Undecided

imported post

New member, first post. I am looking at buying one of two guns for home protection and general target shooting.

I've narrowed it down to the fnP .40 and the taurus 24/7 .40. Any opinions or experienceon these 2 guns?

imported post

First of all, welcome to the board!

I would see if there is an indoor range nearby that has both handguns for rental use on their range. If you can shoot both of them before you make your decision, that would ensure you're getting what you want (and especially---NOT getting what you DON'T want.) Or find some local people that own both of them that will let you shoot them, so you can gain the same experience.

If this is not possible, try to hold them side-by-side and choose the one that feels thebest in your hand and points themost naturally for you.

imported post

I looked at both prior to settling on a Steyr and then finallly getting a S&W M&P .40F.

I found out when renting the FN that I didn't adjust well to the DA / DAO systems. Other than that, it was a sweet shooter. Another minus, though I hesitate to mention it, was the bi-tone receiver and slide, everyone had it and it just didn't do much for me on a purely personal level.

At the time I was in the market only the std. 24/7 was available, the more anbidextrous OSS was not in any stores I checked so I'm not really qualified to comment on it. If a compact OSS was available,, or if I'd been interested in a pistol the size of the OSS I would have been sorely tempted.

The Steyr was my number one choice, since even with my bad eyes I can see that huge fracking sight, and the pistol grip was a dream. Unfortunately Steyr ran into some poli-legal troubles at the time and it wasn't a sure thing for the long run. I've heard recently that those difficulties have been settled and the Steyr distribution center in Georgia is running happily again.

I went with the M&P, the adjustable backstraps gave me options, the fishscale gripping areas on the slide were a nice touch and actually dig into the fingers when used. The metal magazines that are used I also took as a plus (and I own More than enough Glock magazines to be satisfied with them) for cleaning and long term availability.


Go with your heart, there are very few 'bad' choices out there. Buy what feel good to you, and you'll be happy in the long run.

imported post

Have you held and dry fired both? If not, do that first. Personally I'd go with the Taurus, between the 2 choices given.

imported post

Thanks guys. I have only shot a sig 40 at the range. I have handled and dry fired the Taurus and the FN and I liked the feel of theFN better, but it's $150.00 more. You do get the case, extra cartridges, lock and holsters. Plus it has the changeable grips. I also looked at the Sig, S&W, & Glock. They were all more money and didn't feel as good as the FN & Taurus.

imported post

In November Ipurchased a .40 cal. Taurus 24/7 and so far I have been real pleased withit.I was pleasantly surprisedwith itwhen I tried it out on the range.

imported post

Jim wrote:

Thanks guys. I have only shot a sig 40 at the range. I have handled and dry fired the Taurus and the FN and I liked the feel of theFN better, but it's $150.00 more. You do get the case, extra cartridges, lock and holsters. Plus it has the changeable grips. I also looked at the Sig, S&W, & Glock. They were all more money and didn't feel as good as the FN & Taurus.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you have your answer. If you're buying a weapon that you'll want to learn how to shoot well, and want to keep for a very long time, then in a couple of months you'll be happy that you bought the FN and you won't miss the extra $150. If this is your only handgun, and you are worried about the extra $150 to buy the weapon, I would lean to talk you OUT of a .40 S&W and tell you that you'll be able to afford to shoot the 9mm version of the same gun much more, due to the cost of ammo between the two. Very viable and effective defensive ammo is available in 9mm, too. Quicker follow-up shots make the 9mm a better choice for me, and that is why I carry it over a .40.

imported post

G20,

Valid points indeed. I will take that into consideration. I think the 9mm would also be better for the wife.

imported post

I don't know... .40 cal has a nice ring to it . Seriously though, for a first gun you should look at buying something that will not deter you from wanting to shoot. 9mm is the best all around cartridge for the average shooter. Either way, I would strongly suggest the Smith and Wesson M&P (that is unless you come accross a 1911 that you can feel comfortable buying. Best guns ever made! :celebrate)

imported post

I've heard only good things about the FNP, tho' I've never shot one.

I personally wouldn't recommend a 24/7. I own a Taurus Mil Pro PT111, which shares the same trigger/firing mechanism. I've had zero problems with it, but a lot of other people have reported hit-or-miss quality on their Tauri. Like a Walther P99, the Taurus gives you SA/DA, unusual for a striker-fired pistol. However, the trigger is not crisp--I liken it to tearing the eraser off a pencil with your trigger finger.

Try a Steyr M-A1 if you can find one, just 'cuz it's different--great trigger, $350, but Glock-like grip angle.

imported post

Taurus has a reputation of not doing the best fitting. Sometimes their stuff is shoddy. This does not mean all their guns are crap. However, let the buyer beware.

I shoot tens of thousands of rounds a year. My gun dealer (Virginia Arms) won't sell me a Taurus. His experience is they're decent guns for low round count shooters. If you shoot 50 rounds a month, it'll probably be fine for a long time.

The FNP, on the other hand, made by FN Herstal, is a NEW design. I don't like new designs because they tend to have bugs in them. Recent examples include S&W's new semi-automatic M&P with frame and slide cracks and SIG P220 Carry failure to feed issues. (citation: M&P Pistol forum (threads with pictures) and SIG Forum user comments, including gunsmith Bruce Gray of Gray Guns, Inc)
.
I highly recommend you go with an older design with a proven track record. Examples include various models from Glock, Beretta, SIG, HK, S&W (not the M&P or Sigma), Springfield Armory (XD is still new), CZ, Browning, FN, and Ruger. There may be a few I missed (but Kahr is not one of them).

imported post

There was an article in the Jan/Feb issue of American Handgunner that really caught my interest about the Springfield Armory EMP 1911 in 9mm. I know that non-.45 1911s make some people want to puke, but in a 3 inch barrel, .45 is reaching the limitations of controllability. The 9mm cartridge however, is very controllable, even in smaller guns, and the 1911 design is both attractive and reliable. As .40 cal said, best handguns ever made.

If you're looking for a carry piece, you might want to take a look at these. Of course there are those of us out there who are true masochists that choose (like myself) to cram a 2 lb .45 down their pants everyday, hot weather and kidneys be damned!

If you OC exclusively, then go with the most comfortable gun you can find. If you are going to be carrying concealed, you may want to look at the smaller caliber shorter barrel 1911s. Just remember, the bigger the gun, the better blugeon it will make when you run out of bullets!

imported post

I searched Taurus and fnp and found complaints on both, less on the fnp. So I looked at fhp vs xd. I decided on the xd40.

imported post



Jim wrote:

I searched Taurus and fnp and found complaints on both, less on the fnp. So I looked at fhp vs xd. I decided on the xd40.

Click to expand...

I think you made a good choice. I had a friend who had a 24/7 and it sucked. Feed problems with almost every ammo. He sold it and got a CZ. My other friend has a FNP-9 and it's a really nice shooter. Comfortable too. I went with the 4" XD-40 and I love it. Almost 2500 rounds through it and not 1 feed problem, FTF, or stovepipe. Nothing, nada. And to me it is way more comfortable than a Block.