Thing you look for in a COMBAT handgun?

Well, this is pretty much a runaway.

i voted OTHER because i cant vote multiples options

Other as in: Reliability and Capacity

Probably why I choose a 1911. Its ergonomic to my hands, a capable caliber, reasonably accurate and reliable, durable, and holds enough ammo. Reloads are quick.

Other-All of the above.

Reliability #1 otherwise its just a club.. In today's world of polymer not a very effective one at that..

This question is so simple, I'm sure that Gump could answer it: Just look for the word, "Glock", on the slide and frame.

Deleted

I voted reliability it doesn't matter how accurate it is or how high the capacity is if it wont work when you need it to. All the other factors you listed are important to me also with the exception of a decocker. I do own one DA/SA pistol & am familiar with that system but I have since decided there are other options I prefer. I am comfortable using a DAO or striker fired pistol. I recently acquired a 1911 & so far I like it a lot but I still need to run some more rounds through it before I really call it good to go.

I think the term "COMBAT handgun" is skewed and borderline irrational for responsible civilian gun owners to be tossing about.

Whom are you planning to engage in combat? Defense, sure. Combat, no.

Kinda have to define Combat Handgun. Use by guys with roles other than rifleman-medic, radio op, officer? Additional weapon for small team guys?
Going with use for small team guys-VBSS, room clearing, confined spaces, PSD work etc:
1 Reliablity and durability are synonymous...weapon AND MAGA:ZINES must be utterly reliable
2 Accuracy...decent accuracy is a must, but its still a handgun not a sniper rifle.
3 Ergonomics...thats kinda subjective, light and compact are good but not at the sacrifice of caliber and capacity-you don't want an oversized pig Mk23, D.E. etc
4 Trigger safety, thumb safety, DA weapon...any will do. Decocker wouldn't be high on the list....your guys should have enough trigger time to automaticly safe the weapon.
5 Rail and lanyard are a must.
6 Capacity Minimum 8 rounds
7 Caliber 9mm or better...but interchangeable with any sub guns in unit. As body armor becomes more and more common, penetration becomes more important. If PSD work is being done, penetration of windshields and car doors is necessary.

I would stress durability and reliability of weapon and magazines...if Magpull built 1911 ags as good as their ARs, Id buy a truckload.

If you want to talk gen issue, Id stress capacity, ease of use and simple manual arms...your guys are focusing their training on other issues, and won't get a huge amount of trigger time.

I've never known any soldier who wanted just a handgun in combat.

Not even a question: Reliability first

I didn't vote because I cannot place one quality so solidly at the top. For example, my Ruger P95 is a great handgun for defensive use but what if I had one failure in 300 rounds at the range? Then, suppose I took my newly-acquired Hi-Point C9 out and ran 301 rounds without a failure; does that make it the "more reliable" gun? If so, is the difference great enough to push the C9 to the top of the heap? I don't think so, and that would be because the Ruger beats it in virtually every other category (ergonomics, decocker, capacity, etc.)

If it doesn't go bang when you squeeze the trigger, it doesn't really matter how many rounds it holds or whatever. I get your point...any weapon can fail...but if you can stack the deck in your favor with higher quality, better tested, and previously proven product, thats the way to go...YMMV

Reliable, but also a hard hitter. Our issued 9mm FMJ NATO ammo is somewhat laughable in that regard.

Give me a 45 if I'm going to shoot ball please.

Your list seems ok with the exception of a decocker (I personally wouldn't have one), and mag capacity. I wouldn't feel badly armed with either my 1911, or my BHP's in .40 which are only 10 round mags.

Definitely reliability. I was looking at getting a Steyr 9mm pistol. It had everything I wanted: Low bore axis, good trigger, felt great, pointed well, had a rail for a light, had night sights available. But after a little research, I saw they had extraction problems and it was immediately off my list. Safety position is also important. I like a manual safety, and anything different than the 1911/cz 75 position won't do for me.

Reliable, flat shooting (low muzzle rise) pistol with 12+ capacity, no safety, and a trigger that doesn't make accuracy more challenging.

Had to vote reliability first. Nothing else matters if the gun isn't reliable.

Walkalong said:

1. Reliability: Above all else.

2. Accuracy: Is nice, but not if I do not shoot the gun well.

3. Durability: Should be durable for a reasonable amount of practice, although I will put most rounds on another gun.

4. Decocker: Hate them.

5. Ergonomic: It's generally easier to shoot a gun well if it fits you well.

6. Rail: Don't want one, could live with one.

7. Capacity: 7+ is fine, anything more is gravy.

8. Caliber: I have my favorite(s).

My idea of a defensive gun is one that is dead reliable and that I shoot very well, which instills confidence. Pocket guns need to be reliable and be able to be shot fairly well.

Click to expand...

So a Smith and Wesson 686 plus then

Other, most of the above?

Just look for the word, "Glock", on the slide and frame.

Click to expand...

After three lost front sights, two broken take-down springs, and a broken trigger spring, I'll be looking for something else on the slide. Probably a P22x...

It's not that I don't think reliability is important, I just think that pretty much any handgun these days is acceptably reliable.

Note, not one (yet) has said accuracy is a compelling criteria. In actual combat, 'good enough' is better than 'precise'. You are shooting fast under adverse conditions. You aren't going to max out the gun's accuracy anyway.

Of course I prefer something durable, but the M-9 I was issued was falling apart, I still made it work.

My M-9 had a decocker too. All it did was make it so I had to do emergency reloads tugging on the front of the slide instead of the rear, because I didn't want to put the gun on safe.

I picked ergonomics because when I am fighting, I don't want to be fidgeting while I am running the gun, trying to adjust to get the perfect grip.

Rail......I have been issued guns with rails. I own guns with rails. I suppose maybe I will eventually get a light or two. To me they are extra, not necessary.

I have 1911s in standard capacity and wide-frame enhanced capacity. I tend to conceal the standard ones, and open-carry the wider ones. I suppose I would pick the hi-cap to go to war with, but it's not really because I feel I need more rounds.

I prefer .45s, but I would be perfectly fine with 9mm and shut my piehole forever if I were allowed to use premium JHP ammo in my M-9. I kind of ran out of reasons to need a .40.

Voted "other".

First thing I look for in a combat firearm? Bullets.

That might sound flippant, but it's only joking by half; I don't get hung up on caliber, platform, bullet type, etc. Any tool that goes bang is better than one that doesn't, but not as good as not needing one.

Guns I've grabbed in earnest include a 38 revolver, a pawn shop 380, a 32, a glock 40 cal, an m16a2, and a double-barreled 410. Right now, I have an SKS next to me, which is as good as anything.

Use what you got if you gotta (pray that you don't) .