Best firearm for a woman??

[woodyman100]

Sig P238

380 cal big enough to do the trick, but not too much to handle

weapon size is perfect for a females hand size.

Sig Sauer is a quality dependable firearm

They  are terrific looking pistols.

My journey suggested Kimber. Kimbers  are also great pistols. You can't go wrong

[Open123]

---

@woodyman100 wrote:

Sig P238

380 cal big enough to do the trick, but not too much to handle

weapon size is perfect for a females hand size.

Sig Sauer is a quality dependable firearm

They  are terrific looking pistols.

My journey suggested Kimber. Kimbers  are also great pistols. You can't go wrong

---

+1

Can't go wrong with a quality 1911.  Once broken in (or dehorned), one of the most reliable pistols ever made.  1911 is far and away my favorite, though 45s are expensive to shoot.

[Anonymous]

---

@Open123 wrote:

---

@woodyman100 wrote:

Sig P238

380 cal big enough to do the trick, but not too much to handle

weapon size is perfect for a females hand size.

Sig Sauer is a quality dependable firearm

They  are terrific looking pistols.

My journey suggested Kimber. Kimbers  are also great pistols. You can't go wrong

---

+1

Can't go wrong with a quality 1911.  Once broken in (or dehorned), one of the most reliable pistols ever made.  1911 is far and away my favorite, though 45s are expensive to shoot.

---

.45 ACP - .25/round

9mm - .17/round

So an average range day of 500 rounds means you spend an extra $40 for .45 versus 9mm.  I don't consider that expensive in the overall picture of what you expense in acquiring firearms.

[Open123]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Open123 wrote:

---

@woodyman100 wrote:

Sig P238

380 cal big enough to do the trick, but not too much to handle

weapon size is perfect for a females hand size.

Sig Sauer is a quality dependable firearm

They  are terrific looking pistols.

My journey suggested Kimber. Kimbers  are also great pistols. You can't go wrong

---

+1

Can't go wrong with a quality 1911.  Once broken in (or dehorned), one of the most reliable pistols ever made.  1911 is far and away my favorite, though 45s are expensive to shoot.

---

.45 ACP - .25/round

9mm - .17/round

So an average range day of 500 rounds means you spend an extra $40 for .45 versus 9mm.  I don't consider that expensive in the overall picture of what you expense in acquiring firearms.

---

Yeah, not too bad, when you put that way, especially considering all the "added" expenses of firearm ownership in Cali!

[Revelate]

Curious as I've been debating taking gun safety courses and learning how to shoot (never fired a firearm ever) and I'm all for 2nd Amendment rights, but I'm surprised at the cross-section of posters (or at least what I know of you all over time on this forum) in this thread, are you expecting personal defense to become more relevant in the future?

Not really happy with what this campaign season is demonstrating so I can certainly understand the point if so.

[Anonymous]

---

@Revelate wrote:

Curious as I've been debating taking gun safety courses and learning how to shoot (never fired a firearm ever) and I'm all for 2nd Amendment rights, but I'm surprised at the cross-section of posters (or at least what I know of you all over time on this forum) in this thread, are you expecting personal defense to become more relevant in the future?

Not really happy with what this campaign season is demonstrating so I can certainly understand the point if so.

---

First, kudos to you for having the common sense to want to take a safety course knowing you have not ever fired a gun.  I know, this is a common sense approach but common sense died a miserable death in this country long ago .

In regards to being supportive of the 2nd Amendment I would urge you to explore your curiosity of taking a safety course and aquiring a gun before the November election.  Before anyone jumps here, NO< I am NOT saying Hillary will take our guns, that simply can't be done, period.  BUT, what she can do is scare the bejesus out of the gun industry and find ways to make it as troublesome as possible for us to exercise our 2A rights.  If she wins I foresee ammunition runs and the same for guns in general, ESPECIALLy anything she/Feinstein and others consider "assault weapons". 

God help us if she wins (and I say this for MANY more important reasons than 2A stuff) but note today what an AR costs and then take a look after Thanksgiving or so. 

@Anonymous @ if Weekend at Bernies was to win.  You'd need 200K/annual to be considered middle-class by him,

[Anonymous]

---

@Open123 wrote:

---

@woodyman100 wrote:

Sig P238

380 cal big enough to do the trick, but not too much to handle

weapon size is perfect for a females hand size.

Sig Sauer is a quality dependable firearm

They  are terrific looking pistols.

My journey suggested Kimber. Kimbers  are also great pistols. You can't go wrong

---

+1

Can't go wrong with a quality 1911.  Once broken in (or dehorned), one of the most reliable pistols ever made.  1911 is far and away my favorite, though 45s are expensive to shoot.

---

It's pretty awesome to think of how old the design of a 1911 is and what an amazing pistol to shoot.  My only caution for folks who are gun beginners is 1911's can be a PIA to field strip and clean.  If you are a veteran shooter then this is a more simple task.  But for someone getting started I would recommend Sig's of Glocks due to the ease of field stripping and reassembly.

[Open123]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

It's pretty awesome to think of how old the design of a 1911 is and what an amazing pistol to shoot.  My only caution for folks who are gun beginners is 1911's can be a PIA to field strip and clean.  If you are a veteran shooter then this is a more simple task.  But for someone getting started I would recommend Sig's of Glocks due to the ease of field stripping and reassembly.

---

Agreed!

For many reasons as you've stated, Glocks are the ideal first handgun.  They require little maintenance, easy to stip and clean, interchangeable parts and will ALWAYS fire.

[Open123]

---

@Revelate wrote:

Curious as I've been debating taking gun safety courses and learning how to shoot (never fired a firearm ever) and I'm all for 2nd Amendment rights, but I'm surprised at the cross-section of posters (or at least what I know of you all over time on this forum) in this thread, are you expecting personal defense to become more relevant in the future?

Not really happy with what this campaign season is demonstrating so I can certainly understand the point if so.

---

Hey Rev!

Firstly, I believe strongly in the concept of a Constitutional Republic and therefore have profound respect for our Constitution.  We are a country built upon ideals and the "fair" rule of law.  Nothing epitomizes this more than our Bill Rights.  These rights are sacrosanct (I'm a textualist) and should never be altered in spirit, short of the Amendment process.  As Jefferson remarked, while the majority shall always prevail in a Democracy, we must be careful to protect the minority.  The Bill of Rights exist to protect the minority by clearly and without obfuscation stipulating what a State CANNOT do to its citizenry.  That's it.  Majority vote can decide anything, unless it violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  It's vitally important to state what can't be done, otherwise what's to keep us from mob rule?

Secondly, the Right to bear Arms has always referred to an individual right, which Justice Scalia (condolences to his family and friends) rightfully pointed out, and any first year English major would have realized.  The hypocrisy on how the anti-gun sect attacked the 2A for personal politics is some of the most reprehensible behavior I've ever witnessed in this country.

Finally, I grew up with guns and extremely comfortable with them.  If a person isn't, then don't have them; but, don't try to tell me I can't have them.  If you don't want me to have them?  Pass an Amendment, which the Constitution allows, if you'd like to take my right to own a gun.  Moreover, I was taught with the notion that certain natural laws exist--namely, those inalienable rights from birth that were never given, therefore CANNOT be taken away.  Amongst these natural laws is the concept of self-defense from old English doctrine which classified it as a "natural law." 

And, when it comes to the any group that wish to usurp the Constitution, I will never give in.  Once they undo one Amendment without the proper procedure, then we lose the protection of the purpose of the Constitution, to keep the majority from impressing the will on the minority.  This document is the only thing we have that clearly states what the majority cannot do.  The best part of the American birthright?  Rugged individualism and the Bill of Rights assuring that regardless of the majority, there are certain freedoms that can NEVER be taken away from the individual dissenter.

If I wanted the good of whole and herd mentality thing, I'd go live in Canada or become European, or in one of the many socialist democracies without a Bill of Rights where a minority can rule over the majority, simply because they won a popular vote.  This should NEVER be allowed to come to pass in America.

The 2A is symbolic of that fight.  Progressives (proponents of the living & breathing Constitution) choose the 2A because it's the easiest one to attack, usurp, and change without due process.  Once they set a precedent here, then they can attack the rest.  Whether one likes guns or not, the 2A is about individual freedom, and not really simply about "hicks and their guns," as the anti-guns lobby would like to portray.

*Edited*  For spelling.  In all these years, never realized there's spell checker on here!

[Anonymous]

I second what Open123 said. All of this is why I loved Rand Paul.

Anyway, without getting to deep in the political conversation... I also didn't know there is a spelll checker.