Please keep in mind that these are my opinions and reflect my personal biases.boris wrote: but i have seen most american gun owners praise the sig 226 very much,among glock 17,glock 19,sig 226,walther p99,beretta 92fs and HK USP compact how would you rate each of them
Glocks do not fit my hand well. I have small hands and holding a Glock feels like I am holding a square piece of wood. I also have a thing about all-metal guns so do not care much for polymer framed firearms. I have fired the Glock 17, 19 and 22. I cannot tell you exactly why but I liked the Glock 22 the best of the bunch. Functionally, however, Glocks are very reliable and have a huge following. The bias that I have is personal and has nothing to do with the utility of the Glock.
The Sig 226 in 9mm is a pussycat. There is more than enough mass there to tame the recoil. The target can be acquired very rapidly for subsequent shots. Its is still enjoyable in .40 S&W. In .357 SIG, you know you have something there in your hands but the recoil is not even close to objectionable[*]. The double stack mag of a P226 makes the grip larger than I like, especially for the DA first shot but it is still do-able. I am also intimately familiar with the SIG manual of arms as one of the handguns in my carry rotation is the SIG P225 (As someone said: "SIG P225; it's like drawing Excalibur from the stone"
). This may have be part of the reason why I feel more comfortable with SIG's P series handguns. The SIG P226 is the standard issue sidearm of the elite US Navy Seals. They do however, also use other handguns depending on the mission. [*]When I say objectionable recoil, I mean something like a .357 Mag fired in a Scandium snubby.[/size]I've shot a Walther P99 in .40 S&W and felt that for the size of the pistol, it should have handled the recoil better. Maybe the high bore axis in relation to the hand causes it to be more "flippy" than usual. My CZ P-06 which is a smaller pistol, handles the recoil of the .40 S&W much better, returning to the target faster and with more ease.
The 92fs is a large, robust and heavy gun. Shooting it in 9mm is no sweat. The grip is larger than I like but there is nothing wrong with the pistol itself. I wouldn't want to carry one concealed all day as there are many smaller and lighter weapons but it is not designed to be a weapon that is meant to be concealed. This is the standard handgun of the US armed forces and for the most part it seems to fulfill its role well.
I've never fired a HK USP compact so I don't really have any opinions about that.
Different guns are designed to fulfill different roles. Rather than trying to select a particular firearm for its aesthetics or brand name, one must first define the role that you want the particular gun to fulfill. Is it for concealed carry? Is it a range/competition gun? Nightstand (home defense) gun? Backup gun?
Once the specific role is defined then one should try to find a firearm that will fulfill that role. Many people try to do it backwards; the select a firearm and then try to make it fulfill a role.
Boris, maybe some others will chime in with their opinions.
- especially, with the one about Baskin Robbins 
