Latest Millitary News from the Russian Front – Institute for the Study of War (ISW) Russian Offensive Campaign Analysis for October 19
Institute for the Study of War
Katherine Lawlor, Karolina Hird, Grace Mappes, Riley Bailey, George Barros, and Frederick W. Kagan October 19, 8:00 pm ET Click here to see ISW’s interactive map of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This map is updated daily alongside the static maps present in this report. Russian authorities are likely setting information conditions to justify planned Russian retreats and significant territorial losses in Kherson Oblast. Commander of Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine Army General Sergey Surovikin reported during an appearance on Russian television that the Russian military leadership has to make “difficult decisions” regarding Kherson Oblast and accused Ukraine of planning to strike civilian and residential infrastructure in Kherson Oblast.[1] Kherson Occupation Head Vladimir Saldo relatedly noted that his administration is evacuating the west bank of the Dnipro River in anticipation of a “large-scale” Ukrainian offensive.[2] Surovikin‘s and Saldo’s statements are likely attempts to set information conditions for a full Russian retreat across the Dnipro River, which would cede Kherson City and other significant territory in Kherson Oblast to advancing Ukrainian troops. Russian military leaders have evidently learned from previous informational and operational failures during the recent Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kharkiv Oblast and are therefore likely attempting to mitigate the informational and operational consequences of failing to defend against another successful Ukrainian advance. Russian forces are also setting information conditions to conduct a false-flag attack on the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP). The Russian military may believe that breaching the dam could cover their retreat from the right bank of the Dnipro River and prevent or delay Ukrainian advances across the river. Surovikin claimed on October 18 that he has received information that Kyiv intends to strike the dam at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP), which he alleged would cause destructive flooding in Kherson Oblast.[3] Saldo echoed this claim and warned that Ukrainian forces intend to strike dams upstream of Kherson City.[4] Russian authorities likely intend these warnings about a purported Ukrainian strike on the Kakhovka HPP to set information conditions for Russian forces to damage the dam and blame Ukraine for the subsequent damage and loss of life, all while using the resulting floods to cover their own retreat further south into Kherson Oblast. The Kremlin could attempt to leverage such a false-flag attack to overshadow the news of a third humiliating retreat for Russian forces, this time from western Kherson. Such an attack would also further the false Russian information operation portraying Ukraine as a terrorist state that deliberately targets civilians. Russia continues to use the guise of civilian “evacuations” as a cover for the mass forced removal of civilians from Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine. Saldo’s announcement of a mass withdra
There is a lot of news today, both military and political. So I am going to have to divide the Posts again. This one will cover military news and, assuming I can manage it, a later post will cover political issues.
SOUTHERN UKRAINE
The Kherson Counter Offensive
“Russian authorities are likely setting information conditions to justify planned Russian retreats and significant territorial losses in Kherson Oblast. Commander of Russian Forces Surovikin reported during an appearance on Russian television that the Russian military leadership has to make “difficult decisions” regarding Kherson Oblast and accused Ukraine of planning to strike civilian and residential infrastructure in Kherson Oblast. Kherson Occupation Head Saldo relatedly noted that his administration is evacuating the west bank of the Dnipro River in anticipation of a “large-scale” Ukrainian offensive. Surovikin‘s and Saldo’s statements are likely attempts to set information conditions for a full Russian retreat across the Dnipro River, which would cede Kherson City and other significant territory in Kherson Oblast to advancing Ukrainian troops. Russian military leaders have evidently learned from previous informational and operational failures during the recent Ukrainian counter offensive in Kharkiv Oblast and are therefore likely attempting to mitigate the informational and operational consequences of failing to defend against another successful Ukrainian advance.”
This paragraph shows that the Russians are less tone deaf to Ukrainian advances and are “setting conditions” (e.g., preparing Russians) for another upcoming defeat and withdrawal. The main questions appear to be how orderly such a retreat will be and what opportunities it will afford advancing Ukrainian troops.
“Russian forces are also setting information conditions to conduct a false-flag attack on the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (KHPP). The Russian military may believe that breaching the dam could cover their retreat from the right bank of the Dnipro River and prevent or delay Ukrainian advances across the river. Surovikin claimed on October 18 that he has received information that Kyiv intends to strike the dam, which he alleged would cause destructive flooding in Kherson Oblast. Saldo echoed this claim and warned that Ukrainian forces intend to strike dams upstream of Kherson City. Russian authorities likely intend these warnings about a purported Ukrainian strike on the KHPP to set information conditions for Russian forces to damage the dam and blame Ukraine for the subsequent damage and loss of life, all while using the resulting floods to cover their own retreat further south into Kherson Oblast. The Kremlin could attempt to leverage such a false-flag attack to overshadow the news of a third humiliating retreat for Russian forces, this time from western Kherson. Such an attack would also further the false Russian information operation portraying Ukraine as a terrorist state that deliberately targets civilians.”
What possible reason Kyiv could have for taking such an action against its own civilians is not explained and makes no sense. This is just another example of Russia making inherently unbelievable claims and expecting them to be accepted. Of course, actually carrying the threat out would make things even worse.
“Russian sources widely claimed that Ukrainian troops conducted another general counter offensive in northwestern Kherson Oblast on October 19. A Russian occupation deputy claimed that Ukrainian troops went on the offensive around noon on October 19 and attacked from northern Kherson Oblast about 30km south of the Kherson Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border toward Beryslav. Other Russian sources similarly claimed that Ukrainian troops launched an offensive south of the Nova Kamianka-Dudchany area and attacked toward Sukhanove and Piatykhatky, both near the current frontline in northwestern Kherson Oblast and about 35km north of Beryslav. ISW is unable to verify these claims. Russian milbloggers (RMBs) reported that elements of the 126th Coastal Defense Brigade, 11th, 80th, and 83rd Air Assault Brigades, and 76th Guards Air Assault Division are holding the line of defense in this area and prevented significant Ukrainian advances. These elements, especially the 126th Coastal Defense Brigade, are severely degraded and understrength, and some have likely been active in Kherson Oblast without rest or rotation for most of the war.”
These elements were once among Russia’s most capable units, but have now been reduced to mere shadows of their former selves. Unless augmented by substantial numbers of additional troops, it is highly unlikely that they can hold the line in northern and northwestern Kherson. These units were probably chosen for the defense of this sector as they are more likely to be able to withdraw in better order than less experienced troops.
Beryslav is the major Russian supply and logistics point on the west bank of the Kokhovka Reservoir and presumably the Russians will abandon the northwestern part of the Oblast before Ukrainian troops can seriously threaten it.
“Ukraine’s Southern Operational Command (USOC) noted that Ukrainian forces are continuing “active combat operations” and focusing on “creating favorable conditions for the development of further offensives.” Ukrainian forces additionally continued their interdiction campaign against Russian concentration areas in Kherson Oblast as part of the ongoing counteroffensive. USOC and other Ukrainian military sources reported that Ukrainian strikes destroyed three ammunition warehouses around Beryslav, Nova Kakhkovka, and Kherson City on October 18. Ukrainian strikes likely also hit a Russian ferry crossing 3km north of Nova Kakhovka on the opposing bank of the Dnipro River. Satellite imagery from October 18 shows that Russian troops have completed the creation of a barge bridge near Kherson City as part of an effort to reconstitute river crossings as Ukrainian troops continue to target Russian transportation capabilities across the Dnipro River.”
Both the Russian statements and their construction of a barge bridge (a bridge generally constructed of steel planking aid across barges and not terribly sturdy) is evidence that Russia is preparing to abandon Kherson west of the Dnipro, as their forces there are overstressed.
Nothing of substance new to report in Zaporizhzhya Oblast – Russia statements indicate likely false shelling by Ukrainian of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and a supposed amphibious assault to take it.
EASTERN UKRAINE
The Luhansk Counter Offensive
“Russian forces continued to conduct limited assaults to recapture lost territory in northeastern Kharkiv Oblast on October 19. The UGS reported that Ukrainian forces repelled Russian assaults on Dvorichna, 17km northeast of Kupyansk in Kharkiv Oblast. The Luhansk People’s Republic Deputy Internal Minister reiterated claims that Russian forces captured Horobivka, also 17km northeast of Kupyansk on October 18, although ISW cannot independently verify that Russian forces have captured the settlement. The Russian Ministry of Defense (RMoD) claimed that Russian forces struck Ukrainian control points and concentrations of manpower and equipment throughout Kharkiv Oblast”.
“Russian and Ukrainian forces reportedly continued fighting along the Kreminna to Svatove line on October 19. A Russian source claimed that Russian forces repelled a Ukrainian assault on the Kyslivk in the direction of Svatove. The RMoD claimed that Russian forces repelled Ukrainian formations that attempted to cross the Zherebets River 16km northwest of Svatove, 15km west of Svatove, 11km west of Svatove) in Luhansk Oblast. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces repelled a Russian ground assault near Bilohorivka (12km south of Kreminna). A RMB claimed that Russian and Ukrainian forces are continuing to fight west of Kreminna in the vicinity of Terny, 18km northwest of Kreminna, and Torski, 16km west of Kreminna, although ISW cannot independently verify his claims.”
It appears that, for now, Ukrainian forces are largely defending against Russian attacks in northeastern Ukraine. Given that the Russians claim the capture of only one small village (which is not confirmed), it indicates that the Ukrainians are not overextended and are able to repel what appear to be largely limited and local counter attacks.
Fighting in Donetsk
“The UGS reported that Ukrainian forces repelled Russian ground attacks south of Bakhmut near four villages. Russian sources claimed that fighting is ongoing in Optyne and on Bakhmut’s eastern outskirts. Russian sources also claimed that fighting is ongoing in Soledar’s industrial zone and near Spirne, 18km northeast of Soledar. The UGS also reported that Ukrainian forces repelled Russian ground attacks northeast of Avdiivka, west of Donetsk City, and in western Donetsk Oblast. A Russian source claimed that Russian forces are continuing to fight southwest of Avdiivka. A Russian source also claimed that Russian forces attacked fortified Ukrainian positions in Marinka, and geolocated footage confirmed that Russian forces have advanced further down the highway north of Marinka. A Russian source claimed that positional battles are ongoing in the Vuhledar area in western Donetsk Oblast, and a different Russian source expressed continued concern that Ukrainian forces may launch a counter offensive in the Vuhledar area.”
Another day without even Russian claims of having captured a village – it appears that even their limited and local counter attacks are failing now. On the other hand, the rumors of another Ukrainian offensive – either in western Donetsk or northeastern Zaporizhzhya continue as a subject of great concern for the RMB community.
And finally…
Ukrainian attacks in Kherson appear to have cracked the Russian lines and forced them to prepare for withdrawal from the Oblast west of the Dnipro. However, announcing in advance that a retreat may occur is not necessarily good news for the Ukrainians, as it could indicate that the withdrawal will be less disordered than previous Russian retreats. Also, the apparent intention to blow the Kakhovka Dam is worrisome, although how much damage that would cause is unknown. The period of easy advances for the Ukrainians has at least temporarily ended in the northeast and seems to have come to a pause. To make sure that Ukrainian advances don’t halt altogether, the Western allies need to provide the Ukrainians additional support at this critical juncture.
California must stop sharing the personal identifying information of the state’s gun owners with academic researchers, a state judge has ruled.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal issued a preliminary injunction against California’s Assembly Bill 173 on Friday. Judge Bacal noted that allowing the law to remain in effect while the case continued sufficiently threatened the privacy rights of California gun owners.
“Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction,” she noted in her order.
The injunction represents a win for gun-rights advocates in their fight against the state’s attempts to share gun owners’ identifying information for outside research. The state already collects extensive data on gun and ammunition purchases–including an ammo registry. California’s practices make it an outlier, but one with the potential to be copied by other blue states seeking tighter gun laws. The successful injunction suggests advocates may be successful in permanently stopping the state from sharing that data with non-law enforcement entities and quash the potential for other states to follow California’s lead.
Assembly Bill 173, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) last September, directed the Attorney General to disclose personal information on gun purchasers to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis. The information includes details such as the buyer’s name, address, date of birth, what they purchased, when and where they bought it, and more. It also authorized the center to share the information with any other “bona fide research institution.”
The now-blocked law is not the only time California officials have garnered controversy over how they handle gun owners’ private data. Earlier this June, The Reloadbroke news that the California Department of Justice had inadvertently leaked the names, racial identifications, home addresses, dates of birth, and permit classifications of the state’s concealed carry permit holders during a botched rollout of its 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal. That information was made publicly available for download for several hours before eventually being scrubbed from the website. The state has since offered credit monitoring to all those it believes were affected by the leak.
Judge Bacal cited this incident as an example of the potential harm faced by gun owners if AB 173 were allowed to stay in effect.
“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021,” she said. “Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information. Furthermore, and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022.”
A coalition of gun-rights groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), filed suit against the law in state court in January. The groups celebrated the injunction.
“The California government has proven time and time again that it can’t be trusted with the private personal information of its residents,” Bill Sack, FPC Director of Legal Operations, said in a press release. “Today’s ruling reinforces what FPC has been arguing all along; that you needn’t be forced to open your front door to immoral government intrusion in order to exercise your fundamental rights.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D.) told The Reload that despite the ruling, he planned to continue defending the law in court.
“We are disappointed in this decision,” he said. “Research and collaboration would help protect our communities from gun violence and save lives. We will continue this fight in court.”
UPDATE 12:58 AM EASTERN 10-18-2022:This piece has been updated to include comment from Attorney General Bonta’s office.
In 2010, Winchester re-introduced the 30-30 lever action Model 94 in a Short Rifle version. But can it beat a gently used 50-year-old Sears 100?
By Robert Sadowski
There was time when every deer hunters’ gun rack held a 30-30 lever-action rifle, and red buffalo plaid was the only choice in a hunting coat. There are those hunters who still believe the 30-30 lever action is the ultimate rifle for a still hunter working in dense cover. The rifle’s light weight, ease of use, simple open sights, and fast follow-up shots make it a sensible choice for shots from 15 to 100 yards.
Over the years, numerous manufacturers have built 30-30 lever actions — Winchester, Marlin, Stevens, Mossberg, Savage, and others. In great-grandpa’s day, hardware stores and department stores with thick catalogs also sold 30-30 lever-action rifles. These department-store rifles were made by these gun manufacturers but were sold under the store’s in-house brand names, often at a lower price than their name-brand cousins.
The two carbines are nearly dead ringers, but one was produced in 1960s and the other in 2010. The Sears Model 100, bottom, relies on common sense and good gun handling skills for safety. We gauged it to be quite a bargain. The Winchester Short Rifle has modern enhancements, and a big price tag.
From the 1950s through the 1970s, Sears, Roebuck and Co. contracted with Winchester to build a 30-30 lever-action rifle similar to Winchester’s Model 94. Sears called it the Model 100 or Model 54. Ever mindful of marketing opportunities, Sears signed baseball great Ted Williams to endorse its outdoor products. Ted’s signature appeared on everything from outdoor clothing to rifles. In particular, there was a Ted Williams Model 100 rifle, a dead ringer for the Winchester Model 94.
Because we’re always hunting for bargains, we wanted to compare a used Sears Ted William’s Model 100 to a current-production Winchester Model 94 Short Rifle. Both of these rifles are designed around the iconic Model 94 first built by Winchester in 1894. It was the first centerfire rifle to use a then-new smokeless cartridge, the 30 Winchester or, more commonly, the 30-30. How would a 50-year-old Sears thutty-thutty match up with a brand-spanking new Shorty? Pretty dang well, as we explain below.
Winchester Model 94 Short Rifle No. 534174114 30-30 Win., $1230
In 2010 Winchester re-introduced the Model 94 in a Short Rifle version, a plain model that is reminiscent of the millions of Model 94 carbines the company produced a quarter century ago. Of course, the Short Rifle rollmark indicates manufacture in Japan rather than New Haven, CT. We thought it would be interesting to test this new Model 94 against a gently used Ted Williams Model 100. Both rifles were manufactured by Winchester and have similar features. We soon discovered the big differences between these two rifles were cost and safety features.
The safety enhancements to the new Model 94 were obvious. A thumb safety was nicely placed in the tang of the receiver so the traditional lines of the rifle were not sullied. The hammer was a rebounding type, so there was no half cock. It also used a trigger stop where only a fully closed lever allows the rifle to be fired. The Sears had this feature, too, as do many models of Winchester lever actions. Old-timers who tested the Short Rifle snorted with distaste at a Model 94 having a safety and rebounding hammer. It was blatantly not traditional, but the feature did make the rifle safer to use. The action was smooth, and like all Model 94s, would get slicker with use.
The bluing on the new 94 was superb. The wood seemed adequate. The owner of the rifle had hunted with it in the rain, and the stain on the buttstock looked like it was washing off, but we didn’t ding it for that. The Winchester and Sears both sported flat polymer buttplates that were quick to shoulder and did nothing to absorb recoil, but the 30-30 round is not punishing, and a heavy hunting coat does a lot to absorb recoil. The Short Rifle’s receiver was tapped for scope mounts, and empties were ejected to the right and not up and over like traditional Model 94s. Back in 1980s, Winchester called this “angle eject.”
At the range there was not a single failure. Cartridges were easy to feed into the magazine tube, and the bullet noses were not chewed up when we cycled them through the action. Old Model 94s at times could mangle the bullet nose, and this new Model 94 fixed that issue.
At 50 yards using a rest, we were able to achieve very tight three-shot groups using a scope. The hammer was tapped for a hammer extension. The scope was removed so only open sights were used in the test data. A Marbles front sight with a brass bead and buckhorn style rear sight offered a traditional sight picture.
We expected MOD (minute of deer) accuracy and were pleased at how a range of old-school soft points and newer all-copper Barnes and LEVERevolution Hornady bullets performed. For example, with the Hornady rounds, we were able to get a 0.5-inch group using open sights at 50 yards. We also noted the new Winchester achieved higher velocities than the older Model 100.
Off the bench, we fired some field simulations. As expected, the Short Rifle was fast to shoulder and acquire a target. Follow-up shots were likewise fast, and it was easy to cycle the rifle on the shoulder. Our Team Said: The Short Rifle was nicely built. The safety features were smart additions, even though purists were not happy. They did concede safety was important. Big knock: Most testers thought the price was far too much and knocked it down for that. If you want a new Model 94 that’s similar to your granddaddy’s rifle, this is the one to buy.
Sears, Roebuck & Co.Ted Williams Model 100, $199-$350
We found the price of Model 100s on Gunbroker.com ranged from less than $200 to close to $350 for a pristine specimen. This gently used carbine had nice wood. A plastic cap covered the end of the forearm. The state of the metal finish was like most Winchester rifles of that era. The metallurgy was a bit off, and the receivers often present white scaling.
Most of our shooters liked the way the rifle’s hammer worked. Some had learned many moons ago how to silently cock a hammer and during hunting used the half cock. These were the testers who felt the safety on the new Short Rifle felt odd. Still, most saw the safety features as enhancements.
When cycling cartridges through the action — the only way to unload a lever action like these — the Model 100 did chew a bullet nose. Like the Model 94, the Model 100 had Marbles sights. The rear sight had screws to loosen and position a small plate with the rear sight groove. At the range the Model 100 grouped similarly to the Model 94. Cycling was smooth and second shots were easy to perform. Our Team said: The guns performed similarly, excepted our shooters dinged the Model 100 for not having a safety. If you want a 30-30 just like granddad’s, this was the rifle to buy — and you would save hundreds of dollars in the bargain. Written and photographed by Robert Sadowski, using evaluations from Gun Tests team testers. GT Winchester Model 94 Short Rifle Sears, Roebuck & Co., Ted Williams Accuracy and Chronograph Data Gun test Value Code: Lever Actions
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The media will tell you that good guys with guns hardly ever stop attacks. Boy, are they wrong. According to compiled evidence by the Crime Prevention Research Center, some media outlets are underreporting the number of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) by law abiding gun owners where attacks are prevented. Some media is reporting only 10% of the actual DGUs in America by citizens.
Could this be because DGUs by law-abiding citizens don’t support the anti-gun narrative, or could it be simply due to faulty information they are given?
A look into the data provided by the FBI shows that discrepancies in DGUs are often caused by the “misclassifying of shootings” and “overlooked incidents.” Research by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows us that in several incidents, the FBI didn’t list attacks that were stopped by armed citizens when police had later apprehended the attackers. According to Crime Prevention Research Center, the FBI also has misidentified armed citizens as security officials resulting in the elimination of them being qualified as “citizen defensive gun uses.” You may remember Jack Wilson, who stopped an attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. The media narrative portrayed Wilson as a security guard when Wilson himself said he was just a parishioner who had volunteered to provide security during worship.
In some cases where armed civilians completely thwart mass public shootings (meaning, not even a shot fired), the FBI simply doesn’t report them. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, the FBI missed 25 of these incidents that would likely have become mass public shootings had it not been for the good guy or gal with a gun.
Due to these reasons for non-reporting, the FBI only showed 6.6% of mass killings being stopped by armed citizens, while the Crime Prevention Research Center shows 49.1% being stopped. In these cases, approximately half of the thwarted attacks occurred in gun-free zones.
As for those locations where citizens were legally allowed to carry a gun publicly, the number of thwarted attacks by armed citizens increased by almost 10% to 58% in 2021. What does this tell us? It tells us that gun-free zones put people in danger, and the media doesn’t want you to know when good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.
In March of 2013, 380,000 active duty and 70,000 retired law-enforcement officers were surveyed in a PoliceOne survey. 86% believed that casualties from public shootings could be reduced or avoided altogether if citizens were armed at the time of the attack. 77% supported the arming of teachers and/or school Administrators. Wouldn’t it make sense to consider the opinions of Police Officers and those who investigate these types of crimes on a daily basis?
It’s no surprise the media would use underreported data. But they and anti-gun extremists seem all too willing to put people in danger by spreading false information. The idea that gun-free zones are safe, citizens shouldn’t carry in public, and police departments should be defunded could be putting good people in some very dangerous situations without any way of protecting themselves.
Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE
Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.
In our previous caliber article, you saw the popular 9mm and .45 ACP cartridges as well as some different types of bullets such as the full metal jacket (FMJ) and hollow points.
Now, we drill down and recommend getting a 9mm for your beginner handgun.
Why?
The 9mm is easy to find and cheaper when compared to other calibers.
9mm vs .45 ACP
Its smaller size means it has mild recoil and higher capacity magazines (usually 15+).
9mm (115gr vs 124gr vs 147 HP)
Here’s me shooting one of my top suggested handguns…the Glock 19.
Not too bad…right?
Plus, the majority of police forces use 9mm and the FBI recently returned to the 9mm after finding that the current .40 S&W rounds were causing excessive wear on pistols and were less easily controlled by some agents.
Ammo: Hollowpoints or Bust
9mm 147 Federal Hydrashok HST
For home defense purposes, we recommend hollow point bullets for their stopping power (and ability to stop in drywall).
The most important thing about choosing the best handgun is fit.
Some of Our Handguns
We recommend getting a “full size” handgun which means close to 5-inch barrels.
Having a full-sized handgun makes it easier to shoot since there’s more mass to absorb recoil, a larger area to grip, and a longer sight radius from the front sight to the rear sight.
Glock 17 Grip (Fullsize)
But…if you think you might do concealed carry in the future and don’t want to get another gun…you can try out the compact size too.
You lose a little sight radius but free up some grip space which helps a lot in concealing. But you don’t want to go so small that your pinkie is left hanging.
Glock 19 Grip (Compact)
Safety
Here, we recommend a lack of an external safety.
WHAT?
We believe that the mind is the best safety and that in the heat of the moment during a self-defense situation, you might forget to disengage the safety.
This takes out a couple of possibilities including the venerable 1911 which we think is a little too complicated and finicky for the beginner shooter.
Sights
Easy, get the night sights since most self-defense encounters occur in dimly lit locations.
Trijicon Night Sights
There are usually night sight models for each of our recommended pistols. Or you can always purchase aftermarket sights and have your gunsmith install them.
Action
We recommend a striker-fired handgun for the beginner and home defense since the trigger pull is nearly identical every time (at least when compared to a double-action).
An easy way to tell if a handgun is a striker is that the back of the slide is flat and has no exposed hammer.
Here a Glock, there a Glock…
Double-action pistols such as the Beretta 92FS have a heavy first shot since you are cocking back the hammer.
We love them for their reliability and ease of dealing with malfunctions (just press again), but we don’t like their low ammo capacity (5 or 6 compared to 15+ for our recommendations).
The Smith and Wesson Model 686P
But we’ll be including one of our favorites that packs in 7 rounds of .38 Special or .357 Magnum goodness.
This leaves us with what many call the “plastic fantastics.”
So let’s look at the guns we recommend as the best for beginner-friendly home defense.
What’s your take on the compact and full-size 9mm Glocks?
Readers’ Ratings
4.86/5(2235)
Your Rating?
2. Smith & Wesson M&P9 M2.0
The newest version of the venerable M&P (military and police) is the M&P 2.0. If there’s a list of best 9mm handguns, this usually makes the top three.
I got the FDE color version…
Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0
It’s full-size and here is the comparison of my 1.0 vs a full-size Glock 17.
M&P vs Glock 17
The original version was rock solid but had a not-so-great trigger.
M&P Fullsize, Gen 1
The M2.0 takes care of that and also adds a more aggressive texturing while still maintaining the ability to swap out palm swells to match your grip.
M&P 2.0 vs 1.0
It fits very well in my hand and although I currently have the model with the safety…it’s easy to take off and get some inserts for the holes (and makes it exactly like the non-safety version).
M&P 2.0 Grip
A good choice to see if you agree with my thoughts on safeties since you can choose either or.
I choose it as my runner-up best beginner 9mm handgun.
We love to shoot the Sig P320 and so does the U.S. Army because they chose it as their new sidearm.
It’s a great alternative to the Glock, M&P, and XD.
Our Sig Sauer P320
Plus it’s the trigger system that is the serialized version so you can take it out and put it into different sized “grip modules” to have a full-sized or compact option without buying an entirely new gun.
Sig Carry Grip Module
We have a full written review right here…plus a full YouTube review:
There’s a lot of versions of the P320…but we like the original civilian one.
The Walther PDP might be our favorite striker-fired 9mm handgun with its exceptional trigger, ergonomics, and reliability.
Walther PDPs
You’ll have to take our word on the trigger…but it’s the nicest out of the box striker-fired trigger we’ve ever felt.
Dor the ergonomics…Walther made it extra grippy with nice molding that fit the gamut of hand sizes on our team.
Walther PDP Grip
And since it’s red dot ready…there’s also a nice pinky extension that helps you grip a little downwards that makes it perfect for red dots.
Walther PDP Grip with Pinky Extension
And check out the chunky (but super effective) slide serrations. If you can’t get a grip on it for racking…it ain’t the slide’s problem!
Walther PDP Full Size
There are also a couple of different grip sizes and barrel lengths…but we went with the popular combos of a full size with 4.5″ barrel and a compact with 4″ barrel.
Walther PDP Size Differences
Reliability is awesome with Sean having shot over 5000+ rounds and carried it as his duty pistol as a peace officer before he joined Pew Pew Tactical.
Walther PDP Shooting
Threaded barrels are coming out now and so far we’ve had great success with a suppressed compact version.
Check out our full review here as well as our YouTube video to really see the differences in racking and shooting vs other pistols:
7. HK VP9
HK’s VP9 is a great alternative if you want a polymer pistol but don’t want the Glock look/feel.
HK VP9
Chambered in 9mm, the VP9 is a striker-fired design measuring 7.34-inches in total length with a 4.09-inch barrel. It tips scales at around 25-ounces.
The VP9 ships with various backstraps and interchangeable side panels that should allow those with even the most atypical paws to find a combination that works for them.
How the handgun feels in your hand is probably the most important.
I have pretty big hands and like the chunkier and different grip angle of the Glock. But my buddy with smaller hands likes the feel of the Smith & Wesson M&P.
Different hands mean some guns feel okay in yours but not your buddy’s.
Also, keep in mind that the latest Glock & M&P versions have removable grip inserts that can customize the ergonomics even more.
S&W M&P Palm Inserts
The triggers all have a slightly different feel too even though they are all striker-fired.
For a home defense gun, we recommend not altering the trigger. After some use, the trigger will smooth out a little but pretty much what you feel at the store is what you get.
The prices are all pretty similar for the striker-fired pistols at around the $500 range. You’ll also be able to find some sales going on at your local gun store…but these are good starting prices.
Night sights will probably cost $50 to $100 more.
Accessories
Again, most encounters happen in dimly lit areas/times, and you wouldn’t want to shoot with just night sights without verifying your target.
RUNNER UP
US ARMY APPROVED
