I go to the public shooting range only every few months, but in the last year I have seen two different shooters have their cheap guns break. (both 9mm, each made by a different company that I barely or never heard of).

By break, I mean the frame cracked and pieces fell out of one, and the hammer broke off the other. The owners were shooting inexpensive factory ammo (not reloads). I have never seen failures like that on moderately used Rugers, Smiths, etc. I have seen shooters of other cheap guns spend a lot of time hammering on them to eject fired cartridges, remove stuck magazines, etc.

Moral of the story: If someone ever asks you if an off-brand gun is an acceptable defense weapon, just say "NO." Maybe even offer to gift them with the $$ difference toward a good gun if they really can't afford it and you really like that person.

Cheap guns can and do break...so do expensive ones, just that the cheap guns seem to do it more often. Money doesn't cure all problems, but it does avoid the worst of them (hate to say that...seems so "Democratic").

So far, have snapped a Beretta hammer while shoting (just snapped right in half..Beretta 92), snapped a slide stop (which also acts as the ejector) on a Walther PP, had a safety lever detent wear out on a Colt .45 so that it put it self on safe at each shot, had several front sights (Glock, Sig, Colt) detach while shooting (and bounce off my head twice), "de-topped" a Walther P-38 (rear sight and several other parts just detach and scatter on the floor), had a Beretta "Minx" (the little .22short version) turn full-auto on me, and managed to break the barrel on a SIG. None of this includes ammo-related screw ups...none were pressure events or due to abuse...just parts that gave up. That's not a lot of "boo-boos" for 40years of pistol shooting, but they weren't cheap guns.

Sounds unfair? Guess it's becasue I don't have or shoot that many cheap guns...and when one does screw up, figure it's just nature's way of saying I should have dug a little deeper for the $.

Good news is that good guns are worth fixing...think of the cheap ones as disposable.

Guess the moral of the story is this: whenever I hear of a gun that "never" malfunctioned, I alays add a mental note of "Yet".

OK, expensive guns DO break from time to time but ya gotta know the numbers favor the better build and therefore more expensive gun. Only a complete fool would rely on a cheap gun to protect his/her life and the lives of loved ones.

So, what's the minimum number of dollars you need to spend before you aren't a complete fool? $200? $800?

Looking over a couple of gun shops yesterday...excluding the used guns and consdiering only new guns...think you can get a functional, reliable handgun for about $250 bottom end, but $300-$350 would be better. Include the NIB Maks. and FEG's (and if you find .380 or 9mmMak. acceptable), call it $150-$200.

But even at $1000, don't expect a semi-auto to be perfectly reliable right out the box with all types of ammo...if it still gags after working your way through three or four boxes of FMJ ammo, you've got a problem that needs attention. Most will settle in after a cleaning (the packing preservatives are a bit sticky) and 100 rounds of break in...some need 200...and some (even the high priced ones) need adjustments.

The more bells and whistles, the more likely that one of the bells or whistles fouling the system...simple is GOOD for a defence gun.

Are lots of used handguns that I've paid much less than $200 for that would serve just fine....but you've got to learn how to tell the gold nuggets from the fecal matter (isn't there a "sticky" posted about used revolvers...that would be a big help for a newbie).

Listened to one shop-owner (and it pays to drive the distance to where there is an actual gun-shop with an actual owner in resisdence) steering a new guy with a question much like yours. Honest guy, did a good job. Showed him several new pistols in the under $400 range, a couple of used revolvers in the $270 range, and a couple of new revolvers in the $350 range.

There were used guns stickered at under $200 in the case...and the shop owner lead him away from those ...there were some NIB "cheapies" for under $250...and he lead him away from those. He also didn't lead him to the $600 and $800 guns.

I agree that you get what you pay for, but if I had a choice to protect my life with a cheap POS or nothing at all, I would use the best I could afford.
Many people just cant afford a Les or Wilson 45. Does that mean they are a fool for doing the best they can?
Some people cant afford to buy new, dependable cars either, does that mean they shouldnt drive?

Discussions seems to be getting a little heated, so here's some cooling input for thought.

IMHO, a good solid revolver, sans adjustable sights and overly long barrel is about as good as it gets.

What comes to mind is a well cared for S&W Mod 10 or similar that normally can be had for around the $150 figure if wise shopping and haggling is involved. This handgun has stood the test of time for reliability, sturdiness and ease of operation. In the 3 1/2" bbl configuration it is probably the last word in a defensive firearm at a moderate cost.

Can get confusing..all that feels solid isn't, and some that feel "cheezy" aren't.

Remember when Glocks first came out. Looking one over, I thought , "Plastic parts...thin looking stamped metal parts with lots of angles...this thing just can't be long-term reliable." It looked cheap (and here I am talking about construction, not price) and it couldn't be long lasting. I was half wrong (was right about it looking cheap)... it took a long while to convience me to try one. While I'm not a Glock fan for several other reasons, reliability is not one of them.

Hard to judge by construction...solid steel and beffy parts still won't be reliable is the design is flawed or the heat treatment of those parts is wrong. Hard to judge by pure price...Colt All American 2000 got pulled pretty quickly (and to a lesser extent the Double Eagle as well) and they weren't cheap guns....don't know the current price of the Wildey ($1200 last I knew), but if you have one that works, best put it in a display box and charge admission.

Would be nice if just tossing money at a problem would make it go away, but in today's market, it's not certain that more money spent alwasy equals less malfunctions.

Fact is, I know people to whom $200 is a lot of money. It's food on the table and shoes for the baby's feet. I know others that will spend $2K on a trinket without a second thought. Neither of those groups is populated with complete fools. The first weapon I ever bought for defense of home and hearth was a used Mossberg bolt action shotgun. It was an inexpensive solution at a time when money was a very real problem. 25 years down the road and I'm in a much better position in life. I can buy outright toys without worrying about the wolf at the door. I have S&W revolvers, Colt and Kimber 1911s and other name brand weapons to choose from. My carry piece is a Kel-Tec P-11 that cost a whopping $150. I have function tested the weapon to my satisfaction and trust it with my life.

When it boils down to it any handgun is better than nothing at all. Perhaps this isn't true for animals that don't understand what a gun is, but humans are intelligent enough to know any gun pointed at them is not good. If I had a pistol pointed at me I wouldnt take the time to critique how much it cost. Ouch! Was that reality?

Bill

The bullet does the killing, not the gun.

Agree...just becasue a person is poor, they shouldn't be undefended. The argument that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be a victim of crime seems valid.

So there should be a market for low cost, but reliable handguns...don't have to be fine examples of the gun-maker's art, just reliable and reasonably simple to operate.

Been several times in my life where I couldn't get $200 "extra", it all went to keeping food on the table and a roof over our heads...and those times may happen again, who knows? OPnly handgun in the house (in fact, the only gun for a time) was a horrible looking S&W mod. 10 that had been abused, rusted, sanded with rough grit, and rusted again. Skipped lunches for a bit, drank water (better for you anyway). and walked more until the debt was paid...still have that old Mod. 10 (still abundantly ugly).

Guess that's why I will still drive hours to get to a "real" gun shop owned by a friendly/knowlegeable person. The owner of a shop let me have that S&W for 20% down ($14)...I'd drop by once a week to pay what I could until that bill was settled.

If anyone's interested, this is an article that addresses the same topic...

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob62.html

;)

My 2 cents on this subject- most self defense shootings are over in two to three rounds!! So if a $100 dollar gun can and does put two to three rounds where you need them every time, why spend $2000 dollars for a gun that does that as well? And I agree with the above posting -its the bullet that does the work doesn't much matter what kind of firearm it comes out of!!

I believe that there are some very valid points in this thread so far. I personally believe that you should own the best self-defense firearm you can afford, within reason. This doesn't mean you have to save money to buy a kimber or something, but you should try to get something that is fairly well-made, and has a good reputation concerning reliability.

I have no problem with people purchasing cheap guns if that is the best they can afford. Sure, I'd rather see them get something a little more known for reliability and such, but a gun is better than no gun, especially when it comes time to use it. All guns break, as stated before, but if crap hit the fan on me I'd rather be holding something that will probably have several thousand rounds through it before breaking as something that is questionable as to whether it will make it through a couple of boxes of ammo.

The problem I see lies with the people that have adequate funds, yet just can't seem to justify spending several hundred dollars on a gun, so instead they buy cheap stuff. The root of the problem isn't with the people that absolutely can't afford any better, the problem lies with the people that can but won't. Is a cheap gun acceptable if you can afford something better? NO. If all you can afford is a cheap gun, but you feel you need something more than a baseball bat or frying pan for self defense, should you not buy it because it might break on you? Buy it, because it's still better than nothing.

hey greenhorne dave i would like to trade my bryco .380 in on a new smith but seem to be about 600.00 short how about you help me out im one of those poor people that cant
buy what the big dogs do ,now even that ive put mabey 300 rnds through this little auto. and it preformed on "Q" how can i ever trust it again .

I'm not sure if it is a lack of money, or a lack of knowledge. There are many inexpensive firearms out there that will work well for home defense, IF the buyer knows what to look for and WHERE to look.
WE might know that a $150 Makarov will likely be 100% reliable, or a $200 Bersa. We might buy a Star model M for $175. The person who isn't into shooting will not know these are reliable firearms, and many of them don't look so hot. But that new in the box Highpoint for $150 sure looks nice...
For home defense, I'd rather have a single shot 20 gauge that I can buy here localy at Walmart or a pawn shop for $60 if I search a little than any of the low end manufacturer pistols.

During my first CHL qualification, there were two people show up with Lorcin .380s. Both guns were brand new (I mean these idiots didn't even test fire them before the class!) At about the tenth round, one blew its extractor and a chunk of slide up somewhere into the stratosphere. One older man had a WWII liberated P-38. He droned on and on to the instructors and everyone else who would listem about what a superior weapon it was...he made a great show of blackening his sights with carbide before firing for qualification. Time to fire the first round, and his weapon wasn't functional... broken firing pin.
A little knowledge would have saved them both some embaressment at the class, or their lives n a real situation.

I've got bellyguns as well as "better" guns. For example I've got a Rock River Limited...$$$$$$$$ Very nice, well made clover leafs at 25 yds. Big Deal, it isn't one bit more reliable than another .45ACP that is my main carry piece, a Rock Island Armory 1911A1 from PI that cost a whopping $300 nib.

A friend of mine carries an FEG .380 just like the first one he had. The cops took his first one because he had to use it for the purpose for which he carried it :(

That is a point I would like to make here: If you actually use it, you are most likely never going to see it again unless it is in court. That's why I carry reliable at as low a cost as I Can.
Dan

Yep. A lot of less expensive guns have shot a lot of rounds, and a lot of people can't afford a new premium gun, but you don't have to wait very long to come across a low price deal on a really well made gun that is really unlikely to break. Even the best brands break, but I am sure they don't break that often. That's why I like Ruger revolvers so much. I don't think you can wear one out with normal loads and reasonable care.

It not always you get what you pay for. I am a armoer for my departement and work on Glocks, S&W (revs and semi) Sig and Beretta. Glock only has 32 parts, in comparision to the Beretta 63. Too many little springs in the Beretta. Murphy law applies. Anyway after 30 years I always tell people for a first gun get a 4" .357. You can pick up a used one and shoot inexpensive 38 for practice and load 357 for defense. It serve as a woods gun, home defense and in MY opinion an overall one gun.

Somebody earlier mentioned that some people go into a gunshop without much gun knowledge and are liable to take a cheap new gun over a sturdy used one. I've seen this happen, lack of knowledge. My first carry gun was a used Taurus snubbie 38, because that was all I could afford. But it worked everytime I pulled the trigger.

Thinking about this.
Am willing to bet my life on a gun that has prooven itself to be reliable, accurate, and powerful enough for the job at hand. Price doesn't enter the equation.

there are cheap guns and then there are poorly made guns.
the H&R and NEF revolvers are cheap because they are not elegant, they are very reliable. many guns with more elegance have cheap materials to make up for the cost of an elegant design.
i would certainly prefer an H&R .22 over an auto of larger caliber but uncertain reliability.

I shop the used gun market and that's where most of my handguns came from. I have an excellent British Webley Mark VI revolver from WWII in .45 ACP that I bought in 1962 for $16.88. I still shoot it and I would not hesitate to use it for self defense. Same with the older Smith & Wesson revolvers and 1911A1s, they work fine and none were very expensive. I believe we are confusing price and quality which does not have to be expensive. All the best...
Gil

Another angle to this is cheap versus inexpensive. A cheap gun will likely fail, while an inexpensive one will stand the test of time. In other words, a good buy. While many inexpensive guns will function reliably for their intended purpose, many won't be as smooth, polished, or accurate as their more expensive competition.
Someone said it earlier in this thread, get the best gun you can afford. For example, I'm not rich enough to afford a Les Baer or Kimber 1911, but I can afford a Springfield. While I feel the Les Baer and Kimber to be a better guns, the Springfield is very reliable and more important is the fact that I can own one now.
Don

I shop the used gun market and that's where most of my handguns came from. I have an excellent British Webley Mark VI revolver from WWII in .45 ACP that I bought in 1962 for $16.88. I still shoot it and I would not hesitate to use it for self defense. Same with the older Smith & Wesson revolvers and 1911A1s, they work fine and none were very expensive. I believe we are confusing price and quality which does not have to be expensive. All the best...
Gil

Well said.... old mausers in the $50-$100 range fought wars, but they're reliable.

I have to bet my life on a cheap gun everyday!! :mad:
I am required to carry a glock!!! :eek:

I have to bet my life on a cheap gun everyday!! :mad:
I am required to carry a glock!!! :eek:

You mean glocks are that bad,
I just was thinking about getting a glock 23 :)
So, you are not happy with glocks?

Thank you

My philosophy is simple: if an implement is important to you, buy the best you can afford! In the long run, the benefits of buying quality should be crystal clear. If the function of a particular item is vital, then the case becomes even stronger.

Consider hand and power tools, for example. Good tools are expensive, but they generally offer the best performance and first rate durability. Most good tools last more than a lifetime and serve their owners well. The same is true of firearms. Quality firearms offer high reliability, generally excellent performance, pride of ownership, and owner satisfaction.

So, within your means, my advice is buy the best and bring happiness to your heart. SigArms, Freedom Arms, and a few others will meet the challenge and reward you well.

Bob :)

Bob, when you say, "within your means, buy the best and bring happiness to your heart." and then mention Sig and FA, the message sent is that you should spend big money on high cost handguns. I agree that there are many manufacturers that make good guns that are NOT at all inexpensive. But then, there are good, well known manufacturers who because they make so many guns, a lemon or two can slip though QC per hundred made. A high price does not make any gun better than another. My personal example, my Polish P-64 pistol in 9mm Makarov has been more reliable from the beginning than my S&W Model 29. Price difference was $300.00. Most people would say without hesitation that the Smith is more reliable. In this case that just isn't so. I am not talking about anything but reliability of function issues as related to actual cost.

It really is about making an educated decision and getting the help you need to make one based upon your needs and your means.

Best all around choice for cost effective personal defense... I really like a used but not abused GP100 with a 3 or 4 inch barrel. Low cost, reliable, effective.

They have no active safety, and they are single action (don't let any of those taken in by their marketing hype tell you other wise). I don't get anymore UNsafe-action than that. :(
The reason so many police departments have them is because they meet specs (many of the specs were changed to buy them) but most of all THEY ARE CHEAP AND FIT INTO THE BUDGET!!!! :confused:
They have had MANY recalls which are kept a quite as possible. We just had ALL of our frames (entire lower receivers) replaced by glock on our 22's!!! :confused:
To each his own, but if you keep an open mind and do a fair comparison you will see what I mean!!! ;)

Thank you sir

How about HKs, what do you think about those?

BFL,
Buying a handgun is like buying a car or anything else where you have a large selection. :confused:
As several have said already buy what you 'like'. I don't not ownen any HK's but have used them and have several friends who love them. They are a little to 'large' for my liking, as is Ruger. They just don't 'feel' right to me. ;)
I have used various hand guns both on and off duty for longer than I care to admit, and have tought both police and civilians handgun classes for A LONG TIME. What you like and what works for you may not for me. ;)
Litterly ALL the handguns on the market (major manufactures) are realiable and accurate so the choice boils down to what you like and you can shoot well. This builds confidence, WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT in prevailing when the chit hits the fan. :D
I take offence to glocks marketing hype with this SAFE-ACTION BS. I have to use one daily and have confidence in my ability, BUT IT IS STILL THE MOST UNSAFE HANDGUN ON THE MARKET REGUADLESS WHOS HANDS IT IS IN. :(
You MUST HAVE IT IN A HOLSTER WITH THE TRIGGER COVERED AT ALL TIMES IT IS NOT IN YOUR HAND. This is not the case of TRUE double action handguns. THEY ARE MUCH SAFER FOR EVERDAY USE BECAUSE HUMANS WILL MAKE MISTAKES AND THE GLOCK OR ANY SINGLE ACTION COCKED WITH OUT ANY ACTIVE SAFETY IS NOT IN THE LEAST BIT FRIENDLY TO HUMAN FOULABILITY!! :confused:
Human nature dictates we will make mistakes so I find it better to error on the side of safety in this area!!! :)

Bet my life on a cheap handgun?

Like my Makarov, which cost me $175?

Or my Taurus M431 .44 Special 5-shot ($149 new; was being discontinued)?

Absolutely...

Now if you're talking about a Jennings, no way. Had one years ago...was junk. Bryco? Don't know...never owned nor wanted one.

Price is NOT the only criterion, but good quality pistols can be had for not much money, if you watch and wait.

Bob

Jim Rau
Thanks for stating what I felt about Glocks all along- Never like the though of a pistol with no real safety!! Personnally I'm a DAO fan though my Ruger is also SA. Just the thought that it take's a deliberate effort to fire the pistol pretty much takes the Darwin factor out of the equation! Maybe that explains most of the so called "accidental discharges we here about with law enforcement folks? Besides that I never liked the way a Glock felt -to fat in the grip for me. Besides buying a pistol is like buying a car sure you can spend thousands of $$$ but unless you know what your buying you can get stuck with a lemmon!! ;)

Friends don't let friends buy Glock? Is that what I am hearing? Just asking.

Disclaimer...
I am not, have never, claimed to be, an owner or ever planned, contemplated or wished to purchase a Glock.

No thnaks is necessary!!! :)
I just call it like I see it. I have been using guns for over 50 years and I try and keep an open mind when I evaluate a 'new' gun. I don't let the 'hype' from the manufacture prejudice me. I hope other can do the same. :)

I've pretty much been a gov45 man for 30 years.

I own and carry a g-17 quite often in the last several years. The glock is very reliable, accurate, feeds anything I throw in it, and can get the job done as well as any of them.

I don't think novices should carry one without thorough training and practice in them.

I understand Jims remarks, hype aside, my glock has been dependable. It has always done what I asked of it.

I also go back and forth between the g-17, the gov45 and the 640-1 357 dao [ internal hammer ].

Guns with safties still have ND's. It's the operator thats the real safety where guns are concerned.

Brownie

I know that this thread is about cheap "handguns" because it is in the handgun section but there are many cheap guns that I would bet my life on. A Mossberg pump is cheap. A NEF singleshot rifle or shotgun is cheap. Older Rugers were cheap when new. I have a Charter Arms .44 special that is cheap. I would bet my life on any of these guns. If they were in good working order.

There's cheap and then there's cheap.

My main carry handgun right now is a '79 Smith Model 19 that was well under $300 because the blue is worn. It's extremely dependable.
I also carry a Keltec P32 that cost about $145 used, it's also extremely dependable, small light, came with 2 extra mags.

I have owned a Rock Island .45 that worked 100%, an FEG HiPower also 100%, several Makarovs also 100%.

My latest cheap gun is a 1932 Smith M&P .38 spl revolver, barrel cut to 3 1/4", tight as new, fits in the pocket. Two hundred dollars.

You can trust some cheap guns if you know what you are looking at - gain some knowledge (here and elsewhere) before you spend your money.

It's not how much you spend, but how you spend it.


Mark









Mark

Cheap is as Cheap does, and you can have failures with any pistol or revolver over time. Reliability should be your first concern. Whatever you decide to get be sure to test the weapon for a few hundred rounds with your chosen factory ammo. (It is not recomended that you use handloads for defensive carry) Revolvers will gobble most anything you put through them.

You can always find good used S&W revolvers at reasonable prices and they are certianly worth a look, nothing wrong with Colts, Taurus or Rossi revolvers either. Iv shot a Rossi 720 .44special and a Kel-Tek P10 .380 for years with no problems. The FEG P35 clone is also a reliable pistol and a good bargin...there are realy many good bargins if you look around. Good pistols and revolvers are often being being sold by PD's that are upgrading, check http://www.gunsamerica.com/ the Gun List and Shotgun News.

Curently I carry a Glock 26 and it has proven itself afrer having fired many thousands of rounds with no failures when using factory ammo...the Glock pistols are butt tough and completely reliable. Iv read where some think the Glocks are not 'Safe' but the only way a glock will fire is if you depress the trigger, and its as safe as any double action revolver. In truth the only safty that counts is the one between your ears.

Whatever you decide, learn the manual of arms for that weapon, practice more than you think you need to, and if the weapon will not fire every time you pull the trigger get one that will.

Buck
One Ragged Hole

i am a 1911 guy, but my G17 has never had a failure of any kind with over 5,000 rounds through it (despite the fact that it was well used when i bought it as a police trade in. it's roll marked MPDC). never had an AD with it either. i have with a 1911 when i was chambering a round. no harm done, but definately an AD. the rule with any gun is KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO FIRE THE WEAPON. if you don't follow this rule, no gun is safe. i also have a H&K MK23 that i cherish, but i consider the G17 a smaller caliber equal in terms of reliability, and it cost about 25% of what the H&K did.
there are several "inexpensive" guns that i trust, but most have been purchased used and inspected every part along with shooting at least 200 rounds (of the ammo i would carry in it). cosmetic blemishes such as worn blueing or a scratch or two will make a gun a lot more affordable, and not lessen the reliability.
a defensive handgun for the back country has to meet a different set of requirements, and here a SBH with 4 5/8" to 7" is perfectly adequate and about as cheap as you'll get a heavy hitter, especially if purchased used, inspected and function fired. lighter weight without giving up clout will cost more. i carry a S&W 329 Airlite PD now, but it cost me over three times what i paid for my .45 Blackhawk with 4 5/8"BBL, and i cannot say that i trust the S&W any more. it's just a lot lighter, and lighter is good if you have to carry straight up a mountain.
my home defense and camp gun is an old Rem 870 Marine that i paid $120 for, and put a $25 synthetic buttstock on. i shoot clay piegons with it when camping to keep familiar with it, and it always works fine.
i'll stop my ramble now, but i have inexpensive guns that i trust as much or more than some of the fine, high-end guns i have or once had.

monty

Cheap is as Cheap does, and you can have failures with any pistol or revolver over time. Reliability should be your first concern. Whatever you decide to get be sure to test the weapon for a few hundred rounds with your chosen factory ammo. (It is not recomended that you use handloads for defensive carry) Revolvers will gobble most anything you put through them.

You can always find good used S&W revolvers at reasonable prices and they are certianly worth a look, nothing wrong with Colts, Taurus or Rossi revolvers either. Iv shot a Rossi 720 .44special and a Kel-Tek P10 .380 for years with no problems. The FEG P35 clone is also a reliable pistol and a good bargin...there are realy many good bargins if you look around. Good pistols and revolvers are often being being sold by PD's that are upgrading, check http://www.gunsamerica.com/ the Gun List and Shotgun News.

Curently I carry a Glock 26 and it has proven itself afrer having fired many thousands of rounds with no failures when using factory ammo...the Glock pistols are butt tough and completely reliable. Iv read where some think the Glocks are not 'Safe' but the only way a glock will fire is if you depress the trigger, and its as safe as any double action revolver. In truth the only safty that counts is the one between your ears.

Whatever you decide, learn the manual of arms for that weapon, practice more than you think you need to, and if the weapon will not fire every time you pull the trigger get one that will.

Buck
One Ragged Hole
You could not be more wrong if you tried Buck!!! There is NO COMPARISON between a double action revolver and a glock!!!
If you were to compare a glock with a cocked UNLOCKED 1911 you would be correct! :rolleyes: