What is the worst gun you actually purchased?

A Kimber 84M (Lightweight)in 6.5mm Creedmoor. No matter what I fed into it would not come out with a group smaller than 2 inches. Finally traded it in on a Browning X-Bolt that delivered incredible groups, enabling me to take a running buck at 90 yards and a dead-center shot into an empty 12-oz spray paint can at 1000 yards.
 
Glock 44. Failure to extract at least once per magazine. Lockups every range session. Sold it to a dealer, pity the poor sucker who bought it.
 
List is pretty long--depends what you mean by "worst." I might change that to "most disappointing in quality/performance." Or maybe just call them "howling dogs." My dog purchases have included:

1. RI 22WMR 1911--(this one truly sucks)
2. Mossberg laminate patriot in 375 ruger (been discontinued, huge surprise there:rolleyes:)

That doesn't include the "production defects" like misshapen chamber and bore reaming which I think is pretty common these days, it's like "what happens here (and can't be seen)--stays here."
 
Springfield Armory XD Subcompact in .40S&W. Not so much a bad gun, but just did not fit my hand right. Also, the .40S&W might have been a little much for a small gun. Sold it and got a Glock 26 and never looked back.
 
Rossi 22 pump. Bought new, wouldn't feed, returned. Close runners up - every other Rossi long arm I ever bought, including a 20 ga coach gun and two Win 92 copies. Finally learned my lesson, won't buy any more.
 
two Win 92 copies. Finally learned my lesson, won't buy any more.
Click to expand...
Forgot about that--the 2 Rossi's 92's I bought definitely are priced way beyond their value class and required a ton of frigging with to get to shoot aceptably well. One shot great but I've almost shot the barrel out, the other one never shot as well and is basically a safe queen. But they sure are a heck of a lot of fun to shoot in the 44 mag superlight carbine format which is why I "forgive" them.
 
1st generation S&W Sigma. It went back to Smith 3 times in 5 months. I never made it through a full magazine with it. It would fire a few times, then the striker wouldn't reset. It became a paper weight when that happened.

Smith had already come out with their 2nd generation and were heavily discounting the original versions. When I sent it back the 3rd time I insisted on a new pistol, specifically a 2nd generation gun.

I had them ship it back to the gun shop where I initially purchased it. I never opened the box. The shop owner allowed me the full amount of my original purchase as credit toward a new Glock. He was able to sell the Sigma as a new pistol.

I understand the newer Sigma's were decent guns. But that left a bad taste in my mouth and I didn't want to try a 4th time.
 
Ruger SR1911. Jam-o-matic. Sent it back to Ruger and they sent me a new gun because the frame was so far out of spec it couldn't be fixed. I still have yet to fire the replacement.
 
stagpanther said:
Forgot about that--the 2 Rossi's 92's I bought definitely are priced way beyond their value class and required a ton of frigging with to get to shoot aceptably well. One shot great but I've almost shot the barrel out, the other one never shot as well and is basically a safe queen. But they sure are a heck of a lot of fun to shoot in the 44 mag superlight carbine format which is why I "forgive" them.
Click to expand...

My experience was somewhat similar; I bought a 92 rifle and a carbine in 357. Both required a LOT of fiddling to get the action smooth enough to be acceptable. The original "oil finish" looked like it had been soaked in used motor oil, so I refinished the wood to reveal fairly decent grain in both. So after a bunch of work I finally had two smooth operating, good looking guns.

My experience differs in that after all that work neither shot well, or even acceptably. I learned two valuable lessons: shoot the gun before you sink a bunch of work into it and don't buy any more Rossis. YMMV.
 
pee ewe

A Ruger single shot in 257 Roberts that I thought was going to be a great wood chuck/deer rifle.
I reloaded by butt off but was never able to get the accuracy I expected.
Sold the gun after 6-months.:(
 
My experience was somewhat similar; I bought a 92 rifle and a carbine in 357. Both required a LOT of fiddling to get the action smooth enough to be acceptable. The original "oil finish" looked like it had been soaked in used motor oil, so I refinished the wood to reveal fairly decent grain in both. So after a bunch of work I finally had two smooth operating, good looking guns.

My experience differs in that after all that work neither shot well, or even acceptably. I learned two valuable lessons: shoot the gun before you sink a bunch of work into it and don't buy any more Rossis. YMMV.
Click to expand...
The magazine tube freefloats in the receiver--so it is held in place by the two barrel bands that have to keep it under pressure or else the foregrip and magazine will seperate from the receiver. That is the real accuracy killer since it distorts the barrel. Had to figure out how to relieve that pressure while maintaining contact of the magazine tube to the receiver is what i found was really the key to getting consistency in shots.
 
Sig Mosquito .22. Would not feed three rounds in a row regardless of ammo type or what magazine was used. Traded that off in a hurry.
 
Taurus PT-745 Millenium Pro. Can't hit the broad side of the barn with it. Terrible shooter. I bought it for my late wife many years ago and I keep it for sentimental reasons. For some reason, she loved that pistol but even she couldn't hit anything with it. She just thought she could get it worked on and we never got around to it.

If I ever HAD to use it, it would only really serve as a belly gun.

--Wag--
 
stagpanther said:
The magazine tube freefloats in the receiver--so it is held in place by the two barrel bands that have to keep it under pressure or else the foregrip and magazine will seperate from the receiver. That is the real accuracy killer since it distorts the barrel. Had to figure out how to relieve that pressure while maintaining contact of the magazine tube to the receiver is what i found was really the key to getting consistency in shots.
Click to expand...

Neither of them would consistently hold shots on the black of a 25 yard pistol target - at 25 yards. Most of my pistols shoot better than that. I expect that I could have improved the accuracy some, but I'd reached my limit by then. I wasn't willing to sink even more work into them in the hope of improving the accuracy from awful to mediocre.

Just to put it into perspective, between the two of us we've owned four Rossi 92s - and three out of the four gave poor accuracy. That's not a good average.
 
between the two of us we've owned four Rossi 92s - and three out of the four gave poor accuracy. That's not a good average.
Click to expand...
No argument there.:) I don't know--there was just something really cool about the carbine that was fast handling and weighed under 5 lbs that "hit the spot" and seduced thousands into laboring over them in the dream of making them run well--how else could have Steve's Guns made a living off of selling performance kits for them?:rolleyes::D
 
When I was very young, I bought an Arminius revolver, .22LR, 6 inch barrel. The thing was quite accurate, and fun to shoot, but the metallurgy was so poor that the forcing cone eroded visibly within a few years. I don't even remember how I got rid of it - probably sold it for a pittance.
 
Leinad/Cobray derringer in .410. It was nice to have a break action derringer in a caliber I was reloading a lot at the time, plus the .410 chamber adapters made it fun to play with, but it was more of a toy than anything else and I didn't like how the front sight was this weird triangle I could never figure out the sight picture for.

I wish I had gottem the side by side, not the over under. This derringer wound up going away in a buyback and I was lucky to get $200 for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top