Recently purchased a Ruger SR9C to add to the long list of firearms I have had over the years. I'm pretty certain it's my favorite of all, and wish it had been my first. Now I have to purchase more ammo and make up for lost time.
OF course it depends on the individual, but I still say it's generally a bad idea. YMMVIt depends upon the individual. I recently trained someone whose first handgun is a Kahr CM9. He took to the training very well and ended up being able to reliably hit a man-sized target at 15 yards and point shoot and reliably hit a man-sized target at 5-7 yards. His hit rate was over 90%. At the end of the training, he was drawing from a holster and shooting and reloading. During the 5 hour training session he shot 4 different handguns and expended 250-300 rounds.
I think that if someone wants a gun that they really are going to carry, that it probably will end up being a sub-compact. Bigger guns just don't get carried much or for long. Nothing wrong with them for a first-time gun as long as the owner learns how to use it. They are generally harder to shoot, but it's not a huge obstacle, if the owner puts some sweat equity into it. Most folks won't shoot any new handgun enough to get familiar with it and/or shoot it well even at close range, i.e. 7 yards and less. Most obstacles to training are mental blocks rather than real problems IMHO.OF course it depends on the individual, but I still say it's generally a bad idea. YMMV
Yes it depends. We are fortunate that we live in a country where there are so many varieties of guns available. Having such choices is what keeps all this so interesting. It would be very boring if we were limited to just a few.For a first gun I think it depends on the person and the gun. A friend was looking to buy a first gun, tried a S&W bodyguard. Hated it. Then tried a Beretta PX4 subcompact in 9mm. Loves it.
Why, when there are so many better choices out there?Glock 26 or 19.
Everyone should own a Glock 19