Interpreting Negative Experiences with Handguns (no brand names)
Just like any forum, these are full of people's opinions and experiences with all types of brands / models (of handguns). In addition to all of the good objective feedback, there's also a lot of feedback based on various underlying motives - people who are fiercely loyal to a brand no matter what, people who despise a brand no matter what, people looking for validation of their own purchases, etc... Sometimes it can be difficult to weigh the feedback accurately.
But - at the end of the day when I'm looking for feedback on a handgun, it doesn't take much to turn me off. At some point, my life may depend on the reliability of the gun I'm researching. So, if I read just a few legitimate negative experiences -- ones that get right to the core of a gun's reliability, then that brand/model is off my list. Let's face it, I'm not shopping for new sneakers here. I don't need to be snowballed by a plethora of problems to come to that conclusion -- it only takes a few. That said, if I'm looking purely for a range / recreational gun, then I'm a little more tolerant.
Given this point of view and the volume of negative experiences for some brands, I'm quite surprised that some the companies continue to survive. I mean, for some brands, it seems like half of what I read is negative - that's huge IMO. How can anyone justify putting their life in the hands of a weapon with that much negative feedback?
Do you feel similarly (no need to name any brands - I don't want to get into a bashing thing)? .... Are my standards too high? Am I being a "gun snob"?
How do you guys weigh the feedback? I'm curious...