The most unfun gun to shoot ever.

Over Christmas break I was helping my father administer vaccines to calves with pink eye. A tranquilizer gun was used experimentally to see if it could be a useful alternative to roping the calves, but unfortunately a previously tranquilized had turned over on a hill despite being propped up on a large rock, bloated, and died with its face eaten partially off by crows, before it had died.

Moral of the story - use a tranq rifle to take out any unruly feral cattle, just make sure to prop them up with rocks or something.

Unless you like steak and jerky

Nope, absolutely no argument intended whatsoever. I was simply pointing out that I think people expect FAR too much from a bottom price item. It's the same with knives, guns, whatever. How often do you see people comparing a $10 knife to a $200 knife, then saying the $10 is no good because it's not as good as the $200 one? I simply don't think that's a good comparison.

I am a manufacturing engineer. That is what I do. I know exactly what the difference is between the cost point of a $150 gun and a $400 one. It isn't in the materials, but in the details of the construction, where the costs are being shaved to meet a price point. So a bottom priced gun generally uses the same materials as the higher prices, but they don't have as many production steps to ensure good fit, finish, and function.

Earlier the Armscor M200 series revolvers were mentioned, and they are exactly what I am talking about here. They are excellent in materials, poor in execution, BUT, if you take the gun apart, polish all the parts and reassemble to ensure good fit, they are EXCELLENT guns. Some people are willing to put in the time and effort to do the finish work, others feel they should have a cash and carry deal and NOT need to do any finish work. But I say, if they did the finish work at the factory, you would have to pay another $150-200 for the gun, and it won't be cheap anymore. Those that think a $180 Armscor should be just as good out of the box as a $1,200 Colt Python are trying to delude themselves. You get what you pay for.

So in the case of the Hi-Point, they are $150 guns, not $400 guns. You get your full $150 value out of them. I you want $400 worth of gun performance, the you should look to buy a $400 gun.

And the 1911 I was using was some old Vietnam era warbird issued to me out of the armory same as every other mil-spec weapon given to a soldier to fight with. So it was a good 15 to 20 years old at the time, perhaps a bit more. But it made me not like the 1911's a first because it was so unreliable. Later on I shot a good one and that was a different story. I liked it so much it was my choice of sidearm along with an M3 Grease gun when we went into Panama in '89 .

No. Although the .357 was widely used, the .38 special was more commonly used. Before WWI, I think .32 revolvers were even more common and also the .38 S&W/.38 Colt New Police. Until the Model 19 came along, the .357 was only chambered in large frame revolvers. More policemen probably would have rather carried a smaller, lighter revolver. These days, even small frame revolvers are chambered in .357.

I don't think the .45 ACP has a flaw. Some state police forces as well as the RCMP carried Colt New Service revolvers chambered in .45 Colt and were probably very happy with the round. The Texas Rangers carried .45 autos but that was unusual, the problem being that in spite of automatic pistols being used by most armies since before WWI, a lot of people still didn't trust pistols. They were 'jamamatics." The .45 auto didn't really become all that popular with civilians, aside from NRA bullseye shooters, until Jeff Cooper declared that a pistol designed in 1911 was the ultimate handgun, no matter what, even with full metal jacket ammunition. Hollow point ammunition was not widely available until probably the 1960s (for handguns), even though some had been introduced before WWI.

These days, we have higher expectations, if not standards, than formerly. Automatic pistols used in WWII, as well as revolvers, all used full metal jacket ammunition, chiefly to ensure reliable functioning. Although they were widely issued, more so in some armies than in others, they were still secondary weapons. They are a policeman's primary weapon, of course, although most policemen do not regularly engage in gunfights.

Two final things: All is for nothing if 1) you don't hit what you're shooting at and 2) you shoot yourself. It's all about safety.

I'm also not a fan of the Ruger .454 snub. I just don't get the point. I shot 3 rounds and said "no thank you" to the friend who was letting me take a couple of shots.

I love me a big ol' .44 or .357 SA. But for semi-autos I'll take my 1911, fits me like a glove!

Coincidentally, a Hi-Point was mentioned in a newspaper article today as having been found in a car along with some drugs and a child in the back seat within reach of everything. The man was arrested and charged with several crimes. This was downtown Washington "about eight blocks from the White House," totally irrelevant information. After all, the White House has a fence around it.

1/4-1/2 mile

AGREED!!! 

I got one 16 years ago when they went on sale for less than $100. I agree with Hickock45 "they work well as a boat anchor, but they also shoot most of the time." I think a used glock, M&P, XD, Ruger etc. is a better investment.

Nah, the p3at.

But really, the boys antitank rifle.