Buying first handgun

[Sequimite]

I don't expect to be attacked by a mountain lion any more than I expect a home invasion, but either might happen. The most likely scenario is one of my terriers being attacked by a coyote. The coyotes here don't seem to fear humans; I got within twenty feet of one that was carrying off one of my chickens before he took off. If I was closer to the Strait I'd have to worry about bald eagles as well since my dogs are small enough to be carried off by one. No one I've spoken to has ever seen a bear come this far down out of the mountains so I'm not worried about them. We do have an elk herd that comes through every once in a while and I once found myself fifteen feet from an enormous (for Roosevelt Elk) bull and was very relieved to find him in a mellow mood.

I was originally thinking 9mm in order to get more accurate follow on shots and there is some trade-off going up to 40 caliber. Once I realized that everyone was advocating high power 9mm for self defense it seemed to me that the difference in recoil would be less than I initially thought. I wouldn't get 10mm for reasons already stated, I think it is on the decline.

[Water Bug]

Ya know, it's gonna come down to WHY you need the handgun... that said...

If you're comparing a 9mm to a .40 caliber and you're concerned about stopping power then the .40 caliber is what you might want. I based this off what a big city police officer once told me...

The city police used to be issued 9mms with 15-round magazines that they loaded up with hollow-points. They got tired of having to be forced to shoot drugged-up or body-armored suspects just to have those suspects get back up and return fire, thereby injuring officers and innocent bystanders. So, they switched over to a Glock in .40 caliber with 15 rounds in the magazine plus one in the chamber. With two fully loaded spare magazines, each officer had 46 rounds on their person. Also, although the 9mm may have had better range and accuracy, the .40 caliber round in hollow-point had better stopping power. And, even though a .45 caliber had better stopping power, the .40 caliber had better range and accuracy. So, the .40 caliber was a very good compromise for what the police needed.

Personally, I own a Sig Sauer P226 in .40 caliber. It is a full-sized pistol with a 13-round magazine capacity. You can also switch out the barrel and go with a .357 SIG barrel and shoot the .357 SIG round, which is close in performance to a 125-grain .357 magnum round, yet made for a semi-automatic pistol. I've found that my P266 in .40 caliber to be accurate, easy to shoot, and easy to maintain. Plus, per the police officer, I have better stopping power than a 9mm while having better range and accuracy than a .45 caliber. Although I've hadn't had to use my P226 in the stopping power category, it certainly is more accurate and has better range than my Sig Sauer P220 in .45 caliber.

Now, if you're buying this handgun with the specific purpose of mountain lion defense (or defense from any other wild animal), and you don't want to be carrying a 12-gauge shotgun with large buckshot or slugs then perhaps a revolver in .375 magnum should be considered...

Because, if you're only worried about defense against wild predatory animals, you can get the job done with 6 well-aimed shots... and, as they say, if you can't get the job done in 6 shots (or 5 shots with some of the even larger calibers) then you shouldn't be shooting at it in the first place.

My first handgun was a Smith and Wesson .375 magnum with a 6-inch barrel. The beauty of this gun was that I could shoot the less expensive .38 caliber wadcutters and specials for practice, load up with the .38 special +P hollow-point for self-defense, or go with a 125-grain .375 magnum in hollow-point for even better man-stopping power. Plus, I'm sure a .357 magnum round would be sufficient for defense against most wild animals.

In my opinion, the only way to improve in the area of self-defense with a handgun against wild animals (large wild animals in particular) would be to move up to a .41 magnum, a .44 magnum, a .454 Casull, a Smith and Wesson 460, or a Smith and Wesson 500, all of which carry a far greater recoil than the .375 magnum... and, in my opinion and experience, the ones with good practicality and stopping power beyond the .375 magnum would be either the .44 magnum since you can shoot both .44 specials and .44 magnums in it, or the Smith and Wesson 460 since you can shoot .45 caliber, .454 Casull, and .460 caliber in it, although it is a rather big handgun.

And, the only way to improve on a big handgun load for wild animal defense is a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with big buckshot or slugs... and, I do believe, most experts suggest slugs or an alternating pattern of large buckshot and slugs in the magazine.

Anyway, something more for you to consider before you purchase your first handgun. Hope this helps.

[defenestrate]

Get either a good .357 magnum, or if you like a little more punch, look into a Taurus Judge or similar. .45 + .410 shotgun rounds. versatile, will stop anything smaller than an elephant, and pretty much failure-proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Judge

[defenestrate]

If you want 14+ shots, a colt .45 with extended/police clip would be a good choice.I still like the Judge for problems you can't see coming. If you need to fire more than 6 shots, you need a long gun or multiple firearms, IMO

Federal offers ammo specifically designed for the Judge. The 21⁄2" 000 Buckshot contains 4 pellets.[7] B. Gil Horman, an American Rifleman writer and expert on .410 hanguns, has conducted research on the many .410 cartridges available. He hosts a free website devoted not only to the Judge, but to all 410 handguns.

While the Judge's cylinder bore is adequate for higher-powered single-projectile loadings such as the .44 Magnum or .454 Casull, the gun is not designed for the high chamber pressures that these cartridges generate and thus could explode if they are used with it. To prevent this, the cylinder bores are choked to prevent successful chambering of rounds larger in diameter than the .410 shotshell and longer than the .45 Colt.[2]
Taurus Raging Judge Magnum, chambered for .454 Casull, .45 Colt, as well as .410 bore

Taurus introduced the Raging Judge Magnum based on their Raging Bull model to address this issue; the Raging Judge Magnum safely chambers .454 Casull as well as .45 Colt cartidges.[8][9][10]

[Squid]

40 for sure. I ended up getting an H&K usp 40 and love it. Some people with smaller hands dont care for the usp.

[2cha]

Why get a compromise/specialty round? If you want big, just get a .45. If you don't plan to carry it daily, why polymer?

If I could only have one gun, it would be a Ruger GP 100 in .357. Point and shoot. Rugged. Stainless. They "need" action jobs or a lot of use, but once the action smoothes out, they shoot well.

The FN looks good too. If it feels good in your hand, that's a great start. I'd still get it in .45 instead of .40, if for no other reason than the noise factor.

[racer88]

IMO, it's nearly impossible to answer the question, "Which gun should I get?" It's like asking, "Which car should I get? (And, I want a vehicle that can do it all.)" There is no answer... other than, "It depends." (And, "There's no such thing.") :)

That said... I'm a big Glock fan AND an even bigger FNH fan:



My latest FNH acquisition. FNP-45 Tactical. 15 + 1 rounds of .45-ACP goodness!



So, what's the "best" gun? There isn't one. What's best for YOU, is what works for you. And, the more experience you have, you'll find that one gun won't "do it all."

[DCDesigns]

the .40 caliber round in hollow-point had better stopping power. And, even though a .45 caliber had better stopping power, the .40 caliber had better range and accuracy.

I have to say thats entirely subjective. It depends on the firearm being used, and the shooter. To say one caliber is more accurate than another is hogwash. In a ransom rest a .45, 9mm, whatever will hit the same place every time. The shooters proficiency with dealing with recoil is what may determine the accuracy between the larger and smaller calibers.

Personally, I am much more accurate with my .45 kimber than I am with my .40 M&P

[MCM]

I have had both a Glock22 and Sig 229 for over 10 yrs.
Either would be fine. I prefer the D/A Sig though.
But both are super reliable. I just prefer Sig D/A triggers.

Find a range and rent and shoot as many pistols as your interested in.
You will know after a couple magazines if you don't like a gun.

It will make the choice obvious. I have no idea what you will like, but you will just know what works for you.

Defiantly worth the extra effort shooting a gun prior to buying.
You can only gain so much info reading about 'em.

Let us know what you end up getting.

Mountain lions? I would skip the hand gun. Unless you don't mind carrying a hand cannon.
My favorite gun to shoot for the past 25 yrs has been a S&W 8 3/8" 629 Classic 44 Mag.
But its not an easy one to just slip into the pocket.

[Owl45]

Originally I was thinking of a revolver but the more I read about the reliability of the name brand semi-automatics, the more I wanted the advantage of having 14+ shots with quick reload.

I was going to suggest a revolver based on the overall list of your intended use. Its an excellent starting point for the first time or casual pistol shooter, its much less confusing for novice pistol users...simpler and safer, particularly in stressful situations.
For an outdoorsman the wide choice of ammo for the 38/357 makes it a attractive choice. Cheaper .38 ammo for plinking and practice or heavier loads for something more serious, plus shot loads for snakes and such.
or
The Taurus Judge. 45Colt/410 makes an interesting combo for protection and field use.

That being said, wheel guns are not the current trend so you will most likely pick an auto.
The FN you seem to prefer is an excellent choice. I would go for the .40, which is a good compromise of bullet velocity and mass.

Personally I like heavy bullets for protection, so tend to prefer a 1911 style 45. Its what I'm most comfortable and confident with since its what I have shot most often and competed with.
But you stated that "I enjoy target shooting but will probably only do enough to stay comfortable with the pistol." I do not consider the 1911 a good choice unless one intends to practice with it frequently (like weekly). The 1911 has many pluses, but for numerous reasons, I do not consider it a good choice for casual shooters.

Help this rambling helps.

[Javascript]

I have to say thats entirely subjective. It depends on the firearm being used, and the shooter. To say one caliber is more accurate than another is hogwash. In a ransom rest a .45, 9mm, whatever will hit the same place every time. The shooters proficiency with dealing with recoil is what may determine the accuracy between the larger and smaller calibers.

Personally, I am much more accurate with my .45 kimber than I am with my .40 M&P

Thank you so very much for posting this. These personal, subjective, and experience-based opinions are often written as fact by well-meaning contributors, but often detract from the wealth of information these posts can provide.
The biggest offender is the term accuracy. Accuracy is only of value when it is accompanied by specified conditions. One man's accuracy is another man's p.o.s. 45/10/40/357/9-waste-of-lead because of a lack of a common reference.
It's like reading a well-written paper that has several miss-speeled words....your opinion of the author my go down.

[MCM]

IMO hand gun Accuracy depends a lot on the trigger.
That's why wheel guns fired in SA and 45's seem more accurate to many folks.
Never really felt comfortable carrying cocked and locked compared to a DA/SA set up. For me long pull DAO is the worst. Unless its a Glock type set up.
My most accurate auto was a 9MM SA Sig 210-6.
It was just not practical for me for anything but the range.
SA would not be my choice as a carry piece.

[Water Bug]

I have to say thats entirely subjective. It depends on the firearm being used, and the shooter. To say one caliber is more accurate than another is hogwash. In a ransom rest a .45, 9mm, whatever will hit the same place every time. The shooters proficiency with dealing with recoil is what may determine the accuracy between the larger and smaller calibers.

Personally, I am much more accurate with my .45 kimber than I am with my .40 M&P

To each his own.

[phillipsted]

Personally, I would get a Glock. I've had a 17 for years, and it is hands down, the most rock-solid reliable, easy to maintain, easy to shoot weapon I've ever had.

TedP

[DCDesigns]

To each his own.

yup, basically what I was sayin...

[DCDesigns]

Thank you so very much for posting this. These personal, subjective, and experience-based opinions are often written as fact by well-meaning contributors, but often detract from the wealth of information these posts can provide.
The biggest offender is the term accuracy. Accuracy is only of value when it is accompanied by specified conditions. One man's accuracy is another man's p.o.s. 45/10/40/357/9-waste-of-lead because of a lack of a common reference.
It's like reading a well-written paper that has several miss-speeled words....your opinion of the author my go down.

haha, no worries java. I know we have had differences in the past with the subject of firearms, Im glad we can agree on that!

[gac]

Just buy the FN.

[Tdog]

Lot's of good thoughts here. I have both, but personally shoot the 9mm better than the .40. Follow-ups are much better. If the dealer in you area doesn't have what you want, see if they will do a transfer. Bud's online has a good in stock selection and even with transfer fees sometimes you'll come out better. If I were concerned about a moutain lion, I would probably get a stainless .357 Ruger or S&W with 4'' or 6' barrel and some heavy grain loads, 158 or 180 grain. Whatever you decide, "practice does make perfect" Be safe.

[Sequimite]

I'll be back by the dealer's on Tuesday. I'll try to get down to a couple of choices then. If he just doesn't have something I'm happy with I'll talk to him about ordering something for me or buying on line myself and having it shipped to him.

I'll run through the final possibilities here when i get home that afternoon. I've come across a number of horror stories about warranty service on both Sig and Browning. FNH had a good rep but they fired the whole CS department and now have Browning customer service covering FNH products as well. I guess they discovered that providing crappy service is cheaper than good service - - in the short run.

[DCDesigns]

I'll be back by the dealer's on Tuesday. I'll try to get down to a couple of choices then. If he just doesn't have something I'm happy with I'll talk to him about ordering something for me or buying on line myself and having it shipped to him.

I'll run through the final possibilities here when i get home that afternoon. I've come across a number of horror stories about warranty service on both Sig and Browning. FNH had a good rep but they fired the whole CS department and now have Browning customer service covering FNH products as well. I guess they discovered that providing crappy service is cheaper than good service - - in the short run.

I have had good experiences with sig CS, and recently they have gotten alot better. I have heard that a few years back it was almost non-existent. I wouldnt worry about it, they are great guns, and the people who make them stand behind them. (I know I wouldnt want to be in front of one)