First gun, recommend a good 40 caliber handgun.

[bubbatime]

As a first time gun owner, I would HIGHLY recommend that you pass the .40 and go straight to 9MM. 9MM offers faster split times, is cheaper, has less recoil, has more capacity, and offers the same ballistics when using premium jacketed hollow point ammunition.

By the way, I am an ex-cop, witnessed hundreds of shootings, attended autopsies, participated in numerous ballistics workshops. I've spend hundreds of hours studying ballistics, shooting through barriers, shooting ballistics gel, etc. My conclusion is that 9MM is highly beneficial over .40.

Read this earlier thread, especially my comments on .40 vs 9MM.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3312716/1

Also, the Glock 23 and 22 are Glock's least reliable pistols, especially if you plan on mounting a weapon light to them.

The Smith & Wesson M&P and Glock 17-19 are solid platforms.

 

[Robenstein]

I do agree. 40 S&W was a superior cartridge to 9mm in defense until the current generation of bonded jacketed hollow point ammunition came out. That pretty much leveled the playing field between the two.

 

[ironman_gq]

I have a sigpro that is a decent gun, shot several XDM's and liked those as well. If your looking for a nice little carry gun in .40 the M&P shield is hard to beat for the price, I have one in 9mm and the more I shoot it the more I love it.

 

[Mr_Joe]

The Glock 23 is fine. I'd want no larger for CC. Nothing wrong with the 9mm either. I like my H&K P2000sk over my Glocks, but they cost more.

If CC is the main choice the Glock 26 is another top choice. You can add an 'X-Grip' to get a full length grip when needed.

 

[Mr_Incredible]

I can only speak to what I carry. I'll leave conjecture out of it.

I have a G23 in .40 and a conversion barrel in 9mm. The G23 is easy to carry, has plenty of rounds in either caliber, and I like the way it handles. I'm fairly accurate with it, as well. The .40 is a bit intense, but not obnoxious. The 9mm setup is much less intense and gets a few more rounds in the mag.

When I first shot my G30SF it was like the sky opened, the birds sang, and all the happy trees swayed in the breeze. It was easily twice as easy to be accurate with it than with the 23, and the .45 round was very different to shoot. I like the .45, myself, and have a 1911 that also is very easy to be accurate with.

If I were to go out and buy a new standard carry pistol today I would get a G30 S. The G30SF is kind of wide in the slide. Carrying it every day or as often as possible, I can tell the difference when I put on the G23. The G30S is also narrow in the slide like the G23.

I want to say that I had a devil of a problem with failures to eject with the G23 all the way out to 1700 rounds, when I sent it back to the factory. It came back with no problems and has been GTG since. The G30SF has brass to the head issues, but no other problems have shown up.

I also branched out to an LC9 and a J frame revolver. The LC9 is my car gun, and the J frame is my won’t-rust-from-sweating-in-the-yardwork gun.

 

[2cool]

I am a Ruger owner, and I can vouch for their speedy customer service. I have an SR40c, whic is the 3 in. barrel instead of 4in. for the full size. A well-made gun that will leave you enough money to buy plenty of ammo to practice with. Not downing any other maker, but Ruger has a well-earned reputation for reasonably priced guns that are very robustly made.

 

[GenSan]

Three guns I own in 10x22 S&W, conceal carry, and would recommend any one of them without hesitation. Rounds fired on each are in the 3,000's count and I have yet to replace any parts except for spring and guide rod assemblies. The most accurate of the 3 at 25 yards and pistol vise/bench tested with a variety of self-defense ammo was the PPS. None of them have had any failure to feed/extract/fire on a variety of OTC ammo and only the Sig has failed to slide lock after last round but only due to my grip positioning. All 3 field strip and clean easily. PPS conceals easily and has a precise trigger feel. P200SK has the least amount of exterior and interior visual wear. Good Luck

http://simplyaboutguns.com/walther-pps/
http://gunsgunsguns.net/sig-sauer-p224/
http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk-handgun-talk/147557-hk-p2000sk-review-range-report.html

 

[zerosoma]

A Springfield xd is a good choice for a first gun. I would go that route. It's like a Glock, but better.

 

[Tucson Five-O]

bubbatime,

+100 on your comment regarding 9mm vs. .40 caliber.

I have never seen anyone shoot a .40 as fast accurately (that is the key here as close misses don't count

) as with a 9mm.

And with modern ammunition being as advanced as it is, there simply is very little difference in the end result whether comparing 9mm, 357SIG, .40 or .45ACP.

The only reason I still carry a Glock 22 with .40 on duty is for the unlikely SHTF scenario where I need to use another officer's rounds.

Off duty, it's 9mm in a Glock 26 or 19.

Gary

 

[Tucson Five-O]

And as a footnote to the OP, as much as I love Glocks, there are many fine alternatives out there.

I prefer the S&W M&P over the Springfield XD, as it has a lower bore axis, with less felt recoil, and in recent models, the trigger has been improved. I find the XD, even the XDM, to have a longer pull and reset than I like. But many love their XDs. They are well made and reliable, and certainly are more ergonomic than Glocks.

And the M&P shield, especially the newest non-safety version, is the cat's meow.

And as Hokiefyd can attest to, CZ makes some great guns.

Again, I would find a 9mm in whatever configuration, DA/SA, DAO, SA, hammer or striker-fired, steel or polymer-framed, that fits your hand and that you shoot well.

Then practice, practice, practice.

Just my thoughts on a passionate subject (for me).

Gary

 

[2cool]

I don't understand bubbatime and Tucson Five-o's claims that a 9mm is better than a 40. Of course, misses with anything are useless, but I fail to understand how hits with a smaller, lighter bullet cause the same amount of damage as a wider, heavier bullet going only 100 or so FPS slower. Ammunition IS better these days, but doesn't that mean that the .40 also benefited from those same improvements?

 

[Tucson Five-O]

2cool,

I can't speak for bubbatime, but I think I can. Lol

What I said or meant to say, isn't that a 9mm round is better than a .40 from a ballistic standpoint, but that it's very similar. Like bubbatime, I have been to autopsies from individuals shot with 9mm and they were very dead, I assure you.

Shot placement is EVERYTHING. And a 9mm is simply easier to shoot accurately. I am not saying a .40 caliber round doesn't have more kinetic energy and theoretical stopping power, because it does. But it doesn't translate into "deader" (is that a real word

) people.

From instructing & training people on the range I have seen very few people shoot a .40 as fast & accurate as with a 9mm in the same platform, i.e. an apples to apples comparison. With handguns, defensively, the name of the game is multiple rounds center-mass/head.

No one is suggesting that a 9mm round is more powerful than a .40 round, merely that it is easier to take care of business with it, particularly in the hands of a new shooter.

I hope I've done a little better job of explaining it. I'm not trying to start a "my caliber is better than your's war here".

It's just imperative to be able to have quick, accurate follow-up shots. If you can do it with .40 great. My recommendation for most shooters, given what I've seen in 20 years stands, concerning defensive considerations.

Take care,
Gary

 

[Robenstein]

A good 9mm with a bonded jacketed hollowpoint will put down a bad guy just as well as a 40S&W, especially if it is a 9mm+p.

Every caliber has its advantages, and certainly the 40S&W has more kinetic energy to it, but I think the modern defense ammo has made that advantage more marginal. I mean you have to remember the 40 S&W was designed as a compromise between the 10mm and 9mm rounds. It needed to have better stopping power than the 9mma ammo of 30 years ago, but be more manageable than the full power 10mm rounds. So smith and wesson made essentially a weaker and shorter 10mm.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: 2cool
I don't understand bubbatime and Tucson Five-o's claims that a 9mm is better than a 40. Of course, misses with anything are useless, but I fail to understand how hits with a smaller, lighter bullet cause the same amount of damage as a wider, heavier bullet going only 100 or so FPS slower. Ammunition IS better these days, but doesn't that mean that the .40 also benefited from those same improvements?

That slight increase in diameter isn't going to damage much more than the smaller bullet. Even if it did nick an artery the 9mm wouldn't that's not going to bring down the attacker. Blood loss is a slow process to count on in a gunfight. Penetration is the same so that doesn't count. Minor differences in energy and momentum in these low energy service rounds is inconsequential and certainly can't be relied upon to stop a 200 pound hunk of meat and bones. 9mm is proven to carry more rounds.

If you like the .40/.45/.357Sig etc and feel it give you an edge that's all that matters.

 

[jkhawaii]

Ruger SR40 or, SR40C would be on my list. .40sw ammo dose seem to be more plentiful.

 

[2cool]

Darn! I had thought that there was "dead", "really dead", and "hammer of Thor" dead :-( Ah well, points well taken all, and my thanks for the kindness of your replies. Since I shoot the 40 well, and like the extra oomph; I'll stick with it.

 

[strat81]

Originally Posted By: 2cool
Ammunition IS better these days, but doesn't that mean that the .40 also benefited from those same improvements?

Look at the ballistic tests and decide for yourself. Youtube and Google should show gelatin tests through various barriers.

Most modern service ammo (Critical Duty, HST, Ranger T, etc.) fired through a typical service pistol will have remarkably similar performance, regardless of caliber.

Things can change a bit when such ammo is fired through short-barreled concealed carry guns, so more diligence is required there when choosing a caliber/round.

Some common service rounds can exhibit penetration greater than a 9x19. However, FBI protocol dictates excessive penetration is a no go.

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: 2cool
I don't understand bubbatime and Tucson Five-o's claims that a 9mm is better than a 40.


When comparing ballistics only, the 9MM is not better than .40. The .40 would offer about a 2-3% advantage in ballistics over 9MM. When you count all other factors, and consider them in totality, the 9MM is better, in my professional opinion. 9MM offers higher capacity, less recoil, faster follow up shots, and most people are more accurate with it. I'll take the benefits for the 2-3% loss in ballistics.

Remember, in ballistics the three most important factors are accurate shot placement, followed by penetration, followed by expansion, IN THAT ORDER. Expansion of a round is not all that important, as the major calibers, .45, .357 Sig, .40, 9MM all perform similarly with TODAY'S vastly improved JHP. The debate would have been different 20-30 years ago, but what holds true back then does not apply today due to vast technological advances in ammunition performance.

 

[OtisBlkR1]

I didnt like Glock on cosmetics and have avoided them for years, Carried 1911's p2 92's USP 45'S Snub nose 357 /44's a bit of everything.. I just couldnt bring myself to buy a gun i didnt like the look of.. however i got a LE discount and decided that i couldnt pass a GLOCK 26 GEN 4 its turned into my CC weapon of choice. nowadays reliability, function, weight, all play into a CC weapon for me.. when im truly CC small im using a SWBG .380 as a pocket pistol..

2 pennies

 

[Volvohead]

I agree. For a first timer, a 9mm is a better all around choice. A .40 can get snappy, especially with the lighter frames.

Worst case in SD with a 9mm is you double tap, which is easy enough with that caliber. The first one is the most important one to hit, and he's got a better chance with a 9mm.

If forced towards a .40, I'd just go with a .45.