True, but the frequent reloading would be bad in a combat situation, especially considering that it is a lot slower than a more conventional pistol.
But for a household gun, power is probably unnecessary yet favorable considering it rarely takes more than one shot to disable a trespasser, unless I am mistaken.
Did you actually put power and not necessary, when talking about a .357? Thats an odd combination of words The .357 isnt the strongest sure, but pound for pound itll kick alot of ass. Sides you didnt ask whats the best handgun in the world. So Im saying in my mind, its the .357. Very rugged, easy to use/clean the ammo is readily available and, if I need to blow a hole in someone, it gets the job done with ease
One I invented.
It shoots rainbows and waves of peace and joy, incapacitating any assailant, wrong doer, innocent bystander, child or shop keeper with love and happiness.
It holds megasaps of happiness rounds and has a range of boundless compassion.
KingCracker wrote:Did you actually put power and not necessary, when talking about a .357? Thats an odd combination of words The .357 isnt the strongest sure, but pound for pound itll kick alot of ass. Sides you didnt ask whats the best handgun in the world. So Im saying in my mind, its the .357. Very rugged, easy to use/clean the ammo is readily available and, if I need to blow a hole in someone, it gets the job done with ease
Well, as said, I don't know a great deal about weapons.. and I do believe that there is some difference between the 'calibre' of a gun depending on if you're American or British (or something else, perhaps?).
Power was the best word I could use to describe it.. anyway, some revolvers are quite powerful (ie have a larger round size), such as a Magnum .44 (or probably any other calibre).
Yea the .44 is bigger, there are alot of bullets that are bigger. Im just busting your balls is all. Youd be surprised at how much punch the .357 has. Its just a .38 round that was forced to do blow for a few months and then put on the market. So the caliber might be mid sized it hits like a hammer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
KingCracker wrote:Why have a .38 when you can just up it a bit and take the weapon I chose? Eh? EH?????????
.357 can shoot .38, IIRC.
It's just that awesome. Damn you KC for having such good taste. Now all I can offer is +1 to KingCracker.
Darkvoidof40k wrote:As the title, really. What do you think is the best handgun out there? I'm no weapons expert, but the M9 seems pretty popular all over the world.
You need to define the parameters my fellow.
Plus all this is irrelevant. If you don't have a good 1911 you don't have *
*Above statement excludes Springfield XDM, Sig Sauer, Webley guys, and Ruger Redhawk/Dan Wesson/S&W no. 29 shooters baby.
The best handgun or pistol is the one you never have to use. There are a ridiculous amount of variables, personal choice, whether you believe the bollocks about .357 magnum, believe that a 9mm is better, revolver V SLP etc.
You need to define "best" for anyone to be able to sport a decent answer. Been out to various places and issued a 9mm Browning, which does the job even though it's about a billion years old. Seen other forces issued with a variety of things but with handguns it really isn't about all the fancy shiny bits it's about your ability to use it properly.
No point in being given a pistol that will stop an asteroid if you can't hit a cows arse with a banjo.
Elmodiddly wrote:The best handgun or pistol is the one you never have to use. There are a ridiculous amount of variables, personal choice, whether you believe the bollocks about .357 magnum, believe that a 9mm is better, revolver V SLP etc.
You need to define "best" for anyone to be able to sport a decent answer. Been out to various places and issued a 9mm Browning, which does the job even though it's about a billion years old. Seen other forces issued with a variety of things but with handguns it really isn't about all the fancy shiny bits it's about your ability to use it properly.
No point in being given a pistol that will stop an asteroid if you can't hit a cows arse with a banjo.
I see a British flag by your avatar, but your sounding mighty Southern right now
Being a brit I don't have experience firing guns but the problem with big guns like the .44 Magnum is that they take some practice to use, they are big powerful things. You really don't need a tool like that to stop a burglar. The british ex-serviceman I know who moved to the US has a 9mm as his choice.
I have to say that my favourite guns are all rifles, the M1 Garand, .303 Lee Enfield or a classic Winchester rifle. My parents have a deactivated Enfield, tis a thing of beauty.
Being a brit I don't have experience firing guns but the problem with big guns like the .44 Magnum is that they take some practice to use, they are big powerful things. You really don't need a tool like that to stop a burglar. The british ex-serviceman I know who moved to the US has a 9mm as his choice.
I have to say that my favourite guns are all rifles, the M1 Garand, .303 Lee Enfield or a classic Winchester rifle. My parents have a deactivated Enfield, tis a thing of beauty.
As I said to Shuma Gorath,
Notice the words herp and derp in my post.
I know its not a great gun. I'm being TFG and saying the obligatory 'Desert Eagle is best'
Well, looking at it Revolvers seem to be very popular.
Not particularly surprising considering that if you're going to defend your home, explode some birds or just go on a homocidal rampage plain 'n' simple - you should do it in style.
Now all you need is a horse and cowboy hat. And some bad guys for 'target practice'.
Revolvers are also very simple, easy to operate, reliable, and so on. Sure, they're a bit out of date for military use, for for self defense they're perfectly fine.
Darkvoidof40k wrote:Well, looking at it Revolvers seem to be very popular.
Not particularly surprising considering that if you're going to defend your home, explode some birds or just go on a homocidal rampage plain 'n' simple - you should do it in style.
Now all you need is a horse and cowboy hat. And some bad guys for 'target practice'.
Notice the revolver fans are American? Weird aint it?
Side note, I wouldnt suggest going bird shooting with a hand gun. Unless its one of these Yes the Taurus Judge can fire shotgun shells, you know, if pistol ammo gets to boring
Darkvoidof40k wrote:Well, looking at it Revolvers seem to be very popular.
Not particularly surprising considering that if you're going to defend your home, explode some birds or just go on a homocidal rampage plain 'n' simple - you should do it in style.
Now all you need is a horse and cowboy hat. And some bad guys for 'target practice'.
Notice the revolver fans are American? Weird aint it?
Side note, I wouldnt suggest going bird shooting with a hand gun. Unless its one of these
Yes the Taurus Judge can fire shotgun shells, you know, if pistol ammo gets to boring
Darkvoidof40k wrote:Well, looking at it Revolvers seem to be very popular.
Not particularly surprising considering that if you're going to defend your home, explode some birds or just go on a homocidal rampage plain 'n' simple - you should do it in style.
Now all you need is a horse and cowboy hat. And some bad guys for 'target practice'.
Notice the revolver fans are American? Weird aint it?
Side note, I wouldnt suggest going bird shooting with a hand gun. Unless its one of these
Yes the Taurus Judge can fire shotgun shells, you know, if pistol ammo gets to boring
Right, seriously, the Anaconda is only acceptable because it's heavy and well built enough (with the eight inch barrel especially) that, when holding it with two hands, its recoil is within acceptable range.
I wouldn't ever fire a snub nosed magnum. I like my hands.
kronk wrote:@KingCracker: I luled. "Yes, I'd like a gun that will break my wrists when I fire it?"
ShumaGorath wrote:
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:
KingCracker wrote:
Darkvoidof40k wrote:Well, looking at it Revolvers seem to be very popular.
Not particularly surprising considering that if you're going to defend your home, explode some birds or just go on a homocidal rampage plain 'n' simple - you should do it in style.
Now all you need is a horse and cowboy hat. And some bad guys for 'target practice'.
Notice the revolver fans are American? Weird aint it?
Side note, I wouldnt suggest going bird shooting with a hand gun. Unless its one of these Yes the Taurus Judge can fire shotgun shells, you know, if pistol ammo gets to boring
Do want
Welcome to your broken wrist.
Wow you too must be twins Ive first a few shells from that at a local range. Its bark is WAY worse then the kick. Now dont get me wrong, itll jack up your nose if your not doing it right. But its not as bad as youll psych yourself up though. It also fires .45 rounds as well
kronk wrote:@KingCracker: I luled. "Yes, I'd like a gun that will break my wrists when I fire it?"
ShumaGorath wrote:
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:
KingCracker wrote:
Darkvoidof40k wrote:Well, looking at it Revolvers seem to be very popular.
Not particularly surprising considering that if you're going to defend your home, explode some birds or just go on a homocidal rampage plain 'n' simple - you should do it in style.
Now all you need is a horse and cowboy hat. And some bad guys for 'target practice'.
Notice the revolver fans are American? Weird aint it?
Side note, I wouldnt suggest going bird shooting with a hand gun. Unless its one of these
Yes the Taurus Judge can fire shotgun shells, you know, if pistol ammo gets to boring
Do want
Welcome to your broken wrist.
Wow you too must be twins Ive first a few shells from that at a local range. Its bark is WAY worse then the kick. Now dont get me wrong, itll jack up your nose if your not doing it right. But its not as bad as youll psych yourself up though. It also fires .45 rounds as well
I would recommend that if you do buy one these, take it to a gunsmith and have them de-burr the edges. Taurus weapons suffer from a lack of quality finishing. They're nice and all, but you truly do get what you pay for.
Darkvoidof40k wrote:Well, looking at it Revolvers seem to be very popular.
Not particularly surprising considering that if you're going to defend your home, explode some birds or just go on a homocidal rampage plain 'n' simple - you should do it in style.
Now all you need is a horse and cowboy hat. And some bad guys for 'target practice'.
Notice the revolver fans are American? Weird aint it?
Side note, I wouldnt suggest going bird shooting with a hand gun. Unless its one of these
Yes the Taurus Judge can fire shotgun shells, you know, if pistol ammo gets to boring
Do want
Welcome to your broken wrist.
Only if you're an absolute pussy. Its just a .410 shell. Even twelve year old girls can shoot that. I've shot one, the recoil is nothing.
The downside is the pattern is absolute crap past about 10 feet, but then again thats exactly what its made for.
Although i don't own a .357 I've shot several, mostly Colts. They are sweet with a light recoil and flat line accuracy. Put .38 specials in there and the recoil is negligible. A good Colt .357 is a perfect gun. Take it to a good smith to lighten the trigger action, especially double action and its even better.
Mmmhmm, I hope to own one one day, along with one of colt's newer 1991 series-- mil-spec reworking of the 1911, with a few improvements over the original without making it a truly different gun (in this case, it's a good thing).
Ruger and S&W also make excellent revolvers. When you get to that point, research the double action trigger pull. You want the lightest one possible (I've seen some S&W's with 11 lb) and that a smith can tweek.
Though I can't speak for or against the quality of the Taurus Judge (have yet to fire one),I can attest to the quality of the PT-92.
I've owned mine for near fifteen years and cycled countless rounds through it with minimal problems.
In fact the only firearm I own that has been less problematic is an older Colt 1911.
Frazzled wrote:Ruger and S&W also make excellent revolvers. When you get to that point, research the double action trigger pull. You want the lightest one possible (I've seen some S&W's with 11 lb) and that a smith can tweek.
Mn, maybe, but I really don't find SnW revolvers that attractive. I'll have to look up the ruger ones.
Hrm . I guess the Ruger Super Redhawk looks okay, but it's nothing compared to a colt magnum when it comes to looks.
Frazzled wrote:Ruger and S&W also make excellent revolvers. When you get to that point, research the double action trigger pull. You want the lightest one possible (I've seen some S&W's with 11 lb) and that a smith can tweek.
Mn, maybe, but I really don't find SnW revolvers that attractive. I'll have to look up the ruger ones.
Hrm . I guess the Ruger Super Redhawk looks okay, but it's nothing compared to a colt magnum when it comes to looks.
Looks? Who gives a gak about looks? Atually I do, just wanted to say that. Yea most Colts outshine S&Ws in the looks except for the 29s and what are they 529s?
I've seen redhawks take double loaded magnums without damage (handloads accidentally charged with twice the amount of powder). Its the only gun a Russian would stop and say "dude, you didn't need to make it THAT rugged..."
Colt only makes SAA revolvers these days. Basically really playing up on the SAA replica market, only they aren't really replicas because, well, it was Colt's design to begin with.
I don't intend to get a single action revolver. This is a self defense weapon I'm thinking of getting, and a magnum revolver is probably overkill for it, but the intimidation factor of wielding THIS:
Though I can't speak for or against the quality of the Taurus Judge (have yet to fire one),I can attest to the quality of the PT-92.
I've owned mine for near fifteen years and cycled countless rounds through it with minimal problems.
In fact the only firearm I own that has been less problematic is an older Colt 1911.
Hi Fitzz, I have no doubt the Taurus brand has nothing wrong with functionality (they're great guns), they lack handfinishing on the edges of their guns. Maybe it's a newer phenomenon since they changed their HQ's location.
BTW, how old is your Colt 1911?
The Judge is pretty damn cool, especially with the newer Winchester Self Defense .410 round.
Melissia wrote:I don't intend to get a single action revolver. This is a self defense weapon I'm thinking of getting, and a magnum revolver is probably overkill for it, but the intimidation factor of wielding THIS:
... isn't to be discounted.
If you're planning on getting a self defence weapon, a revolver this big is ridiculous. Even using it open carry it's an unwieldy bastard. Maybe a house gun, but nearly impossible on your person.
Though I can't speak for or against the quality of the Taurus Judge (have yet to fire one),I can attest to the quality of the PT-92.
I've owned mine for near fifteen years and cycled countless rounds through it with minimal problems.
In fact the only firearm I own that has been less problematic is an older Colt 1911.
Hi Fitzz, I have no doubt the Taurus brand has nothing wrong with functionality (they're great guns), they lack handfinishing on the edges of their guns. Maybe it's a newer phenomenon since they changed their HQ's location.
BTW, how old is your Colt 1911?
The Judge is pretty damn cool, especially with the newer Winchester Self Defense .410 round.
Hey Stormrider,Could be a newer situation with Taurus as mine is a bit older.
As for my Colt,it was my Fathers pistol before it was given to me,he was in the service between 1967 and 1975 (76?),so I'm assuming it could be close to 45 years old,I've had some maintenance done to it and over the years replaced a few worn parts,but it's still a fine firearm .
Melissia wrote:I don't intend to get a single action revolver. This is a self defense weapon I'm thinking of getting, and a magnum revolver is probably overkill for it, but the intimidation factor of wielding THIS:
... isn't to be discounted.
If you're planning on getting a self defence weapon, a revolver this big is ridiculous. Even using it open carry it's an unwieldy bastard. Maybe a house gun, but nearly impossible on your person.
Meh, the smaller self defense guns are rather uncomfortable to fire. Dunno, it needs a solid grip that my entire hand fits into, not one of those tiny pistols where only three fingers fit. And my hands aren't exactly huge.
Melissia wrote:I don't intend to get a single action revolver. This is a self defense weapon I'm thinking of getting, and a magnum revolver is probably overkill for it, but the intimidation factor of wielding THIS:
... isn't to be discounted.
If you're planning on getting a self defence weapon, a revolver this big is ridiculous. Even using it open carry it's an unwieldy bastard. Maybe a house gun, but nearly impossible on your person.
Meh, the smaller self defense guns are rather uncomfortable to fire. Dunno, it needs a solid grip that my entire hand fits into, not one of those tiny pistols where only three fingers fit. And my hands aren't exactly huge.
Well you dont have to get a tiny gun for self defense. Something with a 4 inch barrel would still be big enough to actually right, but you wont need a mile draw to pull it out.
Those are some pretty guns you posted BTW. Again, revolvers are just beautiful in my eyes
They're all Anacondas, just different handles and lighting.
To stop joking around, this is the one that I'm actually planning on getting from a self defense perspective:
Colt 1991 government model, .45 caliber. Very cheap, modern, and based off of the reliable 1911 design (with some improvements over the mil-spec 1911 design).
The Anaconda I want from an artistic perspective as much as anything. Heck, the two can fire the same ammunition (the Anaconda can fire .45 magnums or .45 colt centerfires), so they're a nice match.
Melissia wrote:They're all Anacondas, just different handles and lighting.
To stop joking around, this is the one that I'm actually planning on getting from a self defense perspective:
Colt 1991 government model, .45 caliber. Very cheap, modern, and based off of the reliable 1911 design (with some improvements over the mil-spec 1911 design).
The Anaconda I want from an artistic perspective as much as anything. Heck, the two can fire the same ammunition (the Anaconda can fire .45 magnums or .45 colt centerfires), so they're a nice match.
Now that's a good choice, get some nice Hollowpoints in there and your cooking with gas.
I do agree that the Anaconda is a visually pleasing design.
Kilkrazy wrote:Are Colt 0.45 centrefire and Colt 0.45 ACP the same round?
From my understanding, yes. Centerfire kinda describes the style of pistol, and the M1911 is a centerfire pistol (indeed, it's basically the template by which most modern centerfire pistols are developed).
Though I can't speak for or against the quality of the Taurus Judge (have yet to fire one),I can attest to the quality of the PT-92.
I've owned mine for near fifteen years and cycled countless rounds through it with minimal problems.
In fact the only firearm I own that has been less problematic is an older Colt 1911.
Hi Fitzz, I have no doubt the Taurus brand has nothing wrong with functionality (they're great guns), they lack handfinishing on the edges of their guns. Maybe it's a newer phenomenon since they changed their HQ's location.
BTW, how old is your Colt 1911?
The Judge is pretty damn cool, especially with the newer Winchester Self Defense .410 round.
Hey Stormrider,Could be a newer situation with Taurus as mine is a bit older.
As for my Colt,it was my Fathers pistol before it was given to me,he was in the service between 1967 and 1975 (76?),so I'm assuming it could be close to 45 years old,I've had some maintenance done to it and over the years replaced a few worn parts,but it's still a fine firearm .
It might be older, our Government stopped buying 1911's in the late 60's and made do with them until their replacement by the M9. I've got three 1911's from WWII (Remington-Rand from Jan. 1943, Colt from April 1943 and an Ithaca from April 1943), I doubt any of mine saw combat as they're all in about 98% condition.
The guy I have bought two of these from had a 1911 when he was in the Marine Corps (1985-1989), his was a 1944 manufactured one that he could shake the slide off of because it was so worn.
Kilkrazy wrote:You need to check that. ACP stands for Automatic Colt Pistol. (There are also 0.25 and 0.38 versions, if my memory serves.)
There were other 0.45 calibre pistols around at the time, which may have used different ammo.
Centerfire means there is a primer in the center of the butt end of the cartridge that the hammer/striker er strikes. There is also rimfire where the initial primer is anclosed in the entire base. Now days thats mostly the ubiquitous .22 long rifle and newer .17.
Don't confuse ACP with
.45 Webley (similar characteristics though), and
.45GAP (GLock Automatic Pistol).
The .45 colt is approximately .1 milimeters larger than the .45 colt ACP. How annoying that they're so similarly named.
.45 Colt:
Case type Rimmed, straight
Bullet diameter .454 (lead), .451 (jacketed)
Neck diameter .480 in (12.2 mm)
Base diameter .480 in (12.2 mm)
Rim diameter .512 in (13.0 mm)
Rim thickness .060 in (1.5 mm)
Case length 1.285 in (32.6 mm)
Overall length 1.600 in (40.6 mm)
Rifling twist 1-38 in
Primer type Large pistol
.45 Colt ACP:
Case type Rimless, straight
Bullet diameter .452 in (11.5 mm)
Neck diameter .473 in (12.0 mm)
Base diameter .476 in (12.1 mm)
Rim diameter .480 in (12.2 mm)
Case length .898 in (22.8 mm)
Overall length 1.260 in (32.0 mm)
Case capacity 25 gr H2O (1.625 cm³)
Rifling twist 1 in 16 in (406 mm)
Primer type Large pistol
Melissia wrote:Ah yes, they are different apparently.
The .45 colt is approximately .1 milimeters larger than the .45 colt ACP. How annoying that they're so similarly named.
.45 Colt:
Case type Rimmed, straight
Bullet diameter .454 (lead), .451 (jacketed)
Neck diameter .480 in (12.2 mm)
Base diameter .480 in (12.2 mm)
Rim diameter .512 in (13.0 mm)
Rim thickness .060 in (1.5 mm)
Case length 1.285 in (32.6 mm)
Overall length 1.600 in (40.6 mm)
Rifling twist 1-38 in
Primer type Large pistol
.45 Colt ACP:
Case type Rimless, straight
Bullet diameter .452 in (11.5 mm)
Neck diameter .473 in (12.0 mm)
Base diameter .476 in (12.1 mm)
Rim diameter .480 in (12.2 mm)
Case length .898 in (22.8 mm)
Overall length 1.260 in (32.0 mm)
Case capacity 25 gr H2O (1.625 cm³)
Rifling twist 1 in 16 in (406 mm)
Primer type Large pistol
Hah, to make it even more interesting .45 Long Colt really has 3-4 different power levels now, depending on the firearm. I higher end power load might have an interesting reaction in a turn of the century peacemaker.
Kilkrazy wrote:Most rounds are available in a variety of loads of powder and bullet design, aren't they?
When you go down to Walmart, how many versions of 9mm Parabellum are on the shelf?
There tend to be couple but thats every caliber. What I was saying is the .45 Long Colt has such differences that you have to know the power level or else it could damage your gun/blow up in your face. Been there done that got a belt buckle.
Usually on power level you'll get a range of velocities and weights and then +P for 9mm, which means faster, like a 44 mag is faster than a 44 special, but not as much. It won't generally hurt the gun, just your hand from the higher recoil
Melissia wrote:None, for some reason here you can't openly carry a pistol.
You CAN, however, openly carry a shotgun or hunting rifle!
You live in Texas right?
Yep, thats Texas. No open carry that I am aware of.
Of all the sates!
Missouri is open carry, along with C&C compliant and they recently made it okay to buy a handgun without a permit from the Sherrif (at least in my county). There was some concern amongst the City Council that there might be a spike in handgun violence, but it has remained constant.
Melissia wrote:Lol, it's obnoxious how every company and their mother now has a 1911 variant. Colts are still the best
Having owned and fire both extensively, I have to disagree. There are a lot of 1911 models out there, and I think the S&W might be the best of the variants I've ever fired.
Melissia wrote:Lol, it's obnoxious how every company and their mother now has a 1911 variant. Colts are still the best
Exactly. Except for Kimber, Springfield Armory, STI, Les Bear, Wilson Combat, and arguably Smith & Wesson, Colts are the best.
Actually Colts are just fine, their sights are crappier and they need work to get up to many of the above in throating and polishing. But thats why there's so many names above, they made their names dong what you needed to do to a Colt to get it properly up to snuff. Colts may be better now, but again I don't think Colt actually makes 1911's any more. They're mostly just M4 makers now IIRC, much to my dismay. I agree that they made absolutely excellent .357s.
I have the Judge for defense and it's a damn nice gun. As Frazz said, the bark makes you think it'll break your wrist when firing .410 but it's pretty tame actually. You'll definately alert the neighbors.
Past 10 feet the spread is horrid but firing a few .410 rounds into someones gut or chest from a dozen feet away is going to ruin there night/day, even with a fairly wide spread.
There is still the .45 long if you really don't want to limit yourself in distance accuracy.
Frazzled wrote:I don't think Colt actually makes 1911's any more.
... look at the picture I posted earlier.
Colt makes mil-spec pistols. Which means they're a good, reliable template which you customize yourself. I don't know what more you could ask for in a gun...
Colts generally had poor breaches that could lead to jamming. You had to "throat" (widen the barrel opening) and polish it and the feed ramp to be assured of reliability. Also the sights on most Colts would have been considered crap.
Better than their WWII counterparts-oh yea and in a big way. Better than the current array of 1911s, hardly.
For example. Kimbers generally are made of stainless steel and aluminum to inhibit rust. They have stainless steel match grade barrels, hammers, and trigger actions. Their sights are either fully adjustable or fixed trijicon night sights.
Actually that's part of the problems that the reviews commonly cite was fixed in the 1991.
For example:
This new Colt is possibly the most reliable Pistol I have ever purchased. Almost 1000 rounds fired in about a four hour period and not one problem. No failures to feed. No failures of fire. No failures to extract. No failures to eject. No failures to lock the slide back on an empty mag. No failures at all period
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=32958
There is one final feature worthy of mention, and that is the new bullet ramp/chamber entry throat configuration. The barrel entry throat is a new style designed to allow reliable feeding of all bullet shapes, yet at the same time not allow an excessive amount of case brass to be left unsupported. It looks like two ramps in one, first a large sweeping ramp then a much smaller "dimple" right at the 6 O'clock position. The setup works perfectly in ensuring reliability, yet is much safer than the older and more common method of creating a huge, sweeping entry throat that would often leave unsupported brass at the bottom.
Frazzled wrote:Colts generally had poor breaches that could lead to jamming. You had to "throat" (widen the barrel opening) and polish it and the feed ramp to be assured of reliability. Also the sights on most Colts would have been considered crap.
I had problems with the Colt 1911 I owned. Stock sights were kinda poor, and I had a few jamming issues.
My S&W 1911 has had no such problems in ~ 8K rounds fired.
This new Colt is possibly the most reliable Pistol I have ever purchased. Almost 1000 rounds fired in about a four hour period and not one problem. No failures to feed. No failures of fire. No failures to extract. No failures to eject. No failures to lock the slide back on an empty mag. No failures at all period
Sorry but a thousand rounds aint gak. I burned through 30,000 or so before I finally retired my Ruger target. My Beretta has gone through about 8,000 at this point and has NEVER jammed, NEVER misfired, and NEVER failed to feed. The problem with Colt was that unless they fixed that , and it was a problem back in the day, I wouldn't trust it.
There is one final feature worthy of mention, and that is the new bullet ramp/chamber entry throat configuration. The barrel entry throat is a new style designed to allow reliable feeding of all bullet shapes, yet at the same time not allow an excessive amount of case brass to be left unsupported. It looks like two ramps in one, first a large sweeping ramp then a much smaller "dimple" right at the 6 O'clock position. The setup works perfectly in ensuring reliability, yet is much safer than the older and more common method of creating a huge, sweeping entry throat that would often leave unsupported brass at the bottom.
So yeah, Colt listens to their customers.
After about 30 years... Again, I'd take a Kimber, STI, Springfield, Wilson Combat, Les Bear, S&W, even a POS Rock Island before I'd buy an over priced Colt 1911. Seriously, if you're going to go for a 1911 style, get a real gun.
agroszkiewicz wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:
Stormrider wrote:Purely subjective really. There is no best or worst gun.
Not true, the sniper rifle is the best gun. I would be so awesome with a sniper rifle in a zombie apocalypse. PEW! PEW!
LOL!!!!
Ditto for me. I'm really good at Call of Duty so I know I'd be the sniper in the party!!!!!
Are you kidding me with that? Pressing buttons in a pre-programmed game (or against some people around the planet) is hardly evidence to say you'd make a good soldier. I reckon that most fighting men out there now would either laugh or be insulted by this.
agroszkiewicz wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:
Stormrider wrote:Purely subjective really. There is no best or worst gun.
Not true, the sniper rifle is the best gun. I would be so awesome with a sniper rifle in a zombie apocalypse. PEW! PEW!
LOL!!!!
Ditto for me. I'm really good at Call of Duty so I know I'd be the sniper in the party!!!!!
Are you kidding me with that? Pressing buttons in a pre-programmed game (or against some people around the planet) is hardly evidence to say you'd make a good soldier. I reckon that most fighting men out there now would either laugh or be insulted by this.
Sweet Jesus this is the best response I could have hoped for....ROFL!!!!
Actually, it's .454 Casull, and it's "downward" compatible with the .45 Long Colt in the same way .357 is down to .38.
For example, I own a Taurus Raging Bull in .454 Casull, and if you feel like plinking with it, you can shoot .45 Long Colt.
The Glock 17 is arguably the best all-purpose pistol in the game right now. It might be the perfect gun.
It's somewhat of a mistake to pick a specific model of Glock. They make a ton of guns, they're all basically the same thing. You can get a frame size and caliber to suit your needs. Honestly, the full frame Glocks are a bit excessive in size. The mid size frames provide a much better combination of handling, capacity and concealibility.
Anyway, my opinions in no particular order:
Revolvers are fun, but they're not useful fighting weapons. They don't hold enough ammo or reload fast enough, and any edge they might hold in reliability is either negligible or vanished when compared to the current generation of autoloaders.
1911s are very handsome guns, they've got a lot of personality and style, but they're VASTLY overrated. They're not nearly as reliable as people suggest. Certainly there are ones that run like a clock, but there are also some that don't. When comparing reliability in a field where reliability is highly perfected, it's not enough to have one gun work flawlessly. Every single one off the line has to. I don't see that from 1911s. They're also very poor carry guns. A single action is not a good action for a defensive handgun. A safety is not a good feature for a defensive handgun. They're simply not all they're cracked up to be. They've got INCREDIBLE style, but they're not the masterful fighting implements some people want them to be.
Handgun recoil is much exaggerated. They make guns that are hard to make follow on shots with, they make guns that are simply unpleasant to shoot, but if you're being physically hurt by a handgun, you need to spend more time on smaller calibers and build up your hand strength and muscle memory. There is no handgun made that will physically hurt an experienced shooter (barring mechanical failures, or poor design).
If you want a fighting handgun, get a Glock. They're the best gun made for the job of self-defense gunfighting. They're boring, they're a bit unpleasant to shoot, but they function, they don't have sharp edges, they have good magazine capacity, and they don't have any useless controls to slow you down in a fight.
Kahr also makes a nice gun, something like a miniaturized, overpriced Glock. Springfield XDs are also fine guns, very similar to Glocks.
Virtually any reputable modern handgun will do fine for you, but when it comes to fighting, and just fighting, the Glock captures the essence of what it's about.
hemingway wrote:The Glock 17 is arguably the best all-purpose pistol in the game right now. It might be the perfect gun.
The Beretta M9/92F is a quality pistol, but it's big and heavy and not for everyone's hands.
For IPSC shooting, the go-to gun is the CZ Shadow, but a lot of shooters still use high-end 1911s like Les Baer's, Colt Gold Match, etc.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to taste, and what fits your hand best. I like my Glock 17.
Oh God, now we've been infected by the Glock virus. Run!
In the words of Soundwave, the All Father:
XDM superior! Glock inferior!
(Frazzled very quietly mentions he likes Glocks and loves the Glock style trigger, just not the lack of a safety. A safety on the trigger aint no safety)
My brother carries a S&W m&p .40 and that is a really nice gun to shoot. Never once has he had any problems with it. Infact the best story Ive got so far, is he went to a training seminar back in the summer for some instructor job and needed like 2k rounds of ammo for it. Well he was there a few days and said nope, itll cost WAY to much money to stay and do this so he left. When he got back, he had about 1500 rounds of target ammo and no reason to keep it, so we got together and just shot stuff for a few hours. There was 5 of us just shooting strait the whole time. We burned through all 1500 rounds in about 2 hours or so and not once did that gun give us any hassle. The last bullet I fired, was just as smooth as the first.
And Im still surprised at how easy it is to fire. I figured being a .40 itd kick hard, but nope, smooth as silk everytime
1911s are very handsome guns, they've got a lot of personality and style, but they're VASTLY overrated. They're not nearly as reliable as people suggest. Certainly there are ones that run like a clock, but there are also some that don't. When comparing reliability in a field where reliability is highly perfected, it's not enough to have one gun work flawlessly. Every single one off the line has to. I don't see that from 1911s. They're also very poor carry guns. A single action is not a good action for a defensive handgun. A safety is not a good feature for a defensive handgun. They're simply not all they're cracked up to be. They've got INCREDIBLE style, but they're not the masterful fighting implements some people want them to be.
Cocked and locked on a 1911 is for a different purpose than a DA/SA or Glock style. While some police are comfortable with a Glock style safety and the higher trigger pull, others can't abide not having an easy off safety. Same for CCH's. DA's/SA's are a nice intermediate step with revolver weighted pull on the first shot.
We should remember, 'Glock Leg' is not just a joke, but an unpleasant reality.
Again it goes to the original point. Best handgun for what?
Kilkrazy wrote:The point about the original Colt M1911 design is that it was designed as a military weapon, not for target shooting or home defence.
It was state of the art 100 years ago. It's not surprising that things have moved on in design, materials and manufacturing technology.
Thats a very good point too. That same argument is why I laugh when people say that the AK-47 is outdated and crap. It was made how long ago? And within the last decade modern rifles have FINALLY caught up and some surpassed it. Again, back in its day, and up till the 80s ish, it was the king. The 1911 is still a great gun. And it looks mighty purdy for being 99 years old
The design is just fine. The original Colts needed the aforementioned tweaking but that was easily fixed.
I'd proffer the only uptick difference really worthy is potentially the new double column style.
I've seen people beat the gak out of a 1911 and it still worked.
You can beat the gak out of a Beretta 92 and it still works.
You can beat the gak out of an XDM and it still works.
You can beat the gak out of a Glock and it still works.
But frankly you can't get more cool than a Colt Dragoon. Plus you can use it to prop up your car...
Stormrider wrote:Purely subjective really. There is no best or worst gun.
Not true, the sniper rifle is the best gun. I would be so awesome with a sniper rifle in a zombie apocalypse. PEW! PEW!
not true.. a sniper rifle cannot possibly be the best gun, because it is a rifle. if this was truly about "guns" i would have to say that the M777 is the best gun in the world
OT, I am a fan of the 1911, or the "Dirty Harry" the .44 Mag revolver. Have also had fond times with the HK USP (in a .45 ACP of course)
hemingway wrote:The Glock 17 is arguably the best all-purpose pistol in the game right now. It might be the perfect gun.
The Beretta M9/92F is a quality pistol, but it's big and heavy and not for everyone's hands.
For IPSC shooting, the go-to gun is the CZ Shadow, but a lot of shooters still use high-end 1911s like Les Baer's, Colt Gold Match, etc.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to taste, and what fits your hand best. I like my Glock 17.
Oh God, now we've been infected by the Glock virus. Run!
In the words of Soundwave, the All Father:
XDM superior! Glock inferior!
(Frazzled very quietly mentions he likes Glocks and loves the Glock style trigger, just not the lack of a safety. A safety on the trigger aint no safety)
The XDM is kind of like a glock clone, but with more safeties, and looks like it was designed by a dirtbike manufacturer :-P
i almost didn't see the last bit!
the 'trigger' safety, like all safeties, is almost redundant since, by the time you're disabling it, you're ready to fire. i feel that muzzle control and proper handling are the only safeties a conscientious shooter should need, but not everyone shares that view.
hemingway wrote:
the 'trigger' safety, like all safeties, is almost redundant since, by the time you're disabling it, you're ready to fire. i feel that muzzle control and proper handling are the only safeties a conscientious shooter should need, but not everyone shares that view.
The best safety mechanism is my trigger finger... the weapon won't fire if my finger is not on the trigger. Muzzle awareness and proper handling are basically good practices to get yourself into.
hemingway wrote:
the 'trigger' safety, like all safeties, is almost redundant since, by the time you're disabling it, you're ready to fire. i feel that muzzle control and proper handling are the only safeties a conscientious shooter should need, but not everyone shares that view.
The best safety mechanism is my trigger finger... the weapon won't fire if my finger is not on the trigger. Muzzle awareness and proper handling are basically good practices to get yourself into.
yea...ok...
As noted, the phrase "Glock leg" didn't just appear in the lexicon. there are multiple scenarios, particularly in CC, that lend themselves to the trigger being squeezed. After having dropped a kimber once, and screaming like a girl not at the thought of an accidental discharge but "oh my beautiful Kimber, NOOO!!!! oh wait its just fine, time for a burger" I like that the palm safety as well.
But yea an XDM is a definite Glock style. My best of those is the new Ruger SR-9 carry version with finger trigger and manual safety.
I started with revolvers and really like the steady trigger of that style, and I know of no one who's had a Glock that hated it later.
As noted, the phrase "Glock leg" didn't just appear in the lexicon. there are multiple scenarios, particularly in CC, that lend themselves to the trigger being squeezed. After having dropped a kimber once, and screaming like a girl not at the thought of an accidental discharge but "oh my beautiful Kimber, NOOO!!!! oh wait its just fine, time for a burger" I like that the palm safety as well.
hence why i will NEVER own a glock only quality fire arms for this yankee bloke.
As noted, the phrase "Glock leg" didn't just appear in the lexicon. there are multiple scenarios, particularly in CC, that lend themselves to the trigger being squeezed. After having dropped a kimber once, and screaming like a girl not at the thought of an accidental discharge but "oh my beautiful Kimber, NOOO!!!! oh wait its just fine, time for a burger" I like that the palm safety as well.
hence why i will NEVER own a glock only quality fire arms for this yankee bloke.
Well its more the trigger safety style than the weapon. Glocks are known for being able to work through extreme punishment. You don't scream like a little girl that you broke your toy if you drop a Glock.
Cop with strong, non slip or lock type holster-I'd love a glock, or more precisely a double column .45 ACP XDM.
As noted, the phrase "Glock leg" didn't just appear in the lexicon. there are multiple scenarios, particularly in CC, that lend themselves to the trigger being squeezed. After having dropped a kimber once, and screaming like a girl not at the thought of an accidental discharge but "oh my beautiful Kimber, NOOO!!!! oh wait its just fine, time for a burger" I like that the palm safety as well.
i'd like to hear about your experiences with the kimber. it was what i originally was going to buy when I was looking for my first pistol. nowadays, i just want to shoot cheap though, and for what i'd spend on a kimber, i could get a norinco with all kinds of bells and whistles + a match grade barrel.
reason I ask about your kimber is that they're pretty unpopular around these parts. in canada, anyway, kimber owners complain about a finicky feeding path, poor quality control, rotten warranty, etc. 'not all they're cracked up to be' is the general consensus. they're beautiful looking pistols, no question there, but i haven't ever heard complaints like that about similarly priced 1911s in say, S&W, Dan Wesson, or even SA. the seasoned IPSC guys at my club--the ones who will spend 3k on their pistol before upgrades--will take a nighthawk, colt gold cup, ed brown, or les baer if they're shooting a 1911. they won't even consider a kimber.
As noted, the phrase "Glock leg" didn't just appear in the lexicon. there are multiple scenarios, particularly in CC, that lend themselves to the trigger being squeezed. After having dropped a kimber once, and screaming like a girl not at the thought of an accidental discharge but "oh my beautiful Kimber, NOOO!!!! oh wait its just fine, time for a burger" I like that the palm safety as well.
i'd like to hear about your experiences with the kimber. it was what i originally was going to buy when I was looking for my first pistol. nowadays, i just want to shoot cheap though, and for what i'd spend on a kimber, i could get a norinco with all kinds of bells and whistles + a match grade barrel.
reason I ask about your kimber is that they're pretty unpopular around these parts. in canada, anyway, kimber owners complain about a finicky feeding path, poor quality control, rotten warranty, etc. 'not all they're cracked up to be' is the general consensus. they're beautiful looking pistols, no question there, but i haven't ever heard complaints like that about similarly priced 1911s in say, S&W, Dan Wesson, or even SA. the seasoned IPSC guys at my club--the ones who will spend 3k on their pistol before upgrades--will take a nighthawk, colt gold cup, ed brown, or les baer if they're shooting a 1911. they won't even consider a kimber.
Kimbers are greatly respected around these parts for IDPA and personal shooting, even if its a Yankee gun.
I wouldn't compare a Les Bear to a Kimber, different price point. Thats more a Wilson or STI level. I'd put Kimber more at the high end Springfield Armory level.
My personal experience-I love the Kimber.
Positives:
-Its stainless steel and alumnium, good for not being a hanger queen.
-Very crisp trigger.
-Deburred edges.
-Extremly accurate for its barrel length. Further I can snap shoot very efficaciously.
-Its taken several types of ammo including some cheap Wolf stuff without problem. About once in every 400 or so it will fail to feed a Wolf 230 grain. But thats crappy ammo so understand.
-Upkeep, the main spring broke during its life, but considering the amount of shots fired I wouldn't consider that bad. Didn't have to pay for the repair.
EDIT: The only pistol I have had as maintenance free has been a 92 and its never broken and never jammed/misfired (knocks on wood now).
Negative:
-This model is really light. It makes my hand shake progressively more such that, at about 35 rounds, its shaking pretty badly and I can only snap shoot.
Cocked and locked on a 1911 is for a different purpose than a DA/SA or Glock style.
Not sure what you mean by "purpose." Both the Glock and 1911 are primarily intended as fighting pistols.
In my opinion the optimal fighting pisol is a DAO, double stack, no controls, no external hammer. That's my opinion...
If somebody is experienced with a 1911, I'd suggest they go with what they know. But from a blank slate, I recommend the simple DAO pistol. I also tend to think that the popularity of 1911s is almost entirely due to nostalgia, reputation and the like. As fighting implements, they're really not all that friendly. This is a very MINOR distinction. A 1911 can certainly perform admirably as a fighting handgun, it's just not optimal.
Obviously the US military disagrees with me. They want all their sidearms to be laden with every bell and whistle possible. Grip safety, trigger safety, manual safety, decocker, etc. etc. etc. They love bells and whistles. I don't know why.
I also don't agree that a Glock is in any way more likely to accidental discharge than a 1911. On the contrary a SA trigger is far more likely to do so than a DAO. I realize there are anecdotes and monikers for ADs with Glocks, but I think they're more of a product of the "gun wars" between various factions, and less about actual reality.
And that's basically along the line with what I'm saying, which is "best fighting handgun." In that category, it's any of the top end DAO, no controls autoloaders, the Glocks/XDs/Kahrs, etc.
As I mentioned before I really don't like shooting Glocks just for the sake of shooting. If I'm doing actual combat drills, I'll train with a Glock since it's what I carry, and the satisfaction of doing the training is what I'm after. But if I'm just standing still in a lane, shooting at paper, I prefer something nicer to shoot.
The XDM is kind of like a glock clone, but with more safeties, and looks like it was designed by a dirtbike manufacturer
Well, Croatians. I actually have one of the original HS2000s. They're actually not quite as nice as the XDs that came later.
i feel that muzzle control and proper handling are the only safeties a conscientious shooter should need, but not everyone shares that view.
I tend to agree. A lot of the drills I work on are about assuring that the weapon is never pointed at onesself, even for an instant, that the finger is off the trigger unless firing, etc. There are whole rituals and muscle memory training patterns that teach proper safety, and this is really all that can be relied upon.
You may be called upon to operate a weapon that has no safety. If you rely on it to be safe, you're not a trained gun fighter.
i'd like to hear about your experiences with the kimber
I carried a Kimber Ultra Carry II for about a year.
So, re: earlier comments, it's not like I bought a Glock and decided that was the be-all end-all. I actually owned and carried many guns before I finally admitted to myself that a Glock is the correct weapon for fighting.
Anyway, it did not function flawlessly, it did have some feed issues, as most 1911s I've seen do. Usually this can be resolved by choosing the right ammo for the gun, and keeping it clean, but it lines up with the 'not all they're cracked up to be' stuff you're hearing. I'd generalize that to all 1911s, not just Kimbers, though.
If you do want a 1911, I think a Kimber is a fine choice. If you want to save some money, the Taurus PT1911 is also very good. It's one of the few 1911s I've owned/dealt with that DIDN'T have problems.
Also, yet ANOTHER reason I don't like 1911s for carry is that they've got a sharp hammer and pointy beavertail just waiting to destroy your ribs when you sit in the car, etc. etc.
Phryxis wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "purpose." Both the Glock and 1911 are primarily intended as fighting pistols.
Different purposes. Military; concealed carry; general police work; target shooting and plinking. While a pistol may have started as a military pistol its current use may be quite different.
Different purposes. Military; concealed carry; general police work; target shooting and plinking.
Ok, but in that case I don't think the 1911 and Glock are for different purposes. They're both fighting handguns with versions for military use, police work and concealed carry.
I consider all of that "fighting," and in that capacity I consider the Glock (and similar weapons) to be the most practical and effective design/featureset.
They're not stylish, they're not especially fun to shoot, but they're very well suited to the job.
Different purposes. Military; concealed carry; general police work; target shooting and plinking.
Ok, but in that case I don't think the 1911 and Glock are for different purposes. They're both fighting handguns with versions for military use, police work and concealed carry.
I consider all of that "fighting," and in that capacity I consider the Glock (and similar weapons) to be the most practical and effective design/featureset.
They're not stylish, they're not especially fun to shoot, but they're very well suited to the job.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. The concept of a semi auto with only moderate trigger pull, without an easily switchable safety to me lacks merit.
Different purposes. Military; concealed carry; general police work; target shooting and plinking.
Ok, but in that case I don't think the 1911 and Glock are for different purposes. They're both fighting handguns with versions for military use, police work and concealed carry.
I consider all of that "fighting," and in that capacity I consider the Glock (and similar weapons) to be the most practical and effective design/featureset.
They're not stylish, they're not especially fun to shoot, but they're very well suited to the job.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. The concept of a semi auto with only moderate trigger pull, without an easily switchable safety to me lacks merit.
That's kind of irellevant as you shouldn't have your finger on the trigger while drawing, on any pistol.
The concept of a semi auto with only moderate trigger pull, without an easily switchable safety to me lacks merit.
Do you do a lot of combat/self-defense training? That's the set of experiences that really pushed me into Glock territory.
SD training. I don't like the concept of long term carry without a safety. A safety is easy to kick off on the draw.
But we've brought over the essential and endless Glock vs. 1911 debate. Like the epic less filling! tastes great! debate, this one will never end. Both sides are right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Phryxis wrote:
Different purposes. Military; concealed carry; general police work; target shooting and plinking.
Ok, but in that case I don't think the 1911 and Glock are for different purposes. They're both fighting handguns with versions for military use, police work and concealed carry.
I consider all of that "fighting," and in that capacity I consider the Glock (and similar weapons) to be the most practical and effective design/featureset.
They're not stylish, they're not especially fun to shoot, but they're very well suited to the job.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. The concept of a semi auto with only moderate trigger pull, without an easily switchable safety to me lacks merit.
That's kind of irellevant as you shouldn't have your finger on the trigger while drawing, on any pistol.
No gak sherlock. Thats not what we're talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitive Inquisitor wrote:Has to be the SIG sauer P226 Tactical for me.
Do you mean it's easy to disengage the manual safety as you draw?
I'd make two points:
1) It's not easier than NOT turning off the safety. It adds one more task that must be done successfully in a stressful, fast paced situation, one more variable to correctly identifying why your weapon is not going "bang" when you pull the trigger.
2) It's not just about turing the safety off. I have a Beretta M92. It's a very nice shooting gun, but the safety is on the slide, near the back. When clearing a stoppage via tap-rack-bang, it's quite easy to accidentally re-engage the safety with the racking hand. It's also very confusing. Your ability to fight will be dead in the water.
Bottom line, the safety makes the gun less reliable/usable, and it doesn't add any real safety to the gun, relative to simply not pointing it at yourself, and not putting your finger on the trigger. A proper holster will keep the weapon entirely secure, and all modern handguns have numerous safety mechanisms to prevent the weapon firing for any reason besides a pulled trigger.
Do you mean it's easy to disengage the manual safety as you draw?
I'd make two points:
1) It's not easier than NOT turning off the safety. It adds one more task that must be done successfully in a stressful, fast paced situation, one more variable to correctly identifying why your weapon is not going "bang" when you pull the trigger.
2) It's not just about turing the safety off. I have a Beretta M92. It's a very nice shooting gun, but the safety is on the slide, near the back. When clearing a stoppage via tap-rack-bang, it's quite easy to accidentally re-engage the safety with the racking hand. It's also very confusing. Your ability to fight will be dead in the water.
Bottom line, the safety makes the gun less reliable/usable, and it doesn't add any real safety to the gun, relative to simply not pointing it at yourself, and not putting your finger on the trigger. A proper holster will keep the weapon entirely secure, and all modern handguns have numerous safety mechanisms to prevent the weapon firing for any reason besides a pulled trigger.
Clearly you're a Glock owner therefore have a Gloock bias. I'm so sorry.... (Did I mention I really like Glock triggers?)
We're talking 1911 vs. Glock you heretic stick to the proper format for this dogmatic argument.
As you well know, a 1911 trigger is completely different design, and much, much faster, especially in current pistols. The modern 1911 is made for just that maneuver. Further, the safety can be disengaged while holstered, making it exactly like a glock (just better )
I'd proffer on a Beretta style the safety can be engaged or disengaged while holstered, but can be used just fine carrying wise without the safety, as the DA pull is the same as most revolvers, with follow on shots much tighter. Again its a dogmatic difference and depends on what you are personally comfortable with (just better than a Glock ).
I think we've learned a valuable lesson here. John Browning Superior, all others Inferior!
.jpg)
*
even though he preferred his Beretta.
