cheap gun bashing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bashing of all categories is very common on the internet; people who normally avoid face-to-face confrontation (timid types) become “Bravehearts” behind the keyboard in their living room recliner. I would not try to understand it nor take it personally - the internet allows people to be who they are not. Buy, own, discuss any firearm you wish.
 
billybob44 writes:

As written, there is nothing about what was posted that is "poor judgement" for this forum. You seem to be under the impression that the phrase "poor people who were not white" means the same thing as "all poor people are not white" when that is simply not the case.

It is no secret that many gun-control laws were in fact enacted to restrict the access to firearms from economically-disadvantaged (what we call "poor") blacks (what he was referring to as "not white.") That's all the member "ar-newbie" was saying. I certainly don't see that as inappropriate for THR.
Some of those same laws were used to restrict the rights of poor Whites as well. Not like anyone has a monopoly on being a victim.

Rich and influential people obsessed with power who aren't concerned with principles, morals or being fair don't want anyone armed that might act differently than they would like. They don't care if you and yours die or are injured during a crisis or in conditions that they helped create, that's the whole point.

To think that those kind of people feel some sort of kinship with a working or middle class family based on skin color is ludicrous.

An inexpensive gun means that those without a lot of money can potentially change things and defend themselves at a price that anyone can afford. Those sort of people don't want that.

-----

As far as economically priced guns go they run a wide spectrum from barely functional to actually working well (but perhaps being ugly and poorly balanced).

In respect to Hi Point they may look horrible, but they work. I'd steer someone towards a used pistol, former combloc import or milsurplus first. However if that's all someone can afford at least a Hi Point pistol will work.
 
Last edited:
A few states have "melting point" laws, Illinois is not alone in this. It was a misguided attempt at crime control and the idea dates quite a ways back, to the 70's. At the time the crime rate was pretty high and these inexpensive guns kept showing up at crime scenes.

First, the GCA of 1968 banned the import of many of the small inexpensive guns. Then manufacturers, in classic "work-around" fashion, just started importing the parts and assembling them here.

Many of the Heritage .22's get caught by these laws, along with other guns. The poly frame guns don't, either because the law may specifically state "metal frame" guns or because technically they don't "melt". They may seriously deform but not actually turn to liquid.

Here is a somewhat outdated paper on the subject:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6828&context=jclc

I don't have a problem with inexpensive guns. I have a few Taurus handguns, and no longer have a few more, and while not very refined they certainly are serviceable weapons. The odds of your having a problem is bit higher as you go down in price point. But it's no matter to me. I have the patience and the experience to work through the issues. Frankly a reliable sub-$300 pistol is quite a value. I see them sub-$200 used. I've had one Taurus that had to go back to the factory. The rest of the problems were relatively minor and I fixed them myself. Magazines, magazine releases, extractors, and slide stops are the most common minor issues.

Frankly, I've had to send S&W's back at a (slightly) higher rate than the Taurus guns. But the "better" guns seem to either work perfectly, or have a serious problem. The less expensive guns are more often plagued with more minor problems. Sometimes more than one.

I've always said that the less expensive guns should be left to the more experienced shooters. We shoot a lot. We've gone through a bunch of guns. We know how to deal with them. I don't get why an experienced shooter would make a big deal of it and bad-mouth them. They should have run into problems here and there with all sorts of guns. I know I have. It's just the way it is. It's not like it's the only gun I have to shoot. Plus you gain a lot of general knowledge working with them.

So do the new guys a favor. Buy one and run it until you're sure of it. Then sell it to someone who needs it. That's where mine seem to go. Neighbors, their adult children, my wife's single friends.

Then I go back to my expensive guns....until another one comes along.
 
Cheap guns are like cheap whiskey. They both, within their limits, achieve their intended purpose but require a stockpile of aspirin.

Suppose in a steel challenge match, a first time shooter using a low cost firearm that is inappropriate for the cof asks what he can do to his firearm to make it better suited to the event. Many squad mates have been in a similar situation in the past and know that throwing money at this firearm is a poor use of scant funds. So the advice he gets is purchase a xxx this is more up to the task.

Is it bashing to advise the shooter to select a more appropriate firearm, one that has the ability to received future upgrades that are useful instead of wasting money on a functioning firearm that just isn't suitable no matter how much money you throw at it?



------
If you are going to bash a gun you better own it.

Thus sayeth Jack B the owner of all things good and proper.
 
Is it bashing to advise the shooter to select a more appropriate firearm, one that has the ability to received future upgrades that are useful instead of wasting money on a functioning firearm that just isn't suitable no matter how much money you throw at it?
No that's not bashing you are giving advise about another preferable firearm for the task at hand. You're not telling him he has a piece of junk.
 
I have a C9, and certainly understand why Hi-Points came to be.

However, the degree to which they are a value has diminished significantly in recent years due to the influx of inexpensive defensive guns in the market. Guns like the Taurus G2C, the SCCY CPX-II, and the Ruger EC9 are barely above what the C9 runs these days. They're also easier to carry, and safer with loaded chambers.

However, that added expense, no matter how minimal, may still be the breaking point for some people, including those most likely to need a gun due to their economically-disadvantaged environments.
 
Last edited:
thomas15 writes:

Is it bashing to advise the shooter to select a more appropriate firearm, one that has the ability to received future upgrades that are useful instead of wasting money on a functioning firearm that just isn't suitable no matter how much money you throw at it?

Only if a valid reason as to why the "functioning firearm" "just isn't suitable" isn't provided with such advice.

Hi-Points, especially the handguns, were not marketed to people who feel that no firearm is suitable for anything unless it can receive "future upgrades." Hi-Point firearms are designed to function right out of the box (and they typically do.)
 
Bashing is a human pass time.

I think but cannot prove it but this is probably true.

I've noticed that especially in firearms related chat forums that some, possibly many owners of entry level hardware, firearms, reloading equipment and so forth try to make the case that many if not all of those that have more costly hardware are as a group snobs and you know, really either don't know what they are doing or sit all day in their Barcalounger and are experts in only their imaginations. They are not pure thinkers, they are far from being the salt of the earth, they trying in vain to purchase success.

It does not matter to me as I do what I do for me and no one else but there are some who claim victimhood from the oppressors and bashers who are actually looking for someone to say something negative about their stuff so they can complain.

The simple truth is if you want to be really good at something you must commit time and effort. Natural talent only goes so far and no further. The guy who is the best shot among the group of his backyard buddies is most likely going to get his butt kicked the first time he enters some kind of "game" where committed shooters are present.

But regarding those who are committed and put in the time and effort they will in all likelihood put some serious money into the sport simply because they spend so much time in the sport. They want results and that in many cases means good stuff that costs good money.
 
I'd much rather see a cheap gun like what Hi Point makes than the 'saturday night specials' of yesteryear that were potentially dangerous to their owners such as: Bryco Arms, Jimenez Arms, Jennings Firearms, Raven Arms, and Phoenix Arms.

I appreciate that someone who is in a domestic dispute, or has a fear for his/her life can go down to a local gun store and walk out with a Hi Point pistol, several boxes of ammo with money left to hit a range for practice all for under $200. And that firearm (Hi Point) will function right out of the box and is built like a brick outhouse. For the need of said situation above, the owners aren't looking to blow out the 10 ring on a target, but are looking to protect themselves at hallway distances, which a Hi Point is more than adequate for. Sometimes $200 is already too much for someone to spend, especially people who find them in situations as mentioned above.

Now are Hi Points ugly, heavy, blocky and hard to conceal...YES, but does that make them useless?

Now I don't particularly have any use for a Hi Point, but I'm a firearms enthusiast, but to say there is no point or use for one is a ridiculous statement. They have a lot going for them excellent customer service, unconditional multi-owner warranty, and made in USA.
 
I will say that I am generally intrigued by inexpensive guns. Show me a new gun in the sub-$200 range and I will take a good look. Anyone can make a gun and charge an arm and a leg for it (kimber & sig come to mind) and they are no more immune to problems of one kind or another.
People are idiots and snobs. Nice stuff is nice. I agree. Diamond ring costing 10k? Lump of coal costing 5c? Same thing kinda.
 
Someone buying a cheap gun is doing it for one of a few reasons:
1) They think all guns are functionally equivalent and the cheapest gun is necessarily the best functional value (with additional price going mainly to status or prestige or aesthetics, etc.);
2) They are severely constrained in funds, and their choice is a cheap gun or no gun;
3) They have a well-defined/understood range of performance demands for the gun and find those criteria met at a low price point by one or more makers;
4) They are thrifty and get a thrill out of finding/using an item at a materially-lower price point than most other people doing the same thing.

Group #1 usually needs education. Group #2 needs advice as to how to do the most with their funds, such as consideration of used guns, as well as information about the relative merits of the guns in their price range - and, sometimes, a candid assessment that delaying the purchase and saving up $X more may result in a big difference in final results. Group #3 probably doesn't need much of anything and group #4 needs little, but would enjoy your approval or, failing that, horror... they will revel in either.

The problems arise when people think they are dealing with someone in Group 1 and they've got a 3 or 4 on the line.
 
I will say that I am generally intrigued by inexpensive guns. Show me a new gun in the sub-$200 range and I will take a good look. Anyone can make a gun and charge an arm and a leg for it (kimber & sig come to mind) and they are no more immune to problems of one kind or another.
People are idiots and snobs. Nice stuff is nice. I agree. Diamond ring costing 10k? Lump of coal costing 5c? Same thing kinda.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a fine specimen of group #4 from my immediately prior post!

mile', your thriftiness is noted by a sometimes fellow-skinflint.
 
No that's not bashing you are giving advise about another preferable firearm for the task at hand. You're not telling him he has a piece of junk.

So basically it's all in how you deliver the bad news, not the news itself that determines bashing or non bashing.

New rule: Anyone that is socially clumsy and/or challenged when it comes to expressing themselves with words is no longer allowed to participate in any discussion where there is a possibility that the discussion might be considered gun bashing by those considered at "high risk" for being the victim of a bash, intentional or not intentional.
 
Competition is a little above this discussion I think. Most people that pursue any particular game or sport generally spend more money to get better equipment.
I'm not a fisherman.. so when its time to take my boy out fishing for the first time I will likely buy a cheap fishin' pole from sprawl mart, grab some worms from the live bate cooler and head to the water. Done deal and with exactly the same results as if I had bought the finest rod and reel along with secret recipe bate from the place we pass on our way to the private stocked lake towing the $70k bass boat (no bites, lol).
But if we decide to keep at it... all that fancy riggin' will certainly provide superior results (I hope anyway )
 
So basically it's all in how you deliver the bad news, not the news itself that determines bashing or non bashing.

New rule: Anyone that is socially clumsy and/or challenged when it comes to expressing themselves with words is no longer allowed to participate in any discussion where there is a possibility that the discussion might be considered gun bashing by those considered at "high risk" for being the victim of a bash, intentional or not intentional.

No they can participate. But just like real life, if you can't explain the "why" beyond "I had one and it's crap" then you can expect people to misconstrue your intentions and doubt your veracity.
 
Eh, gun-bashing is by no means restricted to "cheap" guns. Here on these very pages over the years, I've borne witness to some of the most contentious, vitriolic bashing of, in particular, Kimber, followed by Colt, Smith & Wesson and SIG-Sauer.

This one should be automatically applied to all the Taurus-bashers out there:
If you are going to bash a gun you better own it. Lets see a picture of it and describe the problem you are having. Don't bash something you have never owned or plan to never own.
Don't we all enjoy hearing from those whose opinions are formed by reading anonymous posts on the internet, or say things such as, "I'd never buy one because my cousin owned one once and it was a jammomatic."

Nonetheless, gun snobbery is rampant, but it's not as annoying to me anymore as the folks (who spring up like mosquitoes in a swamp on a warm August night) whose mantra is that the Glock is the answer to everyone's need for the be-all, end-all firearm ...

ATLDave's post #42 breaks things down well. But absent a compelling need to immediately procure a gun, any gun, just to have one (stalker, psycho ex-boyfriend, you find out the gangbangers down the block have put a hit out on you because you ordered them off your lawn, etc.) -- my advice to most everyone would always be, please, try and save up to at least purchase a reliable used gun or something from a reputable maker with a solid track record.

Lastly, don't feed your dogs cheap dog food, either (I'll forgive you for driving a Ford or a Kia, but never for feeding your loyal companion crappy meals that will shorten his life span, cause him digestive problems, lessen his vitality and make his skin and coat dry and dull).
 
Most of the totally mindless bashing that I have seen is reserved for Glocks. Then there are the disciples of Cooper that bash anything double action or striker fired.
 
I know that I have said this before at least in part.

When I was a kid my Dad ran a Jr. rifle club, I have 3 older sisters that were well into it when I started at age 9. By age 10, I was in full competition mode. The teams my Dad coached were in most cases quite successful in 3 and 4 position Jr. smallbore competition. This is not exaggeration in any way.

How all of this came about was when my Dad was a wee lad he lived in a rural, almost remote area. There was a neighbor though and he did some yard work, was paid and he used that money to buy a Sear Ranger 22 bolt action varmint rifle. This was a pre-war gun made for Sears by Marlin, around 1937. One day my Dad was fooling around with the rifle in the house when my oldest sister, who was about 10 at the time asked if she could shoot it. My Dad thought this a good idea, took her shooting and next thing he knows my sister is all excited about shooting.

So Dad removed the factory sights from the "Marlin" installed Lyman target sights and my sister is shooting this plinking gun every week at NRA A-17 targets and before you know it she is shooting 99s and 100s prone at 50 feet indoors. One thing leads to another and before long Dad is teaching other kids basic skills, starting to shoot competitions and the kids actually doing well. At first there were only a few kids and they shared the Marlin.

There is a point though where some of these kids are starting to out grow the Marlin. Anyone who stuck with it eventually outgrew it. Even I out grew it as the gun has limitations in this application. Problem is the next step up is not a step it a gigantic leap, especially when the Marlin was paid for decades earlier and any gun will go bang.

The kids didn't always graduate to a Anschultz Super Match, some did and but there were other less expensive alternatives but still in 1968, 3 or 4 hundred dollars was a ton of money. My parents struggled to pay the bills but we all had match grade rifles, jackets, spotting scopes and so forth. I have 3 sisters and two brothers, this was one huge expense and time commitment for my parents.

My point here is that I have in my collection this Sears "Marlin" Ranger rimfire bolt action that has the rifling literally shot out of it. I think it reasonable to state that at least 100 kids had their very first experience shooting a firearm with that gun. Some of those kids went on to win state and regional championships, some got full NCAA rides and one of them had at one time 3 NRA Jr. National records and went to West Point, shot on the West Point smallbore team. Every one of them had a sentimental attachment to the Marlin but none of them would ever enter an important match with it. The gun was never intended for that kind of service. I never heard anyone call it junk but even as kids we spoke freely of it's limitations. It simply was not heavy or accurate enough to do that job.

The gun is simply an inexpensive plinking rifle. That is what it is. My Dad made it work for a time, simply out of necessity. It is so worn out today that it isn't safe to use. But it not only gave 100s of kids their first taste of the shooting sports it gave me and my brothers and sisters a beginning of a life time of enjoyment in the shooting sports. Personally I didn't shoot a handgun until 5 or 6 years ago but have been around firearms for 50 years and it started with a plinker my dad bought during the depression at age 10 or 11. But I would argue that starting kids out today would be better with something a bit more robust and accurate to keep frustrations at a minimum. As sentimental as I am towards that gun I remember it had it's moments.

When I started my son shooting my wife and I didn't have much money either but I looked beyond a plinking rifle for him. I knew from about age 10 that every guns goes "bang" but what we shoot needs to do a bit more than make noise. I do not think this makes me a snob. It is in theory possible to chop down a grown maple tree with a pocket knife. Put in enough time and effort and eventually it falls. Just because it can be done doesn't make me a snob if I buy a chain saw to do the job.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top