What guns you don't like and why?

SCDeac82 said:
Not a fan of the Beretta Nano. Lots of better options.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I'm a Beretta fanboy and even I agree. It's not even a bad gun, I think it's quite good, but subcompact single stack nines are such a hot market segment with so many quality options (PM9, PPS, Shield, etc.) that quite good just isn't good enough.

I still might get one, but that'll just be Beretta love, not good sense. Heck, I nearly bought a Model 9000 on purpose, which is one of the very few Beretta designs that is fundamentally poor.
 
I'm not fond of HK pistols,,,

I'm not fond of HK pistols,,,
I'm not knocking their quality at all,,,
But they don't fit my hand well and they are butt ugly.

I have two friends who won't own anything else,,,
I have fired 4-5-6 different models,,,
It's always the same problem,,,
They don't fit me.

Oh, did I mention they are ugly?

Aarond

.
 
Snub nosed big magnums. I don't see the point. Too big and heavy to carry concealed (in a practical manner), too light to manage recoil in a personal defense situation, and then throw away all that energy with a short barrel. Big magnums with practical barrels are great for hunting big animals. Snubby magnums make big noise flashes but aren't great for anything to me.
 
I hated Glocks, until I tried a Gen 4 G17. Now I own one as I can shoot it almost as well as I can a 1911 or revolver.

Not a fan of Taurus. Our family has gone 0:3 on them as far as getting one that ran right out of the box. I rank their quality only slightly above a Hi-Point.

While I own several, I do not like the grip that I get with a SAA-type pistol. I always get wrapped on the finger, and the pistol rotates in my hand too much. This is not a problem with light loads, so that is what I shoot for enjoyment. Stout 45LC or .454 Casull rounds are a different story. I don't have this problem with Bisley grips.

Speaking of which, I am also not a fan of new Ruger Blackhawks. Quality has slipped a long way between my old Flattop and 3-screw and the new models.

New S&W revolvers need a spring kit to function even close to an older one, and I don't like round butt K/L/N frames.
 
I've owned two guns that I did not like.
First, a RG66 revolver, .22 rimfire in Single Action Army style. What a piece of junk. Just thinking about it makes me ill. Poor materials, badly timed. I won't even put it in my gun safe. It was a gift that my mom and I gave to my dad, 40+ years ago, so I've kept it for sentimental reasons.
The other, a Ruger .22 auto. Very well made, fitted, finished, but the reassembly procedure cured me of any interest after two range trips. Sold.
 
S&W sigma. Horid triggers, overall a fail in most regards. Lots came on the used market to folks who needed a basic cheap gun, bad bad choice for new shooters.

Kahr. Anything. Owned a horrid mk9. Feed issues, poor finish and machine work, peening barrel hood. Barrel hood too small for modified Browning lock up in my opinion.


Keltec P11 and others. Horrid horid painful gun to shoot, offten sold to new shooters who can not hit any part of the target at 7yards with them.

Anything AMT. What you have heard or read is true. Don't waste the time. My backup could not be made to work. Tried to help with a 30 carbine and 22 mag AMT as well. Never more than "range" reliable. Machined surfaces seem so porus like they were sand cast.

Ruger LCR. Ugly and I don't see what point is with the uber light alloy Smith revolvers.

Any glock with a NY 1 or 2 trigger. Or any other 12 pound DAO gun.

Most tarus products. A peak at the internals and one would understand. I don't expect a 500 dollar gun to be machined like a Wilson but we cut steel better in High school metal shop. My hat is off to them in the idea department just ashame the execution is most always luke warm to poor. I'll buy a 5 shot 45 colt when I see one cheap enough, but may end up regretting it.
 
Not a big Glock fan. It just doesn't fit my hand well. They are decent reliable pistols, but just not for me. Sig doesn't do it for me either. Owned a 229 for years and I just couldn't shoot it as well as the others. A bit too much muzzle flip that made getting in the second shot take just a bit longer. I'm not a big fan of the striker-fired pistols. My carry pistols are a CZ-75, and a big older Para P14. They both have proven to be ultra reliable and exceptionally accurate, and in a gunfight the most important shot is the first one.
 
Part I

Current-production American SIG Sauer guns. Ron Cohen may have saved the company from bankruptcy, but he also destroyed traditional SIG Sauer excellence in the process, as far as I'm concerned. They're not bad pistols, but they're increasingly poor values to me, since SIG Sauer Inc. (not SIG Sauer GmbH) has progressively cut corners and cheapened components -- often using poor-quality components from low-bidder third-party vendors -- while raising prices. Episodes of functional issues in their different models have been too frequent in recent years. I'm also unimpressed with all of their recent designs. The only Exeter/Newington-produced SIG Sauer I would buy is the SP2022, which is still a good value.

I loathe any Taurus semi-auto, except the PT-92, which is not nearly the value, or of the quality, that it once was (higher prices and more low-quality components these days). I don't have much experience with their revolvers, but I hear they're better. I've seen some shockingly bad machining on a couple of them, though. And the Judge is, of course, a completely moronic design. More than any particular gun, I despise the company itself for the sheer volume of defective products they allow to leave the factory.

I dislike anything Kimber. At every price point in Kimber's lineup, there are significantly higher-quality 1911s available from other makers. I'm also put off by the bizarre certainty of so many uninformed gun buyers that Kimber represents the pinnacle brand of the 1911 world. Kimber fans remind me of Glock fanboys in that regard. Often very inexperienced and uninformed, but quite certain that their favored brand is the best in every respect.

I don't like Kahr. I'm influenced by my awful experience with their P380, but I also dislike them for the mediocre or worse fit and finish their pistols often have despite their fairly high prices. Fans point to the tight fit as a sign of quality, but tightness and precision are not the same thing. Kahrs are manufactured for a tight fit but not to particularly precise tolerances. The machining often looks to be of high quality superficially, but most new Kahrs I've inspected seem to have bypassed the final finishing process, showing burrs, high and low spots, and so forth.
 
Last edited:
Part II

I despise the Diamondback company and its pistols. Just go out of business already so no one else will make the mistake of buying your garbage new.

I hate all zinc-slide .22 LR pistols that resemble service pistols in exterior appearance. Guns like the Mosquito and P22 cost more than far higher-quality rimfires that will handle many, many times more rounds in their service lives than these zinc pieces of junk. These guns, always produced by someone other than the named maker (Umarex for the two mentioned), give the false impression to most that they're manufactured by the company whose name they bear, which I find unseemly.

I feel like I have to include HK polymer pistols here, though my dislike is of a different nature. I would still buy HK pistols if I weren't entirely focused on a long list of out-of-production guns these days, but I just think they're overhyped. I personally find the prices a bit silly for plastic-framed guns with several MIM components -- though I understand that higher prices for an quality product help build cachet and exclusivity, which is certainly part of HK's marketing strategy. Anyway, I shoot my USP Elite very accurately (not surprising with the long sight radius), but the gun had significant out-of-the-box reliability issues. The so-called "match" trigger is also unimpressive. Despite HK fanboys' insistence that no more reliable guns exist, I've probably seen more HKs hang up at the range than mass-production guns from any other reputable maker. I still think the plastic HKs are excellent guns, but the fanboys go way too far. They're high-quality pistols on par with those of other high-quality manufacturers, but at a higher price.

Not a big fan of S&W revolvers made after 1980 or so. I especially can't stand the idea of the stupid lock. S&W revolvers produced today are a pretty far cry from what the company turned out in the distant past.

I really don't like Colt's non-Python "snake" revolvers, which were not high-quality guns by any stretch of the imagination, but I wish I had a few of them today given the explosion in their asking prices.
 
Part III

I forgot to mention the basic CZ 75B, although it's much more wariness than dislike. I'm put off by the camming of the hammer with the trigger pull, which seems to vary in severity from gun to gun. None of the triggers on the ones I've shot or handled have been acceptable. The controls feel a bit sloppy. And despite reading on the internet that they're just as reliable as any other pistol, I just don't believe it. I've experienced malfunctions in two of the CZs that I've fired and have witnessed a few more. I get the feeling based my experiences and the reviews that I've read that CZs are pickier about ammo than the most reliable service pistols. The tiny exposed area of the slide is hard enough to get traction on when my hands are a bit sweaty on a hot day at the range; that shortcoming strikes me as a very serious liability (theoretical, for my purposes) in a combat/service pistol that's expected to serve its user well in all manner of adverse conditions. The rather poor finish on the hidden parts of the gun is also a bit of a turn-off, though I realize that the performance-determinative parts get more attention. All of this said, no semi-auto collection is complete without one, so I'll eventually get around to picking one up. I prefer to start out with the original configuration of a pistol (or closest one available) before exploring its variants, but in the case of the CZ 75, I might skip the standard model and start with a SAO variant or one with the Omega trigger, which I've read is better than the original. Somewhere down the line I'd like to pick up a pre-B blued CZ 75, so that will eventually serve as my original-configuration gun.
 
Last edited:
Those are solid arguments and with just the right amount of passion backed with actual reasons. Don't agree with every one of them, but not a ONE of them seems to simply be snatched out of thin air. As to the Kimber complaint, I think it must be their advertising budget. Each of the successful gun makers is good at a few things, but I would argue that Kimber has done two things ridiculously well-- they make darn good looking guns and they have thrown colossal money at print advertising and it works. It seems to come at the expense of their price tag and their customer service. :p

I'm going to change it up and throw in a passionate complaint that doesn't deserve it's own thread & would typically just start an argument if it did. But add up all the superlatives for "ARRRRGH!" and that's where I am at with:

forward cocking serrations on handguns
Looks are subjective, we can all admit this, and I think they look like hell all of the time. That I tend to lean to the "traditionalist" side doesn't help, I see them and it's much like seeing tactical rails on classic guns that weren't designed with them.

It's also been argued that they tear up many holsters, save some kydex holsters that don't care. I only include this because it's a "drawback" to some folks. But my seething white-hot hate for forward serrations comes down to two big points and I personally refuse to back off either of them.

1) the serrations often get flipped out there as a useful tool to assist in a "press-check" and the very concept of a press-check disgusts me. IMO, your handgun should be loaded or it should not be loaded and you should know which and if you don't, you need to know for damn sure and playing around with a press-check isn't the answer. Much like a loaded chamber indicator, we have methods for showing clear and opening the slide a quarter of an inch is not that method

2) it's never going to be a good idea to put your hand near the muzzle of a potentially loaded handgun. If that handgun isn't visibly and demonstrably CLEAR, you're making a grievous error by putting your hand near the muzzle. It's bad enough (by far) if you do this, I believe it's a complete train-wreck failure if you're teaching it and marketing an addition to assist you in it.

It's not an annoyance to me, it's far beyond that. It would be like suggesting and marketing a ramrod (ala black powder muzzle loader) as the proper method for finding out if a breech-loading modern firearm is loaded. :confused:

It's a stupid, stupid idea to put your hand at the muzzle of a handgun.
 
I'll play... I am a decent shot with most guns I pick up. I had a Sig P245 that I could not group well with at all. I shot nice tight groups with a P228 and P229. Other people shot it just fine so I decided that the gun didn't like me. I traded it for a Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special and the difference is night and day! The Thunder Ranch Special is such a tack driver and everyone who shoots it falls in love with it (women included).

Another gun I really don't like is the Kahr MK9. The gun is way too heavy for pocket carry and the stainless steel they use on it is crap. I got pit rusting on the frame after carrying it for just a little while. The slide must be made from a better grade of stainless since it held up just fine.

Oh, I also don't care for the Walther PPKs. My mom had one and we ended up trading it for a Sig P230. The spring on the slide is heavy, the gun is very snappy for such a weak cartridge, and it is hard to shoot accurately. The Sig P230 was a huge improvement.

As for aesthetics, I find the Norincos and Tokarovs to be butt ugly.
 
Those are solid arguments and with just the right amount of passion backed with actual reasons. Don't agree with every one of them, but not a ONE of them seems to simply be snatched out of thin air. As to the Kimber complaint, I think it must be their advertising budget. Each of the successful gun makers is good at a few things, but I would argue that Kimber has done two things ridiculously well-- they make darn good looking guns and they have thrown colossal money at print advertising and it works. It seems to come at the expense of their price tag and their customer service.
Click to expand...

Thank you, sir! Was actually modeling them on your comments earlier in the thread. And I forgot to post that, like with you, the idea of a "carry rotation" is completely lost on me.

Completely agree on Kimber. They do make some visually appealing guns. Shame to think of all the money that goes to print advertising that could go to keeping a truckload of MIM parts out of their $2,000 flagship model. (It reminds me of the way Taurus throws money at the NRA in order to receive umpteen yearly excellence awards.) Why anyone would spend that money on a Kimber over a Valor or entry-level Les Baer is beyond me.
 
All of this said, no semi-auto collection is complete without one, so I'll eventually get around to picking one up. I prefer to start out with the original configuration of a pistol (or closest one available) before exploring its variants, but in the case of the CZ 75, I might skip the standard model and start with a SAO variant or one with the Omega trigger, which I've read is better than the original.
Click to expand...

Looks like my words were prophetic. :D I'm finally adding a CZ 75 variant to my collection, but it will be the out-of-production CZ 75 Champion, for which all parts were individually selected and fitted by the CZ Custom Shop, rather than the standard 75 B. The Champion takes care of perhaps my chief gripe with the 75 -- bad triggers -- as it comes with an extremely crisp 2.5-lb. SAO match trigger with no overtravel. The model also came with a compensator and micrometer adjustable rear sight, among other things. Not the prettiest thing ever, but they're supposed to be sweet shooters.

cz-75-champion.png
 
I pretty much hate polymer guns, I prefer solid steel, if possible. I like the weight and feel much better than any polymer gun, with the exception of the Taurus 809. It was garbage, I will never buy another Taurus gun, period, but it does have a fantastic feeling grip. A friend has one and it's great. Taurus couldn't fix mine, so off it went to another friend who has worked some of the bugs out of it, so it's almost reliable now. And it's one of the few polymer guns that appear to have been designed to not purposely look bizarre or just ugly for some unknown reason. I don't understand the "styling" of guns like the CZ-P09, so close to a good looking gun, with that bizarre trigger guard ruining it.

I don't like most single action semiautos, 1911s top the list. They look pretty, but the problems I've seen don't make me ever want to ever buy another one. The only ones I've ever seen that don't have some issue are the old "clunkers" that rattle. There are many other .45 ACP guns out there, and I would put my S&W 4506 at the top of a list of the best. It eats anything, and is fun to shoot. My EAA witness .45 was a great gun too, and I wish I had it back.

At this point, 37+ years into shooting, I'm out of step with most of what is being made these days. Thankfully, Canik55, Tanfoglio, CZ, SAR, and some others still make new guns I like. And my Dan Wesson 715 and 44 are staying unless it's them or me being on the street.
 
I have zero gunfighting experience (thank goodness)

I have a lot of range experience

I also have a lot of cleaning experience.

I love a well-made firearm, I even love some of the cranky ones (even if I would never carry one), and even some of the less well made ones if there is some characteristic that catches my imagination.

I dislike anything that is somewhat to extremely difficult to disassemble and clean. To that end, I didn't like Kimbers because of having to insert something as part of the takedown procedure.

I like .25s but not the Ravens and such - not because they are likely to explode and destroy everything in a 1/2 mile radius (as some people imply), but because they are an order of magnitude harder for me to disassemble than a Colt Jr.

Glocks are not horrible, but they are still a PITA for those (like me) who have arthritis. They require a partial slide movement and hold as part of the disassembly procedure that is stiffer than the 1911 style hold; it hurts my knuckles.

The biggest PITA for me has been Rohrbaugh. They are finely made firearms, but I need a vise, an extra hand grafted on to hold the punch while holding back the slide, a double dose of ibuprofen to keep the swelling down, and the ghost of my grandmother holding a bar of Ivory Soap to wash my mouth out during and after the cleaning session.

So there you have it. I'm sure that the others contributing to this forum may have comments on the ease of take down of their particular favorite, but my joints and cartilage are major dictators of my preferences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top