Gun preferences and the closed mind

[Eleven Mike]

Most of us gun nuts really love certain types of guns, and then some of us, like me, start to despise the competition. Of course, there are a lot of practical considerations in the 1911 v. Glock, AR v. AK threads, but I think most of us have our minds made up, even if we enjoy owning and shooting both types of guns.

My question is how big a role does all of this play, and how do these things start?

I got into guns a few years ago, and an important part of that was reading books by Tim Mullins and Jeff Cooper. I learned to shoot in Infantry OSUT, so at first I was looking for a rifle that was more powerful and more old-fashioned than that silly M16A2. I ended up with a fancy, new, European bolt-gun that could be fitted with a ten-round magazine. When I read enough gun magazines, I discovered the unassailable truth that push-feeds like my Steyr weren't as reliable as the controlled feed type. Before I knew it, I was lusting after a Mauser or somesuch. Soon, the Steyr was gone, and I had a milsurp Mauser. I have since learned that controlled-round feed may not be the Holy Grail, but it is too late. No matter how great those Savages and Remingtons may be, I'll never own one.

Colonel Cooper made me a 1911 fundamentalist, and it wasn't hard. Having never owned or shot any other handgun, the single-action automatic made perfect sense to me. No matter how many "experts" opine that the 1911 is more difficult to use than other handguns, to me it's just intuitive. When looking for a first carry gun (I'm out of handguns right now) I barely considered any other automatic. I can't afford a 1911 right now, so I have put a Smith Model 10 on layaway. It's not a 1911, but at least it's not one of those DA auto abominations. This is the prejudice that I live with and I don't intend to give it up.

Smith and Wesson's 1911 leaves me cold. Even if they produced an internal-extraction Commander with blue finish, I'm not sure I'd like it. Yet as much as I hate AR's, their M&P 15 is somehow attractive to me. Why should this be?

 

[AJ Dual]

I love all guns.

I just love some guns more...

 

[22-rimfire]

Interesting thoughts actually. We all have natural bias' toward one manufacturer or another both from a good (buy it or lust after it) or negative perspective. I have been looking at those Smith 1911's since they came out and almost everything I hear is good. I feel the same way about the Kimber 1911 22 auto pistol.

I try to not sell any guns unless I consider them to be a mistake purchase. I view them much like accumulating wealth. In the past, I used to buy guns just to trade or sell at gun shows. Now I wish I had some of those back as there were many nice ones. The blue and nickel Pythons and Diamondbacks come to mind as do a couple of Woodsman's.

Bias' start from comments made by friends or your own shooting experience. Look at the old 270, 308, 30-06 discussions... all do about the same thing, but many have a strong preference for one.

I have learned a lot from reading and participating in the gun forums. I hope that I have given something back.

It is hard for me to get past the anti-Taurus bias and I don't want to get past the anti-cheap gun bias. I used to feel the only good gun that Ruger made was their 22 autos. I have learned that they have a fairly good product overall if you don't mind the triggers. Still wouldn't buy a Ruger centerfire auto. I'd rather spend $200-$300 more and have a Kimber, Colt, or Smith. It is all presonal preference.

As time progresses, you may find that you are looking seriously at guns that years before you would never have considered buying or owning. That is the nature of knowledge, trends, and the finicky nature of human desires.

 

[Rembrandt]

Most biases come from our up-bringing......mom & dad had a Chevy (or Ford), kids generally follow suite....have seen the same with guns.

 

[Eleven Mike]

dad had a Chevy (or Ford), kids generally follow suit

Aint that the truth! My dad is a GM mechanic, and he ingrained his prejudices in me pretty deeply. I don't know or care much about cars, but I love razzing my friends about the poor quality of thier Fords or Dodges. As if I would know.

 

[sm]

On one private range where I assisted in teaching new shooters handguns, we had a variety of handguns, in various calibers.

I stole from Orwell's Animal Farm. and changed it a bit in addressing new shooters.

All guns are equal - some are more equal than others.

For example we had six Model 10 revolvers exact - except for the stocks.

Stealing again from either Hackathorn or Higgenbotthem...typing paper folded, then folded again. From 5 yards with only 5 rounds at the sound of the buzzer, shoot. We preferred from conceal with CCW students, still even from low ready the students learned a lot.

Targets revealed what THEY shot best as far as platform and caliber. Even using those six exact Model 10s - except for stocks - differences were noted.

My experience has been Ladies make better students. No preconceived notions, a willingness to learn and follow instructions, ask great questions, no egos...etc.

They tried semis and revolvers, in various calibers. They tried various carry methods and holsters.

No snobbery, no looking down if one chose a new Glock 26, another used Police trade in 3913 and yet another a used police Model 10, and still yet another going with a Commander sized 1911.

Now they preferred "pretty guns* and *pretty holsters* , though many did not have them...as they put the priority on form and function to them - not what everyone else was doing.

And by golly if the ladies say something is *cute* it is. I may be a dumb male, but not even I am going to dispute 4 or 5 ladies with guns ammo ...

One of the other guys brought his M1 out and let the ladies shoot it.
They said it was *cute*.
"The rifle itself??"
"No you two silly boys, the PING...that is so *cute*"



Kipling was right...

 

[orionengnr]

in spite of a regular poster's tagline...

...open-mindedness is not a death sentence.

As a young lad, my dad had me shooting a 22 LR rifle at about six years of age and his WWII 1911 by age eight.

My own purchases (after his demise) included an absolute POS Colt 1911 and a 38 revo, both of which platforms I abandoned due to my bad experiences.

Fast forward 20 years--I now own several 38/357 revolvers and several 1911-type 45 acps.

Try it, love it, hate it, come back a few (or more) years later and try again...

I am about to sell a Glock I bought new in 1992. Maybe I will regret it and be in the market for one a year or three from now... who knows?

 

[1911JMB]

I have a thing against AR's. I have seen them get dirty and jam too many times to believe in them. Plus, I think while a .223 is a good round for full auto, bigger rounds should be used when 1 bullet at a time is all you got. My preference would go to a 12 gauge or .308 battle rifle when semi auto or pump is on the table. Thats my only silly bias.

 

[armoredman]

When it comes to handguns, I worked at an indoor range for a while, and shot everything the rental shelf had to offer, and the used guns too. I like the SiG P220, but the one that fit me like a glove was the CZ ergonomics. The accuracy and reliability just made the sale.
That doesn't mean I would fell bad carrying a P220 - I'd love one. I have carried Cz-70s, Smith 29, Taurus 605, Walther PPK/s, and my long lost, beloved EAA Witness 40. Many handguns have gone through these fingers, I just discovered I am very very partial to CZ...
Rifles? Gah, who knows? I like FALs, but have never shot one. I do like my Yugo SKS, and really like my Enfield Number 4 MK1*....

 

[torpid]

My question is how big a role does all of this play, and how do these things start?

Reading your post, you've pretty well answered both questions already. It looks like you've been told what to like, and choosing to be a 1911 fundamentalist you seem unwilling to challenge that "faith".

(the rest of my post is directed towards folks in general...)

I tend to try and shoot a gun and see if a gun fits my criteria before I form too strong of an opinion of it (is it comfortable, reliable, and accurate?).

It's certainly easy to dismiss a gun you've never shot, especially so when the most vocal folks are decrying them around you and it's currently trendy to put them down.

On the other hand, if you never shoot anything else, your gun is the best gun you'll ever shoot, so it must be great.

Today I shot a Kimber 1911 again, just to see how I'd feel about it a second time, and (gasp) I truly just did not enjoy shooting it (even when it wasn't jamming every third round).

Therefore, since my sig p229 worked and felt great, and inexpensive taurus mil pro never had a FTF and is more comfortable to me, it continued to prove to me that 1911's are unreliable junk!
(not really, just makin' a silly point)

Different strokes for all folks, it's just that people love to label themselves with a particular brand, and then bash all the others to make them feel secure in their brand "monogamy".

I just wish people in general would at least try to not bash a gun without some firsthand experience.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Reading your post, you've pretty well answered both questions already.

Not really, just gave my own experience.

It looks like you've been told what to like, and choosing to be a 1911 fundamentalist you seem unwilling to challenge that "faith".

I have been told what to like by a lot of people, but I guess the 1911 dogma is what I've gone in for. Maybe it just made more sense to me, or maybe the straight-forward operation of the 1911 just appeals to me. I think it goes deeper, though. When I was a teenager, looking at pictures of guns, I thought the P226 was the coolest, escpecially as everyone knew 9mm was the coolest, most high speed cartridge around. This was in the heyday of the wondernine. I think my switch to the 1911 was heavily influenced by the fact that I have gotten more old-fashioned in the past ten years. That's also why I rejected the AR. I would have picked up an M1A, but went with the less expensive bolt gun. I went to the Mauser when I realized the Steyr was too new-fangled, even for a bolt gun. But Smith and Wesson go and slap that old fashioned label on their AR, and suddenly I like it. Speakin' of which, I may turn out to be a revolver guy eventually, but I still dream of getting another 1911.

 

[Kodiaz]

My uncle hates 1911's and never ever said a good thing about the 45 ACP. My first handgun a Ruger .40 (stainless I hate rust). I was very happy with my half plastic half stainless ruger. But then I go to my arms dealer(gunshop) and on the counter is a Springfield 1911 in stainless. So I ask to pick it up and it just felt great. So I go home and start doing my research. I decide I'd like a Kimber. So I find a Kimber here on THR and but it. I love it my poor .40 doesn't see 50 rnds a month now. I like my Kimber so much I want to get one with lefthanded controls now(I'm naturally left handed but I am very ambidextrous so I shoot my Kimber with my right hand because of the controls)


But now I have a hated 1911 shooting the hated .45 ACP. It's really funny to me because my uncle had a lot to do with me shooting. My Dad isn't into handguns at all.


Hey you can do worse than be a 1911 fanatic. From the mind of God to the hands of John Moses Browning.

 

['Card]

1. I tend to dislike guns that I consider to be overpriced. When a company produces a weapon using pretty much the same manufacturing techniques, with little or no added R&D costs, and still charges much more than others? Then I generally feel like that company is trying to coast on name and marketing alone (like Harley-Davidson does with motorcycles, for example) and I don't care for that. That alone will usually make me avoid their products.

2. I tend to like owning something a little different than what everybody else has. If a particular gun is popular because it's the stand-alone far-and-away best in its class, then I can respect that - but more often than not, I've found there's something equal or better available if you're willing to do your homework and look for it. Those are the guns I find myself more interested in.

3. I don't like fads (specifically when it comes to ammo) and tend to try to avoid them.

4. I don't like 'pretty' guns. To me, a gun is a tool. Adding anything to a gun that jazzes up its appearance but doesn't do anything for its performance is... well, it's like wrapping a ribbon around a hammer. I want plain and simple. I want form-follows-function.

5. I don't like pseudo-military weapons. I marched, fought, and jumped out of airplanes with military weapons for four years. I understand the criteria that the military uses to select a weapon, and the factors that go into military weapon design. I don't feel those factors apply to civilian needs, and that there's almost always a better choice (in terms of performance) available, at a much lower price point, without black plastic on it.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

My bias stems from using many types and finding what I am most comfortable with and what fits my idea of fun.

I like big caliber revolvers. Ruger being my favorite maker.

I do not hate pistols but I would rather have and shoot a revolver anyday. Almost all of my gun training was on semi-autos and I am proficent with them but my love of the more "cowboy" side of firearms leads me to revolvers.

It is more of an emotional thing then anything else. I grew up with all the movies and TV series guys having the cool revolvers. I myself love the feel of cocking back the hammer on a nice single action.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I don't have any biases that I know of. I just like what I know works. That and what's comfortable. Also, that which is configured for my uses.

Over the years, I've seen everything that's been hailed as 100% reliable fail over and over, I've seen everything labeled jam-o-matic run and run without a single failure. Not saying this is common, but I just don't buy into "reputations"... I go by personal experience.

I don't have a bias against small/fast, nor large/slow projectiles. I don't have a bias against metal or plastic. I don't have a bias against expensive or inexpensive. There are crappy expensive guns, and excellent budget guns.

I've heard horror stories about every gun out there. Nothing is immune. Because virtually all guns are mass produced. And guns are made by man, and man is not perfect - so neither are his products.

What it comes down to is recognizing what is less prone to failure. There are MANY guns that are quality. The key is to accept that every single one of them, regardless of that particular make/model's reputation for reliability - has the potential to fail. Once you accept this, you will adjust for it accordingly by having more than 1 gun, or a plan, and of course training.

Example:

(not picking on AK's, apply this to anything you wish)
AK's are super reliable. You can buy one for SHTF or whatever. They have a track record unmatched by any rifle on Earth. You go to use it, and snap - broken shell stuck in the chamber. This can and does happen to any autoloading rifle. A piece of Wolf ammo just rendered a legacy of reliability moot. All that wonderful engineering lost because of the poor quality of a different component.

So as you see, firearms are not magic tools. They are a part or piece of a "system". You, ammo, mags, gun etc..

The system is only as good as its weakest link (which is often the user)

Training counts. There is way too much emphasis on equipment, and too little on the user. Sure, seek the better guns, but that is not a solution in and of itself.

There are too many variables, often beyond your control that come into play to buy into a particular brand. Don't become a kool-ade drinker. Wasting too many brain cells on brand-loyalty and never ending "vs." arguments solves little. It is fun occasionally though..

 

[aaronrkelly]

I have had many in my few years of gun ownership......so far they have all been tossed aside slowly.


First - tactical synthetic over wood. I used to despise wood on a gun. Give me uber-ninja tactical anything over wood. That was rediculous and Im glad that bias is gone. I still prefer some guns in synthetic but I do appreciate a nice wood on a firearm

Second - new design vs old design. I used to buy only newer designed pistols. Buy Glocks...no 1911s, they were "old" pistols. I purchased a Kimber 1911 in December '04 and have carried it daily since. Just because its an older design doesnt make it inferior. Lesson learned.

Third - autos rule and revos suck. This was a pretty sad bias. I completely missed out on some fine revolvers with this one. I bought a Smith J frame only because I needed something light and reliable. I hated the fact it was a revolver but thought I would get over it. Next thing I know Im buying another revolver, then another......revos are great.

Fourth - new vs old. Until recently I had never bought a used gun. About a year ago I bought a Russian SKS. It turned out great. This got me into C&R firearms, which are all "used" guns. After several C&R purchases it doesnt bother me the slightest to buy used guns. I have gotten some VERY good deals doing so. Seems firearms are everyones answer to getting quick cash.....I keep a little money around just for this.

Im about as open minded as it gets. I dont pass judgement on much until Ive tried it. I recently bought a HiPoint even. Try everything once.......

 

[tgunner]

I'm a guy that likes what works. If it dosen't work for me then I don't keep it even if somebody else has one that works flawlessly. It just has to work.

Im about as open minded as it gets. I dont pass judgement on much until Ive tried it. I recently bought a HiPoint even. Try everything once.......

Aaron, how did that Hi Point work out for you? I've heard tons of horror stories but didn't put any stock in them without personal experience. I have one and it's worked perfectly from day 1. Like I said earlier, it has to work. If my Hi Point hadn't worked it would be gone. If only everything I have had only cost me $100 bucks.

 

[redneck2]

I tend to take "truisms" with a grain of salt. A suspect a significant number of posters on the errornet make blanket statements with limited or no experience.

One of the things that was nice about working in a gun shop with a range is that you have the opportunity to look at, try out, and talk to a lot of owners of various types of firearms

I'm pretty well convinced that DA/SA autos will never be in my safe. There may be one that has less than a sledge hammer trigger, but I haven't seen it (with the exception of a Para, if you want to count that). We had quite a few guys that did poor to very poor with auto pistols, I'd let let shoot my 45LC Ruger and they were amazed by the trigger pull.

I intentionally have gotten a variety of action types. In shotguns I've got an O/U, sxs, auto and pump. I've got Ruger & S-W revolvers, Glocks and 1911's. Single shot, lever, bolt, auto & AR rifles.

About the only absolutes are:

1) crap triggers make for crap shooting

2) in optics, you generally get what you pay for

YMMV

 

[1911 guy]

Good experience, good reviews or good publicity.

I think we all get our opinions on most things from experience, anothers experience related to us (review) or the current trend we're being hit with in whatever media applies.

For example, I had a Remington semi auto. Over-Lawyer'ed trigger and I couldn't stand it. I won't own another autoloader by Remington. Bolt guns, yes, but MY EXPERIENCE was bad with a Remmy auto.

My Uncle Phil told me about a Marlin he'd shot and really liked the trigger and accuracy. Needing a non-antique .22LR and a non-Remmy autoloader, I picked one up. Is it the cat's meow? To me it is. Trigger is good, accuracy is great, 18 round mag lets me go without a reload all day in the woods. It's got a funky black plastic stock I'm not crazy about, but I overlook it. Why? Because my uncle focused my attention on the good parts with his REVIEW of one.

I recently bought a 1911 clone from Para Ordnance. Single stack, single action, looks very nice. It also took me quite a while, between work, family and shooting, to get it to run properly without FTF every other round. It works fine now, but the point is that I could shout this from the rooftops, everyone who's ever had a bad Para (or Kimber, Les Baer, Rock River, etc.) could go to your door personally to say "don't do it!", but marketing does it's job and we buy. Why'd I buy a Para when what I really wanted was another "ugly" 1911 to beat up carrying it around? PUBLICITY.

Oh, and Orionengnr, it's not a death sentance, I agree. But it IS over rated.

 

[dfaugh]

I was about to say that I didn't really have any bias, as long as the gun did what I wanted, or occasionally just because its "cool" (in looks, but more because of type of functioning or somesuch). Then I realized I wasn't being truthful with myself.

I doubt I'll ever own an AR--underpowered for a high capacity weapon

10/22--Doesn't do anything my Marlin 60 can't do better...and while I tinker (lots) with some of my guns, I consider a .22 to be utilitarian, and if I were to spend more $$$ on a .22 there are better options

Mini-14/30--OK, but seemingly innacurate, underpowered, or easily replaced by an SKS for lots less $$$

Mossberg shotguns--Since my first shotgun at age 14, I've never owned anything BUT Mossbergs...and don't have any reason to switch.

There's some others, but those are common examples.

So I guess I have SOME biases, but they're subject to change without notice!

 

[Baba Louie]

My question is how big a role does all of this play, and how do these things start?

For some, this bias, is a, if not THE, major point in their weapons dogma. The quote, "Beware a man who has but one gun" (since he probably knows how to [really] shoot it well) could, in todays economic climate where it's quite possible to own at least 2 or more guns, also tell you that said single gun owner has made a decision. We'd have to ask him or her WHY only one gun and we might get a good response that we'd agree with.

I prefer the axiom, "Jack of all trades, master of none" in that I desire to be able to fire several different types of arms, equally poorly...

But that's just me. It gives my mind a chance to figure out why I like this one, or do not like that one, much as Eleven Mike has analyzed his selection of long guns.

Any gun will do, if you'll do. Again, "Not the size of the dog in the fight, rather, the size of the fight in the dog".

Simple is good.

Training is good.

Bigger is sometimes better.

Fast can be good also.

The knowledge that you can hit what you aim at, quickly could mean something important at some point in your life. Food on the table. Your life.

Why the bias or close-minded behavior? Experience. Free will. I like chocolate, you like vanilla, some like Rocky Road. That, and advertising, gun mag writers/articles and lately, the internet. Our early training.

My male predecessors were all military with a couple becoming LEO's. I gravitate towards their indoctrination (mindset) and examples they taught me. Oh. I also like all things Cowboy or with some history behind them. Oh. And all things John Moses Browning. Or Paul Mauser. Or Sam Colt. Or Dan and Horace. A few others as well.

I'm just wishy-washy.

If I'm going to stake my life on it, I can get sorta particular in terms of caliber and design model. And feel free to disagree. But you probably won't change my mind easily, ya know?

 

[armoredman]

Don't tread on me, thanks for the reminder - order going to Numrich for broken shell removers, all calibers...