p
 
I could never understand why someone would want to trust their life to a gun that has a reputation for problems. A gun for self-defense should be one of the most important purchases you ever make in your life, and a quality gun will probably last you your whole life. So why isn't a quality gun worth saving for even if it takes you longer? I don't understand "can't afford." If you can afford to save $100, you can afford to save $500. It'll just take longer. Or buy a used quality gun for $200 and you only had to save twice as long. This is a no brainer. Apparently, many people have no brains.

If you're a collector and are curious, then OK. If you're a criminal and need a piece that you will have to drop somewhere than I understand. But for self-defense?
 
Last edited:
I don't mind the lower priced firearms. I think it is nice a poor person can have at least "some" protection. You should not have to be a rich snob to own a firearm.
BTW, I don't consider Taurus or EAA Witness low quality. I own several Taurus's and one 40 cal. EAA Witness and have had no problems with any of them.
The 2nd Amendment should cover all law abiding citizens. Affordable firearms helps to insure all citizens can have protection.

Jim Hall
 
My Taurus 92AF has choked down 1000rnds of cheap Wolf 9mm without a single malfunction or anykind. Something alot of high dollar guns couldn't do... I happen to like inexpensive, but good stuff. I don't like actual cheap stuff like a Lorcin or something either though.
 
A few years ago a woman in Houston killed a burglar (paroled murderer) with a cheapie gun. She got three shots off before it jammed. Hit him all three times and that was enough.

No doubt in my mind that piece of junk (as many of us think of those guns) saved her life.

From the story I got the impression that's all they could afford.
If I was her husband I would really try to buy her a better gun now.:)
 
Jokerman,
You are one of the blessed few. Some people can't afford to save $100, and $500 is totally out of the question. Are you really recommending that these people spend their entire lives saving for a gun that they may have a very real need for today? Sure the cheap models may or may not work, but if that's all they can afford then they have every right to get one. A used revolver for $175 sounds like a very good deal, unless you don't have $175.
 
Anybody who buys a gun cheaper than mine is buying a junk gun.
Anybody who buys a gun more expensive than mine is a gun snob.
 
Jokerman,

You are out of touch.
I can afford ANYTHING I want to buy but I can remember when $80 for a gun was way down on the list of things I had to spend money on.

To a person living from paycheck to paycheck, spending money on a gun that they may never need and can't afford to shoot, is a big expense even if it is under $100.
 
Jokerman,

What's to say this hypothetical person isn't intent on buying a $500 gun, but rather than save $50 / month for 10 months, going without a gun the whole time, they instead buy a $100 Hi-point in two months and then start saving the $50 per month?

Should this person wait 10 months with no means to defend themselves? Or should that person pick up something that will serve a purpose while waiting to get the better tool? Granted, it'd take an additional two months to get to the point where they own a more expensive gun. But, two unarmed months followed by 10 not-so-well armed months is much better than 10 unarmed months.

YMMV,
Frank

P.S. That's what I did. I had a Hi-point .380 until I could afford to upgrade, and I felt good about it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
What have you learned from owning lots of guns over your life?
Replies
20
Views
764
mr hanky
M
P
  • Locked
Tiers of Quality
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
hAkron
hAkron
K
  • Locked
Gun products to avoid.
2 3 4 5
Replies
109
Views
9K
granuale
G
A
  • Locked
Thoughts on Bryco and the cheap pistols.
Replies
24
Views
2K
k4swb
k4swb
courtgreene
  • Locked
Making converts
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
.455_Hunter
.455_Hunter
Back
Top