Handgun “Quality”

Mathieu18

Mathieu18

Needs More Yeller
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
New Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
3,785
Location
Southport
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
To be upfront, this isn’t meant to be an inflammatory post, but maybe I should save it for Friday…

At what point are you paying for “quality” that matters in a gun. I think about this most as an EDC gun which is why this is in handguns, as that’s where people seems most sensitive to a gun that’ll save your life.

@BatteryOaksBilly question keeps rattling around my brain, “What’s your life worth?” Fair question (especially since I wanted a cheap carry gun) but IMO there’s a point where you’re not paying for reliability or accuracy that might save your life, but instead finish quality or bells and whistles that’s more vanity. Not a bad thing either, but how to draw a line?

So how do you pick?
 
George Farr usually only shot old blackpowder rifles.
At 62, he went to Camp Perry, and was provided a standard 1903 Springfield and standard ball ammo.
Then he hit 71 consecutive 1000 yd bullseyes.

Simo Hayha sniped the most people of all time with a Mosin(the famous 'garbage rod') and a submachine gun.
Carlos Hathcock sniped with a machine gun.


Someone really good can do a lot with junk. I ain't that good. I'll take all the help I can get. :p
Maybe that help is a better trigger for better shots, or deburred sides, so nothing snags. Or a flashlight, so I know what I'm shooting at. Or optics. Or better iron sights.

IMO, I would favor something small and light, to increase my abilities to carry it, everything else from that is gravy.
 
Last edited:
pinkbunny said:
George Farr usually only shot old blackpowder rifles.
At 62, he went to Camp Perry, and was provided a standard 1903 Springfield and standard ball ammo.
Then he hit 71 consecutive 1000 bullseyes.

Simo Hayha sniped the most people of all time with a Mosin(the famous 'garbage rod') and a submachine gun.
Carlos Hathcock sniped with a machine gun.


Someone really good can do a lot with junk. I ain't that good. I'll take all the help I can get. :p
Maybe that help is a better trigger for better shots, or deburred sides, so nothing snags. Or a flashlight, so I know what I'm shooting at. Or optics. Or better iron sights.

IMO, I would favor something small and light, to increase my abilities to carry it, everything else from that is gravy.
Click to expand...
Well said.

Like cars, you buy a reputable name bc it hopefully has a more proven track record. Does that mean there won't be bad apples? No, but the idea is the odds are better than if you buy a lesser known brand.

Do your research and make a choice. Then test that choice until you are satisfied. There are no certainties. All you can do is try to keep the odds in your favor and keep up with routine maintenance.
 
Mathieu18 said:
To be upfront, this isn’t meant to be an inflammatory post, but maybe I should save it for Friday…

At what point are you paying for “quality” that matters in a gun. I think about this most as an EDC gun which is why this is in handguns, as that’s where people seems most sensitive to a gun that’ll save your life.

@BatteryOaksBilly question keeps rattling around my brain, “What’s your life worth?” Fair question (especially since I wanted a cheap carry gun) but IMO there’s a point where you’re not paying for reliability or accuracy that might save your life, but instead finish quality or bells and whistles that’s more vanity. Not a bad thing either, but how to draw a line?

So how do you pick?
Click to expand...

You do you is the easy answer. We all have our own opinions that don’t matter when you have to draw your EDC. Shoot a bunch, get comfortable with what you like and make sure it shoots reliably. Beyond that, it doesn‘t matter what we think. We can‘t tell you how to think. Even if you were wrong or and idiot. You wouldn‘t listen anyway. 😒
 
To me the #1 factor when choosing an EDC gun is that it has to fit you. It has to fit your hand. It has to point naturally. The controls have to be ergonomic for you not someone else. It has to work as an extension of your hands because most likely if you are called on to use it you are going to be relying heavily on muscle memory and subconscious interaction with the pistol. For me any gun I carry has to draw and present naturally and have a trigger I can run. From there it then has to be reliable. It has to go bang when you need it to. The cost is secondary to these considerations. The perfect gun might cost $500 it might cost $5000.
 
wvsig said:
To me the #1 factor when choosing an EDC gun is that it has to fit you. It has to fit your hand. It has to point naturally. The controls have to be ergonomic for you not someone else. It has to work as an extension of your hands because most likely if you are called on to use it you are going to be relying heavily on muscle memory and subconscious interaction with the pistol. For me any gun I carry has to draw and present naturally and have a trigger I can run. From there it then has to be reliable. It has to go bang when you need it to. The cost is secondary to these considerations. The perfect gun might cost $500 it might cost $5000.
Click to expand...

I call BS. No one needs to spend $5000. A nice $2500 Les Baer will do all you need. 🤣
 
For all things non-AR:

1) Does it (or the company) have a service history, be it LE or military
2) Does it come from a higher volume manufacturer
3) Do I trust its reliability based on my own testing

1 - this shows that at some point, it had at least some rigor of testing to pass a go/no-go gauge for a contract to be issued, at least in the modern era.

2 - I don't care what sort of QC you have if you're a small company - there is not enough data out there to get a feel for your failure rates or to really understand where your problems lie. As much as everyone wants to bash bigger companies like PSA, SIG, etc., companies like that have a lot of failure data for anything that's been out there for a while, and have processes in place to correct those for future iterations. This is why I don't gravitate towards "boutique" guns, particularly those that let you mix and match things that aren't purely cosmetic and haven't been tested as a system. Just look at what happened with the Shadow Systems rollout in comparison to standard Glock. Don't get me wrong, there are going to be lemons out there. But part of my day job is failure analysis, and its no surprise that the "specialty" items (valves, etc.) in my line of work have considerably more problems than the industry-wide counterparts.

3 - I don't care how cheap or expensive it is. I need to know, personally, that it goes bang every single time under normal operating conditions. This usually means 1000 failure-free rounds of anything small-ish caliber for me to stake my life on it short of there being a blatantly obvious external factor for the failure (i.e. trash ammo that fails to function in a multitude of firearms.)

For anything AR platform, I weigh 1 and 2 less and focus fundamentally on 3 just due to the maturity of the platform.

Just my $.02.
 
Last edited:
There is validity in the idea of if you care enough about your personal safety to carry firearm you should care enough to carry something of decent enough quality to work reliably. Extending that thought if you care enough to carry a firearm you should care enough to know how to use it and use it well.
As far as what price point you get that? IMO you are in the $450+ range where S&W Shield and G43 are. Bersa, Taurus, Ruger are too unreliable when new and not durable enough to last the requisite training to be on the list.
 
Mr. Bggs said:
Do your research and make a choice. Then test that choice until you are satisfied. There are no certainties. All you can do is try to keep the odds in your favor and keep up with routine maintenance.
Click to expand...
This, IMO, is what gets me. There aren’t many brands in todays mass manufacture game that I’d trust intrinsically. So brand A, B, or C might have a higher failure rate, but if I verify function with a few hundred rounds it should be pretty GTG at that point. Any equipment has an X.XX% chance of failure at any given point, but all those odds should be minimal if we verify the lack of a manufacturing defect. They’re all cutting corners somewhere and that’s why I posed the question, how does one decide either the brand or acceptable “risk” of failure.
 
pinkbunny said:
I take it your a Les Baer-ian?
Click to expand...

I don’t carry them normally, but I would if I didn‘t have smaller, more convenient guns. My UTC is in a close race with my CZ Custom for the finest gun I have owned or shot. And despite its incredibly tight tolerances when new it has never missed a beat. Although it does need to be shot more. Such is life.
 
Mathieu18 said:
This, IMO, is what gets me. There aren’t many brands in todays mass manufacture game that I’d trust intrinsically. So brand A, B, or C might have a higher failure rate, but if I verify function with a few hundred rounds it should be pretty GTG at that point. Any equipment has an X.XX% chance of failure at any given point, but all those odds should be minimal if we verify the lack of a manufacturing defect. They’re all cutting corners somewhere and that’s why I posed the question, how does one decide either the brand or acceptable “risk” of failure.
Click to expand...

Not everyone cuts corners. Some people make high quality guns. Ask @wvsig.
 
fieldgrade said:
$500 dollars will buy you a reliable carry gun.

You can spend less, but not a whole lot less. So why not buy a quality firearm.
Click to expand...
But that’s a pretty arbitrary number with out much substantiation for why you can’t get a good carry gun at say $350. Not saying you can but…
 
1. You have to like your gun. The more you like it, the more you'll carry it and the more you'll practice with it. The more you practice the better you'll be with it, the more you carry it the more likely you'll have it when you need it.

2. You have to be willing to literally bet your life on the gun working first time every time.


If your carry gun checks off those two wickets, you're doing alright.
 
CZfool68 said:
Not everyone cuts corners. Some people make high quality guns. Ask @wvsig.
Click to expand...
There’s always, ALWAYS a compromise. “Cuts corners” has a negative connotation and it’s maybe unfair, but the original point stands.
 
I'm a Ruger nut, as most here know, and I carried either an SR9c or SR40c for years. Never had one fail me, and I could shoot them well enough. Then I bought an XDs .45. For whatever reason, I shoot them better than anything that I own, and they are more compact. They have also been as reliable as my Rugers. I'm rough on my EDC, so I practice with the dirty, scuffed up EDC as is. Never a failure.
Looks make no difference to me, nor does price.

On edit....I still have an issue with the lack of capacity though.
 
Last edited:
Mathieu18 said:
But that’s a pretty arbitrary number with out much substantiation for why you can’t get a good carry gun at say $350. Not saying you can but…
Click to expand...
That’s not arbitrary, it’s just being cheap. If that’s all you can swing, then by all means.
 
Mathieu18 said:
There’s always, ALWAYS a compromise. “Cuts corners” has a negative connotation and it’s maybe unfair, but the original point stands.
Click to expand...

No it really doesn’t. Some gun makers create the best gun they can with what they have. Maybe they aren‘t perfect guns, but that’s because materials and humans are not perfect. But they don‘t create an inferior product so they can save $3. You just to be willing to pay more.
 
CZfool68 said:
Snob. Then again some people believe everything they read on the interwebz.
Click to expand...

I am not saying Baers are not good guns but I personally find them too tight. I have loved every Les Baer I have owned I just don't choose to carry them. My TRS was the first higher end 1911. I still have it and shoot it often.
 
CZfool68 said:
No it really doesn’t. Some gun makers create the best gun they can with what they have. Maybe they aren‘t perfect guns, but that’s because materials and humans are not perfect. But they don‘t create an inferior product so they can save $3. You just to be willing to pay more.
Click to expand...
I actually think too many companies these days build guns to price point instead of building the best gun they can. I mean look at Sig.
 
CZfool68 said:
But they don‘t create an inferior product so they can save $3. You just to be willing to pay more.
Click to expand...
They are in business to make
Money. I have worked in product development for 30+ years and I can assure you $3 is a large amount of money on a product that costs $100 to $300.
Ruger LCP’s , Taurus G2C’s and such are made a cheap as possible. If you get one that works good for you but I’m my experience if you get one that works enough to prove it’s reliability it is well on its way to be worn out.
 
wvsig said:
I actually think too many companies these days build guns to price point instead of building the best gun they can. I mean look at Sig.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. You of all people can probably name more than a few gun makers that don’t intentionally cut corners. And obviously Sig is not one them. You can buy a high quality firearm from a reputable company if you wish.
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
They are in business to make
Money. I have worked in product development for 30+ years and I can assure you $3 is a large amount of money on a product that costs $100 to $300.
Ruger LCP’s , Taurus G2C’s and such are made a cheap as possible. If you get one that works good for you but I’m my experience if you get one that works enough to prove it’s reliability it is well on its way to be worn out.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about Ruger and Taurus? Of course they cut corners.
 
CZfool68 said:
You missed the point. You of all people can probably name more than a few gun makers that don’t intentionally cut corners. And obviously Sig is not one them. You can buy a high quality firearm from a reputable company if you wish.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. There are many who do not. At one time I believe Sig do not either but those days are gone.
 
CZfool68 said:
No it really doesn’t. Some gun makers create the best gun they can with what they have. Maybe they aren‘t perfect guns, but that’s because materials and humans are not perfect. But they don‘t create an inferior product so they can save $3. You just to be willing to pay more.
Click to expand...
“With what they have.” Always a compromise. Cutting corners isn’t fair in the negative, but always a trade off.
 
fieldgrade said:
That’s not arbitrary, it’s just being cheap. If that’s all you can swing, then by all means.
Click to expand...
But what do you get for $500 that you can’t get for $350. I’m not disagreeing per se but there’s a lot of opinion or conjecture passed as fact. Is the metallurgy in a $500 Sig or Springfield or Glock better than a $350 Ruger? Probably? How many rounds does it fail at. 100, 3000, 5000, 39000? I’m not criticizing anyone for their choice, I’m trying to understand the why, not just the “spend $500 and you’re good” cause that’s just marketing winning out over product.
 
Mathieu18 said:
This, IMO, is what gets me. There aren’t many brands in todays mass manufacture game that I’d trust intrinsically. So brand A, B, or C might have a higher failure rate, but if I verify function with a few hundred rounds it should be pretty GTG at that point. Any equipment has an X.XX% chance of failure at any given point, but all those odds should be minimal if we verify the lack of a manufacturing defect. They’re all cutting corners somewhere and that’s why I posed the question, how does one decide either the brand or acceptable “risk” of failure.
Click to expand...

Guns these days are orders of magnitude more reliable than they were in the past right out of the box from the factory at all price points. Manufacturing is much more consistent. We are all benefitting from modern manufacturing.
 
Mathieu18 said:
But what do you get for $500 that you can’t get for $350. I’m not disagreeing per se but there’s a lot of opinion or conjecture passed as fact. Is the metallurgy in a $500 Sig or Springfield or Glock better than a $350 Ruger? Probably? How many rounds does it fail at. 100, 3000, 5000, 39000? I’m not criticizing anyone for their choice, I’m trying to understand the why, not just the “spend $500 and you’re good” cause that’s just marketing winning out over product.
Click to expand...
I gave you a succinct and specific answer.
if you don’t like the answers, don’t ask the questions.
 
fieldgrade said:
$500 dollars will buy you a reliable carry gun.

You can spend less, but not a whole lot less. So why not buy a quality firearm.
Click to expand...
Mathieu18 said:
But that’s a pretty arbitrary number with out much substantiation for why you can’t get a good carry gun at say $350. Not saying you can but…
Click to expand...
I would say the one big exception to the $500 is buying PD trade-ins. It’s not hard to knock $100-$200 off that amount if you’re not after new.
 
A lot of people above share my sentiment.

I don’t believe you have to spend thousands upon thousands for a quality reliable self defense firearms. And in some cases, I believe those can (at times) be poor choices. Again, not always, so don’t think I’m bashing someone for carrying a $2-5k firearm. But I’ve heard of those having issues just as much as I’ve heard brands that cost far less. So equating cost to reliability isn’t always wise.

The “what is your life worth?” question is valid. But within reason. We all take risks with our lives. We don’t buy the cheapest tires or brakes for our cars, but we also rarely ask for the most expensive thing on the shelf. When we buy a new car we want one with airbags and a history of reliability and safety, but we don’t all wrap our cars in reinforced steel cages. In short, we buy the best we can that fits within reason.

Same for firearms. $500 was mentioned above as a good range, but I’d lower that somewhat to $350-400, as that would bring in things like CZs and MP Shields. Both of which have a proven track record of being solid pistols.

I’m rambling, I know…but it’s been one of those nights. Bottom line, I avoid known low end stuff like Raven, Lorcin, Taurus, Hi-Point and stick to the knowns like CZ/Glock/Sig/Smith which are all solid choices with track records of being reliable.
 
Mathieu18 said:
But what do you get for $500 that you can’t get for $350. I’m not disagreeing per se but there’s a lot of opinion or conjecture passed as fact. Is the metallurgy in a $500 Sig or Springfield or Glock better than a $350 Ruger? Probably? How many rounds does it fail at. 100, 3000, 5000, 39000? I’m not criticizing anyone for their choice, I’m trying to understand the why, not just the “spend $500 and you’re good” cause that’s just marketing winning out over product.
Click to expand...

Ruger makes some solid guns. I used to carry a LCP and in its role it was a solid defensive gun that I used to protect my life. I personally hate the "what is your life worth.... " line. It is posturing BS. The cost of your carry gun does not = success in a gunfight.
 
The old saying is correct, “it ain’t the bow, it’s the Indian”.

The only gun that I could carry even if I’d never previously shot it would be a Glock.

I have owned at one time or another every 9 mm and 45 that they make. (except for the 18 😳) and have never had a malfunction with any of them. My experiences but I find them to be very reliable.
 
fieldgrade said:
I gave you a succinct and specific answer.
if you don’t like the answers, don’t ask the questions.
Click to expand...
As I said, I was curious yours and others reasoning/rationale as much as your answer. Your $500 is perfectly valid, I just want to know why $500 and not $300 or $900. At some point quality and price splits. I’m trying to get folks reasoning.
 
Mathieu18 said:
At some point quality and price splits.
Click to expand...
I agree it splits but for a different reason that many may imagine. Like anything the more you do it the better you get. Glock has become very good because they build basically the the pistol scaled up and down and done it many, many times.
when you get to higher priced pistols generally they are made by smaller manufacturers in smaller numbers. Their process capabilities (as they say in the business) are not as well tested out so you may very well be getting a less reliable product. So you could argue there is a sweet spot in the $500 where you get reliable as well as quality.
 
Mathieu18 said:
But that’s a pretty arbitrary number with out much substantiation for why you can’t get a good carry gun at say $350. Not saying you can but…
Click to expand...
I'll say it another way. For $500 I can go buy a gun that I trust enough to put in a holster and carry without shooting it. I can't do that for $350.
And that's mostly because I don't have much trigger time on that price-point gun. There may be one I just don't know it yet.
 
Last edited:
Mathieu18 said:
$500 and not $300 or $900.
Click to expand...
Assuming typical street price for a new pistol $300 gets you Ruger, Taurus, Bersa, high point which for me are not reliable enough to depend on. S&W Shield can be had currently close to $300 after taxes but I am including rebates, sales and so o just historical pricing as I can recall.
Why not $900? First Glock, S&W, Sig all make good pistols in the $500 range which I think have a very high standard of reliability. At $900 you start getting into BBQ guns which are not necessary built for reliable functioning but aesthetic reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom