Expert advice on selecting a handgun

[dman]

Good read..

Death isn't an exact science. 6 rounds from a 44mag may not stop one guy, but smack in the face with a feather pillow may kill another..

I'll take the .44 mag,you can have the feather pillow.

[grunt91]

First post is right. To make it simple i go with what can i hold and shoot comfortably. Always remember it is not the caliber but the shot.If just for defense in the house Shotgun nothing less. Just my 2 cents....

[dogngun]

Damn, now I need to find a new reason to justify my 1911 as a carry......

Me too.

Great article, though. I used to get a lot of internet hell for carrying a .44 Magnum S&W - "TOO powerful!!, etc. Had heart surgery, and can no longer shoot magnums, even .357's are hard to control for me now, so I'm back to the 1911 types that I started shooting over 35 years ago. I do carry a reload, and I am very comfortable shooting the old rattlers, so I'll stick by my choice.

I will add that the only time I have ever felt I had to draw a handgun, the odds against me were 2 to 1, and I had an old S&W 6 shot revolver.

They saw it and promptly left.

mark

[JCassidy]

Glock 17 or Beretta Px4 in 9mm??? lets hear it from the experts

[synergy]

Glock 17 or Beretta Px4 in 9mm??? lets hear it from the experts

Glock, no contest.

[Warpt762x39]

I am far from being a fan of the Glock. I just do not like the grip angle. That's just me of course. I do however like the XD and the 1911 grip angle. I'll take one of each. The XD in 9mm and the 1911 in .45acp and maybe a .38 snubbie for a backup in an ankle rig.

[inyork]

I am going to buy a handgun and this article was one of the best I've seen regarding that decision.

Regarding the stress and disorientation when conflict suddenly presents itself, he mentions how a formal shooting stance and careful aiming does not happen. Wouldn't a laser greatly increase your odds in that situation? I was at a gun show today shooting a revolver with the laser built into the grip. Point and shoot is very quick and accurate with that assistance. Why isn't that mentioned in the article I wonder? Does law enforcement not consider it a good aide?

[synergy]

I am going to buy a handgun and this article was one of the best I've seen regarding that decision.

Regarding the stress and disorientation when conflict suddenly presents itself, he mentions how a formal shooting stance and careful aiming does not happen. Wouldn't a laser greatly increase your odds in that situation? I was at a gun show today shooting a revolver with the laser built into the grip. Point and shoot is very quick and accurate with that assistance. Why isn't that mentioned in the article I wonder? Does law enforcement not consider it a good aide?

They have their uses....being reliant on them is generally not a good idea...shit tends to break right when you need it.

While stances often go out the window....sighted fire doesn't always have to. If you're close enough that you can't bring the gun up, you don't need sights anyway. If you're moving so fast that you can't see sights...then your dot is gonna be all over the place too.

As for time...I've not met anyone who can run CT laser grips and deliver hits on target noticeably faster then I can with just regular sights, from the holster.

Where they shine (haha) is in reduced visibility settings. (wear contacts and just woke up, dark as shit outside, etc)

[jcabin]

This article reinforces my arguement that capacity is a necessity.
People who carry revolvers or 6 or 7 round 1911's in 45 cry about how if they need more than what theyre carrying they are dead anyway. I think thats a cop-out and it's a weak arguement for defending thier favorite gun. I just don't see how anyone, the year being 2009, would pass up on a proven high capacity handgun such as the Glock or XD series. I mean most Glocks and XD's hold double the capacity of a standard 1911 in .45.

The article also states how so many people in the USA seem to think 1 or 2 shots is all you need, when in reality it is not. Why, well like he said, the lone criminal is an urban myth. If I ever have to use my gun to defend myself it will just as likely be against multiple attackers as it is against a single attacker. So many people here on the forums and folks I've talked with at the range scoff at the idea of ever having to fight off more than 1 attacker, and even using more than 2 or 3 rounds. They throw the notion to the wind, they think it's not possible and its just something seen on TV.

I know I'm just ranting and you've heard this all before. I also recognize that at the end of the day it's really about what you like, its your freedom to do so. The second amendment doesn't come with a guideline that says, "Choose the weapon that will be the most advantageous and reliable, such as modern age platforms".

Capacity increases survivability.

[NineseveN]

This article reinforces my arguement that capacity is a necessity.
People who carry revolvers or 6 or 7 round 1911's in 45 cry about how if they need more than what theyre carrying they are dead anyway. I think thats a cop-out and it's a weak arguement for defending thier favorite gun. I just don't see how anyone, the year being 2009, would pass up on a proven high capacity handgun such as the Glock or XD series. I mean most Glocks and XD's hold double the capacity of a standard 1911 in .45.

The article also states how so many people in the USA seem to think 1 or 2 shots is all you need, when in reality it is not. Why, well like he said, the lone criminal is an urban myth. If I ever have to use my gun to defend myself it will just as likely be against multiple attackers as it is against a single attacker. So many people here on the forums and folks I've talked with at the range scoff at the idea of ever having to fight off more than 1 attacker, and even using more than 2 or 3 rounds. They throw the notion to the wind, they think it's not possible and its just something seen on TV.

It's possible, but not probable...at least not to the extent that your argument for higher capacity would necessitate.

In my experience, a confrontation with an unarmed adversary is usually going to be some type of theft (snatch and grab stuff) and this has probably an equal chance to be conducted by a lone attacker as it is a group. Most of that probably depends on your location at the time (downtown Pittsburgh, single assailant, Homewood at 3:00am, multiple). At most, they may have a knife, but the chance they have a gun on them increases as you go deeper into the notoriously bad parts of the town you're in. Criminals, despite common myth, aren't stupid. They perform risk analysis just like your average Joe does. A purse snatching or robbery without a gun carries much lower risk overall than with a gun.

In an armed attacker capacity, you've got a myriad of possibilities, the worst probably being gang members. They rarely travel solo, they're often (but not always) armed and if they pick you as a target, don't expect their buddies to bail on them before the shooting starts. However, as I've experienced, as soon as primers start popping, everyone runs. Unless there is some sort of gangland dispute over turf going on, nobody sticks around. When they fire, they fire on the run, wildly and blindly (what, you thought all the stray bullets were because they don't practice and can't hit shit because they have no marksmanship skills?). The notion of some sort of high-speed standoff with a gang of thugs is what's most likely a myth here. You shoot, everyone runs. Of course, some of those that promote their anecdotal analysis based on force on force simulations don't really get that because in their scenarios, no one is afraid of dying and none of the participants are criminals. You can only simulate so much, even the best scenario is flawed that way which is why these guys aren't analysts, they're instructors and observers.

At 3 against 1, having 18 rounds will not save you if, on the off chance, the thugs do stand and fight. There are maybe a couple of handfuls worth of people in the world that can win that scenario reliably. That's more of a math problem than anything, and the answer, barring an act of god or a freak mishap, is pretty much absolute.

If you're biggest or most influential concern is multiple attackers, the answer is not capacity, the answer is more bodies with guns on your side. You can only shoot one at a time, and all three can shoot you at once. That puts you so far behind the curve that there is simply no way to make that up with capacity. Even if we add the idea of cover to the equation, if you can't find cover in the time it takes to fire 7 or 8 rounds while moving, I don't think the other 10 or 11 shots is going to get you much further without an unbelievable amount of luck on your side.

And no, I'm not trying to justify carrying a 1911, I carry a 2011, I got 18 shots plus a reload, but capacity still isn't on God status (my 2011 is lighter and cheaper to shoot than my .45 single stack).