"Cheap but Affective"

[Paul Hoskins]

I've had one of the HI Point 9mm carbines for some time but have no idea how reliable it is. Only shot it once to see how it felt. Soon as the weather improves I'll check it out. It is one ugly little gun but at the same time it looks intimidating. I put a 2X Aimpoint red dot on it. If someone breaks in on me, there is a gun handy most anywhere that I can get my hands on quickly. I'm not afraid to use them either.    ...........Paul H

[klallen]

Evening Daryl.  I almost think we're saying the same thing.  But not entirely sure.
 
More then anything else, I guess it boils down to what a person is willing to compromise, in efforts to save $$$.  If confidence can be gained by using a "self defense" purpose handgun that's best described as "hit or miss", with regards to quality and/or reliability, then a $160 Hi-Point is surely the ticket.  I expect a skosh more.  I just can't quite bring myself to encouraging the purchase of a Hi-Point for the specific purpose of self-defense.  I just can't in good conscience do it, even if it's all a person can afford.  I would consider it far more prudent to suggest a fella go about the business of setting aside $$$ for another 1/2 year or full year, if need be, and then get something more fitting the task.

[kombi1976]

I have to agree with klallen about cheap guns and self defense.
Although I'm not in a situation to make a choice you don't want something that could be unreliable, although I'm persuaded that if something was that bad you'd get another handgun for the job.
It does however stand that defense needs to be without doubt.
You wouldn't buy a cheap rifle for dangerous game hunting, right?

[Daryl (deceased)]

kombi,
 
No, I wouldn't buy a cheap rifle for hunting dangerous game; but then, people who hunt dangerous game aren't usually all that limited on the funds they spend on their rifle, either.
 
My point is that cheap isn't always unreliable, and expensive isn't always reliable. The odds are likely better with a more expensive firearm, but it's not absolute.
 
I've never owned a firearm I'd call "cheap", but I've owned some that I wouldn't call reliable. I've also shot some handguns that WERE what I'd call "cheap", and the few I've shot seemed to function fine, even if they felt cheap and/or clumsy
 
As long as a firearm functions properly, that's all that really counts. Price is irrelevant in a dark alley.

[gitano]

My point is that cheap isn't always unreliable, and expensive isn't always reliable. The odds are likely better with a more expensive firearm, but it's not absolute.

Precisely.
 
There is an illusion in the shooting industry that "expensive" equals OPERATIONAL "quality" and inexpensive equals failure. Balderdash. While occassionally true, it is occassionally false. All that is necessary to ABSOLUTELY DETERMINE if a personal defense weapon will "work" is to USE IT. Practice with it. If it works and it costs $10, then it works. If it works and it cost $1000, then it works. If you don't practice with your self defense weapon and get to KNOW IT, and it then doesn't "work" in a critical situation, it's YOUR fault, not the weapon's.
 
Every kind of firearm made - EVERY KIND - has experienced some sort of failure at some time. Being familiar with one's arm is INFINITELY more important than how much the weapon cost as an 'indicator' of its 'appropriateness' as a self defense weapon.
 
This is the same mentality that says that you need to buy a $1800 'scope for that "important" hunt, (or a $400 dollar one for that matter), when a $150 one will do just as well. Balderdash and poppycock.
 
You wanna spend a bunch of money on a self defense weapon, I couldn't care less. Just don't try to tell me it's because the arm is "more reliable" than my "cheap" one. That's not the reason.
 
Paul

[kombi1976]

Oh, for sure, cheap doesn't necessary = bad.
BUT......and this is a fairly important but, a pistol that ISN'T budget is less likely to jam up in the worst situation.
To be honest, if I was picking a sidearm for self defense the first thing I'd be doing would be looking at those mechanisms which were most reliable.
After determining that I'd find which cartridge had plenty of oomph but still allowed me to be accurate when my blood was pumping.
Then I'd make my pick out of which of those cals fitted the mechanism I'd chosen.
From there I'd worry about price.
And if I HAD to have a handgun for personal defence and wanted a hunting rifle too I'd spend my money on a good handgun first and then buy as good a rifle as I could afford.
I suppose it's easy for me to say that as someone who has no opportunity to gain a permit to carry a concealed weapon or even to use a firearm of any type for home defense.
But it's like building a modified car your wife and kids will use everyday and not making sure the seatbelts and the brakes are top spec.
Oh sure, that extra power will haul the shopping and the school run well and they'll be able to cruise on the freeway like never before and the brakes will stop well most of the time, but could you ever forgive yourself if anything ever happened?
And y'know what, after an exhaustive search you may find the "cheap" gun really is the best but I suspect it probably wouldn't be......and the best is what you really want when it comes to yourself and those near and dear to you.
Just my perspective.

[davidlt89]

I have to agree with klallen about cheap guns and self defense.

I agree with everybody, you definately want that weapon to "dishcarge" at the time of truth. but what I think some were trying to say is that a weapon that may not be all that reliable is all some may be able to get. in this case, something is better than nothing!!!! God Bless.

[Daryl (deceased)]

I agree with everybody, you definately want that weapon to "dishcarge" at the time of truth. but what I think some were trying to say is that a weapon that may not be all that reliable is all some may be able to get. in this case, something is better than nothing!!!! God Bless.

Bingo!
 
Daryl

[gitano]

David,
 

but what I think some were trying to say is that a weapon that may not be all that reliable is all some may be able to get. in this case, something is better than nothing!!!!

I will not speak for anyone else, but that is NOT what I was "trying to say". What I was saying is what I and Daryl in fact did say: Purchase price guarantees performance neither one way or another. Let give me you a very specific and apropo example that is compeltely out of the subject matter of "self defense", but goes directly the the issue of "quality" vs "price".
 
For almost a century, the finest gunmakers of England employed a host of artisans to fabricate their firearms. The workmanship was exquisite, and the function was nonpariel. This evaluation applied especially to the single shot rifles like the Farquharson, to name just one. In the '40s (if I remember correctly), Bill Ruger figured out how to investment cast the Farquharson receiver. This essentially allowed mass production of the Farquharson action. In fact, the Ruger No. 1 is a BETTER action if one considers only "performance". Thing is, the No.1 falling block action was and remains substantially "cheaper" than a hand-made Farquharson, but the Farquharson was and is actually a "weaker" falling block action.
 
Is the English hand-made Farquharson a beautiful rifle? You bet! Is it a more valuable rifle than a Ruger No.1, in resale value, you bet! Is it more costly? YOU BET! Is it "better" from a "performance" perspective? Absolutely NOT!
 
Let's return to handguns. I will copy a passage from a book I have regarding Samuel Colt's manufacture of his handguns in England and post it here later. It is a commentary made by Dickens, (the famous English author), after he was given a tour of Colt's English factory. It is a glowing report of how much easier it was to manufacture Colt's handguns that it was for the comparable (use) handguns hand-made in England. NO ONE in their right mind would mean-mouth the "performance" of Colt's handguns in comparison to ANY hand gun of the era. And yet, his guns were WAY CHEAPER than anyone else of the time.
 
I'll repeat: Performance is NOT inexoribly linked to cost. If you're gonna talk about "self defense", then the only relevant performance criteria is PERFORMANCE.
 
There, I've "tried" to say it again.
 
Paul

[davidlt89]

I am not saying I disagree Paul! But, more times than not we usually get what we pay for. It is hard to "find" that exception sometime, but they do exist. Usually if something is cheap and reliable, it is not long before its reputation makes it expensive and reliable. of course, "reliable" varies with each and everyone of us. God bless.

[klallen]

but what I think some were trying to say is that a weapon that may not be all that reliable is all some may be able to get. in this case, something is better than nothing!!!!

afternoon davidlt89  >>  i had to reread the highlighted portion.  "a weapon that may not be all that reliable" being used for a self defense weapon.  that says it all, my friend.  and that's why i said earlier some are willing to compromise, some are not.
 
i guess i akin hi-point to remington's 710.  low production cost - low selling price - low performance expectation.   functional at best; heaped with issues at worst.  there's no secret who remington's target market was when they introduced the 710.  same with hi-point.  again, they make no secret of it.
 
in general, i can honestly say I've never seen anyone, let alone the majority of an entire web site, fight so rabidly in defense of the performance attributes of the hi-point brand.  one step farther, i've never seen so many in one place actually own the product.  this is     ...     interesting.  >>  klallen

[gitano]

I understand what you were up to David. Truly. I simply want to make it clear that "affording" has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
 
What 'cranks me up' is self-righteous, sanctimonious "comments" the likes of "If it's important, YOU should ALWAYS get the most expensive because the most expensive WILL BE the best. I KNOW." Along the same lines as "If you really care about the "sport" (ptooey) of hunting, you'll buy the "best" (to these people meaning the most expensive) equipment you can afford." These same people like to 'wear' those expensive toys on everyone else's nose, just to "show" how much they really "care" about whatever the subject they're pontificating on. Frankly, in face-to-face conversations, those are fightin' words to me.
 
How DARE someone suggest to me that "If I really cared about my personal or my family's safety, I'd buy what THEY consider "the best"." I'm serious... That kind of self-righteous, sanctimonious, arrogance REALLY ticks me off. It is at the very foundation of what is I consider to be fundamentally WRONG about "hunting" in this country, and exactly why I so loathe the arrogant, self-righteous, sanctimonious gunwriters (ptooey).
 
Most expensive IS NOT best. It's not even most LIKELY best. It's JUST most expensive. Period. Best is, as best DOES.
 
I've seen stupid gunwriters (ptooey) compare two handguns in a "failure test". They'll shoot each one 'til it fails to function. Handgun "A" shot 15,000 rounds, "before failure". Handgun "B" only shot 14,500 rounds "before failure". Therefore, handgun "A" is "better" than handgun "B". Ignoring the statistical incompetance, I'll never fire 15,000 rounds from a handgun in five of my lifetimes let alone one. Such a "qualification" - and that is EXACTLY how most handguns are "rated" by the "experts" - is just plain STUPID for someone considering a self-defense weapon. For the competitive shooter - one that's completely ignorant about statistical validation - MAYBE the comparison has some tiny value. For 99% of the people that will buy a handgun, the "comparison" isn't even remotely relevant.
 
I always buy the highest quality I can when I am purchasing something that has potential to become an heirloom - BECAUSE I LIKE QUALITY. Self-defense weapons are not "potentially heirlooms". Except of course, to "drugstore cowboys". Here's why. They are purchased FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. TO KILL SOMEONE. If you actually have to do that, you can bet your life that the police WILL take the weapon for AT LEAST a year. You can also bet your life that 1) if it is heirloom quality, you won't ever get it back (Gee, Mr So-n-so, we lost that gun. We're real sorry."), and 2) whatever it's quality, it won't be in the same condition when you get it back that it was when it was confiscated as evidence. Why would I want to buy the police a nice gun?
 
Secondly, if you do have to kill someone with your handgun, is that really the arm you want to "pass on" to your decendants? From first-hand knowledge, I can tell you that for MOST people, that is something they don't even care about getting back from the police. Most folks that have had to kill someone never want to SEE that gun again. Killing someone, even a creep bent on doing you bodily harm, isn't "cool". It isn't macho. It isn't like it's portrayed on TV nor by "drugstore cowboys". It is very likely to be the worst thing that ever happens to you AND YOUR FAMILY in all of your lives. The gun is a momento that most folks never want. I'll be sure to by the most expensive one I can afford, 'cause some "expert" or "drugstore cowboy" told me that if I really cared about my family, nothing is too expensive regarding their "safety". Sounds good, but it's logically flawed BECAUSE, most expensive IS NOT BEST.
 
The Hi Point works, and it works just a good as ANY higher-priced semi-auto pistol, it's just ugly. Heck (and you can bet that's not what I wanted to write), my 1911-A1 - one of the most highly praised pistols ever made - jams with ammo it doesn't "like". How did I find out what ammo it doesn't "like"? PRACTICE.
 
I have NO "fear" that my Hi Point won't work if I have to "protect" my family, and I wouldn't spend more money on a "self-defese" handgun under ANY circumstances and if I had more dollars than sense. If I do have to kill someone with it and the police wanna keep it, it's no skin off my nose. As the police put it, "It's a drop."
 
That's about as clear as I can be.
 
Paul

[davidlt89]

and that's why i said earlier some are willing to compromise, some are not.

some have no choice!!!!! so they go with what they got.

i guess i akin hi-point to remington's 710. low production cost - low selling price - low performance expectation. functional at best; heaped with issues at worst. there's no secret who remington's target market was when they introduced the 710. same with hi-point. again, they make no secret of it.

I agree with you on the 710, this just happens to be an example of low price, low reliability. but not every gun falls in this category. I hunt all my birds with a mossberg 835 ulti-mag, it certainly does not cost that much, in fact, it is one of the cheapest shot guns out there, but it is very reliable. therefore, I see no need to own a Benelli just because it costs alot and people say they are reliable.
 
 
 

I simply want to make it clear that "affording" has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I understand you perfectly. I don't think someone has to buy a "high priced" handgun for self defense just to "guarantee" that it will do the job.
I will say this though, after shooting the highpoint for myself and "seeing" how it performed, I would not pick it for self defense. But if it was my only option, I would not hesitate to use it. God bless.

[Hunterbug]

I have never heard of the Hi-Points being unreliable. In fact quite the opposite. My number one criteria for a home defence weapon is reliability. It absolutely, positively, must go bang and from everything that I've heard about the Hi-Points, they do. I also do not think that price necessarily equates to quality. I know that Gitano does not like gun writers but here's a review on the Hi-Points.
 
http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/hipoint_100605/index.html

[Daryl (deceased)]

I must have misread David's post above when I agreed with it.  I do agree with it, except for the word "unreliable".  Inexpensive firearms don't have to be unreliable.
 
Personally, I have a bit of bias against Taurus.  I had a Taurus revolver in .357 mag that I shot loose, and it didn't take very many rounds through it to do it (like maybe 500 or so).  Even so, it worked well 'till it was worn out.
 
I enjoy owning nice firearms, and I enjoy shooting them.  Even so, I've traded off some really nice firearms (some of which were more expensive than the Rugers and Smith's I have now) simply because they WERE NOT reliable.  
 
I keep saying it, and others as well, but price isn't necessarily an indicator of reliability.
 
Heck, seems to me like I read somewhere that during WWII, our government dropped single shot pistols (I think they had a grip full of ammo) to civilians in German-occupied countries.  They weren't expensive, but folks used them to defend themselves.
 
I bet they were better than a sharp stick, too.
 
Daryl