Which Gun SHould I get?

[Big50]

Still looking for a Kimber Pro Carry II

 

[BigRed82]

I realize that this is dated by a few days and a Glock 27 may already be in your hands (not what I would have ever recommended but oh well), but honestly, a Ruger MkIII or Buckmark Browning would be my first suggestion. These are IMO the two "best" (meaning accurate, reliable, and affordable) .22 pistols on the market and will allow you to focus on sight picture and trigger control without the distractions of increased noise and recoil. I always start new shooters with .22s before moving up to larger calibers.

Remember when pricing your handgun options to also reserve approximately $150-200 for your carry rig. This means that if you can acquire a handgun for $450, your total cost will be around $600-650. This should include a carry belt, holster, and magazine pouch. Your holster and belt choices are vital to being able to carry comfortably with proper concealment. I wear TheBeltMan belts, but other popular manufacturers are Looper, Milt Sparks, etc. Obviously, the holster is the most important part to the carry rig. Every individual has their own preference. I like full kydex holsters like the CCCLooper and Raven Concealment Phantom because they are the most thin and the lightest. Many others like "hybrid" designs with a kydex body and leather backing, such as the MTAC or Supertuck because it offers some of the thinness of kydex along with the comfort of a leather backing. Others prefer full leather, such as TTGunleather, Milt Sparks, Brommeland, Kramer, Desantis, Del Fatti, etc.

Handgun Selection:

Short Answer:
1. Used or LEO trade-in 3rd Gen Glock 19 or 17. (basically, avoid Gen4 Glock 9mms, as well as post-2009 3rd Gen Glock 9mms.) $350-$400
2. Walther PPQ. (This gun needs no trigger modifications or aftermarket support. It is that impressive out of the box. Holster options are currently limited to mostly fully kydex that I'm aware of.) $503 (budsgunshop)
3. New or used M&P9. (plenty of aftermarket support, see Apex.) $400-$500.
There is also the Springfield XD series, but I've never warmed up to it. Worth a look though. Same ballpark price as the others.

In this price range, avoid 1911s. The 1911 in this price range is not a rational option that is even close to being on par with the above options.

Other brands that are good but above this price range once a carry rig is included is the:
HK P30/P2000
HK USPc
Sig 226/229

There are many CZ75 fans on the board that could probably recommend them. I have limited experience with CZs because I never saw any advantage with them.

Long Answer:

My main real suggestion for your first handgun would be to get a 9mm auto. A lot of new handgun shooters think they want a .40 or .45 over the 9mm because they've been told either by their buddies or by television that clearly a .45 or .40 must be better than a 9mm. After all, there was that one "study" done whenever ago that showed that .45acp made all those one stop shots, and/or LEOs widely use .40sw, so clearly that must be another good option. There are a lot of reasons to go with 9mm, and DocGKR explains those reasons far better than I could at the following link: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

My answer to "Which one?" threads has almost always been a Glock 19. Despite Glock's current Gen4 fiasco (which is real, regardless of the denial of some), I would still say that a used or trade-in 3rd Gen Glock 19 or 17 is one of the best buys and best handguns on the market.

Some of the complaints (wholly ridiculous by the way) about Glock handguns is that they 1) are blocky and not ergonomic (which frankly doesn't matter), 2) have a funky grip angle (an absurd argument that, again, doesn't matter), and 3) a bad trigger (compared to a $2k 1911? Sure. Compared to a DA/SA? Not so much). The other complaint is that they are ugly and that they lack a certain pride in ownership. (This is the most absurd complaint of all.) A handgun is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Its sole purpose is to be available to reliably eliminate a threat to your life. For that purpose, the Glock is a damn good tool. So ignore the complaints and take a serious look at used and trade-in 3rd Gen Glock 19s and 17s. Either would serve you well. If you are of smaller stature, the G19 would probably be the best way to go as a CCW. I'm 6'4" and 200lbs and have carried a G17 quite successfully.


I would have previously recommended the Smith and Wesson M&P9 as my second suggestion, but frankly I don't think it is as good as other options now that the FNS and PPQ are hitting the market. The stock M&P leaves much to be desired (bad trigger, sporadic accuracy issues), and the aftermarket has had to make up for S&W's slow response. To S&W's credit, they did fix the dead trigger problem, as well as the rusting slide problems (for the most part).

Replacing the M&P as my second suggestion would be the Walther PPQ. The PPQ is nearly Glock 19 sized, has a superior trigger break and reset compared to the Glock and M&P (due to the fact that the PPQ is 100% pre-cocked), and is reportedly as accurate or more so than the Glock and clearly more accurate than the M&P. While the PPQ hasn't been on the US market long enough to hit very high round counts yet (the highest I've seen are around the 8k count), all accounts are that the PPQ has been confidently reliable with consistent ejection patterns (unlike Gen4 Glocks). If I hadn't already bought my M&P9, I would own a PPQ.


The M&P would still be my third suggestion despite the previously stated concerns only because the FN FNS is too new on the market to really know how it will perform. In a European competition for a sales contract, the M&P beat out the FN because it failed the tests. It isn't clear yet why the FNS failed, but many of the members on pistol-shooting and m4carbine who have handled and shot the FNS are very excited about it. Still, the FNS is just hitting the market, so it's reliability and durability is still to be seen. So until it has been proven over the next year or so, the M&P would be my 3rd place suggestion. Honestly, while the M&P doesn't have the trigger of the PPQ, the stock M&P is still a reliable and reasonably accurate gun within the range that you would need to use it for in a self defense situation.

So that's my two cents, and the is all the best advice I can give from my personal experiences. Everyone comes to the table with their own biases and thinking.

 

[kellyreno]

If you are interested in "target shooting" which I take to mean plinking and also want the option of CCW, I would look at 9mm instead of .40 or .45. You get respectable firepower, much cheaper ammo, and less recoil. Then buy whatever suits you personally. FWIW I have had great luck with Glock and SW M&P.
happy shopping.

 

[beast1989]

kelly is right, I couldnt own my .45 without owning the few 9mms that i have. Ammo prices hit home real quick when that large caliber is all you have when you want to hit the range.

 

[beast1989]

Also I agree with the person who said the Glock angle is completely different than the 1911 angle. My 1911 with a hogue grip is the apex of comfortablility and my glock is middle of the road in that regard.

The reason why you havent had that many pinpoint suggestions IMO is because the terms "target shooting" and "ccw" guns tend to conflict with one another. For the range you are looking at a longer barrel to help with accuracy and for ccw you are looking for something smaller and concealable. There are tons of pocket pistols on the market or could you carry a mid/full size pistol?

If you want a few guns to try out I would suggest trying out some 1911s for sure, glock, springfield XD or XDM, Smith and Wesson M&P, or maybe even a sig 2022 or beretta (i like the px4)

Keltec and Bersa make some pretty good pocket guns too.

 

[druryj]

I realize that this is dated by a few days and a Glock 27 may already be in your hands (not what I would have ever recommended but oh well), but honestly, a Ruger MkIII or Buckmark Browning would be my first suggestion. These are IMO the two "best" (meaning accurate, reliable, and affordable) .22 pistols on the market and will allow you to focus on sight picture and trigger control without the distractions of increased noise and recoil. I always start new shooters with .22s before moving up to larger calibers.

Remember when pricing your handgun options to also reserve approximately $150-200 for your carry rig. This means that if you can acquire a handgun for $450, your total cost will be around $600-650. This should include a carry belt, holster, and magazine pouch. Your holster and belt choices are vital to being able to carry comfortably with proper concealment. I wear TheBeltMan belts, but other popular manufacturers are Looper, Milt Sparks, etc. Obviously, the holster is the most important part to the carry rig. Every individual has their own preference. I like full kydex holsters like the CCCLooper and Raven Concealment Phantom because they are the most thin and the lightest. Many others like "hybrid" designs with a kydex body and leather backing, such as the MTAC or Supertuck because it offers some of the thinness of kydex along with the comfort of a leather backing. Others prefer full leather, such as TTGunleather, Milt Sparks, Brommeland, Kramer, Desantis, Del Fatti, etc.

Handgun Selection:

Short Answer:
1. Used or LEO trade-in 3rd Gen Glock 19 or 17. (basically, avoid Gen4 Glock 9mms, as well as post-2009 3rd Gen Glock 9mms.) $350-$400
2. Walther PPQ. (This gun needs no trigger modifications or aftermarket support. It is that impressive out of the box. Holster options are currently limited to mostly fully kydex that I'm aware of.) $503 (budsgunshop)
3. New or used M&P9. (plenty of aftermarket support, see Apex.) $400-$500.
There is also the Springfield XD series, but I've never warmed up to it. Worth a look though. Same ballpark price as the others.

In this price range, avoid 1911s. The 1911 in this price range is not a rational option that is even close to being on par with the above options.

Other brands that are good but above this price range once a carry rig is included is the:
HK P30/P2000
HK USPc
Sig 226/229

There are many CZ75 fans on the board that could probably recommend them. I have limited experience with CZs because I never saw any advantage with them.

Long Answer:

My main real suggestion for your first handgun would be to get a 9mm auto. A lot of new handgun shooters think they want a .40 or .45 over the 9mm because they've been told either by their buddies or by television that clearly a .45 or .40 must be better than a 9mm. After all, there was that one "study" done whenever ago that showed that .45acp made all those one stop shots, and/or LEOs widely use .40sw, so clearly that must be another good option. There are a lot of reasons to go with 9mm, and DocGKR explains those reasons far better than I could at the following link: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

My answer to "Which one?" threads has almost always been a Glock 19. Despite Glock's current Gen4 fiasco (which is real, regardless of the denial of some), I would still say that a used or trade-in 3rd Gen Glock 19 or 17 is one of the best buys and best handguns on the market.

Some of the complaints (wholly ridiculous by the way) about Glock handguns is that they 1) are blocky and not ergonomic (which frankly doesn't matter), 2) have a funky grip angle (an absurd argument that, again, doesn't matter), and 3) a bad trigger (compared to a $2k 1911? Sure. Compared to a DA/SA? Not so much). The other complaint is that they are ugly and that they lack a certain pride in ownership. (This is the most absurd complaint of all.) A handgun is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Its sole purpose is to be available to reliably eliminate a threat to your life. For that purpose, the Glock is a damn good tool. So ignore the complaints and take a serious look at used and trade-in 3rd Gen Glock 19s and 17s. Either would serve you well. If you are of smaller stature, the G19 would probably be the best way to go as a CCW. I'm 6'4" and 200lbs and have carried a G17 quite successfully.


I would have previously recommended the Smith and Wesson M&P9 as my second suggestion, but frankly I don't think it is as good as other options now that the FNS and PPQ are hitting the market. The stock M&P leaves much to be desired (bad trigger, sporadic accuracy issues), and the aftermarket has had to make up for S&W's slow response. To S&W's credit, they did fix the dead trigger problem, as well as the rusting slide problems (for the most part).

Replacing the M&P as my second suggestion would be the Walther PPQ. The PPQ is nearly Glock 19 sized, has a superior trigger break and reset compared to the Glock and M&P (due to the fact that the PPQ is 100% pre-cocked), and is reportedly as accurate or more so than the Glock and clearly more accurate than the M&P. While the PPQ hasn't been on the US market long enough to hit very high round counts yet (the highest I've seen are around the 8k count), all accounts are that the PPQ has been confidently reliable with consistent ejection patterns (unlike Gen4 Glocks). If I hadn't already bought my M&P9, I would own a PPQ.


The M&P would still be my third suggestion despite the previously stated concerns only because the FN FNS is too new on the market to really know how it will perform. In a European competition for a sales contract, the M&P beat out the FN because it failed the tests. It isn't clear yet why the FNS failed, but many of the members on pistol-shooting and m4carbine who have handled and shot the FNS are very excited about it. Still, the FNS is just hitting the market, so it's reliability and durability is still to be seen. So until it has been proven over the next year or so, the M&P would be my 3rd place suggestion. Honestly, while the M&P doesn't have the trigger of the PPQ, the stock M&P is still a reliable and reasonably accurate gun within the range that you would need to use it for in a self defense situation.

So that's my two cents, and the is all the best advice I can give from my personal experiences. Everyone comes to the table with their own biases and thinking.

This: It is, after all, your two cents. Here's my take on this: I have been shooting for some 40 years; 21+ years of active duty time where I trained a LOT with a variety of weapons and as a sport shooter/instructor since. IMHO; ain't nuthin' wrong with the Gen 4 G19 or G26. (And that's all I have to say about that).

Oh, and you cannot go wrong with the CZs either; again IMHO. Ask any ten members on here about which gun you should get; you'll likely get ten answers (at least). Have a nice day now; hear?

 

[Kings & Ar-15's]

Ryan,

Your best option is to go to a gun range that rents guns and try some out. Handguns are very subjective. What works really well for some people doesn't work at all for others. I know there are quite a few ranges in the OKC area that rent guns. Don't be in a huge hurry to buy one. Take your time and try out a half dozen or so. Once you've decided which gun works best for you, get some training.

Best advice on this thread. You'll likely have the gun for many years, not to mention it could possibly be the piece of equipment you trust your life with. Get something that is custom to YOU and something you enjoy shooting, otherwise you won't enjoy practicing with it and you'll probably end up reselling it and having to take a hit on price. People prefer different guns based on their size and shape as well as their price range. So, take everyone's advice and then choose for yourself. Good luck!