How to choose a handgun for self-defense

[DaleA]

One of the great things about being interested in firearms is that you invariably meet a variety people with all kinds of views and opinions. I think the time is right to post the views of a self-proclaimed gun expert (Gunspert) on selecting a handgun for self-defense.

Below are Gunspert’s reasonings on the topic and agree or disagree I think you’ll have to admit they have put a lot of time and thought into the subject. I am confident this forum will give the article all the attention it deserves.

Let me say first off that I will not engage in the ‘revolver/semi-auto’ debate. Either platform is quite capable of providing a person with an adequate self-defense handgun. However, since my personal selection process requires me to completely disassemble any firearm as part of the selection process and since I have not been able to completely reassemble any of them, I have, at this time, eliminated revolvers from my consideration.

As for ammunition I have determined the ammunition that is best for me but this is an individual preference and really is a separate topic to be discussed at a later date. For now, let me just say I choose, and shoot, only one type of self-defense ammunition but I require a self-defense handgun to be able to function with any and all commercially available ammunition that is marketed for that gun. A great help to me in the past was a particular brand of ammunition (I won’t mention the company) that regularly jammed and malfunctioned and allowed me to quickly disqualify and narrow the field in my search for a self-defense handgun. Unfortunately, for some reason, that brand of ammunition is no longer available so I can’t use it as a criteria, which means I am forced consider many, many more candidates as adequate self-defense handguns.

To continue, in my humble opinion (IMhO) the following are the requirements a firearm must meet for me to consider it an adequate self-defense handgun.

IMhO there is one, and only one, requirement for a self-defense handgun and that is reliability.

When I made my decision to obtain a handgun for self-defense I knew immediate that the one overriding requirement for a self-defense firearm would be, of course, reliability.

First and foremost, forever and always, reliability is, and must be, the number one consideration for a self-defense handgun.

To this end, after prolonged study involving extensive examination of all the literature on the subject and a good deal of soul searching I have established my own set of criteria that any handgun must meet before I will consider it worthy to be classified as an adequate self-defense firearm.

1. I will not buy a used firearm for self-defense. If the gun is to be considered for self-defense then it must be a new firearm, in the box from the factory, with all the papers, manuals and accessories. My thinking on this is simple and straight forward. There is only one reason for someone to sell a firearm and that is because they have decided to sell it. If someone has decided they want to get rid of a firearm then I don’t want to buy it. It’s as simple as that.

2. I will not have a plastic pistol for self-defense. My self-defense handgun must be made of steel. The only non-steel parts I will tolerate on a self-defense handgun are the grips. And by steel I mean real steel. I will NOT tolerate any MIM parts in a self-defense handgun. I will only buy a handgun with MIM parts if I can replace those MIM parts with steel parts.

3. I consider the service life of a self-defense handgun to be 5000 rounds. Therefore, when the round count of any self-defense handgun reaches 5000 minus the number of rounds in three magazines minus the one round in the chamber, (this is the number of rounds I carry and the number of rounds I feel I must be ready to fire in a self-defense situation) then that handgun, in my opinion, no longer meets my standards for a self-defense handgun. Many people may disagree with this but for self-defense I believe any handgun that has fired 5,000 rounds is a malfunction waiting to happen. Therefore at the 5,000 round mark I will no longer consider such a handgun fit for self-defense duty.

4. I must fire 500 rounds through a handgun with no malfunctions of any kind with my chosen self-defense ammunition and without any kind of cleaning or maintenance during the test before I will consider that handgun fit for self-defense duty.

The above are my only criteria and any handgun that meets those criteria, revolver or semi-automatic, hammer fired or striker fired, will be considered by me as being adequate for self-defense as long as the gun in question is made in the U.S.A.

As a side note, I should also mention that to keep myself tactically proficient I must make at least two range trips a month and fire at least one hundred rounds of my duty ammunition through my self-defense handgun each time. For me this minimum amount of practice poses no problem and I regularly shoot over twice this amount.

All my shooting is done at what would be considered tactical self-defense distances, that is three to seven yards with the majority of shooting being at the three and five yard ranges. As you would expect, this amount of shooting has resulted in my becoming an excellent shot and very rarely do any of my rounds fail to hit the life size silhouette targets I use.

One note, even though I use ear plugs and ear muffs I have noticed some deterioration of my hearing but that allows me to focus more on my shooting and reduces extraneous distractions. As another side note I no longer require or even appreciate high end sound systems in my home or in my cars and am therefore able to channel the money I used to spend on those pursuits into more guns and ammunition.

In all honesty, I could not possibly recommend a lower level of practice than what I do and I feel the wrist pain and numbness in my hands and fingers to be a small price to pay to maintain my tactical proficiency.

Prior to the 500 round reliability test, I will fire 200 rounds through the gun to ‘break it in’. Malfunctions during this ‘break-in’ period do not necessarily disqualify a handgun for self-defense duty. I examine each malfunction as carefully as I can and attempt to determine the underlying cause. If I determine the malfunction is due to a flaw in design or manufacture of the handgun then of course the firearm is discarded from consideration for self-defense. Occasionally the ‘break in’ period uncovers problems that do not automatically eliminate the gun from consideration, for example, a malfunctioning magazine for a semi-auto pistol. In which case the magazine is discarded and a new one is obtained and then the firearm is detail stripped and re-lubricated and the break-in period is started again from the beginning.

As mentioned above I only consider new handguns as potential candidates for self-defense duty. I was originally quite chagrined to find out most factories test fire their handguns before they sell them to the general public. And, I might add, even after firing them at the factory the manufacturers sell them as ‘new’. Getting a genuinely verifiably unfired handgun from any manufacturer has proven to be impossible so I reluctantly take what I can get but I always attempt to check with the factory as to how many rounds the gun has fired before they ship it. These rounds, of course, count toward my personal 5,000 round service life of the gun and can be counted as part of the 200 round ‘break in’ period but, of course, cannot be counted in the 500 round reliability test.

Before even starting the ‘break in’ period I completely disassemble the gun and as mentioned before replace any MIM parts with steel parts. I also replace ALL the springs in the gun with replacement springs from known quality spring manufacturers such as Wilson, Wolf or others. Once the gun is disassembled and the aforementioned parts have been replaced, I clean any and all factory lubrication and preservatives from the firearm and replace it with my own privately tailored version of ‘Ed’s Red’ that I have specifically tuned for use in the climate where I reside.

As mentioned earlier, while I do NOT discriminate between revolvers and semi-automatic pistols as candidates for a self-defense firearm I have so far been unable to get any of the five S&W, three Colt and two Ruger revolvers I have purchased completely reassembled after my disassembly procedure. Plus, on some, the side plates are bent or warped as the result of the disassembly process. I consider this a design flaw of the revolvers in question and have eliminated them from consideration. This is an ongoing project and I haven’t given up yet, however because of this, since I haven’t been able to get any of the revolvers back together again, I have eliminated revolvers from my consideration as handguns suitable for self-defense.

Once the replacement parts have been installed and the gun properly lubricated and broken in it is again disassembled, cleaned, re-lubricated and then my personal 500 round reliability test begins. The gun must fire 500 rounds using three magazines in rotation without any maintenance during the test. Any, and I mean any problem during the 500 round reliability test and the gun will be reevaluated as to whether or not it is suitable as a self-defense handgun.

Usually the evaluation of any gun failing the 500 round reliability test results in the gun being rejected as unfit for self-defense duty but occasionally, if the fault is determined to be with the ammunition or perhaps a fault of one of the magazines, the gun is allowed to take the test over again which of course necessitates a complete disassembly and re-lubrication before starting the test over again. In the case where the problem is traced to the magazine, that magazine is discarded and a new magazine is obtained. If the problem is deemed to be with the ammunition then the selection of self-defense ammunition is reexamined. At a minimum all the ammunition of the same lot as the malfunctioning round is immediately discarded for use as self-defense ammunition.

While 500 rounds without a malfunction is my ‘standard’ test, I am not blind to the fact that there may be problems that might not come to light during this period. To insure that my self-defense handgun will be reliable I regularly keep track of, and actually search out reports of problems concerning any handgun I am considering for self-defense duty. For each problem or warning I discover that is reported by the manufacturer, reported in a gun magazine or described in a gun forum, I add another 200 rounds to the reliability test. Unfortunately, for all the firearms I have so far tested, this has resulted in my personal reliability test requiring more rounds than my service life restriction and I therefore cannot recommend any handgun as a viable self-defense weapon.

Overall, I consider my requirements quite reasonable. For any that disagree I ask ‘what is your life worth to you?’ For myself I know I could never accept any handgun that could not meet the above criteria which unfortunately has left me unarmed for the last eight years but I have several candidates in testing now and should one or more of them finally meet my requirements I will update this post to include the make and model of the gun however I caution anyone that should they buy the same make and model they would have to take their gun through the same procedure I use before they could consider their gun as being fit for duty.

[reddog81]

Those are some odd and OCD requirements... He's concerned about how many times the factory - Good Grief.

Does he buy a new self defense pistol every year? 200 round break in, 500 round test, about 500 rounds per month in proficiency. And then max life span of 5,000 rounds...

It's good to hear he is able to shoot life sized silhouette targets at 3 yards. I hope to some day be able to match that level of shooting.

[sigarms228]

I finally stopped reading when it got to this. Have no idea who this person is but IMO his advice is very questionable, maybe even some sort of joke?

2. I will not have a plastic pistol for self-defense. My self-defense handgun must be made of steel. The only non-steel parts I will tolerate on a self-defense handgun are the grips. And by steel I mean real steel. I will NOT tolerate any MIM parts in a self-defense handgun. I will only buy a handgun with MIM parts if I can replace those MIM parts with steel parts.

3. I consider the service life of a self-defense handgun to be 5000 rounds. Therefore, when the round count of any self-defense handgun reaches 5000 minus the number of rounds in three magazines minus the one round in the chamber, (this is the number of rounds I carry and the number of rounds I feel I must be ready to fire in a self-defense situation) then that handgun, in my opinion, no longer meets my standards for a self-defense handgun. Many people may disagree with this but for self-defense I believe any handgun that has fired 5,000 rounds is a malfunction waiting to happen. Therefore at the 5,000 round mark I will no longer consider such a handgun fit for self-defense duty.

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by sigarms228

I finally stopped reading when it got to this. Have no idea who this person is but IMO his advice is very questionable, maybe even some sort of joke?

Aprils Fools Day maybe???

[jetinteriorguy]

Yeah, I’m going to give credence to someone who cannot disassemble and reassemble a revolver, especially a Ruger. I could teach a 10 year old to disassemble and reassemble a Ruger for heavens sake. S&W side plates warped, probably pryed them off with a screw driver, sheesh.

[sigarms228]

Originally Posted by reddog81

Aprils Fools Day maybe???

Could be. I forgot that!

[ballardw]

Not "Expert" but "Ex-spurt" = former drip under pressure.

[lee n. field]

at least two range trips a month and fire at least one hundred rounds of my duty ammunition through my self-defense handgun each time.

I must fire 500 rounds through a handgun with no malfunctions of any kind with my chosen self-defense ammunition and without any kind of cleaning or maintenance during the test before I will consider that handgun fit for self-defense duty.

Dude's rich.

I consider the service life of a self-defense handgun to be 5000 rounds. Therefore, when the round count of any self-defense handgun reaches 5000 minus the number of rounds in three magazines minus the one round in the chamber, (this is the number of rounds I carry and the number of rounds I feel I must be ready to fire in a self-defense situation) then that handgun, in my opinion, no longer meets my standards for a self-defense handgun.

Do the math. In under 2 years, he has (to his way of thinking) worn out a defensive handgun to the point where he feels he needs to replace it.

I will fire 200 rounds through the gun to ‘break it in’.

Tells me he owned a Kahr at some point, I guess.

Dude must move in circles I don't.

[reynolds357]

Either an OCD man rambling or April's fool joke.

[JohnKSa]

To insure that my self-defense handgun will be reliable I regularly keep track of, and actually search out reports of problems concerning any handgun I am considering for self-defense duty. For each problem or warning I discover that is reported by the manufacturer, reported in a gun magazine or described in a gun forum, I add another 200 rounds to the reliability test. Unfortunately, for all the firearms I have so far tested, this has resulted in my personal reliability test requiring more rounds than my service life restriction and I therefore cannot recommend any handgun as a viable self-defense weapon.

Pretty funny.

I think we've been had.

[DaleA]

I think the time is right to post the views of a self-proclaimed gun expert (Gunspert) on selecting a handgun for self-defense.

It's been a whole day so I'll 'fess up that the 'time is right' does refer to April 1st.

I hope sharing it lightened the day a bit.

Full disclosure: I spent a lot of time trying to understand Gunspert's second paragraph about the malfunctioning ammunition being a 'good thing' for him.

Fuller disclosure: I believe I am the inspiration for Gunspert's remarks about not being able to reassemble a revolver. When I got my first double-action revolver and wanted to disassemble it to work on the trigger and 'smooth it up' my Uncle opined that it would be a great project if I was dedicated to scouring the work room for little tiny gun pieces launched into the ozone by little tiny gun springs and looking at a workbench full of gun parts instead of shooting the gun. I took his advice for a while but eventually DID disassemble it and eventually DID get it reassembled---with no noticeable improvement in its functioning. Oh well.

Again, I enjoyed it and I hope folk here did too.

[The Verminator]

Thanks for sharing.

It was a little hard to tell for a while that it was a joke.

[OneFreeTexan]

He is full of himself, isn’t he?

[mk70ss]

I bet Gunspert is single……..

[khegglie]

This was hilarious

[44 AMP]

The first red flag was having to completely disassemble any gun he was considering and leaving out revolvers because he couldn't put them back together.....

Add in then that the gun HAD to be brand new, and had to do x, y, and z to his unrealistic expectations.

and, one wonders how he can go to the range twice a month firing 100rds each time with his selfdefense ammo and self defense handgun, while later stating that he has been UNARMED FOR 8 YEARS due to his inability to find ANY pistol that meets his requirements.

And, making it seem his hearing damage is a good thing, because he can now save money because he can't appreciate a high $ stereo system....

If this is intended to be satire (as apparently it does for April Fools day) it is so well concealed the satire is not obvious and it comes off as the serious rantings of a fool, rather than anything humorous, to me.

[jetinteriorguy]

Hey it’s the internet, I’ve read far worse things that actually were serious. Good job.

[JustJake]

Let’s start with “bring enough gun.”