Gun chit chat again (getting a handgun)

[MoeMag]

More gun questions.

Well this past weekend at a parade here, the folks in the carriage in front of us had some fun. One of the horses got impaled on part of the carriage and the quickest way to deal with a dieing thrashing 1200-pound critter is to well… out came a .40 cal. (for those of you who havent gatherd my life is mostly horses... then paintball)

As much as I didn’t want to get a handgun, the utility of having one is getting to me. It’s something small and easy. I always wanted a Winchester model ’94 but they stopped making them when I finally had the chance to pick one up. I’m not willing to pay collector prices for one and I really don’t like the idea of a used gun (but there is a gun show coming up so I might get lucky). In the mean time I’m still missing a riding gun.

So anyway… tell me about handguns. I’m looking in the $500-$1000 range. In college so I cant justify getting a Kimber or a Sig just yet got horse, mortgage, and food (in that order) to pay for while working part time and going to school full time.

What I have looked at…

Glock .40cal or .45acp
HK USP .40 or .45acp. (if I had $$ I would get the Mk23)
(suggest a brand) milspec 1911 .45 (thoughts on only having 7 rounds) A $$$ stretch as well
Colt .45LC SAA… I like the feel of revolvers what can I say but 6 shots and no mag reload???.

Not liking the XD
Taurus no bueno

What else and why.

[punkncat]

I am looking into the HK USP .45. I like the higher capacity than the Colt, and better price.

[bornl33t]

a sig isn't 1000$ it's not even 700$ infact if you watch gunbroker.com they are usually between 300$ for a used one to 650$ish for a new one.

[Lohman446]

You can buy new Kimber 1911 for the $700 to $800 range.

I caution you on its intended use - the .40 and 9MM are great man stoppers, but a horse is a big animal, you might want to consider something with better penetration or stopping power, I'm thinking a 357 Sig in an Autoloader or a large bore revolver.

If I was buying a large bore revolver I would look into a 454 Cassul - it is my understanding (research it first) that it will also fire 45 rounds. The S+W 460 will fire 45LC + 454 Cassul as well as the .460 round (by memory only, please research before doing)

[Crighton]

If I was buying a large bore revolver I would look into a 454 Cassul - it is my understanding (research it first) that it will also fire 45 rounds. The S+W 460 will fire 45LC + 454 Cassul as well as the .460 round (by memory only, please research before doing)

Yeah the Ruger Super Red Hawk Alaskan in .454 cassull is a nice revolver. Like you said you can use .45 in it.

[Steelrat]

I'm a bit confused about what you want a pistol for. If you want one to finish off injured horses, you'll probably need a large caliber one, like a .44, 454 Cassul, or a 500 S&W. I would caution you, however, that there are probably legal issues involved with killing an animal, as well as discharging a weapon in public.

If you want one for self defense, I rather like the Springfield Armory XD series right now. Cheap and built like glocks. I also like the way it feels as compared to glocks. Not sure why it's off your list.

I have 3 Sigs, but they are the ones made in W Germany. The new Sigs just aren't built as well. I think the new HK stuff is higher quality, and more dependable.

I've mentioned it before, but I do not recommend a 1911 for a carry weapon unless you train with it constantly, and really don't shoot a lot of other pistol types. The operation of a 1911 is different than most pistols, and can be a bit confusing in a panic situation. I like simple weapons, like the Sig DAK, H&K LEM, and the glock/XD triggers for a self defense weapon, because there are no safeties, hammers to cock, or anything else. It's just point and shoot.

As for caliber, I think 9mm and 357 sig are good. I'm having real issues with 40 S&W right now, not sure if it is because of the crappy sig I am shooting it through, but the rounds get forced back into their casings after being rechambered a few times, something that NEVER happened with my P228 9mm. Still unsure if it is a Sig issue or a problem with the fat 40 round.

[Lohman446]

I've mentioned it before, but I do not recommend a 1911 for a carry weapon unless you train with it constantly, and really don't shoot a lot of other pistol types. The operation of a 1911 is different than most pistols, and can be a bit confusing in a panic situation. I like simple weapons, like the Sig DAK, H&K LEM, and the glock/XD triggers for a self defense weapon, because there are no safeties, hammers to cock, or anything else. It's just point and shoot.
.

He's right, though I love my 1911 I also practice and train with it very often. Its not a great choice if you are not going to. Short of a .45 or .357 Sig I do not know many rounds that I would depend on to cleanly kill a horse, and the .45 is a stretch (there is no doubt the 357 Sig has better penetration). Although I favor the .45 to stop a man... we are discussing horses. If you favor revolvers I would recommend a heavier weapon.

The use of it concerns me though, be aware that bullets have a tendency to overpenetrate, the use of one in a crowded area is likely to not go well, even if noone is hurt you probably violate a lot of laws.

[MoeMag]

I caution you on its intended use - the .40 and 9MM are great man stoppers, but a horse is a big animal, you might want to consider something with better penetration or stopping power, I'm thinking a 357 Sig in an Autoloader or a large bore revolver.

Having to do that to a horse would be a last resort. If I was in the position to have to shoot a horse, I would go for a head shot at fairly close range to instantly stop them and not cause it more suffering, so as far as I can think “stopping power” in the body isn’t my thing. Making a horse bleed out would be very dangerous because that takes too long.
Besides I don’t think any “normal” handgun could do that. Wouldn’t that take a heavy game load of some sort and one of those BIG super magnum handguns.

EDIT:
yeah...
454 Cassul - :wow: LOL
THAT IS WAY TOO BIG.

I just about loose grip of a .45LC.

My primary reason is self defense for me (at home and while riding) and my horse against mostly loose dogs and coyotes. There are mountain lions around too… but that’s something I just want to think about. What set the whole thing off at the parade was a city dog with small dog syndrome. City dogs (and owners) are so stupid. People don’t know what to do when there dog sees a horse and takes off after it. In the past 5 years I put a spur through ones skull as it jumped to bite at my leg, and my horse trampled another when it ran up on the back of us and it bit his hock. Both cases my horse had stitches, and thankfully we had dead dogs to do rabies testing on instead of my horse.

As far as laws...
I have the right to kill animals that endanger my livestock. End of story. (old Arizona law).
Any other reason that trigger would be pulled would be justified as the defense of my life, or another 3rd parties.

Arizona is pretty good to horsemen.

[Recon by Fire]

I'm confused as to to "just in case a horse goes down" is the main reasoning here...

Assuming so; definitely get the 357 Sig 45ACP or like others I think the Ruger Super Redhawk in 454 casual or above is the choice here. I would also assume it would be no big deal to have a long gun in a wagon/carriage so why not go with a Winchester lever action?

Personal defense wise, your options are limitless and it's pretty much open to your preference. But just for comparison, my next pistol purchase is likely either a Kimber TLE R/L II in stainless or the Springfield MC Operator (both 1911 type pistols). Worried about a 7/8 round mag capacity? You can carry extra mags and besides how many rounds do you think that downed equestrian will take? Most shooting engagements are only about 3 rounds anyway and take place less than 5 feet away.

Get what you like and are comfortable with :cheers:

[Pneumagger]

You need a nice glock 10mm. I've oftern hear of those as the ideal hunting carry protection for running across various larger animals in the woods.

They do have a bit of kick to them, but are aimed at brining down some beefy animals in the wild. Perhaps that is what you're looking for?

[Mind'sEye]

My primary home defense pistol is a Glock 22. At the time I bought it I liked it because it chambers the reasonable powerful 40 SW round and 15rd magazines were still available. I have no reason to get another semi. This a pistol you want to train with on a regular basis to retain safety and proficiency. I've dropped a .357 SIG barrel in my Glock and it is a VERY accurate round. I'd say the main drawbacks to .357 SIG are less availabilty in many areas and more muzzle flash. On the trail I prefer a revolver. I'm not a rider but from horseback I would think the simple and safe one handed operation of a revolver might be a plus. The .357 magnum might be a good enough compromise for trail and home, but it's louder, has more penetration (like through walls) and produces a godawful muzzle flash. On the other hand, it has pretty good stopping power. Chances are you're going to use this pistol more outdoors anyway.

[kruger]

I was about to suggest a 10mm myself. It was developed primarily as an FBI round, but was rejected because of the possibility of over penetration. Thus, the .40 was born. The .40 is essentially a 10mm short. They are not that common, but def. a man stopper. And, 15 rds are great for wars and movies, but, as already stated, 7 or eight is enough in reality. And real gunfights are almost at knife range anyway. And, being in Arizona, I would go for one of the composite frame guns. Simply for the fact that I am guessing that you (everybody) has a tendency to sweat. Less maintenance on a composite gun. My 2 cents.

[SCpoloRicker]

Hk Usp .45

[rikgao]

Why not a shotgun?

[Target Practice]

Why not a shotgun?
Not what he wants.

Why not a Taurus? They are great guns. I'm not saying you should get one, I'm just curious as to why you wouldn't want a Taurus.

Have you ever owned a handgun before?

I know you want something that sounds all big and manly like .45, but for you, I would suggest a Glock 17 in 9mm, or a Glock 19, which is the size down, still in 9mm.

[MoeMag]

I have a shotgun... too large to carry. I have a small saddle. maybe if I had a western saddle, then I could use one of those big scabbards

I have a shotgun... too large to carry. I have a small saddle. Maybe if I had a western saddle, then I could use one of those big scabbards

Have I ever owned a handgun: No. I grew up with gun people and go shooting a lot. It’s not until this past year that I have finally been able to get my own guns. Living with my parents, I couldn’t even have one in the house. Sad my own parents are the people that dive me nuts about gun laws. But what can you expect from a man who has been an elementary school principal for 30+ years. If it helps the first thing I did was take a CCW class at the community college before I got anything. I have shot many different types of guns out there; it’s just hard to choose one because there are so many, and different points of view.

I will have to check out the 10mm, never shot one. Will have to go rent one at a gun range and check it out. Definitely has my attention
Taurus, I dislike because one of my friends has a berretta clone of one in aluminum frame, and it just feels… bad. Like a new spyder or something.

Went looking yesterday at some, and had to laugh at what one of the fellas said about a glock… “I don’t like a gun that squeaks out of the box”. Never noticed that before. Shot a 9mm .40 and .45 glocks and don’t mind shooting them though. Not to mention my CCW instructor was a big fan of glocks, so that sticks in my mind.

I don’t like 9mm. everyone that I have talked to dislikes the 9mm because of its lack of stopping power. Some of my friends include Head probation officer for the county, head range master for Scottsdale police, 2 of the DPS swat guys, the guys that own the paintball store, have more guns then they know what to do with, and my buddy in Iraq who has his EIB (he really hates 9mm, most pictures of him he has a combat shotgun). Besides that Taurus that my friend has that I really don’t like shooting is a 9mm.

The Hk USP .45 is still in the lead for me. Sadly I didn’t get to check out a full size yesterday, they just had the compact, and that was too small for my hand. My bottom two fingers fell off.

-Been having computer and GF problems (unrelated) so haven’t been able to keep up as much as I usually do

[bentothejam1n]

-Been having GF problems (unrelated)
:rofl:

[Lohman446]

Good 9MM rounds are very effective, but it requires close selection. I am not as gung-ho about the 10MM, they are in rather limited supply (both arms and ammo). If I were convinced I needed an oddity cartridge it would be .357 Sig. I had one, but sold it after I bought my .45 as it did not fit my intended use any more.

[slateman]

Just try a bunch and see what you like.

BTW - The Mk 23 is a freaking cannon. I mean its bigger than a Deagle :eek:

[Lohman446]

I was thinking about this. Most farmers keep a .357 magnum revolver around to dispatch cows if needed on the farm. If its good enough for a cow, should work on a horse :)

[SCpoloRicker]

On the 9mm debate:

I can see the argument for .45 versus 9mm in terms of the round. However, I am for some reason leery of any cartridge that isn't mainstream. As in 9mm or .45 for pistol, 12ga shotgun, .223/7.62/5.556 (not a long arm guy) equivalent.

You know, for when the zombies attack. Gotta pick up ammo on the run.

[Recon by Fire]

A note on the 10mm:

In a recent self-defense case the would be victim protected himself with a 10mm and shot the assailant dead. The shooter was convicted for the murder and the jury cited that they found him guilty because he used a 10mm with JHP rounds! They felt this was too deadly of weapon to be used...for justified deadly force?! I guess he should have only killed the scumbag a little bit.

:mad:

[Mind'sEye]

A note on the 10mm:

In a recent self-defense case the would be victim protected himself with a 10mm and shot the assailant dead. The shooter was convicted for the murder and the jury cited that they found him guilty because he used a 10mm with JHP rounds! They felt this was too deadly of weapon to be used...for justified deadly force?! I guess he should have only killed the scumbag a little bit.

:mad:

A sad mis-carriage of justice for the shooter who was clearly defending himself against a threatening advance. The jury's opinion was swayed more by the use of jacketed hollow points (man killer rounds) than the caliber. Since the shooting occured in a national forest and the "victim" was unarmed the jury had difficulty in understanding the self defense plea. The victim apparently did not realise that once you draw down your weapon you are committed to using it. The last thing you'd want is for an advancing assailant to wrestle the gun away from you and shoot you with it. The anti gun Media is responsible for not making the defensive value of handguns and neccessary respect of a handgun in a law abiding citizen's hands known to the general public. The court has not helped in this case either.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0616hikershooting0616.html

[MoeMag]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0616hikershooting0616.html

He messed up.
You don’t fire "warning shots". If you draw a gun, you are committed to stop a deadly threat.

I would have shot the dogs, only if there intent to attack was overwhelmingly clear.

(oddly enough in training when I was doing my decision making shoot, I choose not to shoot a rotty target. When questioned on my call by the instructors, I said that the dog at the distance presented, was not adequate enough for me to decide to shoot the dog. I stand by that. I have had a friends German Shepard come running up to me looking like it was going to eat me, only to tackle me and start licking me.)

Also I would not shoot another person on verbal threats alone. The other person, after shooting their dog(s) (not just firing warning shots) ought to have a good sense that I mean business, and should he choose to get physical after that then we will see what happens.

[Lohman446]

A sad mis-carriage of justice for the shooter who was clearly defending himself against a threatening advance. The jury's opinion was swayed more by the use of jacketed hollow points (man killer rounds) than the caliber. Since the shooting occured in a national forest and the "victim" was unarmed the jury had difficulty in understanding the self defense plea. The victim apparently did not realise that once you draw down your weapon you are committed to using it. The last thing you'd want is for an advancing assailant to wrestle the gun away from you and shoot you with it. The anti gun Media is responsible for not making the defensive value of handguns and neccessary respect of a handgun in a law abiding citizen's hands known to the general public. The court has not helped in this case either.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0616hikershooting0616.html

You are not committed to use your gun once you draw it. Well I agree that you better be ready to you are not committed to. The problem here is the people who beleive they will not have to use it, and are not actually prepared to use it. The law is pretty clear on escalation, if I draw my gun (justifiable brandishment) and it stops the threat then I have no justification to use it. If I aim my gun (justifiable felonious assault) and it stops the threat, I have no cause to use it. The problem comes if I am not prepared to actually pull the trigger, and stop regardless if it stopped the threat or not. There is the other side of the problem that says if I draw my gun I must use it and use it even after the threat is stopped. As a civilian you are not taught to shoot to kill, you are taught to shoot to stop the threat of harm. Granted, most of the time this is lethal.

[Recon by Fire]

There are no warning shots, those are called misses. ;)

[Steelrat]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0616hikershooting0616.html

NOT a good shoot. There are so many problems with it, I don't know where to begin. It's incidents like this that hurt our ability to carry firearms.

[Mind'sEye]

The shooter may have made a mistake in drawing his gun and firing shots to scare the dogs away. I wasn't there so I can't say what the level of threat the unleashed untended dogs posed. The tragedy was caused by the continued advance of the irrate victim on an armed man. I'm always impressed by the politeness of people at our local pistol range. I'm sure this is in part due to the comraderie of gun ownership but also because each and every person is aware of the lethal power of the handgun they hold. I think the present anti-gun climate and lack of repect for legal firearm owners contributed to the death of the victim. Everyone who carries a gun into a public place must understand that they are placing themselves in danger as well. One of the things you learn is weapon retention. Whether the assailant is unarmed or not you have to be prepared to deal with the potential consequences if he takes the gun away from you. It's impossible to say exactly what would have happened in this case because the attacker is dead. As foolish and tradgic as this case is there is room for reasonable doubt as to the assailant's intentions. Ya, it's bad for gun owners and good cause to consider in advance what your intended use of firearms is.

[Steelrat]

The shooter may have made a mistake in drawing his gun and firing shots to scare the dogs away. I wasn't there so I can't say what the level of threat the unleashed untended dogs posed. The tragedy was caused by the continued advance of the irrate victim on an armed man. I'm always impressed by the politeness of people at our local pistol range. I'm sure this is in part due to the comraderie of gun ownership but also because each and every person is aware of the lethal power of the handgun they hold. I think the present anti-gun climate and lack of repect for legal firearm owners contributed to the death of the victim. Everyone who carries a gun into a public place must understand that they are placing themselves in danger as well. One of the things you learn is weapon retention. Whether the assailant is unarmed or not you have to be prepared to deal with the potential consequences if he takes the gun away from you. It's impossible to say exactly what would have happened in this case because the attacker is dead. As foolish and tradgic as this case is there is room for reasonable doubt as to the assailant's intentions. Ya, it's bad for gun owners and good cause to consider in advance what your intended use of firearms is.

The BIGGEST problems with people carrying firearms is that it causes them to act much more aggressive than they would otherwise. In this case, if the guy wasn't packing a handgun, I'm betting he would have just run away. Which, frankly, is what he probably should have done.

Another issue is that people who carry really don't understand how to use a pistol in a self-defense situation. We are our own worst enemies.

[bornl33t]

Another issue is that people who carry really don't understand how to use a pistol in a self-defense situation.

What's that supposed to mean?

[SCpoloRicker]

What's that supposed to mean?

Uh, what it says?

[Lohman446]

What's that supposed to mean?

While it is imperative that I be fully prepared to use my pistol should I draw it I must also be situationally aware. Meaning that I must be able to read a situation, and make a decision if it is wise to act. For instance, did you know in many robbery/hostage situations one of the "hostages" is an accomplice (sp)? An assailant within 20 feet with a knife in hand is as potentially as dangerous as an assailant with a holstered firearm. It is imperative that I have good weapon retention tactics if I do decide to employ a firearm. It is important that I understand threat escalation and deescalation. If I draw a firearm the moment an assailant no longer is presenting a grave danger of serious bodily harm / rape / or kidnapping (the three reasons I can use deadly force) I can no longer use it. So if the simple presence of the gun deescalates the situation I must be able to control it (both with physical weapon retention and tactically) until the police can take it over. It is my duty, morally and legally, to attempt to use non-fatal tactics to deescalate a threat if safely possible. On the same hand it is my duty to be prepared to use deadly force as a last resort if I chose to carry a firearm.

[Steelrat]

What's that supposed to mean?

I mean that running someone through an NRA "shoot the bullseye" course and handing them a pistol permit really doesn't do much to teach a person how to use a gun in a defensive situation.

Police firearm training is more than just shooting a silhouette. There is also lots of "shoot/no-shoot" situation training, use-of-force training, legal training, and so on. There are also standards that have to be met.

We hand out concealed carry permits, yet there is public outcry when someone uses a pistol improperly, as seems to have been the case in the linked example. If you have a permit to carry a concealed handgun, there should really be some additional training that is required.

[kruger]

If you have a permit to carry a concealed handgun, there should really be some additional training that is required.


I do not disagree with this statement. However, there should be no requirement to go thru a police handgun course either. There should be some legal reading that is required for the person to understand. Just so that they know that there are consequences to their actions. An 80 yo lady may not be able to pass a police handgun range, but she could certainly understand a knife in her face.

[Lohman446]

I do not disagree with this statement. However, there should be no requirement to go thru a police handgun course either. There should be some legal reading that is required for the person to understand. Just so that they know that there are consequences to their actions. An 80 yo lady may not be able to pass a police handgun range, but she could certainly understand a knife in her face.

In MI you are required 8 hours of training, most book a certain amount of range time. This is better than nothing, but not exactly great.

[kruger]

In Alabama, you just go the the Sheriff and pay your 15 bucks. In GA, you have to submit a "request" to the GBI, (Ga. Be. of Invest.). They do a background and if it's OK, then you get one. No other training is required.

I am one of those people that believe that people should take responsibility for their own actions. I know that not all people are like me. And, I take gun ownership very seriously. They are not toys, nor should they be taken lightly. There is a huge responsibility in gun ownership. And, with the political climate the way that it is, the more information that gun owners have, then the better for all of us in society as a whole. Now, having said all that crap, I think that it is a good idea to provide, or require that gun owners understand what their responsibilities are anytime they draw a weapon. And, the best time to see to that is when they apply or renew their permits.

[Ole Unka Phil]

We are required to train here in South Carolina. It is mostly laws and situational theory and safety with only a very small portion of it demonstration of profieciency. It however may not be enough training for some. People that can train and want to learn and consider and think things through on thier own can be fine with that and regular target practice. Those that think flippantly of it are the ones I worry about. However... I can say that MANY of the people that get Concealed Carry Permits tend to rethink their whole position on it and probably most of them are the LEAST likely to resort to using self defense. Because they have thought about it and they are more situationaly aware and tend to then avoid situations they might have to. And often are more apt to notice something odd long before they find themselves in a situation they cannot extract themselves from. At least thats what a lot of them that I know do. And its what most "Self Defense" experts teach and preach. The whole real concept behind concealed carry is to plan your life so that you will never really need to... you hope. It is an interesting result of carrying if you a responsible person. You will find yourself thinking ahead more. Planning more. Avoiding more, Driving safer, being more tolerant. Oddly enough.