This is what is wrong with many top lists.



I have actually done quite a number of these things and for subjects I was not very familiar with, I did research.

Obviously, some do much less research than others. Bond Arms Derringer (not a revolver like this person thinks) the top rated pocket pistol? No Lcr, 642, 638, or 637? A NAA mini is the top rated revolver???

Interesting at the very least.
Last edited:


Lets be honest, what's wrong with the lists is that they are all based more on the opinion of the writer then anything. As most of us know, it is very subjective to many factors for each person. What works best for my small hands would not work as well for someone with large hands. That's why the true best pocket pistol or any pistol is the one that is most comfortable for the user. Really it can't be fairly judged until you shoot at least several different weapons.


Best at fitting in your pocket? Best pistol you can get in your pocket. How about best pistol to have in your hand once you pull it out of your pocket? IMHO the P365 makes all of those lists, but somehow not the one above. Obviously this is 10 Best Pocket Pistols Compiled by Someone Who Doesn’t Know Bupkus About Guns.
I’m not a guy that looks for the negative in everything but I take every claim of this or that being the best with a grain of salt. I’m big on doing my own research and coming to my own conclusion.


I’m not a guy that looks for the negative in everything but I take every claim of this or that being the best with a grain of salt. I’m big on doing my own research and coming to my own conclusion.
True, as should we all. My point is that the younger generations research is strong on internet information. This is a big part of thier research. In this platform there is an opportunity to try and truly inform, or, it can simply be wasted opportunity.

This is where I take umbrage, the writer, instead of doing proper research, or even explaining how he arrived at his ratings just spouts things including useless drivel about a Derringer being a snubnose revolver.

Sadly there will be young people who know no better reading it as part of thier research. A wasted opportunity...

USS Callister

As you'll probably notice with many "Best of..." lists, they're on websites that direct copy other websites' lists so with minimal effort they get impressions (mouse clicks) that make those sites more attractive to advertisers.

As a habit, I try to ferret out bad reviews of products I'm interested in buying--it's too easy to fall prey to buying products based on praises that you don't know are genuine ones from customers or compensated shills posting them. You also learn A LOT by reading bad reviews since more times than not (aside from just rants), they get you thinking about what features/functions are genuinely useful or not and/or flaws with the products themselves.


Did anyone else notice that the graphic chart at the beginning of the article gives the Rock Island Armory "Baby Glock" a 9.1 score? I know that younger writers are not as focused on proper spelling and grammar, but glaring mistakes like that always make me doubt the source. I'm fine with typos on casual blog posts or forums (I make plenty when typing rapidly), but they really bother me in professional publications.
I could live with the RIA Baby Rock in .380, or a tiny Glock 43 in 9mm.
( I go back and forth on the .380 ACP, but those teensy 1911 styles appeal to me.)
But I’m easy to please.


Master Class

How about we collect a bunch of "best of" pocket pistols articles? We can compare and contrast. You'll see a lot of similarities. The differences are interesting. Here's a few more...

Articles like these and the one you shared serve to introduce this old noob to firearms he might never get to see or consider buying. "Best" is often different for each individual. ;)

Thank you for your indulgence,