Re: Question Of The Month.
I was too late seeing this poll to vote on it but I wholeheartedly agree with the majority who say reliability has to come before all else. I look at firearms as a tool with which to get a job done. If it won't do that job the first time, every time, then a better tool is needed.
The best example from my own personal experience came with my very first firearm. When I was in my early twenties I bought a Lorcin .380 semiautomatic pistol just to have something around the house in case it was needed. I didn't spend much over a hundred bucks for it brand new and it didn't occur to me that there was a reason it was that cheap. I took it out target shooting a few times and didn't have any problems with it I can remember, and I always took care of it and kept it clean and felt pretty good about it.
Then my dog got run over by a car. He was in a great deal of pain and his injuries were far too severe for him to have been able to recover and I made the decision to put him down. It seemed the only humane thing to do. I took the pistol and put a round (round-nose target ammo, all I had) in the back of the poor dog's head and was amazed when it did NOT settle the matter then and there. Worst of all, the next round didn't feed into the chamber properly and the pistol jammed. It took me about thirty seconds to clear the chamber, reload the pistol and finish the job.
I hawked that pistol that afternoon. What is the point of having one if it fails you when you need it? I swore that day I'd never again buy a cheap firearm, or keep one that I had any reason to suspect might fail me when it was needed. Today I own two firearms, the M590A1 12 gauge I am awaiting delivery of and a CZ 75 Compact 9mm, both of which I researched thoroughly before buying. I have total confidence in my pistol and am sure my new shotgun will be every bit as reliable. To me, it's the only criteria that means anything.