How expensive should a sidearm be

>>34639235

Depends on your disposable income, if you can afford it go for it.

>>34639235
Everyday carry should only be worth as much money as you're willing to have locked up in an evidence locker potentially indefinitely.

File: P30L Moss 6 10 17.jpg (1MB, 1291x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1291x900px

$300......$1,5000, not really a difference unless you don't shoot regularly. Guns aren't expensive, ammunition is.

>>34639235
Nah the problem with using the FN Five seven for EDC is that its a full size handgun. unless your open carrying then is gonna be to big to effectively conceal

>>34640355
stop it with the full size is too difficult to conceal meme

not all of us are fat manlets

>>34639235
> EDC
Doesn't that thing have a 5" barrel and a fuck huge grip? I do wish there was a sub $1000 version though.

File: Hate Crime.jpg (981KB, 1800x1620px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 1800x1620px

>>34640401
The grip is loooonnnnng and uncomfortable, but narrow, and a 5" bbl aint no thang but a chicken wang

>>34639456
This. Get something cheap and reliable, not something you would miss.

>>34640979
I'm curious, with that mentality - what's your monthly allowance ($$$) for target practice?
More specifically, how many months go by for you before you've spent equal or greater amounts of money on the ammo running through the gun than the gun its self?

I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm hoping to socratically bring up an ignored reality of DGU training and carrying in general.

>>34641014
Probably about 3000rd/month, going to the range twice per week on average. That doesn't change the fact that I'd rather lose a $400 gun to the cops than a $1000 one I cherish.

>>34641043
That's pretty strange logic, but to each their own.

>>34641058
$600 is ammo I can put towards my race gun. That's my logic.

>>34641069
so after you just got done killing a human being to protect your own existence, your primary concern will be the monetary value of your carry piece now held by the cops?

Again, to each their own..

>>34641098
Yeah? Some nigger's life isn't worth the cops keeping my $2500 Colt Python for "evidence". That's why I carry a Makarov

>>34641098
Who said it's my primary concern? I'd just rather be in a situation with some extra cash after I have to deal with the potential legal proceedings following a self-defense incident than be out several hundred dollars and a nice gun. It will at least cover a retainer. If it doesn't get to that point, great. More ammo for me.

>>34641129
Maybe you jumped in where some other anon left off, but yes the initial point being made was "carry a cheap gun because you won't get it back"

That's the singular point being argued, that the monetary conservatism is the primary factor in carry selection, if you have a different primary logical nebulous I'd enjoy reading it, because maybe you're not on the side you think you are.

>>34639456
I'm fairly certain you are more likely to be struck by lightening than to have to shoot someone in defense, so that should be a minor concern at best.

You should get the gun that gives you the best chance of prevailing over your adversary, because it's better to have your expensive gun in the evidence locker than to be dead.

>>34641166
>primary logical nebelous
Get a load of this faggot

If a 400$ Glock 19/ alt. will do the job just as well, then yes he has a point in not wanting to waste away cash on something that gets confiscated.

More money =\= better gun

>>34641208
>more likely to be struck by lightning

That's an Antigun lie your propagating - just wanted you to know that

File: 1497640968332.gif (646KB, 512x481px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 512x481px

>>34641166
>That's the singular point being argued, that the monetary conservatism is the primary factor in carry selection

Not really. The OP was asking if $1200 is too much for a carry gun and I agreed with the other poster in stating that a cheaper gun is more a sound choice, considering that it will be lost to an evidence locker. Nowhere did we discuss my opinion on the legal and moral fallout of a self defense shooting. I don't even know what you're trying to convince me of.

>>34641210
>>34641218

wow look at how defensive he got when confronted by his own logical fallacy's and cognitive dissonance

>>34641236
I like yr buzzwords

>>34639485
>Guns aren't expensive, ammunition is.
this, you buy 400-500 rounds even in bulk, and shoot all of it in an hour or two, then do it again next weekend, you will very quickly spend on ammo what you spent for your gun, even if it's $1200. you buy a 5.7 and you will spend as much on ammo as you did on that gun in about....20 rounds?

File: 316488518htXscJ_fs.jpg (446KB, 727x894px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 727x894px

>>34641247
>being articulate with a verbose vernacular is now buzzwords

I don't want to live on this planet anymore

>>34641208
I'm pretty sure a throwaway like a Glock 26 will perform just as well as a $4000 custom STI in a self defense scenario. You're shooting someone at close range in all likelihood, not trying to win a USPSA match.

>>34641282
you don't play the odds in a DGU, you play the stakes

>>34640355
> He's probably never tried to conceal a full size
> He fell for the subcompact meme
Think about this. The glock 26 is considered an ideal carry gun. It's 1.5" shorter length wise and an inch shorter height wise than a glock 17. But the length goes down your pants. All you have to do is conceal the extra bit of grip. It's not hard, you're just not going to be wearing little metro sexual v necks and pulling it off.

>>34641290
I'll remember that when I have to unload into Tyrone's chest from 5 yards.

>>34641315
please do, I would hope you'd have the most reliable and familiar gun available to you at the time - cost be damned ($100 or $2,000), turns out generally, the more expensive, the higher quality and more reliable and trustworthy.

That's been the point the whole time.

>>34641339
Not really, granted you are buying something from a reputable manufacturer. We reach a point of diminishing returns eventually with any product, but whatever. If you need a gun costing several thousands to feel sale despite the advent of affordable reliable compact handguns, that's fine.

>>34641368
>We reach a point of diminishing returns eventually with any producy

Yes, we do, and $400 - $2000 is in the same bracket, how do you not understand this? I shoot the difference in cost in target ammo every 2 months.

File: 1488865544412.jpg (79KB, 1080x1093px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1080x1093px

Get a Tokarev for $200 and $1000 worth of 7.62x25
FN is a .22

>>34641127
LOL

If you WANT to carry a 1200 dollar gun, then go for it. If you like the gun, then you'll probably shoot it a lot and be proficient at it. If you're ok and carrying something cheaper though, then go for that then. There's no sense in carrying a cheaper gun you might not like or can't shoot as well though.

I wouldn't really take the evidence argument into account even. I mean, are you afraid to drive your expensive car in case it might get impounded?

>>34641266
> using the words verbose and vernacular in the same sentence
> not realizing that you're now using intelligence buzzwords
> not realizing this means you're probably not as smart as you think you are

>>34641546
>alteration is undesirable grammatically

jesus christ you are definitely in your 20's

>>34641557
Are you in your 30's? On 4chan? Fuck, dude, I'm sorry.

>>34641635
I know right? I'm doomed. But that doesn't have much to do with literary proficiency.

>>34641557
> in my 20s
Yeah, so? At least I'm not a 19 year old larping as a 30 something (or more) by refusing to use the "vernacular" of a normal person. I'm assuming that's what the case is because if you were legitimately in your 30s and using big words to feel smart that would be more pathetic.

>>34641988
guess I'm pathetic, I'll make sure to tailor to the more simplistic audience that is neo /k/

can't have specificity of definition getting in the way of a good faggot screaming match right?

>>34640431
What's that gun in the middle? A CZ? Looks sexy.

>>34642210
Tangfoglio Witness Match Elite 10mm, early 2000's duo-tone, right after they squared away the slide cracking issue, it was a cool gun, the trigger was the epitome of "hair"

>>34641423
>FN is a .22
With 3x the energy potential.

>>34642023
I'm going to give you some real life advise here kid. Intentionally using a large vocabulary at times when it's not warranted to feel better than other people will alienate you from society. There are in fact times when using words like vernacular is appropriate, i.e. referring to the vernacular of the time, or using the word verbose to describe someone other than yourself and your own sloppily constructed speach patterns. This is a Mongolian paper mache sculpture board, so obviously most people here don't even speak English as a first language. Talk like people and you will be treated as people, talk like you're smarter than people and get treated as the retard you invariably people are. Tip your fedora elsewhere please.

>>34640387
I'm 6'0 180 pounds. I COULD conceal a full sized pistol if I wanted to wear heavier clothes and get a better belt. But do I want to be lugging around 3 times the weight on my person all day? Not a damn chance. I carry a Glock 36 iwb and have an Fnx9 in my jeep's glovebox.

That said I do sometimes carry a full sized in winter in a shoulder holster.

>>34641423
Toks are a lot of fun. Big BANG and nice fireball on the range. You can get hollowpoints in that loading by non-shitty companies, too, so you could do worse in a defense handgun.

File: 1500849964069.gif (243KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 640x360px

>>34642434

>>34642580
>posting anime on /k/
For your sake i sure hope she has a dick

>>34639235
>shoot baddie
>penetrates, goes out to other side
>hits kid, rapes baby, beats dog to death
good idea

>>34643601
>shoot baddie
>bullet hardly penetrates because commercial 5.7 sucks

>>34643601
>shoot baddie
>Doesn't even die cause you're barrel is too short for your illegal baby-seeking ammo

>>34642434
ROFL I ain't even that same guy, but your grammar is awful and you're assmad that you had to re-read that anon's post.

Yeah he's a sperg, but you're an idiot.

>>34639235
You spend as much as you want for the gun you want. Sadly 1200 is normal for 57s or more people would consider them. The odds of finding a used one at a better price that wasn't pulled off a Zetas' corpse are slim. They are large but if you want to carry it it's probably a better choice than an all steel 1911 with 8 rounds.

>>34639235
If YOU can and want to afford it, it isn't too spendy.

Don't listen to poorfags.

>>34639235
Some people say $1500 is too much for a M14. I say it's not enough. If you like guns and aren't poor, spend as much as want on your firearms. They're yours, not anyone else's.