My first handgun, on a budget

compass

compass

Regular
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Location
New Brunswick
Hello everyone, I am considering the purchase of my first handgun soon. I have been reading up on the subject and going through online reviews of various handguns. A lot of differing opinions on the first handgun if it should be a revolver or a semi-automatic and if the caliber should be a .22, 9mm, or doesn't matter.

My main issue is that I am on a budget, and I don't see myself acquiring several handguns, at least not for several years. So I am looking for a good reliable all-around handgun that would be sub $500 to my door, and that would be cheap to shoot at the range. I have a 22 rifle that I use so I would like something with a bit more bite with a handgun. I can get a Ruger SR40 in town for $450, but I heard that the .40 can be expensive to shoot compared to 9mm, so I have somewhat settled on a Ruger SR9 if I can get it on special somewhere. One of the things I like about the Ruger SR models is the ambidextrous safety and mag release. This is an important factor for me since I am left handed. I realise that there is only so much I can expect out of a $500 handgun as far as quality, but from what I have seen many people believe that Ruger's SR9, although crude in some aspects, is a great bang for your buck.

I would like everyone's opinion if I am on the right track with the SR9, and if there are other good sub $500 handguns that I should consider.

Thank you.
 
I have a SR9 and it's a great gun. Plenty accurate for a range toy, easy to clean and maintain and it shoots nice and feels great in the hand. It's been the best 9mm I've had so far.
 
Gillen1, what has been your experience with the SR9 regarding reliability? Did you have to break it in before it performed well with no jamming? If so, how many rounds would you say it took before it was properly broken in? Thanks.
 
For a 500$ budget with low cost ammo, logical choice would be a Ruger Mark III or a Browning Buckmark, both top choice 22lr pistol.
 
Super reliable, never have had it jam on me, the only jam it has was with a new guy who was shaking so much he didn't hold it right. After the first shot calmed his nerves he was fine with it. I'd say there is little to no break in period.

compass said:
Gillen1, what has been your experience with the SR9 regarding reliability? Did you have to break it in before it performed well with no jamming? If so, how many rounds would you say it took before it was properly broken in? Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
When considering your budget, not only gun price, but ammo cost must also be considered. Even handloaded, centerfire ammo is more expensive than .22 LR. If you intend to handload on a single stage press, its disheartening when you see how fast you go through ammo, compared to how much time it takes to load it. I began my handgun career with a Colt Trooper in .357 magnum, and handloaded for it with a Lee Loader. It wasn't long before I upgraded to a press.

Some years later I put myself in a difficult position by agreeing to load .38s for a small pistol club I belonged to. I was to make 1000 rounds a week, which I attempted on my single stage press. It started out well enough, each day I would complete a step, tumbling brass Saturday night through Sunday, resizing on Monday, priming and expanding cases on Tuesday, loading on Wednesday, and crimping and checking that each round would chamber easily on Thursday. But as might have been expected, life got in the way, and I ended up on loading all 1000 rounds on a Friday night for Saturday morning. Finally one night, my powder measure went out of adjustment (I've never forgiven Lyman for that) and rather than dumping 4.5 grs of Unique, I was dumping 7 grs and had no idea how far along I was when the adjustment began to change, so the 500 rounds I had loaded at that point was saved for my .357 and I bought 1000 rounds of .38 from a friend of mine with a Star progressive loader, which cost me more than I was paid. That was the end of my commercial loading experiment.

A 9mm pistol can go through ammo at an alarming rate, so the best be it to source some surplus military ammo, or be prepared to spend $15+ per box. Frankly, I'd start with a revolver, probably a .38 or a .357. The cheapest shooting you can do with them, is to push the cartridge into a cake of paraffin, prime it, and it will shoot pretty well out to 30' or so, with enough power to penetrate a cardboard box, which collects the "bullets." This is smokey though and does make the gun dirty enough to require frequent cleaning. And it still costs more than shooting .22 rimfire, although you can do it in your basement or garage, which isn't a good idea with even with low velocity .22s. If the idea of firing a handgun off the range makes you uncomfortable, then don't do it, but the noise signature is very low, and not only won't you disturb anyone, no one will know what you're up to.
 
compass said:
Hello everyone, I am considering the purchase of my first handgun soon. I have been reading up on the subject and going through online reviews of various handguns. A lot of differing opinions on the first handgun if it should be a revolver or a semi-automatic and if the caliber should be a .22, 9mm, or doesn't matter.

My main issue is that I am on a budget, and I don't see myself acquiring several handguns, at least not for several years. So I am looking for a good reliable all-around handgun that would be sub $500 to my door, and that would be cheap to shoot at the range. I have a 22 rifle that I use so I would like something with a bit more bite with a handgun. I can get a Ruger SR40 in town for $450, but I heard that the .40 can be expensive to shoot compared to 9mm, so I have somewhat settled on a Ruger SR9 if I can get it on special somewhere. One of the things I like about the Ruger SR models is the ambidextrous safety and mag release. This is an important factor for me since I am left handed. I realise that there is only so much I can expect out of a $500 handgun as far as quality, but from what I have seen many people believe that Ruger's SR9, although crude in some aspects, is a great bang for your buck.

I would like everyone's opinion if I am on the right track with the SR9, and if there are other good sub $500 handguns that I should consider.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

You don't see yourself acquiring several handguns, and I'm pretty sure a lot of us said the exact same thing, I know I did, haha! I told myself "buy once, cry once" so I got myself a mid-range 1911 (Remington R1E). Yeah, she's a pig when it comes to ammo, but I don't regret getting her. She's pretty to look at, her action is smooth and she practically shoots herself. I eventually got myself a .22lr pistol as well because ammo was pretty pricey, but never looking back and regretting getting the .45.

For me, a .22lr pistol was definitely a lifesaver as far as costs are concerned, it's cheap to feed, provides hours of fun, and I'm glad I have one, but it always leaves me feeling slightly unfulfilled. If you get yourself a .22lr to start, yeah, definitely a great starter gun, cheap to shoot with, but you might find yourself looking over to the next lane and think "I wish I had something with a little more oomf".

If you're set on cheap gun and cheap ammo to start, maybe one of the .22lrs the guys above mentioned. If you want to go even cheaper, you can always get yourself one of those Norc Woodsmans....I heard those are dirt-phucking cheap.

If you go bigger and cheaper, there's a sick deal on Canada Ammo right now (you'll see, it pops to the top almost every day) where to get 1000 rounds of .45acp with your Norinco 1911 for $499, free shipping. So, you're buying a $300 pistol, and 1000 rounds of .45acp for $200 ($450-500 on average for the same amout in brand name stuff), or you're getting $329 worth of Norinco ammo and getting a 1911 for $170 (brand name 1911 pistol will sell for at least $600). Any way you look at it, it's a wicked deal.

Some people hate the Norc, whether it's because it supports the Chi-Comms, or it's not as refined as the North American made 1911s, but the truth of the matter is, they are made of some heavy duty steel, they work, and they put rounds downrange fairly reliably.

All this is coming from a guy who's got a silky-smooth pistol that's refined and cost me more than I wanted to spend - no regrets. I've also got a GSG-1911 that shoots .22lr - no regrets. And lastly, I've got one of those Canada Ammo Norc 1911 + 1000 rounds of ammo deals - also no regrets.

I say get the Canada Ammo deal. You're getting a heavy duty 1911 for about $170, you're getting a discount .45acp ammo for $329 (and it's not bad ammo, it's bras-cased, some say reloadable, and it comes out hot and dirty). You ask yourself why you need 1000 rounds of ammo to start? Well, you'll eventually have to feed the pig.
 
Frontier currently has some interesting 1911 varients on at the moment. Star model 'B'. Made in Spain, given to the Germans in WWII, captured by the Russians, now sold in Canada. 9mm, milsurp, good quality from what little searching I've done on the net. Sub $400
Apparently Hollywood armorers use them often in place of 45acp 1911s since 9mm blank is easier to use (ie, Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction). Not that you'll be firing blanks, but it's a neat sidenote
 
X2 for a Norc. I have a CanAm deal .45 and love it. All steel, shoots almost as well as my Colt 1911. $499 plus $12 hogue grips and I have a good easy-shooting pistol and 1000 rounds of ammo. Norc .45 costs no more than 9mm, and certainly less than my .40.

On a budget they can't be beat IMHO.
 
Alex_Zues said:
Frontier currently has some interesting 1911 varients on at the moment. Star model 'B'. Made in Spain, given to the Germans in WWII, captured by the Russians, now sold in Canada. 9mm, milsurp, good quality from what little searching I've done on the net. Sub $400
Apparently Hollywood armorers use them often in place of 45acp 1911s since 9mm blank is easier to use (ie, Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction). Not that you'll be firing blanks, but it's a neat sidenote
Click to expand...

I'd look at it a little differently.. how often do you want to shoot and how many rounds.. the Ammo costs exceed the long term cost of the gun by far if you shoot regularly.
 
silverfoxdj said:
I'd look at it a little differently.. how often do you want to shoot and how many rounds.. the Ammo costs exceed the long term cost of the gun by far if you shoot regularly.
Click to expand...

+10 !! the cost of the gun is nothing if you keep it for let's say 10 years compare to the money you will put in ammo on 10 years
 
Tongarirohiker said:
I'm not a Glock fan myself, but I agree this would be a good option. Also, check out the Norinco clones, or a SAM 1911.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think you're too new to the sport to "not be a fan" of anything. Don't discount a used Glock too fast. I had my reservations about Glocks when I started out shooting HG's.
My first HG was a 1911. As a newbie I was intimidated with taking it apart, etc. I ended up selling the 1911 and buying a G17 and never looked back.
Glocks are so easy to work on, parts/mods are plenty, and they hold up well against scuffs wear and tear. Now that I'm more comfortable working on HG's another 1911 would be easy but guess what... I bought a gen4 G21 and a few revolvers. But I digress....
 
Girsan full size Beretta 92F clone is $450, very well made, handle really well for a large frame auto, and Beretta parts fit it so it will last you a lifetime.
 
silverfoxdj said:
I'd look at it a little differently.. how often do you want to shoot and how many rounds.. the Ammo costs exceed the long term cost of the gun by far if you shoot regularly.
Click to expand...

Cheap 9mm ammo in a low cost pistol is what I was figuring. That's why I made sure these pistols were common 9mm Parabellum and not that Largo stuff. Of course if one were going simply upon price then a 22 is a no brainer. But I figured an inexpensive 'starter' pistol might be nice.

And with being a milsurp, they can usually be sold for little to no loss if the shooter doesn't like it. Of course I also like milsurps so that rarely happens
 
Last edited:
silverfoxdj said:
I'd look at it a little differently.. how often do you want to shoot and how many rounds.. the Ammo costs exceed the long term cost of the gun by far if you shoot regularly.
Click to expand...

Interesting way to put it silverfoxdj. I suppose I would like to shoot a few times a month, and at least a box of 50 if not two per visit to the range to make it worthwhile.
 
If you are serious about only one handgun I would save up till you have a little more buying power, I would look at adjustable sights and a good fit / feel. We all have our perfect choice of gun mine is a .357 revolver it is fun to shoot and cheap since I can't magically shoot off a box of rounds with a couple of Mag changes and I can shoot .38's as well . I would recommend a .22 as a starter but if you have no intention of buying a second gun after learning to shoot then you have to start out with whatever caliber is going to make you happy for the rest of your life (it might be hard to find though ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom