Yeah, you knew i had to go there sooner or later....

[S204STi]

Oh you mean a shotgun?  I don't know, maybe a locking gun case?  This is one reason I wouldn't have a shotgun as my only home defense gun, it's just easier to store a pistol safely but still have quick access to it.

Oh you mean a shotgun?  I don't know, maybe a locking gun case?  This is one reason I wouldn't have a shotgun as my only home defense gun, it's just easier to store a pistol safely but still have quick access to it.

Oh you mean a shotgun?  I don't know, maybe a locking gun case?  This is one reason I wouldn't have a shotgun as my only home defense gun, it's just easier to store a pistol safely but still have quick access to it.

Oh you mean a shotgun?  I don't know, maybe a locking gun case?  This is one reason I wouldn't have a shotgun as my only home defense gun, it's just easier to store a pistol safely but still have quick access to it.

Oh you mean a shotgun?  I don't know, maybe a locking gun case?  This is one reason I wouldn't have a shotgun as my only home defense gun, it's just easier to store a pistol safely but still have quick access to it.

Oh you mean a shotgun?  I don't know, maybe a locking gun case?  This is one reason I wouldn't have a shotgun as my only home defense gun, it's just easier to store a pistol safely but still have quick access to it.

ROFLCOPTER

[Raza]

9mm is cheaper to shoot and easier for a noob to shoot accurately w/ quicker follow up shots, especially in a subcompact like the 26/27.  It also holds one more round in that size w/ the standard magazine, and has the option of accepting a 33rd magazine.  Yes the .40 has marginally more stopping power.

Okay, I'll consider the 9mm then.

What about .380?  I really like the PPK/S.

[Lebowski]

Okay, I'll consider the 9mm then.

What about .380?  I really like the PPK/S.

.380 is weak.  It's the same diameter as a 9mm, but it's a lighter bullet going slower with very little energy.  For whatever reason the name of the cartridge doesn't always exactly correspond to the diameter ... 380ACP, 9mm parabellum (or 9mm luger or 9x19), and .357sig all use a .355" diameter bullet.  .38 special and .357 magnum (and I believe. 38 super), all use a bullet that is within one or two hundredths of an inch from that (I think .356 or .357").  So that general bullet diameter is extremely common, but there is a huge variance in energy from the weakling 380ACP to the monster .357magnum, with 9mm and .38 special falling somewhere in the middle and .357sig and 38super closer to (but not quite equalling) the magnum.

There's only one reason to own a 380 - because some guns chambered in 380 can fit in your pocket, and thus you can have them on you all the time.  A 380 in your pocket is better than nothing, but for a true self defense + range gun don't go smaller than 9mm (or .38 special if you're going revolver, which I doubt you're interested in).  I wouldn't get a PPK/S simply because if I wanted a weak ass 380, there are newer options that are much smaller and will disappear in your pocket (like the Ruger LCP or Kel-tec P3AT).

[Raza]

.380 is weak.  It's the same diameter as a 9mm, but it's a lighter bullet going slower with very little energy.  For whatever reason the name of the cartridge doesn't always exactly correspond to the diameter ... 380ACP, 9mm parabellum (or 9mm luger or 9x19), and .357 sig all use a .355" diameter bullet.  .38 special and .357 magnum (and I believe. 38 super), all use a bullet that is within one or two hundredths of an inch from that (I think .356 or .357"). 

There's only one reason to own a 380 - because some guns chambered in 380 can fit in your pocket, and thus you can have them on you all the time.  A 380 in your pocket is better than nothing, but for a true self defense + range gun don't go smaller than 9mm (or .38 special if you're going revolver, which I doubt you're interested in).  I wouldn't get a PPK/S simply because if I wanted a weak ass 380, there are newer options that are much smaller and will disappear in your pocket (like the Ruger LCP or Kel-tec P3AT).

I figured it's too small.  But isn't it just a shorter 9mm round (9X17, I think)?  Oh well, I'll get one later.  The PPK/S just looks so good and it's reasonably priced.

I am interested in revolvers, but I wouldn't go smaller than .38 Special (those things usually also chamber .357 Magnum, right?  Most .357s I've seen chamber .38s, like the SW 686+, which I'd love to own).

[Lebowski]

I figured it's too small.  But isn't it just a shorter 9mm round (9X17, I think)?  Oh well, I'll get one later.  The PPK/S just looks so good and it's reasonably priced.

I am interested in revolvers, but I wouldn't go smaller than .38 Special (those things usually also chamber .357 Magnum, right?  Most .357s I've seen chamber .38s, like the SW 686+, which I'd love to own).

PPK could be a cool gun to own, but that's something that you would buy more from a collectors standpoint than something you would actually want to use for self defense.  In a pinch it would do, but I wouldn't recommend making it your nightstand gun.

.357magnum revolvers can shoot .38special, but not the other way around. 

[GoCougs]

Actually, .357/9MM is the nominal diameter of the bullet whilst .38/.380 is the nominal diameter of the casing. Also, the tolerances are not hundreds (0.01") but thousandths (0.001").

Raza, my suggestion is a 4" .357 Magnum revolver from a second tier manufacturer like Taurus. Very popular (relatively inexpensive), versatile, easy to use (most semi-autos are complicated in function - trigger safeties, hammer safeties, slide safeties, etc.) and most importantly, they will also shoot the cheaper/easier-to-handle .38 for learning purposes. (NOTE: .38 will not shoot .357 by design - the .357 cartridge is too long to fit).

[Lebowski]

I figured it's too small.  But isn't it just a shorter 9mm round (9X17, I think)?

The cartridge is shorter, which means less gunpowder equals less power.  The bullet is lighter, usually 90 or 95 grain vs. 125 grain for 9mm.

To compare the difference, go to www.midwayusa.com and browse the handgun ammo.  They give bullet weight, velocity, and energy (which IIRC is mass * velocity^2).  Compare the 380ACP to the 9mm, there is a huge difference in energy.

Oh, also keep in mind to get the best out of 9mm for self defense it's important to use high quality hollow point ammo.  This is less important for larger bullets like the .45.  A lot of the time when you see studies knocking 9mm, it's looking at full metal jacket.  Use the FMJ for the range.  Don't get me wrong, the 9mm is still not as good a manstopper as a .45, but with quality ammo it's got decent stopping power and I just think it's a good choice for a first gun, given the low cost of ammo and lighter recoil, plus having 15 or 17 rounds is nice.

[Lebowski]

Actually, .357/9MM is the nominal diameter of the bullet whilst .38/.380 is the nominal diameter of the casing. Also, the tolerances are not hundreds (0.01") but thousandths (0.001").

Raza, my suggestion is a 4" .357 Magnum revolver from a second tier manufacturer like Taurus. Very popular (relatively inexpensive), versatile, easy to use (most semi-autos are complicated in function - trigger safeties, hammer safeties, slide safeties, etc.) and most importantly, they will also shoot the cheaper/easier-to-handle .38 for learning purposes. (NOTE: .38 will not shoot .357 by design - the .357 cartridge is too long to fit).

Ah, I always wondered about that naming convention, now I know.  I just figured it was a goofy marketing ploy, kind of like BMW using the 328 330 335 name to refer to the same basic 3.0l, or MB using E55 to refer to the 5.4l.  In the case of the .357sig, the name purely is a marketing ploy (9mm-sig doesn't sound very cool).  I misspoke on the hundredths vs. thousandths, though since I posted the actual numbers I thought the point was pretty clear.


A .357mag would be a good choice, but I never really understood the argument that a semi-auto is hard for a beginner to use.  For anybody with half a brain, learning how to operate a semi auto (especially the simpler ones, like a Glock or a number of other newer designs) takes about 2 minutes.  Hell anyone who's ever watched American TV knows how to put in the magazine and rack the slide to chamber a round.  Learning how to take it apart and clean it takes about another 5 minutes.  Maybe that's not the case for a more high maintenance semi auto like a 1911, but a glock is as simple as you could possibly want, which is another reason I recommend it as a first gun.

[saxonyron]

Ah, I always wondered about that naming convention, now I know.  I just figured it was a goofy marketing ploy, kind of like BMW using the 328 330 335 name to refer to the same basic 3.0l, or MB using E55 to refer to the 5.4l.  In the case of the .357sig, the name purely is a marketing ploy (9mm-sig doesn't sound very cool).  I misspoke on the hundredths vs. thousandths, though since I posted the actual numbers I thought the point was pretty clear.


A .357mag would be a good choice, but I never really understood the argument that a semi-auto is hard for a beginner to use.  For anybody with half a brain, learning how to operate a semi auto (especially the simpler ones, like a Glock or a number of other newer designs) takes about 2 minutes.  Hell anyone who's ever watched American TV knows how to put in the magazine and rack the slide to chamber a round.  Learning how to take it apart and clean it takes about another 5 minutes.  Maybe that's not the case for a more high maintenance semi auto like a 1911, but a glock is as simple as you could possibly want, which is another reason I recommend it as a first gun.

I think one of the reasons is that a semi is trickier to operate vs a revolver.  It's too easy to accidentally squeeze off 6 rounds on a semi and basically impossible to do that on a revolver.  My kids' first pistol will be a revolver for sure. 

[GoCougs]

But semi-autos are more difficult; even a Glock, especially a concern for safety and self-defense.

[saxonyron]

But semi-autos are more difficult; even a Glock, especially a concern for safety and self-defense.

Nothing beats the simplicity of a nice revolver.  Plus, you basically always have a heavy double action pull to fire it, as opposed to the very easy single action pull once you chamber the first round in a semi.  A little twitch of your finger shoots a round from a semi-auto - not a good scenario if you're a nervous novice.

[Lebowski]

Nothing beats the simplicity of a nice revolver.  Plus, you basically always have a heavy double action pull to fire it, as opposed to the very easy single action pull once you chamber the first round in a semi.  A little twitch of your finger shoots a round from a semi-auto - not a good scenario if you're a nervous novice.

I think where you and Cougs are coming from is that you're both old school ...

There are DAO semi-autos!  Hell it seems like most of the modern polymer framed semis are either DAO or Glock-style striker fired (which also have a consistent, long trigger pull similar to DAO).  Glock even has the trigger safety which makes it virtually impossible to fire unless you get your bugger hook in there and give it a good deliberate squeeze.

With a 1911, yeah I could see the safety issue.

I don't know, just seems like the operation of the modern semis is extremely simple.  Maybe not quite as simple as a revolver, but close enough that anyone with an interest in firearms can figure it out in a matter of minutes.  The safety isn't an issue, IMO, but I agree single action isn't the best idea for a first gun.

[S204STi]

I find the complexity of a glock sufficient.  I can't even remember how to fire one.  A revolver on the other hand is ingrained in our culture through westerns, so I'm sure even the youngest kid can figure it out.  The hammer-pull would be the only deterrent.

[saxonyron]

I think where you and Cougs are coming from is that you're both old school ...

There are DAO semi-autos!  Hell it seems like most of the modern polymer framed semis are either DAO or Glock-style striker fired (which also have a consistent, long trigger pull similar to DAO).  Glock even has the trigger safety which makes it virtually impossible to fire unless you get your bugger hook in there and give it a good deliberate squeeze.

With a 1911, yeah I could see the safety issue.

I don't know, just seems like the operation of the modern semis is extremely simple.  Maybe not quite as simple as a revolver, but close enough that anyone with an interest in firearms can figure it out in a matter of minutes.  The safety isn't an issue, IMO, but I agree single action isn't the best idea for a first gun.

Yeah, I agree.  But I'm not thinking so much about a little kid stumbling upon the gun and accidentally shooting it.  Any loaded gun at that point is a disaster.  I'm just thinking about using the gun and not accidentally blowing a hole in your hand trying to unjamb it like my dad's gunsmith friend inexplicably did about 30 years ago.  But I suppose any stoopid move like that with any gun would do you in.  It's just that I've never had my revolver jam, but I've had plenty of semi's lock up.

[Lebowski]

I find the complexity of a glock sufficient.  I can't even remember how to fire one.  A revolver on the other hand is ingrained in our culture through westerns, so I'm sure even the youngest kid can figure it out.  The hammer-pull would be the only deterrent.

Meh, I guess a revolver is easier to use in the sense that if you know how to use one, you can use them all.  If you randomly pick up any semi auto in the store you might have to ask if it is SA/DA, where the slide release is etc 

But if you are talking about buying a gun (and that's what Raza is talking about), you take the 2 minutes necessary to have the salesman show you (or read the manual) where the slide release and takedown lever are, what the trigger system is, and you're good forever.  If you own the gun, you aren't going to forget how to use it unless it rots in the safe for 3 years at a time and never gets touched.

We aren't talking about a 3 year old here (tho Raza sometimes acts like one  ).

[GoCougs]

Not old school - if one is new to firearms, it takes FAR more than two minutes to become proficient with a firearm - even a revolver.

That is the inherent disadvantage to a semi-auto - proficiency in use in all situations (especially self defense), not the fundamental mechanics of operation.

It's not huge, but it is palpatable for new user. I've been on both sides of it.

[Lebowski]

Not old school - if one is new to firearms, it takes FAR more than two minutes to become proficient with a firearm - even a revolver.

That is the inherent disadvantage to a semi-auto - proficiency in use in all situations (especially self defense), not the fundamental mechanics of operation.

It's not huge, but it is palpatable for new user. I've been on both sides of it.

By 2 minutes, I meant the basic operation of it ... how to load it, how to put a round in the chamber, how to check and make sure there is not a round in the chamber etc ... I didn't mean becoming proficient.  Becoming proficient with either a revolver or semi auto takes considerable range time, and I'm not sure a revolver would take any less range time than the semi auto.  For one thing, getting used to that heavy double action trigger pull on a revolver takes some time.

I guess in a self defense scenario, yeah you could have to clear a jam which could cause problems if you're not proficient.  At the same time, if it comes down to it reloading that six shot revolver under a high stress situation is also going to cause problems if you're not proficient.  A quality semi-auto jams almost never.  A revolver WILL have to be reloaded after 6 (or 8 or whatever) shots.  True most firefights don't last that long, but it's still something to think about (and the likelyhood of needing a reload after 6 shots is probably as high as if not higher than having a quality semi auto jam on you)

[Raza]

Nothing beats the simplicity of a nice revolver.  Plus, you basically always have a heavy double action pull to fire it, as opposed to the very easy single action pull once you chamber the first round in a semi.  A little twitch of your finger shoots a round from a semi-auto - not a good scenario if you're a nervous novice.

That's another argument Greg had for the Glocks.  Aren't they DAO?

And I certainly know how to operate a semi-automatic (TV rules!!) and I don't think that's an issue.  Revolvers are cool though.  Face always handled a .357 magnum.

Cougs, would a Taurus really be reliable?

[Raza]

What is so unsafe about a 1911?  They have an external safety and require you to pull back the hammer to fire your first round.  Are you saying it's too easy to fire subsequent rounds?  From a first shot perspective, I'd think that revolvers are more dangerous since they have no safety. 

[Lebowski]

What is so unsafe about a 1911?  They have an external safety and require you to pull back the hammer to fire your first round.  Are you saying it's too easy to fire subsequent rounds?  From a first shot perspective, I'd think that revolvers are more dangerous since they have no safety. 

I think just that you have to carry it "cocked and locked", and once the safety is off you've got the light single action trigger.  Much easier to accidentally pull the trigger on a light hairtrigger, and if you forget to set the safety while the hammer is back you're asking for an accident.  The upside of the 1911 is that you get to say "cocked and locked" all the time.  I wouldn't say they are unsafe, just better suited to more experienced gunowners.  It's not the best choice for your first gun IMO.

On the DAO revolver, they don't need a manual safety because the trigger pull is very long and heavy.  You aren't going to accidentally pull it unless you're acting like an idiot.

A Glock operates like a DAO (it's technically not DAO, it doesn't have a hammer it has a striker, but it operates similar to DAO with a consistent, long trigger pull).

[Raza]

With a 1911, couldn't you chamber a round and then decock the hammer?  Or is that not possible?

[Lebowski]

With a 1911, couldn't you chamber a round and then decock the hammer?  Or is that not possible?

I assume so, but for whatever reason people carry them cocked and locked.  I assume because it's easier to release the safety quickly than it is to cock it?  I dunno, I don't own a 1911.

[Raza]

In my limited experience with 1911s (I have an accurate Airsoft replica), I find pulling the gun from a holster and cocking the hammer to be a more natural movement than releasing the safety.  But I think we can all agree that I'm not exactly what passes for normal.  But if you're a lefty, there's no way that the safety on a 1911 is more convenient that pulling the hammer unless they have different spec for southpaws. 

[Lebowski]

In my limited experience with 1911s (I have an accurate Airsoft replica), I find pulling the gun from a holster and cocking the hammer to be a more natural movement than releasing the safety.  But I think we can all agree that I'm not exactly what passes for normal.  But if you're a lefty, there's no way that the safety on a 1911 is more convenient that pulling the hammer unless they have different spec for southpaws. 

http://smartcarry.com/cocklock.htm

He says because when you re-holster it (after drawing and cocking), you have to lower the hammer over a loaded chamber, which can cause an ND if you are not careful.

[Soup DeVille]

Here's a question that I am in a dilemma over; do you guys usually leave your primary home defense weapon loaded at all times, or do you keep it empty?

I understand with a pistol that you can at least load the mag and leave it out of the gun, but for me I don't really have that option.  I can load the magazine tube and leave the chamber empty, but I still don't feel comfortable with guests or kids around doing that sort of thing, just in case someone finds it and starts screwing around.

At the same time, I don't want to have to grab a handful of shotgun shells and hustle them into the gun while the perp has his way in my home.

Any thoughts on that?

Both the Sig and the shotty stay in condition three (loaded, no round in chamber, safety on), in the safe, which is in the closet and about three feet from the bed.

The safe (which only holds those guns, plus a couple of unloaded rifles) is unlocked at night when either of us are home, with the bolts engaged. It takes enough force to turn the wheel that it would be very unlikely for either of the kids to do it, even if they could reach it, even if they could sneak into our room at night without being noticed. And even if they did do that, they'd still need to chamber a round before the guns actually became dangerous.

Yes, I'm sure some of you will lambast me for this method, but I see nearly zero chance of an "accident" involving the kids occuring with this setup.

When the kids are older, they will be taught about the guns, and they will be allowed to inspect, look at and shoot them when they ask to.

[Soup DeVille]

.  In the case of the .357sig, the name purely is a marketing ploy (9mm-sig doesn't sound very cool). 

That, and the round was developped to mimic the characteristics of the .357 magnum in a more semi-auto friendly cartridge.

[GoCougs]

Cougs, would a Taurus really be reliable?

I don't own one, but I know a lot of people of do. They're quality and reliable, but they won't quite have the top notch fit and finish of the top end brands like Colt or S&W.

[S204STi]

I don't own one, but I know a lot of people of do. They're quality and reliable, but they won't quite have the top notch fit and finish of the top end brands like Colt or S&W.

Apparently a distant cousin of mine owns one and fires it regularly without trouble.

[Submariner]

That's another argument Greg had for the Glocks.  Aren't they DAO?

And I certainly know how to operate a semi-automatic (TV rules!!) and I don't think that's an issue.  Revolvers are cool though.  Face always handled a .357 magnum.

Cougs, would a Taurus really be reliable?

The operation of a TV gun isn't always like a real one.

[Onslaught]

The operation of a TV gun isn't always like a real one.

Yes, my Nintendo blaster isn't like my SIG.