Good first handgun?

File: img_0223.jpg_thumbnail0.jpg (408KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 800x600px

>>32285339
Colt All American 2000. Excellent accuracy, fantastic trigger pull, extremely reliable. They go for about $500 new.

>>32285375
Can confirm.

Colt couldn't keep up with demand and ceased production, which makes this rare and sought-after handgun all the better value.

>>32285339

If you're not going to carry in public and want something for home defense, wanting a revolver for that purpose makes you come across as a complete rookie when it comes to firearms. Seriously? A revolver for the sole purpose of home defense? Utter bush league mentality. You'd be incomparably better off with a cheap shotgun if all you're looking for is home defense.

Try to to come off as such a scrub next time newfriend.

>>32285398

I'm looking into shotguns too. The revolver is just supplemental.

I just like revolvers, OK.

>>32285420

Not OK. I'm actually trying to do you a service here and possibly save your ass in a life and death situation. You get 6 shots with a revolver. Each with a heavy double action pull assuming that you don't single-action the first shot or slowly single action each and every shot. If you got yourself in a legitimate home defense situation, the last thing you're going to want is 6 heavy trigger pulls to rely on when compared to other guns out there. Sure, a revolver is better than nothing, but it's truly bottom of the barrel.

A handgun is a handgun science shows that there's a slim chance you're going to immediately incapacitate someone with one shot from a handgun. Handguns are good a flinging lead at close range and putting holes in something. Even 1911's suffer because of their low capacity, although they are still extremely reliable and much more effective than a revolver for home defense.

Especially is the bad guy has a gun, let's say a glock with a high cap double stack mag, and even more so if there's multiple bad guys with guns, you're completely and totally fucked with a revolver. Invest in a cheap shotgun or a high capacity semi-automatic pistol.

>>32285512

OK, you convinced me.

Whats a good first pistol?

And what revolver would make a good 2nd handgun if I already got a semi-auto pistol?

>>32285533
see >>32285375

>>32285533

what's your budget? How much money are you willing to spend? If I know your budget I can help you out.

>>32285599

Can I get something decent at the 300$ range?

>>32285628
Not him, but that's kinda saturday night special tier budget for a semi-auto handgun.

File: deaglescience.jpg (31KB, 497x234px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 497x234px

>>32285339
pic related

>>32285638

How about 600$

>>32285649
That'll get you a Glock handgun of your choosing.

>>32285339
gp100 4"

>>32285628

Alright friend I've compiled a list for you of affordable guns at around your $300 mark. They aren't pretty but hey you're on a budget:

Ruger P95 (about $350)
Hi Point C9 (Less than $200 but would not recommend)
Keltec P11 (about $250 but some people aren't big fans of keltec but they've been known to be reliable and have great warranties)

Then for more money There's the browning hi power, Colt all American 2000, And the SIG's but honestly if you're willing to drop around $500-$600 then I would take a Glock 19 Gen 4 over anything else for the price.

Hope this helps.

>>32285751
Commercial Hi-Powers are $800-$1000

OP, the dealing with a shootout involving with multiple attackers in your home is statistically insignificant, on par with getting struck by lightning more than once or dying in a plane crash.

The majority of instances (on the order of ~90%) where a firearm is drawn end without any shots even being fired (because criminals are cowards), and the ones where shots do get fired usually only involve 3-5 shots anyway.

As such, while it is true that a decent 9mm is going to be a better gun in any defensive situation not involving things like bears, it's not as though a decent revolver would be unable to handle most situations where you would actually have to use it.

TLDR: If you really have your heart set on a revolver, get one. It will be perfectly fine for any situation you are likely to encounter, and possibly more enjoyable for you to practice with. Go with a 4-6 inch .357 and make sure it isn't made by RIA, Rossi, post-mid 90s Taurus, Charter Arms, Llama, etc.

>>32285771
You're right I misspoke the shitty FN Hi Power Surplus crap can run you about $450. Thanks for catching that.

And I take back the Hi Point C9 fuck that piece of shit gun. Get a Keltec or a Ruger if you're not willing to go up into the $500 range.

>>32285814
IIRC, the Surplus Hi-Powers coming in are in fairly decent shape for surplus. But if OP saves $600 he can buy a refurbished surplus Hi-Power from Mach 1 sales.

>>32285779

I was starting to take you seriously and then you mentioned Taurus.

Just kidding man just a little cheeky banter but seriously Taurus has been infamously plagued with reliability issues since the dawn of it's existence.

And for home defense who cares about statistics it's a handgun a high-cap 9mm is going to be better at saving your life than a $300 revolver.

>>32285847
Taurus revolvers have evaded the quality control issues they've been having with their semi-automatic pistols.

>>32285865

True for the most part but I've still read about cylinder lock up issues and people having to take them to gunsmiths for barrel-to-cylinder fitting problems.

>>32285847
I read my post again and realized I meant to say "pre-mid 90s Taurus," because that's around when Taurus as a company started to become horrible.

During the Bangor Punta era at S&W, they had a collaboration with Taurus going on and the result was that some of the older Tauruses of that era and immediately afterwards were actually pretty decent--not S&W or Colt tier, but definitely above the likes of Charter Arms today. Find an older Raging Bull or Series 80 and you'll see what I mean.

>>32285978
>Bangor Punta

Didn't they make S&W stop pinning the barrels and recessing the cylinders on their revolvers?

>>32285993
Yes, Bangor Punta instituted those changes around halfway through their era partly to keep costs down and partly because improvements in automation and manufacturing technologies in general no longer make things like the barrels being pinned an absolute necessity for the gun to work as expected.

That being said, it's hilarious that a lot of the most desirable S&Ws today come from when Bangor Punta was in charge. The same things that people were spouting today about how the company had gone to the dogs and that none of the new guns they were making would be worth anything in the future were being said back in the 70s and 80s about Bangor Punta Smith and Wesson.

I bought a 2" small frame 357 mag as my first gun to use as concealed carry, and after taking it to the range a few times I feel like the recoil using full power magnums is too much - its not even fun to shoot, its that painful. Shooting 38 specials out of it is super fun though.

Im afraid if i ever really have to use my 357 mag hollow points, im gonna go deaf

I got the revolver instead of a pistol because my old man took me to the gun range and I shot a 9mm, a 45 acp, and a 38 special revolver, and I absolutely fell in love with it. I found it a ton of fun to shoot and it never jammed. I'm gonna get a pistol some day but I wont use it as a concealed carry until I've trained and drilled with it a lot

>>32286081
All the old guys i've talked to at gun shows that charge a premium for older smiths say that the pinned barrel was better cause threading them in causes the frame to crack or something like that.

>>32286152
They were all threaded. The pin simply kept the barrel from unthreading.

>>32286164
Oh, I see. But I do agree that it is pretty ironic with everyone shitting their pants over modern S&W and everyone was shitting their pants over S&W 30 - 40 years ago.

File: 400px-S&W-686x2.jpg (42KB, 400x297px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x297px

>>32286132
I actually liked the 2" revolver so much that I picked up a 4" 686+, I just got it so I havent had a chance to shoot it but I did clean it and conceal carry it and I wad surprised how easy it is to concealed carry - sitting or moving, it feels fine. The grip is big though so it prints in a t shirt but with a sweater on its fine. I actually got a boner the first time I put on the 686+ in my waistband, it felt that good. Pic related, I got the 4" one

>>32286196
shit that bottom one is 6 or 8"

>>32286152
The pin on the barrel was basically cosmetic by the 70s thanks to the appearance of CNC machining. You no longer needed a pin because Smith and Wesson was now able to make barrels that fit perfectly into the frame almost every time. I say almost because they had the same problem as today back then of revolvers with canted barrels occasionally making it to market.

The pins did serve a structural purpose on guns that were made before WWII and probably on some of the ones made in the 50s though.

>the pinned barrel was better cause threading them in causes the frame to crack or something like that

I've heard this too, and the reason we keep hearing this is due to a combination of intentional deception/fuddlore. The place where the frame is most likely to crack is on the strap below the forcing cone. It usually happens because that part of the frame is quite thin and yet is subject to the pressures of the escaping gas from the cylinder gap, and it usually happens on guns that 1.) were fed a diet of hot 125 grain magnum loads and 2.) were originally .38 special designs that were scaled up slightly to accept .357 like the Model 19. There's a reason you'll find hardly any instances of it happening to an N-frame .357. Either way, the barrel pin has nothing to do with it.

>>32285512
dude, the most important thing is to be comfortable with your gun. I remember my buddy in Texas carried a SAA just cause he was a fucking good shot with it. It even saved his life too. It's more important to be familiar with your weapon then to have the most "advanced" and "greatest" weapon on the market and be dicking around with a potential failure, or not knowing how to clear a malfunction.

Not everyone can put int the time to learn an AR-15 inside an out, and a DA revolver has its own niche by being the simplest thing for a new guy to use.
If he's on /k/, yes, it would probably behoove him to carry something with a bit more finesse and firepower then a .38, but if it's what he's most comfortable with, then I think that'd be the most appropriate thing.

I forgot to flip off the safety on my CZ75 in a stressful situation. It only cost me a half second but it nearly cost me my life.

>>32285847
If guns aren't the central focus and hobby in your life, and you forget to flip off the safety on a handgun, or chamber a round. It can really REALLY ruin your day.

Revolvers have their niche in the normie and newguns market.

File: 1477957481857.jpg (4MB, 3900x5008px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3900x5008px

>>32285533
Here ya go.

File: 400px-PEO_Mossberg_590A1.jpg (9KB, 400x149px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 400x149px

A Mossberg 500 loaded with #4 buckshot is the only thing you will ever need. Just enough lead flying to ruin someone's day, but not enough to overpenetrate. Literally the best for home defense.