Handgun Recommendation

[1stBeemer]

For all the fans of German engineering on this board it really surprises me that no one has mentioned Walther yet.

I bought a P22 about a year and a half ago and can't even begin to describe what a reliable and accurate little toy that gun is.

The first time I had it out at the range I went through nearly 1000 rounds (yes, one thousand) of .22lr and the following week ran back to the store I bought it from to get a P99.
I know its "just" a 9mm gun but the accuracy even out to 25 yards is superb (given the use of decent quality ammo)

Scotty,

I am a frequent customer of both shooting ranges in Brookhaven and Calverton. We could meet up for a day of riding, shooting and riding some more before the weather turns.

You are more than welcome to try anything I got in my collection

pistols:

32Auto, S&W .357, .22, 9mm

Shotguns:

12GA Franchi (over/under) for clay pigeons
BT99 Trap gun
12GA Pump I usually use for turkey hunting.

Rifles:
Sauer 30-06
AR-15

just to name a few.......

I did shoot a Desert Eagle IXX .50AE once at the 2-stand indoor Kimber factory range in Westchester (had a buddy working there, a 2 time running boar world champion was working quality control on pistol assembly line).
The shockwave knocked a lighting fixture off the ceiling and put a nice little dent in a bullet catcher at the opposite wall of a 40 yard range

[scottybooj]

definitely!!! that would be great. I can bring the beer!

wait, we're supposed to NOT drink beer, ride, and shoot guns, right?

[FGanger]

Scott,

See how fast you are learning.

And boy I would take 1stbeemer up on his excellent offer.

Frank

[wncbmw]

Ah . . . shooting at the dump! I had forgotten those fond memories!

Fgranger - I gave my kids a similar demonstation of what a .22 can do also! And I agree, throughout my high school years, .22 ammo by the brick and it disappeared fast! In spite of all the bigger bangs in the gun closet, the .22 is more smiles per $ than anything!

[fnfalman]

For all the fans of German engineering on this board it really surprises me that no one has mentioned Walther yet.

That's because Walther isn't like it used to be.

[JToole]

The demonstration I gave my boy Clint was this: Fill a milk jug with red jello and let set. Bring same to the range and use as target. Shoot said target with a Remington 700 in 22-250. Use a minimum range of 100' if you want to stay clean!
Then: Explain that the effects of a real gun are much uglier than on the screen. Also explain that once the trigger is pulled there is no calling back the bullet. No do-overs. No "I'm sorry's".
Then: Teach him to handle a gun safely, with the respect and responsibility the activity deserves. Start him off with a gun suiting his size and skills (in Clint's case a Marksman pump BB gun) (he was 5) and move him up as his demonstrated responsibility, skill and size allows. Tie range priviliges in with good behavior (demonstrated responsibility).
Clint will be 14 in November and while I may be a tad biased, I am still amazed at how responsible a young man he has become. I'll tell ya, teaching a kid about the concept of absolute responsibility young pays off wonders! Makes this Dad job easier, too!

BTW, next in my arsenal: a .17 Mach II auto pistol. If this caliber takes off, it may be the .22 LR of this century! What do you guys think?

[FGanger]

JToole,

There sure has been a tendency for firearms to go from large, slow (relatively) moving projectiles to smaller, faster moving ones. If I recall from my physics class, if one doubles the weight of a moving object the impact force is doubled. If one doubles the speed of a moving object the impact force is quadrupled.

Yes, of course there are other factors if one is “busting brush” and fighting wind, etc. But in general I believe the above statement is correct.

So . . . your thought on the .17 taking over the .22 has a lot of validity to me. The increase in speed more than makes up for the smaller projectile.

However, I believe I’ll wait until the .17 costs less, or at least the same as a .22 long rifle. It took me a long time to learn the following lesson in life.

If you want to have the latest, newest, fastest, best handling, biggest whatever, you are going to pay through the nose for the pride of ownership. However, I also found that having the latest, newest, fastest, best handling, biggest whatever is short lived. Another company is going to come out with something to “one up you.” Sometimes it is the same company - buy a computer, any computer from any company. If one buys the latest, fastest CPU, you can bet that in a month or two the same company will come out with one a bit faster and just a little cheaper.

Now if you are like me and have a number of different interests, keeping state of the art means having big bucks. Someone on this site wrote about needing to work all the time to buy the toys he wants, however, now he doesn’t have the time to use them.

So I find that just keeping current, instead of the latest is enough for me. Actually even at that it’s a chore - but a nice one.

Frank

PS: BTW, what a wonderful demonstration for your son.

[yjleesvrr]

Firearms have arguably reached a plateau in the last hundred years or so. Bolt-action rifles for instance are not much different from the Mauser extractor bolt-action rifles from a hundred years ago. My Remington Model 700 rifle with the push-feed bolt for example is actually simpler than a Lee-Enfield rifle or a 1903 Springfield bolt-action. The current Winchester Model 70 with the Mauser "claw" is in essence the same as the aforementioned rifles from a hundred years ago.

My Remington 870 Express 12 gauge is pretty much the same design Remington has been offering for decades. My '03 Beretta O/U shotgun is practically identical to O/U shotguns from a hundred years ago.

While there may be room for further development for automatic rifles, much of what we've seen in our lifetime has been refinement rather than innovation. For instance, the M4 style AR15 I bought last fall is built using the same mechanism Eugene Stoner developed 40 years ago. HK's XM8 is innovative in packaging, but the cartridge is still the same as the M16. Does the XM8 provide the battlefield soldier a distinct advantage over an opponent who has a M16 or an AK74 (5.45mm)? I for one don't think so.

We'll continue to see "wildcat" cartridges come out, and new designs from major manufacturers such as the WSM cartridges and rifles from Winchester will continue to push the envelope, but keeping up with the "latest" technology can still mean going out and buying John Browning's ol' reliable M1911.

[1stBeemer]

And boy I would take 1stbeemer up on his excellent offer.

Frank

Frank, you are only a 10-12 hour ride away

fnfalman:

I have no experience with older Walthers but the P22 and P99 I own right now get plenty of action (nundreds of rounds a month) and so far all I have to say is WOW.

[jonothan]

No guns over here but I can see the argument for having one in your home.

We have no bears either, so it's not as if we have to shoot grizzlies or whatever.

The closest I ever got to shooting was paintballing. We took the nurses and receptionists here at work out paintballing one evening a couple of years back.

The senior partner was repeatedly shot in the back by his own team. After two minutes, he looked like he'd been emulsioned.

We've not been since.

J

[BobFV1]

No guns over here but I can see the argument for having one in your home.

We have no bears either, so it's not as if we have to shoot grizzlies or whatever.

Yes, but be on the lookout for the gay, purple Teletubby. If they learn how to swim you could have an invasion from France...

[fnfalman]

And boy I would take 1stbeemer up on his excellent offer.

Frank

fnfalman:

I have no experience with older Walthers but the P22 and P99 I own right now get plenty of action (nundreds of rounds a month) and so far all I have to say is WOW.

You owe it to yourself to find a P5 or a P88. Those plastic phantastics that you have right now are OK, but they are a far cry from what Walter used to be. Don't take it as a harsh judgment of your piece, but the same thing with the SIGPro combat tupperware. The fit and finish are not even close to what SIG Arms is calling the "Classic" series (aka P2xx series like P220, P226, et al).

About the only plastic phantastic that I see that truly has good workmanship on is the HK USP series.

Plastics are fine and they have their places, but damn, enough already!!!

[yjleesvrr]

1stBeemer - My girlfriend's father has a Walther 9mm. It is currently his only semi-auto pistol and he loves it. Also, a 9mm is quite potent. Select the right ammo and it'll more than do its job. There's a reason it's been in use nearly a century.

[scottybooj]

FGanger.... Force=Mass x Acceleration.

so I wouldn't say your equation is exact. The force goes up by whatever the weight change or acceleration change is, multiplied to the other variable.

And I WILL take 1stBeemer up on his offer.

[MidlifeMark]

I believe Frank was referring to kinetic energy rather than force.

[fnfalman]

I definitely wouldn't mind trying out 1stBeemer's Sauer either. Which model is it?

I'm a Sako & Tikka kind of a guy, but I do have a certain afinity for the Sauer 202.

[Gord]

I am in some strange mood today. Didn't feel like reading everything on this thread. But did look at all the flags. Hmmm. Loadsa Stars & Stripes. One Australian - but that was DJ being a smart ass. One Israeli - but that was Scottybooj from Long Island. And Jonothan from the UK. So most of the expertise and interest in hand guns is US based. Fine.

Don't yell at me for what I am about to type. Or do yell at me. But before you do, remember this. I think Dirty Harry is a good guy. Big hand guns to put away bad guys are good things. I believe that criminals should be punished and all that stuff. And I will admit I am fascinated by guns. But I would never own one.

So why do you own a hand gun? Rifles I can understand. Hunting. Food. But a hand gun? Why? How many hunters bring home game killed with a hand gun? Is not the sole purpose of hand guns to kill people? I don't see the need for the average citizen to own a hand gun.

Flame me all you want for this. Just don't shoot me!

[JCsman]

No flames Gordo. If someone doesn't "get" guns, that's OK by me as long as that doesn't translate into confiscation. And I didn't get that vibe from your post. That's a common position for many here in America as well.

I've owned hadguns for years. Yet to kill a human being. I have "killed" a number of paper targets, cans, pieces of wood and other targets of opportunity. I've scared even more with (sort of) near misses.

Among the handguns I've owned were a single shot 10" barrel scoped gun (Contender), snub nose 38, 45 Colt Government model, 9mm Walther and a .22 revolver.

Each is/was fun from a mechanical/historical/plinking/dreamin' of cowboy days/self defense (or several of the above) reasons. I rarely shoot now (living in Idaho years ago it was easy, cheap and convenient, not so much anymore). But I sure had fun with guns in years gone by.

If you get a chance check out a competitive "combat" shoot. Or one of the cowboy events where all the guns have to be old, at least in mechanical/style terms. Lots of fun, no intent to harm.

I won't bother to discuss that there are things a hand gun will do that a "long" gun won't, but there are many.

It's kind of like trying to explain why anyone would ride a dangerous motorcycle when there are so many nice, safe cars available. Most people just don't "get" bikes either. Fine by me.
- Bill

[FGanger]

Gord,

You are too good of a guy to flame. Besides, you are asking an honest question. Amen to brother JCsman.

If you look over the posts you will see many references to target shooting, or my personal favorite, junk yard/garbage dump shooting. The references seem about equal with long guns and hand guns.

As I look over the thread, it appears to me that most of the references to hand guns are about quality, feel, performance and accuracy. I didn’t see many which referred to killing people. And you are quite correct, if one was going to kill something, a rifle is the better choice - four legged or two legged, it doesn’t matter.

I believe much of the difference comes from the founding of a country. Most of the countries in the world give most of the power to the government. The United States was/is different. Our founding fathers had a healthy distrust of a national government and wanted most of the power to be in the hands of the populace. To this end, it was considered very important to have an armed citizenry.

Actually the founding fathers spoke of the citizen having the same availability of weapons as the government. In many cases the military had inferior or out-of-date weapons while the citizens had more modern/powerful ones. General Custer, at the Little Big Horn was the best example which comes to mind. The Indians, who had firearms, were using repeaters and Custer’s men were using single shot rifles. Of course, our founding fathers did not imagine such a thing as nuclear weapons.

And Gord, I used to carry a handgun legally in Canada - Yukon Terr. with a prospectors permit. Yes, we would have preferred a long gun, but how do you work with your hands and still hold the weapon? Kind of hard to do.

I know you may be thinking, “That’s the states, in Canada we don’t have problems which require a person to carry a firearm all the time,” or something like that. I’m sorry to say that you are wrong.

My brother and I had a number of claims on the Alaska/Yukon Terr. border. Ten guys came across the border by boat and attacked our camp. I was the only one in camp at the time, my brother and our hired worker were a couple of miles away. I looked out the window of our cabin and saw these guys dock their boat away from our landing. Then I saw them sneaking towards our cabin. I yelled and told them that they were on an active claim. I barely had the words out of my mouth when the bullets started flying.

I’ll not bore you with the details except to say that my brother heard the shots and got in back of them. Three of the group were wounded and made it to White Horse. They told the Mounties that they were passing an Indian village and people fired at them. They were bandaged up at the White Horse Hospital and went on their way. By the way, the other seven "stayed" in Alaska.

I had been hit four times, had a sucking chest wound, a broken leg, and a cracked knee. It took us a couple of days before we were able to flag down a plane and get a ride to the hospital in Fairbanks.

Now I know that these guys could just as easily been Americans, but they were not. So there you go. This was over 30 years ago. From reading the news in Canada, I see that the problem is getting worse. Not as bad as the States to be sure, but each year it gets worse.

In areas of the States which allow a trained, honest person to carry a weapon, the crime rate tends to go down. The most dangerous town/cities in the States do not allow citizens to carry firearms. Is there a correlation? I think so. Could I be wrong - sure, but I don’t think so.

Frank

[Lance1150]

One of the major confusions in the gun/handgun debate is that it is ALL about hunting or target shooting, it isn't!

The founding fathers (U.S.) were TOTALLY thinking of killing PEOPLE when they included the second ammendment in the constitution. Guns were about allowing the citizens to protect themselves and/or revolt against a government gone astray.

It is not a far reach to imagine many scenarios where having a gun for the protection of yourself and your family could be necessary. (As in terrorist attacks, natural disasters...) In the event of such a situation a gun could easily mean the difference between living and dying.

I NEVER want to be in a position where I'm at the mercy of some lawless maraders, and my guns are primarily meant for THAT situation. I don't hunt, and only occassionaly target shoot.

The hunting argument misses the 'real' point of gun ownership.

YES, they are for killing people. And, believe it or not, under some not too far-fetched circumstances, some people may need to be killed, to protect yourself or your family.

P.S. The 'presence' of weapons is often enough to make the bad guys move along.