In my work as a professional firearms instructor specializing in training new shooters, I’m regularly asked some
variation of this question…”So, what’s the best defensive handgun?” Usually, I smile for a moment, and then try to
patiently explain that the answer to the question all depends on a number of factors, some of which are intensely
personal or situation-specific. I even refer the questioner to a twenty-page article I wrote for my students that
discusses in detail the factors that go into defensive handgun selection. Almost without exception, the individual
who asked the question politely nods, and then asks the question again in another way, hoping that I will blurt out
one single brand or model that is the mythical “best” handgun, as if it were some closely guarded secret that I really
know the answer to, but am just not telling.
This is far from the truth. Instead of there being just one “best handgun”, there are many, many acceptable choices
out there, and much depends on what one wants to do with the gun, and where and how it will be used. However,
since I am constantly being asked to “name names” as it were, I can provide some general observations gleaned
from regular work on firing ranges with real guns. Some of these guns I have owned in multiple examples, others
have been owned by students. What I can tell you is that in my experience, there are some generalizations that can
be made, tied to specific brands, listed here in alphabetical order. So, with the caveat that what follows is the
experience of one man, albeit one with lots of firing range experience…. here goes!
Beretta
Beretta is the oldest gun company in existence. In fact, it may be the oldest company of any kind that is still in
business. They’ve been making firearms since there were such things, so you would think they’d know how to make
a gun. Most of the time, you’d be right in that thinking.
When they stick to what they know, which are the older, proven designs, Beretta makes some of the finest pistols in
the world. If you think you need a .25 caliber pistol (and most of us have one as our dirty little secret), Beretta
makes what is, in my opinion, the world’s finest .25 auto, the Model 950BS Jetfire, a single-action, tip-up barrel
handgun designed for deep backup use. It holds 9 shots, but works better with 8 in it, and is unfailingly accurate
and reliable, although chambered in an anemic caliber suitable only for nose-gun use. Beretta also makes a similar
gun in double-action, which is just a bit thicker, and unfortunately, a lot less reliable. They also make this gun in .32
ACP in a model called a Tomcat. This would seem to be a great idea, except that the Tomcat is probably the least
reliable pistol ever made by Beretta. I’ve seen several of these puppies spontaneously disassemble themselves
while firing, and I would not bet my life on any of them.
The other bright spot in the Beretta lineup is the venerable Beretta 92 in 9mm, which as of this writing is still the
official sidearm of the United States Armed Forces. Adopted in the mid-80’s, this pistol came into service use under
a cloud in that many felt it was a step down from the 1911 style .45 auto. Others had problems with the alleged
political deals that may have led to its adoption. Be that as it may, the Beretta 92 in its current format is a very well
designed 9mm pistol, as accurate and reliable a pistol as can be had straight out of the box. About the only serious
complaint about it is that it is too damned big for most of us, requiring long fingers to fully reach the trigger in
double action and being a bit difficult to conceal. I’ve carried one in a proper IWB holster for weeks under a shirt,
and can tell you that it CAN be effectively concealed. You just have to work at it. Some think the gun is too large by
today’s standards for a 9mm, and that is probably true, but with its size and weight, the gun just about shoots itself.
By the way, Beretta does make some pistols that are not variants of the Model 92 design. My experience with them
has been mixed. If I were to buy a Beretta, I think the Model 92 is still the best thing they make, and I would go that
route.
Aside from size, about the only real downside I see to selecting a Beretta 92 as a combat sidearm is that for me, the
“up to fire” safety lever on the slide seems unnatural, but this is a matter of personal preference. If you do get a
Model 92, practice thumbing the safety lever up until it is second nature, and do it every time you present the
weapon toward a target. The levers on both sides of the pistol are large and prominent, and will invariably be
activated by standard malfunction clearance drills you will learn in your training, so just assume the safety is on
each time you point the pistol, and thumb it up. If the safety was not on, there is no harm done by the thumb motion.
Speaking of safety levers, Beretta does make a line of sound, reliable .380 ACP pistols with the Model 84 being the
most commonly encountered. These look like "scaled down" 92's, and I often see shooters who start off with the 92
and then decide to buy an 84 as a slightly smaller carry piece. The guns almost look like a matched set, and the 84
is a fine weapon in its own right. However, there is a fly in the ointment in that although the 92/84 pair look
externally similar, the safety lever on the 84 operates in the opposite direction from the 92, that is to say "down to
fire". There goes any commonality of training benefit that might have existed between the two, and you can't just
hop from carrying one to the other without re-training on the safety.
There are a number of variants of the 92 including a slightly shortened version called a Centurion, and one with
slightly reduced magazine capacity called a Compact. While both of these are now discontinued, you still see them
in the used racks of local dealers and they could be very good choices for you. The gun is also made in .40 S&W
caliber, where it is called a Model 96. Beretta makes both the 92 and 96 in double action only (DAO) versions as
well, with some very sweet triggers on them. I’ve had good luck with all of the 92/96 variants. In short, if you decide
to go with Beretta, stick with the 92 or 96 and make sure it fits your hand first. Then, practice a lot with that plentiful,
cheap practice ammo (at least in 9mm), load it with a good self-defense hollow point, and consider yourself very
well armed. If you should ever need to sell it, your Beretta has excellent name recognition as a quality firearm, and
you should have no trouble moving it.
Browning
Browning pistols used to be a great deal more popular on the self-defense scene than they are now. Particularly,
the Browning Hi Power 9mm pistol had and still enjoys a certain cult following among those people who truly know
weapons. Clearly the world’s most often-encountered military 9mm pistol, the Hi Power has been improved over
time, but the basic design remains unchanged since its introduction in 1935. Some credit this pistol with being John
Browning’s last design, but the evidence shows that an engineer named Dieudonne Saive actually did most of the
heavy lifting on this one. Basically, the concept was for an all-steel, single-action, high capacity auto pistol in 9mm
which would be seen as an improvement over the 1911 .45 Browning had designed for the United States Army.
Many knowledgeable gun people feel that the Hi Power did represent such an improvement in all respects except
caliber. Others, mostly in Europe, were more comfortable with the 9mm Parabellum.
I tend to agree that the Browning HP did in fact represent an improvement over the military-spec 1911, with the
possible exception of the trigger mechanism, which is tough to tune properly and is complicated by the addition of
the magazine disconnector, which I could have lived without. Apparently many people agree with me, since about
half of the used Hi Powers I encounter have had this mechanism removed, which drastically improves the trigger.
For liability reasons, since I teach with mine and others may use it, the magazine disconnector on my Hi Power is
still in place, and I live with the trigger which is plenty good for any reasonable defensive use. While it may be a
function of the Hi Power’s original chambering, I also find that speaking honestly here, these Brownings are as a
group much more feed-reliable than most 1911’s.
There is one area in which the Browning Hi Power seems to surpass virtually all modern defense semi-autos, and
that is in the grip design. Every Hi Power shooter knows what I am talking about, and as soon as you wrap your
hand around one of these pistols, you will too. While I know grip feel is subjective, I do not believe there has ever
been a finer grip made on a combat handgun. The pistol is also slim and has no excess weight in non-critical areas
of the weapon, at least in the 9mm version. There is a .40 caliber version in which the company had to add a little
weight to dampen the additional recoil of this cartridge and control slide velocity. The .40 version of the Hi Power is
a bit porky and front-end heavy, and while a fine pistol, does not really give the shooter the “Hi Power experience”.
Most purists have a strong preference for the 9mm version of this pistol.
Does the Hi Power have problems? Well, maybe a few. We’ve already touched on the trigger/magazine
disconnector thing, so I won’t repeat that. Another little idiosyncrasy is that although Hi Power magazines are
supposed to hold 13 rounds, they work more reliably if you download them to 12, and then they rattle with rounds in
them. Most Browning Hi Power magazines do not drop free during speed reloads due to drag from the magazine
disconnector, but I find this to be of little consequence. Also, you should be aware that there are many different
versions of Hi Powers that have been produced over the last seven decades, and so features may vary from model
to model. Generally, the later versions are best from a practical standpoint, featuring better sights, more positive
safety levers, and greater feed reliability with hollow points. Also, know that there are many foreign copies and mil-
spec contract versions of the Hi Power, and quality can range from the sublime to the ridiculous. For best value, try
to buy one that actually says “Browning” on it, no matter what story the dealer gives you.
In this day and age of double-action, multi-mode, polymer Wonderguns in the latest designer calibers, not many
shooters seem terribly interested in an all-steel, single-action pistol chambered in a tame caliber that dates back to
1895. Browning did not help sales of this fine gun when, for a time, they decided to discontinue offering this pistol to
the public to focus on military markets overseas. I note with interest that the Hi Power is back in the Browning
catalog, no doubt driven by popular demand. When I do see a man carrying a Hi Power these days, in most cases I
already know a lot about him, just on sight. I know he values simplicity and functionality over trendiness, he places
emphasis on actually being able to hit with his pistol over carrying the biggest caliber possible, is comfortable with
carrying “cocked and locked”, and doesn’t mind doing occasional maintenance on his blue-finished blaster. This
generally adds up to him being a pretty “gunny guy”. If you are looking for a classic, reliable, reassuring companion
in a proven if unexciting caliber that will likely fit your hand perfectly and you can always hit with, take some time to
investigate the Browning Hi Power. If you end up buying one, you will join a relatively small fraternity of today’s
shooters who see each other’s holstered pistols and just smile and nod.
Note: The Hi-Power is now once again discontinued and the last clean specimen I saw was going for $1,000.00. I
like this pistol, but honestly, I don't like it enough to spend a grand on it!
Colt
These days, Colt has ceased to be a real player in the defense gun marketplace, driven out by the high cost of
production on certain outmoded designs, and made totally uncompetitive by an overpaid unionized workforce in
Connecticut. Nowadays, they are focused on making guns for Cowboy Action Shooting, and high-end 1911’s for
guys who plan to look at rather than shoot their pistols. This is probably just as well as far as the 1911’s go, since
Colt 1911 quality has been spotty now for about 15 years and I wouldn’t want to see anyone get hurt. Colt’s
effective demise is a shame, because in their day, they had some good guns that were quite useful for self-
defense. Many of these have taken on collector status since they have been discontinued, so they might be
expensive when you find them, but still may be worth looking for, since no one has stepped in to replace them with
equivalent models.
Speaking of Colt 1911’s, some of the best pistols the company ever made in this line weren’t even marked as “1911’
s” at all, but rather were called “1991A1’s” with reference to their year of introduction. The idea here was to
produce a “no-frills” 1911-style pistol to compete with similar models from Springfield Armory. It was felt that these
“plain Jane” pistols would sell at a price point just above the competition, and that the consumer would be willing to
pay a small premium for a pistol that still said “Colt” on it. At that time, many shooters were buying new 1911’s and
then sending them off to be customized, and Colt felt that they could get some of that market as well by producing a
pistol that didn’t have extra cost features and finish that this end-user group did not really need. Colt got it right on
a number of fronts with this line of pistols. From a marketing standpoint, the handguns did fill a perceived market
niche at the time. From a quality perspective, Colt shipped these guns with a pretty good set of sights on them,
decent if not great triggers, and obviously paid more attention to feed reliability with hollow point bullets than they
ever had before. Many of us bought these handguns with the idea of making custom pistols out of them, but found
them to be so good right out of the box that we simply left them alone. Unfortunately for Colt, Kimber killed the
market for such handguns when it started making a price-competitive high quality 1911 with upgraded features that
reduced the need for anyone to send a pistol off to have it rebuilt. The 1991A1 came in the compact “Officer’s”
size, a middle of the road “Commander” version with a full-sized grip and slightly shorter than normal barrel, and of
course, the full-sized “Government” model. The guns could be had in matte blue, or in somewhat dull non-reflective
stainless steel variants. If you come across one of these today in unaltered condition at a good price, and you are
in the market for a good serviceable .45 Auto you can just leave alone and shoot as-is, I’d buy it. We have one in
the training gun inventory and it is a truly great defense handgun if you favor a full-sized weapon.
Two other Colt products come to mind. The first is the now-discontinued line of Colt .380 Government Model auto
pistols, including the Mustang and the Pony and their “Pocketlite” variations with aluminum frames. These are ultra-
compact, locked-breech ,380’s that are single-action designs, with the exception of the Pony, which is double action
only. Each of these pistols is slim, has very little recoil owing to the design, and among small auto pistols, have the
easiest slides for those with weak hands to operate. The single action versions have positive thumb safeties, just
like 1911’s and have very nice triggers, while the trigger on the Pony is tolerable for self-defense. Most of my
students shoot them very well out to 10-15 yards, where the skimpy sights start to become a problem. The blue
finished Pocketlite versions have very fragile finishes which are subject to peeling, but the steel models, both blue
and stainless hold up just fine. The slightly heavier steel versions are usually more reliable as well.These little
pistols can just disappear in a pocket, or under a tee-shirt. When I worked as a paramedic in the projects, I would
habitually carry one of these flat little pistols in my uniform or jumpsuit shirt pocket, and nobody would be the wiser.
I still see these pistols for sale used regularly, and if you need a small, thin and reliable pistol in .380 ACP,
especially if you have small hands or short fingers, they may well be worth the few extra dollars needed to acquire
one.
The other handgun that we really still should have but don’t anymore is Colt’s excellent Detective Special. This is a
very compact six shot double action revolver with a two-inch barrel. Size-wise, the Detective Special is just slightly
larger than a J-frame Smith and Wesson, which only carries five shots, and is exactly the same size as a Ruger SP-
101, also a five shot weapon. Colts in this class have excellent sights and generally good triggers, although they
feel different than a Smith and Wesson trigger and take some getting used to. The Detective Special family of guns
was also available in two lightweight versions, one called an Agent, and the other a Cobra. Both of these lightweight
revolvers were way ahead of their time, actually using titanium as a constituent part of their frames, decades before
this was fashionable. (By the way, Colt originally used law enforcement names for its revolvers, and then later
switched to using the names of snakes for its pistols since they thought that would make them sell better. Go figure.)
There was also a four-inch barreled version of the Detective Special called a Police Positive Special, which is a
really good gun in newer versions if you can get your hands on one, and a deluxe, adjustably sighted version called
a Diamondback which was also very nice, but is now much too expensive as a collector’s item. Finally, there was a
stainless steel version of the Detective Special made just before discontinuation called the SF-VI, for “Small Frame
Six Shot”. Some of these were also called DS-II’s. These had great triggers, right out of the box, owing to a different
spring design. Any of these would make great self-defense guns if you favor the revolver and would give you that
extra shot.
For some reason, the Colt Detective Special seems like almost the perfect compromise size in a defense oriented
revolver, not too big, not too small for general use, high quality and uncomplicated. I see them in gun shops all the
time still, but they are not cheap. You will normally have to pay a premium of somewhere between $50 and $100
more than a comparable used Smith and Wesson to acquire one, but in my opinion, nothing is quite like this classy
revolver that is sadly no longer in production. And no, you cannot buy my Detective Special. Sometimes when I go
out for a walk in the city at night, I just drop this beautiful revolver in my jacket pocket with some spare ammo and I
feel very well protected.
Glock
“Tactical Tupperware”, “Drastic Plastic” or whatever you call the polymer pistol from Austria by way of Georgia, you
probably are not neutral on this weapon. Never, at least in my memory, has a handgun caused such controversy
upon its introduction over 20 years ago now. The brainchild of Gaston Glock has huge numbers of supporters, and
a seemingly equal number of detractors. To some, it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, to others it is
apparently an instrument of the Devil.
I remember my own first reaction to the pistol, when an eager student of mine first showed me one in the late 80's,
an original Glock 17. My initial comment was, “Does it float in the bathtub?” You see, to me at that time, proper
handguns were made of steel, and under certain circumstances part of them were aluminum, and everyone knew
the only proper grip for a handgun was made of walnut. The Glock I saw had a frame made of plastic, not metal,
and didn’t even have grips in the conventional sense. It was without a doubt the ugliest handgun I had ever seen,
and to my eye, not yet acclimated to seeing the wave of the future in polymer pistols, it looked incredibly cheap. I
wondered how such a thing would contain the pressures of even the “puny” 9mm cartridge, and why anyone would
need the 17 rounds that it held. When I put it in my hand though, I did have to admit that it settled in nice and low,
as it should, and pointed pretty well.
Two decades and literally dozens of Glocks in various calibers later, as well as certification as a Glock armorer
under my belt, I have to say I was wrong. As a purpose-built defensive tool, I am convinced that with certain
cautions, there is nothing more suitable, at least for me, than a Glock pistol as it exists today. It is my personal
opinion that it has been copied, perhaps even equaled, but not yet surpassed as a fighting tool in the appropriate
hands.
First of all, let me say that I still feel that the Glock is one of the ugliest pistols I have ever seen. It is first, last and
always a tool, and although a competent one, a tool that I simply cannot “bond” with or become attached to. It is the
issued weapon of my agency, and I find one to be much like any other. My own example, if taken or destroyed
tomorrow would have no special place in my heart. I’d just go get another one from inventory and not miss a beat.
Perhaps this is how it should be with tools. I have no qualms at all about training hard with my Glock. I do not
agonize about work marks it may pick up in long days of concealed carry, and, being the lazy cuss that I am, if it is
some time before I can get around to maintenance on it, I don’t let that bother me much.
I have supreme confidence in my Glocks. They are simply the most reliable pistols I have ever used, provided they
are loaded with factory ammunition. They just flat out work, whether they are dirty, cold, hot, lubricated or not.
There is not a sharp edge on the weapon, nothing to cut your hands or snag on clothing, no matter how hard you
train with them. You can sweat and bleed all over them and they will not rust. They have one real operating control,
the trigger, and the trigger pull is the same for each shot, every time. That trigger pull is usable, not great mind you,
but usable. As long as you do not try to turn them into something they are not and were never intended to be,
Glocks serve their purpose, that of a fighting tool, admirably.
Are Glocks perfect? Absolutely not. They have their problems and limitations just like all the rest. They are not as
finely accurate as Berettas or Sigs. They are not as tightly fitted as Kimbers. They don’t have the “high speed, low
drag” image of H&K’s and are by no means exclusive. They don’t have a safety lever to save you from yourself
when you forget basic safety rules, and while not the most expensive pistols you can buy, they are not dirt cheap
like some lesser pistols. They are the quintessential compromise gun, designed for the armed professional, with all
the features he needs, and none that he doesn’t. They are a tool, and nothing but a tool.
The Glock is not without its perceived flaws. First of all, let me tell you a little secret that most of us know about who
work with them a lot. They are at their best in their original chambering, which is of course, 9mm Parabellum. Glocks
in calibers other than the original have a higher incidence of problems than I wish to tolerate. I’ve experienced most
of them, and although I have had some very good Glocks in other calibers, when I buy them today, I confine myself
to the 9mm units. This is not such a problem, because 9mm Glocks are at their best with the hottest of loads, which
is where performance is to be found in 9mm anyway, while keeping the advantage of ultra-cheap practice ammo.
When on police duty, although my agency issues Glock 22's in .40 caliber, I preferentially carry my Glock 19. In this
way, I stick to one Glock for on and off duty carry.
In my opinion, the Glock is not an appropriate pistol for broad general issue. Safe operation of a Glock requires
absolute adherence to safe rules of gun handling, especially the requirement that one’s finger be kept off the
trigger until the pistol’s sights are brought to bear on a target. If you forget this with a loaded Glock, the gun will fire,
and any damage that occurs will be your fault, not the gun’s. Likewise, the Glock requires that the operator pull the
trigger to disassemble the firearm, so one must become adept at clearing the weapon before taking any further
action with it, something some people just cannot seem to do. Because of its trigger mechanism, the Glock must
always be carried in a holster of some type that covers the trigger and trigger guard, rather than dropped in a
pocket or purse. Finally, like any polymer-framed pistol, one must have a proper firing grip on the weapon,
especially during weak-hand fire, or the pistol is likely to malfunction. None of these things present significant
challenges to the professional or committed amateur, but may well be obstacles to first time gun owners or the
congenitally careless. For these reasons, I have a hard time recommending the Glock as a new shooter’s first
handgun.
These limitations really don’t apply to me or to my staff. I run a small shop of well-trained agents who are
investigators and bodyguards, we have our own range, and a strong bias toward regular and frequent firearms
training. Our handguns are always carried concealed and are therefore not subject to frequent “gun grab” attempts
by bad guys, so the absence of a safety lever doesn’t bother us. The role for the pistol in our agency is protection
of the investigator while he works in bad areas or asks uncomfortable questions, and secondarily on protection
details, the safeguarding of a client from deadly threats, most often in crowds or public places. Since we are not
concerned with bullet performance against car doors and auto glass, but do have a real problem with over-
penetration in a crowd scenario, we load our Glocks with a +P+ 9mm load from a major manufacturer and are quite
happy with our setup. We issue the Glock 19 as a primary weapon and authorize a Glock 26 as a backup if one
prefers another auto in that role instead of the ubiquitous 5-shot J-frame Smith and Wesson revolver.
So, Glocks are not for everyone. However, if the shooter is competent in safe gun handling and is willing to accept
the limitations of the design, the Glock can be a near perfect choice. It has very few parts, and for the most part
they are user-replaceable such that a good man with a baggie of cheap components, a punch and an Exacto knife
can keep one up and running anywhere in the world. Left alone, the pistol is phenomenally reliable. I have
personally put over 10,000 malfunction-free rounds though a single example without so much as a cleaning, filled
one with mud, frozen it, run over it with a truck, and still had it operate flawlessly. In fact, the only way I have been
able to screw one up is to feed it ammo it was not designed for (exposed lead bullets), or to add components that
were not original. Aside from changing sights to suit your eyes, leave your Glock alone and you will be much
happier! Use the money you would have spent on unnecessary modifications on practice ammo instead, or perhaps
even a back-up Glock.
My personal favorites in the Glock line-up are the Glock 19 compact 9mm, and the Glock 26 subcompact in the
same caliber. I wear the Glock 19 inside the waistband and the Glock 26 on my ankle when working a job that takes
me into harm’s way on purpose. I feed them both off the Glock 19 spare magazines. In practice, I find very little
performance difference between the two, however, I get a slightly better draw from concealment with the 19, and at
distances from 25 to 50 yards, I shoot the larger gun a bit better. If you prefer .40 S&W, you could pair a Glock 23
with a Glock 27 in the same manner, but be aware that recoil is a bit stout in the Glock 27 with effective .40 caliber
loads. Unless you have huge hands, forget about the Glock 21 and Glock 30 in .45 ACP since they are too fat for
most of us to get our mitts around, and leave the Glock 36 single-stack .45 on the shelf. The magazine and feeding
system of this pistol departs from the original successful Glock design, and in my view is yet to be perfected. The
newest Glock in .45 GAP caliber adds nothing to the mix that needs doing, in my opinion, (although it may have
some police applications) and will only cause you logistical and expense problems if you buy one. In closing, I can
only quote Tommy Lee Jones in the movie “U.S. Marshals” when he gives advice to another agent played by Robert
Downey, Jr. who has selected another handgun. His words were, “Get yourself a Glock , lose that nickel-plated
sissy pistol”. Amen.
Does everyone agree with me about Glocks? Nope. I know some very well trained and very competent shots who,
while grudgingly accepting some of the Glock’s innovative features would never carry one themselves if given any
choice in the matter. The men who come immediately to mind who feel this way tend to carry Browning Hi-Powers or
compact 1911’s, and you know what? Those aren’t bad choices for a pro, but not models I would like to see
beginners choose either.
Heckler and Koch
H & K makes some great and novel firearms, from the odd squeeze-cocking P7 to the more modern USP polymer
framed pistol. I have owned a number of these pistols, and have never really had a bad word to say about the
reliability or quality of anything from this company. The P7 pistol has an odd operating drill which has led to some
accidental discharges by untrained users, and that particular pistol is a bit finicky about the ammo it feeds, but the
USP’s are the epitome of the modern hostile environment pistol, and I like mine a lot. It is unfailingly reliable and
accurate, as have been each of the several I have owned.
However, new prices at retail for H&K goods make me cringe, and I cannot honestly say that the difference in price
is reflected in any conspicuous difference in quality, accuracy, or longevity when compared to equivalent offerings
from the firm’s competitors such as Sigarms, Glock, or Springfield Armory. H&K is what I call an “image gun”, and
guys buy them more for the advertisements that show Navy Seals in ninja suits using H&K products, along with the
suggestion that if you own an H&K pistol, you must know something that most other gun owners do not. I love the
slogan molded into the side of the plastic box my USP Compact came in. It says, “In a World of Compromise, Some
Don’t”. See, I get a little dose of ego boost each time I unpack my pistol. How cool is that?
My bottom line on H&K pistols is this. If you buy one, you have bought a fine weapon. If you buy one slightly used,
after some other guy has taken the huge depreciation that occurs on the first shot, you bought a fine weapon in a
smart way. Here’s my recommendation…H&K weapons are finely accurate, very reliable, and will give years of hard
service. Just don’t pay too much for them, because if and when you sell one used, you will get nothing approaching
what you paid for it if you bought it new.
Kahr Arms
Kahr Arms designed and manufactured what was at the time the smallest fully functional 9mm pistol on the market,
the K9. It was small, but had a great grip you could really get all your fingers on, was nice and thin, and packed a
sensible 8-round load of 9mm firepower. Loaded with a decent standard-form hollow point like the Federal 9BP
load, it was the modern day equivalent of the old 4-inch .38 revolver, only better, smaller, and with two more shots
and no appreciable recoil. It just made sense as a private citizen’s multi-purpose defense gun for duty at home and
on the street, or as a law-enforcement officer’s backup weapon. It was all steel in construction and felt reassuring in
the hand. It had decent sights, a decent DAO trigger, and for a time, all was right with the world. The pistol sold like
hotcakes.
There were some teething problems with the new design though. I had an original (actually several of them), and
for starters, the slide stop was almost impossible to remove by hand, the chamber was too tight such that certain
ammunition would not work, and the blue finish would rust while you watched. Some said it was too heavy for a
9mm, but I didn’t mind. My students shot it very well, and in any kind of holster or gun pack, the weight was
negligible. Kahr started working on the other problems and, after a period of denial that they existed, eventually got
them under control. They opened up the chamber a bit, lightened up on the slide stop fitting, and developed more
corrosion resistant finishes. They even made the pistol in a polymer frame, offered a cut-down version with less
grip, and came up with .40 caliber versions of these compact pistols.
Unfortunately, at each step in the process of “improvement”, they let pistols out of the factory that just were not
right, and they produced some guns that were just not very good ideas driven by market demand. For example, the
small Kahrs in .40 caliber, especially the polymer versions, were very hard to control in recoil for other than
seasoned professionals, and even those guys figured out early on that there are some pistols just too small and
light to be chambered in a major caliber. I was one of them.
So, here’s what I think about Kahr Arms products now. If you purchase a new production Kahr with a steel or
polymer frame in 9mm, with a corrosion resistant finish, practice a lot, and then load with a good, sane, self-defense
hollow point for street use, you have bought a very useful tool that can be with you almost full-time and can do
double duty as your concealed carry and home defense weapon. But, if you buy a used Kahr of undetermined
vintage, or the polymer version in .40 caliber, or one of the cut-down models with no real grip to it, you have
acquired a potentially unreliable or dangerous toy that will only frustrate you since it may not work properly without
a trip back to the factory, or may be so uncontrollable that you endanger bystanders when you have to shoot it. Be
governed accordingly.
Kel-Tec
This company has been around for a few years now, achieving prominence with the Kel-Tec P-11, a subcompact
9mm pistol clearly designed to directly compete with the Glock 26, but at a much lower price point. The pistol was
made with a polymer frame, a long, double action only trigger, and a magazine capacity of ten rounds, plus one in
the chamber, hence the P-11 label. The gun came furnished with its own magazines, but would also accept Smith
and Wesson 9mm double stack mags, that simply stuck out of the bottom of the grip when you used them.
The pistol was small, light, and owing to the long heavy trigger, unlike the Glock, could safely be dropped into a
pocket, purse or fanny pack without a holster for short-term carry if needed. It was designed first, last and always
as a close range self-defense tool, with small snag-free sights and its long trigger limiting it to an effective range of
about seven to ten yards for most shooters. I immediately got my hands on one of the first ones available for testing.
My first meeting with the Kel-Tec was inauspicious at best. I loaded it with some standard pressure 9mm rounds,
took a two-handed stance, and aimed at a silhouette target about 7 yards distant. I fired my first shot, and
immediately noticed something was not right. The slide had become separated from the frame and had blown off
over my right shoulder and I was left holding the frame only. Obviously my test for the day was over. See why I tell
my students never to buy the first of anything, or the last of anything? Happily, no one was hurt, the pistol was
replaced, and further testing was uneventful. I had a hard time adjusting to the very long trigger pull, but the gun
produced acceptable results on the target. The Kel-Tec P11 is now a well-established part of the self-defense
handgun landscape, and its owners either swear by it, or swear at it, depending on their expectations of the gun. If
they look at it as a close range tool for last-ditch self-defense only, they are likely to be pretty happy with it. If what
they had in mind was a general-purpose shooting tool for recreation as well, disappointment is the order of the day.
By the way, the company makes this pistol in .40 caliber as well, and a more disagreeable pistol from a recoil
standpoint you are not likely to find. Forget about it in this chambering.
Kel-Tec makes very small pistols in .32 ACP and .380 ACP as well, tiny little pocket blasters which are much smaller
than the P-11 9mm and thinner to boot. My experience with the .32 from a reliability standpoint has not been good,
but I have recently tested several of the .380’s and find them to be quite useful short-range tools, lightweight, small,
and reliable, even with hollow points. Since the.Kel-Tec .380 is a locked breech pistol, recoil is not as stout as you
might think. Consider the .380 model as a pocket sized replacement for a five shot .38 revolver that is flat and
weighs 8 ounces empty and you won’t be far wrong. Having said that, I can do things at longer distances with
greater accuracy with my pocket revolver than I can with the little .380, and there are times when that revolver is my
primary weapon, or the one I am gong to hand to my wife or other minimally trained user to defend themselves with
in a pinch, so I am not going to give it up for an ultra-small .380. But, that’s just me.
Both the P-11 9mm and the .380, which Kel-Tec has dubbed the “3AT” (catchy, eh?) will set you back about
$300.00. Do you want one, or both? That all depends on what you have in mind for the pistol. Neither one seems
made to withstand high volume shooting, so if that is what you have in mind, buy yourself another compact 9mm or .
380 instead. On the other hand, if what you want is a special purpose tool strictly for self-defense, either might be a
reasonable choice. Kel-Tecs will do whatever you ask of them as long as you don’t ask very often. They lose their
resale value immediately on firing the first shot, but I can see a niche for them in the self-defense marketplace.
Kimber
Kimber took the gun world by storm with its Classic Custom .45 caliber 1911-style pistol some years ago, and is
probably responsible for putting many a custom pistolsmith out of business. Making extensive use of CNC
machinery, Kimber found ways to make a 1911 where all the parts actually fit together because they were made to,
without resorting to the black arts of a gunsmith with stones and emery paper to hand finish each example. While
they were at it, they manufactured the pistol with features included as standard that were once considered custom
and may have cost hundreds of dollars more as add-ons before the Classic Custom debut.
Right out of the box, Kimber pistols were accurate, reliable, and well made. For what you got in even the base
model, they were also dirt-cheap. There were remarkably few teething problems with the new pistols, and those that
did exist, Kimber addressed very quickly. I had a small shop back then doing work on 1911-style pistols, mostly
upgrades and tuning, and I simply could not build a pistol that could compete with an off the rack Kimber in terms of
performance and value at anywhere near their asking price. One very well known builder of “custom 1911’s” ran a
very expensive negative ad, with Kimber as his obvious but unnamed target. It said, “You just don’t get a $1,500
custom pistol for $500”, which is about what a new Kimber cost back then. When I asked him face to face at a trade
show just what precisely I would be getting from him for $1,500 that I would not be getting from Kimber at one-third
the price, he got a little hot under the collar and terminated our conversation. Shortly thereafter, he started buying
frames and slides from Kimber to use as the base for his pistols.
There are other manufacturers of 1911 style pistols, most notably Colt and Springfield Armory. Kimber’s taking their
market by storm as they did eventually forced the quality and value of the products from both of these firms up to a
new level, slowed an insane price spiral for 1911 pistols, and even nudged Springfield into the polymer-framed
hostile environment pistol market where they could better compete with their XD, a good weapon in its own right.
Right now, I’ve got three 1911 style pistols, all in .45 ACP. Two are Kimbers, one of which is the full-sized Classic
Custom Target, and the other is an Ultra Carry, to which I have an irrational attachment, even though it must have
its springs replaced religiously every 500 rounds or so. Both pistols are unfailingly accurate, and I can make either
one hit targets at absurd distances. So, what about my third 1911 pistol? I’ve had it the longest of the three and its
not for sale. It’s a Springfield on a National Match frame that I built for myself years ago, a two-toned pistol that
looks awfully sharp, is reliable and combat accurate, and at the time was my idea of the “perfect 1911”. Although I
love this gun, I must admit that shooting it head to head with my Kimbers, the Kimbers win every time. Even though
the pistol was state of the art in its day, my files, stones and emery cloth, along with parts assembled from several
sources simply cannot compete with multi-million dollar CNC equipment, making parts designed to fit together as a
harmonious whole. I keep and shoot the Springfield for nostalgic reasons, not because it is better than my Kimbers.
So, here’s the take-home message on Kimber. They are great guns, as long as you stick with the more or less
standard format single stack metal frame units. Their prices have come up some in recent years such that they are
not cheap, but still represent great value in America’s favorite pistol. If you want a 1911 pistol, even though there
are better, safer, more modern and less troublesome designs out there in defensive handguns than the old
warhorse, you won’t go wrong with a Kimber 1911. As with most handguns, I would try to buy one clean and used
from a reputable dealer. You’d be surprised how many of them there are out there. Apparently, some men buy
1911’s, succumbing to all the hoopla in the gun press, and then realize there might have been a better choice for
them and trade in their blaster. You can benefit from this if you shop smart.
Ruger
Of all the world’s gun manufacturers, Ruger probably has the most diverse line-up of firearms. If you need it, it
probably exists in the Ruger catalog, from big-bore hunting rifles to defense oriented semi-auto pistols and even
double-barreled shotguns. Ruger firearms have a well-deserved reputation for being no-frills, rugged weapons that
offer great value for the funds expended.
For our purposes, let’s take a look at a part of Ruger’s handgun line, starting with the double action revolvers.
Ruger makes the GP-100, an ultra-strong, beefy DA revolver in .357 Magnum that would make an excellent home
defense and general utility revolver. This unit is not tiny, but the weight and heft are reassuring in the hand, and if
outdoor activities such as hiking and backpacking are on your agenda, I cannot think of a better piece of kit than a
stainless steel GP-100, which can do double duty securing the home and the campsite. Ruger also made a long
run of revolvers called the Security-Six family of guns, which were mostly .357 Magnum revolvers with 2 ¾, 4, and 6-
inch barrels. The Security-Six had adjustable sights, while the fixed sight models were called the Speed-Six and the
Service-Six depending on barrel length. These were fine guns and one sees them with some regularity on the used
market. According to a conversation I once had with the late Bill Ruger, they were simply discontinued due to the
cost of manufacturing them as opposed to the more modern GP-100, rather than any inherent flaw in the design. I
have owned dozens of these revolvers, and they are solid performers. If you see one in good shape, buy it. I’ve got
a couple of them now, and students always shoot them well.
Ruger also makes a smaller, five-shot revolver known as the SP-101, which can be had in two and three-inch barrel
lengths that would serve admirably as a primary defense revolver for concealed carry for the private citizen who
does not purposely go into harm’s way, but who needs a revolver for day-in, day-out “just in case” protection. Most
of the SP-101’s we see these days are chambered in .357 Magnum, although most owners shoot .38 Special
cartridges in them to manage recoil. My own example is an early .38 Special-only variant with a three-inch barrel
that I like quite a bit tucked into a waistband holster or carried in a fanny pack.
Is there a downside to Ruger revolvers? Yes, in a word, it’s the trigger. Rugers, for liability reasons, come from the
factory with a very heavy trigger pull, which while adequate for self-defense, will not give you any joy in shooting. If
you buy one, your first stop should probably be at the shop of a competent gunsmith to have the trigger smoothed,
not grossly lightened, just smoothed. This will cost you a few shekels, usually $35, but is well worth it. This is about
the only problem I can think of in owning a Ruger double-action revolver, and it applies to all of them. But, it is one
that is easily correctable, so I don’t see it as serious.
So, what about Ruger auto pistols? Aside from their excellent .22 caliber target and plinking autos, Ruger makes a
full line of autos designed for self-defense and sport as they put it. Most of the Ruger defense oriented pistols are
known as “P-series” guns, since “P” is the first letter in their model designation. Ruger’s first such pistol was the P-
85 in 9mm, which featured investment cast construction. This was new at the time, and reduced costs on Ruger
pistols substantially. There are all sorts of metal-frame P-series pistols in calibers from 9mm to .45 ACP. There are
also two P-series guns with polymer frames (probably more the minute I write this), the P-95 and the P-97, in 9mm
and .45 ACP respectively. Most of the pistols are available with a safety lever if that is your thing, or a decocker, or
even as double action only variants.
Every Ruger P-series pistol I have ever encountered was a solid, serviceable unit that worked well enough, and was
accurate enough for its intended purpose. Most of them have had a non-traditional appearance, bordering on
funny looking, have maybe been a bit big and blocky, and all have had rough triggers on them. However, if you are
looking for an entry-level pistol for not a lot of money that will work as intended, you could do much worse than to
buy a Ruger. They certainly seem durable enough as well, and you really cannot hurt them. I used to have a
roommate who would take the grips off his stainless P-90 and toss it in the top rack of the dishwasher to clean it. I
clean my P-90 in a more conventional manner, but it is still harder to imagine a stronger, more serviceable stainless
steel .45 Auto.
About fifteen years ago, I transitioned a police department of about 20 sworn officers from revolvers to stainless
steel Ruger 9mm autos loaded with the hot Federal 9BP-LE load. Those guys are still carrying and shooting them
and have yet to wear one out. They’ve had a number of actual shootings with this setup and have been very happy
with the results. I often tell the new security officers that I train who are just starting out and have very little spare
cash to buy a Ruger auto when they are required to purchase their own duty gun. All of them so far have been
happy with their pistols and have no trouble qualifying with them. The school had a P-95 in 9mm, the version with
the thumb safety, and if someone told me I had to carry it on duty, I don’t think I’d really protest too much, especially
if I could stuff it full of hot hollow points of my choosing.
Ruger has recently come out with some new service pistols such as the SR9 and some very small pocket autos like
the LCP (these bear an uncanny resemblance to Kel-Tec's). As recent safety recalls on the SR9 and the LCP have
shown, I'm not sure these new pistols are quite ready for prime time just yet. I recently purchased a brand new LCP
at retail for testing to see what all the buzz was about, and it was on its way back to Ruger within 24 hours due to
malfunctions traceable to manufacturing problems. As I've said before, I don't buy the first of anything or the last of
anything, and I'd wait a bit before latching onto one of Ruger's newer offerings.
The bottom line is that Ruger auto pistols offer a very high level of protection at a very good price, which is their
marketing positioning. Accuracy will be indifferent at best, in the 4 inch group range at 25 yards, but that is certainly
adequate for self-protection. Accuracy with Ruger autos seems to improve with hotter ammunition anyway. Many
people buy a Ruger such as a P-95 as their first serious auto pistol, and then later on they upgrade to something a
little nicer, not because they have to, but simply because they want to. They find that because the P-series pistols
are plentiful and inexpensive as quality firearms go, resale value on the Ruger is low. Many then wisely elect to
keep their P-series handgun and dedicate it to home defense, boat, or vehicle duty.
Sigarms
Sig, Sig-Sauer, Sigarms, whatever you call it, or whatever the company is calling itself this week, makes some
awfully good handguns. From what is arguably the world’s best .380 pistol, the Sigarms P232, to the big Sigarms
P220 in .45 ACP, it’s hard to buy a bad weapon from this company. When loaded with any kind of quality
ammunition, Sigarms pistols are unfailingly reliable and perhaps some of the most accurate out of the box
handguns to be had at any price. In all my time on firing ranges, I have yet to encounter any form of serious
problem with a Sigarms pistol that was the fault of the gun, as opposed to unauthorized tinkering with the weapon
by the user or horrendously bad ammo.
While some feel that the company’s initial polymer-framed offering, the Sig-Pro was not up to the firm’s usual quality
standard, I had quite a bit of experience with this model during the transition of a metropolitan police department to
it from the more traditional P226. I saw no serious problems except that the pistol might be considered a trifle large
for easy concealment. I thought that the user-replaceable backstrap unit was innovative at the time, allowing the
Sig-Pro to fit a wide variety of hands. However, the bottom half of the pistol being polymer kept me from having the
same overall “pride of ownership” I had with some of my more traditional Sigarms pistols, and mine was soon sold.
What can I say, I’m human too! By the way, I have yet to get any meaningful experience with the Sigarms P250
which is their new "modular" pistol, so I cannot intelligently comment on it.
As a group, in my experience, Sigarms pistols exhibit a higher level of out of the box accuracy than any other
production pistol save Beretta, which is essentially equal. If I were going out to shoot a “duty gun” match that must
be shot with a stock pistol and where fine accuracy really mattered, I’d pick a Sig every time. Actually, in the past, I
have done this and set records with out-of-the-box Sigs. This slightly increased level of accuracy is probably
meaningless in a defense pistol, but it certainly can’t hurt and is comforting to have even if you don’t really need it.
Are there downsides to owning a Sigarms handgun? Well, potentially yes. First of all, most Sigarms pistols have
what is called a high bore axis, meaning the centerline of the bore sits relatively high in the shooter’s hand. In
calibers above 9mm, this can result in more muzzle flip than one is likely to experience with handguns from some
other competitive manufacturers. The effect is particularly noticeable in the otherwise excellent Sigarms P220 in .45
ACP, where the light frame and high bore axis lead to noticeably more recoil arc and therefore slower follow-up
shots than with other .45 ACP pistols. This is somewhat counterbalanced by the extreme accuracy of the P220 at
distance, and would only be a real issue in speed shooting competitions, which are not a Sigarms strong point
anyway.
Another potential snag stems from the unique position of the slide stop release on Sigarms pistols other than the
P232, which has no such control. On the other Sig pistols, it sits far to the rear, right near the shooter’s thumb. If
one subscribes to the competition-inspired “high thumbs” shooting grip with a Sig, one can make the pistol fail to
lock open on the last shot, or worse yet, cause the pistol to lock open during a firing string. Don’t let this concern
you unduly. Just keep both thumbs locked down and you will be fine. Sigarms shooters also tend to adopt the
method of releasing the slide with the very prominent rear-mounted slide stop release during reloads. This is fine if
the Sig-Sauer is the only pistol you will ever use in combat. Generally, other manufacturers’ slide stop releases are
further forward, less prominent, and much harder to release. Therefore, proper training doctrine is that one should
only use the slide stop lever for locking the gun open, releasing the slide by pulling back on it and letting it fly
forward. Even if you buy a Sig, I would suggest you stick with this method since it is more or less universal and
supports the hand motions you will learn in malfunction clearance drills.
Finally, it has been my experience that owing to the pride of ownership associated with being a Sigarms shooter, or
perhaps the all too painful recollection of what they paid for the pistol (Sigs are NOT cheap), the typical Sig man
seems reluctant to train really hard with his handgun, for fear of damaging its finish which in my experience is not as
hardy as that of some competitor’s pistols. Many, but certainly not all Sig owners tend to “baby” their pistols, even
going so far as to have another brand of handgun that they actually carry, while the Sig is left safe at home. This
seems like a waste of a fine handgun to me.
There is also a syndrome I refer to as “Sig Snobbery” in which any other pistol from any other manufacturer is
thought to be inherently inferior to any Sigarms product. This is simply not the case. When I encounter such a Sig
Snob, it gives me great pleasure to bait them with a little trick. I look at them earnestly and say, “You know, you’re
right… I finally found one thing that your Sig will do that my Glock will not….” They look at me smugly, confident in
the superiority of their armament, and ask what that one thing is. I watch the grin on their face evaporate as I reply
with a single word, which is “Rust”. In all fairness, newer Sigarms models such as the P229 have stainless steel
slides, which are blackened rather than being blued steel. This helps a lot with maintaining the finish. Going further
on the issue of Sig Snobbery, the syndrome even extends to distaste for some actual Sigarms products, most
notably the Sig-Pro line of polymer-framed police duty pistols. Although they have amassed a fine service record in
police work thus far, including over a dozen actual shootings by cops right here in my own hometown, the owners of
the metal-framed Sigs look down their noses at them like they are not the “real thing”. Go figure.
Having said all of that, I own Sigarms pistols and like the ones I have a great deal. I appreciate the Sigarms P232 as
perhaps the best designed, most reliable, and easiest to shoot .380 auto ever made, and use mine regularly as a
training tool for students who are sensitive to the high-pitched crack of the 9mm cartridge. I am especially fond of
the Sigarms P225, a single-stack compact 9mm pistol that is still very popular as a police pistol in Europe, but is no
longer imported here due to limited demand for moderate capacity 9mm handguns in this country. I love how the
pistol just fits my hand, exudes quality, and seems to shoot itself at impossibly long distances with no recoil to speak
of. If you have medium-sized hands and can find a P225 I suggest you grab it. Mine is not for sale. The P228 is a
discontinued gem as well, a compact which still features a 13-round magazine, while the P226 is its full-sized
stablemate. The Sigarms P239 is the only service caliber pistol readily available in the U.S. from this firm that is
suitable for shooters with really short fingers, so if this is you and you want a Sig, look at this model. Finally, despite
the muzzle flip issue, I appreciate the accuracy possible with my Sigarms P220, and use it regularly in law
enforcement style training and qualification, where Sigarms has become almost the de facto standard for police
officers in my home state. Speaking of law enforcement, Sig-Sauer now offers its pistols in the "DAK" trigger format,
which is a novel form of double action only with a second strike capability. In my opinion, this is a brilliant solution in
search of a problem, but if you like it, it's available.
So, if you buy a Sig, try to get one clean and used, and put the money you saved toward ammunition and training.
Keep your pistol wiped down with an oily rag to keep it from rusting, and ignore minor signs of honest wear as you
train hard with your gun. Avoid being a pain in the butt to those around you who chose other guns, because your
Sig ain’t perfect either, although it’s a damn fine weapon.
Smith and Wesson
I’m going to go out on a limb here and state for the record that I think Smith and Wesson makes the world’s best
revolvers. That is a big statement, and I am not saying that revolvers from other companies are not worthwhile, or
that every revolver Smith and Wesson ever made has been a gem. In fact, if I owned the company, I’d slash the
product line just to get rid of some of the silliness that exists in the Smith and Wesson catalog these days. As a
group though, I find Smith and Wesson revolvers the most satisfying to own and shoot.
While I love the medium and medium-large frame revolvers known as “K” and “L” frames, and own a bunch of them
for personal use and training, I must say that the most generally useful revolvers from Smith and Wesson are the
smaller, five shot “J” frame guns such as the Model 36, Model 37, Model 60, Model 640, 642, and 442, as well as
the less common Model 638 that rides in my right front trouser pocket almost every day of my life. In fact, it is
nestled there in a pocket holster as I write this, loaded with .38 Special +P lead hollow point cartridges and backed
up with more of the same cartridges in Bianchi Speed Strips.
These guns remain popular because they fill a very real need for a reasonably potent but readily concealable close
range defense tool, and honestly, are all the average private citizen self-defender with a permit really needs in a
concealed carry handgun. In fact, one of the best combinations I can think of would be some form of clean, used
police trade-in K-frame revolver as a house gun, backed up by a J-frame for casual concealed carry, such as when
you head down to the local convenience store at night for a jug of milk. I can use pretty much any handgun I want,
and this setup is what I have at home. A good double action revolver you don’t have to think much about is just the
ticket for when you are jolted from sleep by the sound of someone forcing entry into your home. No confusion over
levers and switches like on a semi-auto!
As you may know, the J-frame guns can be had in frames made of steel, aluminum, titanium and even Scandium, in
decreasing order of weight. Having seen plenty of disappointed students on the range who thought lighter was
always better, I’d forget buying any of these small revolvers in anything other than steel or aluminum. When you go
lighter than the aluminum frame revolvers, you encounter some problems with excessive recoil, the pistol not hitting
to point of aim with standard loads, and even bullets in adjacent chambers being pulled kinetically from some
ammunition types by the recoil of the gun going off, thereby locking up the gun in a firing string.
A steel J-frame revolver weighs about 1½ pounds, which is fine for carry in a belt holster, ankle rig, or even in a
purse or fanny pack. An aluminum framed version goes about one pound loaded, and is best if you seriously
contemplate daily pocket carry of your small pistol. This weight savings comes with the price tag of increased recoil,
which while manageable in these guns is certainly not pleasant. Any lighter, and the gun becomes painful to shoot
and uncontrollable at realistic shooting speeds. If you are selecting a handgun for holster or purse carry, and the
pocket option is not in your future, you’ll be much happier if you buy a steel framed pistol.
Some of the steel J-frames come chambered in .357 Magnum, others in .38 Special. This is neither here nor there
in my opinion, since you will most certainly end up shooting .38’s in these small guns. So, get yourself a good J-
frame Smith and Wesson revolver, load it with any good +P grade hollow point, carry five spare cartridges in a
Speed Strip and take along a small flashlight such as a Streamlight Scorpion, and you are pretty well protected as a
private citizen so long as you practice enough to hit what you are aiming at, and carry the little gun religiously.
Some people bash these little guns as inaccurate or ineffective, but I can tell you from personal experience that in
real confrontations, they work just fine. Been there, done that.
The largest of the Smith revolvers are known as "N frames". These are big guns normally seen in .44 and .45
calibers with barrels of 4 inches and up. If a big-bore revolver is your thing for self-defense, these are hard to beat,
but fewer and fewer of them have been made in recent years, and prices on used N-frames have increased
dramatically in recent years. Still, as a home defense gun, a big-bore revolver could be just the ticket for those not
comfortable with the auto, but wanting a bit more power than a .38 Special provides.
What about Smith and Wesson auto pistols? Well, they do make some, but I am afraid that with a few exceptions,
semiautos are not Smith and Wesson’s long suit and for the most part should be left alone. The Smith and Wesson
Sigma line is especially bad, and I simply cannot recommend these guns to you at any price. However, Smith and
Wesson has made and does make some metal-framed auto pistols that can serve you well, if you like their
operating system. I’ve got a Smith Model 3913, which is a compact 9mm, with a combination safety/decocking lever
and a magazine disconnector, which fits the hand quite well and is reliable and accurate. The Smith and Wesson
4516 I owned, a .45 ACP compact with a steel frame was also a very good pistol even if it was a bit heavy for a
“compact”.
Finally, on Smith and Wesson autos, I have been handling, but have not yet extensively tested one of their latest
auto pistol offerings known as the “M & P” for “Military and Police”. Smith and Wesson is obviously trying to
capitalize on name recognition from what is probably one of the world’s most recognized revolvers, except that this
time, the company has given the name to a semiautomatic handgun. This pistol seems solid enough in the hand,
and has a blend of features found on other pistols, but really, in my opinion breaks no new ground in a polymer-
framed sidearm. I’m looking for the M&P to outlast the truly awful Sigma line, and then take its place as this
company’s “Me Too Glockalike” offering.
P.S. - I have recently had the chance to really wring out our M&P in .40 caliber. While I am still of the opinion that it
really doesn't break any new ground, it has proven to be a fine pistol and the grip, which can be tailored to fit the
individual shooter's hand with a replaceable backstrap, feels really great. I think this pistol is going to be around for
a while.
Springfield Armory
This firm offers a full line of 1911 style pistols in a bewildering array of sizes and finish options, ranging from a no-
frills “Mil-Spec” pistol to a fully loaded Tactical Response Pistol, which is the civilian-available version of the 1911 .
45 auto used by the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team. Springfield Armory also makes 1911 style pistols that are more
appropriate for competition, such as the Trophy Match, which in my experience has tolerances too tight as it comes
from the factory for actual street use. All current Springfield Armory 1911 pistols are of extremely high build quality.
Along with Kimber, Springfield Armory essentially owns this market these days. If you think you want a very nicely
made 1911 style pistol, Springfield’s products are worth a hard look.
Somewhat more interesting to me from a defensive standpoint is the company’s “XD” line of hostile environment
pistols, designed to function under hard use with limited maintenance in tough field conditions. “XD” stands for
“Extreme Duty” according to the firm. This pistol is actually manufactured in Croatia, where it is the duty sidearm of
the police and military. Before Springfield Armory purchased the U.S. rights to market and sell the firearm, it was
sold here in limited numbers as the HS2000. Springfield Armory has aggressively marketed the pistol, and kept the
price down so that it is easily one of the best bargains in a serious fighting pistol on the market today.
The XD is available in a number of variants in 9mm, .40 S&W, and most recently in .45 ACP as well as a shortened
proprietary cartridge called the .45 LE, which holds no interest for me whatsoever. In the 9mm and .40 calibers, you
can get the gun in what they refer to as a Subcompact version, a Duty sized pistol, or a longer-barreled Tactical
model. All of these are pretty damned big pistols, and our staff found the 9mm Subcompact we owned for a time to
be large, clunky, and top heavy. Our current XD is a Duty-sized .40 caliber, and the balance is much better
according to all who have handled it. I’ve handled but not yet fired the new XD in .45, but I can tell you it feels good
in the hand. In fact, that is probably the most interesting thing about the XD, the shape of the grip, and how the
pistol points. To me, it has one of the nicest feeling grips of any of the service pistols I have access to, even
surpassing my beloved Glock 19 in this department. This pistol points naturally for me, something that the
manufacturer says sets it apart from other polymer-framed pistols, but quite frankly in a side-by side comparison,
so does my Glock. Your mileage may vary.
The pistol features a unique grip safety that may give some comfort to those worried about the trigger of this pistol
getting hung up on some foreign object and the grip safety keeping the gun from going off. Honestly however, this
in my mind is a non-issue, since I know that the vast majority of negligent discharges of pistols take place with the
gun gripped in the firing hand, which would defeat the grip safety anyway, and are a function of some fool who
cannot keep his finger off the trigger while handling his pistol. Still, the grip safety may prevent some few accidental
discharges that may happen during arrest situations where an excited officer attempts to re-holster his or her
weapon to handcuff a suspect and the trigger gets hung on a portion of the holster. Two features on the XD that
may have more day-to-day utility are the unit’s loaded chamber and cocking indicators, the status of which can both
be assessed by sight, or touch if necessary in the dark.
While I think I like the Springfield XD, and certainly love the price it can be bought for, I’m not sure I am ready to fully
endorse it yet, because it just hasn’t been out there long enough, at least in my mind, to have a firmly established
track record for durability. While the company styles it as a pistol for “extreme duty”, I’m not so sure. The front sight
flew off of our Subcompact during a limited amount of firing, and one of our instructors experienced a broken firing
pin on the range with his XD Tactical in .40 caliber, In all fairness he is an extremely high-volume shooter and uses
his two XD’s heavily and swears by them. But, the broken firing pin does raise one potential area of concern, and
that is parts availability. Because Springfield Armory offers a free lifetime repair service on the XD, they steadfastly
refuse to sell any parts for the gun. This precludes keeping any spare parts for emergencies such as firing pins,
even though many parts are readily replaceable. This means that if your XD breaks, no matter how simple the fix,
you might be without it for weeks while it is back at the factory. If you must carry a gun for business, your only
recourse is to buy a spare for such occasions if you want to stick with carrying an XD. At this time, no matter what
this pistol’s other fine features may be, that decision alone on the part of Springfield Armory disqualifies this pistol
from consideration as an issue pistol for my agency.
Finally, I also have some concerns about the pistol’s finish. Up until 2006, all XD’s received a metal treatment called
Burinal, which was supposed to be corrosion resistant. Trust me, it isn’t. Carrying the XD next to my skin for as little
as two days has produced visible rust on one of my samples. This has not been a problem with the gun carried in a
holster away from skin, provided it is wiped down with an oily rag occasionally. It just annoys me that a pistol
advertised as a hostile environment tool cannot seem to stand up to the relatively tame environment found under
my tee-shirt. Springfield is aware of this problem, and starting with 2006 production XD’s in .45, is switching to a
metal treatment they are calling Melonite, which is actually the Tenifer coating which has been used on Glocks for
two decades, albeit under another name. Springfield says that by 2007, all of their XD pistols will have received the
Melonite treatment. If you are interested in an XD and you plan to sweat on the pistol, I’d wait and get one of the
newer ones.
Taurus
This 65 year-old firearms manufacturer, with plants in Porto Allegro and Sao Paulo, Brazil was merely a blip on the
U.S. gun-making radar until 1984 when it announced something new in the industry, a lifetime repair policy. Under
the terms of this unheard of warranty, any Taurus firearm, regardless of vintage, would be repaired free of charge,
without question. This policy was designed to answer nagging questions about Taurus quality. Quite frankly, up
until that time, those questions had merit.
Taurus had been a maker of marginal quality revolvers until the 1970’s. Their designs took elements from
manufacturers of the day, including some Spanish pistols of dubious quality. In 1970, Taurus was purchased by a
conglomerate called Bangor Punta, which, at the time, also owned Smith and Wesson. Contrary to popular belief,
Smith and Wesson never owned Taurus, and Taurus handguns were never produced on Smith and Wesson
machinery. There was however, technology sharing between Smith and Wesson and Taurus. The Taurus people
actually will tell you with a straight face that their technology and manufacturing methods benefited Smith and
Wesson more than vice versa. Looking at examples of both manufacturer’s products from that time period, I
personally find this pretty hard to believe. The fact of the matter is that early Taurus revolvers were pure,
unadulterated crap. You rarely see one anymore, but if you do, you can spot one from this era by looking in the
cylinder flutes. Rather than being smooth and polished, there are lines and work marks shown there. Stay away
from Taurus pistols from this period, no matter how attractive the price.
In 1974, Beretta was coming to the end of a very lucrative Brazilian contract for producing the Model 92 for the
armed forces there. Under the terms of this contract, Beretta had built a state-of-the-art factory in Sao Paulo to the
south, and in 1974, they sold it to Taurus, lock, stock and barrel, with all drawings and manufacturing rights. The
majority of the trained work force stayed on, and Taurus began producing a big 9mm pistol they called a PT-92, as
well as an adjustable sight version called a PT-99. These were fine pistols, and Taurus still produces them in large
numbers for Brazilian military and police units as well as for the U.S. market. The pistols headed for the U.S. are
available in a variety of finishes and feature a novel safety/decocking mechanism that varies from the Beretta 92
mechanism.
Taurus made a concerted effort to improve the quality of their revolvers, and in my opinion, finally got it right with
their Model 85, a small five-shot revolver closely equivalent to a Smith and Wesson J-frame. It would be a mistake
to call the Model 85 a copy of the Smith and Wesson, because when you look inside one you will see that the
mechanisms are quite different, with, I believe, a slight design edge going to the Taurus. The Model 85 is available
in a number of frame weights and materials, as well as finishes, and represents a good value in a gun designed for
the private citizen needing a compact revolver for self-defense. Taurus also makes the Model 82, which is a plain-
Jane six-shot 4 inch .38 Special service revolver. I've owned one and it was a fine pistol. I tend to stay away from
adjustable sight Taurus revolvers because I have found the rear sight to be a tad fragile with uncertain adjustments.
Having visited a Taurus manufacturing plant, I can tell you that the facilities are modern and production methods
are good. The pistols are made of high quality materials, and their advantage in price over some other companies
are based on differences in what labor is paid in Brazil as opposed to other places. There is quite a bit of national
pride behind the Taurus brand, and in Brazil, shooters prefer Taurus pistols to Smith and Wesson. On an
assignment there with a military police organization in the 90’s, I was issued both a PT-92 and a Model 85 for my
use, and I felt very well armed with this combination.
So what’s the bad news, if any? Well, simply this. While Taurus quality has come up exponentially over the years,
quality control seems to be a bit spotty in terms of the number of poorly assembled guns that make it out of the
factory. While I have had my share of trouble with new guns from a number of manufacturers, out of the box
problems seem especially prevalent with Taurus. Apparently, Taurus pistols come in two flavors, Cherry and
Lemon, and they don’t mark the boxes.
When you contact them about having trouble with a brand new gun and ask how such a thing could get out of the
plant, they quickly remind you that they have a lifetime repair policy and will fix it straightaway, as though that was
the same thing as getting it right the first time! Also, you should know that simply sending a gun back to Taurus is
no guarantee that it is going to get fixed on its first trip in. I have had two occasions where the company has sent
me back a supposedly “repaired” unit that exhibited either the same or worse problems than what I sent it in for.
This is frustrating and intolerable.
If you choose to save a few bucks by buying Taurus, in my opinion you should confine yourself to one of their
proven designs, either the PT-92/99 in an auto pistol, or a variant of a Model 82 or 85 in a revolver. Once you have
bought the gun, take it directly to the range and test, test, test. If the firearm is okay, it will continue to be okay,
because in my experience, breakdowns are not the issue, the problem is guns that were improperly made or
assembled in the first place. Never buy a Taurus from some place you cannot take it back, unless you are prepared
for the frustrations of dealing with the factory yourself.
Our current Taurus pistol is a Model 85 .38 Special in blue finish with a three-inch barrel. It is an obviously well
made handgun, accurate and as pleasant to shoot as any small framed .38 can be. I’ve owned a bunch of the
Model 82's and 85’s and a few of the PT-92’s, and I would own them again if I saw them at a good price.
Odds and Ends
Obviously, there are simply too many pistols on the market for me to comment on all of them, and further, although I
may have some experience with a certain gun, it would be unfair for me to praise or pan that gun based on
experience with a single sample. Everyone gets it right once in a while, and everyone produces a lemon from time
to time. I do have some thoughts about some guns that are not wildly popular, but I have seen multiple examples of
them and have formed some opinions. Here are some thoughts on certain less often seen or discontinued guns, in
no particular order:
Walther PPK – I used to see this pistol much more frequently than I do now on the range. Even good old James
Bond has moved away from the PPK and is toting something different now in the movies. Some of this drop in
popularity is a function of the .380 ACP pistol falling out of favor in the U.S. due to the success of the compact
9mm, but in the case of the Walther, the drop in sales is partially a self-inflicted wound. People will only buy an
expensive piece of crap that doesn’t work properly for so long before the word gets out. This is my opinion of the
current U.S.-made PPK in .380 ACP. I’ve had close to a dozen of these very expensive pistols that would not feed
any modern hollow point ammunition, and some that would not feed full metal jacket with any reliability. The factory’
s response was, “Send it back in and we’ll see what we can do, but you know, the gun isn’t guaranteed to feed
hollow points.” In this day and age, that response is simply nonsense.
Even when you can make one work, the PPK smacks you in the hand pretty hard for a .380, takes two men and a
boy to pull the slide back, has a double action trigger pull of about 20 pounds, and every example I have tested in
the last decade has shot a foot high at any distance past 10 yards unless you are a trigger-jerker. By contrast,
PPK’s in the original chambering, .32 ACP, seem to have none of these problems, and are a true joy to shoot. I
used to keep a German made PPK in .32 ACP around for the rare student who really couldn't handle anything
larger than this and would otherwise resort to a .22. Actually, the ballistic performance of the .32 ACP in the slightly
longer barrel of the PPK or PP isn’t all that awful, and hollow points will actually expand from these guns. I wish I still
had this pistol. My take? Walther PPK in .380, Nein, in .32 ACP, Ya!
Of course, Walther also makes these days the obligatory plastic, er, polymer pistol, which they call the 99 QA (for
Quick Action). I’ve owned one of these in .40 caliber, and played with a half-dozen more belonging to students at
the range. They have a bit of a funky trigger mechanism with a very quick reset from shot to shot, a nice
replaceable backstrap system to fit different sized hands, and replaceable front sight blades come standard, which
is a good thing because the front sights are fragile! This pistol has a decocking lever in a location that makes me
believe it was engineered by a space alien, because it certainly couldn’t have been designed with a human hand in
mind. However, the Walther 99 does seem reliable and accurate, even if unexciting, and might be worth a look,
especially if you are a space alien with those weird hands.
Bersa Thunder .380 – This little gun from Argentina is a real sleeper in that it was intended to be a knock-off of a
Walther PPK/S but in my opinion does a better job than the more expensive gun it was designed to copy. It features
a full-sized grip, good sights, a positive safety, and a magazine disconnector if you go in for that sort of thing. It has
an aluminum frame, so it’s pretty light at 20 ounces empty, but this does not seem to translate to excessive recoil.
Unlike the Walther, it has a slide stop lever, and therefore is not such a pain in the neck to lock open. It is not as
insanely hard to pull the slide back on, and my sample has a pretty good trigger in both double and single action. In
actual firing, it seems to shoot pretty much to point of aim, and is very accurate. I’ve shot ours a lot, certainly more
than the typical homeowner would, and it shows no signs of breaking down. The Bersas I have shot have all worked
well with several brands of hollow point ammunition. I bought this pistol at an incredibly low price used, but new it
can still be had for well under $250.00, which makes it a steal. My only gripe with this pistol is that it only comes with
one magazine, and a spare will set you back $25-$30. Buy one anyway and be happy if a light, mid-sized .380 is
your bag.
Makarovs – The Soviet Bloc PM, or Pistola Makarova is one of the true bargains available to U.S. shooters in a
reliable, compact self-defense gun for those who are really on a budget. This is a medium-size, medium-power
double-action pistol in a bit of an oddball cartridge called the 9mm Makarov, which is slightly more powerful than a .
380 ACP, with a wider bore diameter and just enough more velocity to make a hollow point start to work well. Hollow
point self-defense ammo is available for these weapons, but you are not going to find it at Wal-Mart.
Makarovs have been produced in East and West Germany, Russia, Bulgaria, and China, and probably a number of
Third World dumps as well, and, looking back on it, I, and others have carried Maks in some of the planet's
crappiest places. All of these pistols can best be categorized as “crude but effective”, even though some of the
East German units were beautifully finished (they are all dried up now in the U.S.). The Chinese pistols will work, but
are crudely made with sharp metal stampings that will cut your hands in an emergency and are best avoided. My
most current example of a Makarov is a Bulgarian model, and while it won’t win any prizes for a pretty finish, it is well
made and reliable. Makarovs have small sights and a somewhat rough double action trigger for the first shot
(certainly better than a Walther’s) giving way to a very serviceable single action pull for all subsequent shots. The
Mak features a safety/decocking lever that operates in a “down to fire” mode, which I think is ergonomically more
natural than other systems. Every Mak I have ever fired has been extremely accurate owing to its fixed barrel. In
order to make a point, I once shot a police-style match restricted to “duty semiautos” using one of my Makarovs,
and won my class with it. I guy came up to me afterwards and asked what my pistol was and what it cost me. I
replied that it was a Makarov, and it cost me less than one of his Para-Ordinance magazines.
The Makarov is not for everyone I suppose, especially if you want a pretty gun, but truly, I don’t know why every
serious shooter doesn’t own at least one of these, for times when you need a reliable handgun, but don’t want to
put an expensive pistol at risk. For the most part, you will need to find your Mak at a gun show, since storefront
dealers either don’t handle them due to low profit margins, or if they do, they mark them up to insane prices. My
latest one came to me, bought at retail at a gun show, new in the box with two magazines, a holster, and two sets of
grips. The price was $150.00 plus tax. Enough said.
Rossi- This Brazilian manufacturer of a wide variety of weapons was acquired by Taurus under its BrazTech
subsidiary in 1997, and much of its line of budget revolvers now bears the Taurus name or is discontinued so as
not to compete with Taurus offerings. However, you will occasionally see Rossi revolvers on the used market. They
had two I thought were really good and represented a great value for those on a budget. When I see either of
these, I buy them.
One was the Rossi 971, which was a 2½ inch or 4 inch barreled blue or stainless steel adjustable sighted six shot
revolver in .357 Magnum. The 2½ inch version was truly compact, a little smaller than a Smith and Wesson K-
frame. It had a great spongy rubber grip from the factory that would not slide around in your hand, and a nice set of
sights on it. Surprisingly, the gun came with a good trigger as well. The second piece they had was the Model 877,
a stainless steel six shot fixed sight revolver with a 2-inch barrel that was the size of a Colt Detective Special. I shot
quite a few of these two models and sold a bunch as a dealer, and never had a minute’s trouble with any of them. If
you see one today, you should be able to buy it for under $200, which is a great deal for a good defense revolver.
Conclusion
Well, there you have it, my take on any number of currently offered or discontinued but still available defense
oriented handguns from major and not so major manufacturers. As you can probably tell by reading this article, I
don’t think any of them are perfect, and there is no one that is “best”. There is generally something I like about all
the pistols from the major makers, and something I don’t. There are also my subjective preferences, which may not
be yours. Hopefully however, after reading this material, you’ll have some idea what is right and what is wrong with
the products from a variety of gun companies, from the perspective of someone who has been lucky enough to be
on the range with all of them and who has no economic interest whatsoever in what you purchase.
Also, please keep in mind that there seems to be a new handgun introduced every week these days, especially
another 1911 style, or polymer wonder gun, or maybe even some freakishly large or ridiculously light revolver that
somebody in marketing thought would sell to somebody out there. In this article, I haven’t made any attempt to
cover all of them, because, quite frankly, most of them will be here today and gone tomorrow, and the others are
just so similar to what is already out there that there is very little point in having a separate discussion of a slightly
different variant of an old standby. Since one of my rules with handguns is that I almost never buy the first of
anything, or the last of anything (unless it was really good), a pistol has to have been around long enough to have
developed some kind of track record before I get interested enough to pick one up to test and review it. Most of the
time, when I see the new offerings de jour from the major gun companies these days my response is a big yawn.
So, if I didn’t mention your pet blaster or something that is the latest rage in the gun magazines, don’t be offended,
there may be nothing at all wrong with it, but you’ll have to find that out on your own.
So, if you find yourself tempted to ask me, “What’s the best handgun for self-defense?”, just know that I am going to
send you back to read the article in your book on principles of defense handgun selection, and then have you re-
read this. When you have finished with that, you will know why I just smiled instead of answering you with a brand
name, and once you have done your reading and handled a few guns, you should be able to answer the question
for yourself, for your own situation.
PROS AND CONS OF SOME MODERN DEFENSIVEHANDGUNS
Copyright 2009 By Tom Crawford
|
Author's note: In the wake of the 2008 Presidential election and the resultant uncertainty surrounding future firearms restrictions,
demand for firearms and ammunition is at an all time with a resulting decreased supply and higher prices. Comments in this article
regarding prices or the availability of guns and ammunition do not reflect these current realities.