|
|
Post by theophilus736 on Jan 14, 2019 19:18:48 GMT
The Hi Point C9's slide isn't even steel. I get that some people have shot Hi Points and lived to tell us about it (I kid, of course), but a gun made specifically to be as cheap as possible will not be reliable. Whether other more expensive guns are, is beside the point. Here's a recent review on the gun that emphasizes my point: This and Jordans comments are all that really need to be said. Save up your money, buy something that's relatively reliable and won't break if you drop it. |
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 14, 2019 21:48:32 GMT
The U.S. Firearms Company (USFA) was indeed the producer of the Zip .22 gun illustrated above, previously having produced high quality Colt revolver replicas. I have no idea why the company turned itself upside down like that.
There are several guns that are less than pleasant to shoot, a few of which I've owned. The H&R Trapdoor Springfield in .45-70 was a good, accurate rifle but that steel butt plate made the kick a real bruiser. Many .380 pistols are real snappy to shoot, regardless of the quality of the pistol. That includes Makarovs, PPKs and the pre-war Colt .380 pocket pistol. Yet the more recent Government .380 was like shooting a .22.
My Colt lightweight Officer's ACP was not exactly unpleasant to shoot but it was a real handful to shoot. You really had to hold on. I now have an all-steel version but it's not a Colt. But the blast isn't bad. The magnum revolvers, on the other hand, have a lot of blast, all of them. The .44 magnum has a lot of recoil, too, which you probably knew. But the old .45 Colt also has a lot of recoil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 22:18:00 GMT
I had a sporterized 03-A3 that was a bruiser if wearing a t-shirt. Much softer in a winter coat but a couple/three boxes wearing light clothing was telling the next day. I never did get a butt cap for it. It was/is a beauty. With a Remington sporting stock and a Redfield peep, a rifle I miss and should visit. It lives with my sister in WI. I'm looking at Garands but that is more of a wistful thought, as I don't frequent a range and have no real need of a firearm. There will always be plenty around if in need. The used market for pistols is huge here in the biggest little state of the US. $400 and up for some very respectful handguns (new even).
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by LeMal on Jan 14, 2019 23:25:01 GMT
Never had a Hi Point pistol but did have one of their small carbine rifles. Gave it to a coworker and he has shot it a few times with his young son. He has had no problems with it and thinks for what they sell for, it is a fun starter rifle. He is a former Marine and would have told me if it was a total POS.....lol Do not know anyone who has one of their pistols. Same experience. Never tried the pistols, never had an interest to. But in their carbine it's sturdy as a tank, super-reliable--and accurate as hell. No surprise though, that certain designs don't scale up or scale down, especially in regards to weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jan 15, 2019 1:20:25 GMT
A Hi-Point can also be purchased for $150. This makes it a centerfire handgun in a respectable caliber available to lower income people who may not be able to afford another $100 for a "decent" gun. It may lack ergonomics, but if you watch YouTube videos of people trying to destroy one- usually they can't do it. And you will NEVER see anybody put a S&W or a Glock through the same destruction tests. What they lack in fit and finish they make up for in low price and reliability. And they come with a lifetime warranty. Not even Glock offers you that. So are they "cool"? No. Are they "fun", again- no. But do they work? The answer is yes, yes they do work. And at the end of the day, it sometimes comes down to function over fashion. The one I shot actually failed to cycle a round, and didn't fire on 2 occasions, within about 1 and a half magazines. It was also really inaccurate. I wouldn't want to trust my life to this pistol at all. Not being able to afford another 100-150 dollars for a good gun is a question of storing away more money until you can make that purchase. I understand being strapped on a budget, but man this gun will perform super bad and that extra money you save will just go right into practicing to be accurate with the thing. The first handgun I ever shot was a Colt 1911 Government in the Army. It jammed on the first round. Dropped the mag out on the second, and failed to eject 10 out of 50. Does that mean the Colt Government is a bad gun? That one was. If your Hi-Point failed to fire, did you return it for warranty work? I'm neither defending nor opposing the Hi-Points, I'm simply pointing out that there are people who really can't afford anything else. And yes, they are ugly as sin and probably won't last 10,000 rounds, but it's better than nothing at all. Certainly better than a Bryco .22 |
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jan 15, 2019 1:26:42 GMT
A Hi-Point can also be purchased for $150. This makes it a centerfire handgun in a respectable caliber available to lower income people who may not be able to afford another $100 for a "decent" gun. It may lack ergonomics, but if you watch YouTube videos of people trying to destroy one- usually they can't do it. And you will NEVER see anybody put a S&W or a Glock through the same destruction tests. What they lack in fit and finish they make up for in low price and reliability. And they come with a lifetime warranty. Not even Glock offers you that. So are they "cool"? No. Are they "fun", again- no. But do they work? The answer is yes, yes they do work. And at the end of the day, it sometimes comes down to function over fashion. They are not very functional at all for concealed carry, and if the gun is to be left at home, a cheap shotgun would be better. Somebody who can afford a hi point but not a Ruger is not going to be able to pay for practice ammo, carry ammo, extra magazines or a functional holster anyways. $400 dollar stock polymer pistol vs $2000 custom 1911 is function before form. $150 Hi-Point over $300 Ruger is like buying boots made of paper because they cost half as much as the Danners Do you really think that people buying the Hi-Point based on price alone are really interested in range time with it? They are bargain basement shoppers. They will buy the gun, buy a box of ammo, and then never fire a round until it matters (which will most likely be never). So with that in mind, it's not a choice between a Hi-Point and a Ruger, it's a choice between a Hi-Point and a Jennings .22. We have to compare firearms in the same price bracket otherwise we might as well say "why buy the Chevrolet when you can save up another $60k and buy a Jaguar?". It's comparing apples to apples, not apples to steaks. |
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jan 15, 2019 5:08:55 GMT
On the other hand, a gun that fails to work when you need it is actually WORSE than nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by theophilus736 on Jan 15, 2019 6:16:49 GMT
On the other hand, a gun that fails to work when you need it is actually WORSE than nothing. Really. Might as well have saved the money for your kids to inherit, or you know.. for another month or two when you can buy a used police trade in for $100 more. The Hipoint pistols just are not suitable for defensive purposes. Get anything else at that price in a pawn shop or gun store and you'll probably be better off. I'd rather shoot 32acp or 22mag out of something reliable than 9mm out of a grating jam-o-matic. |
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 15, 2019 6:28:00 GMT
I would rather buy a $150 revolver. Something like a Rock Island M206 or an old S&W 38 special, for that kind of cash. At least one round is sure to fire (unless the ammo itself is bad).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jan 15, 2019 9:14:04 GMT
I would rather buy a $150 revolver. Something like a Rock Island M206 or an old S&W 38 special, for that kind of cash. At least one round is sure to fire (unless the ammo itself is bad). That M206 in its CA friendly form is tempting for the price. |
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Jan 15, 2019 10:57:10 GMT
They are not very functional at all for concealed carry, and if the gun is to be left at home, a cheap shotgun would be better. Somebody who can afford a hi point but not a Ruger is not going to be able to pay for practice ammo, carry ammo, extra magazines or a functional holster anyways. $400 dollar stock polymer pistol vs $2000 custom 1911 is function before form. $150 Hi-Point over $300 Ruger is like buying boots made of paper because they cost half as much as the Danners Do you really think that people buying the Hi-Point based on price alone are really interested in range time with it? They are bargain basement shoppers. They will buy the gun, buy a box of ammo, and then never fire a round until it matters (which will most likely be never). So with that in mind, it's not a choice between a Hi-Point and a Ruger, it's a choice between a Hi-Point and a Jennings .22. We have to compare firearms in the same price bracket otherwise we might as well say "why buy the Chevrolet when you can save up another $60k and buy a Jaguar?". It's comparing apples to apples, not apples to steaks. I don't think we do need to compare firearms in the same price range. There's a floor of acceptable gun quality. Jennings and Hi point (pistols) are below it. The consumer who chooses to get their peace of mind from a Hi point C9 and a single box of Russian FMJ scares me, because they are demonstrating willful ignorance and carelessness. I would doubt that person's capacity to understand what constitutes a justified self defense shooting. |
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 15, 2019 11:49:17 GMT
If an army issue .45 auto failed to work properly, it was probably because the gun had been in use for fifty years. That's why they were replaced--35 years ago. Otherwise, it's an okay handgun. I have a .38 Super myself, bought new.
I haven't seen a revolver for sale for $150 for years but I don't get out much and I don't go to gun shows. The last revolver I saw that I would have liked to buy was used and over $700. Used guns are usually good buys if they are in stock condition and aren't too old.
Although one should have a working familiarity with your handgun, I personally don't think you need to shoot one or two hundred rounds a week to be sufficiently proficient for self-defense. You won't win any IPSC or bowling pin match or a walk and draw contest, though. If those are part of your scenarios, then you'll have to practice a lot more. Of course, there are those who believe soldiers in the army are poorly trained and are issued substandard weapons all made by the lowest contractor. But those who win matches with their race guns actually carry something else for self-defense, if they carry anything.
I like to tell people that a nickel-plated, break-top, .38 S&W revolver is perfectly fine for self-defense, but in reality, they are really hard to find in good condition. After all, J. Edgar Hoover only had a .32 revolver.
|
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Jan 15, 2019 12:27:52 GMT
I will say that most of the pistols and rifles I qualified with in my 25-years of Army time were pretty worn out. People experienced constant jams and other malfunctions that were part of every range experience. These firearms were cleaned very well on every turn-in to the arms room but were just shot out from years of use. The US military as already stated does not award contracts for the best firearms being considered. They look at many factors with cost being the main consideration and contracts to keep the firearms operating.
Maybe the special ops and infantry get better stuff.....lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Jan 15, 2019 12:43:33 GMT
A 32 caliber revolver would indeed be a fine carry choice for a career librarian and bureaucrat who controls a small army of men with slightly bigger guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 15, 2019 16:49:51 GMT
Well, the fact is, people today are much bigger and stronger than they ever were. A .357 is the absolute minimum for self-defense and even then, only if it has a four-inch barrel. Same with deer rifles. Anything less than a .300 magnum is pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by nerdthenord on Jan 15, 2019 17:55:13 GMT
Well, the fact is, people today are much bigger and stronger than they ever were. A .357 is the absolute minimum for self-defense and even then, only if it has a four-inch barrel. Same with deer rifles. Anything less than a .300 magnum is pointless. I have to respectfully disagree there. .357 has serious over penetration issues and takes real strength and training to control, particularly with a 4” barrel. There is absolutely nothing wrong with modern 9x19 para for self defense. I would go as far as to say it’s really the best overall self defense pistol round due to its stopping power with modern loads, it’s ease of control, and it’s ability to easily cut through light to heavy vegetation, which is the venerable.45 ACPs big flaw. There is a reason why 9mm replaced .45 and .38, and why .357 was never standard issue in any police or military units. As for people being healthier than they were before that’s true but the argument that it makes them statistically significantly more resistant to weaker bullets is biologically unsound. Its true that it’s easier for a body hit to strike vital areas of a smaller person than a larger one though. |
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 15, 2019 20:23:06 GMT
So we disagree and unfortunately, you cannot see the tongue in my cheek.
I don't think the .357 is at all difficult to shoot well. Elmer Keith went so far as to recommend the .357 for a man with weak hands. I'm not joking. He stated that in an article in Guns magazine, February 1960 (almost 59 years ago). I'm not so sure about the weak hands part but the .357 has an awful blast but the recoil isn't too bad with the 125-grain loads. I think it's still a good round in a revolver with a 3-inch barrel. Colt has just introduced a new .357 revolver with fixed sights and a 3-inch barrel. I've had one and I have no idea why I don't have one now. I used to say that about the .38 Super and I finally got one. I suppose over penetration could be an issue but so would a miss with anything. But I also generally think of animals as something you might have to shoot, too.
In any case, the .357 was standard for a number of police agencies, particularly, for some reason, state police forces. Even the .41 magnum was standard with a few for a while. Of course, the .38 special was the most common until fairly recently.
I think the reason the 9mm became popular was simply that pistols became more popular than revolvers. If you used revolvers, you were hopelessly behind the times. And the 9mm got in first, in a manner of speaking, and began to be adopted in the mid-1960s. The Browning Hi-Power had some popularity because of its high magazine capacity but I don't think it was ever standard in any police department. It was imported and it was single-action, one reason the .45 auto wasn't used much by the police. There were complaints that the 9mm lacked stopping power because it used ball ammo(as did the army .45s) but that was overcome. Then higher capacity magazines became the norm and there was no turning back. I have a 9mm Walther but I have two .45s. I no longer own any revolvers, regrettably.
It is also true that even a .22 rimfire is deadly, as well as very easy to shoot with, and many people are satisfied to own just a .22 pistol or revolver. I have one, too, just in case.
|
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Jan 15, 2019 20:46:20 GMT
.357 is my favorite round since I'm a big revolver fan. Nice amount of kick and force, helps me aim. I actually don't like 22 as somehow the added kick from a more powerful round helps my accuracy...no clue how or why, as I'm not the most well versed in the bodily mechanics of shooting. A smith & wesson revolver is my go-to favorite, and whether its .38 or .357 its always a good time.
But yeah, this particular gun looks horrible, never knew it even existed. Based on the title of the thread, I thought it was going to be about a S&W 500 or something similar...now THAT's an uncomfortable amount of kick
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2019 21:28:35 GMT
I had to chuckle a bit when you got to to .300 magnum line  Go get em Tex  I'm really torn about a pistol buy but keep going back to the overall feel/use of the 1911 concepts and the .45 has me all but sold on it. Still, there's that little CZ 75 compact for sale cheap. In no rush or real need, it's likely going to be a mid size 1911. There is a dandy S&W 25-2 I ogle that would keep a 1911 comfy. There is a real comparison when you hold a handful of 9mm in one hand and even a handful of 38 special in the other, let alone a handful of.45 acp. Or lawdy, the longs and magnums. 9mm Luger in death loads by the bucket has its place I guess and I'm on the fence but I'm long in the tooth and won't be building a collection. I can always visit the rental place down the road. No Zombies or home invasions here (yet). It's kind of like riding a bicycle, right? |
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 15, 2019 23:52:48 GMT
You might have a problem with feral cattle someday. You can never tell.
On a slightly more serious note, Star made a 9mm automatic, the BM, and a lightweight version, the BKM. I have one of each and considered them to be 'right-sized' guns, especially the BKM. I had always wished that Colt had made it instead, since I'm sure that Colt was of much higher quality. In fact, I think Colt may have produced such a gun in the 1920s on an experimental basis with a new proprietary cartridge of around 9mm but the arms market is always saturated after a war and there was no interest ever generated. I've never discovered any additional information about it.
However, there was an earlier pistol, the FN 1903 (Browning) (not to be confused with the 1903 Colt, which Browning designed) in 9mm Browning Long. The 9mm Browning Short is the .380. Although it has a five-inch barrel, it is an interesting design and one of the few guns I've never (yet) owned. The Swedes used it off and on until it was replaced by Glocks. It always seemed like a right-size pistol.
|
|
Go get em Tex 
