What's the best first gun to own?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Maybe get something like a Ruger SR9 for range, home use. Both guns would be less than $800 together.

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

What do you guysthink of the .380 round? Would a .380 hollow point be considerably more powerful than the normal .380??

Some argue that FMJ rounds are better, because the .380 hollow points won't reliably penetrate 12".

Ruger's LC9 really isn't much bigger than their LCP. I have no trouble concealing a P220 Carry (.45), even mid-summer wearing shorts and a t shirt, but other people are built differently. Don't assume that you need a tiny gun in order to effectively conceal it. Nobody's looking, anyway.

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

I was at the gun store yesterday.. Was thinking about getting my ccw.. I know the glock subcompact is a solid gun (shoots 9mm or .40 also!!) but it still a bit bulky.. I can see myself stop carrying it after a few weeks bc it's just a slight bit too bulky.. There were other subcompact weapons but they were mainly in the .380 round (khar, kal-tec, ruger lcp, the new berretta nano coming soon) and were considerably less bulky and seemingly more practical?? What do you guysthink of the .380 round? Would a .380 hollow point be considerably more powerful than the normal .380??

One isn't inherently more powerful than the other. Like pgg said, a hollowpoint will tend to penetrate less than an fmj. The benefit is that you get increased expansion (assuming you have a functional hollowpoint) once the bullet enters tissue (bigger hole).

So basically, you have 3 ways to stop a threat (in a timely manner) - destroy critical vasculature, innervation, or bone. Obviously, most of those critical structures are deep, so the standard acceptable penetration depth (in ballistic gelatin, made to simulate tissue) is 12" (per FBI research iirc). As you penetrate, you need to still want to have the energy to break bone, tear artery, etc. The velocity, diameter, and weight (and to some extent shape) of the bullet all affect penetration depth. The velocity and weight influence the energy during penetration. The diameter influences the likelihood of nicking an artery/nerve.

So you want to balance the round that best approaches/meets those standards with the round that you can reliably fire quickly and accurately (which will also depend on the gun the cartridge is fired in). Also consider how many rounds the pistol you're considering will hold. Just have to try different ones out.

I have a 380, but I only carry it when I absolutely can't carry anything else due to attire. If your looking at a pocket gun, check out the Kahr PM9 (9mm), but honestly with the right holster a glock 26 is quite comfortable. I can carry mine all day in my comptac mtac holster without even noticing it.

Smith & Wesson //163810 Model 642 Centennial Airweight 1-7/8" ZM Dept

$320 online

Type : Revolver Action : Double Action Only Caliber : 38 Special Barrel Length : 1.87 Capacity : 5 rd Safety : No Manual Grips : Synthetic Sights : Integral (Front); Fixed (Rear) Weight : 15 oz Finish : Stainless. The ultimate backup and concealed carry handgun has arrived, bringing revolvers into the twenty first century. With a laser grip equipped J-Frame (Model 163811), the shooter can rely on a brilliant red dot on the target to indicate the point of impact, maximizing the pistols potential long range accuracy. When you need a lightweight carry revolver, you turn to Smith & Wesson's Small Frame Airweight Series. They are the original… more »

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

I was at the gun store yesterday.. Was thinking about getting my ccw.. I know the glock subcompact is a solid gun (shoots 9mm or .40 also!!) but it still a bit bulky.. I can see myself stop carrying it after a few weeks bc it's just a slight bit too bulky.. There were other subcompact weapons but they were mainly in the .380 round (khar, kal-tec, ruger lcp, the new berretta nano coming soon) and were considerably less bulky and seemingly more practical?? What do you guysthink of the .380 round? Would a .380 hollow point be considerably more powerful than the normal .380??

It's not like a 38 will bounce of a leather jacket or something.

I'd also like to give a vote of support for the beretta 92. The gun does feel big in your hand, but it's shoots straight, accurate (I guess any gun can be in the right hands with the right practice), it has simple, elegant, and logical mechanics, and the action is smooth (not as smooth as the 1911, but definitely less finicky). Holds 15 rounds of 9mm in the magazine. 1000's upon 1000's of rounds through mine without a failure - ever. Not too expensive.

But it doesn't matter too much, getting into guns is like getting into crack . . . can't just buy one rock. You'll probably eventually end up with one anyway.

Glock 26

Originally Posted by FiremedicMike

I have a 380, but I only carry it when I absolutely can't carry anything else due to attire.

I have a LCP but only carry it under the same circumstances, which isn't often.

Beyond small magazine capacity, another drawback to all the cute pocket .380 guns is that they are pretty hard to aim. When I practice with it, taking hurried or quick shots at the range, I miss man sized targets at 7 yards not infrequently.

Maybe part of that is because I suck, but tiny plastic guns have a short sight radius a fair bit of recoil even in .380.

Originally Posted by pgg

I have a LCP but only carry it under the same circumstances, which isn't often.

Beyond small magazine capacity, another drawback to all the cute pocket .380 guns is that they are pretty hard to aim. When I practice with it, taking hurried or quick shots at the range, I miss man sized targets at 7 yards not infrequently.

Maybe part of that is because I suck, but tiny plastic guns have a short sight radius a fair bit of recoil even in .380.

It's the terrible sights on most of them (other than the S&W bodyguard 380 and the kahr p380) but it's also the significant recoil that the 380 round gives these little "mouse guns". People always want the lightest, most comfortable gun they can find, but they forget that having some weight and girth helps to significantly absorb recoil.

It is hard to believe that a slightly larger Kahr PM9, in a bigger caliber, has less felt recoil than my LCP.

Originally Posted by FiremedicMike

It's the terrible sights on most of them (other than the S&W bodyguard 380 and the kahr p380) but it's also the significant recoil that the 380 round gives these little "mouse guns". People always want the lightest, most comfortable gun they can find, but they forget that having some weight and girth helps to significantly absorb recoil.

It is hard to believe that a slightly larger Kahr PM9, in a bigger caliber, has less felt recoil than my LCP.

Many people who reviewed khars online say they have many FTE problems.. Did any one you guys experience this also?

Haven't shot the Kahr, but the LCP I've fired is a little finicky with ammo IME. Fired flawlessly with one (even when trying to limp wrist) and at least one FTE every magazine with another set of ammo, even when gripping to white knuckles.

Also, ouch. Would rather shoot .357 out a 4" python all day than one box of .380 through an LCP

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

Many people who reviewed khars online say they have many FTE problems.. Did any one you guys experience this also?

I don't get FTE problems, but I do get FTF problems with certain ammo. It seems to really like 115gr critical defense, as the bullet is much more tapered and shorter than some other defensive ammo out there (124gr bonded rangers, my duty ammo, will not feed reliably in my PM9)

It should also be noted that all kahrs require a 200 round break in period.

Originally Posted by TexasPhysician

Glock 26

My favorite Carry Guns are the SW642 (goes bang every time) and the Glock 26.
Glock 27 (.40 caliber) doesn't recoil much more than the 26.

Many tiny guns tend to jam (FTF/FTE) but out of all them the Ruger LCP seems to be the best.

Mouse guns are NOT target guns; they are for close range personal protection.
Hence, the popularity of the .380 caliber. For me, the tried and true Police back up .38 Smith and Wesson Light weight revolver is the Carry Gun of choice.

Originally Posted by BLADEMDA

Great post from a Med Student. 20 guns at your age? Wow. You'll have an arsenal by the time you are my age.

If I only could have one gun....It would be my HK 45. Never malfunctions, shoots every type of ammo and the .45 round has a proven track record over the past 100 years. Ditto for my HK USP, HK Tactical, HK 9 mm, etc.
The Glock is a fine gun but in my opinion the HK's are better. I prefer the DA/SA trigger because the LEM trigger found in Glock and HKs are very light. The last thing you want is an accidental discharge from a light trigger and NO safety.

For experienced gun shooters the type of weapon is personal choice. For the novice I recommend you strongly consider DA/SA with a safety. I like Glock but again the trigger is light and NO SAFETY. I have an HK with such a trigger as well. Nice gun but I don't keep a bullet in the chamber. Ditto for the Glock.

I really like my CZ guns as well. Not for Carry but for range and home duty. Cheap and effective with many poilice using these guns throughout the world. Those who haven't fired a CZ gun need to give one a try.

HK45C for Concealed Carry or HK 45 for my home defense (Sorry PGG the AR 15 and shotgun are overkill but I've got 'em along with several carbines).

My wife keeps her .380 ready and several 9mms at stand-bye. (she doesn't like shooting anything more than a 9mm).

Blade, before I STARTED medical school, I had 50 guns ranging from a compact HK USP 40 to Desert Eagle 50AE to Galil ARM and everything you could think of in between including the sweetest shooting 22-250 I got off a trade with an army doc in San Antonio for my worst CAR-15. Guy gave me 4,000 hand loaded rounds rated at 4,100 FPS, 22 grain FMJ. Could hit a fly's ass at a mile.

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

Many people who reviewed khars online say they have many FTE problems.. Did any one you guys experience this also?

I have a kahr cw9 in my collection and have never had a single issue or failure with it. It's a great single stack 9mm. Trigger pull is a little long for my taste but it's a very smooth pull.

Current daily carry is the Walther PPS. It's a very slim 9mm and very easy and comfortable to wear IWB. So if you're looking for a CCW then I'd throw that into pile as well, especially of size/thinness is a concern. The mag release is a lever on the bottom of the trigger guard instead of the usual separate button which some people don't like, but I got used to it pretty quickly and it wasn't an issue for me.

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

Many people who reviewed khars online say they have many FTE problems.. Did any one you guys experience this also?

No way! I have a PM9. My summer carry in shorts gun. Ive put about 1200 rounds through it so far. The first 500 without cleaning it to check its reliability. Never had a problem. very glock like in design. Except the trigger is dao. I fully trust it. Also it is one accurate little gun with the rifling.

The PM9 replaced a ruger lcp. The lcp was very unreliable with all the ammo I tried.I decided early on I couldnt trust it so It was sold and I moved on. Everyone has their own preferences but mine for summer carry alternate between the khar pm 9 and sw 642. Both with CT grips. I think lasers on small carry guns are an asset. Larger guns maybe not as much.

Originally Posted by usnavdoc

No way! I have a PM9. My summer carry in shorts gun. Ive put about 1200 rounds through it so far. The first 500 without cleaning it to check its reliability. Never had a problem. very glock like in design. Except the trigger is dao. I fully trust it. Also it is one accurate little gun with the rifling.

The PM9 replaced a ruger lcp. The lcp was very unreliable with all the ammo I tried.I decided early on I couldnt trust it so It was sold and I moved on. Everyone has their own preferences but mine for summer carry alternate between the khar pm 9 and sw 642. Both with CT grips. I think lasers on small carry guns are an asset. Larger guns maybe not as much.

Just for reference for others since you sold yours - it's no SD ammo, but for paper punching, hollowpoint monarch .380's feed flawlessly through the lcp

Actually this should be your first gun...

Ok thinking of getting a glock 19 vs 23 or a glock 26 vs 27..

Just wondering what you guys think of 9mm vs. .40 in both/either FMJ or JHP..?
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_De..._FAQ/index.htm
Some people have written that when it comes to ballistics and SD .40 and 9mm are almost identical?

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

Just wondering what you guys think of 9mm vs. .40 in both/either FMJ or JHP..?

9 vs .40 with a quality JHP really doesn't matter.

Ballistic performance of FMJ ammunition is a non-issue, because sane people don't put that in a self-defense gun.

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

Ok thinking of getting a glock 19 vs 23 or a glock 26 vs 27..

Just wondering what you guys think of 9mm vs. .40 in both/either FMJ or JHP..?
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_De..._FAQ/index.htm
Some people have written that when it comes to ballistics and SD .40 and 9mm are almost identical?

Anything 9mm and up I'm totally fine with for a self defense caliber. People can argue caliber choice all day long but either is fine. Personally, its cheaper to shoot 9mm and my other handguns are 9mm so I wanted to stick with a single caliber to simplify things.

So get what you want and what you're comfortable shooting.

AA-12. You can't miss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

Originally Posted by pgg

9 vs .40 with a quality JHP really doesn't matter.

Ballistic performance of FMJ ammunition is a non-issue, because sane people don't put that in a self-defense gun.

Why do you say this? Bc of penetration through walls??

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

Ok thinking of getting a glock 19 vs 23 or a glock 26 vs 27..

Just wondering what you guys think of 9mm vs. .40 in both/either FMJ or JHP..?
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_De..._FAQ/index.htm
Some people have written that when it comes to ballistics and SD .40 and 9mm are almost identical?

I've got a glock 27 and love it. Use a full-size clip for greater grip stability when not wearing concealed. Use the 8 round clip when carrying concealed.

Loaded with Pow'R Ball polymer-tipped rounds from Cor-Bon.

http://corbon.com/self-defense.html




.

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

Why do you say this? Bc of penetration through walls??

No - poor performance in tissue. Any handgun round can and should be expected to go through walls and retain most of its mass and KE.

Unless you're in the military and carrying a weapon in circumstances where the 1st Hague Convention applies, there is no rational reason to ever put FMJ rounds in a firearm that might be used to shoot people.

Cheap FMJ ammunition is for training and practice with targets at a range. Expansion, penetration, or over-penetration are non-issues there.

Hollow point ammunition is so far superior in every respect for rounds loaded for self-defense purposes, that there's almost never a reason to not use it. I think .380 is a borderline area because .380 JHPs out of a short barrel are not likely to penetrate the 12" deemed necessary. If your gun won't reliably cycle JHP rounds, you need a different gun, not FMJ ammo. Hence my statement that debating the ballistic performance of 9mm vs .40 FMJ is irrelevant. You're going to be using JHPs anyway. And the truth is the difference between quality HPs in 9mm or .40 is not something to obsess about.


As an aside, Blade has argued that one of the beauties of .45 acp is that it's an effective person stopper even with FMJ ammunition, and he's right ... to an extent. JHP are better, of course. Lots of us think our military was unforgivably wrong in switching standard issue sidearms from .45 acp to 9mm, because we're stuck with FMJ.

this is a good thread, but it's driving me crazy because I can't stop thinking of:
"Seven-six-two millimeter. Full metal jacket. "

Originally Posted by pgg

Lots of us think our military was unforgivably wrong in switching standard issue sidearms from .45 acp to 9mm, because we're stuck with FMJ.

Have you ever heard the logic of that decision explained? I haven't.




.

Originally Posted by trinityalumnus

Have you ever heard the logic of that decision explained? I haven't.




.

Did the manufacturer switch at that time too?

Originally Posted by GypsySongman

Did the manufacturer switch at that time too?

I don't know who made the model 1911 .45 cal, but the 9mm is a Beretta. Interestingly it beat out the competition from the other major manufacturers which I think included Glock, Sig, etc. Don't know if H&K competed. Someone with more knowledge please correct me if this is wrong.




.

Originally Posted by trinityalumnus

I don't know who made the model 1911 .45 cal, but the 9mm is a Beretta. Interestingly it beat out the competition from the other major manufacturers which I think included Glock, Sig, etc. Don't know if H&K competed. Someone with more knowledge please correct me if this is wrong.

My point is- if something doesn't make sense, follow the money and it will often make sense. Of course not all money trails are reported.

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

Many people who reviewed khars online say they have many FTE problems.. Did any one you guys experience this also?

I will let you know when my CM9 gets here on Tuesday.

Originally Posted by pgg

No - poor performance in tissue. Any handgun round can and should be expected to go through walls and retain most of its mass and KE.

Unless you're in the military and carrying a weapon in circumstances where the 1st Hague Convention applies, there is no rational reason to ever put FMJ rounds in a firearm that might be used to shoot people.

Cheap FMJ ammunition is for training and practice with targets at a range. Expansion, penetration, or over-penetration are non-issues there.

Hollow point ammunition is so far superior in every respect for rounds loaded for self-defense purposes, that there's almost never a reason to not use it. I think .380 is a borderline area because .380 JHPs out of a short barrel are not likely to penetrate the 12" deemed necessary. If your gun won't reliably cycle JHP rounds, you need a different gun, not FMJ ammo. Hence my statement that debating the ballistic performance of 9mm vs .40 FMJ is irrelevant. You're going to be using JHPs anyway. And the truth is the difference between quality HPs in 9mm or .40 is not something to obsess about.


As an aside, Blade has argued that one of the beauties of .45 acp is that it's an effective person stopper even with FMJ ammunition, and he's right ... to an extent. JHP are better, of course. Lots of us think our military was unforgivably wrong in switching standard issue sidearms from .45 acp to 9mm, because we're stuck with FMJ.

PGG,

Here is my point about the .45 vs. a 9mm in a nutshell:

I can buy 50 rounds of excellent, premium .45 FMJ ammo for $19 a box. Sometimes I buy in bulk and get them for even less. 9mm FMJ ammo runs around $10-$11.00 for a box of 50 FMJ.

I own many types of hollow point ammo in all calibers. But, they cost more than double FMJ ammo per round. I recommend Hollow point ammo and that's what I keep loaded in many guns.

But, if I needed to resort to my stash of thousands of rounds of FMJ ammo only the .45 caliber is a proven man stopper in FMJ. 9mm and .40 are poor man stoppers in FMJ and require (IMHO) a good hollow point ammo.

Since the military views the pistol as just a means to get to your rife the .45 vs. 9mm argument is less important. Still, I hope you use 124 grain NATO ammo in 9mm as that is better than the 115 grain stuff in FMJ.

Those who can only afford one gun are better served with a 9mm because ammo is cheaper, less recoil, more rounds per magazine (double the rounds of a .45 magazine) and good hollow point ammo will be quite effective in this caliber.

The Beretta 92 series is an excellent choice for $500-$600 as is the CZ75B or Glock 19. The Beretta Storm is only about $450 online.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LylqmRAWZQg

Originally Posted by trinityalumnus

Have you ever heard the logic of that decision explained? I haven't.

Doubled magazine capacity and improved accuracy in the hands of people who don't shoot a lot (which is 99% of the mil population that gets issued a sidearm). These are legit advantages of the M9 over the 1911.

.45 is not a caliber that is easy to be accurate with without frequent practice.

Also at the risk of voicing heresy, the 1911 is a classic awesome design, but it shouldn't be immune to review and replacement ... I think the Sig 220 is a better .45, and I know lots of people are big fans of the HK.


Many people argue that we've been using the wrong 5.56 ammo for the entirety of our time in Iraq and Afghanistan, too. The 62 gr M855 green tips were designed to come out of 20" barrels and penetrate light armor 100s of yards away, ie the kind Soviet troops would be wearing as they strolled into Poland to meet our troops in Germany. Not unarmored guys at short range out of 14.5" barrels. The newish SOST round is an improvement but I'm not sure how much use it's actually getting yet.

Originally Posted by pgg

Doubled magazine capacity and improved accuracy in the hands of people who don't shoot a lot (which is 99% of the mil population that gets issued a sidearm). These are legit advantages of the M9 over the 1911.

.45 is not a caliber that is easy to be accurate with without frequent practice.

Also at the risk of voicing heresy, the 1911 is a classic awesome design, but it shouldn't be immune to review and replacement ... I think the Sig 220 is a better .45, and I know lots of people are big fans of the HK.


Many people argue that we've been using the wrong 5.56 ammo for the entirety of our time in Iraq and Afghanistan, too. The 62 gr M855 green tips were designed to come out of 20" barrels and penetrate light armor 100s of yards away, ie the kind Soviet troops would be wearing as they strolled into Poland to meet our troops in Germany. Not unarmored guys at short range out of 14.5" barrels. The newish SOST round is an improvement but I'm not sure how much use it's actually getting yet.

You are on the money...again.

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/...ombat-pistols/

I basically agree with you on all of that.

Originally Posted by BLADEMDA

But, if I needed to resort to my stash of thousands of rounds of FMJ ammo only the .45 caliber is a proven man stopper in FMJ. 9mm and .40 are poor man stoppers in FMJ and require (IMHO) a good hollow point ammo.

This is where I'm skeptical though - I can't forsee any situation, short of a true Mad Max apocalypse, where I expend my entire stock of JHPs shooting at other people. Even then, gunfights are dangerous, and I would expect to be dead long before I survived enough gunfight time to plow through the ~500-600 hollow points I have to even get to the 1000s of factory FMJ rounds (and after that through all my reload components).

My P220 holds 8+1, add in a few spare magazines, and I've got maybe 40 rounds that are going to be available for any given altercation. It's not like you're going to be reloading pistol magazines in the heat of the moment. I've got enough JHP ammunition to supply 10-20 gunfights.

I don't think it's unreasonable to buy enough JHPs to convince yourself your gun will cycle them reliably, set aside a small stash, and then use cheap FMJ for all of your practice needs.

Originally Posted by BLADEMDA

Since the military views the pistol as just a means to get to your rife

This is true ... but also not true. The military generally issues pistols to people who don't get rifles. Most of us staff pogues who get M9s don't have a rifle to get to. Unless there's a newly-unused one laying nearby, in which case, yeah, the S has really HTF.

Originally Posted by NRAI2001

Ok thinking of getting a glock 19 vs 23 or a glock 26 vs 27..

Just wondering what you guys think of 9mm vs. .40 in both/either FMJ or JHP..?
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_De..._FAQ/index.htm
Some people have written that when it comes to ballistics and SD .40 and 9mm are almost identical?

Glock 36 is a surprisingly easy-shooter too, if you want to give it a try. I definitely wouldn't buy one without trying it though (most guns for that matter).

The business end of the HK45 pistol.

In the street, Eli (Denzel Washington) aims his HK45.



http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK45

PGG,

I don't buy guns that won't cycle every type of ammo RELIABLY. Well, I do own 1911s so that subgroup is out of the loop. Also, even if I buy them I won't own them for very long.

Why do you think so many swear by their HKs and Glocks? Thousands of rounds through multiple HKs without a FTE/FTF. Ditto for my Berettas. Glocks in Generation 4 are a bit fussy until they break-in (9mm full-size), but Gen 3 are DEAD reliable.

http://pistol-training.com/archives/4027

HK45 is Very Reliable. Click on the link and see for yourself


The HK45 fired its first 31,522 rounds without a bobble of any kind, another pistol-training.com endurance test record. But the mere fact that it out-performed those other pistols tells only part of the story. I do not believe another .45 pistol could fire that many rounds, in that short a time, with that little maintenance, and survive. Anonymous internet chest-thumpers notwithstanding, fifty thousand rounds of full power 230gr ammo through a .45 pistol in eight months is staggering.

Originally Posted by BLADEMDA

PGG,

Since the military views the pistol as just a means to get to your rife the .45 vs. 9mm argument is less important. Still, I hope you use 124 grain NATO ammo in 9mm as that is better than the 115 grain stuff in FMJ.
.

Military Police carry their M9, and have the choice of carrying a shotgun or M16. Also, if you are an operator of crew serve weapon such as the 240 golf/ 249 SAW, as well as any of the heavy guns (Mark 19 and 50)you carry a side arm as well. Well, this is how we did it in our unit anyway.