Gun snobs are tiring

[ReservoirDawg10]

Your budget, or lack thereof, doesn't make a gun better.

Plenty of expensive guns are absolute **** sticks.

A range toy for ****zngiggles has much lower expectations and requirements than something you may someday rely upon.

The more you plan on abusing something and/or neglecting it, the better the gun needs to be.

Yes, quality tends to cost money. It's not just in the firearms world. Get over it.

 

[greg vess]

I believe if you put quality parts in you get good service out. You can either buy it already assembled or a individual can assemble one with good parts and get a gun that is close to or equal in value and quality. The two common factors are good parts and close attention to detail in the assembly process. You put those together and you get a good outcome. I believe that wholeheartedly.

 

[FreedomUSMC]

Absolutely agree. I've seen expensive guns break, I've seen cheap guns run for years. What does it matter if the person who bought it is happy?

So many people, especially in forums like this, swear they are the end-all/ be-all SME on firearms. Personally, I don't care what someone else buys because it isn't my life they have to protect. If they ask my opinion, I'll give them the pros and cons of whatever brand/model they are looking at. And I'll give them recommendations based on their budget, intent of use, and commitment to training. A guy wanting to go DEVGRU isn't going to be the same as a guy wanting to shoot competition. I think Glocks are overrated junk with poor ergonomics, but people love them. If someone wants a Glock, go right ahead!

Most people aren't striving to win a made up popularity/ tacti-cool contest and they aren't looking to be Tier 1 Operators. If someone who barely goes to the range once a year buys a Taurus PT111 to keep at home just in case, who cares?

 

[FreedomUSMC]

OP a your mostly right , too may “dog pile on the rabbit” so to speak . there are varying price weapons and generally varying quality.

the only comment I disagree with is people buying what they can afford at the time. Often people , especially those new to guns, really have no idea about quality, fit and finish or long term reliability.
your looking to shoot a lot, a whole lot, want accuracy, readily available parts , etc. then it does matter.

I have had cheap and I have had expensive guns , buy what you like and want but know that generally you get what you pay for in terms of quality, generally.

I disagree. We don't know what someone's finances are or their reasons for wanting/ needing a firearm; and that's the key to helping someone decide on a firearm. Perhaps it's a lady with a crazy ex. Waiting months to save money to buy a different brand gun may not be the best advice. Fit & finish, parts, and long term reliability are relative to the person. For someone who plans on shooting competitions, those absolutely apply. Not so much for someone needing a firearm that's going to sit in their night stand.

Some people don't understand there's a difference between educating people versus TELLING them what to buy/ not buy. A lot of gun ranges are known to be brand bias and upsell customers to fill their pockets. I find people often lend their "expertise" without first asking what the intended use is. I'll ask clients how they intend on using a firearm, what's their budget, give the pros/cons of a each model, then let clients choose on their own.

 

[basstracker89]

Just like tools I like to get the best I can for the job. That doesn't mean I buy the most expensive, I can't afford that. I try to keep it simple but good. I'm a big fan of Craftsman tools, but I've never owned Snap on. I like a weapon that is reliable, accurate, easy to use, of course safe and have parts available when necessary. I don't generally go for fancy engraving, as it doesn't make it shoot any better. I've had some beaters that were excellent shooters. I like S&W over Ruger and Colt for double action revolvers. I like the Smith for the sights, action and grip over the others. I feel fortunate that my blue collar hands don't like the Colt. For single action auto and revolver I like Colt. But I've learned that the Italian weapons are very well made as well. I like Marlin for a lever because of the side eject and you can mount a scope on top of the receiver. But I know Rossi and Puma make a very smooth action as well. Savage is a good weapon and there are many others. I have a buddy that has a High Point, he says that's a good weapon for the money. So for me it's whatever tool makes the best sense, fit, function and cost - all play an important part.

 

[FreedomUSMC]

I believe if you put quality parts in you get good service out. You can either buy it already assembled or a individual can assemble one with good parts and get a gun that is close to or equal in value and quality. The two common factors are good parts and close attention to detail in the assembly process. You put those together and you get a good outcome. I believe that wholeheartedly.

I agree. Though service is subjective. A competition shooter obviously needs higher end equipment than say a single mom living in a rough area. She's not going to need top tier parts; A Taurus PT111 may suit her just fine.

 

[TheGman]

I disagree. We don't know what someone's finances are or their reasons for wanting/ needing a firearm; and that's the key to helping someone decide on a firearm. Perhaps it's a lady with a crazy ex. Waiting months to save money to buy a different brand gun may not be the best advice. Fit & finish, parts, and long term reliability are relative to the person. For someone who plans on shooting competitions, those absolutely apply. Not so much for someone needing a firearm that's going to sit in their night stand.

Some people don't understand there's a difference between educating people versus TELLING them what to buy/ not buy. A lot of gun ranges are known to be brand bias and upsell customers to fill their pockets. I find people often lend their "expertise" without first asking what the intended use is. I'll ask clients how they intend on using a firearm, what's their budget, give the pros/cons of a each model, then let clients choose on their own.

that Is why I used the word ”often” versus always when referring to being able to afford.

i do agree on educating , presenting facts and opinion versus telling someone what they should buy. However in the same manner that a physician assesses a patient then prescribed a course of action or treatment , strong advise if often needed for the benefit of the buyer.

i Think that the original point of this thread was not to bash anything not expensive or exclusive, I agree.

 

[basstracker89]

My Grandfather and Dad never put too much stock into spending a lot of money on guns. They did live on a farm and managed to do what needed to be done. I know my Grandfather was poor. Now my Dad does have a couple nice pieces, but he got them very inexpensively many years ago.

 

[Bulldog Man]

I like my Canik and I have a Taurus pt 99 I put more rounds through then I can remember without any problems I have more exspensive guns but I trust those 2 just as much my Sigs and Beretta's Hate to say it a Canik is becoming my favorite pistol

 

[yardboss1]

Some people don't understand there's a difference between educating people versus TELLING them what to buy/ not buy.