Explain the logic behind carrying a cheap gun to me?

[philbo]

I have chosen guns that were less expensive for carry, not because of fear of confiscation, but merely because I refused to submit a piece of art to the rigors and demands placed on a firearm subjected to daily use. Same reason I drive a commuter vehicle everyday instead of the 68 Mustang I would prefer to drive on a daily basis. Do I have more expensive guns that are more accurate than the XDsc or 3AT I generally carry? Yes, but I choose my carry weapons because they fit my needs, ARE reliable, and when the rigors of daily carry take their toll I can repair/replace with ease.

 

[Deaf Smith]

If the gun works reliably. Has the same power and firepower as the expensive one, well why pay the big bucks?

I can get a Sig 232 .380 or carry my EG Mak 9x18. Both very relable, both same cartridge capacity, both about the same power output. So why pay the big bucks?

I can spend mucho dollars on a super spiffy Kimber 9mm or .45, or just get a dang Glock in 9mm or .45. Don't tell me the Kimber will outperform the Glock. It won't for SD.

Or I can get a real nice Python, stainles, .357 for a real lots of bucks, or a Smith 686. Same power, same size, same everything, including reliability. So why pay the bucks?

And of course, even the lowly J frame can be had by such as Charter Arms or Taurus or Rossi. As long as your sample works perfectly, I doubt you will see and big difference in a SD situation (except you won't have an bucks to give the bad guy in a robbery cause you spent it all on the gun.)

With that said, I do pack a Glock 26, I do pack a Smith 642, but I also have a charter arms undercover that is carried as the third gun, the one kept in the shaving kit, just in case I have loose my main guns. And I sure do have a EG Mak!

 

[texas bulldog]

JLStorm:

i think i understand the question. but frankly, i don't feel like i've read any posts here that espouse the position that you should buy a cheap, unreliable gun for CCW in case it gets confiscated by law enforcement.

i've read posts that say you should have more than one carry gun in case your primary gets taken into evidence.

i've read posts that say you should perhaps not carry a gun you couldn't afford to lose [i.e. replace, for whatever reason].

i've maybe even read some posts that imply that your carry gun ought to be reasonably priced due to the possibility of confiscation or even just the day-to-day wear a carry gun receives [as opposed to a safe queen].

but i haven't read any posts that suggest you should compromise on reliability in your CCW, regardless of price. in fact, there are many concealable handguns, especially used revolvers, that can be purchased in the $300-$400 range that will be eminently reliable when called upon.

so i guess i'm wondering if you can point to some posts or threads that will show what you perceive to be the problem?

 

[RubenZ]

If the gun is not reliable I wont own it. That doesn't mean I wont buy a cheap gun. If I see a cheap gun, looks ok, I'll buy it. If later I find it to be useless I'll sell it.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

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?

There is no wisdom to saving a few bucks on a gun that is not reliable
or lacks desirable features simply to save money if it gets confiscated.

I have no qualms though about having a cheap gun if it is reliable,
accurate and adequate for defense against predatory animals or
criminals.

The guns I keep for use for defense--which might disappear into an
evidence locker for eternity if I do need to use them--will not be
sentimental heirlooms, irreplacable collector's items or top dollar
sporting guns. They are reliable and adequate for the job and
economically replacable without sentimental or heirloom value.

 

[alsaqr]

Problem as i see it is that a lot of folks do not have the option of paying $750 for a gun, they just do not have the money. i sometimes carry a Sig 210-6 but realize that lots of folks cannot afford the price of a gun like that.

 

[Brian@ITC]

Please clarify "cheap". $50, $100, $200, $400, etc.? Because I carry Glock's and I don't consider them to be "cheap" guns. I don't think that because one pays more for a gun that it is a "reliable" gun. In fact, some guns can be made so well that if they are dropped on the ground or get some sand or dirt in them, they are not going to be reliable in a life-threatening situation.

 

[JamisJockey]

I too get the question.
The idea of carrying a cheap gun because it might get confiscated is ludicrious mall-ninjery. If a "cheap" gun is the right tool, then okay. For instance, kel-tec's are cheap. Hell, a Taurus Model 85 is cheap and ugly, but a great gun.

 

[thepreacher]

The idea of carrying a cheap gun because it might get confiscated is ludicrious mall-ninjery.

Perfectly stated. Thank you JamisJockey

 

[Owen]

For me its not so much how much the gun costs, its how replaceable is it. I would never carry my dad's M27, because I would never be able to replace it. Not because it's an old classic, but because it's my Dad's old classic.

Likewise, I wouldn't carry a custom handfitted anything, bucause I may not be able to replace it. Not because it's expensive, but maybe that old famous gunsmith that has since passed away, etc.

I wouldn't carry anything I spent years looking for (and I have a few of those) because the years of looking mean a lot to me. The gun is more of a prize than a tool.

I usually carry a Glock or a S&W 1911sc, because I don't care about them. What's a couple hundred bucks, really. Besides, If I end up in a situation where i'm trying to insert my empty pistol into someone's eyesocket, I don't want "this is really gonna ruin that color case hardened finish" during the moment of truth.

Follow me?