BigMikey76
New member
I hear people say frequently that a gun is good "for the money." I know what that means, so I don't need an explanation, but I am not sure I agree with what it implies. I think a gun (or a car, a stereo, a steak, or anything else for that matter) is either good or not good. If it does the job it is intended for with an acceptable level of reliability, it is good. If it doesn't, it isn't. I know there are many other things that people take into consideration, like fit and finish, aesthetic appearance, simplicity of design, etc., but I say these things are subjective, and not a true measure of whether a gun is "good."
Let's take my PT111 G2, for example. It has proven itself reliable, therefore I call it a good gun. In that arena, it is just as good as my P-07. Is it as nice? Not really. Does it have the same fit and finish? No. Is it as fun to shoot? Uh-uh. But it is still "good," therefore I carry it as a defense weapon.
My point, after all of this rambling, is that calling a gun good "for the money" seems to imply that it shouldn't be held to as high a standard as a more expensive gun. I disagree with that.
What, if any, slack are you willing to give a gun just because it is cheaper?
Let's take my PT111 G2, for example. It has proven itself reliable, therefore I call it a good gun. In that arena, it is just as good as my P-07. Is it as nice? Not really. Does it have the same fit and finish? No. Is it as fun to shoot? Uh-uh. But it is still "good," therefore I carry it as a defense weapon.
My point, after all of this rambling, is that calling a gun good "for the money" seems to imply that it shouldn't be held to as high a standard as a more expensive gun. I disagree with that.
What, if any, slack are you willing to give a gun just because it is cheaper?