Top tier, second tier, and so on...

[fightingquaker13]

Bafsu's last post illustrates why we would have such trouble coming up with any break down.
There is to much subjective opinion involved, his experience is that the P3AT sux, mine on the other hand is just the opposite.
The same will hold true for any other category.
Customer service for example, Taurus was excoriated in several past threads for lousy CS, but each of those threads contained posts by people who were quite pleased with the way they were treated and the service they recieved.
Truly classifying hand gun manufacturers is going to ultimately be just as personal as preferences in the guns themselves.

Its always going to be hard to classify a company. Look at Ruger. They gave us the 10/22. But they also gave us the mini-14. The revolvers are great, but their pistols.....? I guess you have to look at overall reputation. With Ruger I will give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. With Charter or Kel-tec I am sceptical until I'm convinced otherwise. Its not exactly fair to the new kids on the block, especially those who start out by making cheap entry level guns to get started, and then move up to higher quality pieces as they can afford to do so. Still, I think its just human nature to view things in that manner.
FQ13

[Solus]

Bafsu's last post illustrates why we would have such trouble coming up with any break down.
There is to much subjective opinion involved, his experience is that the P3AT sux, mine on the other hand is just the opposite.
The same will hold true for any other category.
Customer service for example, Taurus was excoriated in several past threads for lousy CS, but each of those threads contained posts by people who were quite pleased with the way they were treated and the service they recieved.
Truly classifying hand gun manufacturers is going to ultimately be just as personal as preferences in the guns themselves.

I think it is possible, but it would take a lot of "bookkeeping" work to set it up and I doubt folks are interested enough to spend time at it.

[Solus]

Its always going to be hard to classify a company. Look at Ruger. They gave us the 10/22. But they also gave us the mini-14. The revolvers are great, but their pistols.....? I guess you have to look at overall reputation. With Ruger I will give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. With Charter or Kel-tec I am sceptical until I'm convinced otherwise. Its not exactly fair to the new kids on the block, especially those who start out by making cheap entry level guns to get started, and then move up to higher quality pieces as they can afford to do so. Still, I think its just human nature to view things in that manner.
FQ13

You are correct, but if we rate the products instead and use a summary of the ratings of the products, we can get an approximation of the company's rating.

[fightingquaker13]

You are correct, but if we rate the products instead and use a summary of the ratings of the products, we can get an approximation of the company's rating.

True, but even then its tough. Lets take a Les Baer or equvilent 1911 and a Glock. When it comes to fit and finish and accuracy, that 1911 will run cirles around the Glock. If I were to get to choose one free of charge as a range toy, or even a nightstand gun I'd take the 1911 and giggle all the way home. On the other hand, if it were my carry gun I'd take the Glock any day due to the lack of an external safety to mess with (and maybe trip up on), reliability, durability and the fact that they will shoot just fine dirty. Is the Glock the better gun? Not really, but its the one I'd rather carry if things got serious. We could make the same arguments about Ruger or Smith revolvers and the list goes on. Its a fun topic though.
FQ13

[bafsu92]

Bafsu's last post illustrates why we would have such trouble coming up with any break down.
There is to much subjective opinion involved, his experience is that the P3AT sux, mine on the other hand is just the opposite.
The same will hold true for any other category.
Customer service for example, Taurus was excoriated in several past threads for lousy CS, but each of those threads contained posts by people who were quite pleased with the way they were treated and the service they recieved.
Truly classifying hand gun manufacturers is going to ultimately be just as personal as preferences in the guns themselves.

We quite frequently agree to disagree but I couldn't have said it any better myself. Like I said from my first post what tier your gun is in should only apply to you. If you like it, shoot it well and carry it as much as you can then screw other people's opinions, it's a tier 1 gun to you.

[Sponsor]

[bafsu92]

True, but even then its tough. Lets take a Les Baer or equvilent 1911 and a Glock. When it comes to fit and finish and accuracy, that 1911 will run cirles around the Glock. If I were to get to choose one free of charge as a range toy, or even a nightstand gun I'd take the 1911 and giggle all the way home. On the other hand, if it were my carry gun I'd take the Glock any day due to the lack of an external safety to mess with (and maybe trip up on), reliability, durability and the fact that they will shoot just fine dirty. Is the Glock the better gun? Not really, but its the one I'd rather carry if things got serious. We could make the same arguments about Ruger or Smith revolvers and the list goes on. Its a fun topic though.
FQ13

It's a good point. I feel comfortable knowing my Glocks will always go bang. It's funny because I'm very comfortable and confident with my 1911's. Just about every training class I've taken paid for has been with a 1911 but I've probably got more rounds through the Glocks because of work and the classes and training I've done with the Glocks. I shoot both Glocks and 1911's in IDPA so  I get a lot of rounds through both. Today I carried a Kimber Pro Raptor 1911 that is 100% reliable, while yesterday I carried a Glock 19. I feel fine with either and if either lets me down I still have the 357 airlite J-frame in my front pocket.

[tombogan03884]

Its always going to be hard to classify a company. Look at Ruger. They gave us the 10/22. But they also gave us the mini-14. The revolvers are great, but their pistols.....? I guess you have to look at overall reputation. With Ruger I will give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. With Charter or Kel-tec I am sceptical until I'm convinced otherwise. Its not exactly fair to the new kids on the block, especially those who start out by making cheap entry level guns to get started, and then move up to higher quality pieces as they can afford to do so. Still, I think its just human nature to view things in that manner.
FQ13

You might be interested to know that these 2 "New kids on the block " have been around for quite a while.

http://www.keltecweapons.com/about/

Kel-Tec CNC Industries, Inc. was founded 1991 in Cocoa , Florida . Initially, a CNC machine shop, Kel-Tec started to manufacture firearms in 1995. Specializing in innovative rifle designs and handguns for concealed carry by law enforcement personnel and qualified citizens, we are now one of the top five handgun makers in the US , making us one of the largest firearms manufacturers in the World.

http://www.charterfirearms.com/about%20us/about_Charter_Firearms.html

A Proud History

In New England's Gun Valley, gun making is a tradition that stretches back for generations. In 1964 a new tradition was born, when a young gun designer named Douglas McClennahan founded Charter Arms

[Timothy]

Personally, I don't have a problem with Charter Arms revolvers.  I've shot a few and their not bad considering.  They do what they're advertised to do and you can't ask for more than that.  I thought it was quite a statement when the ownership of Charter gave away the transfer bar technology to make carrying safer.

I can't buy a Kel-Tec here so I can't comment.  I've heard (read) both sides of that argument.

Tier one = "Trust your life to it"
Tier two = "use it for competition"
Tier three = "use it to punch paper or have some fun"
Tier four, five, six, seven.....=  "everything else"

[twyacht]

After reading all 4 pages, what are the parameters...? It can't be price, or "custom" vs. "stock"...to determine a tier. I've seen Luke Skywalker competition race guns with a Tiffany, Cartier list of mega bling components FAIL...

and a cheap utterly neglected and abused Taurus always work..

So, I'll use a performance car analogy,

Stock Ferrari: "Top Tier"
Stock Aston Martin "Top Tier"

Custom 69 Camaro with a "package" to run 9's in the 1/4 mile and remain street legal...."top tier"?
Seen a tweaked up Mustang come close also.......

Certainly a Mustang/Camaro can't compare to an Aston Martin in the stock fit and finish category,.....but,....with a little tweaks and love....it would leave them behind.

So the Les Baer, Ed Brown, "custom's" tweak an otherwise "stock" pistol and give it tweaks and love to make it top tier.

While a $500 Glock (and some others), out of the box, are damn hard to get to fail, even with cheap a** steel case dug up surplus.

Great ideological question, certainly manufacturers, over the years, got "some" models right, and "some " models wrong.

I don't think that necessarily changes a "tier" rating.....

Plus there is caliber considerations....and that is another "tier" in the mix,....

[tombogan03884]

After reading all 4 pages, what are the parameters...? It can't be price, or "custom" vs. "stock"...to determine a tier. I've seen Luke Skywalker competition race guns with a Tiffany, Cartier list of mega bling components FAIL...

and a cheap utterly neglected and abused Taurus always work..

So, I'll use a performance car analogy,

Stock Ferrari: "Top Tier"
Stock Aston Martin "Top Tier"

Custom 69 Camaro with a "package" to run 9's in the 1/4 mile and remain street legal...."top tier"?
Seen a tweaked up Mustang come close also.......

Certainly a Mustang/Camaro can't compare to an Aston Martin in the stock fit and finish category,.....but,....with a little tweaks and love....it would leave them behind.

So the Les Baer, Ed Brown, "custom's" tweak an otherwise "stock" pistol and give it tweaks and love to make it top tier.

While a $500 Glock (and some others), out of the box, are damn hard to get to fail, even with cheap a** steel case dug up surplus.

Great ideological question, certainly manufacturers, over the years, got "some" models right, and "some " models wrong.

I don't think that necessarily changes a "tier" rating.....

Plus there is caliber considerations....and that is another "tier" in the mix,....

Pretty much what you think is important, it seems that every one of us has different criteria, and personal experience influences how we rate each product.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Charter Arms revolvers.  I've shot a few and their not bad considering.  They do what they're advertised to do and you can't ask for more than that.  I thought it was quite a statement when the ownership of Charter gave away the transfer bar technology to make carrying safer.

I can't buy a Kel-Tec here so I can't comment.  I've heard (read) both sides of that argument.

Tier one = "Trust your life to it"
Tier two = "use it for competition"
Tier three = "use it to punch paper or have some fun"
Tier four, five, six, seven.....=  "everything else"

Tim seems to have come up with a good system, but again it will be dependent on the product.
Would you "Trust your life to" a Sig P226 ?
What about the Mosquito ?