
Stradawhovious wrote:I owned a Jennings .22 for a while, and it ran like a champ.
FWIW, IANAL, YMMV, IIRC, LOL, FTW.
EJSG19 wrote:Stradawhovious wrote:I owned a Jennings .22 for a while, and it ran like a champ.
FWIW, IANAL, YMMV, IIRC, LOL, FTW.
So you'd buy another random Jennings, and have high hopes for it running 100%? or would you prefer something a little higher quality?
Stradawhovious wrote:
No. What I'm saying, justajr...
EJSG19 wrote:Nobody "only has $80 to spend" on anything. In todays world a person can use credit, or saving a little at a time to buy anything within reason. No offense to anyone, but nobody who is able bodied and of a sound mind is limited to earning minimum wage.
EJSG19 wrote:Knowing what I know, and seeing what I've seen... If tomorrow I only had $80 to spend on my first gun, I'd wait another month to buy something that at least had a better reputation.
EJSG19 wrote:In the market of used firearms, a person can get something much more reputable than a Jennings, for maybe $200-300, and likely a lot less.
EJSG19 wrote:ISo use and carry a Jennings if you have to, but in my view, it'd be temporary at best.
EJSG19 wrote:(just like your situation StraddY! You ditched the Jennings too! There, I win. I'm claiming victory. I am now plugging my ears, taking my ball, and going home.)
EJSG19 wrote:If my glasses are rose colored, yours must be **** brown.![]()
justaguy wrote:This is the thread of the year.
Stard next time try ending the post with "more later..." to give it a little more authenticity.
Stradawhovious wrote:EJSG19 wrote:If my glasses are rose colored, yours must be **** brown.![]()
Close, they are black.
This one just happens to restrict sales based on price, eliminating the low priced market.
EJSG19 wrote:Stradawhovious wrote:EJSG19 wrote:If my glasses are rose colored, yours must be **** brown.![]()
Close, they are black.
This one just happens to restrict sales based on price, eliminating the low priced market.
As far as I can tell from the statute, price has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Materials used to make the gun seem to make the difference in whether its considered a SNS or not.
A gun can cost $1 far as I'm concerned. But it had better work. Also, I think nothing less than 95% of total production, should prove to be 99% functional. Meaning maybe 1 out of 100 rounds fails to operate properly. Thats the standard I hold my guns to anyway, with factory ammo.
Its not about being a price snob (H&H), its plain reality that guns costing less than say, $100-200 NIB, tend not to be the most reputable, or consistently be the most reliable guns on the market. So why aren't those manufacturers held to higher standards? We're all aware of it, so why the argument?
EJSG19 wrote:
As far as I can tell from the statute, price has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Materials used to make the gun seem to make the difference in whether its considered a SNS or not.
A gun can cost $1 far as I'm concerned. But it had better work. Also, I think nothing less than 95% of total production, should prove to be 99% functional. Meaning maybe 1 out of 100 rounds fails to operate properly. Thats the standard I hold my guns to anyway, with factory ammo.
Its not about being a price snob (H&H), its plain reality that guns costing less than say, $100-200 NIB, tend not to be the most reputable, or consistently be the most reliable guns on the market. So why aren't those manufacturers held to higher standards? We're all aware of it, so why the argument?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests