From the thread on .25 & .32:



I see this sentiment expressed every once in a while and I think it deserves some sort of response lest people who are unfamiliar with these pistols misunderstand.

The Raven, Jimenez, and other pistols of the same design (there's a Wikipedia article on the history of the manufacturers and the series of lawsuits and legal actions that resulted in the name changes), for anyone completely unfamiliar with them, are extremely inexpensive semi-automatic pistols with a die-cast frame and slide. Millions of them have been made, and in the 1970s and 1980s they sold new for under $100.

Occasionally someone comes along with a post to the effect of, "Hey, they're OK, not great, but they have a place in self-defense." I believe that this is misinformed advice, and potentially dangerous. The practical problems posed by these pistols are considerable:

• The only safety mechanism is a manual one. The sear is the only thing preventing the pistol from firing when the manual safety is disengaged.
• The manual safety is not designed to be operated quickly. The most practical way to disengage the safety is to hold the gun in the left hand, place the right hand over the slide, and push the safety forward with the right thumb. See the picture. While individual pistols vary considerably, the safety requires considerable force to operate.
• It is my opinion, having disassembled one of these weapons, that the manual safety does not provide a sufficient degree of protection from accidental discharge, based on its design. As such, in my personal judgment, these pistols cannot be carried safely except in Condition Three (empty chamber). Since the slide is easier to operate than the safety this is also fastest.
• Even if carried in condition three, there are safety problems posed once the slide has been racked while or after drawing, because the weapon is susceptible to AD if dropped or handled roughly until the magazine is removed and the chamber cleared again.
• These weapons do not fire reliably. They are prone to feeding problems, mechanical problems with the hammer, sear, and firing pin, ejection problems, and erratic operation of the slide. This is problematic in a weapon of doubtful caliber where multiple shots are required to achieve a stop.

The usual reasoning given for carrying a Raven is to treat it as an "availability" gun. The logic is that, due to the low price, many of these pistols can be purchased and secured in a number of areas for ease of access. While this makes sense to some degree (though the cost of securing them sufficiently may well exceed the cost of the pistol), there are better guns for this purpose. Without necessarily endorsing any of these makers, I note that Hi-Point, Kel-Tec, and Charter Arms all offer reasonably economical pistols with effective safety mechanisms. As an aside, they also are available in more effective calibers.

but if you only got fifty bucks, they work better than they should. If your the poorest of the poor they can keep you alive.

Hm. I wonder, how a charity with the goal of providing defense tools to the poor would fare...

I quite agree. Additionally, while this is a gun forum, not a car forum, I believe that there are a number of vehicles today that fit into the same category (available for a cheap price, but unsafe). There are many SUVs that offer 1) the size to withstand more destructive crash scenarios, 2) the safety features to increase the survivability of such crashes, and 3) the dependability to last through multiple, even thousands, of driving events. The Cadillac Escalade, Lexus GX470 and Lincoln Navigator are a few of the vehicles that offer sufficient reliability and safety. In fact any and all pre-airbag vehicles should be replaced this instant, lest you and your loved ones suffer a gruesome fate.

Sorry Mostly. Last time I bought a car, all I could afford was a Chevy Aveo. The same principles apply to power tools, Christmas trees and smokes. If there's a market for the Jimenez, fine. If you're not in that market, fine. Others might be. I won't recommend a Jimenez to anyone, but, at the end of the day, this is a free country.

Look at it this way. You're walking down the street. A couple thugs step out of an alley right in front of you. You don't have a weapon. George Burns (reprising his role as God) freezes time. He holds out a loaded Raven and asks, "So, you want the shooter or not?" Still worried about fingers and faulty safeties?

There is plenty of room between the Chevette and the Lexus and it's the same way with guns. I've got some antique guns that are not very reliable but I'd never consider using them for carry.
There are plenty of reliable carry guns that can be had for under $200.00, you don't need to choose between a Raven and a Custom Kimber.

The Aveo meets the current safety standards, you didn't have to go out and buy an old Chevette (Raven)!

Really? What exactly, besides a Hi-Point, is under $200 these days? I have a few I bought cheaper, but those deals are few and far between.

Any number of used Keltec 32s and 380s, Taurus 38s and for that matter, as clunky as I think they are, Hi-Points are a huge step up from the Raven junque!

Sure, but it doesn't work that way. In real life you have to plan ahead, and that means that there are other alternatives.

I don't think anyone posting on this forum is in financial straits so bad that the difference between a $100 pistol and a $250 pistol is tantamount to the difference between carrying and going unarmed. And that includes the poster I quoted who was advocating a Jimenez for certain unspecified purposes.

The dollar differences are small and the safety differences are large.

A more apt comparison than the Chevette and the Navigator would be driving a car with bald tires, or replacing them.

I'm not saying there ought to be a law. I'm just saying that people on this forum should know better.

No argument on a Hi-Point. The other stuff that you mentioned - no. Unless you know some supercheap source of which the general public is not aware. Auction sites do not have any of that for less than $220+ship/transfer, gunshops aren't significantly better, and private sales are about the same minus the shipping/tax.

Now, I'm not advocating buying a Jennings/raven/etc, but this idea of "plenty of cheap guns" might have been true some years ago, but certainly is not now.

You're still presuming to determine someone elses price-range. You say nobody on this forum is so strapped that they can't afford a $150-$200 gun? What about the single mom who doesn't get child support and can't even afford a computer to get on this site? I'll just have to disagree and step back. I can't make these decisions for others. I don't know why you think you can.

Another way of looking at it might be to weigh the likelihood of an unintended discharge against the likelihood of such a confrontation. If the likelihood of the first seems greater than the second, pass on that weapon and choose another or [just a second while I put on my flame-proof long-johns] go bareback.

Since I was the "poster" quoted I would like to expound. I was addressing the question "Is the .25 obsolete." My response would have been entirely different if some one had asked me "Hobie, all I have is a Raven .25." "What the best/safest way to carry it for SD?"

If it was my brother I'd give him one of my old S&W Model 65s. Anyone not a blood relative doesn't get their hands on my guns. Okay my wife is the one exception but even for her the O/U Italian mistress is off limits to her until she shows the proper reverence. Condition 3 is the only safe way to carry one of these pistols but I know people that carry 1911s in condition 3.

And I wasn't aware I was advocating for one of those zinc guns above all else. If so I did a poor job of communicating. I was advocating in a jam, they were better than nothing. I hold my position that there are better guns out there BUT if you need it, I advocate having a pistol rather than hoping there's a rock I can reach before I get shot and if a POS .25 is all you can manage, so be it.

And on that tangent, even if it is a only a .25, if I get shot and am sure I'm dying (because I'm the dramatic type), I at least want the satisfaction of being able to shoot back and at least give the BG something to think about before looking for his next victim. Nothing makes you feel quite so stupid and impotent as being shot at and having absolutely nothing in your hands but your ....

Also I find it pretty damn presumptuous to assume what my financial situation is at any given time. At least invite me for a cup of coffee or get-together at the range and ask me before assuming you know anything about my life. At the time the Jiminez WAS all I could afford and I had about 12 hours to find and purchase a CCW for $50 out the door. Every other firearm I owned was packed and locked in a safe and somewhere on Interstate 80 without me. That's as much as I'm going to justify my particular situation at that particular place and time.

Real life also has moments (I'm in one right now as a matter of fact which might explain my testiness) where you DON'T have time to plan carefully. It's not my nature. Corporations have trusted me with multi-million dollar projects because I DON'T miss details and am good at planning for problems and contingencies. I have careless moments, but I'm not careless - if that makes any sense.

Finally, although I realize this is somewhat irrelevant to a casual gun owner there are things as simple as porting, deburring, and polishing the internals that up the reliabilty to the point where I feel it's reliability is on my side. I seem to remember the early Kel-Tecs facing a similar situation...I could be wrong. Anyhow the bottom line for me is that I'd rather be the guy who is the REASON for rule #1 than the guy who FORGETS rule #1.

IMO, the whole CCW, P2C, gun love/hate thing is a very personal issue. I had an instructor who was very clear about the gray area of at what point are you willing to use a gun? Legalities aside, in real life where do you draw the line? The law is very clear. In real life, not so much.

I know where mine is. My wife's is different as is my hunting partner's. That same distinction I think can be applied to carrying. I'd rather carry something, ANYTHING than be in a bad place in a bad position with no firearm at all. But that's me. If someone thinks the Saturday Night Specials (Sarah Brady hat on now) are too dangerous to be sold or used then that is certainly their choice. But unless your opening and funding a "Quality Self-Defense Pistol for the Financially Challenged" charity, I don't like the idea of anyone limiting my choices.

I could go on for hours. People buy NAA Guardians and mini-revolvers by the truckload. I can't imagine trying to dig around in a pocket with hands the size of meathooks, trying to find it while running from the guy chasing me. I've seen derringers that couldn't get on the paper til the target was literally 3 feet away. And so on. It's a choice. I'm good with mine. I just have a problem with the idea "this is NEVER okay for ANYBODY."

Mostly Harmless, you provide a great deal of helpful information on this forum. I respect your opinion and knowlege and hope that nothing in the above can be construed as a personal attack. If so, my apologies in advance. Not my intention at all.

I just disagree with your absolutist blanket statement. Although I'm glad you posted it; now a reader has both the pros (such as they might be) and the cons of having such a pistol and can make their own informed opinion about what they want to do.

Okay, I'm out, that was my last word. I look forward to more comments and opinions on this subject.

Respectfully,
Hobie

No stress. Everyone's situation and background is different and you're entitled to your views, which I believe you explain well.

If I were in a seriously dangerous place or situation with absolutely no way to get enough money to buy at least a Kel Tec (realizing it could be sold later for $75 less than what I paid for it), I can think of at least two people I could call who would drop what they're doing and show up armed to provide an escort. In a situation that would raise concerns but not dangerous enough to warrant asking that kind of favor, I'd go unarmed rather than buy a Raven. It's the sort of money vs. safety tradeoff we make all the time, I guess, and I respect that fact that you would handle it differently.