From: tomfal@tr6.wes.army.mil (Thomas Faller)
Newsgroups: rec.hunting
Subject: Rating Guns for Purchase
Date: 1 Sep 92 11:19:35 GMT
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

After buying several guns for various reasons, I have come up with a
rating system which I like. The reason I am mentioning this is that I
think that there's an important point missing.

At the top of the list is: will the gun be used as a self-defense gun,
or for hunting, plinking, innate coolness, or whatever? If it is to be
used for self-defense, instead of a weighting scale for reliability,
there is a simple yes-no: can the gun be made _absolutely_ reliable
for a full charge of defensive ammo? One cylinder full or one full
clip? If not, none of the other criteria has a say.

If the gun doesn't shoot when I need it to, I don't consider it at
all. For instance, my Sig P220, in .45, has had about 3500 rounds
through it, over the past six years. The number of times it has failed
to feed I can count on one hand - it may jam if I mix different
lengths of ammo in a magazine, so I don't do that anymore. It may jam
if I'm wearing gloves and trip the magazine catch with a firm grip, so
I know not to do that. I haven't found _anything_ else that will trip
that gun up, so that is my defense gun.

I've shot dirty ammo in Rugers and Taurus' revolvers and froze the
cylinder up. If I used a revolver, I'd use the right ammo, and not
expect to go 100 rounds with it. I've shot other semi-autos and jammed
on the first shot, or the second, or the first reload. Those pistols I
wouldn't consider using for anything but a backup gun for hunting, or
for plinking.

Reliability means a lot in a hunting gun or a defense gun. If your
rifle misfires with a spike buck in the sights, it's not the end of
the world. If it happens during a bear or boar charge, you're in deep
trouble.

I've tried some weighted scales for making choices between firearms
before, and it seems that the basic flaw with them is that most people
aren't choosing a gun the way they choose a blender, by the number of
features and whatever, they choose a gun to do a job, the way you'd
choose a tool, and the tool that will do the job best gets the nod.
This involves giving an overwhelming weight to one or two factors, so
that the others either don't have much effect, or obscure the real
needs. Yes, you need some room for aesthetics (the Sig is ugly, but it
beats a Luger for reliability), and "fun", but they can detract from
the real needs. It's kind of the way a good screwdriver will get
picked up every time before a Swiss Army knife screw-driver, even
though the S.A. knife only comes up short in durability and comfort of
use.

For hunting, I might add "endurance", or some factor which takes in
scope mount hardiness, warping, change of zero with conditions or
barrel heat, and effective accuracy.

Practically, I usually boil down which characteristics mean the most,
which ones I have to have, and then choose from that pool. Usually,
that pool is pretty small, and in going from the set of all the guns
in the world down to the ones I want, I find out what's _really_
important and worth my money.

If you _really_ want to play with numbers, get into reloading.  ;-)  ;-)

Tom Faller