I change my vote to Sig 228. I just took it to the range along with my Kimber, and with the Sig, I can keep 8 of 11 shots on a chest size target at 100 yards. I never touched it with the Kimber.
I carry a Kimber Pro Raptor.
Will no one stand up for the lowly Makarov? (military version, not the one with the flesh eating sights) I carry one most of the time. They are more reliable than most autos I know of, and proper placement of the .365 slug at about 1000 fps should be enough.
I do have a Glock 17 for fishing trips. Floating when dropped in the water is a nice plus. That gun is ugly, deadly accurate, funny feeling, never fails to work, more demanding of good gun handling discipline than others, holds 18 rounds, did I mention my love/hate relationship with this gun?
I hope no one is annoyed at the observation that this sort of thread discloses more information about the posters than about handguns. JP, aren't you glad you started this? CB
I do have a Glock 17 for fishing trips. Floating when dropped in the water is a nice plus. That gun is ugly, deadly accurate, funny feeling, never fails to work, more demanding of good gun handling discipline than others, holds 18 rounds, did I mention my love/hate relationship with this gun?
I hope no one is annoyed at the observation that this sort of thread discloses more information about the posters than about handguns. JP, aren't you glad you started this? CB
GMThunder said:I dig the P228 but why would this be a criteria for a practical handgun?
In case your definition of "practical" includes trading trick shots with Bob Munden.
Michael Brown
Michael Brown said:In case your definition of "practical" includes trading trick shots with Bob Munden.
Michael Brown
I'm out on that one.
Marshall had me hitting sillouhettes @50yds with the plastic phantastic and that's my claim to fame. 
well, let me define practical then...
It would be the one gun, in this case pistol, that i would keep if i could keep only one. i would need it to be reliable (the Sig is), accurate (the Sig is), easy to shoot - as in comfortable and natural - (the Sig is), and cheap to shoot (once again, the Sig is, at least compared to 45!). Accurate to me means good enough to make me confident, and good enough to hunt with. I live on a farm, so if it was the gun I was packing everyday, it would need to be accurate enough to hit the occasional coyote that needed plugging. Did I mention I missed a coyote with the 45 once at 35 yards? That was my fault, I forgot to aim high. But with the Sig, I wouldn't need to. Of course that is mostly the caliber...the 9mm is faster than the 45.
That make more sense? I understand a combat practical handgun does not need 100yd accuracy. But why not if you can?
It would be the one gun, in this case pistol, that i would keep if i could keep only one. i would need it to be reliable (the Sig is), accurate (the Sig is), easy to shoot - as in comfortable and natural - (the Sig is), and cheap to shoot (once again, the Sig is, at least compared to 45!). Accurate to me means good enough to make me confident, and good enough to hunt with. I live on a farm, so if it was the gun I was packing everyday, it would need to be accurate enough to hit the occasional coyote that needed plugging. Did I mention I missed a coyote with the 45 once at 35 yards? That was my fault, I forgot to aim high. But with the Sig, I wouldn't need to. Of course that is mostly the caliber...the 9mm is faster than the 45.
That make more sense? I understand a combat practical handgun does not need 100yd accuracy. But why not if you can?
NikatKimber said:
I think it was just a joke.
Michael Brown
