I read many post here, and they are good, honest questions and replies, on what a good gun is.
From my point of view, I tend to divide these thoughts.
I would like to have examples, to own, an example of each.
I would like to own a good working early Colt 1911. I would like to own an example of each manufacturer. $$$$$$$$
If I could own each, I do not think I would put each into the same catigory though.
A Kimber, for example, might not be in the same catigory with a Sig or HK, nor would a Sig, HK, or Kimber be put into the same catigory with an old Colt.
Less expensive examples would be fun to own but not be in the same catigory as any above.
IMO, if one wants an gun, one must first define--for hisownself--what he/she wants and expects.
Expectations are the key here--not the owning.
I have bought weapons with certain expectations of the weapon only to discover, after $$$$ spent, that I was expecting too much of a particular weapon. Its design and manufacture were only for a cloning. The actual weapon only looked like what I wanted.
The old 1911, for example, is a good looking weapon and holds a lot of naustalgia, but for all its worth as a historic piece, it does not do or meet the expectations of others.
It does not have to be a 1911, semi-auto even, it just looks like what I wanted. What I wanted was something else or another weapon that actually fit the expectation criteria.
IMO, again, criteria is the word that defines the weapon.
It does not have to be a Burns Custom, Baer, name a number of folks, it has to fit a criteria.
Most of the time, for me, is that I can trust it to go bang and not kaboom.
My criteria are not your criteria, just MY criteria.
I have detemined that I spend less $$$$ on my criteria than I do if I do not define MY criteria and settle for only what appears to be/looks like my criteria.
Blessings
