Helping my SIL pick a handgun.

[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

My SIL wants to buy a SD handgun to keep in his car, and after he takes the right classes, for concealed carry. If it wasn't for the concealed carry part, I'd just tell him to get a PT100... which may be what I( do any way.

The handguns I know well are all large frame semis or revolvers, so I'm looking for advice on the medium frame stuff.

The Taurus 800 series looks very interesting.

Does anybody know of an chronic problems with that series.

My SIL wants a .40 S&W, so I'm eyeballing the 840.

The usual problems that seem to plague these Taurus semis are magazine related.

What's the poop on magazines for the 840? Sources? Availability? Cost? Reliability?

Anybody know anything?


http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=603&category=Pistol&toggle=&breadcrumbseries=

[GreenWolf70]

Texas must be a little different than Alabama in that we need a CC license to carry in the car, while you can actually conceal carry, outside of a car, without a license if you have a reasonable expectation of trouble.

That aside, I might be a little leery of starting someone off with an auto, but especially with a .40 S&W.  A 38SPL snubbie will take a lot less getting used to. In a concealed carry size auto, I would put a .40 last on my list as it will have the greatest recoil. A 9mm will give you everything that a 38SPL will and if you want big, go .45 ACP.  But just as I would not start a noob off with a .357 Magnum, I wouldn't start one off with a .40 S&W.  The extra round or two over a .45ACP won't make up for the difference in recoil. And if you want to put him in something big enough to handle that recoil, he probably won't carry it much.

[sh801]

Bud's has a close to unbeatable price on 840s right now-

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=taurus+840

They don't show any spare mags, but both Midway and CTD list them as in stock, $35 and $32.59, respectively, so there are some around.  AFAIK, Taurus is the only manufacturer.

As far as recoil is concerned, my personal experience is that if the round generates 400 ft/lbs out the front, it generates 400 ft/lbs out the back.  Sir Isaac knew his stuff.  The difference in felt recoil revolves a round the fact that most .45 handguns were designed around the .45, and are, typically, larger and heavier, while most .40 handguns evolved from 9mm pistols, and are smaller and lighter.  As the 800 series are all very similar size, and more importantly, weight, you'll find recoil progresses with load, not caliber.  The .40 does tend to be a little snappier than .45, due to higher pressure levels, but IMO, if you can shoot a .45, you can easily shoot a .40.

As always, YMMV. 

[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

He's not "starting out". He's an Iraq War veteran and trained with the Beretta.

That's one reason I thought about - and am STILL thinking about suggesting a PT92. It would be very familair to him.

[GreenWolf70]

Good, since he's been through military training then he should be able to handle any auto with a little familiarity and may even favor an auto over a revolver in an emergency. If he doesn't mind the full size autos, then the Taurus PT100 would be the M9 clone in a .40 S&W. Still, if I'm going to a CCW auto, the .40 would be last on my list due to the recoil. 

[olfarhors]

If he is an experienced weapon shooter then let me say!
I sure do like my 24/7c in both the 45 and the 9mm.
 13 rounds of 45 are a lot of power, and if you want to tote it outside the car the 10 round mag makes conceal a lot easier.
I know of no common ailments with the 24 series weapons, both of mine have been 100% as to function.
 stainless with poly frame runs in the 379-389 range here!

[45 Forever]

My 24'7 45 C DS would work fine. And mags are more available. Its a really decent gun that has good ergo and recoil.

[joe sixpack]

i agree with the revolver bit.. it's really hard to beat a 38/357 2, 3 or 4 inch revolver.

but if he insist on a auto.. and i dont know why he's even asking you if he's experience vet.

then a 92 would ok.. although since he probably at some point (depending on rank/unit) handled the m9 i would actually steer him to a beretta 92fs (or hell a actual m9)

if money is the issue go with a used or police tradin 92..

or have a looksy at the ATI 92F clone from turkey, cdnn had them for 299.99 (probably still do) 18 bucks S&H.

they seem ok but i have'nt shot one so how they hold up is anyone guess.


however if he's not into 92's and he wants a 840 then i say have at it.

[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

... and i dont know why he's even asking you if he's experience vet....

Because his experience is limited to what Uncle Sugar taught him, while I have been shooting more than 50 years and have extensive trigger time with virtually every handgun ever made.

then a 92 would ok.. although since he probably at some point (depending on rank/unit) handled the m9 i would actually steer him to a beretta 92fs (or hell a actual m9)

if money is the issue go with a used or police tradin 92..

In my opinion, the Taurus PT 92 is far superior to the Beretta for a number of reasons.

I was thinking about the PT92 because the handling characteristics are so similar to the M9.

But he eventually wants to carry concealed.  I toted a DAO Centurion in uniform for about 10 years and it's like having a trotline weight strapped to your waist.

I can imagine it would be worse trying to carry concealed.

That 800 series looks like it would be a good alternative.

[joe sixpack]

well you've said that before and i disagree that the taurus is superior.
although the finish i've seen on some of the newer beretta's looks aweful.

im not saying the beretta is superior they both have pro's and con's but the fit and finish at least on older beretta's was better then taurus.

other then that you could argue you like the safety better but that does'tn make it superior to everyone else.

if he wants to carry what he gets how about a milpro?
otherwise a xd compact? XD's have a lot of value, come with holsters and stuff.. of all the glock like guns i think i would'nt mind having a xd.

[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

well you've said that before and i disagree that the taurus is superior.

I will readily admit to being VERY prejudiced in favor of a frame-mounted safety.

On top of that, I carried a Beretta 96 Centurion for about 10 years and was NOT impressed.

It had one of the worst triggers I ever felt and threw brass in a dozen different directions. Any semi that doesn't come into battery the same each time has no chance of true accuracy.

On top of that, the Taurus PT-92 I carried for a while when I was a cop was extremely accurate. I should have kept it, but I became terribly disillusioned about the effectiveness of the 9mm - even with high dollar hollowpoints.

[joe sixpack]

Any semi that doesn't come into battery the same each time has no chance of true accuracy.

both the Beretta and Taurus suffer this, they're still accurate.. maybe not bulls eye accurate but pretty accurate for a combat or duty gun.

it's simply a fault of the design there are ways to eliminate it but not without putting money into either gun, on the other hand because the barrel recoils rearward and not up like a traditional browning it's been said this actually leads to it's better then avg accuracy.

so it's both a blessing and a curse.

[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

both the Beretta and Taurus suffer this, they're still accurate..

I didn't see it with my Taurus. Maybe I just got lucky with that one... which is one more reason I feel like kicking my butt for trading it.

[.452dia]

If he is experienced with handguns then let him choose what he wants.  That way if he doesn't like it he can only blame himself.

[olfarhors]

having owned a taurus  (for many, many moons) and shot a couple dozen Beretta 92 all I can see as a difference really was the safety position, and thats really why I got the taurus 99.
I can actually shoot one just as inaccurate as the other, so !!!!!