Which handgun should I buy?

[iggy popov]

My 21st birthday is coming up in about 2 months and my thoughts have wandered to the fact that I will be able to purchase a handgun and get my concealed weapons permit.
I don't plan on carrying a gun but I would like to get one. Part of me wants to get something along the lines of a Desert Eagle or 44. Magnum just for the badass look of them. The other half wants to get something more reliable like a Glock or a Beretta.

So people with more gun knowledge than me , what hand gun would you suggest?

[Dvorak]

a six-shooter, they are old-school cool.

[CynicalGabe]

Go with something more reasonable, like a Beretta or an Astra. I highly reccommend Astras. They make some very nice 9mms.

[EvanS]

Depends on what you want to use it for.

A 9mm is a good, all-around weapon. Glocks and Beretta make good ones.
If you want to drop people, go with a .45 ACP, like the old faithful 1911.
I've always been fond of .38 special and .357 S&W's for carry self defense.

Best idea is join your local club and try a few out. Shooters are friendly folk, always willing to brag about their guns and try to convince you theirs is the best, to the point of letting you try it out on the range. I recommend try before you buy.

ES

[Airman Doors, USAF]

If you don't plan on carrying get whatever you want. The CCW permit will allow you to carry it to and from the range loaded, so it's still a good thing (more like insurance than anything else). A Desert Eagle is an ego weapon. It's fun to shoot, yes, but it's incredibly impractical, not to mention expensive. .50 AE ammo isn't cheap.

If concealment is your concern, I'm partial to my weapon, the Glock Model 27 in .40 S&W. It's about as big as my hand, has nine in the mag and one in the pipe, and is exceptionally concealable and comfortable. However, Glocks do not have a safety that you can set yourself. They have three safeties (called "Safe Action"), of which the only one you can see is on the trigger. That one is defeated simply by pulling the trigger, so I can honestly say that that weapon is not suitable for everyone without the added precaution of carrying it unchambered.

A SIG-SAUER P239 is where I'm going next when I get the money. It's small, it's reliable, and it's 2 guns in one with the .357 SIG/ .40 S&W conversion barrel. Also, a nice Walther in .380 will do the trick.

Some revolvers are decent too, but don't get anything smaller than a .38. That way you can use that as your home defense weapon, if that's one of your considerations.

[Danalan]

If you want your first handgun to be a Desert Eagle or a .44 Magnum, then you aren't mature enough to get a handgun. A handgun is not a toy, and it's not a device to prove anything with.

A handgun is a tool, with a specific purpose: Killing people. Sure, you can target shoot, but that's just a way to practice.

Do you have a need to kill people? Most people don't, but you might be an exception. If you live a dangerous life, you might need a weapon to protect yourself.

If so, then I recommend a more reasonable weapon. Something you can learn to shoot well, that has proven itself reliable. A simple 9mm semi-automatic should be plenty of handgun. A .45 caliber is probably the high end of what you'd want to consider for a first gun. I don't recommend the .38 caliber -- while some would argue the point, I don't feel it has enough stopping power.

Remember, it's a tool with the specific purpose of killing people. You want the simplest, easy to use tool that will do the job.

Once you master a reasonable first weapon, then you can think about a prestige weapon of some sort.

[Blown & Injected]

Take it easy Danalan There is nothing wrong with wanting to own a big hand gun and the type does not determine maturity level.

A lighter gun with less recoil than a big caliber is easier to shoot, but even a small caliber gun is dangerous and requires the same level of care.

As mentioned, why do you want it? Hunting, target, home defense, CW. I like to try to find guns that have more than one use. For me I look for a hunting gun that is also a good target gun.

Some type of safety class is a good idea for new gun owners/users

[Arwin]

Months later, in court ...

DA: "So, why did you decide to purchase a gun in the first place, 'Iggy'"
Accused: "Well, because I could, basically ... "

[DougC]

- - - Well I kinda gotta agree--if you have no intent to carry, a concealed permit doesn't make a lot of sense. But if you're pondering carrying anyway, then....
- The problem with buying a 44 mag or a Desert Eagle is that they are large guns, not real concealable or comfortable to carry, for the most part--unless you get a 5-shot 44 snubbie revolver. And ammo is rather expensive, unless you will be reloading yourself. And getting into reloading is expensive in itself, figure $400 or so to start out, assuming you have nothing.....
- If at all possible, go to a range and test-fire a few of the more-common calibers--9mm and .45 especially, but also 44 and 380.
- Ammo-price-wise, 9mm is probably about the cheapest centerfire pistol caliber you can get without reloading yourself.
- Gun-price-wise, Hi-Point makes some very inexpensive guns in 380, 9mm and .45. Yes they look ugly and they are heavy, but they cost much less than anything else new and the customer service at Hi-Point is said to be pretty good, should your gun arrive with problems.
- Opinions: Glocks I would caution you on--they seem to have a lot of blowups. I could be wrong, but research the matter online before buying. All guns have blowups, but it seems Glocks have more problems with this. ....Military types I know like the Browning Hi-Power for 9mm and 1911 for .45, and many people I have heard like the CZ pistols too.
~

[catsix]

DougC said:
Well I kinda gotta agree--if you have no intent to carry, a concealed permit doesn't make a lot of sense.

It makes those trips to the range and such a lot simpler. Holster to hip and out the door, rather than having to mess around with cases and all of that. There's nothing in getting a license to carry concealed that says you have to carry, but it's a convenient thing to have when you do want to.

As far as the handgun itself, the same advice I always give is that the OP should hold many of them at the store. Different sizes, different calibers, different brands. If at all possible, try actually shooting different ones. When you've settled on the one that feels most comfortable to you, that (if this is a concern of yours) you could carry concealed comfortably and fits into your budget, buy that one. Some people have recommended Glock and Sig and Beretta, and I also find that Ruger makes some good firearms, but those are our pistols, and you need to find yours.

The lower calibers aren't as recommended for self defense, so I wouldn't go too low on that if self defense is your goal, but bear in mind that should crunch time ever happen, you need a pistol that'll feel like an extension of your hand and that you can hit the target with.

Good luck.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

It makes those trips to the range and such a lot simpler. Holster to hip and out the door, rather than having to mess around with cases and all of that. There's nothing in getting a license to carry concealed that says you have to carry, but it's a convenient thing to have when you do want to.

Exactly. Here in Pennsylvania if you don't have your concealed carry permit the weapon and the ammunition must be carried in separate areas of the car (as in the weapon in front and the ammunition in the trunk). One round left carelessly in the weapon is a crime (rather than just stupidity). A magazine in the front seat, not in the weapon, is a crime.

Why take chances with that? For $25 and two references you can get your permit, and I'm telling you it's much easier to work with.

[js_africanus]

It makes those trips to the range and such a lot simpler.
Amen to that.

I'd advise getting a carry-able pistol so that if you should ever feel the need, then you don't have to go out and get another pistol.

Glock makes a small-frame .45.

Another good choice, IMO, is a 2" barrel .357 with a shielded hammer. Taurus makes a nice one that isn't too expensive compared to a lot of high-end models you could get into. With a pocket holster, you can just slip into your pants pocket and you're good to go.

[Scumpup]

Get yourself a decent quality .22. Either a revolver or automatic is perfectly acceptable. The .22 has low recoil and is inexpensive to shoot, both of which contribute to you being able to shoot often and shoot a lot. Practice = Good. Until you are able to shoot the .22 proficiently, there is no point in banging away with anything heavier and more expensive. You will accomplish nothing except turning money into noise.
After you have mastered the .22, then you can select something more powerful. You'll want to keep the .22, though, as practice with it will continue to be of value.

If you want an autoloader, Ruger and Browning have very nice lines of .22's that are excellent for this purpose. If you want a revolver, look into Smith and Wesson and Ruger. DO NOT cheap out and buy one of those junk cast-zinc pieces of crap like a Lorcin, Davis, or Jennings. They are unreliable, innaccurate, and lack durability.

[Padeye]

Neither of your options is a good choice for a first handgun IMHO. If you honestly want to learn to shoot safely you're going to need to get something you can afford to practive with a lot. I don't mean a 50 round box of ammo now and again I mean thousands of rounds. Get a quality .22 and get professional training as I have advised in other threads.

[My Darn Snake Legs]

Airman Doors mentioned both of the ones that I was going to suggest for carry. My father has a Glock 27 for concealed carry and he loves it. Very small and powerful.

But what the rest said is true too. I'm not comfortable shooting it. And since I'm not really comfortable with it I can't hit shit! Granted we were shooting at 50 yards (I thinK) and using a small pistol target, but the sight length is far shorter than I'm used to. I'll stick to my S&W .357 mag.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Skip the handgun.

Get a rifle, carbine or shotgun.

A weapon is a tool for killing. Longarms are more accurate & powerful.

And second best gets you dead.

[Scumpup]

Skip the handgun.

Get a rifle, carbine or shotgun.

A weapon is a tool for killing. Longarms are more accurate & powerful.

And second best gets you dead.

I don't recall the OP mentioning anything about killing anybody or anything about long arms. In point of fact, this is what he said:
My 21st birthday is coming up in about 2 months and my thoughts have wandered to the fact that I will be able to purchase a handgun and get my concealed weapons permit.
I don't plan on carrying a gun but I would like to get one. Part of me wants to get something along the lines of a Desert Eagle or 44. Magnum just for the badass look of them. The other half wants to get something more reliable like a Glock or a Beretta.

So people with more gun knowledge than me , what hand gun would you suggest?

[Stranger On A Train]

- Opinions: Glocks I would caution you on--they seem to have a lot of blowups. I could be wrong, but research the matter online before buying. All guns have blowups, but it seems Glocks have more problems with this.
Cite, please. I find it unlikely that Glocks have "a lot of blowups". In this litigious age, a string of catastrophic failures would put a company out of business faster than a MAC-10 can empty a 32 round magazine.

The only major manufacturer I can remember having serious safety problems in the last couple of decades is Beretta, and that only slide seperation with the M9 (military version of the 92F) due to an alledged overused of +P and/or subsonic ammo.

I'm not a big fan of the Glock, but that has more to do with my personal opinion on the ergonomics and feel (and the fact that they spray casings right down your shirt) than any safety or accuracy concerns.

Stranger

[olpeculiar]

I have to put in my $.02 for Taurus. I've got their PT-92 (knock-off of the new classic Beretta SF-92) and I love it. Even without the ported barrel I had done, the perceived recoil is very easy to handle.

Taurus acquired a bunch of tooling from Beratta along with a manufacturing plant years ago. That's why they make such nice "copies" of Beretta gear. But since then, Taurus has gone out and made some really fine handguns on their own. Based on what I've read, they're got a lot of respect in the industry.

Whatever the brand name, there are lots of individual pistols we all could recommend. First, figure out what type of ammo you want to use. Then decide if you want the "scary-looking" gun or the more "practical" gun. Full-size frame (M1911, Beretta 92), or compact carry frame (most Glocks and other composite body pistols)?

As for caliber, avoid .45ACP, .44Rem Mag and the like. I've fired plenty of .45, and I own a .44 Super Blackhawk, and trust me - that's a lof of cartridge. Like the others have said, stick with 9mm, .40 or .357 for a revolver. Very manageable recoil and powerful enough to - umm... What was it you wanted to do with this thing?

[BF]

IMO, a good starter gun would be a .357 snubbie wheelgun with a 2 or 3 inch barrel. For carry and personal protection, you can load it with .357 Glazers. Then for practice you can shoot cheaper .38 rounds through it. A six shooter is a very simple firearm to learn safety and how to shoot.

[Scumpup]

Cite, please. I find it unlikely that Glocks have "a lot of blowups". In this litigious age, a string of catastrophic failures would put a company out of business faster than a MAC-10 can empty a 32 round magazine.

The only major manufacturer I can remember having serious safety problems in the last couple of decades is Beretta, and that only slide seperation with the M9 (military version of the 92F) due to an alledged overused of +P and/or subsonic ammo.

I'm not a big fan of the Glock, but that has more to do with my personal opinion on the ergonomics and feel (and the fact that they spray casings right down your shirt) than any safety or accuracy concerns.

Stranger

This (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/gindex2.html) site has a good deal of information concerning Glocks and whether or not they are prone to catastrophic failure.

[catsix]

Stranger on a Train said:
Cite, please. I find it unlikely that Glocks have "a lot of blowups". In this litigious age, a string of catastrophic failures would put a company out of business faster than a MAC-10 can empty a 32 round magazine.

As I recall, and sorry, I don't have a cite handy at this second, there was a model of Glock in .40 that had problems because it was basically a scaled up version of one of their 9mms, and it couldn't always handle the increased strain of a larger round with more powder behind it.

I've not really heard anything bad about Glocks in general, but I do find them to be a lot more expensive than Rugers, and I'm not a big fan of having more composite because to me they feel unbalanced.

All in all though, I usually stay away from strongly recommending one particular model or manufacturer, because the most important thing, in my opinion, with a carry gun is that it is 100% comfortable to the carrier.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Remember, it's a tool with the specific purpose of killing people. You want the simplest, easy to use tool that will do the job.

While you can kill people with them, I think your logic about the OP's preferences is a little... inconsistent.

[EvanS]

If you want your first handgun to be a Desert Eagle or a .44 Magnum, then you aren't mature enough to get a handgun. A handgun is not a toy, and it's not a device to prove anything with.

A handgun is a tool, with a specific purpose: Killing people. Sure, you can target shoot, but that's just a way to practice.

Do you have a need to kill people? Most people don't, but you might be an exception. If you live a dangerous life, you might need a weapon to protect yourself.

If so, then I recommend a more reasonable weapon. Something you can learn to shoot well, that has proven itself reliable. A simple 9mm semi-automatic should be plenty of handgun. A .45 caliber is probably the high end of what you'd want to consider for a first gun. I don't recommend the .38 caliber -- while some would argue the point, I don't feel it has enough stopping power.

Remember, it's a tool with the specific purpose of killing people. You want the simplest, easy to use tool that will do the job.

Once you master a reasonable first weapon, then you can think about a prestige weapon of some sort.
"Hmmmm. Upgrades." Neo to enhanced agents. Me to 'Quick Reply.'

Danalan, you make a good point about the questionable maturity of selecting a handgun based on flash vs. function. This is an 20-year-old young man, however, with little experience. That he's asking for guidance puts some maturity notches in his grips. Admitting his attraction (rather than hiding it) also counts. I think he's mature enough.

Now, I've owned and used handguns for 44 years, and I have never killed nor wounded anyone. And no, I've also never tried. Guns also have the purpose of saving lives, and just the presence of a handgun, without it even being fired, daily saves lives that are threatened and prevents crimes from being carried out. (For a moment I thought you might be Sarah Brady or Ted Kennedy! Don't scare me like that!) Guns in America have been statistically presented by some researchers to daily save more lives than they take. Of course, one of the reasons for this is that enough gun owners have had adequate training so that they always think of a gun as a killing tool and use it in a manner in which killing is avoided, if possible, and the gun serves its function of saving lives or preventing crime without killing.

In my experience I have always lived in places where one would tend to feel reasonably safe. Not the ghetto, not inner-city, no high-crime districts, secure, middle-class to u-m-c neighborhoods. Having a gun in my home once scared off an armed prowler in my back yard, once held an intruder in my home after he had broken in until police arrived. Several times, when I carried concealed, it made assailants change their minds about hurting me or my family. I think even once is adequate justification (since we aren't cats, with 9 lives). Sure, some people can go through their lives without ever needing a handgun, but better you have it and never need it than need it and not have it.
(Likely I will never have a house fire, but I still have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in my home. For the same reason I have a handgun; 911 isn't quick enough.)

You don't always have to pull the trigger to get a gun to work for you, and no matter how safe you think your life is, it probably isn't that safe.

With proper training and lots of practice, a concealed carry handgun can actually make your world a safer place. Without proper training it can make the world a more dangerous place.

You made some excellent points in your post; many of which are important for a new acquirer to be well-aware of. I would add that before acquiring a handgun one take the highest-level safety/marksmanship course available, with a particular emphasis on safety. There's no such thing as 'too safe.'

EvanSerious

[minor7flat5]

I'll contribute my vote for a solid S&W .357 Magnum revolver as a good first handgun.

I use 38 Special wadcutters for target practice.
When I want to have a big gun feel and see flame shoot out the muzzle, I switch to the magnums.

A few years ago I bought an inexpensive reloading outfit and I have been overjoyed with the peaceful soothing process of loading 200 rounds just the way I like for a trip to the range. I like the revolver because I don't have to chase down my brass.

[DougC]

Google search, "hangun kabooms": http://www.google.com/search?q=handgun+kabooms&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N
-------
- - - The Glock company's saving grace seems to be that most all of the failures were with aftermarket reloaded ammo. Note that many of the returns on the first few pages that come up specifically mention Glocks, however--many specifically mention the larger-than-9mm models as the problem guns.
~

[iggy popov]

"Hmmmm. Upgrades." Neo to enhanced agents. Me to 'Quick Reply.'

Danalan, you make a good point about the questionable maturity of selecting a handgun based on flash vs. function. This is an 20-year-old young man, however, with little experience. That he's asking for guidance puts some maturity notches in his grips. Admitting his attraction (rather than hiding it) also counts. I think he's mature enough.






Hey thanks for sticking up for me.


I should of mentioned this in the beginning but I do have some experience with firearms. I've had a shotgun in my closet since I was 12, took hunter's saftey and other gun saftey type classes. I am also familiar with how to handle a handgun(as in loading/unloading, cleaning, stance,grip and all that good stuff.) but have always missed my chance to fire one.
My top two choices are the Taurus PT-92 and I believe its the S&W 40. automatic as these are the two handguns I have handeled the most. I didn't really like the feel of the 45.
Thanks for the suggestions.

[Arwin]

Guns in America have been statistically presented by some researchers to daily save more lives than they take.

Up to this point, I never fully realised what an absolute nightmare of crime the U.S. must be, what with gun related deaths almost as high as that of traffic related deaths, and with the number of accidental gun deaths being higher than all gun deaths in the Netherlands.

Several times, when I carried concealed, it made assailants change their minds about hurting me or my family.

Where do you live? Sounds like a bad place.

I think even once is adequate justification (since we aren't cats, with 9 lives). Sure, some people can go through their lives without ever needing a handgun, but better you have it and never need it than need it and not have it.
(Likely I will never have a house fire, but I still have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in my home. For the same reason I have a handgun; 911 isn't quick enough.)

But a fire extinguisher or a smoke detector aren't themselves fires. A gun is fighting fire with fire, no matter how you look at it.

You don't always have to pull the trigger to get a gun to work for you, and no matter how safe you think your life is, it probably isn't that safe.

The point that it gets safer by having more guns around so far has no scientific evidence to go along with it. I have looked into it several times already and this is what I came up with:

In the Netherlands an estimated 2% of households have a firearm (1999). We have 'only' 70 deaths by firearm. In Belgium, an estimated 20% of households carry a gun. They had 384 deaths by firearm in 1999. In the U.S., an estimated 40% households carry a gun. They had about 30.000 deaths by firearm in 1999 (and 100.000 wounded).

Now of course we need to correct these numbers for population. U.S. were about 275.000.000 in 1999, the Netherlands about 15.500.000 and Belgium about 10.000.000. That makes 1 in 9000 for the U.S., 1 in 26.000 for Belgium, and 1 in 220.000 for the Netherlands.

Combine the number of deaths by gun we have with the percentage of gun owners, and compare that to the U.S. (which we often do) and you will understand we have a hard time understanding people telling themselves the world is a safer place with guns around.

More evidence linking the acceptance of firearms to higher gun related deaths:

France, for example, has a higher proportion of households that have firearms than the U.K, and consequently has around 6 firearm deaths per 100,000 people, compared to the U.K that has a rate of less than 1 death per 100,000. See the table of firearm ownership and deaths in industrialised countries in Chapter 6: After the Smoke Clears: Assessing the Effects of Small Arms Availability of the Small Arms Survey 2001: Profiling the Problem, compiled by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva (Oxford, Oxford University Press: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/Year...S2001Ch6_en.pdf, published 2001/accessed 15.04.02), p.1.

http://www.ex.ac.uk/politics/pol_da.../new_page_5.htm

"Australia's rate of firearm-related homicide is 0.4 per 100,000 population compared to 0.7 in Canada and 6.3 in the United States of America. In the United Kingdom, however, the firearm homicide rate is 0.1 per 100,000. The culture of firearms is less pervasive in the UK."

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/961104.html

With proper training and lots of practice, a concealed carry handgun can actually make your world a safer place. Without proper training it can make the world a more dangerous place.

[snip]

EvanSerious

The more guns present, the more danger present in explosive situations. Gang shootings often see both murderer and victim carrying weapons. Poverty is one leading cause of explosive situations.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html

The U.S. has a lot of poverty. So you have cause (poverty), and you add means and accidents (guns).

[Crafter_Man]

Arwin: This is not a GD, and we've been down that road a million times. Suffice to say, folks on both sides of the isle have ammo to support their positions. (Pardon the pun.) Iggy wants a handgun, he has a right to carry one, and that's that.

Iggy: The best gun to get is the one you love to shoot. Before purchasing a handgun, shoot many different types, and get the one you like the best. Note that this is much more important than type, manufacturer, and caliber.

However, I will say this: If the gun is to be used for self defense, do not buy a cheap, low-end gun. Buy quality. Stick with the well-known brands (e.g. Glock, SIG, Beretta, Colt, S&W, Taurus, just to name a few). Think about it... if you needed surgery to save your life, would you go to a discount doctor? Of course not. You would search for the best doctor who specialized in that type of surgery; the cost would be very secondary. Same goes for a self defense gun.

[Crafter_Man]

Skip the handgun.

Get a rifle, carbine or shotgun... Longarms are more accurate & powerful.Hey, now you’re talking! ;)

Sorry for the hijack, but for defense of liberty, a rifle is a must. I'm partial to 7.62 x 51.

I forget who said it, but:

A handgun is for defense of self.
A shotgun is for defense of home.
A rifle is for defense of liberty.

In addition, a handgun is what you use to fight your way back to your rifle. ;)

[Alessan]

About nine years ago, back when I was in the army, I sat in on a lecture by a guy named (Captain) Mikey, the brightest star in the IDF's small-arms doctrine and training division and the best shot in the Israeli Army with any weapon (oddly enough, he was an American - and a native of Tennessee, no les). One thing I remember from his two hour long manic spiel - the man was a hardcore Gun Geek - was that he claimed the Taurus 92-clones were the best commercially available handguns around, better than the "original" Berettas in terms of reliability, trigger pull and especially safety placement, not to mention price. I've never even fired a pistol, not to mention owned one, but if I do it would probably a Taurus (and if not that then a CZ, which seems to be the most commonly owned handgun in these parts).

[Arwin]

Arwin: This is not a GD, and we've been down that road a million times. Suffice to say, folks on both sides of the isle have ammo to support their positions. (Pardon the pun.) Iggy wants a handgun, he has a right to carry one, and that's that.

That's fair, but

"my thoughts have wandered to the fact that I will be able to purchase a handgun and get my concealed weapons permit."

"I don't plan on carrying a gun but I would like to get one. Part of me wants to get something along the lines of a Desert Eagle or 44. Magnum just for the badass look of them."

... are comments that have led me to believe someone needs reminding that a gun is, at the very least, a big responsibility, and worst, a recipy for disaster. It's a lethal weapon, not a toy, gimmick or decoration.

I have a gun myself, btw. A lightgun. With Time Crisis 1, Project Titan, 2, 3, Crisis Zone, Vampire Nights, and possibly best of all Pointblank 2 and 3, the latter especially with two players (and RE: Gun Survivor, but that game is so bad it's embarrassing to admit I own it).

Lightguns rule. :D

[EvanS]

Where do you live? Sounds like a bad place.
The U.S., and in about 8 different states over time.

By your own admission, a "bad place." But many of the specific places I lived were not considered to be "bad places" at all. Honolulu, for instance....

If I didn't have guns, I'd likely be dead now.

Your rhetoric is right on, but you can make statistics say anything you want. Fact is, in the U.S., those places that have concealed carry gun permits issued to law-abiding citizens have seen a decrease in violent crime since inception of the concealed carry permit process. In this case, more guns = less crime. In other countries, things may be different, but I live here.

Tell you what, you take all the guns away from all the bad guys and I'll give mine up, too.

In the meantime, I advocate good, strong safety classes for all U.S. gun owners.

EvS

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

If you just want to own a cool gun, it doesn't really matter. Just buy whatever looks good to you.

If you want to learn to shoot, then I'll second the recommendation to get a .22, unless your wallet is really fat. Ammo for a .45 or .357 can get really expensive, but .22 rounds are cheap.

If you want to get into competition target shooting, hang out with other competition shooters and see what they use. You'll want a completely different kind of gun than you'd use for self-protection or recreational plinking.

For self-defense, think stopping power and reliability.

And if your state doesn't require a hunter's safety course for the gun permit, go take one anyway.

[SteveG1]

I'm with Dvorak, in that I always preferred single action revolvers. Very old school, and fun to shoot. With a little practice you can get pretty fast with one. There's more to guns than just having a bad ass hand cannon. But then, my single action Ruger Super Blackhawk qualified as pretty hardcore at one time, maybe still is (?). It is still considered good for hunting and target shooting. Smith and Wesson makes the M29 double action .44 mag and it is very very good also.

I think you should start out with a .22 and just learn to shoot it. The Ruger Single Six is a nice one that will work with .22 and .22 magnum. The ammo is cheaper, and you will be less likely to develop any sort of flinch.

If you really want to carry later on, remember that the big scary artillery pieces get heavy after a while, and tend to have long barrels and large frames (harder to conceal). Charter Arms makes a nice 5 shot .38 double action snubnose. I had one and for a snub it was pretty accurate. But, it does not have the power of a .357 or .44.
The .45 ACP M1911 is a good auto, but it is a single action auto. To fire the first shot, you have to work the slide and chamber it. I never cared for all the safeties - one on the side, one on the grip, and a lock for the slide. Not very fast, if you plan to be a cowboy action "gunfighter". On the plus side, it is virtually guaranteed to last forever.

Maybe the main question should be, why do you want a CCW? If it is just for the ego thing, forget it. When you decide on the gun, check the ego at the door. Just like in the old shoot em up Westerns, no matter how good you are, someone will always be better.

[Padeye]

The .45 ACP M1911 is a good auto, but it is a single action auto. To fire the first shot, you have to work the slide and chamber it. I never cared for all the safeties - one on the side, one on the grip, and a lock for the slide.I have to correct a few things here. First only the military carried the 1911 in condition zero, that is with an empty chamber so one had to rack the slide in order to fire. Virtually everyone else who carries a 1911 for defensive or police use carries it in condition one, round chambered, hammer cocked and safety on. The grip safety is automatic, you activate it by holding the gun. I assume that "lock for the slide" refers to the disconnector. This isn't a safety feature, it's a fundimental part of how a semi-auto works. You can't have a semi-auto without one. All that remains is the manual safety as on every other single action auto. Not very fast, if you plan to be a cowboy action "gunfighter".What does a 1911 have to do with cowboy action shooting?

Padeye
AKA Morgan Randall
SASS #32875

[iggy popov]

Maybe the main question should be, why do you want a CCW? If it is just for the ego thing, forget it. When you decide on the gun, check the ego at the door. Just like in the old shoot em up Westerns, no matter how good you are, someone will always be better.


It's not an ego thing at all. I've always been fascinated with guns but not in a gun-nut sort of way. I don't want an arsenal I just want one or two for target shooting and home/self defense.

I've walked into my house unarmed while someone who had broken in was still in the house. I didn't like that feeling and I don't want to have to go through it again. Luckily nothing bad happened and I got the hell out and called the cops. But what if next time someone would rather go after me than hide in a closet?
Also there have been several armed robberies and break-ins in my area.

Hell a guy got shot at the Domino's by my house. I guess its just the paranoia in me. But before someone jumps all over me I would like to say its not the kind of "everybody is after me lucky charms" paranoia it's more like the "hey my old bosses house 2 blocks away was broken into over the holidays, what if I'm next?" Combine that with already walking into my house whilst it was being robbed once I think I'm pretty justified on why I want a gun.
And just to clarify:I do know proper gun saftey, I have never played with a gun before, I follow the laws and regulations pertaining to firearms, and if I did walk into my house being robbed again I would only use a gun as a last resort if I couldn't get out again.
I have no desire to shoot someone. I haven't even been in a real fight before. I try to avoid physical conflicts if at all possible.

So hopefully this will quell any further talk to why I shouldn't have a handgun.

[SteveG1]

It's been about 30 years since I handled the 45, I guess it shows. We always carried them in condition zero (empty chamber, hammer down) when on guard duty (Army, back in the '70s). I thought (wrongly) that this was the S.O.P. for everyone. I stand corrected.
Obviously anyone wanting to shoot in cowboy action contests wouldn't use one anyway, as it doesn't fit the time period and rules.

[SteveG1]

So hopefully this will quell any further talk to why I shouldn't have a handgun.
Valid reasons. If I had any vibes that were bad, I would never have made any recommendations at all.

[mks57]

It's been about 30 years since I handled the 45, I guess it shows. We always carried them in condition zero (empty chamber, hammer down) when on guard duty (Army, back in the '70s). I thought (wrongly) that this was the S.O.P. for everyone. I stand corrected.


That's the way that I was taught also. With a bit of practice, it takes very little time to draw the pistol from the holster and rack the slide.

[Padeye]

No sweat SteveG1. The military teaches things its own way. I've never heard a disconnector described as a safety mechanism anywhere else. I'm curious what the SOP is for the M9 Beretta since it's designed to be safe with a round in the chamber, hammer down and safety on or off.

FWIW I do think the 1911 may not be the best choice for defense for everyone because a manual safety requires more training. IMO one more thing one must think about is one more thing to forget under stressful circumstances. Every gun needs training of course. Plenty of people manage to shoot themselves or others with "safe action" Glocks because they fail to follow rule 3.

Actually there is an offshoot of cowboy shooting that uses 1911s, "Wild Bunch" matches that follow the 1915 era of the Sam Peckinpah movie. The main challenges are finding pre-A1 version 1911 pistols and of course doing everything in slow motion including bleeding. :D

Now we're here to destroy ignorance, not promote it. In action shooting we use steel plates and cardboards for targets. I've actually met people who actually thought we were shooting at each other. :rolleyes: Even with blanks this would be a profound safety violation (http://www.padeye.net/rules.html).

[velveeta]

I have a SIG P226 .40 that will put a decent size hole in a target. It's a nice gun, pretty heavy, not much kick - and I'm just a little chickie. Unfortunately, it's pretty expensive to target shoot with since a box of 40's isn't cheap.