Hanguns

[SirIsaacNewton]

Glock 19 - 9mm is a cheap and effective cartridge

Therefore you can spend more money on training....

I don't suggest a revolver. They are reliable weapon systems however when they fail (which they do) they are catastrophic failures.

With the majority of failures associated with semi-auto pistols one can train oneself to react to immediately without hesitation. Mix this with higher round capacity and it is a superior system.

You can find a good used glock for right around 450.00

Above all else training is the most important component of a SD firearm. So take a concealed carry course as well as a few different firearms courses taught by reputable instructors and get out and shoot at least twice a month.

People will make statements like stopping power etc. The facts are there are only two was to incapacitate an individual one is hitting CNS Brain/Spinal Cord the other is hitting vasculature which will drop bp and therefore O2 supply to the brain.

[crm7290]

Is buying a used gun a good idea? With shotguns it isnt bad and thats how people get their best deal but what about with Glocks and the like?

[Jordan]

Glock 19 - 9mm is a cheap and effective cartridge

Therefore you can spend more money on training....

I don't suggest a revolver. They are reliable weapon systems however when they fail (which they do) they are catastrophic failures.

With the majority of failures associated with semi-auto pistols one can train oneself to react to immediately without hesitation. Mix this with higher round capacity and it is a superior system.

You can find a good used glock for right around 450.00

Above all else training is the most important component of a SD firearm. So take a concealed carry course as well as a few different firearms courses taught by reputable instructors and get out and shoot at least twice a month.

People will make statements like stopping power etc. The facts are there are only two was to incapacitate an individual one is hitting CNS Brain/Spinal Cord the other is hitting vasculature which will drop bp and therefore O2 supply to the brain.

Um... ok... some of what you said made sense, I assume the rest of it was caused by some sort of seizure. :p

Only joking, please don't take offense.

But seriously... lets start with the revolver thing. What you pretty much said is that the downside to revolvers is that they never fail in a manner which is not catastrophic, whereas autos fail more frequently in less serious ways. Unless you mean to imply that catastrophic failures in revolvers are more common than non catastrophic failures in pistols (which is nonsense), or that catastrophic failures in a pistol occur less frequently than in a revolver (also nonsense), that makes no sense. The one area of argument in which a revolver is hands down superior to a pistol is reliability... I've never met anyone, ever, who could convince me otherwise. Also I can think of at least one way in which a revolver can fail to fire non-catastrophically... bad ammo. The upside is, the remedial action on a DA revolver is to pull the trigger again. On your glock, if you see the same malfunction, you have to work the slide. Even if you are REEEEAL fast, pulling the trigger is still faster :) . So, make that two areas of argument in which revolvers are superior to autos. :cool:

And the stopping power thing. What you said would absolutely be true if everyone on the planet who meant you harm had bones made out of steel and a congenital inability to feel pain. I assume what you meant was that those are the only two absolutely foolproof ways to cause immediate incapacitation. On the other hand, since bones are (by and large) not bulletproof (whats more, they have a startling tendency to shatter upon impact)... and since many organs function less efficiently when perforated... and since most people find having a bullet shaped channel in their flesh to be unpleasant... those are not the only two ways to incapacitate someone. Pain, shock, and the general failure of the musculo-skeletal structure to support you can put you out of the fight just as well as an alarming drop in blood pressure. That said, the amount of force applied to the body by a bullet is a function of two things. It's speed, and it's weight. The more force that the bullet transfers into the body wherever the two happen to meet, the more damage done by one to the other. Bigger, slightly slower bullets tend to be better at hurting people than smaller, slightly faster bullets. The bigger the projectile, the more surface area has contact with the gooey insides of the target, and the more efficiently energy transfers into said target. Smaller bullets sometimes fail so completely at this energy transfer that they just go right through the target, expending a great deal of that valuable energy on further flight. I don't mean any of this to imply that 9mm isn't a perfectly good round. I have several thusly chambered pistols and carry them frequently. But, it is beyond silly to suggest stopping power has nothing to do with caliber.

Aside from that, I'm with you. Practice, practice, practice. Glocks are extremely reliable, low maintenance firearms (and good for new shooters... in no small part due to the fire controls' similarity to revolvers :p ). And, as another member of this very forum told me when I was considering my first tupperware purchase not long ago, quantity has a quality all it's own (re: magazine capacity).

For the OP, if you are concerned about a used handgun... consider the source and try to have a friend with more firearm experience look it over. I've purchased maybe two handguns new ever (I think I am up to an even dozen). I've yet to get screwed on a pre owned. I am fairly knowledgeable about firearms... but the biggest reason for that is that I have a gun store that I spend a ton of money at. Seeing as I will likely continue to spend a lot of money there... it is in their best interest not to screw me on garbage just to get it off the shelf, as I will likely then go spend a ton of money elsewhere. :-p

Other than that, all the good advice I could offer has already popped up... whatever you end up with, I wish you many a good day at the range with it :) .

[crm7290]

Ill be going to the range next week with a few 22s and whatever else my friends end up bringing. I might be able to buy a glock off of a buddy which would be nice but he is charging a little higher than I would be able to do.

Thanks for the help guys. When my birthday rolls around Ill drag up this thread or make another about what I purchased!

[Firefighter880]

A .22 is an excellent choice for learning and for the range.

And there are tons of very good ideas and very good choices floating around in this thread. Everyone likes what works for them - but thats just it, you need to handle a few, shoot a few, and decide what you like.

However, if you need something for learning/range time AND personal defense, do yourself a favor and get a Glock 17 or 19. There is a reason why hundreds of departments, including mine (Im not a Firefighter anymore - Sheriff's Deputy now), issue the G17.

Its an excellent, accurate, reliable, and relatively affordable sidearm.

Ive got the three mainstream Glock 9mm's (G17, G19. and G26) and I would advise the G19 if you were set on just one handgun. Its a good size for someone who only owns one handgun, because its small enough to carry concealed, yet large enough to be comporable to a full-size home defense or duty sidearm.

Good luck with your choice :)

[SirIsaacNewton]

Um... ok... some of what you said made sense, I assume the rest of it was caused by some sort of seizure. :p

Only joking, please don't take offense.

But seriously... lets start with the revolver thing. What you pretty much said is that the downside to revolvers is that they never fail in a manner which is not catastrophic, whereas autos fail more frequently in less serious ways. Unless you mean to imply that catastrophic failures in revolvers are more common than non catastrophic failures in pistols (which is nonsense), or that catastrophic failures in a pistol occur less frequently than in a revolver (also nonsense), that makes no sense. The one area of argument in which a revolver is hands down superior to a pistol is reliability... I've never met anyone, ever, who could convince me otherwise. Also I can think of at least one way in which a revolver can fail to fire non-catastrophically... bad ammo. The upside is, the remedial action on a DA revolver is to pull the trigger again. On your glock, if you see the same malfunction, you have to work the slide. Even if you are REEEEAL fast, pulling the trigger is still faster :) . So, make that two areas of argument in which revolvers are superior to autos. :cool:

And the stopping power thing. What you said would absolutely be true if everyone on the planet who meant you harm had bones made out of steel and a congenital inability to feel pain. I assume what you meant was that those are the only two absolutely foolproof ways to cause immediate incapacitation. On the other hand, since bones are (by and large) not bulletproof (whats more, they have a startling tendency to shatter upon impact)... and since many organs function less efficiently when perforated... and since most people find having a bullet shaped channel in their flesh to be unpleasant... those are not the only two ways to incapacitate someone. Pain, shock, and the general failure of the musculo-skeletal structure to support you can put you out of the fight just as well as an alarming drop in blood pressure. That said, the amount of force applied to the body by a bullet is a function of two things. It's speed, and it's weight. The more force that the bullet transfers into the body wherever the two happen to meet, the more damage done by one to the other. Bigger, slightly slower bullets tend to be better at hurting people than smaller, slightly faster bullets. The bigger the projectile, the more surface area has contact with the gooey insides of the target, and the more efficiently energy transfers into said target. Smaller bullets sometimes fail so completely at this energy transfer that they just go right through the target, expending a great deal of that valuable energy on further flight. I don't mean any of this to imply that 9mm isn't a perfectly good round. I have several thusly chambered pistols and carry them frequently. But, it is beyond silly to suggest stopping power has nothing to do with caliber.

Aside from that, I'm with you. Practice, practice, practice. Glocks are extremely reliable, low maintenance firearms (and good for new shooters... in no small part due to the fire controls' similarity to revolvers :p ). And, as another member of this very forum told me when I was considering my first tupperware purchase not long ago, quantity has a quality all it's own (re: magazine capacity).

For the OP, if you are concerned about a used handgun... consider the source and try to have a friend with more firearm experience look it over. I've purchased maybe two handguns new ever (I think I am up to an even dozen). I've yet to get screwed on a pre owned. I am fairly knowledgeable about firearms... but the biggest reason for that is that I have a gun store that I spend a ton of money at. Seeing as I will likely continue to spend a lot of money there... it is in their best interest not to screw me on garbage just to get it off the shelf, as I will likely then go spend a ton of money elsewhere. :-p

Other than that, all the good advice I could offer has already popped up... whatever you end up with, I wish you many a good day at the range with it :) .

I personally don't take offense to anything you have stated and I find a lot of good info what you have provided. I thank you for it and I can personally say that I am always learning. With respect to terminal ballistics it is a lot more complicated than just F=ma. So complex in fact that I won't even delve into the topic and will reference IMO one of the best write ups on the subject and you don't have to have a background in physics or applied mathematics to understand it. I think every individual should read this considering it disproves a lot of misconceptions in ballistics including your erroneously held believe on stopping power and over penetration. http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ball ... myths.html

In respect to my statement on the two ways to immediately incapacitate a human being. I agree people can be "hurt" however relying on your weapon system to hurt and individual and them to stop because of pain is IMO incorrect. It is amazing what the human body can do with the sympathetic system in full effect factor in possible drug effects such as PCP, Cocain, Opiates, etc. and one should assume that in all life threatening self defense encounters one will have to incapacitate to eliminate the threat. If this where not the case why would one pull a firearm in the first place? Why not use a taser or less lethal option. I don't have military experience, and I sincerely thank you for yours however, I can say I have been "lucky" enough to encounter gun-shot wounds from the repairing end of the spectrum. Including multiple gun shot wounds with pistol cartridges as well as rifle cartridges including large calibers (mostly 7.62x39) in fully functional lucid human beings who could still do plenty of damage if they had the inclination.

In regards to handgun selection don't get me wrong revolvers are excellent pieces of art and reliability. I personally collect S&W's and have several that are twice my own age. All of which are in perfect working condition (unfortunately not aesthetically) Like you stated previously training is the most important component of owning a firearm and IMO for a young guy who is acquiring his first gun I think a glock 19 and a bunch of ammo is the way to go. It is large enough to be a an excellent shooter and it is concealable which is great if you live in states that are firearm friendly (I am completely unaware of illinois gun laws). Comparably a revolver is more expensive to shoot and requires a very keen observation as well as understanding of the weapon system to recognize signs/issues that could lead to failure. Mix that with the higher capacity of Semi-auto and I think it is a better handgun in respect to the OP. I personally love the S&W 642-1 (no lock) and for my use it is probably the best solution. However, I don't think the OP could go wrong with any of the proven weapon systems ruger revolver or semi-auto, S&W revolver or semi-auto (leaning away from the sigma previously mentioned), glock, kahr, sig, h&k, and/or plethora quality 1911 manufactures.

So all in all I agree with you Jordan the OP should pick a well known reliable model of handgun revolver or semi-auto. Learn it well and train frequently. :)

[markg]

Yep I think the Ruger Sp101 are grand..here's a pic from my edc with my pair of .357 mags...with some other goodies for size comparisons...Doc :D
[img][IMG]http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af33 ... 7_2347.jpg[/img][/IMG]

What he failed to tell you, is this is what he carries everyday!!!

[spyderdog]

[quote="SirIsaacNewton"] With respect to terminal ballistics it is a lot more complicated than just F=ma. So complex in fact that I won't even delve into the topic and will reference IMO one of the best write ups on the subject and you don't have to have a background in physics or applied mathematics to understand it. I think every individual should read this considering it disproves a lot of misconceptions in ballistics including your erroneous held believe on stopping power and over penetration. http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ball ... myths.html
QUOTE]

I'm so glad you brought this up....I really didn't want to have to do it :D

[Jordan]

Well, I scanned the article... and it seems to me that the author believes that the damage done by a bullet is measurable by it's wound channel. Well, actually, that's what he says in the introduction, I will quote the whole paragraph so as not to do the author injustice by quoting out of context.

"I believe in being forthright, so I will jump in with both feet and state the premise of my own theory of terminal ballistics. The title of this article is a hint. Plainly stated, I maintain that the effect of bullets upon living targets is caused by the wound track made by the bullet. Now, before you accuse me of being a wise guy, recall that most theoretical explanations of wounding that are batted about in the shooting community are tied to the kinetic energy or momentum or some other such physical quantity of the bullet which is "transferred" or imparted to the target. My theory recognizes these characteristics, but relies upon a fundamentally different premise, which is that two physically equivalent wound tracks in a game animal will have an equivalent effect, no matter how different were the kinetic energies or other physical attributes of the bullets which caused them. There are some extremely rarely encountered exceptions to the general rule, but for most purposes the hole caused by a bullet is its only measure of lethality."

So... bigger holes are more lethal. Ergo, only big bullets are worth using. Somebody should probably tell the Army about this before we waste any more tax payer money on 5.56 ammo!

The guy makes many strong, and well reasoned arguments. But he doesn't so much disprove anybody else's theory's on terminal ballistics as just present his own case and call other people's idea's silly... so definitely an engineer :p :p

My beliefs regarding stopping power are as follows.

1) Energy is neither created, nor destroyed.
2) A bullet traveling at x speed and weighing y kilograms will exert z force on an object which is significantly more dense than air.
3) With two projectiles (we'll call them a, and b)If z of a is completely exhausted in a body of mass, where b travels beyond that body of mass and z of b's entry velocity and weight minus z of b's exit velocity and weight is less than a's velocity and weight upon impact... then it is likely that there will be more damage to the body of mass inflicted by object a.
4) The more damage done to a body of mass (should that body of mass be some dude... we'll call him Phil), the less well equipped Phil's body will be to continue operating in it's normal manner.
5) Phil's central nervous system and his important circulatory organs are small, and he isn't all that thrilled about you putting bullet shaped holes in them. He will likely be making that as difficult as possible for you by jerking around and hiding behind stuff.
6) Phil's torso is relatively large (not unusually mind you... just in relation to the portion of his body that contains his brain), and much easier to put aforementioned bullet shaped holes into during all of this jerking and hiding nonsense.
7) If you put a big enough bullet shaped hole, or preferably several fairly large bullet shaped holes in Phil (Phil is a bit of a jerk... we don't like him), even if you don't manage to hit the small area that his heart or his brain inhabit... you will likely hit something that will make Phil largely incapable (or at least disinterested) in further hostilities.

I don't think we ACTUALLY disagree on stopping power, anymore than I actually disagree with the author of that article (any seeming disagreement is probably due to the fact that he worded his arguments carefully, and is obviously extremely knowledgeable, where I sort of smash out the first couple of things that come to mind and hope that they make the same sort of sense online as they did in my head :D )... unless you really believe that the only ways to immediately incapacitate a person is by shooting them in the heart or the brainstem... in which case we do. You may have seen the junky champion of the world take five to the gut and brag about it the next day... but I've seen people vomit and pass out after breaking a toe too. Those are both likely exceptional circumstances at the far ends of the response spectrum. For most people, regardless of what neat new amphetamine they happen to be using, a gunshot wound anywhere is going to make them reevaluate a few of their life's decisions. More importantly, they will probably lose interest in doing whatever it was that earned them that gunshot wound. I am not a proponent of aiming to hurt, or wound, some hypothetical attacker. But, that's mostly just cause aiming to hurt or wound ole' Phil would be almost as hard as aiming for the instant kill. That is why in the Army (your thanks is as appreciated as it is unnecessary, by the way. Whatever it is that you do that leads you to the treatment end of GSW's is far more important, and far more worthy of thanks), we just kind of aim for the chest. It's bigger than any of the other body parts, and generally full of gooey stuff that you can't function without.

My beliefs concerning over penetration (in addition to belief #3) have more to do with bullets hitting stuff behind the stuff I am aiming at than actual concerns about terminal ballistics... but since I didn't actually say that in my previous post, I'll take the criticism. I can see sense when the author of that article says that it doesn't really matter how far the bullet travels past the target if the injury it provides is severe enough.

I tend to be pretty tongue in cheek when speaking... and that doesn't always translate digitally, so I'm glad you didn't (and hopefully continue not to... your name isn't Phil, is it? :p ). I loves me some revolvers too, but frankly kinda agree with what you said in the first place about the OP opting for a hi-cap auto. I was more jumping on you about the catastrophic failure thing than your advising against one.

I've rambled on enough... so, I'll just leave you with a picture of my revolver (which is not quite twice my age... but close), just cause :cool: