Guns you think are just a bad idea.
 

Was in cabelas and saw a j frame airweight snubnose in 357 mag and a smith 629 PD, a 22 ounce 44 mag. (and what PD would use a .44.) How can smith sell a airweight 44 mag with a straight face? Theres already reports of idiots firing full magnum laods and breaking bones. Then i see american derringer making 45-70 derringers, there apaprently was a thunder 5 in 45-70 and thompson center made a 2 inch contender barrel chambered in rifle rounds..

Because this is America and that's what we have here.

Most of the time with those airweights, you'll fire .38 special or .44 special. They might be alright with lighter magnum loads. Those are concealed carry guns that aren't made to fire a lot of rounds. I think the PD stands for personal defense not Police Department.

The appeal of airweight revolvers is understandable: They're good six-guns for conceal-carry. Whether or not they should be made to shoot full-power, large-diameter loads is another question entirely. I guess they figure some people might be OK with the kick as long as they get more stopping power.

Personally, I think it's equally absurd that gun manufacturers have put out compact and even sub-compact polymer-frame pistols that shoot rounds like 10mm and .45 ACP (the Glock 29, 30 and 36 come to mind here). I remember when the Glock 36 first came and gun rags were praising Glock for introducing an easily concealable .45 pistol. My reaction at the time was that it seemed like a bad idea because of how light Glocks are and the inherent power of .45 ACP recoil (and the G36 has by far the smallest, lightest frame of any Glock). But it seems a lot of people really like that gun, even though I personally can't understand its appeal.

Ive seen the 329 pd advertised as "lightweight hunting or trail gun." I saw one review where they had to put on x frame rubber grips and shooting gloves to make the 44 mag bearable. One forum a guy put pics of cut webbing on his hands from a 357 airweight.

Subcompact 45s don't make sense to me either. The desighn of the 45 cartridge is for service sized autos. Subcompacts are not known to work well in a .45 acp. The .40 is known to work okay, but the .40 kicks even harder than the 45. I personally would never get a subcompact above 9mm. The kahr pm40 seems rediculous too, I should add that to the list.

It might not be such a bad idea if you were going for a metal-framed .45 ACP sub-compact. But polymer framed? That just strikes me as a dumb idea, even though I admit I've never shot any of these guns (since I tend to avoid .45 ACP pistols generally).

In Glock's case, what's even more ridiculous is that they've never put out a compact .45 ACP pistol (by which I mean, G19-sized). Yet they have already put out two different sub-compact models chambered in .45 ACP (or three, if you count the G30SF as a separate gun), which are way less practical in comparison.

Russian Kord HMG. .50 cal designed to be fired from a bipod. No thank you.

I don't get the point of civilians wanting short barrel rifles. They aren't very accurate, or like Olympic arms with their short AR-15s, no stocks for recoil control. I don't get it.

I just want to say... I love Thrice.

I don't get it? Who's Thrice?