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

[CZ52GUY]

Ankeny

Do you believe that price of forfeiture is a valid concern when considering a self-defense weapon?

I'm hearing folks say that to them, they would prefer not to expose certain pieces in their collection to that risk when there are cost-effective alternatives that should perform equally well...it would seem to your point, the time to consider that is BEFORE one would have no choice in the matter...makes some sense to me.

CZ52'

 

[riverdog]

The price of what goes in the evidence locker can be measured in terms of dollars or in terms of benefit (or detriment) in case of a trial. What goes into the evidence locker is also what shows up in court regardless of its pricetag. A high priced competition pistol named CQB (Close Quarters Battle) or a moderately priced pistol that shoots out of the same ammo can. The idea is to minimize your exposure in court while continuing to use a capable firearm. While I enjoy shooting custom and semi-custom 1911's, I would much rather have a factory stock Colt tagged on the evidence table.

 

[Gerald McDonald]

I took Seans words to infer that I was a moron for packing a Rossi that I paid $125 for. I'm not really offended because its nobodys business what I carry.
I have a buddy who picked up a $75 Smith model 19 from a friend, its blue worn off and big time pits from a life as a boat gun on the coast. The guts look like new and its tight but it looks like a POS from the outside.
So does anybody really think a Smith 19 or Saxsonpigs Smith M&P wont do the job.

 

[riverdog]

So does anybody really think a Smith 19 or Saxsonpigs Smith M&P wont do the job.

S&W Mod 19 is a standard. Mine is also missing a lot of blue but the trigger is great and the lockwork is solid and there's no rust. It doesn't shoot from the same ammo can as my 1911's, but I have other ammo cans and at $230 it was a good deal.

 

[manwithoutahome]

You know, riverdog may have a point. From what I've heard, you will have to go through two trials, the criminal and then the civil. The gun will be shown in both. If you have an inexpensive firearm that isn't a "sns" (I hate that term) then you're just a regular "joe" who used a "PC" type firearm to protect yourself.

Now, on the other hand, the $2000+ shooter is shown, then the lawyers can say that you are 1) rich enough to pay the 1,000,000,000,000,000 that the "victems" are asking for and 2) one of those evil "rich people" who thought as the poor "victem" as nothing more then trash because he/she was poor and was just "asking for help".

I say, whatever you decided to use, make sure that you are willing to lose it forever if you have to use it, that you pratice, pratice, pratice with it, and that you have a regular service routine for it, including maybe going to the GS once a year for a look over.

Oh, just thought of something. My highest priced pistol, would you use it for CCW? 1924 DWM Luger .30 cal. It's high priced but I can't even imagine trying to conceal it and it's not as accurate as my $200 FM Hi-Power or even my $150 GP-100.

M

 

[BowStreetRunner]

I have a Makarov and it is my only modern pistol, and its all i can afford and i try and treat it like a Sig and it treats me well in return
and it will be my carry gun when my permit gets here in a couple days
BSR

 

[Ankeny]

Yes, I am saying the price of losing a pistol to an evidence locker is of no concern to me at all. I don't put a price tag on my life.

Before my current job, I was in law enforcement. I know what happens when someone gets their butt smoked up and it isn't pretty.

The price of a Les Baer is insignificant if you are involved in a shooting. The idea of putting a limit on what you would be willing to spend to save your life, or that of a loved one, is just not something I can relate to at all.

I can't believe someone would rationalize what they carry through a thought process like:

"Let's see I am willing to lose a Bersa to defend myself but I am not willing to lose a Wilson."

 

[Tamara]

My beater everyday CCW gun just so happens to be the second most expensive firearm I own (barely edged out by my beater rifle.) Guess it all depends on your priorities.

 

[Zip06]

Well I think the case for the less expensive but absolutely functional and reliable pistol can be made. Sure your "Close Quarter Battle" Wilson $2000 dollar pistol can save your rear and get confiscated. If everything goes well and the $30,000's minimum you spend on lawyers gets you exhonerated. Your pistol gets torched or kept. Then you get to the civil case against you where the burden of proof is much lower (preponderence of evidence) and your CQB with its nasty night sites, tactical everything, and extended magazines fascinate the uneducated 12 Democrats sitting on the jury. After they are told that you are an "expert" who shoots a whole lot of ammo on a regular basis, has had "training" and yet chooses to blow away the local misunderstood youth who was just getting ready to turn his life around and since with your training you could have just "winged" him. You have a good chance of losing a whole lot.

 

[Rich357]

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."
----------------------------

Zip06 makes an excellent point. and even if you get the handgun back who knows what it will look like. Rust? Scratches?

Rich

 

[riverdog]

The loss of the weapon to personal use and the loss of the $2000 investment is nothing. What I don't want is that high priced piece of evidence turned against me a courtroom when a mundane .45 with the same protective attributes (caliber, reliability etc) but is nothing special could be there instead. I won't compromise on some things but why use a Wilson, Baer or Brown tactical model when a standard Colt or Springfield will do just fine. JMHO

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Just a fine point of logic consideration, but few people ever really need to trust their lives to their guns. We assume that by carrying a gun, we trust our lives to it. That is incorrect. We trust that the gun will perform should we need to use it. It isn't until we need to and try to use it in a life and death situation that we trust our lives to it. Until application, it is just a bit of security blanket clothing accessory that is heavier than most you wear.

Zip06, show me the cases where the nasty night sites, training, or whatever of a legal gun and justified shooting has turned out nasty in a civil case. People talk about this bunk all the time, but even folks like Ayoob who cries wolf on the issue regularly in publications has been slow to come across with justification for the claims.

Your claim that you have a good chance of losing a lot is very true. Using a gun in a defensive situation comes with a LOT of inherent risks that come with the territory. You have a lot to lose as well by not using it.

Your argument is very good for getting the most human-friendly, non damaging less than lethal weapon and having zero training because training is bad. Sorry, that just doesn't make sense.

 

[Tamara]

riverdog,

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.

Well, if it helps your illustration any, that's my boot on top of the Springfield Professional buried in the mud in the picture that Sean attached. That gun is just a tool to me; a Black-T coated gun with a notable absence of cosmetic froofery.

I have a blued Colt Series 80 in .38 Super that I paid about half as much for that I handle with care, fret over scratches, and use for a "dress CCW gun," as it's a lot prettier.

(It would also really hurt Clint Smith's feelings to hear you say that the TRS was designed as a game gun. )

 

[CZ52GUY]

Ankeny

Like it or not, we do put a price tag on safety. Sometimes the price we allocate to it is based on what we can afford...imposed upon us based on our "fiscal challenges". Other times, it is based on what we choose.

I think we should all be able to agree that some handguns are not purchased for the purpose of defense...many times a higher priced gun falls into the "collectible" or even competition "race gun" category.

I can come around to saying that someone who buys an expensive gun, extolling its virtues in self-defense situations, but refuses to deploy it in that manner has probably been less than candid in their reasons for buying it. It is probably a very capable piece, but in their eyes, it's more likely something they simply want to have, believe they can afford to...sometimes known as the "safe queen".

I don't think its any of my business (or anyone elses) whether they do or not deploy it...that is their decision...if one of my buddy's did that they would be in for some good natured ribbing from me, but not ridicule.

As to "trusting my life", I trust my life in this order:
1) To the Almighty
2) To the instincts He has given me to avoid confontation
3) To the training I've put into being prepared for that confrontation should it be unavoidable
4) To one of many capable tools (whichever one happens to be most readily available at the time) to perform the intended task
5) A little luck...or Providence

Again, I can't relate to the idea that the acquisition price of an HK SOCOM makes it proportionately more capable than any of my pieces (e.g. CZ-75B).

I can see where if I had spent the $2k on the HK, I'd be less likely to carry it daily or deploy it in a home self-defense scenario because its fiscal value in the safe IS proportionately greater than the CZ-75B.

To each his own opinion, but I find the rationale reasonable, assuming that other capable alternatives (regardless of acquisition cost) are used.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[444]

Because I want to.

 

[riverdog]

It would also really hurt Clint Smith's feelings to hear you say that the TRS was designed as a game gun.

Then Clint should have spec'd his gun a little looser. Mine's a great range gun but it's just too tight. Maybe after another couple thousand rounds... OTOH my Colt 1991A1 actually "feels" better (smoother, less drag, etc) with fewer rounds through it than the TRS. The Colt is a good PD weapon, but it wouldn't really wouldn't qualify as a beater unless I started beating it It does qualify as mundane. The CQB still has that new car smell. Maybe when I have enough trigger time ... but it won't be mundane.

 

[Ankeny]

This thread has been fun, but there is a real world out there. A person doesn't need a Wilson CQB to be properly armed. You sure don't need to be a Master class IPSC shooter to have more than adequate gunhandling skills, and you don't need to be on a Hostage Rescue Team to understand basic tactics.

However, if you are going to carry a gun for the purpose of defending yourself you do need a balance between appopriate gear, gunhandling skills, tactics, and a bit of the "warrior" attitude. If you don't have those elements you might as well tattoo "fish food" on your forehead when SHTF.

I think what we have here is simply a good example of the difference between folks who have an intererst in guns and shoot them on an informal basis versus those of us who have made pistolcraft a major part of our lifestyle. It's no big whoop and not worth arguing about. You can do your thing and I'll do mine.

BTW, where can I get a CZ 75B for a hundred bucks?

 

[Sean Smith]

Well, if it helps your illustration any, that's my boot on top of the Springfield Professional buried in the mud in the picture that Sean attached.

My feet aren't that pretty, even with boots on.

 

[Correia]

I could care less how expensive somebody's gun is. The important thing is do they know how to shoot it? I've shot about 10 X the value of my carry gun through it in ammo.

 

[SavannahSteve]

The bottom line

The Walther PP-PPK-PPK/S design goes back to the late 1920's, and its widespread popularity and use have persisted for 70+ years because it is a truly outstanding, groundbreaking design just like John Browning's 1911 and Browning High Power. My Bersa Thunder 380 is a very well made and extremely reliable clone of the PPK/S that I shoot very well. The Makarov is a very similar but somewhat more powerful design that has been in continuous military and police service for over 50 years in the Soviet Union where they absolutely do not abide unreliable or ineffective weapons.

When I began researching these two inexpensive pistols, I found that the people who own and shoot them fall in love with them and have almost nothing bad to say. I was particularly impressed by the good reviews that that Stephen A. Camp gave them (and he is one expert that I believe really does know what he is talking about). While some folks may fault Bersas, Maks, and the smaller CZs on power (a view that I don't subscribe to), they are very well made, reliable, inexpensive carry pistols with a long and proven history.

If 32 or 380 or 9x18M don't provide enough power for your liking, then there are plenty of quality revolvers (such as used S&W and Ruger) and higher-power autos (such as the CZ nines) that you can carry for a fairly modest investment.

The bottom line is that you should not select your carry gun on price and external appearance. The gun’s reliability, your practiced ability to shoot it well, and your confidence in its stopping power are the important things in your carry gun, whether it’s a Wilson CBQ or a Makarov.

I'm like most gun nuts in that I am very interested in learning about (and someday owning) all those expensive guns we read about in the gun magazines, but I truly believe that people who dis someone for carrying a reliable and well maintained “beater†either know much less than they think they do or are just plain gun snobs.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Ankeny

I bought my CZ-75B from this gentleman.

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=14236117

This happens to be a Satin Nickel in .40s&w but he often has the basic no-frills 9mm in the polycoat finish in the $369 range.

I agree with much of what you said. Nothing said here is worth getting upset about...I've enjoyed the discussion...sorry Sean took my ribbing personally...wasn't my intent.

I think you'll like the CZ-75B if you find one...mine's a gem. I'll be test driving some $14 CTD High Caps in the next few days...I'll let you know how they work out.

Good luck,

CZ52'

 

[Tamara]

riverdog,

Then Clint should have spec'd his gun a little looser. Mine's a great range gun but it's just too tight. Maybe after another couple thousand rounds...

I grok where you're coming from.

FWIW, however, my Pro is tight enough to make my Baer feel like a shot-out WWII GI gun (it's apparently tough to meet the EffaBeeEye's accuracy demands with Golden Sabers with anything less ), yet has been flawless save for a couple of 47D's with defective springs (remember: When a Glock jams because of worn-out mags, it's the mag's fault, but when a 1911 jams because of defective mag springs, it's because it's an obsolete jammomatic ), even when tossed in the mud and stomped on.

 

[makdoddle]

I like the beaters better.

 

[riverdog]

my Pro is tight enough to make my Baer feel like a shot-out WWII GI gun

My new CQB feels loose compared to the TRS. But the bottom line for me is that the S&W Mod 19-5 meets my needs of a back-up for my 870. Determine what your requirements really are and find a weapon (or weapons) that meet that minimum threshold. Anything more than that S&W (such as a Colt 1991 or a CQB) is just gravy.

After that the other 90% of the equation is skill and determination.

 

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Well, I don't carry. But I do have house-guns.

I have a few expensive pieces, but they are collection enhancers. A 7.62 x 39-chambered derringer, and a .45 ACP Broomhandle Mauser do not lend themselves to the self-defense role particularly well.

The house-guns are fixed-sight .38 Special revolvers. They're not very expensive, they work, and they don't shoot through walls.

But the biggest irony is that the old Taurus M-82 with the tired finish that I bought for $99 is the single most-accurate, best-shooting handgun I own, which is why it's the gun I would grab first if things go bump in the night.

(But I would back it up with the night-sighted 1066. Just in case...)