home defense question.

You really just need a shotgun. A lot of pistols will go through walls but they make home defense ammo. As for pistols, I never liked that everyone and their brother has a 1911. But, most people have customized 1911's.


Personally, I love a plain classic looking 1911.



Or if you like stainless and want something with a little more flash,

but are there any that will increase my epeen as exponentially? no.

but really, thats probably the most effective defense i can think of.  Also, when you live out in the country, response times tend to be way longer

.357, that's the Springfield G.I.45 milspec, I know this as I own that very weapon.

Merc, for home defense, there are three major factors to consider after, and ONLY after you make the decision that you will be willing to end an intruder's life without prejudice. If you aren't willing to accept that fact and come to terms with the notion that you will end someones life when you equip yourself with a weapon for defensive purposes, then don't buy a fire-arm for home defense. While I'm sure you've already made that decision, I just had to get that out of the way.

Now the three things to consider are these (in no specific order)

• Knock-down power
• Collateral penetration
• Ease of use (including loading and aiming)

Knock-down power is important since you don't want them getting back up. Also, not needing to fire off a salvo to put someone down is important as it minimizes the chances of collateral damage due to missing the target or over-penetration. That doesn't mean you want the biggest, baddest round out there as not only do collateral and over penetration issues come into play again but high velocity fire arms tend to have a hefty weight due to the need to compensate both structurally and physically for the inverse action of the projectile being fired (ie recoil). 9mm will do the job, but there are some big people out there that it might not go down if you wing them with a 9mm rather than getting a center-mast shot. 10mm and S&W.40 both pack a little more "oomph" and carry more energy to be dispersed in the target giving you more knock-down without much more recoil. The highest caliber round I would suggest for home defense is .45ACP. It is widely available, and the .45ACP platform has been around long enough that it has been refined to exceptional stability. Now, .45 can come in a hi-cap mag (double stack) but it makes the grip frame a little wide for my taste, so I'm limited to 7 rounds to get the job done. I don't think that would be much of an issue. In home invasion situations there are rarely more than two perps/assailants involved. If you want the security of a higher capacity fire-arm, then I'd suggest something chambered for S&W .40 as it seems to carry a little more energy to target than other mid-range calibers.

Collateral penetration is a big issue when considering a home defense weapon. You want to ensure that you don't over-penetrate and kill someone in the next room or even the next house. Almost every caliber suitable for home defense is available in some form of a hollow-point. Not only does that allow you to ensure that the full force of the projectile is transfered to the target, it can also reduce over-penetration issues. That is not to say that there isn't still a very real danger of hitting and killing someone else in your house should you shoot a wall, but the risk is somewhat reduced. Again, the "big guns" like the .44magnum and 500S&W mean a lot more energy which means a lot more penetration even with a hollow-point round, hence my suggestion to again, stay way from anything heavier than .45ACP. Shotguns are popular for home defense as they don't carry as much energy in each individual piece of shot meaning that over penetration issues are again reduced, though not as much as using hollow-points.

Finally, ease of use. You want something that you can load easily (never leave a loaded weapon in your house) in the middle of the night with no lights on. This is where handguns have their down-fall in home defense (imho) as slamming a magazine in place when startled from sleep in the dark can take a moment. Shotguns are slightly easier to ensure proper loading with given the circumstances. Of course, you should familiarize yourself with your weapon of choice to the point that the issue of loading should be minimal at worst. Aiming is also a big thing to think about. It's dark, you may be surprised, and you want to make sure that the first shot counts. Again, shotguns are great in this aspect as 12ga. 00-buck gives a good spread after about 5-8 feet without getting too big giving you excellent knock-down power and less chance of collateral penetration. While you may be close to the target, there is more chance of missing with a pistol in the heat of the moment.

Personally, my choice would be a two shotguns. You don't need anything expensive for fancy. A Mossberg will work just fine. I like pistols and yes, I do have a .45ACP for both target shooting and home protection, but if I could afford it right now, I'd be picking up a shotgun as well simply due to the fact that it has a lot going for it in home defense.

Hope that helps!

Remember, practical is always better than expensive.

my family has and always will have firearms in the house, living on a farm, its not that uncommon to take you shotgun/rifle with you when you go out at night, if you hear racket and such. now i realize tht it it much different in the city than on a farm but i belive that having a firearm(notice i did not call it a weapon..) in the house is a good idea, asuming that it is wither locked or hidden away, not just sitting behind the kitchen door. but jsut the fact that you have it is a deturrent in itself, someone breaking in hears the "shlack shlack" of a .12 (even if its not loaded) will turn right around and haul A**

tallen702 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Riddle me this: If there is less response time in the country, that would mean there are less cops for a given area. If there are less cops in a given area, there will be less people in this given area. If there are less people, than there are less people to try and kill you in your sleep for no reason at all (That's why you need the gun rite? Or is it to protect yourself from the people breaking into your house that are often unarmed?) If there are less people to try and kill you in your sleep for no reason, than you are safer. If you are safer, why do you need a gun? Unless you live in the country part of the bronx. Statistically speaking, forced entries into homes are far greater per-capita in outlying suburbs and rural areas. It is far easier for a thief or assailant to enter a rural home due to less public notice given the population density of rural areas than it is in a more populous one. Response times in rural areas also tend to be far greater than urban/suburban ones. While most suburbs have city or county police units, rural areas tend to rely on sheriff-based services or the state police who are responsible for vast territorial jurisdictions with a significantly smaller force.

I just doubt it happens enough to need a gun.

And I don't think that a gun would be the proper response in 90% of situations anyways

amen to that, all it takes is that one "i wish i had a gun" moment or situation 

sounds like a plan

carl_the_sniper wrote: tallen702 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Riddle me this: If there is less response time in the country, that would mean there are less cops for a given area. If there are less cops in a given area, there will be less people in this given area. If there are less people, than there are less people to try and kill you in your sleep for no reason at all (That's why you need the gun rite? Or is it to protect yourself from the people breaking into your house that are often unarmed?) If there are less people to try and kill you in your sleep for no reason, than you are safer. If you are safer, why do you need a gun? Unless you live in the country part of the bronx. Statistically speaking, forced entries into homes are far greater per-capita in outlying suburbs and rural areas. It is far easier for a thief or assailant to enter a rural home due to less public notice given the population density of rural areas than it is in a more populous one. Response times in rural areas also tend to be far greater than urban/suburban ones. While most suburbs have city or county police units, rural areas tend to rely on sheriff-based services or the state police who are responsible for vast territorial jurisdictions with a significantly smaller force. I just doubt it happens enough to need a gun. And I don't think that a gun would be the proper response in 90% of situations anyways

That's like saying, "The chances of me crashing my car are so slim that I'm not going to wear my seatbelt."

carl_the_sniper wrote: Or just come to Canada

why the hell would i do a thing like that?  becuase of your ignorantly liberal drinking laws?  your lack of resolve on the cuban trade embargo?  the only reason i can think of to move to canada is your acceptance of firearms for the purpose of defense in case the police are not sufficient.

that was what i was getting at.