Why buy expensive guns when you trust your life to that $100 beater?

[10-Ring]

I've been wondering something lately. I know a few guys who have some nice guns...a few $2k+ custom race guns, stock SIGS, HK's, Berettas etc...but when they carry, they go for that $100 beater. They say it's because they don't want to beat up their nice guns but doesn't that defeat the purpose of having them to begin with? Why buy expensive guns for self defense if that's not what you're going to use them for? Why do all that practice w/ them & only shoot the beater every 4 months?

 

[Sean Smith]

Because they are morons?

I consider my life worth the best weapon I can afford at the time, be that a $350 CZ-75B or a $2,000 Yost custom job. More to the point, not devoting the bulk of your practice to the weapon you intend to use, whatever it might be, is foolish in the extreme.

I consider my gun expendable, whatever the price. I honestly don't care if I use my weapon and it gets scuffed up or confiscated by the cops. If I live through a hostile encounter, but lose my $2,000 gun, I consider it a win. Hardware is just hardware, and expensive hardware is still just hardware.

Valuing the shine on a nice gun to the point where you carry an objectively inferior weapon in its place is just ridiculous behavior.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

When I lost my job I sold my 1911's and replaced them with Glocks. I don't particularly like Glocks (in fact I've never enjoyed them), but they go bang reliably and are more than accurate enough. Plus lighter, more resistant to the elements (including my sweat), and I don't care if they get scuffed up.

Why not drive your corvette to the grocery store? You might be facing a situation where fast handling can avoid an accident. Answer: as nice as a corvette is, in many instances a minivan is a more appropriate tool.

Re: "objectively inferior." In my book, a self-defense handgun needs to be reliable first and foremost, accurate enough (and most are, including J-frames), and carry a round you're comfortable with. Is a Baer Custom "objectively superior" to a Glock .45 for carry? What if the Glock conceals better? Hou 'bout a J-frame versus the comparable (if comparable is the word) Taurus?

We all like Porches, but sometimes a pickup suits our needs better.

 

[valnar]

It depends on why you own that $2000 gun. Shooters mentality vs collectors mentality.

Some people like to wear jeans regularly, but save the tuxedo for special occasions.

Some people drive a beater car while leaving the classic '57 Chevy at home for leisurely drives on summer days.

Some people like to bang around the casual dinner plates while saving the more expensive (and fragile) China for company.

Before CD's, I used to (and still) keep my vinyl LP's in pristine condition, while others play them until the needle wears through.

But I digress...

Using a beater gun is not a stretch in my mind. As long as it's accurate, reliable and you're comfortable with it, who cares if its not the prettiest gun in the safe?

-Robert

 

[armoredman]

Some inexpensive guns are reliable and accurate, such as the Makarov and CZ70. CDNN redefines affordable with thier sales catalog - Glocks for under $400, FN pistols for $300, etc.....

 

[Ankeny]

More to the point, not devoting the bulk of your practice to the weapon you intend to use, whatever it might be, is foolish in the extreme.

I couldn't disagree more. I dry fire for a minimum of 45 minutes per day with my competition pistol and I live fire at least weekly year round with my race gun. I also shoot a minimum of 30 matches per year.

OTOH, I usually carry a lightweight commander sized pistol ( a worked over CDP Pro Carry) in .45 and I shoot it perhaps once a month. Why should I carry my full size Baer (although I have) when I prefer the weight of the lighter pistol and I shoot it just fine?

My "truck gun" is a CZ 75B in 9mm and I also carry it from time to time in the fall, winter, and spring when I wear a substantial cover garment. Last month I shot my CZ 75B into USPSA Production Master and it isn't even my primary competition gun. I'll be darned if I see the need to devote a whole lot of practice to that pistol. Master with my carry gear is good enough.

Carry what you are comfortable with and proficient with. What you have in your safe in nobody's business.

 

[hillbilly]

A few years ago, I read about an instructor at one of the finer shooting schools who used a very graphic demonstration of "gun as tool" to get the point across to his students.

He would fire at a moving target coming at him (on an inclined wire and pulley system) until slide lock-back, reload, fire to slide lockback again, and then throw his $1500 custom 1911 at the oncoming target as a blunt-force weapon, to make the point that the gun was a tool, an object used for a purpose, and no good whatsoever if it did not help you accomplish the purpose----stopping the bad guy or making him go somewhere else.

hillbilly

 

[Sean Smith]

stock SIGS, HK's, Berettas etc...but when they carry, they go for that $100 beater. They say it's because they don't want to beat up their nice guns but doesn't that defeat the purpose of having them to begin with? Why buy expensive guns for self defense if that's not what you're going to use them for? Why do all that practice w/ them & only shoot the beater every 4 months?

Guys, realize that the topic starter is talking about folks going from expensive guns to a $100 beater. Now, I don't know of any $100 guns that are any good. For those paying attention, it should have been clear that I wasn't saying you need an expensive gun to defend yourself. When I was unemployed, I had a CZ-75B... and considered myself well armed. But counting on a $100 gun when you can afford better? That's just stupid.

Ankeny: Naturally, if you are playing lots of gun games your game guns are going to rack up ludicrous round counts. Most folks aren't multi-class "Master" shooters, in fact most folks aren't even competent with ANY gun they own. Few people are good enough to "get away with" doing all their shooting with 1 gun, then carrying something that (as in this example) is dramatically craptastic by comparison.

Master shooters can get away with doing things that are unwise for lesser shooters, e.g. picking up a gun they hardly ever use and assuming they will be shooting it well.

Again, read the post, folks... this isn't a Glock vs. 1911 argument, no matter how much some folks would like to reflexively make it so. This is about going from Sigs, HKs and Berettas to... $100 beaters. Train as you will fight and don't use junk... what an idea.

 

[SavannahSteve]

I recently watched a TV show where four guys riding highly modified and customized one-off Harleys rode from California to Sturgis, SD. Three of these four very expensive bikes broke down in route. Had they taken the trip on stock Hondas, there probably would not have been any failures. I think the same analogy is often true for any kind of mechanical equipment - be it cars or guns or whatever. Well-made stock equipment that is produced in large volumes is often more reliable that high customized machinery. Even a Taurus is more likely to get you to your destination that a Ferrari. My Russian Makarov ($175), Bersa Thunder 380 ($230), and Kel-Tec P-32 ($260) may not be expensive - and they may not be works of art that please the eye and the soul - but they work flawlessly for me for every time I use them. I would rather trust my life to a reliable $150 gun than a $1,500 show piece.

 

[Penforhire]

For self-defense I'd pick the most reliable weapon, accuracy is unimportant at what I think of as self-defense range. And I don't (wouldn't) own any unreliable weapons to start with. Highly accurized weapons, the usual source of "expensive", are less reliable under adverse environmental conditions almost by definition (less slop between the moving parts).

So some of my least expensive weapons are SHTF candidates. I will admit none of them are as cheap as $100...

 

[Ankeny]

Sean:

I apologize for flipping out. You are absolutely correct. For the average guy who carries a gun he would be best off to pick one platform and practice. I did not take the 100 dollar beater literally, but I see where you guys are coming from. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to own a decent gun and leave it at home because you didn't want holster wear and pack a POS instead.

As for reliability, I agree that a gun must run. In the competition arena a pistol is absolutely worthless if it chokes. In this day and age a person can have quality and reliability in the same package. I know my high end single stack runs like a sewing machine when it is gunked up with bullet lube, powder fouling, and other such garbage.

 

[Sean Smith]

Ankeny,

No problem.

I think the same analogy is often true for any kind of mechanical equipment - be it cars or guns or whatever.

Highly accurized weapons, the usual source of "expensive", are less reliable under adverse environmental conditions almost by definition (less slop between the moving parts).

At the risk of being rude (now that I've made nice with Ankeny ), those statements are what I probably would have said a couple of years ago. But they are also dead wrong, and reflect a combination of "reverse-snobbery" and plain old bad information.

Hate to break it to everyone, but having owned $200 Kel-Tecs and $2,000 custom guns (and most guns in-between) guess what? More expensive guns are objectively better. If you want to throw out insults about how my expensive guns are "show piece" ego massagers that are going to break any minute, or how I'm trying to buy skill, go ahead. Fact of the matter is, it was developing skill that made me want better hardware, not the other way 'round. And I treat them like weapons... if what I do to them is "babying," I'm committing all kinds of child abuse.

And this stuff about accuracy being incompatable with reliability is pure B.S., sorry. It is one of those bits of internet "knowledge" that bubbles up every once in a while like the side-effects of a bean burrito.

 

[manwithoutahome]

I think the gun needs just a couple of things to be used as a primary:

1) Reliable
2) Is comforable to wear/carry
3) YOU CAN HIT YOUR TARGET WITH IT!

I hear the same thing when it comes to my HK .45. I can hit very well with it, I trust it to the extreme, I would even trust it to fire if a hamster run out in front of me and I dropped it into molten steel, then reached in and pulled it out .

But, I can't comforably carry a full sized .45. The same goes for my HP 9mm. Both are considerably better (as in right out of the bx) (and more expensive) to my Kel-Tec .40. I can cover all three aspects above with it (and no, don't "bash" my kel-tec and call it a POS when 1) this one isn't yours so you don't know it and 2) 1500rds and it still functions fine (and I have had it broken down and looked at by a GunSmith)).

And, quite frankly, many of these "high priced guns" are not better then lower priced "family", you are paying more for the name then anything else. Most of the "problems" that I've read about (and have seen) on "cheap guns" is the trigger, that's why God made GunSmiths who can do trigger jobs .

M

 

[Edward429451]

Yes I'd take the vette to the store, I'd drive the 57 chevy mostly everyday, and I carry the nice end of the guns more than the beater. I do carry my beater sometimes but always as a second gun. The nice one still goes or goes alone. I wouldn't buy a showpiece unless the price was right and then I'd still carry it.

Life's too short to leave your good stuff in plastic bubbles. Whats the point of having it? Enjoy the pride & confidence of using the good tools.

 

[Ky Larry]

I carry a $1000+ Kimber every day because it always goes bang when I pull the trigger and puts a hole where I point it. My CZ's,S&W's, SIG's,Beretta's, and Colt's also do the same thing. Why would anyone have a gun they couldn't trust? That would be like having a wife you couldn't trust. No matter how sexy she was, she wouldn't be worth the hassle. My $0.02 worth.

 

[Gerald McDonald]

10 ring, I dont know anybody with a $2k gun who carrys a $100 gun. Of course I have a couple of hi powers and a Kimber but in the summer I normally carry a Rossi 68S, it goes bang every time I pull the trigger and it hits what I aim at, why would I want anything else. Does the fact that it is expensive mean something less wont do the job.
And I dont quite agree with Sean, if I had a million bucks I would still think I was adequately protected with a CZ75. By the way I paid $125 apiece for two of the Rossi's and have only run probably 1500 rounds thru them combined, one has never had a problem, the other starts dragging the cylinder after about 80 rounds if you dont clean it.

 

[cslinger]

Ahhh what if your beater gun is a SIG P225

Lemme see I have or do carry the above mentioned P225, a P239TT, a P220ST, an HK P7M8, A Ruger SP101 a Smith Model60.....

Basically everything from say $300ish to say $1200ish. I carry what fits my mood, comfort etc. Everything I carry is stone cold reliable, very accurate and I am more than capable of using.

I take care of my guns. I take a lot of care of my guns. But at the end of the day they are all tools or toys and will wear with use and time. They are not works of art and although I do feel bad if some kind of obvious finish wear starts it's no big deal. That just means they are well used and well loved. I can always refinish if I want to. It's all about the character.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have met in person and read posts by several people who have 'shooters' and carry guns. The 'shooters' are not collection guns, but are simply guns too purdy to carry and too expensive to risk losing to the cops should they be involved in a self defense shooting. One guy recently took his nice Les Baer 1911 out of the rug, wiped it down, shot about 200 rounds of light handloads before wiping it down again and gently placing it back in his rug. He then strapped on his Ruger that was his normal carry gun. He chose the Ruger because he felt it was reliable and it was cheap and that he would not be too bothered if he lost it to the cops and he would not cry if the cops told him to 'drop it' and kick it across the pavement away from him. Sheepishly, he admitted that the Baer was easier for him to shoot accurately and he liked the .45 acp over the 9 mm round, but just would not risk the Baer.

What is it Sean Smith suggested? Morons?!

Carry the best quality you can afford and the largest caliber you can handle and feel safe with in your particular circumstance. It is only your life and the lives of your loved ones that is on the line.

Oh, and I like the excuses that people carry beater guns because they don't expect anything to happen and they don't want to risk damaging a nice gun during normal carry. Well, d'uh! Most folks wouldn't go out if they were expecting trouble. Do you want your best gear for an unexpected crisis or your el cheapo gear? Ask the moron who had to chop off his own arm with a Leatherman knock-off brand multi-tool. Not only did he make the idiotic mistake of being out alone and getting his arm trapped, but he 'just in case' emergency tool was a POS off brand knife that apparently didn't work all that well. Heaven forbid the guy spend an extra $30 for a decent safety tool. $30 is a lot of beer!

 

[Standing Wolf]

No beaters for me, thanks. If it's good enough to defend my life with, it's good enough to fix up, dress up, and keep squeaky clean.

 

[Gerald McDonald]

For the life of me I dont see why someone would worry about what someone else carrys. Carry what you wish, if it makes you happy what do I care, if it makes me happy why should you care

 

[CZ52GUY]

The acquisition price of my six most expensive handguns...

...adds up to less than $2100...and I manage to sleep well most every night...safe in the knowledge that somewhere out there is a THR brother who thinks I'm a moron...but I'm comfortable because his thinking that does not make it so... .

Methinks that someone who believes it takes a $2000 gun to defend his person is someone who has acquired a $2000 gun .

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[Gerald McDonald]

Me thinks CZ52 may be on to something there

 

[BluesBear]

CZ52GUY I didn't see anyone call you a moron.
The moron label was placed on people who have very expensive weapons but who are too vain to carry them and carry something cheap instead.
(Sorta like a woman who spends $200 to get her nails done then doesn't leave the house for fear of chipping one.)

From your description of your "collection" you don't fit that profile.

In fact you sound more like me. (I am sure sympathy card will follow)
So far in my 33 years of buying and owning handguns I have only one that I paid more than $500 for and it was still less than $600. Sometimes I carry the most expensive and sometimes I don't. I carry whatever is most practical for that instance. I don't let the value of the gun matter.

I have spent way over $500 for several of my musical instruments. I regularly take those into smoky nightclubs. They get slightly scratched and dinged up, several have finish cracks. I have been told on occasion that I was crazy to take them just anywhere.

My reply is that they are the tools of my trade and therefor I expect them to have a little wear & tear. I do my best to "baby" them but if they get a bump or bruise here and there that's OK. Hells Bells Fender is charging a fortune for new instruments that are "aged" (beat up and rusted is more like it) to look like they've been played for 40 years.

All of the mechanics I know have spent an obscene amout of money on their tools. They use those expensive tools every day, they get greasy and scrated but that's what they were made for. They never use any imported junk.

I respect all of my tools. But I use them, that's what they were made for.

 

[SavannahSteve]

You can get a quality gun for about a $100 if you look around. On two different occasions, I purchased a S&W Model 10 for less than $140, and on another I bought a CZ70 for $99. And while I paid $175 for my Makarov, they are frequently available for less than $150. All of these were used guns that were in excellent mechanical condition with a decent appearance, and I maintained them just as well as I did my expensive guns.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a gun that's different or prettier or more expensive--you just got to remember that different or prettier or more expensive doesn't really mean it's a better gun for self defense. It's not the price or name that counts when you need it--the only thing that’s important then is that it works reliably.

 

[BHPshooter]

Well, I can certainly see where someone is coming from if they don't want their guns scratched and dinged.

I have 2 pistols: A Browning Hi Power, and a FEG Hi Power clone. If I were to carry one, I have no trouble admitting that it would be the FEG. The Browning simply means too much to me to have it sweated all over and such. I want to be able to hand that pistol down to my grandchildren.

But don't get me wrong, that's ONLY because it was my first pistol, and still my favorite. It gets a lot of care, and serves bedside duty. It gets used plenty. When I can afford to (and when I can buy a pistol without Daddy holding my hand), I will get another Browning, and I will pack it everywhere.

Until then, though, if I were legal to carry, it would be the FEG that already rusts and has little scratches. I view my firearms as tools, but what's wrong with having a gun of the same platform that costs less to pack around? Knowing that if someone is ever to get into a shooting, that would, I think, lessen the sting of confiscation.

Cheers,
Wes