So, if I get another teaching job for next year, I may actually buy a semi-auto pistol. I’d like to spend only about $400. Make your case for your favorite cheap-ish pistol. I’ll be able to find this thread later if I can use it.
Have you ever owned or even fired a gun before? Safety class first.
Find a range the rents guns and try a bunch. Try different calibers too. We can tell you what each of us likes but you need to find what you feel comfortable with.
Example: I like Glocks, don’t feel comfortable with 1911 pattern guns. Someone else likes 1911s, feels Glocks are too much like holding a brick.
Someone else will swear by revolvers while I never found a revolver I was comfortable with.
And so on.
Caliber preference?
For that price, new in box, in a service caliber, you’re looking squarely at a Ruger. Most of the other makes go for $500 and up. You could get 2 Hi-Points for $400, but I will never recommend those no matter how well-reviewed they are.
If you go used you can get a lot of stuff provided you shop around. A good deal at around that price is the Sig P6, a German police turn-in that is visually and functionally exactly the same as a Sig P220.
Of course, I don’t know what your needs are. Do you want a big-bore, like a .45 ACP? That typically costs more. Do you want a subcompact that you can carry? While not more expensive, there are tradeoffs that you should probably be aware of. Do you want a 1911-style handgun? If so, forget $400, they’re typically much more than that.
If you get bit by the handgun bug, you WILL end up owning more than one firearm, that said, if this is to primarily be a range-toy and/or your first pistol, I’d recommend a used Ruger Mark II or 22/45 (Mark II model) in .22LR
Why a .22?
First off, it’s CHEAP, you can generally get bulk pack ammo for around $15-20 for 500-550 rounds, because the ammo is inexpensive, you can afford to shoot more and more often, you’ll get more practice and have more fun for a longer time, $20 will generally buy you 50-100 rounds of your service caliber of choice (9mm/.40S&W/.45 ACP), the practice you get with a .22 pistol will help you shoot your service caliber pistol better
Secondly, it’s FUN, sure, it may not have the recoil, fireball, noise and shockwave of a larger caliber, heck, recoil and noise are practically nonexistent, but the real fun of the .22 is shooting truly tiny groups, try to shoot the mythical “one holer” with the stock iron sights at 20-25 yards, it’s a real test of skill
Thirdly, it’s great to have a gun you can use to introduce new shooters to the fun of target shooting, .22’s have an uncanny ability to make almost anyone, even the most timid anti-gunner enjoy target shooting, quiet, no recoil, it’s a great little practice caliber
Now, why a used Ruger Mark II instead of a new Mark III?
simple, the MKII was the epitome of the Mark series, it was the perfect little .22 pistol, then Ruger decided to “lawyer-up” the next version, the Mark III, they added;
An internal lock (hidden under the grip), it adds unwanted/unneeded mechanical complexity, and another potential failure point
A “Loaded Chamber Indicator”, a little flag on the left side of the receiver that tips out when a round is chambered, it adds another point for crud to build up in, can cause failure to eject issues, destroys the clean lines of the gun, and most importantly, it’s simply not needed, as it violates Cooper Safety Rule #1 “treat every gun as if it’s loaded” (even when it’s not), the LCI can be removed and the slot left open (ugly slot in the side of the receiver), or a blanking plate can be installed (non-Ruger custom part)
A Magazine Disconnector; if the mag is removed, the pistol will not fire, even if a round is chambered and the safety is off, once again, adds unwanted/unneeded mechanical complexity, degrades trigger feel, and makes an already annoying field-stripping procedure just that much more complicated, as with the LCI, the MD can be removed and replaced with a blanker (or with a hammer and hammer bushing set from a Mark II)
the Mark II had NONE of these so-called “enhancements”
So, what’s the difference between a Mark II/III and a 22/45 Mark II/III?
the standard Mark series pistols have a steel grip frame, the grip angle is similar to that of the German Luger or Japanese Nambu pistol (the Ruger Standard/Mark series were originally based off the Japanese Nambu), the Mark II’s magazine release is on the heel of the grip frame, like the Luger/Nambu, the Mark III has the mag release on the left hand side of the grip frame, much like the 1911 (the only good change on the Mark III IMHO)
The 22/45 (in either Mark II or III config) has a polymer grip frame that has the same grip angle as the .45 ACP 1911 (hence the /45 in 22/45) and the mag release on the left hand side of the grip frame (on both the Mark II and III series)
If you’re eventually planning to get a 1911 (which you should, they’re great pistols), getting a 22/45 Mark series will allow you to easily transition to the 1911 when you get it, as the grip angle is the same
either way, it’s hard to go wrong with a Ruger Mark series pistol…
Seconding this.
I’m curious as to why you want a semi-automatic? Revolvers are generally cheaper, more reliable and easier to maintain. I prefer them for these reason and also due to the fact that I reload my own brass and plinking with revolvers saves me the trouble of chasing it down.
Teaching job? Gun? 
A note on the Ruger Mk.II: They’re finicky. I have one, and it points very well. It’s also very accurate, even though I bought the most basic model (fixed sights and a 4" barrel – I like ‘basic’). But I’ve experienced many failures-to-feed with Reminton ammunition. I called Ruger, and they told me that Remington ammo tends to be a little wider than some other brands, and that the Mk.II has a ‘target chamber’ as opposed to a ‘sport chamber’ like on the Ruger 10/22 rifle. The tight chamber just doesn’t like Remington rounds.
I also have a Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol. It’s the green one with the 5" barrel. It digests Remington ammo without complaint, but it’s not as accurate as the Mk.II. It’s fun, but it ‘feels’ more like a novelty. I prefer the Ruger.
My other .22 handguns are a three-screw Ruger Single Six and a Harrington & Richardson 999 (both revolvers). I haven’t got round to shooting those ones yet. Summer’s coming, though! 
I’ll third the training and practice and second a revolver; something along the lines of a model 49 Smith. I think Charter Arms offers something like that but cheaper but I will admit its been a while since I’ve been shopping.
You would get better advice if you stated your intended purpose for the firearm.
For developing a skill and just plain fun, you can’t beat .22lr. I have a Smith and Wesson 22a right now, it is cheap, reliable and fun. However, the magazine release placement bothers me - though I don’t see accidentally dropping a mag as much of a possibility, despite the linked reviewer’s opinion. The Rugers shoot wonderfully and are probably more accurate than the S&W auto, but the S&W is much easier to break down for routine maintenance.
I was fond of my Walther P22 when I still owned it, mostly because of the way it felt in my hand as opposed to any particular shooting characteristics.
If you want a gun for self-defense, I would reconsider a revolver for the reasons Alpha Twit states. Used Ruger and S&W revolvers can be had in your price range, and I have had pretty good luck with Taurus’ wheelguns also. I can’t speak to Charter Arms quality but, like Taurus, they have a somewhat spotty reputation. Get a .38 special or a .357 magnum. If you must have a semiauto for self-defense, I suggest you save up $100-150 and get a Glock 19 (ETA: With respect to Airman Doors,I think Ruger autos are a little large for concealed carry, and you may want to get a permit at some point in the future).
You need to provide more information. Purpose of the gun? Caliber? Budget for practice ammo? Size of hands? Possibility of carrying it in the future?
Without any other criteria, the first $400 handgun (maybe actually closer to $500 in practice) I would recommend would be a Springfield XD, probably 9mm. I wish I’d have snatched up one myself way back when they were called the HS2000 directly imported from Croatia for $250. Then springfield bought up the import rights, stamped their name on it, and doubled the price. But it’s still a good value at that price.
I should still probably get one. My interest in guns has gone down since ammo prices have gone crazy. But I got a chance to shoot one at a range once, and it was just a perfect fit for me, like I pulled excalibur out of the stone. The first mag I ran through that gun gave me tighter groups than I’ve ever achieved with other handguns (one much pricier) that I’d practiced with for hundreds of rounds.
Damn it, now I want to go get one. But the thought of paying $300 per case (1000) of plinking 9mm is somewhat unappealing.
Last I heard, though, you could not purchase 100% of the spare parts for the XD. Which means you’ll probably have to send it back to Springfield if it breaks. 
Personally, I will *only *buy a handgun where I can purchase 100% of the spare parts. That way, if it breaks I can fix it.
I only know of three handguns that you can buy 100% of the spare parts for:
- Glock
- S&W M&P
- 1911
I would not recommend the 1911 for a beginner. Hence that leaves the Glock and S&W M&P. Both are fine guns. I own a S&W M&P compact in 9 mm, and love it.
Agree.
If you get a handgun, you should plan on getting two handguns:
-
A semi-auto handgun for self defense/CCW. For caliber choose 9 mm, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP.
-
A handgun for training and plinking. This should be a semi-auto in .22LR.
Might I ask why? I’ve yet to see a negative review of a Hi-Point (beyond pointing out that they’re not sexy) which seems rather impressive for what seems to be a very contentious and taste-based market.
As far as Remington .22 ammo goes, the general consensus on Rimfirecentral dot com is that ALL Rem. plinking ammo SUCKS (Golden Bullet, Target, the non-Eley primed subsonics), it doesn’t matter what .22 you use Rem. ammo in, it’s just generally low-performance ammo, dirty, overly soft lead, and most troubling recently, a higher than average number of brass case failures (cracks down the sidewall, rim/wall seperations, out-of-battery detonations…)
The only safe gun to use Rem. .22 ammo in right now is a single-shot with closed breech, or a bolt-action rifle, or a revolver, I tried some Golden Bullets (enderangly referred to “Golden Crap” or “Golden Turds” on RFC) in my Savage Mark II-G bolt rifle, my Ruger 10/22 rifle, Marlin 60 rifle, and my Ruger 22/45 MKII, the 10/22, Marlin 60 and 22/45 all had multiple feed failures, sometimes bending the bullet in the feed ramp, making the round unusable, the 22/45 especially hated RGB’s, the Savage loaded and ejected them fine, but had NO accuracy with them, and that Savage is a real tackdriver with most other ammo, even the cheap CCI Blazer, which it really loves
This brings up another point about .22’s, they’re all really fussy about ammo, every gun has it’s own unique preferences and “personality” in regards to what it likes and dislikes, you could take two identical guns off the production line, one manufactured right after the other (Ser # 00001 and 00002 for example), and 00001 might like the same ammo that 00002 HATES…
My Savage likes the cheap CCI Blazers, my cheapo restored Marlin 60 only likes subsonics and CCI Minimags, of course my cheapest gun has to like the more expensive ammo, right?.. on the upside that ugly little Marlin is one of my most accurate rifles, right up there with my Savage bolt action
It is a taste-based market. Which is why I will not recommend Hi-Points.
They are all based upon the blowback design, which in a +p rated service caliber firearm means that the slide will by necessity be absolutely massive. And it is. It’s a big pot-metal brick that weighs a ton and is absolutely enormous (and enormously ugly) as a result.
Recommending one of them, to me, would be like recommending a Pontiac Aztek: it works most of the time, but do you really want to be seen in one? Compared to a Hi-Point a Glock is positively stunning.
Call me a gun snob if you wish. I’ll carry that burden with pride. That said, I am a firm believer that you get what you pay for, and with handguns you can’t afford to roll the dice on a Hi-Point when there are many more reputable makes for just a bit more.
I absolutely agree that Ruger automatics are a bit too big to comfortably carry. My experience with Ruger automatics (except for the LCP) is that they are heavy, overengineered bricks. But they go bang every time and they come in at the OP’s price point new in box, so in the absence of any further information I’ll stick to my initial response which only addressed those two points.
If you want something for carry I’ll recommend everything I own and then a few others. Ruger automatics (again, less the LCP) will not be among them.
Great advice posted already. The suggested Ruger MarkII .22LR pistol is excellent, though mine suffers failure to feed with Remington ammunition. The many MarkIIs I’ve fired feed fine with Federal box-o-bullets (550 per box) which are accurate enough for most uses.
As for a defensive handgun, a double action revolver is a good choice. They do not require much thought to use.
While I do not own one, I am highly impressed with the new Springfield Armory XD-M pistols, soon to be available in .45ACP. There are many very high quality pistols available right now, and you should rent a few of them at your local indoor shooting range to get a feel for what you like in a pistol.
Shooting is fun, whether it is with a pellet gun or a powder burner. Have fun with the whole process of learning, shopping, and shooting.
You seem to saying that you believe reliability will be an issue, that it won’t always work as intended. Stunning reliability seems to be part and parcel of the reviews I have read, at least after they have been taken to the range once to get the new off and so long as the ammo is strong enough to work the blowback. But I’ll admit that that may be “stunningly reliable for the price”. I don’t see a website that tells how many failures per 1000 shots there are by gun.
That’s cool for you, but I wouldn’t worry about it too much for our newbie. It’s unlikely anything is ever going to break on a good quality gun, and even if it does, I’m not sure the average person is going to develop a level of familiarity with something like a small part of the trigger group to want to replace it themselves.
I see I’ve of course set off an argument. I’m not really sorry.
I admit I should have stated my purpose better. I’d like to have a gun to shoot a few times a year and be able to imagine that I’m also protected with it (although no one in my 40 years has had a loaded gun in the house, and here I am).
I’ve noticed the Bersa .380 ACP, though my ex-US Army Captain bro has loudly complained about having to carry a Beretta 9mm instead of a .45. I’m not convinced I need to spend the money on the gun or the ammo if I load with HP for defense in a .380 ACP. I guess that’s my real question. Why should I bother to spend more? If so / If not, what model is preferred (I know that’s an argument in itself). I’ve been told in gun shops that actual gun store clerks keep Bersas as nightstand guns.
I appreciate all the comments so far, and they have broadened my views already. Please keep them coming.
As for a “teaching job”: would it be better if I got a plumbing job? What job would be appropriate to you for my buying a gun?