Please explain "Why cheap not the best"

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • warren5421

    Expert
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 23, 2010
    844
    59
    Plainfield
    Please explain "Why cheaper not the best"

    Why would you carry the cheaper gun and not the best (be it a Ravine or a Les Baer) you can in defense of your life? It seems to me if your life or your loved one's life depended on it you would want the best tool to protect them in your holster that you could afford.
     
    Last edited:

    Route 45

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    92   0   0
    Dec 5, 2015
    14,884
    113
    Indy
    Price does not always correlate to reliability or suitability for a particular purpose. In the case of handguns, there are new high-dollar pistols that will **** the bed if not babied and used $300 pistols that will eat anything you feed them. Obviously, one should avoid the REAL junk at the very bottom of the barrel. But you don't have to spend a grand to get a good, reliable firearm.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,685
    77
    Camby area
    Because a cheap tool you CAN afford that will likely do the job is better than the expensive tool you CANT afford so is guaranteed NEVER to do the job because you cant own it. Food, diapers, rent, etc is a bit more important.

    I had that issue with Mrs Monkey. I Wanted her to carry a G19 sized 9 so she could shoot it well and be adequately protected. She protested. Anything bigger than the LCP was not going to cut it. Welp, an LCP in the pocket is better than nothing, so OK.

    Fast forward and she upgraded to a SCCY. better. She can at least keep it on paper beyond 7 yds. Couldnt do that with the LCP. (then again she didnt expect to need it outside bad breath distance... She wouldnt be trying to take down an active shooter from across the mall food court.)

    Here is hoping I can get her to carry a G19 soon. She shoots that one TREMENDOUSLY. Baby steps.
     

    femurphy77

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 5, 2009
    20,268
    113
    S.E. of disorder
    I know some people that can afford essentially any commercially available firearm available in the world. Their justification for carrying a "cheap" side arm is that if they are ever forced to use it then when it is confiscated as evidence and "misplaced" in the evidence room they aren't out much.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    2,754
    113
    Alfordsville
    As mentioned above you really don't define "cheap" or "best." Does cheap equal inexpensive or does it mean poorly designed/constructed? Does best refer to function/performance of design or the purchase price of the firearm? If the terms refer to cost then by who's standard is something rated best or cheap? "Best" meaning expensive to a single working parent may not be to a Wall Street broker.
    Further, some guns rated as "best" by that standard can become finicky mistresses. That may not be a quality sought for a weapon that is intended for the defense of its owner. Some used law enforcement trade ins can be purchased for prices that many would consider if not "cheap" then not terribly expensive either. Few would doubt the inherent reliability of a used Glock for instance.
    I simply do not believe that cost alone should be the sole determinate of a weapons utility or value.
     

    Ndavid45

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 83.3%
    10   2   0
    Apr 29, 2019
    452
    2
    Indianapolis
    I regularly carry what many would consider a "cheap" firearm, a Taurus G3, even though I also own a Beretta 92. I don't consider the G3 I have as low quality just because of the price point. It has proven itself reliable and comfortable to carry and shoot. It fills its roll in concealed carry and home defense perfectly, all while not breaking the bank.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,028
    77
    Southside Indy
    I agree that inexpensive doesn't necessarily = "cheap" when you're talking about quality and reliability.

    Not defensive handgun related, but along the same lines, take old Mossberg .22's for example. Their slogan was "More Gun for the Money" and they weren't wrong. Even at 50 - 70 years old, they're still as reliable if not moreso than a lot of the "new" guns on the market at 2, 3 or 4 times what you can find one of these old Mossbergs for. /:hijack:
     

    gregkl

    Outlier
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Apr 8, 2012
    11,868
    77
    Bloomington
    I'm not familiar with a Ravine or a Bear, though I do know of a Les Baer.

    Cheap? No way. I define "cheap" as poorly made, sub par components, cutting corners.

    That is different than "inexpensive". While it is true one get's what they pay for, you can find quality for less expense. And secondly, "inexpensive" is different for people. $100 for something may be expensive for me while some Wall Street tycoon could add a couple zero's and still call it inexpensive. I own a $3500 bicycle but would never spend $500 for a watch.

    Best is a totally objective term. That is why advertisers can say something is the "best". It can't be defined by any set of criteria.

    I do have a motto; The best is just good enough for me. But in reality my best is someone else's mediocre. I used to try to own the top tier products in everything I have, but as I grow older and my bank account is not growing I have come to realize that I need to match the quality with how I intend to use it.

    Short story long, for a carry firearm, I will have something that has proven itself to me to be dependable. If it is not, I won't carry it. And I can shoot it well enough.

    But when friends ask me about what gun to buy, I usually say a Glock 19. I don't own any Glocks, but if that friend likes the feel of it and can learn to shoot it, then I don't see that as a bad decision.
     

    Hoosier45

    Snowman
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    143   0   0
    Aug 13, 2009
    10,202
    113
    Eastbound and down
    I know some people that can afford essentially any commercially available firearm available in the world. Their justification for carrying a "cheap" side arm is that if they are ever forced to use it then when it is confiscated as evidence and "misplaced" in the evidence room they aren't out much.

    I have heard this argument as well. My thinking is that if my gun is in an evidence locker, and I am alive, it did it's job. I can buy another one. And if it is in an evidence locker, I'm probably more worried about lawyers and proving self defense than I am getting my gun back.

    But to each his own.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,028
    77
    Southside Indy
    I'm not familiar with a Ravine or a Bear, though I do know of a Les Baer.

    Cheap? No way. I define "cheap" as poorly made, sub par components, cutting corners.

    That is different than "inexpensive". While it is true one get's what they pay for, you can find quality for less expense. And secondly, "inexpensive" is different for people. $100 for something may be expensive for me while some Wall Street tycoon could add a couple zero's and still call it inexpensive. I own a $3500 bicycle but would never spend $500 for a watch.

    Best is a totally objective term. That is why advertisers can say something is the "best". It can't be defined by any set of criteria.

    I do have a motto; The best is just good enough for me. But in reality my best is someone else's mediocre. I used to try to own the top tier products in everything I have, but as I grow older and my bank account is not growing I have come to realize that I need to match the quality with how I intend to use it.

    Short story long, for a carry firearm, I will have something that has proven itself to me to be dependable. If it is not, I won't carry it. And I can shoot it well enough.

    But when friends ask me about what gun to buy, I usually say a Glock 19. I don't own any Glocks, but if that friend likes the feel of it and can learn to shoot it, then I don't see that as a bad decision.

    I really wanted to like Glocks because they do have such a great reputation, but they just don't feel right in my hand. I like the way my Shield feels (my EDC) and I liked my full sized M&P 45 when I had it (traded it or sold it for something I wanted more). The S&W ergonomics just worked better for me.
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    I have heard this argument as well. My thinking is that if my gun is in an evidence locker, and I am alive, it did it's job. I can buy another one. And if it is in an evidence locker, I'm probably more worried about lawyers and proving self defense than I am getting my gun back.

    But to each his own.

    Bingo. You know what I carry.
    I want it to work. Every time.

    I have wrestled with the argument put out as to evidence/loss etc. Hell I would need therapy and 1911 group but if I need it I am alive so winner.
     

    gregkl

    Outlier
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Apr 8, 2012
    11,868
    77
    Bloomington
    I really wanted to like Glocks because they do have such a great reputation, but they just don't feel right in my hand. I like the way my Shield feels (my EDC) and I liked my full sized M&P 45 when I had it (traded it or sold it for something I wanted more). The S&W ergonomics just worked better for me.

    Same here. I shoot/ carry a Shield or a 2.0 compact.
     

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    Hard to beat an mp 2.0 or a glock....

    Cost generally buys things you don't want to carry around like steel frames, super light triggers, niche holsters, fear of scratching so you walk around like a robot...

    450 to 700 will cover a top choice carry gun.
     

    Mongo59

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jul 30, 2018
    4,448
    113
    Purgatory
    I think the word we are looking for is value. The problem is there is perceived value and real value, and even those are elusive.

    In example, getting a relic worth $1500 for $1000 would be a bargain but not a value if said relic is to be used in a roll it was not intended.

    An old fella once told me, "buy what you can afford, run it and if it is not reliable you might as well wrap a $50 bill around it and toss it in a ditch. Because if you carry it and it let's you down when you need it, it is of no value..."
     

    Sniper 79

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   0
    Oct 7, 2012
    2,939
    48
    Glock is perfect for me. Reliable and cheap. Can buy several and stash them around. Don't care if they get beat, stolen, lost, fall off the side of the boat or whatever life throws at them. I can pick another one up at any street corner in America. Don't have to be a gunsmith either should something break. Parts are common and cheap.

    Something like a more expensive gun like a Bear was mentioned. Makes my skin crawl thinking of owning one. Too much invested to enjoy it. Tolerances too tight to be reliable. Need a Smith should it go down. Would get into fetal position and cry if it got confiscated, lost, or stolen.

    I'll take inexpensive gear all day every day.
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    Glock is perfect for me. Reliable and cheap. Can buy several and stash them around. Don't care if they get beat, stolen, lost, fall off the side of the boat or whatever life throws at them. I can pick another one up at any street corner in America. Don't have to be a gunsmith either should something break. Parts are common and cheap.

    Something like a more expensive gun like a Bear was mentioned. Makes my skin crawl thinking of owning one. Too much invested to enjoy it. Tolerances too tight to be reliable. Need a Smith should it go down. Would get into fetal position and cry if it got confiscated, lost, or stolen.

    I'll take inexpensive gear all day every day.

    I would never buy a Baer/Wilson etc let alone carry one.
    But I do jump off head first sinking funds into dark holes that I do carry. But in this I am fully competent they will work if the need arises. And like most I pray it never does.

    I can make no argument as to the Poly offerings mentioned. They serve a well defined purpose. And serve it well.
     

    Trapper Jim

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Dec 18, 2012
    2,676
    77
    Arcadia
    Depends on end game. If you are setting out to use the gun a lot (which is the only way to improve skillset) then moderate to premium dollars will go the distance and return your money in value of marathon distance evry time. If you have time to look around on the ground for missing parts, take three hands to work with jams and malfunctions, misfires, use cheap substandard equipment (holsters, belts, ear protection, and ammo) then there isn't much time or motivation left for you to become a better shooter. So if the end game is to buy the piece, pepper a poster at 3 yrds and then put it in your sock drawer forever, then cheap is the better bargain.
     
    Top Bottom