Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 109

Thread: the dreaded Saturday Night Special

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    to be honest, this is sort of a personal pet peeve of mine, but it is also a very good point.

    <rant>I am sure that we all agree here that everyone deserves to be able to defend themselves. sometimes, it seems, folks just don't believe that some people, while having the right, shouldn't have the ability. Of course ya'll can figure out that I'm talking about the popular consensus among many gun owners that "Saturday night Specials" shouldn't be available. Even among many of the firearms forums I frequent, any mention of some guns ( Lorcin, Phoenix, Raven, Bryco etc.) seems to bring about a S**t Storm of negative comments. Why is that? yes, I understand that they aren't as well made as some other guns, thay aren't as pretty as some other guns, and they may not even be as accurate as some other guns, but many of them are actually fairly reliable, if properly maintained.

    I personally have almost nothing BUT what most would consider Saturday Night Specials. my collection consists of names such as Lorcin, Phoenix and Raven, and even my Hi point is considered by most to be in that derogetory class of firearm. Is that the only gun that I can afford? no, but I to be honest, there is just something about them that draws me to them. While I am saving up for a decent 1911 for daily carry, what about those who simply can't afford anything else?

    Whilemost would enjoy owning a good quality 1911, or maybe even a Glock, the average price of these guns tend to be in excess of 5-600 dollars, for even a used specimin. how is someone who can barely afford the light bill supposed to buy one? Consider the magnetic effect that low income areas have on crime, and consider the decent folks who must live there. Should they be left unprotected merely because they can't afford Smith and Wesson Security? </rant>

    While this isn't directed at this forum, I have noticed that 99% of gun forums will ridicule someone into non-existence if they mention owning a gun that isn't at least 400 dollars, without realizing that some people simply cannot afford something of that level. I guess what I'm saying is please be considerate of others when you decide to critisize their choice of firearm, because sometimes it isn't a choice, but a necessity...



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    I know exactly what your talking about once in a while I'll go to the range and shoot my Hi Point 9mm (C9) instead of my S&W 40cal Sigma. I've always felt you need to practice with all your guns in case you can only get to a certain one.

    While I'm shooting some guys will say why are you shooting that piece of junk? Makes me laugh lol I tell them because its a great firearm, its by far more accurate then my Sigma why I'm not really sure someone might be able to answer that question for me because I can't figure that one out.

    Like you said some people can't afford to go buy a 400+ firearm, and have to get what they can afford. Everyone has a right to defend themselves, family, friends and home.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    personally, I believe that's one reason why I like them so much. while I don't make it a habit to go to a range, it is interesting to watch folks reaction when you pull out a Saturday night special. most seem to be honestly afraid to stand next to one. then after you put about 1 or 2 hundred rounds through it, their expression totally changes.

    are they all good? well, no, but then again every manufacturer produces a dud every now and again. but out of my collection of 3 ( now 4, with the addition of my new little Raven) I have never had one to not go BOOM when the trigger was squeezed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    http://www.lcav.org/content/design_s...s_handguns.pdf


    Attached Images Attached Images

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    check out the Saturday Night Special forums! http://www.bryco-jennings-jimenezarms.com/forum/

    I figure if it goes boom on demand it's a good gun. Some guns need more tweaking than others, and while someone will whine if a $99 Jennings needs a fluff and buff they don't seem to mind if a $600 Kimber needs work. Must be a status thing.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    LEO, that report honestly doesn't prove anything. notice the cities that the study was based on... virtually the entire list is a who's-who of anti gunners.

    no amount of "safe gun laws" will prevent NDs or crime, they are merely aimed at unarming the poor, just as I stated in my OP.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Junk guns have been discussed many times.

    On one side... people view it as a way to disarm poor people who cannot afford something made better. Not sure why the governmentwould do this.I would think the government would just ban all guns if they wanted to disarm people.

    And on the other side it is the government trying to protect people from buying inferior items that may cause them harm or be useless. Businesses exploiting those that cannot afford to buy better.

    We are talking about a gun that costs $99 and that is not really all that inexpensive.

    We are looking atabout 3days wages for someone making minimum wage.

    To get a glock 26 they would have to work about2 weeks.

    So it is not like the "can't" afford to get aglock that is of better quality. It will just take a few more days.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    LEO, that report honestly doesn't prove anything. notice the cities that the study was based on... virtually the entire list is a who's-who of anti gunners.

    no amount of "safe gun laws" will prevent NDs or crime, they are merely aimed at unarming the poor, just as I stated in my OP.
    I'm sorry... I was not trying to "prove" anything.

    Just providing something to read and give you something to think about.

    If you cannot believe what is written... I guess you want hard data and YOU will need to go do your own surveys.

    I have not seen you provide anything to show junk guns are good. You have only provided your opinion. We can all do that here.


    http://www.chron.com/content/chronic.../gunsring.html

  9. #9
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    My Hi Point 45 shot better than my Kimber does.......does the Kimber feel better? Sure......but the Hi Point worked, and was just as accurate or better. It never failed to function, nor did it require anywhere near the maintenance of the more expensive gun.....the only reason I got rid of it was the fact that I needed the money and it was just too heavy to OC with my back problems. For someone who is healthier or just looking for a home defense/truck gun/range gun, it shouldn't be an issue.

    But hey, let's turn gun ownership into a "rich boys only" club, just like everything else.......

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    LEO, I wasn't trying to get defensive about anything, I just stated the fact that areport provided by antis, done in anti cities, isn't a very reliable source of information. as for my own opinion, I have several "saturday night specials" and have shot them quite often. my opinion is based from experience. my experience is that when you pull the trigger, they send a projectile in the direction that the gun is pointing. I have also seen several good reviews about some of these "junk guns"

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I think such negative commentary about inexpensive handguns has its root in a limited perspective--limited by lack of information.

    I once had a gunsmith make a harsh criticism of the trigger mechanism of my Taurus PT 92 (clone of current Beretta military sidearm).

    "Anything with a triggerbar is...," he said.

    Yeah, well. I guess he was thinking ofSmiths and 1911's. Forgetting that it was a decent gun, had a good track-record once they worked out the bugs. And was covered by a lifetime warranty.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    We are talking about a gun that costs $99 and that is not really all that inexpensive.

    We are looking atabout 3days wages for someone making minimum wage.

    To get a glock 26 they would have to work about2 weeks.
    actually, that isn't really correct. federal minimumj wage is 5.85 an hour, right now.

    if the person has a 40 hour job, they are making about 234 dollars a week BEFORE taxes. we'll go with that figure, since taxes vary from person to person. now, with a husband and wife working for teh same wages, suddenly that figure bumps up to about 460 dollars a week. while that is nearly enough to buy a badly used Glock, let's factor inthe fact that these people need somewhere to sleep. when me and my wife first met, we had a ratty little apartment, utilities furnished, and we paid 150 dollars a week. we'll say this fictitious couple has the same.

    housing: 460-150= 310 dollars.

    now let's say that they need transportation to get them back and forth and that means gas costs for at least one vehicle. let's say 60 dollars a week get's them back and forth...

    gas: 310 - 60=250 dollars

    wow, they still have enough to buy a used bersa.. as long as they don't eat. but just in case they feel the need to have dinner every once in awhile, lets factor in food costs. let's say they live off of canned pork and beans and spam.. we'll have to add in another 100 dollars...

    250-100=150 dollars

    so now, our intrepid couple are left with 150 dollars to their names, per week.

    now, since this couple are trying to buy themselves a Glock, they don't have a computer, or internet, but they still need a phone.

    150 - 50= 100 dollars.

    now, our couple is left with 100 dollars to their names, but we still haven't factored in any other bills, medical expenses, or anything else. not to mention the fact that these figures are before Uncle Sam takes a chunk out of their rear ends.We also haven't factored in for potential children.

    point is, being poor sucks. I know, I was at one point in time. that is probably one reason why I have grown fond of these little "P.O.S's". while waiting "another couple of weeks" doesn't seem like much, in reality, it would probably be more like another couple of months. If you were living in some slum neighborhood, barely getting by, would "another couple of months" seem reasonable?

    simply put, these guns have the potential to save lives. why would anyone object to that?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    actually, that isn't really correct. federal minimumj wage is 5.85 an hour, right now.

    ...snipped
    OK, first off... the minimum wage has changed from what I read.. Some places are $8.00 an hour. I figured in $7 for my math.

    http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

    But it makes little difference...

    My point is this...... guns are not so expensive that they need to get a loan or get a second mortgage. They are certainly less than the cost of a used car.A citizencan save for a few pay periods and get one.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    My point is this...... guns are not so expensive that they need to get a loan or get a second mortgage. They are certainly less than the cost of a used car.A citizencan save for a few pay periods and get one.
    yes, they could save for awhile, but personally, I believe that a gun in your hand is more likely to save your life than the one in layaway...

    what is wrong with buying (for example) a used Hi point (got mine for 50 dollars) or a used raven ( just picked one up today for 40 dollars) and having something available, just in case the crook screwed up his schedule and got to your house before you were able to get that Glock out of Layaway?

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 (snip):
    Not sure why the governmentwould do this.I would think the government would just ban all guns if they wanted to disarm people.
    Because they can't "just ban all guns", especially post-Heller. So they ban cheap guns, and black guns, and folding-stock guns, and hollow point ammo, and steel core ammo, and bulk ammo, and.........

    Somewhere Sarah is reading this, and smiling. For shame.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    Because they can't "just ban all guns", especially post-Heller. So they ban cheap guns, and black guns, and folding-stock guns, and hollow point ammo, and steel core ammo, and bulk ammo, and.........
    and you are exactly right. that is exactly the logic sometimes, I think.

    ban the cheapest, and that leaves the intermediate. I am sure that as soon as a law was passed outlawing "Saturday night specials", then shortly thereafter, a similar "war" would commence over the "Friday Afternoon variety". by the time the FED would be through, only your best "Sunday go to meeting" ( most of ya'll southerners ought to understand the term) guns would be left, and then the only people who would have guns would be the rich, the crook, the cop, and the politician.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    I know what firearms LEO is talking about, he's not talking about the HI Points or the Kel Techs, etc. He's talking about those guns that are truly junk. I can't remember the brand name to save my life this was about 5 years ago, but I shot a 9mm pistol that I wouldn't use for a paper weight it was that junky. The safety wasn't even reliable and jammed every 3 shots. The slide would wiggle side to side simply by using two fingers with little effort, and this gun was fairly new about 6 months old. Nothing was broke on it or anything like that it was just a poorly made pistol. I do believe theres a difference in an economy firearms and a junk firearms. But I haven't seen a gun poorly made like that one I shot since then.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I see your argument butI do not jump in head first to government conspiracy theories... and I also do not believe in the existence of aliens either....

    This is the classic... "Because they did it... there MUST be a real reason why and it is not done in the name of safety."



    OK.. I will work with you on this one....

    Please explain why only junk guns are banned and how this was done to target the poor specifically?

    One argument so far is "Because they cannot ban all guns."

    Well, they could ban most guns and allow only those that are very expensive. But this does not target the poor.. it would actually targets everyone.




    Another classic argument is"This is the only gun the poor can afford."

    FALSE!There are many quality guns out there costing under $500 bucks. A firearm is not so expensive that the minimum wage workermust work a lifetime to actually be able to pay for it.

    What did the poor buy before junk guns? Junk guns were made by a few companies looking to make a quick buck. I am confident that thecompaniesdid not decide to make a cheap gun out of inferior partsjust so thepoor people could be armed too.

    This gun may have appealed to the poor... and wanting to save money they bought it. But just because a certain income level may have purchased the product does not automatically mean they were the target.



    Used cars are far more expensive that a gun and somehow... poor families are able to save up and get a used car, pay for the insurance and gas.

    If we are going to go the "poor people" route... Will you also be telling me the government is pricing the gas at $4.00 a gallon so that the poor cannot afford it and keep them off the highways?


    Junk guns are just that.. Junk!! I am happy that you love your junk guns. May you shoot them for years without catastrophic failure. You bought the few that actually did work and were available for sale.I suspectyou do not carry them for protection as you probably have a Kimber, an XD, or a Glock. :P



    DISCLAIMER: I am not attacking anyone or their thoughts or ideas. I am entitled to my own opinions and I have posted them to further a "discussion" here. Some things were said in a humorous manner to keep it light hearted.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    adam40cal wrote:
    I know what firearms LEO is talking about, he's not talking about the HI Points or the Kel Techs, etc. He's talking about those guns that are truly junk. I can't remember the brand name to save my life this was about 5 years ago, but I shot a 9mm pistol that I wouldn't use for a paper weight it was that junky. The safety wasn't even reliable and jammed every 3 shots. The slide would wiggle side to side simply by using two fingers with little effort, and this gun was fairly new about 6 months old. Nothing was broke on it or anything like that it was just a poorly made pistol. I do believe theres a difference in an economy firearms and a junk firearms. But I haven't seen a gun poorly made like that one I shot since then.
    You are correct.

    I do not know that ALL guns on the junk list are true junk. I have not handled each to make my own determination. But there are a few companies...five I believe... that have gone bankrupt.

    They made crap, polished it... and wanted the consumer to buy it. It was nothing but shiny CRAP and the Government put a stop to it. The guns were banned in many states and this halted the sales causing the companies to go under.

    They could have made the guns better but maybe chose not to. Sure, sure..... this would have caused them to charge more and then the poor could not afford them...

    DISCLAIMER: I am not attacking anyone or their thoughts or ideas. I am entitled to my own opinions and I have posted them to further a "discussion" here. Some things were said in a humorous manner to keep it light hearted.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    FALSE!┬*There are many quality guns out there costing under $500 bucks. A firearm is not so expensive that the minimum wage worker┬*must work a lifetime to actually be able to pay for it.
    You may be a little out of touch with the level of poverty in some places in the country if you believe a ~500$ purchase is not super expensive for a decent amount of the people out there. Sure around DC, and in NOVA, and NYC, etc. 500$ for most people isn't much, but there are still a heck of a lot of folks living pay check to pay check that could have a 500$ gun on layaway for a year or more to get it. I am originally from a town in MD where the average families income is under 36,000$ a year. 500$ is a heck of a lot to them. Throw in a single mother with 2 kids, and the decision for a $500 gun or a new pair of shoes for Johnny...

    I agree that those guns could be junk, but I don't need the government stepping in to "help" me decide what I want to buy. I have a brain and can make my own decisions. If I prefer to buy a gun that works 50% of the time, cause its better than not owning one at all, that is my right, responsibility, and problem. I don't need the nanny state stepping it to "help" me make the right decision. Give me the facts, and get out of my way.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    mkl wrote:
    You may be a little out of touch with the level of poverty in some places in the country if you believe a ~500$ purchase is not super expensive for a decent amount of the people out there. Sure around DC, and in NOVA, and NYC, etc. 500$ for most people isn't much, but there are still a heck of a lot of folks living pay check to pay check that could have a 500$ gun on layaway for a year or more to get it. I am originally from a town in MD where the average families income is under 36,000$ a year. 500$ is a heck of a lot to them. Throw in a single mother with 2 kids, and the decision for a $500 gun or a new pair of shoes for Johnny...

    I agree that those guns could be junk, but I don't need the government stepping in to "help" me decide what I want to buy. I have a brain and can make my own decisions. If I prefer to buy a gun that works 50% of the time, cause its better than not owning one at all, that is my right, responsibility, and problem. I don't need the nanny state stepping it to "help" me make the right decision. Give me the facts, and get out of my way.
    Agreed.... I live in an area where single family home with no land is almost 1 million dollars. But we also have people that are poor here.

    People earning small wages can still save and buy a gun.They may have to save a little while.... but they can eventually get one.

    I served in the military and did not get much pay. I also remember getting loans to get some of my guns when I just could not wait to save enough.

    Just because they have other bills now does not justify a need to let them buy a junk gun thatare known to be problematic and inferior.

    They are paying out hard earned money for something they expect to work. They may not have the knowledge or experienceto tell it is junk. The guy selling it not going to tell them either.

    The point being..... The gun's price may be attractive to those with little money.... but the ban has nothing to do with preventing the poor from owning a gun.

    This is just pure malarkey!


    DISCLAIMER: I am not attacking anyone or their thoughts or ideas. I am entitled to my own opinions and I have posted them to further a "discussion" here. Some things were said in a humorous manner to keep it light hearted.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    They are paying out hard earned money for something they expect to work. They may not have the knowledge or experience┬*to tell it is junk. The guy selling it not going to tell them either.
    I have changed my mind and agree with you 100%. I think the government is really falling down on allowing cheaply made cars to be sold. Kia, Cheap Hondas. Poor people may not have the experience or knowledge to tell them they are junk. They don't all have four wheel disc brakes for the love of god!
    Some of them aren't as reliable, and they may not have as good safety systems. The government should ONLY allow BMWs and Mercedes to be sold, as they are high quality cars. Yes, some families will have to save a little longer, but really, a $30,000 car will be far superior to the $11,000 one they would have bought.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    mkl wrote:
    I have changed my mind and agree with you 100%. I think the government is really falling down on allowing cheaply made cars to be sold. Kia, Cheap Hondas. Poor people may not have the experience or knowledge to tell them they are junk. They don't all have four wheel disc brakes for the love of god!
    Some of them aren't as reliable, and they may not have as good safety systems. The government should ONLY allow BMWs and Mercedes to be sold, as they are high quality cars. Yes, some families will have to save a little longer, but really, a $30,000 car will be far superior to the $11,000 one they would have bought.
    I guess you know nothing about this.....


    FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a legislative mandate under Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Regulations to which manufacturers of motor vehicle and equipment items must conform and certify compliance. FMVSS 209 was the first standard to become effective on March 1, 1967. A number of FMVSS became effective for vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1968. Subsequently, other FMVSS have been issued. New standards and amendments to existing standards are published in the Federal Register.

    These Federal safety standards are regulations written in terms of minimum safety performance requirements for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. These requirements are specified in such a manner "that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring as a result of the design, construction, or performance of motor vehicles and is also protected against unreasonable risk of death or injury in the event crashes do occur."



    [line]

    If you want to play "what gun to buy....." Sure.. If the poor citizen wants to buy the Cadillac of guns and get themodel 29 Dirty Harry .44 Magnum.. you will have to shell out $1000 or more.




    Not every poor person is going to save to get a BMW and will have to settle for the GEO Metro or the KIA. But all three cars have been checked and certified safe. The BMW just has more luxury and status to it.

    Do you believe the government should stop testing cars and allow cheep junk cars to be purchased too?


    EDIT: Rhetorical question!! Not meant to be answered and take us off topic.

    DISCLAIMER: I am not attacking anyone or their thoughts or ideas. I am entitled to my own opinions and I have posted them to further a "discussion" here. Some things were said in a humorous manner to keep it light hearted.


  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I suggest that the 'racist roots of gun control' be studied before pontificating on this the Saturday Night Special aspect of it.

    Price nor melting point are indications of quality but are the tools of marketeers.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Exactly. The US Gov itself produced the FP-45 Liberator pistol during WW II. It was a total POS single-shot. They recognized that to desperate people anything WAS better than nothing.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator


Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •