Recommend low maintenance handgun for a non-gun person

"Those people didn't do it due to a lack of instruction
They did it due to breaking the rules"


You do realize that you just AGREED with my position, correct?

Otherwise your statement, and complete position, make absolutely NO sense.




"Those who handle guns every day can become too complacent"

What is complacency OTHER than breaking training? And what is breaking training? It's breaking the rules you've been taught for handling a gun, and that applies no matter whether one has received hundreds of hours or instruction or advice from someone saying "keep your finger off the trigger unless you want to shoot something."



Your position that someone who has little to no fundamental training in handling a firearm will somehow handle a gun better than someone who has ongoing training is absolutely ludicrous and comletely indefensible.

The truth is that everyone reacts to stress situations. People who are routinely trained handle those situations far better than those who are not, or who have less training.

But at the end of the day even highly trained people make fundamental mistakes, and people who are less trained are more likely to make the same mistakes in the same type of situation.

To hand an untrained or marginally trained gunowner a gun like a Glock and expect them to be able to remember and follow the far more intensive manual of arms required for a gun with such a short, light trigger pull is irresponsible in the extreme.

To blythly recommend it is equally irresponsible.
 
Posted by Snyper:
....but reality is anyone can learn all the basic operations without paying someone to tell them how
Click to expand...
Payment is a different subject, but "learning the basic operations" can prove less than adequate.

I said classes aren't needed to learn how to shoot well enough to protect yourself
Click to expand...
Well, you just might protect yourself successfully without having been trained.

Or not.

One of the things abut people who have not availed themselves of training is that they do not know what it is that they do not know.
 
One of the things abut people who have not availed themselves of training is that they do not know what it is that they do not know.
Click to expand...

This.

It is, just vaguely, perhaps, maybe, barely possible that the reason most well-trained shooters (not just those who teach) recommend others get good training too is because those who have learned a bit about the subject actually know what they are talking about. Whereas the untrained simply do not realize how much they are lacking.

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/confident-idiots-92793

pax
 
One of the biggest false assumptions of our modern age is that someone with a piece of paper to hang on their wall always knows what they are doing, and someone without such a paper does not.

For an entertaining example of this, I suggest you watch My Cousin Vinnie, and note how Miss Vito, without formal training is recognized as an expert.

People with out training do manage to defend themselves, often. And they do fail, sometimes.

People with training do manage to defend themselves, often. And they do fail, sometimes.

Knowing what you are doing is vital. Having a paper to "prove" to the world that you do, is not.
 
I would think a Polymer, striker fired pistol from one on the major manufacturers would be the best.
I find it amazing at how many responses don`t answer your question.
 
To repeat the central point of my post #57 (Late night ramble) with a catch phrase:

The USER requires a lot more maintenance than the tool.

Lost Sheep
 
I would think a Polymer, striker fired pistol from one on the major manufacturers would be the best.
Click to expand...

There is a valid argument for this, however, even the best of the new era guns share the drawbacks common to the autoloader in un(der)trained hands.

The polymer frame striker fired pistol while it may have fewer parts than a DA revolver, is more complex to operate. It has a separate magazine, upon which it is totally dependent. And like all autos, needs proper ammo/ammo in proper condition. (and that's leaving out "limp wristing" concerns.

The "reliability" of the modern polymer guns seems to be better than older designs, but in the event of a cartridge failure (dud) they are much more complicated to get back into action than a DA revolver, where only another pull of the trigger is often all that is needed.

(True, when a revolver screws up, it's usually not "field fixable", but its rare, and beside the point here.)

The swing out cylinder DA revolver is not idiot proof, nothing is, but it has proven to be the more tolerant of the ignorant than other designs.
 
I think the KISS principle applies in this circumstance. A DA revolver can sit in a clean dry place for many years and it will fire when you pull the trigger. My neighbor traded me a 45+- 38 special revolver a while back he bought from his son 20+ years ago. He didn't use it and it simply sat in a drawer in his house. I bought it and the 20+ year old or older ammo in it shot fine. How much simpler can it get than load it until you need it and simply pull the trigger when you need it.
 
I think post #68 summed it up perfectly.

It's just about impossible to get the right answer to a wrong question.

pax
 
To hand an untrained or marginally trained gunowner a gun like a Glock and expect them to be able to remember and follow the far more intensive manual of arms required for a gun with such a short, light trigger pull is irresponsible in the extreme.
Click to expand...
Glocks require one simple rule.
Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

No remembering safeties or decockers, or dealing with two types of trigger pulls.

It's not complicated at all

Just one thing to remember
 
I think a Glock is a good recommendation for its lack of manual safety and the fact you can treat them like I treat my lawnmower :D
 
Snyper said:
To hand an untrained or marginally trained gunowner a gun like a Glock and expect them to be able to remember and follow the far more intensive manual of arms required for a gun with such a short, light trigger pull is irresponsible in the extreme.
Click to expand...
Glocks require one simple rule.
Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

No remembering safeties or decockers, or dealing with two types of trigger pulls.
Click to expand...
That is only what's required to not fire the gun. Operating a Glock, or any other gun, involves things beyond just not firing it.
 
I say Glock 9mm. The reason is simple because they are simple to operate. The non-gun person is unlikely to shoot more than a couple boxes of ammo thorough it in a couple years and probably a lot longer. They hardly need to know how to clean it.
 
I would say it depends on the person. Revolvers and semi-automatics both have advantages and I can see each as a good recommendation depending on the friend. The same can be true for a light polymer frame vs a substantial SS frame (lower maintenance). A Shotgun would also be a serious consideration as a recommendation.
The one thing I would try to do if they are truly a friend are serious about having a gun is to not only encourage them to practice, but I would also facilitate practice by inviting them to meet me at the range. I would also encourage they take at least a basic NRA class but make them understand the purpose of the course is only an introduction, not meant to make them proficient. These are usually not expensive and should be well worth their time.
 
My main concern would be them unintentionally shooting themselves or someone else. How anyone can think a Glock would be a good choice of handgun for the type of person described surprises me. Glocks are fine for people that know what way semi/ autos operate, and the do's and don'ts, but for an inexperienced novice. ? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top