"Reliable new guns for those on a limited budget".

[45dotACP]

Honestly, if you want a good gun for less money, I'd look at the used counter of the local fun shop...
My Beretta 92FS compact I picked up for 425
My FN P35 I picked up for 250
My S&W Model 36 I paid the princely sum of 150 bucks...

All told though, it'll hardly matter.

Most people who buy cheap guns won't break them. Here's why:
If you're on a budget that won't allow you to spend 500 bucks for a Glock or M&P or Sig Pro (I consider those to be high quality guns. If you have one, you know why), you'll likely look at something like a Ruger, or a Smith SD9 or maybe you'll wander over to the used counter and pick up the Third Gen Smith or a Ruger P89. You shell out the 250 bucks for the Ruger P89 because it's cheaper and Gunshop Shep doles out the possibly sound piece of advice and tells you that the Ruger P-series guns are built like tanks and won't break. You believe him and then buy a 17 dollar box of ammo and shoot one box of ammo every other month or so but probably less because you're busy and that new baby is putting a crunch on the ol' wallet and the daily allotment of hours. That wouldn't hardly be enough abuse to break a gun if it were manufactured out of MIM parts and butterfly wings*

The average, budget minded shooter probably isn't going to go online to Freedom Munitions and buy two cases of 9mm because 400 bucks on ammo was more than the cost of the pistol....which they bought because it wasn't over 400 bucks. It is also why they won't break the gun and why the notion of a "Most reliable gun under 400 dollars" is sort of silly to me. It's a business model to target people constricted by a tight budget and it explains fairly well why companies like Taurus and Hi-Point and Kel-Tec are still in business.

It's not because people on a budget aren't savvy, because budget minded shooters can still pick up that Ruger P89 or the Smith 64 police trade in, but for the budget constrained shooter, it makes no difference.

*I'm fairly certain butterfly wings are not used in the manufacture of any firearms other than perhaps the little Jennings and Bryco disposable 25 caliber pistols.

[1986s4]

I'll second 45dotACP statement. Used high quality is the way to go. New Glocks [even though I don't own one] are inexpensive enough, even better used. I have only one purchased new firearm.

[ford.304]

All told though, it'll hardly matter.

I'm going to have to disagree with you somewhat. I feel like one group of people (whom I fit into) gets ignored a bit in these conversation.

I most certainly *can* afford an off the shelf Glock, in an absolute sense. But I have a hard limit on what I can spend a year on "hobbyist" activities, from mutual agreement with my wife. I want to approach firearms seriously, get good training, buy a bunch of ammo... but the numbers I tend to be looking at make a lot of these an "OR" sort of situation.

I can buy a case of ammo and take a good pistol class, OR I can buy a p-f approved gun, OR I can buy a holster/night sights/enough mags/etc.

So it becomes a question of "Do I buy the gun I want this this year... and then not have any budget to shoot it?" or "Can I shave enough money off the price of the gun to buy a case of 9mm, too. And next year I'll buy a case and take a class."

Really, the advice seems to be "buy the better gun... and then I'll see you in a year" or "Save up for an extra year and do both at once" but that makes it a little... difficult, to really enter the field and practice and actually improve yourself.

[GardoneVT]

OR I can buy a p-f approved gun.

A fair question to ask is what guns are "p-f" approved,exactly?

[JonInWA]

A fair question to ask is what guns are "p-f" approved,exactly?

Participants on this forum are active users and shooters, either by profession or inclination (or both); we're not Consumer Reports. I think that most could read current and historical threads, as well as those on www.pistol-training.com and come up with some viable contenders in fairly short order.

Best, Jon

[ford.304]

A fair question to ask is what guns are "p-f" approved,exactly?

I don't mean that pejoratively. I think it's fairly clear that the readership here holds some guns in high esteem as far as expecting them to work reliably for a long time-- Glocks, M&Ps, and H&Ks are the most common examples. If I have a yearly budget of around $600 for shooting stuff, I can get a good deal on most of those or stretch my budget a bit, and buy a gun that most here would recommend.

And then stuff it in a sock drawer until next year, because I can't afford to shoot it

In that sort of scenario, $150 difference in price gets you a usable holster and 500 rds of 9mm -- ie, enough to actually practice with the gun and make sure it works In the long run, it's not a big difference. And it isn't the edge-of-the-margin difference someone looking at a Hi Point vs not having a gun is considering. But I can see why people look for something cheaper that will still run.

[Joe in PNG]

The problem with the "good enough for now" starter gun is that one gets stuck with a gun that really isn't good enough for regular practice and use, and really doesn't have any trade in value.
For instance, Makarovs were a pretty popular cheap gun. But, use one regularly, and you find the sights suck, the trigger isn't exactly the best, mags can be a pain to find, ammo may be difficult to locate, ect, ect. So, one finally goes to upgrade, but they're only going to give you $100 towards the new gun.

Better to do a lot of research, and a lot of looking at a lot of gunshops. $300 3rd gen S&W's aren't impossible with a lot of searching.

[JonInWA]

In my experience (so I'm talking about a sample size of one...), Joe in PNG, given your scenario, my recommendations would be:

1. A post 305- serial-numbered Ruger P89;

2. A used Glock,

3. A surplus Walther P.38/P1 (post 1974, with bar-dot sights and reinforced receiver and thicker slide).

My rationale: With the Ruger, you're getting a gun grossly over-built for it's 9mm chambering, and the post 2005 guns have improved accuracy and ergonomics; for little (or no) cost, you can ship the gun to Ruger and they'll thoroughly go through the gun, updating/replacing components as needed;

With a Glock, you can ship the gun to Glock (or attend a GSSF match) and have a Glock armorer thoroughly go through the gun, replacing and updating components as needed. If you bring the gun to a GSSF match, there's no charge for anything, and the work will be done onsite while you wait; if you ship it to Glock, you'll just have to pay shipping;

The Walther's a bit of a dark horse. While I think either of my two preceding guns are definite first choices, a later-production Walther can have a lot going for it-decent ergos, decent built quality, durable for most (but be aware that neither the P1 or slightly updated P4 successfully passed the rigorous 1970s German Police Trials, necessitating the highly revised P5 (which is a significantly better, but also significantly higher priced Walther). With the thicker, more modern sights and slide/receiver reinforcements, such a P.38/P1 can be a decent, affordable gun, and can still be found with some judicious searching at reasonable prices. Such later-model ones I've owned have handled hollowpoints well, but YMMV.

In revolvers, in the requisite price bracket I'd recommend a used Ruger Security Six or GP100-but prices on those have begun climbing-for years, you could get a great Security/Service/Speed Six for around $300, but the market has begun to wake up to the intrinsic value of these guns, and prices are going up accordingly.

Best, Jon

[45dotACP]

I'm going to have to disagree with you somewhat. I feel like one group of people (whom I fit into) gets ignored a bit in these conversation.

I most certainly *can* afford an off the shelf Glock, in an absolute sense. But I have a hard limit on what I can spend a year on "hobbyist" activities, from mutual agreement with my wife. I want to approach firearms seriously, get good training, buy a bunch of ammo... but the numbers I tend to be looking at make a lot of these an "OR" sort of situation.

I can buy a case of ammo and take a good pistol class, OR I can buy a p-f approved gun, OR I can buy a holster/night sights/enough mags/etc.

So it becomes a question of "Do I buy the gun I want this this year... and then not have any budget to shoot it?" or "Can I shave enough money off the price of the gun to buy a case of 9mm, too. And next year I'll buy a case and take a class."

Really, the advice seems to be "buy the better gun... and then I'll see you in a year" or "Save up for an extra year and do both at once" but that makes it a little... difficult, to really enter the field and practice and actually improve yourself.

I'm definitely not saying to buy an off the shelf Glock. My recommendation is pretty much going to be what it always has been for anybody serious about learning to shoot. But bear in mind, that you are serious about shooting and improving puts you head and shoulders above the average guy who bought a Ruger SR9E because it was 150 bucks cheaper than a Glock. The average shooter is buying the cheaper gun without a consideration for the gun's quality. It could just as easily be a Taurus 24/7 they buy because it was cheaper. With that in mind, if you're serious about getting better:

First: You want a gun, preferably one that will last. If you're looking for a semi auto, I'd go for a used Glock or M&P. Sig Pro pistols can be had for pretty cheap too. If you want a revolver, you'd be hard pressed to find a gun shop that didn't have a 4" barreled .38 special K frame of some sort hanging around (Model 10 or 64) for less than 350 bucks. Sometimes way less.

Second: You want training. If you want to maximize your practice ammunition, you want to have somebody who knows his stuff telling you what you need to be doing to practice correctly. Some say that sending rounds downrange without a specific goal is just converting money into noise, but I'd venture a guess that sending rounds downrange without having had any firearms instruction is the same. (It isn't terrible, but it's not what you're looking for as a serious shooter.)

Third: You'll want lots of ammo. I've got my own ideas about the economic feasibility of reloading. If that's not your thing, you can just as soon buy in bulk from places like Freedom Munitions.

I totally get saving money, but the problem comes out of wanting a gun when you want it, and not waiting for a truly awesome deal to show up. If you wait, you can get a truly awesome deal. I've seen guys pick up Sig 226R's for 450 bucks. But if you can't wait and still want a gun for cheap, then I see nothing wrong with going for a new Ruger SR9 or Walther PPX or SD9. I am personally leaning towards guns like the Sig Pro or CZ P-07 however, because I am starting to become quite fond of DA/SA guns.

People overthink the gun part of the equation however. Given time, proper instruction, and ammo, most any shooter can become proficient with most any firearm. The more important thing is finding a good instructor, and then ammunition.

You can also use "Bargain" instructors. Much like bargain guns, if you take a course with some local yokel, you may or may not get the right tool for the job. I happen to live near a few decent local instructors and gladly spend the 150 bucks for their class as I save for the 450 dollar tuition of a more well known instructor. But again, be careful who teaches you. You don't want the firearms equivalent of a McDojo, where you just blast at a B-27 at three yards, call it combat accurate and throw your empty mags at the target because your instructor had a brother whose cousin saw the Navy SEALS do that in the sandbox.

[rob_s]

Looking at this strictly from a budget sense...

If you have decided that the gun purchase drive has gone from "want" to "need", then budget really shouldn't be a self-imposed restriction. If you "needed" new tires on the car you would not say "sure, give me those retreads" while you had money for new tires sitting in the bank.

The guy that buys a new gun, need or want, that actually intends to go get training, and then practice with it, and is budgeting all of that, is a very, very tiny percentage of the gun-buying and/or forum-posting world.

From strictly a budget standpoint, of the money is there but is otherwise not being spent, I would suggest taking the initial purchase out of the equation and using that budget only for the ammo, training, and practice. If you really are planning on going out and shooting this gun, buying something that is passable but not great (like the S&W Sigma or SWV guns) is going to be counter productive. You're going to hate shooting it, the craptasticness of the gun will affect your ability to get hits with it, and you will likely stop shooting/training/practicing.