[Terry G]

After an FOP lodge meeting, a number of Officers stuck around and discussed how they were "saving up" for an off duty carry gun. I kept my mouth shut, but it struck me as odd that something that could save your life would be put in the "someday" category. Good, used C&R handguns are available for under $250.00, less if you have a C&R license. CZ 82's, a very reliable and accurate pistol firing an acceptable defense round are easily available, as are the CZ 52's, Tokarev's, etc. Ammunition for these are pretty much found in any decent gun shop or sporting goods store or available on line. I can't see waiting until you can afford a super-dooper carry gun, when affordable gun's are out there NOW. An old quote, "One very seldom needs a revolver, but when one does, one needs one very badly."

 

[DaRkWoLf]

On a devil’s advocate note, from someone who is not of the C&R inclination though enjoys their historic flavor and fun factor:

Generally speaking, semi-auto C&R guns are of even less quality control in regards to consistency than present newly manufactured weapons (though they probably still work within an acceptable range anyway). C&R pistols generally lack ergonomic sense, and chances are that non-aficionados and non-"gun people" who wish to carry a gun don't want to spend the time or have the know how to bring them up to the modern expectation. The nit-picky list goes on but in the end it comes down to they probably want to "buy once, buy right" (as they perceive "right" with what they know and they perceive their needs as being) and there's nothing really wrong with that IMO.

If their proposed "sometime" for purchase is far off in the future, perhaps they need to consider the C&R offerings more heavily to live within their means; if they actually have a good plan to purchase, dropping a couple of hundred dollars as a quick stopover is probably a PITA for many at present. On top of the gun goes the holster, magazines, maintenance accessories, ammo... it gets closer and closer to their preferred weapons individual price.

 

[SciuirseMorrigna]

Marketing and peer pressure I think.

Marketing has everyone stuck on the idea that if you don't have the latest, you'll die.

Peer pressure has people afraid to use something that isn't on their peer group's "approved" list.

I'd rather not make a C&R handgun my primary, mostly for capacity reasons, but something like a Makarov makes a good small backup pistol. I laugh when people disparage the 9x18mm, yet carry a .380 backup (or primary!), or .32 backup.

Another factor may be the fact that a lot of police aren't gun people, and may not know anything about C&R pistols.

 

[themadride]

I agree. Buy what you can afford now, and then continue to save money. When you get the difference, sell the gun you bought, combine that with the saved cash....and bob's your uncle.

I buy most of my guns used, and have never had a problem making a small profit on them when I sell them again for whatever reason.

 

[DaRkWoLf]

A quick breakdown:

CZ-82 w/ 2x 12 Round Mags for $220 (AIM)
+ Premium JHP Cost: $0.60 / Round (and I've never seen this "on the shelf")
+ FMJ Cost: ~$0.18 / Round (for Lacquer Coated Steel, and I can't remember the last time I saw it sold aside from online, though it is plentiful)

New Ruger LCP $280 (AIM)
+ Premium JHP Cost: ~$0.72 (seemingly hard to find except online)
+ FMJ Cost: ~$0.28 / Round (and not so available at present, except online)

A Used Glock 17 w/ Mags is easy to find in the $400 area, and with some scouring, below.
+ Premium JHP Cost: ~$0.60 / Round (IME available even when FMJ is not)
+ FMJ Cost: ~$0.20 / Round (and available most anywhere)

Shipping, Tax, Tag, Title, and Time not included.

For a whopping $180 more, one can have a Glock instead of a C&R.

AIM's LCP deal looked like such a great value that I had to indicate it; if I was literally counting pennies and a non-"gun person" I'd probably go for that.

I won't go into my present finances outside of the words:" Yay! College!" But I will make the point that, I'd personally rather eat on a trimmed down budget and eliminate luxury spending for an extra two weeks and get the better piece. Scratch that, I'd rather do so for three weeks and be able to afford a new Glock, Beretta, or used Certified Pre Owned Sig.

I'm sure many people don't even have a full bill to spend on food and life, but by and large, $2-300 is not nearly as much of a monetary strain than $800-$1000. Decisions have to be made to allocate funds where they are important to the buyer.

Is there something I'm missing here? I'm not trying to sound like a schmuck...

 

[SciuirseMorrigna]

Glock 17 is a poor backup gun,m which I think the thread is about.
One of the mini Glocks, in the same caliber as your primary is better, although they tend not to get traded as often, and thus not have such a good price.

I really didn't know the LCP was that cheap. I'd definitely look into that over a C&R.

 

[DaRkWoLf]

SciuirseMorrigna,

off duty carry gun

I wouldn't say the Glock is too large for CCW, if that's what you're going for. I've carried full size guns when I've had to and while certainly bulky they can conceal fine. If we're talking BUG or Pocket Gun small, I'd go with the 70 series Beretta (~$350) or (presumably, as I don't have hands on experience with it) the LCP.

 

[SciuirseMorrigna]

Eh, looks like I misread.

 

[Glenn Bartley]

I don't understand why someone, especially an LEO, would not wait until he had enough money saved up to buy a better quality handgun than any old and well used C&R pistol you are apt to find.

I think it is a mistake to say that such an officer is putting something that could save his life into the 'someday' category. Instead, I think it a wise and prudent move for an officer to make because by waiting to save enough for a new, quality made weapon the chances of it being more reliable are likely increased. In addition, with some agencies and departments, officers are limited as to what they can carry off duty. Then again, no officer allowed to be armed 24/7 is restricted from carrying his service weapon (as far as I am aware though some may be so restricted). So, an officer already has a weapon to carry while off-duty; that would be his service weapon. He is not putting carrying a potentially life saving sidearm into the someday category at all, just putting carrying a possibly more easily concealable weapon into the someday range probably because he wants good to excellent quality, a reliable firearms and one that is more likely similar to his carry weapon that not similar (as would be many older C&R handguns especially those of European design).

When I was in the Border Patrol, I carried a Colt Border patrol, .357 revolver, both on an off duty for quite some time before I got my other mainstay off duty piece - a Beretta 92SB (took me a while to go smaller but then also had a Beretta Jetfire and a Charter Arms .38 snubnose). I was able to easily conceal the revolver or the semi-auto large frame Beretta. The thing is, with officers saving up, they already have a firearm - so why not save up for something of high quality, that is new in the box, and quite possibly more reliable than some old clunker they buy from a C&R dealer? Remember, we are talking about a firearm on which your life may depend. I have had to change springs in a couple of C&R guns already - and would certainly hate to find out, in the field, that the spring needed changing.

Of couse, there are also used guns, and one can often find a good deal there, especially officers buying from a fellow officer. Unless I fully trust the seller at his word and know him to be someone who properly cares for his guns, I tend to avoid used guns for carry though because one never knows what abuse they took before you got them.

All the best,
GB

 

[Terry G]

I'm not going to get into a "yes it is, No it isn't" battle, but I hardly think Makarov's and CZ 82's are "Clunkers". Either is generally much better designed and manufactured than a lot of the "new" generation of .380's and .32's. And yes an extra $180.00 may be like trying to save a $1,000.00 when your a rookie LEO with a Wife and two children in diapers. Ruger, a fine gunmaker, has already had a recall on the LCP. How many Mak's or CZ's do you hear of going wrong? Nope. If that's what I could afford I'd here and now I'd take it rather than wait for "someday" even if that "someday"? was only a couple of months off. End of Grouchy Sermon.

 

[Glenn Bartley]

At my own peril I will reply again, hoping not to make you grumpy:wavey:.

You said you don't hear of problems with the C&R pistols of your choice but there are recalls on new guns. Tell me, who is going to recall a Makarov that is a C&R pistol, would it be the government military or police contractor who manufactured those pistols many years ago? No they won't. Neither will the importer in most cases if there was a flaw with them. Maybe that is why you do not hear about recalls with them.

By the way, recalls (the act of recalling not the reason for the recall mind you) are a good thing. It means the manufacturer is backing its products and assuring they work properly.

Regardless of that, I don't see why you would want to be or have someone else be in such a hurry to buy a potentially well used and therefore well worn pistol. LEOs are already armed, they already have a firearm they can carry both on and off duty - so why the rush to arm them with a pistol that is already many years old?

When you buy a weapon that is a C&R, you have little to no idea about a number of things, including:

1) How many times, if any, the pistol has been fired
2) Whether or not the pistol was properly maintained
3) Whether or not it has been factory or arsenal reworked
4) Whether or not it has been tested once it left wherever it was being previously used
5) Whether or not it has sustained damage or if parts are fatigued.

With a new pistol, from a reputable manufacturer, you know:

1) The pistol is new and unfired or has only been test fired
2) The pistol has not yet required user maintenance beyond initial inspection and cleaning once you open the box
3) It has not been reworked
4) It has been manufactured under a high standard of quality control
5) It should be undamaged and unfatigued and ready to go

Those things above are enough for me to want to have my life depending on a new out of the box pistol the great majority of the time as opposed to a C&R. I say the great majority of the time because I carry an old Ortgies now and then (as in rarely). The thing with that one is I only carry it for convenience as need dictates those few times I do carry it as other than a possible back-up to my primary carry. I only carried it though after having tested fired it a few hundred rounds, going to the range with it often, then finding it to be in need of a new striker spring (as I recall after the test initial firing not during), replacing said spring and then test firing it again with a few hundred rounds. Bear in mind, I bought that pistol at a great song of a price and I replaced the spring myself because I had good written and graphic instructions; if I had paid the average price for it and then needed a gumsmith or armorer to put in that spring - well the cost would have been ridiculous. The thing is, it was an old used gun, still is an old and used gun that took lord knows what abuse before I got it. So, it is not my choice for primary carry on almost any given day. There is just too much of a chance another spring may fail, heck the pistol is old. I know your choices are not as old as an Ortgies but a Mak can be well over 50 years old and some vZ 82's can be almost 30 years old. They can go though a lot of abuse in those years.

A new gun should have received no abuse when you purchase it. That is why I would recommend an LEO saving up and in the meantime carrying their duty pistol while off duty. That way, it's not like someone's life will be in jeopardy because he does not have a pistol.

All the best,
GB

 

[nikto]

it's a back up gun, needs to handle-feel (mostly) like their main gun. People for whom $200 difference in price means a damned thing are not going to practice enough to be any good, any way. Why not just go get a college loan,3-6k and get everything that you want, right now, and make the $20-$60 per month payments? half of the loan does not accrue interest until 6 months after you stop school. You can get one 3k loan that doesnt have interest, and another 3k loan (per semester) that DOES charge interest the minute that you receive it. A pell grant covers your actual expenses, so the loans are cash in your hand. No credit check, you can drop to half time without penalty, and you still get yet another semester of full time loans. You only have to get "C's" to keep the money coming, If you set it up just right, starting in Jan and maintain a 3.25 GPA, you can have 27k in your hand in a 1 year period. and do only 800 hours of study/class. But if you want to get more such loans, you'll have to devote another 400 hours to the second January class. Still, you can get 3k per year with plasma sales, for a total of 30k and by living in a van, eating at the mission and the church, getting food from the food pantries, etc, live for a year on 5k. I know a guy who used half of his 25k to go get a very fine young wife. She can get the same loans and grants as a US citizen, now that she's got her green card. CAuse she's already a nurse, the classes are easy for her to pass, while also working full time. She does not have to repay the loans, as long as she works as a nurse. So that 21k per year is (untaxed) "free money" for her. She clears 40k per year and is very happy to have 20k of it. She sends half of that back to her family and is a heroine to them. Restoration of my rights costs 50k. Just IMAGINE, guys. Gk with a Title II license.

 

[John in AR]

...Why not just go get a college loan,3-6k and get everything that you want, right now, and make the $20-$60 per month payments? half of the loan does not accrue interest until 6 months after you stop school. You can get one 3k loan that doesnt have interest, and another 3k loan (per semester) that DOES charge interest the minute that you receive it. A pell grant covers your actual expenses, so the loans are cash in your hand. No credit check, you can drop to half time without penalty, and you still get yet another semester of full time loans. You only have to get "C's" to keep the money coming, If you set it up just right, starting in Jan and maintain a 3.25 GPA, you can have 27k in your hand in a 1 year period. and do only 800 hours of study/class. But if you want to get more such loans, you'll have to devote another 400 hours to the second January class. Still, you can get 3k per year with plasma sales, for a total of 30k and by living in a van, eating at the mission and the church, getting food from the food pantries, etc, live for a year on 5k. I know a guy who used half of his 25k to go get a very fine young wife. She can get the same loans and grants as a US citizen, now that she's got her green card. CAuse she's already a nurse, the classes are easy for her to pass, while also working full time. She does not have to repay the loans, as long as she works as a nurse. So that 21k per year is (untaxed) "free money" for her. She clears 40k per year and is very happy to have 20k of it. She sends half of that back to her family and is a heroine to them. Restoration of my rights costs 50k. Just IMAGINE, guys. Gk with a Title II license.

So you used govt-handout "loans" that you have no intention of repaying (ie, took fraudulently; read the loan application), to travel to a foreign country that's known worldwide as one of the easiest places for an American male to find a wife; largely because it's a country with an average income of one-fourth that of the United States. Selling your plasma, living in a van, and eating at homeless shelters. So by your own words - homeless, jobless, living on handouts from the government and charities, and that's the basis for your claim of "I had my pick of millions of women"...?

Sorry John; I don't mean to come across as mean, but sometimes the "wow" factor just gets the better of me. You constantly claim to hate religious organizations and you constantly claim to hate the government. Yet here again you admit your dependence on them for your very sustenance. I've said it before, but that's like a tick claiming it wishes the dog would die. Nobody would find it believable, would they...?

 

[BigBassMan]

Unfucking believeable !

 

[Garand]

Melvin, have you ever looked back on your life and seen how you wasted it?