Explain the logic behind carrying a cheap gun to me?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JLStorm

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
1,131
Here is how I figure it: I pay around $1000.00 on car insurance a year, none of which I will ever get back, unless I happen to get in an accident, in which cast my rates will go up and I will end up paying the money back one way or another. I pay around $750.00 for my carry gun(s) one time, and I have the gun until I need it for a life or death situation, and then I may have to turn it over the authorities after it has served its purpose. I may have to buy a new gun, and I am sure I will not have a problem with this seeing as I am still alive, which I am sure I'll be thrilled about, but the $750.00 I paid was well worth the life that it saved.

Someone want to explain this wisdom to me of saving a few dollars on a cheap gun that isnt as reliable as you would like or may lack desired features simply to save money solely in case it may get confiscated one day? :scrutiny:

EDIT: Again, I am not asking why you carry a reliable gun that doesnt cost much, I am asking why you carry a gun you dont care for, or one that isnt as reliable as the one you keep in your safe simply so that you wont be out much money in case of confiscation for evidence.
 
Last edited:
I have carry guns I paid less than $400 for. I also have some that cost $3,000.


Its all in what I need them to accomplish for me. Its not so much the dollar figure for me, but my expectation of the gun's ability to perform must be met.


I too cannot embrace stinginess when it comes to guns I expect to perform a duty. The costs of mechanical failure are too high.
 
I'd love it if we could get over the whole "cheap must equal crap" mentality already.

Here's a reason though, to keep with the topic - because not all of us have that kind of money, even if it's a one-time purchase. I live on a damn near fixed income, and I take my deals where I can find 'em. If I'm confident in my ability to use it and it's ability to function I'll carry a Lorcin that's been beat to hell, dropped in a mud puddle, and chewed by a pitbull if I have to. I'd rather not have to debate myself over "do I splurge on the Sig, or do I buy groceries". Ya know?

Functionality and build quality can be hit-or-miss with any brand, at any price, at any time. People make do with what they can afford, and feel confident in.

And to simplify all that - the first rule of a gunfight - BRING A GUN.
 
Not having enough money is one issue, but the issue I am referring to isnt simply not being able to afford a decent gun, its buying cheaper just on the chance that it gets confiscated for evidence should you need to use it to defend your life, so that you wont be out a bunch of money after the fact.
 
I carry a Sig 220 that I got lightly used for $400 last year. Internally it was nearly new--the only problem that I could see was some holster wear. How exactly is it inferrior to a new Sig that costs $800?
 
JL - I guess I just don't see the point. I could care less if the gun is confiscated, if it saves my life it's worth it no matter how much it cost. Having said that, I still don't see what the point of your post is...cost is cost, if the gun works it works. All machines have the possibility of failure, sure some more than others but even with a crappy gun the chances I think are negligible.
 
I've carried an ugly, real ugly, 3" S&W 36 from time to time. It cost less than $200. But it worked. It really worked.

JLStorm said: buying cheaper just on the chance that it gets confiscated for evidence should you need to use it to defend your life, so that you wont be out a bunch of money after the fact.
Click to expand...


Ummm . . . Hate to break it to you, but if you ever DO use a gun to defend yourself, the replacement cost of the gun will be the least of your worries.


Why do folks think if they use a gun to shoot someone in self defense, they automatically will lose it for life? If you're cleared and aren't in prison over it, you're entitled to get it back. The courts don't keep cars that were in accidents indefinitely. Once things are settled, you'll either get it back, or you won't. If you don't, as I said, you'll have other things to worry about besides the cost of that gun.
 
Quality

I have an XD 40 that cost me about $620 (has Trijicon night sights).

I have an S&W 586 in .357 that cost be under $450.

My wife has a Millenium Pro PT111 that cost me $300.

I would feel comfortable with any one of them.

My son has a Hi Point C9. He shoots it better than I do the XD 40. I shoot it well. It has never failed. It cost less than $200. I would carry it if need be.

The only gun I would NOT feel comfortable carrying, I sold to a gun shop.

If I can't count on it, never mind the cost, I'm not keeping it.

If it's faithful to me and I can hit with it, then I keep it and it's eligible for carry.
 
In some cases (say the Kel-Tec P-3AT) you have a combination of lower price and a design that fills a specific niche.

Basically it really comes down to reliability. If a firearm fills the reliability requirements (after actual testing of that specific unit, not just a make or model line) then who CARES what it's price point is?
 
JLStorm,

I think your post that started this thread hints at just a tad bit of gun snobbiness. If this is incorrect, please accept my apologies.

Inexpensive does not mean junk. I have a 300 dollar pistol that goes bang everytime I pull the trigger and has been 100% reliable. Paying extra money for a firearm is no guarantee of reliability. As carriers of Concealed Handgun Permits/Licences we have to assume (although I hate using that word, perhaps "Have Faith" is better?) that our fellow licensees / permit holders have ensured that they are proficient with their respective firearms and that they have used reliability as the primary (hopefully) or secondary criteria for selecting that firearm.
 
Cheap gun or none at all

I have over 30 guns to chose from. My wife picks one of two when she carries. She selects either a Walther P22, or a Charter Arms Undercover .38 spl w/ a short 2 inch barrell. I really don't care what she carries, at least she has something.
 
Cheap don't always mean junk, and expensive don't always mean good. The 3.00 gasoline don't burn a bit better in my truck that when it cost less than 1.00. :)
 
I did not intend for my initial post to sound snobby, and I have nothing against buying an inexpensive gun if it is reliable Glock and Keltec were mentioned which are great guns. I have carried a glock for work before and I currently own two J frames one of which was not very costly at all, but is a workhouse.

Keep in mind, my thread has nothing to do with inexpensive guns, it has to do with people who could otherwise afford a very reliable gun or a gun with features that would make carrying more easy for them, but specifically go with a gun which does not fit them as well or does not function as reliably and justify the trade off simply due to the chance that it will be confiscated for evidence at some point.
 
A "cheap" or inexpensive gun does not mean unreliable. I have expensive guns, but I choose to carry a Springfield GI that I paid a little less than $500 for. It's very reliable and accurate. I could carry an expensive gun, but I would rather my basic parkerized 1911 get beat up riding around in the center console of my truck than one of my more expensive firearms.
 
In my world, guns I would consider as reasonable for CCW / feel confident in carrying would range in price from $300 (Taurus M85) to about $750 (Kimber Pro Carry) - with the understanding that the reliability and performance of each gun needs to be evaluated. (My M85 has performed flawlessly, the hammer on my Pro Carry broke in half. Not to start a "Kimber vs. Taurus" discussion - just to make the point that Mfg and/or model do not necessarily guarantee reliability.)

Given that range of cost (and I understand your world may be different), your decision to carry a $750 gun puts you toward the upper end of that range. If you hold true to that philosophy, is your insurance one of the more "expensive" policies available? When I look on Travelocity for a flight between KC and Denver, I have options ranging from $148 to $837. Would you pick one of the more expensive flights?
 
Wow, it is amazing to me how many people simply dont read posts and yet feel the desire to comment anyway. I didnt ask why you chose to purchase an inexpensive gun, I asked why someone would choose to purchase a cheap gun solely due to the idea of it being confiscated. Not because its made well and less costly, not because you cant afford it, not because its used, but because of the idea that it might be confiscated and you wont be out of much cash if that happens. I cant tell you how many times
I have read that someone keeps their most reliable gun in the safe, while they carry a sub par gun in case the police take it for evidence one day.

Of course this post doesnt matter since most responses were obviously make without reading...:banghead:
 
Good responses so far. There's another view that comes from the field of economics.

We all face numerous risks in our lives. We'd like to minimize as many of those risks as possible, but doing so costs time and money, and so we're forced to balance risk with the enjoyment of life. For example, my house, like most houses, doesn't have a sprinkler system in it. Now, if a big fire quickly broke out, I could lose my life for want of a sprinkler system. Despite that, I feel that it's rational to spend my money on things other than a sprinkler system, since the chance that I'll need it is relatively small.

Using the amount of money people will spend to reduce risk by certain amounts, economists have been able to calculate how much people appear to value their lives. If something has a 1/50,000 chance of killing me and I'm willing to spend $20.00 to reduce it to 1/100,000, then I'm apparently valuing my life at $2,000,000.

$20/(.00002-.00001) = $2,000,000

From different calculations of this type, economists have found that people tend to value their lives at about $1,500,000 to 2,000,000. Of course, such calculations are subject to people's irrationalities. When it comes to purchasing and maintaining smoke detectors, people value their lives at a few hundred thousand. When it comes to airplane safety, the same people value their lives at several hundred million. Also, I'm anticipating the response of "if someone said give me three million or your life, I'm going with the three million." Of course you would. This analysis only applies to reducing relatively small percentages, which is how the vast majority of our daily lives work. All in all, this is still a fairly useful way to look at things.

So, getting to the guns. Over the course of 20 years, the average American has a 118/100000 chance of being murdered. Let's imagine that having a properly working gun on you will protect you from 90% of all murders. That reduces your chance of being murdered to 11.8/100000. Let's further imagine that an $300 gun will work 99% of the time while a $1000 gun will work 99.9% of the time.

Here's the math:

$700/[(.000118)(.01)-(.000118)(.001)] = $659,133,710

Life doesn't get valued at $660 million, so you don't buy the $1000 handgun.

Now, I'm not trying to convince people not to buy nice guns. I guarantee you that my numbers are wrong. I'm just giving an example of how someone could come to the conclusion that s/he should buy an inexpensive gun to carry and spend the remainder on something else. The more you spend, the closer you can get to 100% protection, but sometimes the money is better spent elsewhere.
 
I reread the OP a few times just now. I guess I could see how the confiscation was what you were asking about, but I honestly thought it was a minor point. The part on confiscation didn't get much prominence in the post. Sorry if I misinterpreted.
 
If it works reliably and is reasonably accurate, who cares what it costs?
If it is a jam-o-matic or has serious accuracy issues, who cares what it costs?

A violent felon isn't going to say "that thing only cost $200, it can't possibly stop me," and neither will he say "that thing cost $1200, I'm dead where I stand."

The only thing that matters is that the lead will end up on target when the bang switch is pulled. Anything else is nothing more than personal preference.
 
JLStorm,
Even though most people didn't really focus on your question, you should be able to get an answer to your question. It's OK to carry a cheap, dependable gun in case it is confiscated, to avoid being down a lot of money, in my opinion. Even a cheapskate (by choice not by means) has a right to carry a cheap (reliable or unreliable) gun.

It would be stupid to carry a cheap gun that doesn't work well to defend your life, or whatever the case may be.

There is NO wisdom in buying a cheap, unreliable gun.

I'd be interested to know what your opinion is....
 
JL, I think I read your question as this:

'Why do you pick your carry gun based on what you are willing to have confiscated?'

I do not understand that decision process myself. I pick my carry based primarily on the same criteria I used when I bought the gun in the first place.

I want a comfortable and reliable weapon. In order to carry it I also need to insure that I have spent time with it at the range, so that I am confident in the functionality.

Price is not a factor, except where it would be in any shopping such as in comparison when choosing between different models, etc.
 
I don't think people worrying about having a gun confiscated bears very much on their decisions about how much to pay for it in the first place. If you look at the whole picture, most people don't pay ANYTHING for a carry gun- because they don't carry to start with.

It's been my observation in life that a lot of people worry more about odds than stakes. The odds are you won't get victimized, the stakes, like the old Jack Benny joke puts it, are your money or your life. Most people play the odds in life without worrying so much about the stakes.

Some of us are more concerned aout the stakes (specifically, our lives and our families') than the odds. Since we CAN do something to weight the odds in our favor where such high stakes are concerned, we do- we buy a sidearm, train and practice with it, get permits to carry and so on. How much difference does this make as far as the odds are concerned? Most of us don't really know, on an actuarial basis.

Nor do we care. Because it isn't the ODDS we think about or care about. It's the STAKES.

hth,

lpl/nc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
  • Poll
The logic of "A gun on/in my nightstand"
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
brandnew
B
T
  • Locked
Explain The Rationale Behind Rotating Carry Guns Please
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
harbingerm
H
O
  • Locked
How do you choose?
Replies
2
Views
174
JoeSlomo
J
mnrivrat
  • Locked
What's the Logic behind + P ammo
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Drail
D
bigtubby
  • Locked
Ruger Speed six 9mm Value
Replies
9
Views
2K
bigtubby
bigtubby
Back
Top