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

[learnedmonkey]

Supposing you happen to like the experience of shooting a particular gun, say, a .44 magnum revolver. The particular model and frame and all that is really heavy, and you don't particularly want to carry it around all day, especially since it doesn't conceal well. But, blast it all, you LIKE that gun; you enjoy firing it, you like the way it sits in your hand, you like the pull of the trigger, you relish each moment spent with it and of all the ones you own it's your favorite by far. You've poured money into making that revolver into exactly what you want. But it's not really something you want to carry around all day.

You go to a gun shop and they happen to have a small, lightweight snub-nose .38 special that is in excellent condition, for a bargain basement price of $100. It's not that .44 magnum you love so well, but it's easy to carry, and it goes bang when you pull the trigger, and if you know your business it will poke holes in bad guys when necessary. I'd spend the $$ on the gun I love and then trust my life to as cheap a gun as I could find, so long as it was reliable.

Put another way, just because you get a dog to take hunting with you doesn't mean you don't love your spouse.

 

[clubsoda22]

I've never paid more than $400 for a gun, and that was my HK.

My question is, if you find a gun for $250 that works as well or better than a $550 gun, why not? This is why i have a bersa and not a walther or sig 232. The bersa is no beater. I have an HK, but it's a much larger pistol which i wouldn't carry everyday.

 

[CZ52GUY]

re: BluesBear

The wink emoticon was intended to make the author of the original comment understand that I was being playful...albeit still with a bit of friendly chastisement.

If somebody has the coin to carry a $2k piece, terrific. If someone chooses to buy a $2k piece and keep it for indoor target shooting, that's their business. If someone chooses to buy a $2k piece and keep at as a safe queen, that's their choice, none of my beeswax .

The tone of some of the comments in this thread indicate that some feel that a $2k gun is materially better than a $200 gun in nearly every circumstance for "serious matters". I politely suggest that not everyone has the coin to lay out for the HumVee of handguns, so a well maintained '94 Toyota pickup may have to do...and may do quite nicely.

...and yes, our collections are similar in price point as I have not spent as much as $600 on a handgun...I'm not sure I ever will...too many beaters out there calling to me .

Tongue firmly in cheek,

CZ52'

 

[TarpleyG]

Here's my 2 cents.

A carry gun, to me, must fit the following criteria:

1) I must be able to afford it
2) It must be 100% reliable
3) I would carry it when I wouldn't normally carry a larger gun

Now, that said, I have some 1911s but I don't carry them always. Why? Because I don't always dress so that I can carry them and I don't WANT to dress that way all the time either. When I run down to the local video store or supermarket, I don't want to have to don belt, holster, etc. I just want to go.

Therefore, I have two Kel-Tecs (sqwawk about them if you must, I ain't listening). A P-32 and a P-11. I bought the P-11 1st thinking I preferred the 9mm. Problem is, it's still too heavy to carry in the pocket of gym shorts and prints too much. So, I bought the P-32. I take it everywhere if I am not carrying a full size gun. They are both 100% reliable and I can afford them. They meet my criteria. Granted, it isn't a .45 but it's better than nothing at all.

GT

 

[Smoke]

A man should carry what he trains with, doesn't matter if it is a $150 used revolver or a $4000 custom 1911.

And he should own multiple copies of each.

I can go further but I tend to tick people off with it.....


Smoke

 

[FPrice]

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

FWIW my most often carried gun is a $150 Charter Arms .38 Spl. Why? Because I can just about ALWAYS carry it no matter what I wear and it works reliably.

I don't buy a gun because it's expensive. I buy it because it works and it fits a need. Whether it costs $100 or $1000. The cost may affect whether I can buy a gun or not, but it's not the reason I buy.

VALUE is the reason.

 

[10-Ring]

I guess what I'm talking about is something a tad diff't. I've met guys that are really sold sold SIGs, HK's, 1911's. They talk about accuracy, reliability, smoothness & quality of triggers and recommend them to anyone willing to listen. Then when it comes to grabbing a carry gun, it's something far less than what they've been preaching about so as not to "wear out" their beloved piece...sometimes it sounds almost hypocritical.

 

[CZ52GUY]

A human being saying one thing, then doing another...perish the thought .

I think that the original post started off with an observation asking the question, "WHY?".

I think that some responses carried forth an opinion that those who practice this habit (buy expensive for the safe or range, buy cheap for carry) are "intellectually deficient".

The passion of that response and some others has diverted the thread slightly from the original question...something that hardly ever happens around here .

Bottom line, many feel that for carry or even home defense, there are "value alternatives" out there that are reliable, effective, and less of a concern to part with if involved in a defensive shoot. These same individuals find themselves as collectors and/or sport shooting enthusiasts (whether in formal competition or not) who are willing to fork over significant $$ for a non-carry or "first option" home defense piece.

Me, I look for value regardless of the application and strive for proficiency (still working at it) with all my handguns. I don't have any that I would hesitate to put into service if needs be...the replacement cost (should it be necessary) is in range.

I see no "hypocrisy" by those who have the means and choose to buy the $1000+ piece for whatever reason and choose to carry something less expensive but reliable. I don't believe there is a magical piece or bullet...I believe as per the Cooper quote, it's the man operating the piece that's the most significant element of the equation (a base level of functionality/reliability assumed).

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[Ankeny]

In going back to the original question I read:

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?

I think what the question asks is why buy something like a CQB, Kimber, Sig, or the like expressly for the purpose of self defense, practice with it, then leave it at home?

That's actually a good question. Why would someone buy a self defense pistol, shoot it a lot, then carry a POS that they shoot infrequently? It really doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

 

[CZ52GUY]

I think the premise to be questioned, is whether inexpensive must always = POS.

Many question that premise based on positive experiences with "value alternatives", including those approaching or even < $100.

The other premise that seems to be implied, is that one needs to have a nearly monogomous relationship with their self-defense piece to be effective with it.

While I'd describe myself as an "emerging shooter", I'm confident with any one of the 10 handguns in my safe at normal contact distances for self-defense. I practice with each of them as part of a rotation. Fortunately, the bullet (and the BG) does not need to know the acquisition price of the platform which launches it.

Finally, the decision whether to carry and what to carry are personal ones and many times influenced by the laws and prevailing sentiment in civil cases involving shootings judged legal from a criminal perspective but still resulting in civil action in court. There are numerous self-defense scenarios beyond daily carry that one might consider when acquiring tools for the tool box.

There is certainly room for debate and different schools of thought...civil discussion of which is healthy and informative...I think we can all agree that in the end, the measure of success is whether the tool is able to facilitate the accomplishment of the task that a competent operator intended it to perform. Acquisition price is a metric which is over inflated IMHO.


Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[Penforhire]

Sean, I never said accurized guns were "unreliable." But if you take such a weapon and drop it in the mud it is more likely to malfunction than a Mil Spec 1911. Do you disagree with that? I see the same thing in the comparison between M16's and AK-47's. This isn't on-line voodoo.

 

[riverdog]

I have a two Wilsons and a Les Baer, and I have no intention of carrying any of them. I also have customized Colt and Springfield 1911's that shoot out of the same ammo can and are completely reliable and accurate. Currently the 1911 that's employed for HD is a factory Colt. It isn't as bullseye accurate, but it's plenty accurate enough at 3-10 yards. Didja notice that they're all 1911's? I finally put my Glocks away because I didn't like having to relearn the trigger everytime I changed my mind regarding primary platform. Now I have a number of 1911's and the triggers are all nice -- pricetags from $400-$2000.

The most inexpensive handgun I've bought is a S&W Model 19-5 with lots of holster wear -- $230 OTD. Its DA trigger is smooth and its SA trigger is SWEEEET. That revolver would make a great carry piece; it's accurate, reliable and it comes in a potent caliber. But it isn't a $100 beater, it's a $230 beater

Quality handguns come in many price ranges. Some of the best deals are previously owned S&W revolvers. I don't know what you'd get for $100, even used.

 

[Smoke]

Let me add a little:

I only carry and train with 1911 style auto loaders.
The only other handguns I own are:

2 Ruger Vaqueros.
1 Ruger Single Six
1 Ruger Mark II

I am very happy wiht my 1911 paltform. I have different size frames, slides, grips. But they all have the same sight picture and controls. Why risk in an armed encounter the time to have to "stop and think" what gun you are carrying and how the controls work. SOme may be able to do it. I don't want the added confusion.

My Brother in law may fit into the category in question. He trains with, goes to gun school with, and shoots regularly a Kimber Pro Carry CDP.

But carrys his Glock.... :banghead:

Why? Because he firmly beleives that his Kimber is "the best gun for self defense". But the gun was a gift to him and he says "I'd be devasted if it was confiscated for evidence, stolen, lost, etc" SO he carries his Glock, which he rarely shoots and does not trian with.

FOr this reason, I think he is a moron.

Smoke.

 

[Sean Smith]

I think the premise to be questioned, is whether inexpensive must always = POS.

Um, whose premise was that again? Because it wasn't mine.

Then again, your strong point has always been projecting your feelings onto a topic, rather that actually reading what I said. For instance...

...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

... Which would be lovely sentiments, if they weren't a personal attack based on willfully misconstruing what I said. Having never called you a "moron," your need to insult me seems peculiar. Indeed, had you read what I considered "moronic" you'd realize that your example does not really fit it. Though your misguided attacks are starting to give me some doubts...

You know, I'm getting really tired of having to quote myself all the time just to refute attacks you make against me on these topics, e.g.

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.

You've accused me of everything from eliteism to trying to buy skill, and tried to claim some sort of moral high ground because you spent the same amount of money I did (more, actually), but got more guns for it.

$300 Czech firearms not generally being the mark of the gun snob.

Sean, I never said accurized guns were "unreliable." But if you take such a weapon and drop it in the mud it is more likely to malfunction than a Mil Spec 1911. Do you disagree with that?

Yes.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=167277

 

[CZ52GUY]

The premise

...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.

Why would someone buy a self defense pistol, shoot it a lot, then carry a POS that they shoot infrequently? It really doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

These comments and similarly worded ones were the "premise" I was referring to.

The wink emoticon was intended to make the author of the original comment understand that I was being playful...albeit still with a bit of friendly chastisement.

When someone like yourself projects their strong opinion into a post on this forum...which is what we do here many times...I often will project an alternative point of view which is contrary to their strongly held opinion. I am biased by my personal experiences and will project my life experience into a response...which is what we often do here also.

... Which would be lovely sentiments, if they weren't a personal attack based on willfully misconstruing what I said. Having never called you a "moron," your need to insult me seems peculiar. Indeed, had you read what I considered "moronic" you'd realize that your example does not really fit it. Though your misguided attacks are starting to give me some doubts...

You know, I'm getting really tired of having to quote myself all the time just to refute attacks you make against me on these topics, e.g.

The post was not intended as a personal attack Sean. I put a wink in the original post and I clarified that in a subsequent post. People of good will often disagree. I tried to playfully chastise you for the use of the word moron to describe a behavior that has many legitimate reasons for pursuing. I think you're a terrific member of THR. You came out swinging with a statement accusing folks who disagree with your point of view as being "morons". Don't be so shocked that I, or someone else might call you to task for it.

You've accused me of everything from eliteism to trying to buy skill, and tried to claim some sort of moral high ground because you spent the same amount of money I did (more, actually), but got more guns for it.

$300 Czech firearms not generally being the mark of the gun snob.

I don't think you are an elitest, or trying to buy skill. I'm not sure where you get that from but I sincerely apologize if your feelings have been hurt.

You strongly advocate the "best gun", pressing your advantage, pursuing rapid proficiency with a limited # of variables. That is a completely legit' approach to take.

I pursue one of more deliberate proficiency, on multiple platforms...I fear platform dependency more than I fear platform malfunction letting me down.

That is an alternate point of view that I considered worth bringing to the discussion. Several folks seemed to have similar points of view to both of us...I believed it to be a good debate, albeit a passionate one.

I see that you've decided to add me to your ignore list which is certainly your right. I've enjoyed discussions we've had, and feel badly that my good natured bantering was taken as an attack, because that wasn't the intent.

I wish you the very best...I'll send this also as a PM and hope you will at least read the clarification of my remarks which you found objectionable.

CZ52'

 

[Sean Smith]

 

[Majic]

Any gun regardless of price can serve as a defensive weapon. Not every gun is bought with just that purpose in mind. If you have expensive handguns, but also have an extemely reliable and accurate inexpensive handgun why can't the least expensive model fill that role. Does being a cheaper, less eye appealing model some how makes it inferior to the higher priced models in function?
No doubt someone will disagree with this, but not all handgun purchases are geared toward self-defence. Some may never reside in a holster or lay around fully loaded waiting for bad things to happen. If you bought handguns soley for self-defence then you would only need just one. Every other one you aquired for yourself would be just frivolous.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Anybody who can shoot like this...

...Sean Smith's pic' from the Autoloader picture thread...can probably pick up just about anything and do just fine.

Pretty awesome Sean.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[Ankeny]

Hey now, give credit where credit is due. I am the guy who equates a $100.00 beater with a POS. FWIW, in today's market, I have not seen a beater gun for $100.00 that I would consider suitable for my primary self defense gun.

I want my carry gun to be nuts reliable, accurate, ergonomic to the point that I can hit at CQB distances with no visual inputs to confirm the index, but with good enough sights to utilize the accuracy at longer yardage, of a decent caliber, etc. I can't buy that for $100.00.

Tell you what guys, in the beginning I really took issue with Sean and the starter of the thead. When I removed the emotions and read what they were saying, well they make a lot of sense.

Look at it this way. Some guys are happy with a cheap set of wrenches from Walmart. Mechanics use Snap-On tools. How many mechanics would buy a set of Snap On wrenches then leave them in the tool chest because they didn't want to get them dirty?

 

[CZ52GUY]

Ankeny

A Man's Man who stands behind his words .

I'll take on anyone on this board in a FRIENDLY debate. If some of you guys are friends with Sean, please let him know I think he's a good guy, period.

Ankeny, I think you're a good guy too, I just disagree with the idea that you can't get a decent gun for around $100. I got my CZ-52 and Mak's for around that price...a little more because of shipping and transfer fee's on the Mak's.

I consistently practice with distractions on all my "beaters" because I'm in the "it's the shooter, not the tool" camp. They were test firing something that made the whole range shake (looked like an AR-15 but way too much oomp to be .223)...I wasn't nosey enough to ask the other day. I rush a target out there to do some rapid fire practice with the distraction. We practice side by side 8" plates at 16-yards to see who can knock them down the fastest. We switch guns. We play handicaps (full mag's vs. partial)...we trade positions...we try to find ways to challenge ourselves to be competent regardless of projectile launcher or conditions. Each of my buddy's have what I call value pieces. The most expensive piece between us is probably less than $600 (my G23 with night sights and two extra high caps). If you're talking replacement cost, probably my friends G35 is the most expensive of the bunch.

Sean and others believe in a "no compromise" self-defense strategy. His target bears witness to his skill with that weapon. Given what he can do with that, I postulate he could pick up any gun I own and probably kick my rear end in the informal steel plate comp's, even if I had my CZ-75B which is my best weapon. He's more comfortable with his approach, I certainly respect his right to pursue that strategy.

I'm not sure there is a "solve for X" answer in this discussion. Different people pursue different routes to the same destination.

The idea that someone would laud the self-defense virtues of a "Blue Chip" piece but refuse to employ it in self-defense is a bit curious, but it is their choice.

What a guy or gal carries is up to them, the acquisition price in my opinion is an over rated element in the equation. Others feel like they want to bring their best piece to the party if "serious matters require serious attention". That's okay too.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[Zip06]

The $100 beater is not necessarily unreliable or particularly inferior. I would have no hesitation about carrying an old (but functional), obsolete, military surplus or inexpensive firearm of sufficient caliber when the possibility strongly exists that if I had to use the firearm, legally for defensive purposes (God forbid), it would be seized and I probably would never see it again. I wouldn't want to contribute a $2000 pistol to the police evidence locker.

 

[Beav]

I can understand not wanting to scratch your prized $2000 piece but if you are compromising your safety in doing so then yes you are a moron. There are good inexpensive guns, but you usually get what you paid for. Because of this "price" is usually too vague to use when asking these type of questions. You get people who think you mean cheap and others that think you mean inexpensive. Personally in the context of your question I would think that you were implying that the $100 gun was inadequate/incapable otherwise why ask?

 

[riverdog]

Just because someone can afford to buy a $2000 gun, that doesn't mean he can afford to lose it to an evidence locker. Often, the price is due to close fitting parts and a high-end finish, items unnecessary and possibly of negative value in a PD weapon. My CQB and TRS were designed for practical shooting and competition, but that doesn't mean they're ideal PD weapons. As for the instructor who threw his $2000 pistol at the target I'm sure he made his point. How many in his class practiced that tactic and threw their CQB's and TRS's at the target? Not many I imagine.

$100 beater? That is probably an exaggeration stated to make a point. I’d like to know specifically what the $100 beater really is before I start to make judgments about the moronic attributes of its owner. There are some valid reasons to leave a Les Baer ‘Thunder Ranch Special†or a Wilson Combat “Close Quarters Battle†handgun in the safe and not use it as a PD carry weapon. While I don’t own anything that would go for $100 I have a number that are much less expensive but that are just as good tactically (3-10 yds).

These days the gun I "go to" for home defense is a factory Colt 1991A1 that has never had a malfunction (unlike my TRS which has had a few). It shoots to POA and has a nice FACTORY trigger. Its serial number isn't in any gunsmith's logbook. Is it a beater? No, but it could play the part with a little holster wear. It isn't the best I can afford to buy, but it is what I can afford to have LE confiscate should that day ever come. This mundane, unaltered Colt is what will go to court if the perps family decides to sue. Do I shoot it a lot? No, I shoot other 1911’s that have similar triggers and identical manual of arms. They all shoot the same ammo.

If I were to start carrying, it would probably be a Kimber Compact or a Colt Officers ACP. Again it would have the same MOA and shoot the same ammo.

To take this to an extreme, if someone were able to afford a CQB but carried a Bryco/Jennings, that person would be a fool. However, I consider it wise for someone who can afford to shoot a TRS at the range to switch to something less flashy for other applications. PD weapons should be mundane, a S&W Mod 19 with lots of holster wear would qualify.

 

[SavannahSteve]

An interesting discussion so far

This has been a really interesting thread although there were, as usual a few "sensitive" people and a few less than sensitive comments. Now if we want to really get things heated up (and probably highjack the thread), we could start discussing whether my Kel-Tec P32, which is my favorite carry gun, or my "high-powered" Bersa 380 are sufficient for self defense carry.

 

[Ankeny]

If you ever shoot another human being, the price of your pistol as it goes into the evidence locker will be the least of your worries.