More gun than I need

[RH822]

I was checking out the 1911 selection at a gun shop today. I was looking at low end 1911's by several different manufactures, the clerk trying to get an idea of exactly want I wanted kept bringing different makes with different features. Then he brought up a $1200 Kimber. I told him that owning that would be a complete waste of money on my part. He said, but Kimber's are fine handguns and began to explain the advantages of the Kimber over the lower end models. I told him that I agreed with him on every point he made.
He asked me, Why then is it a waste of money? I explained it to him like this.
The gun may be capable of Superior accuracy, but I am not. I can shoot a low end 1911 like the Spgfld mil spec just as well as I could a finely tuned target gun, I know my limitations and spending $1200 for me, would be a waste of money and gun. He said , wow I never looked at it like that before. Anybody else feel this way?

RH

 

[Byron Quick]

No,

In your situation, I would look at such a purchase as both a tool to practice with in order to improve my shooting and as a spur to practice more. An investment in a valuable skill.

In other words, it's not a reason to not spend more on a more capable firearm. It's a reason to spend more(in time and effort as well as money) on getting yourself better than you are.

You cannot buy skill with hardware, true. But you can increase your skill to the point where the better hardware is justified.

 

[Imaginos]

Gun vs. Ammo

I shoot/carry a Ruger P90.
I gave $325 for it about 9 years ago.
It has never had a burp, bobble, or hiccup.
I pull trigger. It goes bang.
Those Kimbers sure are pretty, but I'll keep my P90

 

[ptmmatssc]

I noticed some of the beat shooters at our club are the the most likely to be the ones using "low end" guns. As they have told me , and I agree , it's not the gun , it's the fellow behind it. I myself have gotten very respectable results with lower cost guns . I tend to finesse the best out of the gun and concentrate on MY ability rather than the guns . I guess it all boils down to what do you need the gun for ,are you planning on being a sniper? plan on going match shooting? plan on joining the olympic team ? Then yeah , get the best you can get , other than that , get what you feel will do the job you want it to do . Just my .02 .

 

[Chris Rhines]

Nope.

Would you expect a concert violinist to be able to improve if all they have to practice on is a $100 Taiwanese pressboard import? Same with guns. If you want to improve, you have to have the right equipment to practice on.

- Chris

 

[MICHAEL T]

GET A SPRINGER or what you want. Use all that kimber money for range and ammo . As long as pistol is relieable and you can use well. Price doesn't matter. Bullet doesn't know difference from Hi Point to Kimber.

 

[the pistolero]

I can shoot a low end 1911 like the Spgfld mil spec just as well as I could a finely tuned target gun, I know my limitations and spending $1200 for me, would be a waste of money and gun. He said , wow I never looked at it like that before.

I'd never have thought of it like that, but I certainly agree. I'd have bought the $1200 Kimber if my gun budget was that big, they're indeed fine firearms in my experience, but I am not ashamed to admit a Ruger P90 is my go-to gun for uninvited 3 AM visitors. So...

I shoot/carry a Ruger P90.
I gave $325 for it about 9 years ago.
It has never had a burp, bobble, or hiccup.
I pull trigger. It goes bang.

...what he said. But I would love to own a custom pistol before my time on this earth is done.

 

[Hemicuda]

I ALWAYS buy the best I can afford... quality is a good thing...

 

[Technosavant]

My take on it:

I shoot what I have until it becomes evident that it is the gun, not any lack of skill/practice holding me back. At that point, I'll worry about a better/upgraded gun. A base Springer can be upgraded as your skills improve, and it is a pretty decent platform to begin with. Keep in mind what improvement you can expect- while a less expensive gun might group 3-4" at 25 yards, a higher quality gun might tighten that to 2". For a competition gun, that might move you up a couple notches. For home defense, that difference won't matter.

I have no disdain for inexpensive or expensive guns, and each person makes his or her own choice with his or her own money. It's best to buy what you like to shoot and tune out the snobs.

I was at a wine tasting yesterday where a guy was disparaging a Muscato (very sweet dessert wine) but talking up a far more expensive full-bodied red (forget which). Most people in the room preferred the Muscato (I was one of them), and I just discounted the opinion of the loudmouth.

Guns aren't much different.

 

[M.E.Eldridge]

I think its always good to have a firearm which shoots better than than you can, so that you have room to improve without spending more money or changing whatever platform you're used to. At the same time I think you should also give a hard look to the overall value of the piece to you.

For instance, are you willing to spend 2000 dollars on a custom match pistol that can get .5 inch groups at 25 yards when you can get a 1000 dollar production gun that gets 1.00 inch groups at the same distance? Is the extra .5 inch worth the extra cost?(This scenario is of course completely hypothetical, so no comments about .5 inch handgun groups please.) If it is then the gun is worth it and it isn't too much. If it isn't then it may be too much.

This is a completely subjective decision, I think. No one can have one right answer than works for everybody. Disposable income and taste have a lot to do with it.

 

[doggscube]

There's nothing wrong with frugality as long as quality isn't being compromised.

-Jeff

 

[Handgun Midas]

My Kimber wasn't $1200 but boy am I glad I snagged it over a GI model.
Mostly because I wanted the more modern hammer and safety. The extended mag release is welcome to.

 

[Just_a_dude_with_a_gun]

Midas, Lots of people, myself included, do not care for the Schwartz safety, loop hammers, or pretty beavertails.

The GI is a great pistol, albeit with small sights, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Milspec.

I shoot fantastic groups with a GI, and it eats boxes upon boxes of everything, without a hitch. I don't need any more 1911 than that.

 

[offthepaper]

All that matters:
1) Results.
2) Reliability.
3) Confidence.
4) Value.

In that order.

 

[XLMiguel]

It all depends on your goals. If you are looking to hone your skills, it makes sense to buy something you can grow into/up to. If you just want to plink and have an HD gun, the lower end stuff is fine, but you should understand that at some point, you will not grow beyond the capabilities of your tool.

OTOH, something like a basic Springer can be a decent platform to upgrade and tune to your tastes as you abiities grow, nothing wrong with that approach, either. But at some point, you do get what you pay for. Good luck & good shootin' to ya.

 

[ptmmatssc]

It all depends on what the need is . If someone plans on shooting competitively , then buying a higher end gun is plausible , but if it's simply plinking and HD then whatever is functional , dependable , and suits the person holding it is fine .

 

[Geronimo45]

Makes plenty of sense to me. I think that most guns are more accurate than their shooters are - probably some lousy low-end stuff, but that's the exception. I'd like a tricked-out 1911 - but the extral $$ over a GI45 model would probably allow me to buy a nice silencer.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Another comment - I hate upgrading. It's usually a big waste of money to trade up. It makes more economic sense to buy the expensive gun now, even if I can't shoot up to it's potential, rather than buy something low-end with a mind to upgrade in the future.

- Chris

 

[meinbruder]

Re--More gun than I need.

I shot an issued GI.45 for a long time and became quite good with it. Ten years and fifteen thousand rounds later, it was retired with a shot out barrel. Life changed and I didn’t have the time, or money, to continue shooting in the previous manner.

I have since replaced the old 1911 with a Colt 1991a1, another of the “low-end MilSpec” models. I now have a regular shooting buddy, a convenient place to go, a running progressive loader, and the funds to get the kind of practice I would like to. A year from now, I’ll likely buy the Kimber and maybe shoot IDPA or three-gun. In the mean time, the 1991a1 is plenty of gun for me, and IDPA or three-gun is just as much a possibility with the lowly Colt.
Mike


}>

 

[thexrayboy]

My take on quality is it all depends on what you need to accomplish and how much your budget allows. I can't speak for anyone else but own experience tells me the higher dollar gun will probably be more accurate. Just last month I had to renew my CCW and my juridisdiction requires that you demonstrate
minimum competency with each weapon you intend to carry and list that weapon on your permit. ( I know it's stupid but it is the law here.)

Three of the nine weapons I opted to shoot for qualification were 1911 variations. One was a Rock Island, the next a Colt and the third a Kimber custom. I easily qualified with all three but the group shot by the Kimber was significantly tighter than the other two. That tells me that all other things being equal (or as equal as can reasonably be achieved) the Kimber will be more likely to hit what I aim at. Yes it cost three times as much as the Rock Island but it is in my estimation three times better built. YMMV but that's been my experience.

 

[BullfrogKen]

The difference isn't necessarily accuracy. In fact, I don't think its even a issue after you get above a certain price point; they'll all be in the same neighborhood.


Get the inexpensive one. My Kimber was $550, used. You don't have to spend $1k today. Eventually you will once you realize the other benefits.

 

[lycanthrope]

I own a couple Kimbers and the SA isn't losing anything, but perhaps a slight decrease in accuracy. Both are worthy of combat style competition and self defense. They are, for the most part, the same style of gun......

Now, you can't buy skill, but you can buy ease of use and some guns really are better suited to competition. When I went from a single stack Kimber shooting Limited 10 to a STI Edge, I moved up one class in one month. The easier reloads and forward weight distribution DID make scoring points faster.....easier.

 

[Ed Ames]

maybe more gun than you need -- to practice with

Everyone needs at least one extremely accurate gun of each type (i.e. a pistol and a rifle) but it doesn't need to be a .45. Why do you need it? Because if you know that the bullet is striking EXACTLY where you were aimed when you squeezed the trigger, you know that your 6" group can be shrunk. And that your 3" group can be shrunk. And that your 2" group can be shrunk. It keeps you honest and it keeps you improving. It also allows you to see your progress faster. I think it's a variation on the idea of a Poisson Distribution if anyone cares... or you can look at it as a signal:noise ratio issue... but any way you look at it you'll progress faster if you remove the gun's accuracy from your list of factors to consider.

Everyone needs one extremely accurate gun... but there's nothing wrong with an extremely accurate .22....

 

[Beetle Bailey]

While I agree that you cannot buy skill, I feel you can and should buy something that helps make your practice more worthwhile.

Let's say I buy the Springfield Mil-spec and practice shooting once a week, shooting up 200 rounds each time. Further, I practice dryfiring the Mil-spec every day. If I do this for three months straight, I should see some improvement.

Now let's say at the beginning that instead of buying the Mil-spec, I buy a Springfield TRP (I'm not really big on the new Kimbers). I do the same thing as above, shooting once a week and doing the dryfire practice each day. I should also see improvement from the first time I shoot the TRP to when I shoot it after three months of practice.

The thing is, given the same amount of practice, I suspect I'd do better with the TRP than the Mil-spec. The TRP has better sights and a better trigger. These features allow me to better take advantage of the inherent accuracy of the TRP. If I forgo practice, then I suppose it wouldn't matter so much what I buy, but if it is something I will be shooting a lot then I feel buying the better gun saves you money by making the skill progression faster and smoother.

Remember, you only pay for the gun once, but you are always paying for ammo. Why not get more for each round you fire by getting a gun that better suits you? (I know some people prefer the Mil-spec features anyways and to them I say "more power to you.")

 

[SolaScriptura139]

More gun than I need

Is this possible?

I would say that quality is the preferred option, that is, if you can afford quality. Of course, quality of gun won't make you a better shot, but it will definately ease the road, and will probably last longer. As the old adage goes, "You get what you pay for." And Kimbers are much purtier...