Experiencing information overload yet?
OK, here's how I'd lay it out:
There are two groupings you'll be looking at: revolvers and pistols.
Revolver calibers you'll likely be considering include: .38 special, .357 Mag (a .38 with more oomph, essentially), .44 Special, and .44 Mag (same as the .38/.357 thing -- longer bullet and more oomph). Note that a .357 can shoot .38's, and a .44 Mag can shoot .44 Special, so people tend to recommend the magnums for flexibility in ammo choice.
If you select a decent hollowpoint in any of these calibers, then you've got an effective enough defense weapon.
Revolver actions are simple: you can have the gun go "bang" each time you squeeze the trigger (double action), or you can cock the hammer first (single action). Most double-actions can be fired single action -- the exceptions are those where you can't get to the hammer, as it's hidden for easier concealment (see the S&W J-frames for an obvious example here).
Revolver tradeoffs versus pistols are debated here constantly, but I think most would agree to the following:
- The manual of arms is easier, in that in case a round misfires you simply squeeze the trigger again. The only surprise here is if you almost fire the weapon, then back back down again, you'll find the cylinder advances and you get one less shot than you thought. You'll only make that mistake once.
- It's easy to check the status on a revolver -- it's loaded or it isn't. Way too many accidents from someone dropping the magazine on a pistol, assuming it's safe, and doing something stupid with it.
- They tend to be fairly accurate, because single-action revolver triggers are a thing of beauty. The more you shoot the more you'll grow to like a smooth, crisp trigger.
- There's no worry about whether a particular round will chamber or not. This means you can get more radical hollowpoint designs in revolver rounds.
- They're bulkier in general than pistols. Yes, there are exceptions, but most seem to think a flat pistol like a 1911 is easier to conceal than a revolver of comparable power.
- Your average revolver is more reliable than your average pistol.
- Capacity is limited. You'll be looking at between 5 and 8 rounds before a reload, versus more than you can count in some pistols. Whether you need 18 rounds of .357 is another question entirely.
- Reloads will be slower than with a pistol. Yes, folks, I know this can be minimized, but it's true unless you use some gadget that 95% of the shooting public doesn't use.
- If your revolver does happen to jam, you're probably not gonna unjam it in any reasonable time frame. Besides the fact that you won't get as much training on malfunctions as your average pistol shooter the malfunctions tend to be more serious.
Now, on to pistols:
Pistol calibers: You'll see .380's, 9mm's, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP recommended by various folks. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Pax thinks a .380 is sufficient for self defense and she's likely right, but you'll find a few who think anything less powerful than .38 Spl/9mm might be a tad underpowered. Of course, a .380 is a whole lot better than nothing, and some are incredibly cute...
My preference between them is something like this: 9mm is easy enough to shoot, 45 is easiest to shoot, and the .40 is snappy enough that it's just harder than the others to shoot accurately. That's
personal bias though, having owned 4-5 of each caliber. Others feel differently, and it really doesn't matter much - a good hollowpoint in any of these calibers does fine.
Pistol Actions: you've got more variety here -- single action pistols (like the 1911 many love), double-action only (which I hate, but some love), striker-fired pistols like glocks (call it a single-and-a-half action), and others that are double action for the first shot and single action after that.
You'll find things are a bit more complex than with revolvers -- there's loading the magazine (and making sure it's properly seated), making sure a round is/isn't in the chamber, and working a safety and/or decocker are involved. Not that this is
hard -- just that it's more involved, and will require more attention (which I guess is arguably a good thing).
Pistol Tradeoffs involve differences between calibers and actions more than anything else. Things to look at include:
- Capacity: 5 rounds of .45 ACP in one gun, to 12 rounds in another, versus 19 rounds of 9mm in another.
- Grip width -- higher capacity = thicker grips, and many feel a narrower grip leads to better shooting.
- Action. Duh
- Reliability. Any pistol (mostly) is capable of flawless performance, but many seem to fall short, for reasons of manufacture, fit, maintenance, or in reaction to the shooter. Do a search and you'll find people who find Glocks will feed anything, forever, without maintenance. You'll find others who get lots of jams because they're not holding the gun firmly enough (limp-wristing).
Standard revolver recommendations: I believe a double-action .357 with a reasonable sized barrel (say 4 inches) is a good choice. You'll find snub-nosed revolvers are cute and sort of call to you, but they're a lot harder to shoot well than a more reasonable one. Let the snubby be your second revolver.
I suggest a .357 because it can shoot .38 Special for training and cheap range ammo, but you'll be able to load much more powerful rounds as needed -- not that you ever
need to, as a .38 will likely do everything you ask of it (based on your description of your goals). It's just the it's marginally more expensive than a .38, and much more flexible.
There's certainly nothing wrong with a .44 Special or .44 Magnum, but it's just not the all-round gun that a .357 is.
As far as manufacturers go there are a few choices and lots of personal bias. I'd suggest that most here would agree with this statement: S&W and Ruger make solid revolvers; the Smiths cost more but seem to be a bit better finished, though you'll likely see no difference in day-to-day performance. (Watch, someone will come along now and argue this -- it's a gun board after all.
)
I'll also say a stainless finish will require less maintenance than a blued finish.
Pistol recommendations: This is tougher. I personally find them somewhat distasteful, but there's a lot to be said for Glocks -- they'll handle poor maintenence better than some of the more classic designs, they're pretty reliable, they're pretty accurate, they're cheap, and they "just work." To me, they seem like guns designed by someone that didn't like guns -- an engineering solution to the problem of reliably throwing projectiles downrange. Not saying this is a bad thing, or that I haven't owned a half-dozen, just that it doesn't fit my aesthetic.
1911's are wonderful, but there are so many models by so many makers and so many options.....maybe not for your first pistol, though you'll certainly get one eventually.
There are a number of polymer pistols out there that compete with Glock and do the same job better or worse. There are also a number of double-action 9mm and .40 S&W weapons that work pretty well -- Sigs, Berettas, H&K's, and so on. Really the choice here should be based on how well it fits your hand, and reliability ratings you can get here or some place like Gun Tests.
It's easier to say "get a stainless 4" .357 from S&W or Ruger and shoot a few boxes of .38s through it to start," though.
