First Pistol

[meanmrmustard]

My coworker searched for the SR1911 when it was officially released right at a year ago. When we finally found him one (08/11) it was $825 after taxes. Now, it is at my LGS for 629.99. So it is relatively more expensive than your other two interests.

Also, we took it to the range immediately for it's first run. It was cleaned and lubricated by us before hitting the range. I'd say in the first 200 rounds it FTE a solid round per mag. On our second trip, FTEs were more sparse. IMHO, I attribute this to one thing. He loaded the mags prior, mainly for spring conditioning, and used other well used mags for less reloading, so I mulled over the cause of troubles...this gun is TIGHT! It's fit is very tight, and any other 1911 I've handle is smooth with just a bit of looseness. The SR1911 ive shot, and one handled at the LGS are down right rock solid. But I don't find them to be as reliable as there stablemates, and definitely not as reliable as the CZ75. YMMV, but hope this helps.

 

[jackpinesavages]

Summitgunbroker has RIA 9mms in, for about $450 I believe.

Otherwise go for the CZ, or a used 226. Mark has the LE 226 turn ins as well, for $450. Excellent condition.

 

[WaywardSon]

I picked up a CZ-75 Compact a few months ago in 9mm and like it a lot. Shoots well and has given no trouble at all. Loaded ammo is cheap enough that I will likely not bother reloading for it. The double stack mag holds 14, but the grip is a little thick both for my hands and for concealed carry.

A friend runs a local gun shop & he currently has the Sig P220 police trade-ins with 3 mags for $450...had to have one of those as well Have to say I am very impressed with this one...8+1 single stack mag fits my hand very well and will conceal about as well as the CZ-75 Compact due to being a bit thinner. Also better stopping power with .45 ACP of course.

Try 'em and buy 'em...get what feels right for you.

 

[DFWB]

Ok, so I have changed my thinking yet again. I went back to the range, and met a guy who happened to own a CZ. He told me to meet him there the next day, and he'd let me shoot it. I did so, and while I liked it, I wasn't as comfortable with it as I was with the striker fired pistols. Therefore, I have started looking back into the XD and the Glock. I like both, so I'll probably buy whichever I find the best deal on in the caliber that I decide on.

As for caliber, I am still trying to decide between 9 mm and 40 s&w. I would just like some opinions as to whether or not the increased performance of the 40 justifies the marginal decrease in trigger time that would be necessitated by the ammo cost?

Currently, I'm leaning towards 40, as I suspect that I will want something bigger than the 9mm not too far down the road, which would mean another $400-500 on a gun that could have just gone to ammo (and a fair amount of it). Thoughts?

 

[Loic]

To ME the differences in balistic between them is not enough to justify the cost of ammo. 9mm ammo came a long way and are efficient.
I shoot a lot with my 9mm (several thousands rds in less than 10 months) I even reload for it.
I think it should be more about what you really want, the price of the gun is nothing compared to the money you will spend on ammo if you shot often.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2