BF2S Forums In need of pistol

cat4ever wrote:

why a pistol? do u want to kill some1 or something?

I think weapons shouldnt  be allowed, only police and army...

what do you mean?

Target shooting is a skill and an enjoyable hobby that many people enjoy.  A gun is also a deterent as much as a weapon and only as dangerous as the intentions of those that use them.  Anyone owning a gun should know how to safely use it and keep it out of the hand of those that do not.  When properly handled a gun is essentially harmless.

As for giving up your right to possess a firearm I would say that it is your right and you shouldn't give up any of your rights to the government.  The second amendment gives us the right to possess firearms and is a check on the rule of a tyrannical state that could impose limits on the freedoms that we enjoy and value in the United States.  As you get older and have a family of your own I hope that you will appreciate these ideas.

xixspyder wrote:

That's prob why nonone has invaded the U.S yet lol .Everyone owns a handgun and it'd be an out right WAR if anyone stepped on our territory.

Among other things

Da_Killer_NoooooooB wrote:

Nice, straight-forward Beretta 92fs Bubba, you can't go wrong, & you can pick them up brand new for a reasonable price. I picked mine up earlier this year for around $450. The other gun I could recommend would be a Kimber .45, sweet gun but  also a few hundred extra. Both are dependable, no-nonsense pistols, reliable & not too ridiculous as far as ammo cost. My friend has a Taurus 9mm, a Desert Eagle .50, I've shot both, Taurus is the cheap version of the 9mm's (Berreta vs. Taurus) but just as reliable. The .50, is all show, impressive but not practical, unless you need to crack an engine block in a vehicle. Just go to the range, rent several & see what "fits" you. Good Luck, Good Shooping, Good Shooting!

We use the 92FS in the army and its a pretty decent gun. They are really durable, and its a really easy and fun gun to shoot. Probably cheap, but I've never checked on the prices.

rdx-fx wrote:

I'd second JE3146's brand suggestions, with a couple additions.

Personal preference is H&K here. 
Sig Sauer is reliable and accurate.
Glock is also reliable and accurate, but the grip takes a little getting used to.
Kimber makes some good 1911's, but they're not for the 1st time owner.

A .22 makes an excellent 1st pistol.
Inexpensive to shoot, cheap ammo.
.22 pistol itself will cost from $250 - $400.  Much cheaper than a larger centerfire pistol.
low recoil and relatively quiet report (bang) let a new user focus on the fundamentals of shooting,
without learning bad habits (recoil flinch, closing eyes, etc).

Do NOT get talked into a short-barreled pistol. (concealable, compact, etc).
They're louder, less accurate, and more recoil (all bad things for a new owner)

Browning HiPower MkIII 9mm is a comfortable pistol.
Grip fits into the hand in a very repeatable fashion.  Makes point-shooting a bit easier.
http://www.browning.com/products/catalo … ype_id=001

Personal favorite is the H&K USP series.
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/index.js … ber=704501
Completely reliable. Accurate.  High quality engineering.
And, selling point for a new owner - user maintenance/cleaning disassembly is simplicity itself.
(Takes 7 seconds, eyes closed.  Once you're used to it.)
To explain a USP to a nominal non-gun-person, "It's like a Glock, but better in every way".

Excellent post. One thing I will add though is the USP fullsize pistols are a lot to grab hold of. While they may seem "doable" in a store, often times they can shift while shooting. The compacts aren't all that compact, but provide a bit smaller grip to grab hold of.

And I agree, the grip angle on the Glock is a bit awkward.

Sig's howevor are twice as easy to field strip than a USP I can take mine down in under 3.5 seconds. My USP takes twice that. It's just the fact you have to hold the slide halfway while working out the slide catch, whereas a sig, you can have the slide racked back while pivoting the slide stop, then releasing the slide.

i have a penis

If you're only going to use the firearm for target shooting and not personal defense, I'll do my best to argue in favor of getting a rifle instead, for a number of reasons.

First of all, the learning curve with a handgun is pretty steep.  You'll be discouraged by your initial inaccuracy, and I by no means intend this to sound like a personal attack.  It's the truth.  I don't care if it's a Mk23 SOCOM, a USP Match, whatever--give any pistol to someone who's never fired a weapon before, give them a regulation target at 25 meters, and I'll be damned if a single bullet from the entire magazine touches that paper.  Because of the way pistols are held, and the short barrel length, even the slightest deviation (movement) of the barrel (which is likely to occur with a novice's trigger pull) will cause a gigantic change in the path of the bullet at 25m, or even at 25 feet.  The rifle on the other hand, is stabilized with one hand under the barrel and a buttstock, and thus is less prone to jerking around.

Recoil is also harder to manage with a pistol.  In .22, 7.65mm and 9mm it isn't too bad, but a 9mm pistol will still kick a good deal in comparison to a rifle, simply because the handgun has perhaps one-fourth the inertia (mass) of the rifle.  In .40, .45, or .50, if you break your wrists mid-shot, well, you just might end up breaking your wrists.

Also, as weird as it may sound, rifles can end up being cheaper than pistols.  Military surplus weapons, such as the Mosin-Nagant, the SKS Carbine, and even AK-47s, can be had for as little as $75 US.  Even a decent AK-47 (semi-auto only of course) averages $300-$400.  The SKS and AK-47 are chambered for 7.62 x 39 (the Russian .308), and that ammo can be had for about a dime to 15 cents a round via mail-order.  No, these weapons won't be able to fire sub-MOA groupings at 100m, and they may be in "battle-tested" condition, but for the price you can't go wrong.  If you find you enjoy the experience, then by all means spend more for better equipment.  If you don't, well at least you didn't blow $1000+ on it, right?

Just my humble suggestion.

[QXJZ]Capt_Kefra wrote:

If you're only going to use the firearm for target shooting and not personal defense, I'll do my best to argue in favor of getting a rifle instead, for a number of reasons.

First of all, the learning curve with a handgun is pretty steep.  You'll be discouraged by your initial inaccuracy, and I by no means intend this to sound like a personal attack.  It's the truth.  I don't care if it's a Mk23 SOCOM, a USP Match, whatever--give any pistol to someone who's never fired a weapon before, give them a regulation target at 25 meters, and I'll be damned if a single bullet from the entire magazine touches that paper.  Because of the way pistols are held, and the short barrel length, even the slightest deviation (movement) of the barrel (which is likely to occur with a novice's trigger pull) will cause a gigantic change in the path of the bullet at 25m, or even at 25 feet.  The rifle on the other hand, is stabilized with one hand under the barrel and a buttstock, and thus is less prone to jerking around.

Recoil is also harder to manage with a pistol.  In .22, 7.65mm and 9mm it isn't too bad, but a 9mm pistol will still kick a good deal in comparison to a rifle, simply because the handgun has perhaps one-fourth the inertia (mass) of the rifle.  In .40, .45, or .50, if you break your wrists mid-shot, well, you just might end up breaking your wrists.

Also, as weird as it may sound, rifles can end up being cheaper than pistols.  Military surplus weapons, such as the Mosin-Nagant, the SKS Carbine, and even AK-47s, can be had for as little as $75 US.  Even a decent AK-47 (semi-auto only of course) averages $300-$400.  The SKS and AK-47 are chambered for 7.62 x 39 (the Russian .308), and that ammo can be had for about a dime to 15 cents a round via mail-order.  No, these weapons won't be able to fire sub-MOA groupings at 100m, and they may be in "battle-tested" condition, but for the price you can't go wrong.  If you find you enjoy the experience, then by all means spend more for better equipment.  If you don't, well at least you didn't blow $1000+ on it, right?

Just my humble suggestion.

Minus the slight detail that the cost for imported ammo is skyrocketing due to lack of supply, and an overly increased amount of demand.

I had to wait 3 months on backorder for a case of decently priced 7.62x39, and I've been waiting 6 months for a case of 5.45. Sure there's the newly imported 7N6, but it's corrosive.

Mosins are a great deal, and everything about them is cheap. I personally own 3. Love them all.

The SKS is a great starter rifle though.