The XD doesn't have a manual safety, but it's a great gun.

-Jeff-

So many options. IMO the best guns are the following, in my order of preference

H&K
Sig
Glock
Springfield XD
1911 variants from Wilson Combat, Nighthawk, Kimber etc

HK and Glock have legendary reliability. I've seen both HKs and Glocks with well over 50,000 rounds through them with no failures or broken parts.

Glock has no manual safety while the HK45 has a manual safety on them.

I say manual safety, but every gun has built in safeties in the form of a firing pin block or some other mechanism that prevents a round from firing until the trigger is pulled. Drop it, kick it, throw it and it won't fire unless something pulls the trigger.

Originally Posted by BeefyBeefo

The XD doesn't have a manual safety, but it's a great gun.

-Jeff-

The '08 service model has a manual safety.

Originally Posted by Stang281

The '08 service model has a manual safety.

Is it coming as just an option on the .45? I'm not sure, but I would never want it in the first place.

-Jeff-

Originally Posted by BeefyBeefo

Is it coming as just an option on the .45? I'm not sure, but I would never want it in the first place.

-Jeff-

Springfield told me that there will be models with and without a manual safety. So you won't have to get a manual safety if you want a certain model.

I don't like external safeties. I think they provide a false sense of security and cause a lot of people to not take every precaution and to not treat every firearm as if it was loaded. "Oh, there's a safety, it can't go off!" I realize many of you on here have externals safeties and are responsible, but a lot of people aren't, and having an external safety might keep someone from staying on their guard with their gun. Just my two cents.

Agreed, I gave a little thought to manual safety before I bought my first gun and realized the real safety is the person holding the gun. I feel like a gun with a safety is more dangerous than one without. You should never RELY on a safety. Personally I realized that (for me) if I felt like a manual safety was a must then maybe I wasn't ready to own a gun.

Get an XD, it will be the best $500 you will ever spend on a gun. I have yet to meet someone who doesn't love their XD.

Originally Posted by Stang281

I'm looking at:
Beretta PX4
Beretta 90two
Taurus 24/7
Smith & Wesson M&P 4"
Springfield Armory XD 4" Standard (or maybe the compact)
Kimber KPD
Walther P99

Wanting .45, but .40 would be ok. Definitely want a manual safety. Also, it's for personal defense/home protection.

I looked at all these you listed, and considered various types of triggers da/sa or sa only, etc.. and various safety setups... I ended up with a Sig 226 d/s 9mm with decocker, no manual safety... Metal frame 9mm but their other calibers are the same action.. The 226 is the longer svc length of their smaller calibers (9mm, .40sw, .357 Sig). It's carry-capable but still very accurate out of the box and more fun to shoot than a pistol aught to be. The Sig decocked has a firing pin safety with strong double-action 1st pull.. Perfectly fine as a carry gun.

Though your list is a good one with great pistol choices, you definitely owe it to yourself to pick up a Sig and behold the quality, the trigger, fit and finish and ergonomics. They're fine shootin' irons. A pal of mine just picked up an XD .357 Sig that I also can't wait to shoot.. The XD's were definitely one of my top picks. The XD's actually carry cocked if a round is in the chamber, relying on trigger, firing pin block and grip safety, whereas a d/s decocker carries decocked whether it has or has not a manual safety. 08XD's do offer some manual safeties as a new design though.

Originally Posted by Stang281

Wanting .45, but .40 would be ok. Definitely want a manual safety. Also, it's for personal defense/home protection.

Just out of curiosity, why .45 or .40 only? There are some excellent 9mm defense rounds out there and 9mm is a lot cheaper and for some, easier, to shoot.

My. $.02

Originally Posted by fivehourfrenzy

I don't like external safeties. I think they provide a false sense of security and cause a lot of people to not take every precaution and to not treat every firearm as if it was loaded. "Oh, there's a safety, it can't go off!" I realize many of you on here have externals safeties and are responsible, but a lot of people aren't, and having an external safety might keep someone from staying on their guard with their gun. Just my two cents.

I would prefer to have one. It doesn't matter what safety features a gun has, 'always treat a gun as if it were loaded' is the only mentality to have when handling any firearm.

Originally Posted by Todd

Just out of curiosity, why .45 or .40 only? There are some excellent 9mm defense rounds out there and 9mm is a lot cheaper and for some, easier, to shoot.

My. $.02

I just wanted the larger caliber.

Originally Posted by Stang281

I would prefer to have one. It doesn't matter what safety features a gun has, 'always treat a gun as if it were loaded' is the only mentality to have when handling any firearm.

I was a bit torn by this as to what type or types of safety mech's I wanted on the gun I picked...

Typically, the "unseen" firing-pin block safety on the more robust guns gives me peace of mind that the gun is designed not to fire unless certain things happen, such as being taken off safety and a grip-safety engaged and the trigger pulled.. such as a 1911 or springfield XD.. Which also follows inline in how the gun is handled and carried when not ready for fire.. Which gets into single-action cocked and locked condition 1, or other, etc.

In the case of my Sig, it has a firing pin block engaged with round in chamber loaded and decocked. The pin block should in design prevent firing from jarring or dropping the gun, which would be a major catastrophe to me but who knows.. I guess it happens where a gun can be dropped. With no manual safety, it's simply carried decocked with a firing pin block (I shall verify that of course in the manual) but firing capable via double action.

Without the manual safety, when I need the gun to fire without thought to whether a manual safety is engaged or not, I just point and it's going to fire with a first double action pull, like a revolver straight from holster carry condition. So in the heat of the moment (some call it a SHTF situation here), there's one less thing to think about.. just present, aim and fire.

I guess the standard 92FS is a similar setup, but the decocker also acts as manual safety, so there's one more step to firing.

.... With all this said, I guess my BIGGEST concern is that the gun's internal safety system is a darn good one and a well built one, regardless the type.

Originally Posted by Stang281

I would prefer to have one. It doesn't matter what safety features a gun has, 'always treat a gun as if it were loaded' is the only mentality to have when handling any firearm.

IMO it's something that will get in the way in the event you need to draw and fire. Odds are if there's an external safety, you'll carry with it on because it's "safer." I think learning and practicing a smooth, flawless draw is challenge enough, not to mention doing it under extreme pressure when your life is at stake. To me, the manual safety is a liability. You carry it on, and fail to (or forget to) disengage it when you need to draw and fire quickly.

Originally Posted by Stang281

I just wanted the larger caliber.

Keep recoil/muzzle flip in mind. Some handguns, especially compact/subcompact, were not meant to fire larger calibers, even if they're designed to and chamber them. Yes, a .40S&W and .45ACP have better ballistics than a 9mm. But a 9mm will put someone down, is cheaper to train with, and is easier to shoot quickly and accurately (read: effectively) in a high stress situation. Plus, you can carry more in a mag. All this talk about how .45ACP is such a manstopper. Do you really wanna get hit with a full magazine of 9mm JHPs? Didn't think so.

I'm not bashing the bigger bullets. But sometimes I think 9mm is a better choice, especially on a small carry weapon. The Navy SEALs carry 9mm SIG P226s as a backup sidearm. I think if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me and you.

Good luck with whatever you choose, but always weigh out the pros and cons of each weapon, use POE (process of elimination), and find the one you can afford to both purchase and train with, one that you can shoot defensively with some level of ease, and one you can conceal and feel comfortable carrying.

Is Taurus a good brand?

What about the S&W M&P?

Originally Posted by fivehourfrenzy

IMO it's something that will get in the way in the event you need to draw and fire. Odds are if there's an external safety, you'll carry with it on because it's "safer." I think learning and practicing a smooth, flawless draw is challenge enough, not to mention doing it under extreme pressure when your life is at stake. To me, the manual safety is a liability. You carry it on, and fail to (or forget to) disengage it when you need to draw and fire quickly.



Keep recoil/muzzle flip in mind. Some handguns, especially compact/subcompact, were not meant to fire larger calibers, even if they're designed to and chamber them. Yes, a .40S&W and .45ACP have better ballistics than a 9mm. But a 9mm will put someone down, is cheaper to train with, and is easier to shoot quickly and accurately (read: effectively) in a high stress situation. Plus, you can carry more in a mag. All this talk about how .45ACP is such a manstopper. Do you really wanna get hit with a full magazine of 9mm JHPs? Didn't think so.

I'm not bashing the bigger bullets. But sometimes I think 9mm is a better choice, especially on a small carry weapon. The Navy SEALs carry 9mm SIG P226s as a backup sidearm. I think if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me and you.

Good luck with whatever you choose, but always weigh out the pros and cons of each weapon, use POE (process of elimination), and find the one you can afford to both purchase and train with, one that you can shoot defensively with some level of ease, and one you can conceal and feel comfortable carrying.

The SEALS ONLY carry the 9mm Sig P226 because it's what they're issued and 9mm is NATO standard. If they were issued something in .45 they'd carry that. SIG was chosen because they outbid other manufacturers including HK for that particular purpose. It's price based not necessarily quality based. It's a 100% political decision. Furthermore, nothing says you can't handle a .45 just as well if not better than a 9mm.

Originally Posted by Stang281

Is Taurus a good brand?

What about the S&W M&P?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

Are any of the guns on my list not good for people with big hands?

I think all the guns on your list are good quality fire arms. I’ve only shot a couple off the list and I own one of them. I have big hands and I own a Beretta PX4 40cal. It fits my hands well and shoots very accurately for me. I have never had any trouble with it and it’s my concealed carry weapon. The Beretta’s rotating barrel makes the 40cal feel like a 9mm so it’s not a fatiguing gun to shoot several hundred rounds at the range. I’ve put many rounds through an XD 40 and it’s a great gun too. It fit my hands very well and my buddy has never had any reliability issues in the 2 years he’s owned it. I’ve only held the M&P it felt good but maybe a little narrow for me, I’d have to shoot it to know for sure. I don’t think you will go wrong quality wise with any of these guns. I think you need to rent as many as you can to see what feels the best to you in your hands, that’s the true test.

Good luck.