patandhisruger
Plinker
- Sep 2, 2010
- 94
- 6
to start off, this post is not about people not liking my personal choice in firearms because i simply don't care...this post is for the people that wonder why when they post what they think would be the perfect firearm for them/have the firearm, why people get on their post and seemingly bash it.
here's how it works,
just for my point i will use three different firearms: a Beretta 92, a Glock 19 and a Ruger p95 (my personal firearm for protection)...all three 9mms, and all three reliable firearms. the Glock sells for about 500-600$, the Beretta for about 700$ and the Ruger for about 300-350$ by far the cheapest of the three. so here we have our first topic of bashing "gun snobs". Obviously, if i only spent 300$ on my firearm and they spent over 600$ my firearm MUST be less reliable and less durable. that right there will generate a lot of negative feedback. lets try the operation, we got 2 hammer opt and 1 striker fired. IMO hammer opt firearms are much easier to break down and repair/clean than striker fired, and also less likely to have problems due to the simplicity of the design...having said that i am almost guaranteed to have some negative feedback because i said hammer opt is better than striker fired (but this is my opinion why are people getting so defensive?)
and this is why, when you went and picked up your firearm of choice, i would have hoped you had done some research and shooting before you picked it up. now that you have it you are very loyal to it if it has operated to your standards and will recommend/defend the firearm and it's company if someone attempts to bash it...here's the problem....the three pieces that i am using in this thread are no better than each other...they all top the one next to them in one area or another and also don't quite measure up in some areas...but, the main issue is NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THAT THE FIREARM THAT THEY PICKED IS A PIECE OF GARBAGE, AND EVERYONE THINKS THAT THEY BOUGHT THE BEST...so taking Glocks for example...they have been solid reliable firearms for 20+ years back then the Rugers and Beretta's and so on were not as reliable as the glock..nowadays they are on the same level and i will argue that point.
i guess the main point is, that you should not worry about the naysayers, someone is always gonna tell you that you made a mistake and tell you that you should've got what they got...be proud of the decision you made..and understand that it's usually not your firearm that they are hating on, but the fact you didn't get the same one that they did...
and do your research!..i recently learned that the p95 was issued to all the tank divisions and mobile units (humvees etc) in 1994....that right there says that my firearm has a good reputation and good enough reliability to warrant use by the US Military...
Pat
ps- THIS IS NOT ME TRYING TO DEFEND MY DECISION, I REALLY DON'T CARE...this is for people that ask that question...mostly based on posts i've seen like "why does everyone hate the 40 s&w" (rugerforum.net) or "hi point haters" (ingo)
here's how it works,
just for my point i will use three different firearms: a Beretta 92, a Glock 19 and a Ruger p95 (my personal firearm for protection)...all three 9mms, and all three reliable firearms. the Glock sells for about 500-600$, the Beretta for about 700$ and the Ruger for about 300-350$ by far the cheapest of the three. so here we have our first topic of bashing "gun snobs". Obviously, if i only spent 300$ on my firearm and they spent over 600$ my firearm MUST be less reliable and less durable. that right there will generate a lot of negative feedback. lets try the operation, we got 2 hammer opt and 1 striker fired. IMO hammer opt firearms are much easier to break down and repair/clean than striker fired, and also less likely to have problems due to the simplicity of the design...having said that i am almost guaranteed to have some negative feedback because i said hammer opt is better than striker fired (but this is my opinion why are people getting so defensive?)
and this is why, when you went and picked up your firearm of choice, i would have hoped you had done some research and shooting before you picked it up. now that you have it you are very loyal to it if it has operated to your standards and will recommend/defend the firearm and it's company if someone attempts to bash it...here's the problem....the three pieces that i am using in this thread are no better than each other...they all top the one next to them in one area or another and also don't quite measure up in some areas...but, the main issue is NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THAT THE FIREARM THAT THEY PICKED IS A PIECE OF GARBAGE, AND EVERYONE THINKS THAT THEY BOUGHT THE BEST...so taking Glocks for example...they have been solid reliable firearms for 20+ years back then the Rugers and Beretta's and so on were not as reliable as the glock..nowadays they are on the same level and i will argue that point.
i guess the main point is, that you should not worry about the naysayers, someone is always gonna tell you that you made a mistake and tell you that you should've got what they got...be proud of the decision you made..and understand that it's usually not your firearm that they are hating on, but the fact you didn't get the same one that they did...
and do your research!..i recently learned that the p95 was issued to all the tank divisions and mobile units (humvees etc) in 1994....that right there says that my firearm has a good reputation and good enough reliability to warrant use by the US Military...
Pat
ps- THIS IS NOT ME TRYING TO DEFEND MY DECISION, I REALLY DON'T CARE...this is for people that ask that question...mostly based on posts i've seen like "why does everyone hate the 40 s&w" (rugerforum.net) or "hi point haters" (ingo)
Last edited:
j/k
