imported post
deepdiver wrote:
I'm developing a theory I need more experience to validate.
There is a saying about cars: fast, cheap, realiable -- pick two. I think the meaning of that is pretty obvious.
It seems that in regards to firearms that could be amended to: tight/extremely accurate, cheap, reliable -- pick two.
It seems that the tighter the firearm (and usually therefore the more accurate and consistent) the more expensive. The glocks and XDs are not particularly tight. There is some frame/slide play. Shake them loaded or empty and they rattle around a bit. But you can beat the snot out of them, run them over, drop them in mud, freeze them in water, and just pick them up, shake them off, verify the barrel is clear and shoot the heck out of them with no reduction in reliability. Same with an rattling AK.
I know several people who have had to send their Kimbers back after break in for tweaking to make reliable. They are great guns and quite accurate, but they cost a lot more than Glocks/XDs and I don't think they will tolerate the same level of abuse.
If I had to make a 25yd+ headshot I would rather have a Kimber or Wilson Combat 1911, preferably a 5". But if I have to crawl through mud and water, be out in the elements a lot and not have a cleaning kit available for some time I'll take my rattley ol' XD over either. I can just clean my XD in any non-ammonia household cleaner and oil it with WD-40 and motor oil in a zombie scenario.
I have shot a few Hi Points and besides the fact that they are ugly, I have no issue with them and I don't know how the above translates to them as far as abuse absorbing. And I just used Glocks and XDs as examples because I have the most familiarity with their abuse quotient. And that isn't to say that Glocks/XDs/AKs cannot be made much more accurate. Do a good trigger job on an XD, have a match grade barrel fitted and installed, have the slide fitted to the frame and it is much improved. But again, now you have exceeded the "cheap" part of the equation as you now have an $1000 XD.
Just a theory/thought I am fleshing out that threads like this has led me to.
There is a saying about cars: fast, cheap, realiable -- pick two. I think the meaning of that is pretty obvious.
Buy American.
It seems that in regards to firearms that could be amended to: tight/extremely accurate, cheap, reliable -- pick two.
Buy American.
Shake them loaded or empty and they rattle around a bit.
Full clips (especially 10 round clips) are known to shake when full and one in the hole.
Never, ever, ever compare a Geo to a Cadillac.
You get what you pay for, and don't tell me you'd pick a hi point over an M&P any day.
For carry, forget about it.
Gun dealers call them babies toys because they rattle while shaken and no clip.
No amount of gunsmithing will change the fact that they are not made out of steel/stainless.
Why would you choose a glock/xd (XD is a wal-mart gun) to a famous ww2 gun when throwing the elements at them?
I mean, I most certainly don't like glocks all that much, but I'd buy one over an XD any day. And yes, the slide does play after about 10 years its about to get its third spring.
Go figure.
AKs don't rattle, none of the ones I saw. But again, I'm actually reading and replying to a thread where people think that paying ~120$ for a new gun is acceptable.
That rattling is acceptable.
That anything slightly less than satisfactory is acceptable.
That sending a gun back 2-4 times is acceptable.
It's not acceptable.
Send a kimber back after break in to be more reliable? <-This doesn't even make sense. At all.
Hi, this is my corvette. It has 10k miles on it I'm bringing it back so you can make it more reliable.
WTF?
