Search results for query: *

I have all three and like all three. But if I could only choose two, it would be 9mm and .45 ACP. The 9mm because ammo is cheaper and the variety of guns that chamber it, and the .45 because it's a .45.

The .40 was originally designed to be used in existing 9mm size guns. A round nose bullet would have made the overall cartridge length too long to fit.

Since the PPK is straight blowback, it would have to be totally redesigned to use a locked breech to safely handle the larger cartridges. The end result would be more like the PPS that they currently make than a PPK.

I have 2 Beretta 96's, an inox and a Centurion Vertec Frankengun. They both shoot very well and have never malfunctioned. I would say if the price is right and you don't mind DAO, it would be a good gun.

Looks good. Hopefully it will do well enough for Ruger to encourage them to make it available in other barrel lengths. Now if they would just make a 4" 10mm match champion.

As an all around range gun, especially if its your first or only gun, I would go with either the SIG or the Beretta.

Nice looking PPK. Especially with those grips. $260 very well spent.

I have a Russian .380. It's accurate and has never malfunctioned in any way. If I didn't have smaller or similar sized guns in 9mm, .40, and .45, I would not hesitate to use it for CCW and would have total confidence in it.

You might be able to find a good used Smith and Wesson 6906. For about the price of a SCCY.

Ruger GP100 6" Smith and Wesson PC 586 4" Ruger Vaquero 5 1/2"

Since brass bore brushes are softer than steel, using one to clean the chambers of a revolver will not hurt anything.

Very nice. I've always thought short barreled N-frames had a nice purposeful look to them.

I can also recommend the Ruger MKII/III. I have a MKII that is accurate and reliable. I never thought it was really hard to field strip, but I got mine long before the internet, so no one told me that it was supposed to be. Just keep the owner's manual handy the first few times and it...

As long as everything is working properly, it should be perfectly safe for carry. A model 39 in good shape should be able to hold its own against newer and more "modern" pistols.

A G26 and 642 have similar dimensions on paper, however the Glock is blockier and better suited for holster duty. The shape of the 642 makes it easier to slide in and out of a pocket. Both are good choices. The Glock is easier to shoot, the 642 is easier to carry. Reliability should not be...

If you want a single action revolver, Ruger makes a convertible Blackhawk in .357/9mm. If not, you could try to locate a used Speed/Service Six or SP101. Smith and Wesson also made the model 940 and 547 in 9mm, but these are hard to find and expensive when you do.

For a bedside gun or CCW, the 3913 would be an excellent choice. I would not bother with the Glasers, just stick with a decent hollowpoint.

Doesn't Ruger already cast 1911 frames for other manufacturers? If so, it would seem that making their own would be a logical progression.

The problem is that revolvers don't work very well with bottleneck cases. After being fired, the case tries to back out of the chamber, and ties up the cylinder. If that could be solved, an X-Frame in 7.62x39 or .223 could be interesting.

I've owned a full lug 6" stainless GP-100 for over 20 years, with no modifications. The original grips always felt just about perfect for me. The only thing I would like Ruger to do is make it in different calibers like .44 Special, .41 Magnum, or 10mm/.40 S&W with moon clips.