Does everything deserve a chance?

[Longinvs]

https://www.ballisticmag.com/2019/01/11/mossberg-mc1sc-pistol-response/
Link for reference to the birth of this topic.
This question isn’t about the Mossberg pistol but it centers around it. I think this gun is derivative and pointless with an oddly placed safety just there for the shiny thing factor. I don’t believe this will be a good product and it sits at the same price point as proven competitors. But, I keep getting told that because I haven’t tried it I’m being unfair. If a company with an established baseline for the quality they produce launches a new product do you HAVE to give it trigger time to actually pass judgement? I don’t need to own and shoot a Taurus Millennium to know it’s probably hot garbage in my opinion.

 

[Sunshine_Shooter]

I believe that everything deserves a chance. Everything we shoot today was once a new, unproven idea, that someone gave a chance to.

Sometimes that chance is immediately blown because of the manufacturer (Taurus) or because of the concept (Heizen Defense .223 derringer), but if the concept is sound and the maker doesn't have a high rate of failure, then the model really should be evaluated individually. Any mindset that can be accurately boiled down to closed-mindedness is usually bad.

As to the gun itself, I don't understand your distrust. Mossberg doesn't strike me as a perpetual maker of crap guns. Is the MC1sc derivative? Absolutely, but that could be said about the G42 and the G43. And the Sig P320. And M&P Shield. This small CCW -sized gun market is huge and has a huge customer base, you'd be crazy to not even put your toe in those waters. The safety is probably an after-thought, but some customers and jurisdictions require it. Offering a manual safety (it comes safety-free as well) means you can hit every buyer in that market, including all the people that won't buy a G42/43 because of the lack thereof. It's priced competitively because it's a competitive market. It's competitive because of how wide the customer base is.

I'm not saying that it's good, I'm just saying that it could go either way. Making a definitive decision with no first hand and very little 3rd-party experience is flawed.

 

[David Mayeur]

Every firearm deserves a chance. Who gives it that chance is up to you.

I personally have no desire to do T&E on multiple firearms that I have no interest in carrying. That being said, anything I have interest in carrying goes through a process. That process would not change with something like the MC1.

 

[Longinvs]

As to the gun itself, I don't understand your distrust. Mossberg doesn't strike me as a perpetual maker of crap guns. Is the MC1sc derivative? Absolutely, but that could be said about the G42 and the G43. And the Sig P320. And M&P Shield. This small CCW -sized gun market is huge and has a huge customer base, you'd be crazy to not even put your toe in those waters. The safety is probably an after-thought, but some customers and jurisdictions require it. Offering a manual safety (it comes safety-free as well) means you can hit every buyer in that market, including all the people that won't buy a G42/43 because of the lack thereof. It's priced competitively because it's a competitive market. It's competitive because of how wide the customer base is.

I'm not saying that it's good, I'm just saying that it could go either way. Making a definitive decision with no first hand and very little 3rd-party experience is flawed.

I want to just get out in front of this before it gets away from me again. I don’t want a thread discussing the MC1SC. That was just where my question started.
If we can point to an inherent flaw, even if it isn’t in itself fatal to the firearm, is that not enough to discount it?

 

[Longinvs]

Every firearm deserves a chance. Who gives it that chance is up to you.

I personally have no desire to do T&E on multiple firearms that I have no interest in carrying. That being said, anything I have interest in carrying goes through a process. That process would not change with something like the MC1.

That does bring up another good point. On an individual level, if you understand value, then you will pass over it simply in favor of a better product that acomplishes your mission better.

 

[Sunshine_Shooter]

I want to just get out in front of this before it gets away from me again. I don’t want a thread discussing the MC1SC. That was just where my question started.
If we can point to an inherent flaw, even if it isn’t in itself fatal to the firearm, is that not enough to discount it?

Yeah, I'd agree to that. A gun is like a chain, it's only good if each piece is good. If you can spot a weak link from a distance, you don't have to get closer to know it's bad.

I don't think being 'derivative' and competing alongside proven options counts as a weak link, though. To each his own, I guess.

 

[Longinvs]

Yeah, I'd agree to that. A gun is like a chain, it's only good if each piece is good. If you can spot a weak link from a distance, you don't have to get closer to know it's bad.

I don't think being 'derivative' and competing alongside proven options counts as a weak link, though. To each his own, I guess.

I'm not saying that's what makes it a lesser product, that's just keeping my rant about the gun short because that's not the topic at hand.
I just heard Blowers rant about negativity on the internet, and I am not above admitting I am guilty of it, I am skeptical of most new products, but there are products that I think you can take at face value. If the company happens to have a winner I'm also willing to change my opinion, but I don't feel the need to give it a chance because it's new.

 

[pointblank4445]

Just speaking to the question in general: "Does everything deserve a chance?"...I say no...absolutely not. "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." I don't have to test drive a Prius to know how I feel about it.

More often than not the cream does rise to the top. While the best may not be at the forefront, it won't be too far below the surface to be found. What's sad is large portions of the industry have become lazy despite saturated markets. They tend to project this attitude of "come get it, you know you want it" when we (the consumer) hold more power than we give ourselves credit.
If something arises to fulfill a perceived need and you see no red flags, I say go for it. However, many a person has been met with frustration trying to jump on the next big thing (lot of goofy AR pistons and "Glock killa" pistols out there that didn't pan out).


Appropriately there's a trade show going on that will feature metric tons of products that don't even require a second look.

Jeff Cooper said it best...17 years ago:

"So now for the upcoming SHOT Show in Las Vegas, where we will be exposed to a vast trade fair at which to witness all sorts of novel items designed to entice the buyer. A special aspect of this is the fact that we already have our guns and they work just fine. Personal firearms should not be subject to the whims of fashion. If you have a good gun, you hardly need another one. This, of course, is exasperating to the salesman, whose aim in life is to make you discontented with what you have.
[]
Of course the overwhelming desire on the part of some people to collect gadgetry exists apart from the considerations of excellence. The collector simply must collect new guns from time to time, not because they are necessarily better, but because he wants them. This is okay, but it makes the SHOT Show less exciting than a demonstration in high fashion."

 

[50ae]

I’ll shoot pretty much anything just so I can have first hand knowledge of what it is so I can then speak of it with at least a modicum of experience. It doesn’t mean I have to buy everything just that I’ll try it out. I took a chance on a Daewoo 9mm 25 years ago and love the little gun. Is it my go to or the best gun I own, heck no. Does it have some really interesting features that more modern guns should think about, yes, absolutely. Would I know any of that if I hadn’t experienced it, nope. I’ll shoot this Mossberg first chance I get.

 

[HighTower]

Expanding away from guns, there is a specific company that came after a legendary and notorious object in the PPE world who is now pushing a new concept in the flexibility department. Even If one is on the side of thinking the previous product was bad vs thinking one component needed tweaking, one should be intellectual honest about the concept of testing new things for development and innovation purposes.

There was once a time a man once read that dyneema and spectra were garbage, and held that philosophy for years, but a wider view of the subject provided by a SME enlightened him to his misunderstanding.

There was once a time smaller, faster rounds were thought to be a waste of a time.

Some one above said try everything to have a base line opinion in it, and I agree with that, but in also agree with what some one else said about priuses.

(Edit 1 for spelling/grammar)