[Euclidean]

Okay we play this what if game all the time, but normally we ask: "What if you had $400 and a box of Cuban cigars to trade, what's the best pistol you could possibly get?"

And we have threads, upon threads, full of pages and pages documenting our never ending search for some holy grail of carry guns.

My warped little mind won't sleep and I like being a pest. What, dear forumites, is the absolute worst gun you'd consider for a carry weapon? At what point would you say "Any gun worse than this, I just cannot see myself carrying. I'd spend my money on another means of protection."

Let's face it, a carry gun has to fit a lot of requirements. You can't CCW just anything. I look forward to the responses to this thread.

Keep in mind this is the absolute worst choice you would go with. Like you went completely bankrupt but you needed a gun so desperately you couldn't wait.

My personal choice is this:

This is a Rossi R85104. I prefer stainless guns and I would much rather have its .357 chambered cousin. That is in fact a gun I may actually buy one day.

But this is the worst gun I'd carry. It represents all the compromises I am willing to make. It's basically the worst gun I feel I could take classes with, the worst gun I could use for defense and recreation, and the worst gun I could qualify with easily. It's chambered in the minimum caliber that I am willing to accept to meet all of my needs. As I said I'd much rather have the magnum version but I could make a dedicated .38 work. If it's all I had I wouldn't be very happy but I could make it work.

What's the use of such a thing? Just to see how your minds work. Or maybe find a new car gun. Or whatever.

 

[The Tourist]

Why not a stainless SW Model 65 .357 with a 3" barrel?

 

[preacherman]

Tricky... I'd emphasize reliability in my choice of weapon, as being the single most important attribute likely to keep me alive. I agree that .38 Special (or 9mm. in pistols) would be my minimum acceptable caliber.

That said, I'd probably look for a used police trade-in revolver. I can pick up a S&W Model 13/19/64/65/66 for anything from $200 to $350, with the cheaper prices for the fixed-sight models with poor external finish. However, most of them are in acceptable mechanical shape, and I'll trust their reliability more than almost any other weapon - the K-frames are legendary in this respect.

 

[Euclidean]

Why not a stainless SW Model 65 .357 with a 3" barrel?

I said the worst Tourist, as in the gun that makes the most compromises between quality, function, caliber, size, etc. that you are willing to accept.

Now in the real world I'd much rather have exactly that. Any sane or insane person would. I don't think even the most poverty stricken person carries the worst possible gun they would trust.

 

[Betty]

What, dear forumites, is the absolute worst gun you'd consider for a carry weapon?

Hmmm...
All of the following pieces used to to be owned by my brother, and he carried them all at some point. So I'll use him to answer these questions.


Wildly Innacurate
.45 Long Colt derringer that was wildly innacurate, even at 5 feet.

Teeny, Tiny Caliber
Beretta Minx .22 short

Can't Squeeze the Trigger
How about this unique, four-barreled .357 Cop with a trigger pull so bad I had to use fingers of both hands to pull it, and then I gave up?

 

[The Tourist]

Euc,

Sorry, guy, I looked at the word 'worst' and implied 'low cost' as the overriding factor. Since I once owned one of those 3-inch Model 65's I also implied poor accuracy, muzzle crack and poor performance when trying to find a handload that worked.

'Poor performance' is relative. If I ever was attacked by a pie plate at twelve feet I could defend myself.

However, that model is easily affordable in the secondary market.

Okay, the worst. That would be the zinc Clerke in .22LR. One night a friend and I were bored, so we melted one down on a hot plate. Cheap entertainment, it cost 12 bucks.

 

[P95Carry]

Beyond the oft quoted ''some gun better than no gun'' ...... I would shun the predictable ''pot metals'' category - too unreliable, if not dangerous!! That is somewhat all-embracing but covers (no names) exactly several!!!

Over and above those - I think with care I can make almost anything work, even large revo's down to an NAA mini. In the middle of these extremes is the area of choice, whether wheel or semi - personal taste then comes in.

 

[Euclidean]

Funny thing P95, in my experience, if you are going with a gun that isn't one of your top shelf brands, a revolver seems to be a better bet as far as reliability.

And Betty, that's hilarious. :tongue: Tell your brother he made me laugh today.

 

[P95Carry]

a gun that isn't one of your top shelf brands, a revolver seems to be a better bet as far as reliability.

Quite agree Euc - I'd take a beat-up ol' Bulldog rather than an ''iffy'' cheap semi. But I am biased too I guess as I pretty much ''teethed'' on revo's many decades ago.

 

[CombatEffective]

Ruger P95 for me.

 

[ExSoldier]

Ruger P95 for me.

Yeah, I'd have to agree. Any Ruger centerfire semiauto OR that GAWDAWFUL Argentinian FN "Hi-Power."

 

[Monty]

That would probably be my new/used Makarov after it has proven itself. It hasn't made it to the range yet.

Monty

 

[P95Carry]

CE - It was long ago I carried a P95 but still have it. Do you really find them that terrible!? I am not getting into a defence of an owned gun per se - but whilst the P series are fugly and bulky - I have rated them higher than some other lower end pieces.

Just interested to know why you dislike them that much. (as it seems does Ex Soldier)

 

[rfurtkamp]

Cheapest? And one I actually carried when I was poor?

A 9mm Tokarev, whopping retail at the time $90. I still have it - other than my Sigs, the single most accurate 9mm I've ever shot.

These days I can have whatever I want, but if I had to go back to the Tok, I wouldn't feel unarmed.

 

[Euclidean]

lol careful what you say P95.

We had this debate some time ago but with different participants. I alone defended the P series.

I will challenge the notion they are ugly however. I like what Ruger does with their pistols aesthetically.

 

[HotGuns]

Sig P220 for 379$ from CDNN.

Cop trade in. I got a P225 that looked like new, same deal.

 

[CombatEffective]

CE - It was long ago I carried a P95 but still have it. Do you really find them that terrible!? I am not getting into a defence of an owned gun per se - but whilst the P series are fugly and bulky - I have rated them higher than some other lower end pieces.

Just interested to know why you dislike them that much. (as it seems does Ex Soldier)

OOPS!!!!! :twak: :twak: :twak: :twak:

I guess I should have read the last few lines in the original thread. I thought that the thread was about getting a good carry gun at a bargain price.

I actually love the P95 and carry one as one of my two main off duty CCWs, and I wish that I could carry it on duty. In my opinion the P95 is one of the best buys out there.

 

[CombatEffective]

I guess I ought to at least answer the actual question now. For me the worst would be a Keltec or one of the Taurus polymer guns.

 

[P95Carry]

Phew - glad to hear that CE!! Tho it does seem ExSoldier is not over keen.

The P95 was my first semi worth using for carry - and it served well in just a humble Fobus. I would still not feel disadvanatged even now to carry it, tho the SIG is in a class of its own IMO.

I have now and again carried the P97 too - another (I still think fugly) example of the breed. What I liked tho - and aesthetics are not paramount to me - is ther innate reliability and toughness. Neither P series has let me down .. oh I lie - put a spare barrel in P95 cos I had bought one off a guy - took a while to ''bed in'' - then fine.

So - a viable option for me - and whilst I shoot these P series relatively infrequently now - they still a have a place, with all their friends!!

 

[older gunner]

interesting topic; makes you stretch the memory. my pick for worst would be an old Webley in .38 cal. i can't think of anything i'd rather not get stuck with than one of these old dinasaurs. however, they must have had something, since the British army enlarged the empire with them.