Back the chuck wagon up for just a minute Gary...
Well boys, you seemed to illustrate the exact point I was trying to make, I.E. - You're saying that your gun is better than my gun because you paid more for it. You're telling me I'm a bad guy because I own a gun that will fire when I want it to fire. Hmm, my gun sounds exactly like your gun. Not as elegant or expensive perhaps, but it performs its essential function - it fires a projectile.
Did you bother to read my post, or the posts of several others which CLEARLY stated that the hi-point wasn't reliable? Do these experiences not count or what?
Yes, your gun may be prettier, more accurate, and certainly more expensive. But at self-defense distances, I can put 100 out of 100 rounds in an IDPA target without a misfeed or an FTE. Can you say that?
Yes I can. My collection consists of every single major brand, save glock, and them some, and every single gun I own has been 100%. Maybe I'm lucky or maybe I maintain them well. Who knows.
I see that some of you are getting pretty worked up over it. First of all, watch my lips - I never said Hi-Point was a better gun than anything. I just told you that it does exactly what it is asked to do. It does this at a price that is a fraction of what you paid for your gun. I also said that the people who criticize this gun likely don't use or own it. The stories of "my buddy" are just that - stories. Even Glocks and SIGs will occasionally jam out of the box - tell the truth now.
I've yet to see a single one of you who have disabused me of that notion. You've raised some interesting points, however, none of them stand up to water when you utilize the standard I pointed out.
Once again do you bother to read? I've shot 3 hi-points. 2 of them wouldn't get through a single mag. Thats a 66% failure rate.
Ya know, its really funny. A magazine disconnect, in some of your minds, makes a gun worthless. I have lost all credibility in some of your minds because of that point. Tell me, just exactly why is it you say that? Have you ever been shot because you can't manually load a round? Any of you? Have you ever heard of even a single, documented, report of this happening anywhere in the world in all recorded history? Nope, I didn't think so. Kinda deflates that whole argument, doesn't it?
I wouldn't say it makes a gun worthless, but it certianly is a worthless part. As for there being incidents of this being a problem, I do recall reading one several years ago here on THR. No I'm not going to search for it so take it as you will.
Are you the same guys that think there's an international conspiracy because Smith & Wesson now has a locking trigger? I Haven't heard of a locking trigger ever failing because of the existence of that lock (Smith & Wesson hasn't experienced that either).
Well thats where you are wrong. There many documented instances of the lock failing on these revolvers. A simple search over on the smithandwesson forum will give you at least 20 results. One of the actually occured during firing. Its real swell having a live round in the gun while trying to work on it don't you think
Answer one more question - What will your autoloader do that mine will not? Will your gun shoot a bullet mine can't? Do your bullets possess some magical properties that mine don't? Does your gun help you with the ladies? (Just kidding on that last one).
Well, all of my guns are reliable. 99% of my guns are easier to carry. All of my guns have better ergonomics. All of my fullsize guns have a slide release. None of my guns are made out of pot metal. Yeah, that slide of yours is made out of pot metal. Most importantly, all of my full size guns are more accurate than the hi-point
As to what I carry, it is a snub revolver in .357. It will work every time I pull the hammer. If it doesn't, I'll pull the hammer again. And you know something else? Its a modern design (Oh no, hide the kids, the world is ending).
If this is not hypocracy I don't what is. The revolver is FAR older than the 1911. To say that its a modern design is total hooey. The double action revolver was invented in the 19th century. Hardly modern.
Well, it is obsolete. The Kimber they selected bears no resemblance whasoever to the 1911 of 90 years ago. The Kimber that was selecteD has, " a dovetailed front sight, rounded (no-bite) speed hammer, stainless-steel throated barrel, polished feedramp, lowered/flared ejection port, four-pound trigger, extended thumb safety, beavertail grip safety, beveled magazine well."
So lets say I take my toyota, paint it a different color, put in nicer seats and add a winch. Does it stop being a toyota? I don't think so. The 1911 is no different that the original except for cosmetic differences. This doesn't change the design.
As for the 1911 not feeding hollowpoints, there are plenty of instances of WWII rattletrap 1911's feeding hydrashocks and other brands of HP ammo. It wasn't designed for them, but then again they werent around when the pistol was invented. Only the most minor of adjustments will have a 1911 reliably feeding ANY kind of ammo.
The fact that so many LEO's than have the ability to carry ANYTHING they want, carry 1911's is a testament to their design.
