good suggestion on the hi-point. i have owned one, and still own the carbine, my brother has one and so do a couple friends. they are pretty darn reliable. if i wasnt going to "care" about my gun's range performance, i would totally get another one. i have been considering getting one again for the bathroom. if they do end up shooting it a bunch, the customer service is "no questions asked", usually will just send you out a free parts kit of springs, firing pin etc if there is an issue. they do the same thing as any other gun i have owned, albiet slightly less accurately and much more un-attractively, but for about the 3rd of the price.
Recommend low maintenance handgun for a non-gun person
- Thread starter cc-hangfire
- Start date
I understand the recommendation for a Hi-Point, and would be okay with it if it has a track record for reliability. (I don't know its record, not implying it's bad.) I also agree that a revolver or shotgun is practical HD for someone not into practicing regularly. I do recommend a Judge/Public Defender style revolver that can take 410 shells. With #4 buckshot on up, one can get some area coverage with enough penetration to be taken seriously.
I would also be on the .38/357 revolver bandwagon, though I don't know why some people recommended a 3" barrel.
For a carry gun, I can see the benefits of a shorter barrel, but for home defense, it will offer minimal advantages over the common 4" options. At the same time, the shorter barrel will result in less velocity, more noise, more muzzle flash, more muzzle jump (assuming equal thickness barrels), and a shorter sight radius (maybe not a big deal for HD distances, but may be a factor for someone with limited training).
For a home defense gun, I'd even consider a 5" or 6" barrel.
For a carry gun, I can see the benefits of a shorter barrel, but for home defense, it will offer minimal advantages over the common 4" options. At the same time, the shorter barrel will result in less velocity, more noise, more muzzle flash, more muzzle jump (assuming equal thickness barrels), and a shorter sight radius (maybe not a big deal for HD distances, but may be a factor for someone with limited training).
For a home defense gun, I'd even consider a 5" or 6" barrel.
Last edited:
Model12Win
Moderator
A nice stainless Ruger or S&W .38 special service revolver, for S&W a K-frame like the Model 64 or 67, for Ruger a Six series gun or GP100. I wouldn't even go for a .357 magnum gun, if they aren't going to shoot it much it's best not to have such a violent cartridge. .38 special is plenty powerful enough but much less loud.
Can't go wrong.
Can't go wrong.
cc-hangfire
New member
OP here. Thanks again for the considered responses.
This forum has lively and varied opinions, and - like elbows - everybody has a couple. With that said, I seriously challenge the idea that a non-gun person shouldn't have a firearm for home protection. (Note: I didn't say idiots or those with truly limited capacity should have a firearm.)
Why?
First, because the 2nd amendment provides that right, and I would think that pro-firearm folks would PROMOTE legal firearm ownership.
Second, because safely operating a firearm just isn't that difficult. (Note: I didn't say operating efficiently under stress or with accurate marksmanship - just safely). Yes, it can kill you (of someone close by), but - gosh - there are less than 10 controls to understand on a semiauto handgun, & the 4 rules just aren't that hard to learn. And how do we learn? By doing, & you need a firearm to use to actually learn to do it.
Third, because - God knows - we live in a world where they might need it. I have an 80 year old relative who lives alone in a rural area. He's a farmer and routinely operated tools & eqiupment more complicated than a revolver. He has one & he might just need it one day but he has no interest in practicing. Even if he's not extremely fast or accurate, he at least has a better potential to defend himself than with just a baseball bat & a dog (& yeah, he has a loyal & motivated dog). I'll bet you can think of a single woman (grandma, aunt, single mom, etc) who - even if slow & inaccurate - could make use of a firearm if attacked in their own home alone. We read stories routinely where grandma has shot an intruder. I love to hear about those instances; I want criminals to have to wonder if they're gonna get shot in a break in!
Whew! I feel better now, although I'm sure this will just reignite responses from those who believe that only experts should have guns.
This forum has lively and varied opinions, and - like elbows - everybody has a couple. With that said, I seriously challenge the idea that a non-gun person shouldn't have a firearm for home protection. (Note: I didn't say idiots or those with truly limited capacity should have a firearm.)
Why?
First, because the 2nd amendment provides that right, and I would think that pro-firearm folks would PROMOTE legal firearm ownership.
Second, because safely operating a firearm just isn't that difficult. (Note: I didn't say operating efficiently under stress or with accurate marksmanship - just safely). Yes, it can kill you (of someone close by), but - gosh - there are less than 10 controls to understand on a semiauto handgun, & the 4 rules just aren't that hard to learn. And how do we learn? By doing, & you need a firearm to use to actually learn to do it.
Third, because - God knows - we live in a world where they might need it. I have an 80 year old relative who lives alone in a rural area. He's a farmer and routinely operated tools & eqiupment more complicated than a revolver. He has one & he might just need it one day but he has no interest in practicing. Even if he's not extremely fast or accurate, he at least has a better potential to defend himself than with just a baseball bat & a dog (& yeah, he has a loyal & motivated dog). I'll bet you can think of a single woman (grandma, aunt, single mom, etc) who - even if slow & inaccurate - could make use of a firearm if attacked in their own home alone. We read stories routinely where grandma has shot an intruder. I love to hear about those instances; I want criminals to have to wonder if they're gonna get shot in a break in!
Whew! I feel better now, although I'm sure this will just reignite responses from those who believe that only experts should have guns.
Pond James Pond
New member
Having a firearm and not really knowing what to do with it certainly emasculates what could be a distinct advantage in a self defence situation but I think to say there is no point is a bit strong.
It could spell the difference between surviving an encounter.
More so than a bat.
I don't recommend deadly force options to people who care so little about them that they won't seek out a minimum level of education and training.
Not talking about becoming an expert.
Am talking (on the education side) about things like this: What Every Gun Owner Needs to Know About Self Defense Law.
And on the physical skills side, I'm talking about things like this: http://wavy.com/2015/02/23/suspect-in-va-beach-pharmacists-murder-pleads-guilty/ (Money quote: "Hubbard told detectives he got scared when the pharmacist, David Kilgore, displayed his own gun after Hubbard demanded pills." Kilgore died with his gun in hand, unable or unwilling to defend himself with the gun he had displayed.)
Those who are not willing to make at least a minimum level of effort to educate themselves before they buy a deadly weapon are fools and worse than fools.
pax
Edited to add: this has nothing do with the 2nd Amendment, since I'm absolutely against any law that requires people not to be fools. It's simply that I personally refuse to enable stupid behavior, which this is.
Not talking about becoming an expert.
Am talking (on the education side) about things like this: What Every Gun Owner Needs to Know About Self Defense Law.
And on the physical skills side, I'm talking about things like this: http://wavy.com/2015/02/23/suspect-in-va-beach-pharmacists-murder-pleads-guilty/ (Money quote: "Hubbard told detectives he got scared when the pharmacist, David Kilgore, displayed his own gun after Hubbard demanded pills." Kilgore died with his gun in hand, unable or unwilling to defend himself with the gun he had displayed.)
Those who are not willing to make at least a minimum level of effort to educate themselves before they buy a deadly weapon are fools and worse than fools.
pax
Edited to add: this has nothing do with the 2nd Amendment, since I'm absolutely against any law that requires people not to be fools. It's simply that I personally refuse to enable stupid behavior, which this is.
Take them to a range...teach them to shoot some semi-autos and some revolvers.../ then let them decide on budget, what's looks cool, what's not, etc......
There is no right or wrong answer here...and most of us agree that training is the answer, if they are buying this gun for defense. If they choose not to train.......having a cell phone handy is probably a better option...
---------------
But, if they are just buying it to exercise their rights...let them buy whatever they want ...:
1. a double action revolver in .357 Mag ( where they can shoot .38's in it too ) in a 4" barrel is rarely a poor choice from the mainstream mfgs' ( S&W or Ruger especially )....and a gun that might appreciate in value. They can learn to shoot the revolver in single action - with very little training - and they may even become effective with it....
2. Semi-auto...most all of the poly frame guns require very little maintenance...but neither do most of the steel or alloy frame guns like Sig Sauer.../ probably best to recommend a gun without a thumb safety ...so it could be loaded ( decocked, round chambered if stryker fired, or whatever )...so it could just be picked up and ready to fire...probably suggest they stay with a 9mm to limit recoil and cost to fire...
in both cases...let them pick what looks cool, what they like the best .....and lead them down the path of some training....train them a little yourself, if you can .......and let them sort this all out.
There is no right or wrong answer here...and most of us agree that training is the answer, if they are buying this gun for defense. If they choose not to train.......having a cell phone handy is probably a better option...
---------------
But, if they are just buying it to exercise their rights...let them buy whatever they want ...:
1. a double action revolver in .357 Mag ( where they can shoot .38's in it too ) in a 4" barrel is rarely a poor choice from the mainstream mfgs' ( S&W or Ruger especially )....and a gun that might appreciate in value. They can learn to shoot the revolver in single action - with very little training - and they may even become effective with it....
2. Semi-auto...most all of the poly frame guns require very little maintenance...but neither do most of the steel or alloy frame guns like Sig Sauer.../ probably best to recommend a gun without a thumb safety ...so it could be loaded ( decocked, round chambered if stryker fired, or whatever )...so it could just be picked up and ready to fire...probably suggest they stay with a 9mm to limit recoil and cost to fire...
in both cases...let them pick what looks cool, what they like the best .....and lead them down the path of some training....train them a little yourself, if you can .......and let them sort this all out.
If I made money training people to shoot, I wouldn't recommend it either, but reality is anyone can learn all the basic operations without paying someone to tell them how
One can acquire a "minimum level of education" without paying for it.
It's really not as complicated as many imply, and millions of people have used firearms to stop crimes without ever having taken a class.
Thanks for the gratuitous slam at my integrity, Snyper. Really appreciate it.
Please read my post again and tell me where I said you have to pay for training.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
pax
PS How many hours of your life have you given to building a (FREE, no ads) website for new shooters?
How many hours of your life have you spent standing on the range in the pouring rain or the scorching sun, volunteering your time to provide an excellent foundation in defensive shooting skills to those who need it?
How many of your personal resources -- of your own money and your family time -- have you invested in your teaching skills, so that you would be able to teach those vital skills to even more people?
How much do you earn at your full-time job, and how often do you get told by online strangers that your job isn't worth a dime and that you should never get paid for what you do?
Please read my post again and tell me where I said you have to pay for training.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
pax
PS How many hours of your life have you given to building a (FREE, no ads) website for new shooters?
How many hours of your life have you spent standing on the range in the pouring rain or the scorching sun, volunteering your time to provide an excellent foundation in defensive shooting skills to those who need it?
How many of your personal resources -- of your own money and your family time -- have you invested in your teaching skills, so that you would be able to teach those vital skills to even more people?
How much do you earn at your full-time job, and how often do you get told by online strangers that your job isn't worth a dime and that you should never get paid for what you do?
Mike Irwin
Staff
"It really doesn't take a lot of "training" to learn to NOT put your finger on the trigger if you're not ready to shoot, and that rule applies to every gun."
And yet, the landscape is littered with incidents of people who have had extensive training to not put their finger on the trigger doing exactly that, and dropping one or more rounds when they don't want to, sometimes with seriously bad consequences.
Handguns that, by their very nature have a light, short, trigger throw, are less forgiving than those with heavier, longer trigger pulls.
Negligent discharges by highly trained individuals in stress situations is one of the major reasons why the NYPD went to the heavier "New York Trigger" on their service weapons.
And yet, the landscape is littered with incidents of people who have had extensive training to not put their finger on the trigger doing exactly that, and dropping one or more rounds when they don't want to, sometimes with seriously bad consequences.
Handguns that, by their very nature have a light, short, trigger throw, are less forgiving than those with heavier, longer trigger pulls.
Negligent discharges by highly trained individuals in stress situations is one of the major reasons why the NYPD went to the heavier "New York Trigger" on their service weapons.
Before you obtain a gun for defensive purposes, you should first do some soul searching and ask yourself if you could use it if circumstances warrant -- like someone pointing a gun at you. Of course, you never know for certain until you are actually faced with that situation. Taking a life is a terrible decision to have to make.
Once you obtain a gun (or before), you should do at least some minimal training. Know how to handle it safely, how to clean and load the firearm, and then take it to the range for some practice to become familiar with how the gun feels and sounds when it is discharged. You also want to be able to hit a human sized target at close range (7 yards). I think these are the bare minimum things a responsible gun owner should do. More is better but many people with a legitimate desire or need for the protection gun ownership affords may not have the inclination or ability to do more. However, this should be an individual responsibility and not a governmental dictate.
Once you obtain a gun (or before), you should do at least some minimal training. Know how to handle it safely, how to clean and load the firearm, and then take it to the range for some practice to become familiar with how the gun feels and sounds when it is discharged. You also want to be able to hit a human sized target at close range (7 yards). I think these are the bare minimum things a responsible gun owner should do. More is better but many people with a legitimate desire or need for the protection gun ownership affords may not have the inclination or ability to do more. However, this should be an individual responsibility and not a governmental dictate.
Lost Sheep
New member
Late-night ramble
Mete #26 wins the prize with Nathan #18 a close second (but first in the timeline. Kudos to Pahoo #4 for reference to the right to self-defense. roashooter #25 is on the right track, but even a baseball bat requires practice and gives no advance warning and is not autonomous as a good dog is. Even a relatively untrained small dog is excellent at sounding an alarm.
cc-hangfire covers both the bases of the right to self-defense and the wisdom of discretion requiring training and practice.
44 AMP knows, but then 44 AMP should know. (To clarify: This is a compliment to 44's expertise demonstrated over a long time and an impressive number of posts. Also he has earned enough respect of his peers to serve as a moderator.
)
After 30 posts, I stopped scoring others' posts, but 1Dab (#32) just has to be mentioned. And those who claim a car is not like a gun, I say that the comparison is not about the machine so much as it is about the operator. An unpracticed operator of a gun is as bad as an unpracticed operator of a car. To the OP's post 48, I am not advocating that only experts should have guns. I advocate that everyone should have a gun (except those incompetent or morally opposed to themselves having a gun) AND BE COMPETENT to operate it at a minimally sufficient level to not be dangerous to themselves and others. (Don't get me started on who is to determine what that level is....that is for another thread and would take this thread off-topic.) See PAX #50.
kyjim # and mete #26 really hit the nail on the head with consideration of the willingness of a person to use deadly force in protection of life and limb. A VERY important and often under-considered point.
So, after commenting on everyone else's thoughts, here are mine that I composed several years ago before I gave sufficient consideration to the defender's mindset:
For anyone asking about self defense at home, start where the efforts produce the most effect. Prevention.
First, create defensible space around your home. No hiding places, good lighting secure windows and doors that cannot be breached with anything less than the "jaws of life". There's more you can do with passive defense, but you get the idea. Preparation is key.
Then an early warning system. The only thing better at sounding an alarm at a stranger's approach than a good, protective dog is a couple of geese. They honk at everything new. And you can't bribe a goose with a hamburger. Unfortunately, you can't housebreak a goose, either.
However, a dog has other advantages.
As a tool for home defense (and even away from home, too), a dog in the 75-150 lb range is great. The right species (of which there are many), will be good with the kids, protective of the home (whether you are home or not), intimidating to evildoers even on the street or parking lot, yet not so alarming to anti-gun types. They make good burglar alarms that never need batteries. They also have other benefits, like; They are good exercise, excellent psychiatrists, and allow the children to learn about raising a being who is dependent on them, unselfishness, responsibility, loyalty, and a different kind of love than family bonds. Just remember, that the amount you practice with your handgun, you should also invest in training with your dog. They will love you for it.
One more thing. You can warm your toes under a sleeping dog. Not a good idea under a gun.
For home defense, get yourself and your family into a "safe room" where you will be keeping a 12-gauge pump action shotgun. There is only one thing more compelling toward a hasty exit than the sound of a pump shotgun's closing bolt. If that sound comes from behind a closed door, no sane criminal will ever open that door. And if he does, an 18" shotgun is a lot easier to shoot straight and true than any handgun. The right loads can also be selected that won't penetrate your exterior walls to endanger your neighbors.
It has been said many times (so much so that I do not know the original author) that a handgun is what you use to fight your way back to your REAL weapon. A short-barrelled long gun with a stock (none of those pistol grips) is MUCH easier to hit with.
I will steal a line from someone else I have seen on these forums. Sorry, I don't have the name handy to give full credit. "If you find yourself in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." Prepare beforehand, so you will never have to be in a fight at all, much less give your opponent a fair one.
So now, I have to update my original article to include my new lessons learned:
Right to self-defense generates an obligation to train enough to be responsible in its use and careful consideration of one's willingness to use that force. And remember, even a dog brings responsibility to your doorstep. What brings more responsibiity? A gun or a dog?
Thans for reading my late-night ramble
Lost Sheep
p.s. after looking at the thread title again, this post-script inserted itself in my head. There is no such thing as a low maintenance handgun for a non-gun person. To own a gun, you have to be a gun person and maintain your skills and your mind-set.
But remember, maintenance can be fun.
Mete #26 wins the prize with Nathan #18 a close second (but first in the timeline. Kudos to Pahoo #4 for reference to the right to self-defense. roashooter #25 is on the right track, but even a baseball bat requires practice and gives no advance warning and is not autonomous as a good dog is. Even a relatively untrained small dog is excellent at sounding an alarm.
cc-hangfire covers both the bases of the right to self-defense and the wisdom of discretion requiring training and practice.
44 AMP knows, but then 44 AMP should know. (To clarify: This is a compliment to 44's expertise demonstrated over a long time and an impressive number of posts. Also he has earned enough respect of his peers to serve as a moderator.
)After 30 posts, I stopped scoring others' posts, but 1Dab (#32) just has to be mentioned. And those who claim a car is not like a gun, I say that the comparison is not about the machine so much as it is about the operator. An unpracticed operator of a gun is as bad as an unpracticed operator of a car. To the OP's post 48, I am not advocating that only experts should have guns. I advocate that everyone should have a gun (except those incompetent or morally opposed to themselves having a gun) AND BE COMPETENT to operate it at a minimally sufficient level to not be dangerous to themselves and others. (Don't get me started on who is to determine what that level is....that is for another thread and would take this thread off-topic.) See PAX #50.
kyjim # and mete #26 really hit the nail on the head with consideration of the willingness of a person to use deadly force in protection of life and limb. A VERY important and often under-considered point.
So, after commenting on everyone else's thoughts, here are mine that I composed several years ago before I gave sufficient consideration to the defender's mindset:
For anyone asking about self defense at home, start where the efforts produce the most effect. Prevention.
First, create defensible space around your home. No hiding places, good lighting secure windows and doors that cannot be breached with anything less than the "jaws of life". There's more you can do with passive defense, but you get the idea. Preparation is key.
Then an early warning system. The only thing better at sounding an alarm at a stranger's approach than a good, protective dog is a couple of geese. They honk at everything new. And you can't bribe a goose with a hamburger. Unfortunately, you can't housebreak a goose, either.
However, a dog has other advantages.
As a tool for home defense (and even away from home, too), a dog in the 75-150 lb range is great. The right species (of which there are many), will be good with the kids, protective of the home (whether you are home or not), intimidating to evildoers even on the street or parking lot, yet not so alarming to anti-gun types. They make good burglar alarms that never need batteries. They also have other benefits, like; They are good exercise, excellent psychiatrists, and allow the children to learn about raising a being who is dependent on them, unselfishness, responsibility, loyalty, and a different kind of love than family bonds. Just remember, that the amount you practice with your handgun, you should also invest in training with your dog. They will love you for it.
One more thing. You can warm your toes under a sleeping dog. Not a good idea under a gun.
For home defense, get yourself and your family into a "safe room" where you will be keeping a 12-gauge pump action shotgun. There is only one thing more compelling toward a hasty exit than the sound of a pump shotgun's closing bolt. If that sound comes from behind a closed door, no sane criminal will ever open that door. And if he does, an 18" shotgun is a lot easier to shoot straight and true than any handgun. The right loads can also be selected that won't penetrate your exterior walls to endanger your neighbors.
It has been said many times (so much so that I do not know the original author) that a handgun is what you use to fight your way back to your REAL weapon. A short-barrelled long gun with a stock (none of those pistol grips) is MUCH easier to hit with.
I will steal a line from someone else I have seen on these forums. Sorry, I don't have the name handy to give full credit. "If you find yourself in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." Prepare beforehand, so you will never have to be in a fight at all, much less give your opponent a fair one.
So now, I have to update my original article to include my new lessons learned:
Right to self-defense generates an obligation to train enough to be responsible in its use and careful consideration of one's willingness to use that force. And remember, even a dog brings responsibility to your doorstep. What brings more responsibiity? A gun or a dog?
Thans for reading my late-night ramble
Lost Sheep
p.s. after looking at the thread title again, this post-script inserted itself in my head. There is no such thing as a low maintenance handgun for a non-gun person. To own a gun, you have to be a gun person and maintain your skills and your mind-set.
But remember, maintenance can be fun.
Last edited: