Starting a Gun Collection for SD (Polymers vs Metal, S&W vs Sig Sauer, New vs Old)

[Sigmund Sauer]

Starting a Gun Collection for SD (Polymers vs Metal, S&W vs Sig Sauer, New vs Old)

Dear friends,

here comes a long post. Forgive me for taking so much of your time. But I would be very grateful if someone could take the time to quote text and answer all my questions, even though I'm really just exploiting your expertise.

This is all about self defense. Although I will practice on the range, I am looking at guns only with an eye toward protecting my family.

So, I've spent a lot of time online, at gun shops both in Los Angeles (where I live) and in Arizona (where I work sometimes), and at our local gun range trying to decide what handguns to get, now that I really need to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.

I would love to hear your thoughts on my thoughts.

I am planning to get 5 guns, and keeping them in 5 GunVault SpeedVaults spread through the house.

1) a 686 Plus (7 shot) with a 6" barrel. This would be my main home defense gun. (please also correct any terminology that isn't quite right). I really like how precisely I can shoot with this. I am thinking of having the sights exchanged for fiber optic front sights.

Questions:

a) Front Sight: Is there any risk of the gun becoming less accurate because of exchanging the front sight to fiber optic - I would obviously have it done by a gunsmith.

b) Caliber: I really prefer shooting .45 ACP, but it seems the options with S&W are somewhat limited here. Seems like only good alternative is the Model 325 Thunder Ranch which only has a 4" barrel. But: is the 325 Thunder Ranch as good as the 686? As tested, as proven, as solid? I haven't shot it.

c) S&W Special Order: Could S&W make a 6" 325 upon request? Or is that a big undertaking for a gun maker or an expensive request or one that will take a year?

d) Weight: It is interesting to see that the 686 Plus with a 4" barrel weighs 39.7 oz, whereas the 325, made not in steel but in Scandium Alloy (is that like Aluminum?) weighs only 31 oz. Is the lighter weight an advantage or a disadvantage on a gun I am not planning to carry? Seems like more weights absorbs the recoil better. But it also seems that S&W has put lots of effort into making the 325 lighter. Can someone solve this conundrum?

e) More Weight Questions: Should I be thinking of getting a polymer revolver? Is polymer the modern way to go? Is there an inherent advantage to polymer? Since everything seems to be going that way? Is it merely nostalgic to want something made of metal? Does my love for metal date me?

f) I don't like the 625 (neither normal nor JM). Just don't like the way it looks. Is there a good .45 ACP alternative out there that maybe isn't listed on the S&W site, or that isn't even by S&W - perhaps a Taurus, or a Colt, or a Ruger? I don't want a budget solution. I really want a Mercedes/Rolls Royce. I feel like only Smith & Wesson can provide that in revolvers, but maybe I am wrong?


2) My second gun, for concealed carry, would be a Springfield Armory XD-S. I spent a lot of time asking many people. And all of them said I should go with a light, semi-automatic for concealed carry. So I decided to go all the way and go with a sub-compact. I wanted a .45, because it is more than 1/3rd quieter and because I am told the larger bullet makes the bad guys feel they've been hit, which can be important psychologically. I wanted polymer, because I want the gun to be the product of modern engineering. I know that guns worked fine even in 1910, but I simply don't want to be lugging around the same faulty machines that my father and grandfather were stuck with. I refuse to believe that computers and chemistry and all the innovations in physics and engineering have not vastly improved even the old revolver. I want progress in my pocket. Something that uses all the discoveries that were made over the last decade.

I thought for a long time about a Kahr, but then found out it was developed by the guy who runs and owns the Moon sect empire. His dad crowned himself the Messiah. Not sure I want to be supporting that with my gun purchase. Not sure I'd still have the real Messiah on my side . As someone who doesn't love Glock, there weren't that many choices left.

a) Is there a more modern, better .45 ACP subcompact out there? One that really uses the most modern technology?

b) Am I crazy to be obsessing about the polymer?

c) What other things besides polymer make sure that a gun is using the scientific discoveries of the past decades?

3) My third gun is going to be a Sig Sauer P226 MK25 (Navy version). That is because my son loves this gun so much, and feels he can shoot very accurately with it.

a) Am I making a mistake by going for a gun that is not made of polymer? Does that mean the gun is less modern in any way?

b) Is the MK25 the best one of the 226s? Why are there so many different kinds? My son loves the MK25. I'm not sure I can tell what the difference between all the different 226s is.

4) My fourth gun is going to be a Sig Sauer P220, because it's chambered in .45 ACP. I wasn't crazy about the narrower grip, but I do love the deeper, quieter sound it makes when firing.

a) Is this a less sophisticated gun than the P226, simply because it is 6 models older?

b) Is there any way (beside caliber) in which the 220 might be superior to the 226?

c) Does anyone have any idea which is the best 226 for SD?

5) My fifth gun would be a Walther PPK, chambered in .380, simply because it's a gun I've wanted to have since I was a kid. I have the thought that my wife might like that gun.

a) am I using pre-historic technology by getting that? I.e. should I think about getting a modern equivalent instead?

b) Am I crazy to be thinking about a .380 ACP for self defense. I almost thought so, but then I a saw this article.
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

c) Are there any super modern, super reliable guns, especially in .45, that I should be thinking about?

Thanks very much, friends. I appreciate your time, patience and expertise.

Ziggy

 

[venomballistics]

Latest technology ......
mmmmmkay ....
If you were to look long and hard at both the XDs and the 1911 ... you will find that technology has not advanced that much over the past 100 years.

I'd much rather have a pistol whose design has a few years on it, and a proven track record, than the latest bug farm cause it's newer.

I carry a 1911. Full stainless steel frame, 100+ year design and legendary track record.
The latest gun mag centerfold don't mean jack in a fight.
What matters is the ability to inject heavy metal supplements, accurately and with certainty.

 

[alwslate]

Wow lots of questions! My first impression upon reading your post is
that you are grossly intellectualizing the evaluating and choosing of
handguns. To try and make choices based on which is more modern
and uses the latest technology is way overthinking the issue. A few
points you might consider; in terms of sheer effectiveness for home
defense using factory ammo the 357 mag in a 6" revolver is pretty
much unbeatable. Front sights have no effect on revolver accuracy
but may effect your shooting ability depending on your vision. Light
weight is of no advantage in a gun not carried. Polymer revolvers do
not exist except for some partial polymer small frame carry guns. I'm
not a Sig fan, over rated and over priced in my opinion, so the best
226 for carry would be a Glock 19 and the best 226 for home would
be a Beretta 92FS. As far as scientific discoveries and technology
there is very little that is actually new in handgun design other than
the rapid increase of the use of polymer. As far as prehistoric
technology goes many feel the best 45 auto is still the stone age
1911. Many 1911s will not function reliably out of the box however
and there are 45s that most likely do, such as a Glock for one. In
general if you want the most reliable auto hand gun right out of the
box buy a 9mm with a good track record regardless of modernity.
You'll get lots of opinions and maybe a little good advice.

 

[Fishinfool]

A couple general thoughts

A lot of over thinking going on here...

Caliber - not really much difference between the 9mm, .357, .40, and .45 when used with good bullets. The .380 is borderline, IMO. I like the 9mm and .45acp because of less muzzle blast and recoil compared to other rounds.

Long barrels are not the best choice for home defense. Any advantage in in ballistics and accuracy is more than off set by the increased risk of having someone grapple the gun away from you in close quarters.

Plastics in modern gunmaking offers the advantage of lighter weight, and decreased production costs. Not all plastic guns are more reliable. Increased weight does offer less recoil, and faster recovery. You discount Glocks, but they are really the gold standard in reliability, especially in 9mm and .45acp.

Nothing wrong with variety, but if my only goal was to have 6 or 7 handguns hidden around the house for self defense, I would probably make them all the same make and caliber, in a design that was easy for any member of my family to learn and handle. 6 different makes / models / calibers works against you. My "house gun" is a couple of strategically hidden Glock 19's.

Larry

 

[Arik]

Anyone shot is going to feel it and not be happy. It's possible they may not but there are so many things that have to go right for him and wrong for you. By and large anyone shot with a modern self defense round is going to be in pain.

One caliber isn't any quieter then another, if we are talking self defense (38, 357, 9, 40, 45). Of course a 22lr is quieter then a 50 but that's not what we're talking about. There may be a difference when looking at numbers but laud noise to your ears is still laud noise. In self defense noise is the last thing I'm concerned about. Modern self defense ammo is all fairly close in performance and expansion. This is assuming you're buying quality ammo and not just something with a hole in the center.

Yes Kahr is owned by Rev Moon's son. They also one Auto Ordnance. The,way I see it is I'm buying a product for self defense not the owners ideology. Otherwise you can probably cross off half the companies and corporations from your purchases. And depending on how far in recent history you want to go you may want to reconsider IBM, Ford, Disney, Hugo Boss clothes, IKEA, VW, ......etc....etc.

There is nothing within the last 30 years that's technologically new. The last great technology jump was Glock. Even that was a right combination of already existing technology. Mauser made striker fired guns in the era of WW1. Polymer handguns were made by HK 20 years before Glock. Metallurgy got better that's for sure. Otherwise any advancements have been minor. Like interchangeable back straps, 2nd strike capabilities on a striker fired gun. Safeties in different places. Until we come up with something truly revolutionary we're just jockeying old inventions around with modern metallurgy and plastic/polymer/resin.

There is nothing wrong with Polymer guns. There is also nothing wrong with steel guns. I own both. Each has their purpose. Each has their positive and negative attributes. All depends on what you want it for. I wouldn't take a race gun to a gun fight and I wouldn't take a self defense/combat handgun to a bullseye match.

6 in barrel for home defense is not needed. It will of course work but something shorter is handier and faster. You won't see a difference in accuracy from a 6 in barrel inside the parameters of a house, which is where a longer sight radius counts......distance. Meanwhile a shorter gun is faster to align the sights and easier to maneuver with.

There is nothing wrong with a 226. Aside from trigger options they are all the same.

If you are buying a 220 just know that they don't recommend +P ammo in the older German ones.

And lastly, you are definitely over analyzing this

 

[S42N8]

FWIW:

Question 1.f. If you're really looking for a S&W revolver in .45 ACP, the gold standard (IMNSHO) is one of the older 25-series guns (e.g., 25-2). If barrel length is critical, that can be altered by a competent gunsmith, and could add a fiber optic front sight too. Would be a few hundred bucks, but if you're considering a special order (Performance Center) gun, then this would not be a detractor.

2.a. Lots of Commander-size 1911s out there. A high-quality one may make you reconsider the 1911 vs. "modern" polymer guns...it did for me, and I consider myself a Sig guy. Les Baer, Nighthawk, Wilson Combat, and others. Despite the known limitations of the 1911, modern construction and manufacturing make the 1911 a viable option. I like my Wilson XTAC Compact a lot.

3 and 4. If your heart is set on the 226, go for it. Having had one, I'd go for the P220 instead; I like my old 220 and its older P245 sibling - interchangeable mags, same controls and reliability. Polymer is good for carry... But you're talking house guns. I see no inherent failing in either polymer or steel-frame weapons; however, if you're going to shoot more than a couple hundred rounds a year, your wrists/hands may prefer the heavier guns.

5. I like my PPK for summer carry, and don't feel it's lacking. For me, .380 is probably the minimum caliber - but my next SD gun will be in 9mm vice .380. If you like Sigs, check out the P938... Have shot it and like it. I do like the accuracy of the PPK, and the cool factor is, well, not so much. Blowback pistols have a deserved reputation for recoil - and the PPK is an offender. Pachmayr grips help. PPKs are also known to leave railroad tracks; BTDT. painful, but does teach proper grip in a hurry.

Others have recommended settling on similar platforms for familiarity/manual of arms across several weapons. For SD, I see no clear advantage to any platform, but the same one across several calibers/sizes offers fewer variables under stress - and SD has more than its share of stress. Sigs, the 1911s and (generally) S&W revolvers come in sufficient variety to meet that criteria. For house weapons, and given your affinity for the P226/P220, Sigs may be the way to go. Sig recently added a P220 in 10mm to their catalog; may be more gun than suited to SD, but Jeff Cooper (Bren Ten) didn't think so.

Good luck with your choices!

 

[g8rb8]

I am planning to get 5 guns, and keeping them in 5 GunVault SpeedVaults spread through the house.

1) a 686 Plus (7 shot) with a 6" barrel. This would be my main home defense gun.

a) Front Sight: Is there any risk of the gun becoming less accurate because of exchanging the front sight to fiber optic - I would obviously have it done by a gunsmith.

b) Caliber: I really prefer shooting .45 ACP, but it seems the options with S&W are somewhat limited here. Seems like only good alternative is the Model 325 Thunder Ranch which only has a 4" barrel. But: is the 325 Thunder Ranch as good as the 686? As tested, as proven, as solid? I haven't shot it.

c) S&W Special Order: Could S&W make a 6" 325 upon request? Or is that a big undertaking for a gun maker or an expensive request or one that will take a year?

d) Weight: It is interesting to see that the 686 Plus with a 4" barrel weighs 39.7 oz, whereas the 325, made not in steel but in Scandium Alloy (is that like Aluminum?) weighs only 31 oz. Is the lighter weight an advantage or a disadvantage on a gun I am not planning to carry? Seems like more weights absorbs the recoil better. But it also seems that S&W has put lots of effort into making the 325 lighter. Can someone solve this conundrum?

e) More Weight Questions: Should I be thinking of getting a polymer revolver?
2) My second gun, for concealed carry, would be a Springfield Armory XD-S. .

a) Is there a more modern, better .45 ACP subcompact out there? One that really uses the most modern technology?

b) Am I crazy to be obsessing about the polymer?

c) What other things besides polymer make sure that a gun is using the scientific discoveries of the past decades?

3) My third gun is going to be a Sig Sauer P226 MK25 (Navy version). That is because my son loves this gun so much, and feels he can shoot very accurately with it.

a) Am I making a mistake by going for a gun that is not made of polymer?


4) My fourth gun is going to be a Sig Sauer P220, because it's chambered in .45 ACP. I wasn't crazy about the narrower grip, but I do love the deeper, quieter sound it makes when firing.


5) My fifth gun would be a Walther PPK, chambered in .380, simply because it's a gun I've wanted to have since I was a kid. I have the thought that my wife might like that gun.

a) am I using pre-historic technology by getting that? I.e. should I think about getting a modern equivalent instead?

b) Am I crazy to be thinking about a .380 ACP for self defense.

c) Are there any super modern, super reliable guns, especially in .45, that I should be thinking about?


Ziggy

Not being a self defense firearm expert I would opine there are no significant flaws in any of your choices except, perhaps, your idea of getting a polymer revolver. My opinion would be there has not been enough experience with polymer revolvers to know how well they hold up.

5 guns in 5 vaults throughout your house - no problem. There is logic in making the 5 firearms in the 5 vaults all the same or similar, for example all revolvers of the same caliber or all variations of a semi-auto with interchangeable magazines. On the other hand it is not illogical to have 5 different guns in 5 different vaults.

686 - No problem. No problem changing the front sight.

Caliber - .45 acp is fine but so are a number of other calibers.

For carry lighter and simpler is probably generally preferred. It is very personal. You may go through a few handguns and a few different holsters before you figure out what best works for you.

For target shooting or plinking heavier/bigger/bigger grips, up to a point, becomes more comfortable because the extra weight helps absorb recoil and the bigger surface area of larger grips dissipates recoil.

Springfield XDS - no problem.

Sig 226 or 220 - no problem.

Walther PPK - no problem and the .380 caliber is arguably better than nothing and arguably a reasonable self defense caliber with a good self defense load.

Yes, it could be logically argued that you are obsessing over polymers.

 

[ContinentalOp]

Nothing wrong with variety, but if my only goal was to have 6 or 7 handguns hidden around the house for self defense, I would probably make them all the same make and caliber, in a design that was easy for any member of my family to learn and handle. 6 different makes / models / calibers works against you. My "house gun" is a couple of strategically hidden Glock 19's.

This is similar to what I was going to suggest. I would add that the same thought should also be applied to your carry gun(s). Ideally all your self defense guns should have the same manual-of-arms, at least in terms of drawing and firing.

I think it's also a good idea to have some duplicate models in the event a gun breaks or is in need of service. You'd have a back-up that could fill that gun's spot if needed.

Having them all the same caliber isn't as important, in my opinion, so long as you can shoot them all well, but limiting caliber choices may help save on money and keep yourself from doing something like loading a 9mm into a .40S&W. It can also help keep your practice consistent.

The only thing I would add is that I think it's a good idea to have at least one pocket gun. It can serve as a back-up gun, a discreet carry gun when other concealment options aren't practical (i.e., t-shirt and shorts in summer, having to wear formal attire, etc.), and you can keep it in your pocket around the house.

While not a gun topic, you should also look into other aspects of home security if you haven't already, namely layering security around your house/property to 1) keep your home from being targeted, 2) make it difficult for criminals to get into your home, and 3) give you enough warning to get your family to a safe room, access your guns, and call 911 if needed.

 

[Shorty 45 MK2]

Dear friends,

here comes a long post. Forgive me for taking so much of your time. But I would be very grateful if someone could take the time to quote text and answer all my questions, even though I'm really just exploiting your expertise.

This is all about self defense. Although I will practice on the range, I am looking at guns only with an eye toward protecting my family.

So, I've spent a lot of time online, at gun shops both in Los Angeles (where I live) and in Arizona (where I work sometimes), and at our local gun range trying to decide what handguns to get, now that I really need to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.

I would love to hear your thoughts on my thoughts.

I am planning to get 5 guns, and keeping them in 5 GunVault SpeedVaults spread through the house.



Ziggy

First off. Welcome to the Forum!

I will try to answer each of your questions to the best of my ability, but there will basis.

1) a 686 Plus (7 shot) with a 6" barrel. This would be my main home defense gun. (please also correct any terminology that isn't quite right). I really like how precisely I can shoot with this. I am thinking of having the sights exchanged for fiber optic front sights.

Questions:

a) Front Sight: Is there any risk of the gun becoming less accurate because of exchanging the front sight to fiber optic - I would obviously have it done by a gunsmith. There should be no loss of accuracy.

b) Caliber: I really prefer shooting .45 ACP, but it seems the options with S&W are somewhat limited here. Seems like only good alternative is the Model 325 Thunder Ranch which only has a 4" barrel. But: is the 325 Thunder Ranch as good as the 686? As tested, as proven, as solid? I haven't shot it.

The 686 plus is a good gun but for HD a 4" would probably be better as it would be harder for someone to take it away from you. Also Have you shot full power SD loads (like 125gr. HP's) from a 686? Most people who carry a gun chambered in .357 load it with .38+p do to .38 being easier to shoot and not having as much blast. If you really want .45 look at a 625. (would be my choice over the 686 for a HD gun.) Also would only go for a 325 if I was going to carry it for long periods of time. For a HD gun weight is a good thing as it helps tame recoil.

c) S&W Special Order: Could S&W make a 6" 325 upon request? Or is that a big undertaking for a gun maker or an expensive request or one that will take a year?

They might but highly doubt it. you might could get a 625 barrel mounted by a gunsmith but would cost you as much as the gun most likely.

f) I don't like the 625 (neither normal nor JM). Just don't like the way it looks. Is there a good .45 ACP alternative out there that maybe isn't listed on the S&W site, or that isn't even by S&W - perhaps a Taurus, or a Colt, or a Ruger? I don't want a budget solution. I really want a Mercedes/Rolls Royce. I feel like only Smith & Wesson can provide that in revolvers, but maybe I am wrong?
(is that like Aluminum?) weighs only 31 oz. Is the lighter weight an advantage or a disadvantage on a gun I am not planning to carry? Seems like more weights absorbs the recoil better. But it also seems that S&W has put lots of effort into making the 325 lighter. Can someone solve this conundrum?
S&W is mostly going after the carry market with the lighter guns. I'm not a metallurgist but work with metals a lot as a machinist and the Scandium Alloy is a "mixing" of Scandium with Aluminum that is strong as some steels but with the weight of Aluminum.

e) More Weight Questions: Should I be thinking of getting a polymer revolver? Is polymer the modern way to go? Is there an inherent advantage to polymer? Since everything seems to be going that way? Is it merely nostalgic to want something made of metal? Does my love for metal date me?
Polymer is new, but that not does not mean it's better per say. It's lighter (good for carry.) and does not rust.

f) I don't like the 625 (neither normal nor JM). Just don't like the way it looks. Is there a good .45 ACP alternative out there that maybe isn't listed on the S&W site, or that isn't even by S&W - perhaps a Taurus, or a Colt, or a Ruger? I don't want a budget solution. I really want a Mercedes/Rolls Royce. I feel like only Smith & Wesson can provide that in revolvers, but maybe I am wrong?
Look at getting a S&W model 25. They are all going to be used and might be hard to get in CA.

2) My second gun, for concealed carry, would be a Springfield Armory XD-S. I spent a lot of time asking many people. And all of them said I should go with a light, semi-automatic for concealed carry. So I decided to go all the way and go with a sub-compact. I wanted a .45, because it is more than 1/3rd quieter and because I am told the larger bullet makes the bad guys feel they've been hit, which can be important psychologically. I wanted polymer, because I want the gun to be the product of modern engineering. I know that guns worked fine even in 1910, but I simply don't want to be lugging around the same faulty machines that my father and grandfather were stuck with. I refuse to believe that computers and chemistry and all the innovations in physics and engineering have not vastly improved even the old revolver. I want progress in my pocket. Something that uses all the discoveries that were made over the last decade.
Not a bad choice, but maybe not for those reasons. I'm a big .45 guy and carry a 4516 almost everyday but from my reading don't think a BG will feel it more than a 9mm. There are instances of perps taking multiple 12ga slugs and still going. As for the polymer being better than steel...the same advancement have been applied to metal guns as well through CNC. Also the XDs uses the same lock breach system as the 1911.

I thought for a long time about a Kahr, but then found out it was developed by the guy who runs and owns the Moon sect empire. His dad crowned himself the Messiah. Not sure I want to be supporting that with my gun purchase. Not sure I'd still have the real Messiah on my side . As someone who doesn't love Glock, there weren't that many choices left.

a) Is there a more modern, better .45 ACP subcompact out there? One that really uses the most modern technology?
A case can be made for about any gun depending on who you talk too.
b) Am I crazy to be obsessing about the polymer?
Maybe a little.

c) What other things besides polymer make sure that a gun is using the scientific discoveries of the past decades?
Most new guns are as good as the next.
3) My third gun is going to be a Sig Sauer P226 MK25 (Navy version). That is because my son loves this gun so much, and feels he can shoot very accurately with it.

a) Am I making a mistake by going for a gun that is not made of polymer? Does that mean the gun is less modern in any way?
No.
b) Is the MK25 the best one of the 226s? Why are there so many different kinds? My son loves the MK25. I'm not sure I can tell what the difference between all the different 226s is.

4) My fourth gun is going to be a Sig Sauer P220, because it's chambered in .45 ACP. I wasn't crazy about the narrower grip, but I do love the deeper, quieter sound it makes when firing.

a) Is this a less sophisticated gun than the P226, simply because it is 6 models older?
NO.

b) Is there any way (beside caliber) in which the 220 might be superior to the 226?
Depends on what you want to do with it.
c) Does anyone have any idea which is the best 226 for SD?
Any of them are good.
5) My fifth gun would be a Walther PPK, chambered in .380, simply because it's a gun I've wanted to have since I was a kid. I have the thought that my wife might like that gun.

a) am I using pre-historic technology by getting that? I.e. should I think about getting a modern equivalent instead?
Possibly.
b) Am I crazy to be thinking about a .380 ACP for self defense. I almost thought so, but then I a saw this article.
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association
Not my first choice but .380 will work.

c) Are there any super modern, super reliable guns, especially in .45, that I should be thinking about?
Maybe not super modern but look at S&W 3rd gen guns like the 4506 or 4566. They work very well and are great shooters. A SIG P227 is a double stack version of the 220 if you want more ammo.
Thanks very much, friends. I appreciate your time, patience and expertise.

 

[JaPes]

I am planning to get 5 guns, and keeping them in 5 GunVault SpeedVaults spread through the house.

Ok. Not my type of thing, but I can see why you would want to do that.

This is all about self defense. I am looking at guns only with an eye toward protecting my family.

Hiding 5 guns around the home, secured, primary purpose of use is protecting your family / home defense.

With this in mind I will post my opinion on your proposed choices.

1) a 686 Plus (7 shot) with a 6" barrel.

No. Limited capacity. Slow reloads.

2) My second gun, for concealed carry, would be a Springfield Armory XD-S.

Maybe. Since this pistol's main purpose of use is concealed carry, giving up size and capacity for ease of concealment makes sense. While I can use a small pistol for conceal carry, it wouldn't be my first choice for home defense.

3) My third gun is going to be a Sig Sauer P226 MK25 (Navy version).

Maybe. The single feature that will make one P226 stand out from another is whether or not it has a short reset trigger kit installed. I've owned Sig P226's.

4) My fourth gun is going to be a Sig Sauer P220

No. Limited capacity as compared to other modern handguns. I've owned Sig P220's.

5) My fifth gun ... Walther PPK, chambered in .380...because it's a gun I've wanted to have since I was a kid.

No. Limited capacity. The PPK is challenging to shoot well. While it can be used for home defense, it would not be my first choice.

IMO, you're over thinking all of this. With the advent of modern manufacture, premium, defensive hollow point handgun ammunition, all are practically equal. What is important is with which caliber you can achieve fast, combat accurate, follow up shots.

If you're going to secret away 5 pistols throughout your home for home defense, you'd be better off stashing away 5 of the same exact pistol. For the 5 pistols, I would choose either a full size or compact double stack 9mm pistol. Polymer frame, striker fired, no external safeties. Why?

• Same manual of arms.
• Same interface (grip, sights, trigger press).
• Same controls.
• Magazine compatibility.
• Ammunition compatibility.

Bump in the night? Someone kicking down your door? You don't have to adjust to 5 different pistols while under stress. If possible, find a range that rents as many of the handguns you list and try shooting them.

Until a couple weeks ago, I've owned many different handguns. I owned pistols with different manual of arms. DA/SA, DAO, safety, no safety, polymer, metal, decocker, no decocker, etc. I rationalized it by saying it was for home defense. I woke up and realized I was lying to myself. I trimmed down to three center fire handguns from 17. Maybe my choice and rationale can help you. My primary handgun caliber is 9mm. The two pistols used for home defense are Glocks. It's not because I am a rabid Glock fan. It's because I shoot them well. If I shot S&W, Ruger,XD, or any other polymer frame striker fired handgun better, I'd choose those.

Glock 22 Gen4. Primary purpose is home defense. Secondary, range gun.

This one is equipped with an extended, ported, 40 to 9 conversion barrel. Glock 17 mag with a +2 base plate. It is equipped with every unfair advantage available to me: Trijicon RMR, suppressor height night sights, TLR-4 light/laser. Easy sight picture acquisition using either the dot or the laser while keeping both eyes open. Accurate combat shot placement, with fast and accurate follow up shots. If/when Illinois ever rescinds the prohibition on silencers, I'll install a 9mm threaded barrel and suppressor. If I can avoid it, there is no sense damaging my hearing or my family's hearing. (God forbid I am ever forced to use my handgun for defense.)

If another run on ammo occurs, 9mm usually disappears from the shelves first. With a barrel/magazine swapout, I can shoot 9mm, .40 S&W, or .357 Sig from this pistol.

Glock 19 Gen4. Primary cold/cool weather carry pistol. Secondary home defense pistol.

I don't modify the triggers or internal parts on carry guns. My Glock 19 is equipped with XS 24/7 big dot night sights. The big dot sights are fast to acquire and align. Excellent combat shot placement with quick follow up shots.

These two pistols share the same manual of operation. Red dot, laser dot, or the front big dot night sight, sight picture acquisition and speed is practically the same for me.

Sig P938 AG (aluminum grip). Primary purpose: Conceal Carry.

I give up comfort, longer sight radius, capacity, for ease of concealment. While this pistol is capable of longer distance slow fire accuracy, the practical reality is that this is a close range defensive pistol. I carry this pistol when I can't easily conceal the Glock 19. Why the Sig P938 and not a Glock 43? I shoot the P938 better than the Glock 43. I've trained with the P938's manual of arms, drawing from holster and firing. Sweeping the safety with my thumb is ingrained into muscle memory.

Don't like Glocks? Find a family of pistols from the same manufacturer that fits you best and you shoot well. For example:

• S&W M&P, S&W M&P Compact
• XDm, XDm Compact
• Ruger SR9, SR9c

If your primary purpose is collecting for variety in shooting experience and not home defense, buy as many different pistols as you want.

 

[Marshwheeling]

Buy what you want, and what you like. A lot of guns will serve for home defense. However, since the likelihood that you will ever actually need them for that purpose is next to nil, you might as well have guns that give you pleasure to own and shoot.

Get guns that work, to be sure, and practice with them, just in case. But in the name of all that is holy, don't spend thousands of dollars just to have matching sets of Glocks. Get a little variety and enjoy your guns.

 

[Irn-Bru]

I have the Walther PPK and the Sig P232. I would give the nod to the Sig P232 by a hair.

 

[Sigmund Sauer]

First off. Welcome to the Forum!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DEAR FRIEND. THIS WAS EXACTLY THE REPLY I WAS HELPING FOR. INTELLIGENT, VERY INFORMED, AND VERY GENEROUS. THANKS. I WILL REPLY IN CAPS, BECAUSE SOMEHOW I CAN'T GET THE MULTI-QUOTE FUNCTION TO WORK.

I will try to answer each of your questions to the best of my ability, but there will basis.

1) a 686 Plus (7 shot) with a 6" barrel. This would be my main home defense gun. (please also correct any terminology that isn't quite right). I really like how precisely I can shoot with this. I am thinking of having the sights exchanged for fiber optic front sights.

Questions:

a) Front Sight: Is there any risk of the gun becoming less accurate because of exchanging the front sight to fiber optic - I would obviously have it done by a gunsmith. There should be no loss of accuracy.

b) Caliber: I really prefer shooting .45 ACP, but it seems the options with S&W are somewhat limited here. Seems like only good alternative is the Model 325 Thunder Ranch which only has a 4" barrel. But: is the 325 Thunder Ranch as good as the 686? As tested, as proven, as solid? I haven't shot it.

The 686 plus is a good gun but for HD a 4" would probably be better as it would be harder for someone to take it away from you.
THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. THANKS.

Also Have you shot full power SD loads (like 125gr. HP's) from a 686? Most people who carry a gun chambered in .357 load it with .38+p do to .38 being easier to shoot and not having as much blast. If you really want .45 look at a 625. (would be my choice over the 686 for a HD gun.)

I LOVE THE OLD 625. BUT THE CURRENT IS JUST A JM VANITY PROJECT. RUNNING AROUND WITH HIS NAME ON MY GUN SEEMS LIKE I'M IN LOVE WITH THE GUY. AND I THINK THE GRIP IS TERRIBLE. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET ANY OF THE OFF-ROSTER GUNS IN CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE WE HAVE A SUPER-LIMITED LIST OF GUNS THAT CAN BE SOLD AT SHOPS. THE OTHERS, YOU HAVE TO BUY FROM ANOTHER CA RESIDENT IN A PPT. VERY COMPLICATED.

Also would only go for a 325 if I was going to carry it for long periods of time. For a HD gun weight is a good thing as it helps tame recoil.

c) S&W Special Order: Could S&W make a 6" 325 upon request? Or is that a big undertaking for a gun maker or an expensive request or one that will take a year?

They might but highly doubt it. you might could get a 625 barrel mounted by a gunsmith but would cost you as much as the gun most likely.

f) I don't like the 625 (neither normal nor JM). Just don't like the way it looks. Is there a good .45 ACP alternative out there that maybe isn't listed on the S&W site, or that isn't even by S&W - perhaps a Taurus, or a Colt, or a Ruger? I don't want a budget solution. I really want a Mercedes/Rolls Royce. I feel like only Smith & Wesson can provide that in revolvers, but maybe I am wrong?
(is that like Aluminum?) weighs only 31 oz. Is the lighter weight an advantage or a disadvantage on a gun I am not planning to carry? Seems like more weights absorbs the recoil better. But it also seems that S&W has put lots of effort into making the 325 lighter. Can someone solve this conundrum?
S&W is mostly going after the carry market with the lighter guns. I'm not a metallurgist but work with metals a lot as a machinist and the Scandium Alloy is a "mixing" of Scandium with Aluminum that is strong as some steels but with the weight of Aluminum.

ARE THERE ANY TAURUSES, RUGERS OR COLT REVOLVERS THAT I SHOULD BE CONSIDERING? OR SHOULD I STICK WITH S&W? SEEMS LIKE IN REVOLVERS, THERE THE ROLLS ROYCES, RIGHT?



e) More Weight Questions: Should I be thinking of getting a polymer revolver? Is polymer the modern way to go? Is there an inherent advantage to polymer? Since everything seems to be going that way? Is it merely nostalgic to want something made of metal? Does my love for metal date me?
Polymer is new, but that not does not mean it's better per say. It's lighter (good for carry.) and does not rust.

f) I don't like the 625 (neither normal nor JM). Just don't like the way it looks. Is there a good .45 ACP alternative out there that maybe isn't listed on the S&W site, or that isn't even by S&W - perhaps a Taurus, or a Colt, or a Ruger? I don't want a budget solution. I really want a Mercedes/Rolls Royce. I feel like only Smith & Wesson can provide that in revolvers, but maybe I am wrong?
Look at getting a S&W model 25. They are all going to be used and might be hard to get in CA.

THEY LOOK LIKE VERY NICE GUNS. I SEE THEY SHOOT SOMETHING CALLED .45 LONG COLT. HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO .45 ACP? RECOIL? LOUDNESS? WOULD YOU RECOMMEND IT DESPITE THE RARER AMMO? IS BUYING A USED GUN A PROBLEM ANYWAY? IF IT LOOKS FINE? SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT USED GUNS ARE ACTUALLY BETTER?

2) My second gun, for concealed carry, would be a Springfield Armory XD-S. I spent a lot of time asking many people. And all of them said I should go with a light, semi-automatic for concealed carry. So I decided to go all the way and go with a sub-compact. I wanted a .45, because it is more than 1/3rd quieter and because I am told the larger bullet makes the bad guys feel they've been hit, which can be important psychologically. I wanted polymer, because I want the gun to be the product of modern engineering. I know that guns worked fine even in 1910, but I simply don't want to be lugging around the same faulty machines that my father and grandfather were stuck with. I refuse to believe that computers and chemistry and all the innovations in physics and engineering have not vastly improved even the old revolver. I want progress in my pocket. Something that uses all the discoveries that were made over the last decade.
Not a bad choice, but maybe not for those reasons. I'm a big .45 guy and carry a 4516 almost everyday but from my reading don't think a BG will feel it more than a 9mm. There are instances of perps taking multiple 12ga slugs and still going.

SOUNDS LIKE ARNOLD IN THE TERMINATOR!

As for the polymer being better than steel...the same advancement have been applied to metal guns as well through CNC. Also the XDs uses the same lock breach system as the 1911.

I'VE READ ABOUT THIS AND WATCHED SEVERAL VIDEOS, BUT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND LOCKED BREACH AND BLOWBACK. IT SEEMS THAT LOCKED BREACH HOLDS THE SLIDE IN PLACE, SO IT DOESN'T FLY BACK BEFORE THE BULLET HAS EXITED THE BARREL. IT ALSO SEEMS THAT IT SOMEHOW LOWERS THE BARREL, SO THE PRESSURE IS NOT ALL APPLIED ON ONE HORIZONTAL LEVEL? BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND BLOWBACK MEANS THAT EVERYTHING HAPPENS ON ONE HORIZONTAL PLANE, AND THEREFORE THE FIRING IS MUCH MORE ACCURATE.

DID I GET THAT RIGHT?

I thought for a long time about a Kahr, but then found out it was developed by the guy who runs and owns the Moon sect empire. His dad crowned himself the Messiah. Not sure I want to be supporting that with my gun purchase. Not sure I'd still have the real Messiah on my side . As someone who doesn't love Glock, there weren't that many choices left.

a) Is there a more modern, better .45 ACP subcompact out there? One that really uses the most modern technology?
A case can be made for about any gun depending on who you talk too.
b) Am I crazy to be obsessing about the polymer?
Maybe a little.

c) What other things besides polymer make sure that a gun is using the scientific discoveries of the past decades?
Most new guns are as good as the next.
3) My third gun is going to be a Sig Sauer P226 MK25 (Navy version). That is because my son loves this gun so much, and feels he can shoot very accurately with it.

a) Am I making a mistake by going for a gun that is not made of polymer? Does that mean the gun is less modern in any way?
No.
b) Is the MK25 the best one of the 226s? Why are there so many different kinds? My son loves the MK25. I'm not sure I can tell what the difference between all the different 226s is.

4) My fourth gun is going to be a Sig Sauer P220, because it's chambered in .45 ACP. I wasn't crazy about the narrower grip, but I do love the deeper, quieter sound it makes when firing.

a) Is this a less sophisticated gun than the P226, simply because it is 6 models older?
NO.

b) Is there any way (beside caliber) in which the 220 might be superior to the 226?
Depends on what you want to do with it.
c) Does anyone have any idea which is the best 226 for SD?
Any of them are good.
5) My fifth gun would be a Walther PPK, chambered in .380, simply because it's a gun I've wanted to have since I was a kid. I have the thought that my wife might like that gun.

a) am I using pre-historic technology by getting that? I.e. should I think about getting a modern equivalent instead?
Possibly.
ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS TO HAVE THAT UNIQUE BLOWBACK ADVANTAGE.
b) Am I crazy to be thinking about a .380 ACP for self defense. I almost thought so, but then I a saw this article.
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association
Not my first choice but .380 will work.

c) Are there any super modern, super reliable guns, especially in .45, that I should be thinking about?
Maybe not super modern but look at S&W 3rd gen guns like the 4506 or 4566. They work very well and are great shooters. A SIG P227 is a double stack version of the 220 if you want more ammo.
I WISH I COULD WANT MORE AMMO. I CAN ONLY USE 10 ROUND MAGAZINES IN CALIFORNIA!! THAT IS ALSO WHY I AM INTERESTED IN .45 ACP. IT SEEMS LIKE SUCH A WASTE TO BE RUNNING AROUND WITH A LARGE AND LARGELY UNUSED/EMPTY GRIP.
Thanks very much, friends. I appreciate your time, patience and expertise.

THANKS VERY MUCH!!!

 

[Faulkner]

5) My fifth gun would be a Walther PPK, chambered in .380, simply because it's a gun I've wanted to have since I was a kid. I have the thought that my wife might like that gun.

a) am I using pre-historic technology by getting that? I.e. should I think about getting a modern equivalent instead?

b) Am I crazy to be thinking about a .380 ACP for self defense. I almost thought so, but then I a saw this article.
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

Ziggy

With regard to #5 . . . I have a Walther PPK/S and can tell you they are generally very accurate and can be made to be very reliable, and their are numerous holsters that allow comfortable concealed carry. They also have that cool factor as a James Bond gun, I like mine.

I also note that the Walther PPK in .380 ACP is not a fun gun to shoot, and I can almost promise you your wife will not like it. Because it is recoil operated the recoil can be brutal and the slide spring is quite stiff and can be challenging for most women to operate. I do not like shooting mine without a shooting glove because the recoil is tough on my hand.

Lastly, for a small concealed carry defense firearm I agree that the .380 ACP can be an acceptable round. There are a number of very fine firearms chambered in .380 ACP that I would consider ahead of the PPK though. The Glock 42 is an excellent choice and it is rather pleasant to shoot, unlike the PPK.

 

[Cyrano]

Faulkner, I think the PPK is blowback and not (locked breech) recoil operated. It's operated by the gas pressure pushing the cartridge case back against the slide with enough force to operate the action. And, yes, it kicks harder than a similiar pistol with a locked breech.

 

[Shorty 45 MK2]

Sigmund Sauer,

ARE THERE ANY TAURUSES, RUGERS OR COLT REVOLVERS THAT I SHOULD BE CONSIDERING? OR SHOULD I STICK WITH S&W? SEEMS LIKE IN REVOLVERS, THERE THE ROLLS ROYCES, RIGHT?

I tend to like the S&W DA revolvers best but I also have the more experience with them, but the Ruger's are good "working guns". Colt's are nice but over priced IMO at least.

If you really want a .45 DA revolver a Ruger Redhawk in .45 Colt and .45 ACP would be nice, granted it might be hard to get in CA.

THEY LOOK LIKE VERY NICE GUNS. I SEE THEY SHOOT SOMETHING CALLED .45 LONG COLT. HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO .45 ACP? RECOIL? LOUDNESS? WOULD YOU RECOMMEND IT DESPITE THE RARER AMMO? IS BUYING A USED GUN A PROBLEM ANYWAY? IF IT LOOKS FINE? SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT USED GUNS ARE ACTUALLY BETTER?

.45 Colt is the "father" of the .45 ACP and very similar in most loading's. It's more of a reloader's round though do to limited factory loads. In Ruger's redhawks and blackhawks it can do everything the .44 Mag can do but with less pressure.

Linebaugh's Custom Sixguns - The .45 Colt - Dissolving the Myth, Discovering the Legend

The older guns are better in that they had more hand fitting and used forged parts vs MIM in newer S&W's.
Some 25's (I think the -4's, but can't remember.) shoot .45 ACP.

I'VE READ ABOUT THIS AND WATCHED SEVERAL VIDEOS, BUT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND LOCKED BREACH AND BLOWBACK. IT SEEMS THAT LOCKED BREACH HOLDS THE SLIDE IN PLACE, SO IT DOESN'T FLY BACK BEFORE THE BULLET HAS EXITED THE BARREL. IT ALSO SEEMS THAT IT SOMEHOW LOWERS THE BARREL, SO THE PRESSURE IS NOT ALL APPLIED ON ONE HORIZONTAL LEVEL? BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND BLOWBACK MEANS THAT EVERYTHING HAPPENS ON ONE HORIZONTAL PLANE, AND THEREFORE THE FIRING IS MUCH MORE ACCURATE.

DID I GET THAT RIGHT?

Pretty much. The biggest difference is the blowback barrels are fixed to the frame and do not move. Were the locked breach pistol's barrel is separate from the frame and tilts or rotates in guns like the PX4 Storm.