I've been debating which handgun to purchase as my first, and just can't make up my mind. I'm getting as many peoples opinions on various guns as I can. I own other guns, but not a handgun, FYI.

One I'm very interetsed in, is the FN FNP9


Another is a CZ75BD. I like the idea of the decocker. Is it really necessary though?


I'm looking in that general price range. I know those two specific guns are not very similar at all, but I like each of them for what they are. I like the steel frame of the CZ, and its a little larger which I like too. The FN I like the compact design of it, and the lightweight polymer frame. My use for the handgun will mainly be target shooting. As of now, I don't plan on carrying it with me. I don't want a gun that is going to break on me, but I'm not overly concerned about either of these. Opinions? Other guns suggested in this general price range?

First thing first...

Do they fit?

Next, why auto?
Why this caliber?
What is the primary use?
What is the secondary use?
Do you reload?
Will you reload?

And so on...


Personaly if I wanted a plinker, home defense, backup, etc.. Me thinks, and is on my list of needs for moma and I is.....

Ruger GP-100® 4in. Barrel
Double Action Revolver · GP-141

__________________
Educate your Kids on what gun control really should be about. _ Hitting your target with every shot....
Homeland security is a rifle on your back and a gun in each hand!

Both of them fit, just have a different feel, obviously. They're both relativly comfortable though. Auto because its what I want. I'm not too interested in a revolver at the time. This caliber because I havn't seen one .22 that I've liked and 9mm is good all around caliber for the uses I'll have for a handgun. Primary use will be just screwing around/target shooting. Secondary I suppose would be home defense..? I don't reload, and I havn't considered it as of yet.

I would think the CZ 75 would be a bit better for target shooting, longer sight radius, little more weight.

CZ makes some decent stuff; I like the CZ 97 myself.
You will have to do a search on the CZ, I think you will find a lot of after market gear to play with for the 75

Have fun...

__________________
Educate your Kids on what gun control really should be about. _ Hitting your target with every shot....
Homeland security is a rifle on your back and a gun in each hand!

Oh I've done plenty of research on both. There isn't much out yet on the FNP9 because its a newer gun. However, every review that I have read of people who own them or have shot them have nothing but good things to say about them.

Well, the CZ is a better looking gun, and thats how we choose our poiliticians, so it must be okay for pistols.

__________________
Buy American, it may be your own job you are saving.
UTU, TY&E Service, BNSF

Look around at the other threads on home defense you will find that most people agree, a 9mm is a very poor choice for home defence but it does kill paper targets well. (also read the "effective cartridges" thread(s))

A cartridge that has been documented as being well over 90% successful in ending a fight in one shot (with several different loadings), isn't useful for home defense?

__________________
MikeG

At the very real risk of taking this thread in a much, much debated vein, I agree with MikeG that a nine is good for home defense and have one myself for this purpose. Now, back to the question.

Of the two guns I'd go for the CZ. I recommended this gun to a friend, who was looking for a gun in it's price range for mult-use, and he is more than happy after owning it for about a year. Also, and not to be undervalued, it is a beautiful gun.

Hope this helps. --Mykal

__________________
Mykal

My first handgun was a 9mm CZ-85B (almost identical to the CZ-75B). Excellent gun; comfortable; well balanced; good design and build; able to buy the Kadet .22 conversion, many happy days I spent with it. I still own the gun.

But for just screwing around/target shooting I must tell you there is nothing like a Smith and Wesson model 10 or 15 .38 special 4" revolver and your own reloaded ammo. It is a whole other level of screwing around — believe me.

So, get the CZ 75B, or the 85B if you're a lefty. You will be happy.

But some day down the line, at least try a Smith or Colt .38 special. You have a treat awaiting you.


.

MikeG: I do believe that most people will concure, a shotgun is the best choice for home defence and comparing the 9mm with a 12ga is well.... no contest.

I have the fn fnp-9.
Very impressed so far. It doesnt seem like a compact in my hands, the trigger is pretty nice, too.
Not since Ive used the baretta 9mm in the service, have I used a da/sa pistol. the decocker, is extrememly important, especially since this will be a target gun. Unless you empty every clip when you shoot, its nice to be able to drop the hammer after 5 shot groups. It seems accurate and I like the fit and finish of the fnp-9, too.
FN makes some great weapons, so I like the idea of that company behind my pistol.

If I was the one making the purchase, I would go for the CZ, or one of it's Clones. I have a CZ 75, and a FIE TZ 75, and can see no practical difffrence in them. I like the TZ, as I shoot it in 9MM, 41AE, 40 S&W, and .357 Sig all on the same frame. The EAA Witness s the same gun as the TZ, and the Mags for all three will interchange. I've even gone so far as to interchange the top halves between the two guns, and fired both with no problems. The TZ is just an Italian copy of the CZ, and it seems that all dimensions were coppied as well. I purchased the 22 Kadet conversion, and it fires well on both frames. As you can see I am biased towards the guns with metal frames. I have fired numerous plastic framed guns, (Glock,S&W,Walther,and H&K) and did not like the feel of any of them, I guess I just don't like plastic.

Lee L.

Depends. Not everyone can handle a shotgun. And a shotgun is not guaranteed 100% effective, either.

I strongly urge you to read the Marshall / Sanow books, and use some science / statistical analysis, before trashing one caliber / gun choice over another. While I don't necessarily agree with their 'stopping power' theories, I *do* put some serious consideration into the raw data that's presented.

Educate yourself, friend, and elevate yourself from the ranks of 'gun shop commando' to student of ballistics!!!

Like IDShooter said in another thread.... no one who called his 9mm 'weak' has volunteered to stand downrange and catch bullets.....

__________________
MikeG

Hi,
When talking about bullet caliber sizes, I really like the catch phrase, " all else being equal".

Well, nothings equal between a .45 and 9mms.

If they were; then:

More bullets=9mm
less bullets=45acp or 357 or 44mag

More recoil= 44 and 45 cal variants
less recoil= 9/.38 cals.

This is the most important (for me)
more $=45/44cals
less $=9mm/.38

and really important if carrying a single shot derringer
more energy= 45/44cals
less energy=9mm/.38

Aint NO way Id be as good a shot as I am with my 9 if I had to buy .45 acp target fodder as opposed to 9mm stuff. Im not a govy agency that just has to get some ammo from the armory and go practice.

Folks talk about first shot being really important, well it is, but it aint like he's gonna keep his weapon dead solid on you , if he's hit with anything, he'll be sufficiently messed up enough to keep pumping them in him.

How much of this love of .45acp, do you suppose is a desire of history and nostalgia associated with the round?
just my input.
thanks, mike

I have read much of what Ivan Marshall has to say and if you hear him speak he sounds more like a high speed 9mm bullet salesman than some just compilling statistics In the FBI shoot out in Miamia the 9 didnot penetrate deep enough pappajohn said they didnot put the bullet in right place,but I say the bullet was perfectly placed given the angle and that is the main problem with hollow points a flat point would have gotten the job done and a45 flat is still bigger than a 9mm flat point thus my statement that the 45 would be more effective over a wider range of circustances.You can go with the bullet salesman if you wish

I hesitate to open my mouth in a debate like this, and far be it for me to second guess thousands of man-hours of FBI study, but it seems dangerous to me to draw firm conclusions from the performance of a single bullet. A compilation of a large group of statistics seems more valuable to me, even if the data or the conclusions can be said to be biased, as has been alleged.

I tend to disagree with the FBI's conclusion that it was an ammunition "failure", and I do believe it was one of shot placement. Sure, you'd like to be able to penetrate to the heart even if entering through the arm. Unfortunately, a cartridge that is able to do that is also likely to overpenetrate when used face on. Nothing will perform optimally from any conceivable angle. There are simply no guarantees.

(says I from my armchair)

I have a hard time with the "over penetration" thieory since most shots fired are misses nobody ever says that the misses might HIT THE LITTLE OLD LADY DOWN THE STREET they only speak of over penetration and I totall agree it was an amminition failure most shootings don't need more than hollow point style penetration but what if it does and you are lacking thus bigger hole in bigger hole out

And the guy who ended it in Miami used a .38 snubbie.... which proves, exactly nothing.

Yes, for every ballistic theory ever put forth, there exists a counter-example or two. That is why they ALL will remain theories, not proofs.

For that reason, I could give a pile of rat whiskers about Evan Marshall's ballistic theories, or frankly anyone else's for that matter. The data in the book is what makes it worth the purchase price, folks! If anything I think he comes across as a salesman for the exotic stuff like Glasers. If he'd ended the book as a data compilation, and left out the goat-shooting and whatnot, there'd be a lot less controversy over it. As it stands, the people who disagree with him, pick apart the theories and ignore the data, for the most part.

The anti-9mm bias is utterly comical when we consider that it's literally 0.001" or 0.002" separating 9mm bullets from our beloved .357 mags. Let's call them both .35 cal handguns, one rimless and one rimmed, and get the emotions out of the way. Hey I've even shot 0.358" bullets in a 9mm

Another example of how the top-performing .35s are really more alike than different:

- 125gr. Cor-Bon .357 mags, in a 2" Tarurus, run between 1200 and 1250fps (I have two of these guns and one is about 50fps faster than the other).
- 115gr. Cor-Bon 9mm +P, in a 1 7/8" Smith 940, average 1228fps.



It's not a wonder that they perform similarly; rather, it would be downright miraculous if they had substantially different performance in the field! Granted these are short-barreled guns, but they'll both pick up steam in longer barrels.

Bigger ain't better, necessarily. If it was we'd all carry .44 mags. Look up the numbers on .44 mags and prepare to be astonished at how poorly they perform, with all of that power on tap..........

Hey, don't get me wrong, I own more .45s than anything else. If I had to live the rest of my life with a 1911 and nothing else, well, there are worse fates! They're better for hunting, and clearing bowling pins off of a table. With the right loads, the .45 can serve and be every bit as effective as the 9mm for personal defense!

Now that last sentence ought to stir things up... over to you!

__________________
MikeG

MIKE G as I recall the man was not moving and was done when one of the agents empted his 38 special into the two men at point blank range if I understand correctly. As posted on the other thread I usally agree with your takes this time though we will have to agree to disagree if I am wrong then I will be wrong bigger not smaller and I agree on the 44 but according those satistics the 180 grain 44's have a pretty good record but a 44 is .429 not .451 and diameter does matter as well as meplate size 10-4 and OVER and OUT back to you in the studio