Hi Points came up in another topic, so I'll copy part of my reply here.
Why do people knock Hi Point?
1) Low price.
A) Hi Point has very limited marketing, which allows for the lower price. The company cost savings here are passed on to the consumer. Advertising is done primarily on a word of mouth basis. Don't think for a minute that the consumer doesn't pay more for a product that is mass marketed.
2) Polymer
A) Glock. 'nuff said. But even moreso, many firearms are being released with polymer frames.
3) Unreliable
A) Unsurpassed warranty.
B) Some of the Hi Points made in the 80's had less than stellar QC. The ones in current production are just fine. The argument that they are unreliable is a myth.
4) Finicky about ammo.
A) So are a lot of guns. My HP will eat anything and keep on going.
5) Criminals use them
A) Criminals also use Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer, S&W, Ruger, Colt and anything else they can get their hands on, via whatever channels they can utilize.
6) They are ugly.
A) So what? Personal preference based on appearance should be a deciding factor for the individual purchasing the gun, not hearsay on an open internet forum.
7) They are utilitarian
A) again, so what? Does a gun need three different safties, interchangable sight systems, tactical rails or any of the other accoutrement seen on high end, high dollar guns? No.
8) They are heavy
A) not ideal for concealed carry, that is true. But the heavier gun decreases felt recoil. In a .45, I prefer a heavier gun for that very reason.
Any other common complaints against Hi Point I've missed?
I Own a 995 TS carbine, and love it. It will typically get 100 rounds or more through the barrel each range trip. Granted, it's fairly new and only been uot twice, but so far 200+ rounds through it of cheap steel cased Tula Ammo and not a single FTF FTE or misfire.
I have fired the older style 995 as well, and had no complaints with it what so ever other than magazine capacity.
I do not currently own any handguns, but I have fired both the C9 and the .45, a couple hundred rounds each.
I don't particularly like the C9, not because it didn't operate as advertised, or its looks. I didn't like how it fit in my hand. Maybe with the 10 round mag it would be better, but I only had the chance to fire the 8 rounders. Ammo quality was ok, mostly winchester white box bulk ammo, with half a box or so of Federal. No FTF, FTE or misfires.
I also got to fire the .45 handgun. It has a much better fit to my hand, and I plan on getting one, probably as my next firearms purchase.
I fired only the Remington ammo bulk pack (250) rounds through the gun. No FTF, FTE, or misfires. Seems like a running trend. Anyway, I felt the weight was on par with that of a full sized 1911, recoil on par with a mid length barrel 1911. I was able to run the gamut of .45 caliber handguns in one day, from Hi Point to Glock to Kimber. Yes, the Kimber is a great gun, with a pricetag equal to a case of Hi Points. I hated the Glock. Yeah, I'm not a Glock fan. Not because they are bad guns, but because I feel like I have to point my hand at the ground to get impact at point of aim. I find the ergonomics of the Glock to be horrendous. Fix that, and I'd buy one.
Deanimator mentioned that the direct blowback system is a bad feature. Fine, his opinion and he is entitled to it. I for one don't mind the direct blowback. I experienced more malfunctions with the Kimber and the Glock on my .45 shooting spree than I did with the Hi Point.
Hi Point - 0
Glock - 5 FTE(could have been because I could not get used to the grip and limp wristed) 1 FTF
Kimber - 1 FTE
Is HP overall more reliable than Glocks or Kimbers? Who knows, my trials were speculative based on what I was able to experience.
I will own a HP .45, no question. I will not own a Glock, ever, unless they have one without the awful grip angle. I will not own a Kimber, because my budget will never allow for it.
Although the OP already went with the Ruger, my advice (and that of many others) still stands. Take it for what it's worth.
