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
http://www.fnherstal.com/html/FNP9/FNP9.jpg

Another is a CZ75BD. I like the idea of the decocker. Is it really necessary though?
http://www.cz-usa.com/images/products/31.jpg

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

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...

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.

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))

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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

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.....
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

In the FBI shoot out in Miamia the 9 didnot penetrate deep enough ...
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 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 :D

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.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

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 :p as the 9mm for personal defense!

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

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

I agree on the right loading Mike. I wouldn't say the 9mm and the .357Mag are similar...

Pete Pi's Cor Bon loads are max pressure for 9mm but only mid range for the .357 Mag. I'm not convinced that the two can be ballistically compared. The very top end 9mm is 1268 FPS, and only for use in very strong firearms, firearms that fully support the case... I'm not about to shove a round down in a gun that could possibly blow up in my face. As far as i know, there are no commercial loads that take advantage of the strength or capabilities of a .357Mag. There exists data for a load pushing a 180 grain bullet at greater than 1500 FPS. Conservatively, I load my 158 grain slugs that hot. I have loads that include a 125 grain gold dot moving alkong at 1680 FPS...

I'm not trying to argue, and I don't particularly want to be shot with any bullet, but there are some variances. I would like to note that the .357 Mag loads are often not recommended for alloy framed revolvers. Nobody wants to deal with the amount of recoil that firing these max loads develops.

If you can shoot it well, then thats what you need to carry. Hopefully you don't have to prove you can use it.

The cor-bon .357s actually give a bit of sticky extraction in one of my guns. If they're underloaded, I don't want any more! They hurt, in a snubbie, too.....

I did have one cylinder of sticky extractions with the hot load lighter bullets, H110 with 110 grain bullets. They were fast... mmmmm....

Thats the only problem I've had with them. On a side note, I get better accuracy with the faster loads. I'm not saying the lighter loads are inaccurate though, I want that to be understood.

I've been shooting at 40 yards, offhand. So maybe accuracy is out the window. Idunno.

I never would have imagined my question would have sparked this debate, but I'm guessing it isn't the first time here on this forum either. I really wasn't looking for suggestions on other calibers, and I wasn't looking for suggestions on other guns either. I own a pump shotgun if it comes to home defense, and I'm looking at an Olympic Arms K3B or some variant as well. In the end I wanted a nice looking handgun that shot 9mm bullets at paper targtes (or various other non-human things). Thanks for the opinions for those that gave them...I apologize if anyone actually had an opinion in the last few posts. I got sick of reading the same crap over and over so decided to post. Anyhow, sorry for sparkign this debate (again).

I never would have imagined my question would have sparked this debate, but I'm guessing it isn't the first time here on this forum either. I really wasn't looking for suggestions on other calibers, and I wasn't looking for suggestions on other guns either. I own a pump shotgun if it comes to home defense, and I'm looking at an Olympic Arms K3B or some variant as well. In the end I wanted a nice looking handgun that shot 9mm bullets at paper targtes (or various other non-human things). Thanks for the opinions for those that gave them...I apologize if anyone actually had an opinion in the last few posts. I got sick of reading the same crap over and over so decided to post. Anyhow, sorry for sparkign this debate (again).

We never get off-topic here, LOL!!!

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.

Hi
I most say I have one of them plastic guns you talk about, Glock17, and I don´t get along with it. But plastic is fantastic!

If I was going to buy new guns and should only play with them, no pro compete, it´s easy:
Pistols
22:a - Ruger MK2
9mm - Glock17 , Beretta92F
45acp - Para.
Revolver
38-357 - S&W 686 , RugerGP100

The most importen thing it the use and what typ of bullets you going to use, some guns don´t goes with some bullets.
Recomend you to go to your local dealer to try the out...

The cor-bon .357s actually give a bit of sticky extraction in one of my guns. If they're underloaded, I don't want any more! They hurt, in a snubbie, too.....

MIKE sticky extraction is not always caused by high pressure more often than not it is caused by rough or unburnished mass produced chambers.IT is simular to a properly set up bolt rifle that has had the action trued and squared you will reach primer pocket expansion caused by high pressre before felling a sticky bolt lift in fact you can have blown primers and not have sticky bolt lift therfore not beening a good way to judge pressure

True, but the chambers in this gun are literally mirror-bright. Believe me, after owning a number of Rugers, that's the first thing I check!!!

Anyway, next time I think about it, I'll chrono both loads in a 6.5" Blackhawk .357/9mm convertible, should be interesting.

Mike there are a couple of other problems that can cause sticky extraction in smooth and burnished chambers if the reamer wrobbles any at all you will have condition know as reverse taper or a slightly out of round chamber you will not be able to detect this except with VERY precise measurments.Also some of the small frame 5 shot cylender 357 mags have marginal wall thickness in the cylender and may give sticky extraction with some loads and like you said they are a handfull when shot not, very comfortable

I think it's just awfully thin cylinders on this gun, to be honest.

When I say 'sticky,' it's just a bit more of a tap on the ejector rod that the rest of my guns. Not bad, but a sign you've got all you want.

I never would have imagined my question would have sparked this debate, but I'm guessing it isn't the first time here on this forum either. I really wasn't looking for suggestions on other calibers, and I wasn't looking for suggestions on other guns either. I own a pump shotgun if it comes to home defense, and I'm looking at an Olympic Arms K3B or some variant as well. In the end I wanted a nice looking handgun that shot 9mm bullets at paper targtes (or various other non-human things). Thanks for the opinions for those that gave them...I apologize if anyone actually had an opinion in the last few posts. I got sick of reading the same crap over and over so decided to post. Anyhow, sorry for sparkign this debate (again).

RyeLou, it just spilled over. Sometimes people just can't let it go...

I really like the CZs. CZ makes good pistols as well as rifles. Every tmie I think I might get a 9mm, I tend to lean towards the CZ 75B. Guess you know my feelings now.

We return you to your regularly pirated program now. Back to you 44SandW, jwp475 and Mike! :D

Hey that was a great post I laughed so hard I fell off of my chair

;D

If your looking for a good 9mm how about the Browning Hi-power? I personally love them.

RYE,
I would take th CZ75 that would be my choice between the two that you mentioned either would be fun to shoot

RyeLou have you seen the CZ75 compact? this if the firearm i am looking at making my "first" pistol purchase. i currently own a s&w .38 sp that i inherited from my dad.

as far as caliber, find something your interested in and use it. 9mm sounds perfect for what your looking at because of price. good luck and post some pics when you get what you get!