I want a .380, but im having trouble getting a proper sized one. I have rather larger hands, and most .380s Ive found feel like they came out of a cereal box. I want something around the slightly less then/ to compact sized like pic related
what do you guys recommend?
I recommend you buy a mid sized 9x19.
Literally the only positive aspect of .380 is the size of the round making it easier to fit into compact handguns. 9mm is just straight up better for larger handguns.
For historical reasons, there's nothing wrong with owning a mid sized .380. However, OP, >>27533455, those straight blow-back .380's tend to have pretty harsh recoil. That may sound strange if you've only ever fired tilting barrel .380's like the Sig P238 or Ruger LCP, but a big steel .380 with a straight blow-back action is going to be less fun to shoot than a Ruger LCP.
The Colt 1903 is a classy gun, but one that's much more pleasant to shoot in .32 ACP. If you want a gun like it that was properly made for .380, then take a look at an original Remington Model 51, which has a locked breech which is said to reduce the recoil by about 1/3.
I have a Colt Mustang Pocketlite. I carry it everywhere. I have large hands myself and I can still shoot it comfortably. Got mine for a little over $500. A little pricey for a .380, but still worth it for me.
Sig makes a .380 version of the P250 in compact and subcompact. Sight options are incredibly limited though due to the firing pin block being incorporated into the rear sight
>those straight blow-back .380's tend to have pretty harsh recoil.
No, they don't. Stop perpetuating that bullshit. I have a .380 Makarov and muzzle flip is closer to my .22 pistol than the various full size recoil operated 9mm pistols I've shot, and my friends who have shot it agree.
>No, they don't. Stop perpetuating that bullshit. I have a .380 Makarov and muzzle flip is closer to my .22 pistol than the various full size recoil operated 9mm pistols I've shot, and my friends who have shot it agree.
Allow me to revise my statement, then.
>Those straight blow-back .380 "pocket pistols" tend to have pretty harsh recoil.
Maybe Makarovs were designed to be larger and heavier or have an especially tight lock up with their heavy hammer spring, I don't know, as I've never fired one. But the Browning 1955 (FN 1910 in .380) that I have fired on many occasions has almost as much recoil as a S&W Shield in .40 caliber. That's a fact. In .32 ACP, guns of this size have very little recoil (I own the .32 version of the 1910, my dad owns a .380 version), but .380 is a little too snappy out of a gun this size for my taste, and DEFINITELY NOT even close to being comparable to either a .22lr pistol or to a full size, locked-breech 9mm pistol.
> But the Browning 1955 (FN 1910 in .380) that I have fired on many occasions has almost as much recoil as a S&W Shield in .40 caliber.
Have you considered that your recoil spring may need replacing? I have an S&W Shield in 9mm also and the Makarov is significantly more controllable, so much so that I stopped carrying the S&W shield and started carrying the Makarov.
It's probably the fact that the FN 1910 doesn't have a hammer, by design, so while the Makarov can achieve a faux lock-up, the 1910's recoil spring is the only thing keeping the breech closed while firing. I guarantee you that the recoil spring in this gun is within spec. It's been in my family since it was new- my grandfather kept it in a drawer (probably never shot it) and my dad fired less than 100 rounds through it before I get into guns and we shot it a little more.
>I guarantee you that the recoil spring in this gun is within spec
If it's older you should still probably check. Don't remember how old you have to go, but a while back the springs they used would lose their strength if left compressed, that's where all the claims of magazines spring losing their strength if you leave them loaded come from. Leaving the recoil spring in that pistol compressed for 60 years could have caused it to weaken.