Capacity VS Caliber - Home Defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
I choose capacity, have a beater Glock17 with extended mag.
30 rounds loaded.
If I ever empty that ( and live ) I might need to build
a new house.
Dave
 
I don't know that there's a single right answer, certainly not one applicable across the board to everyone. I also don't believe there's much difference between a 9mm and a .45ACP in effectiveness provided both are stoked with their most effective loadings. So I am a fan of having both power and capacity. My main 'zombie gun' is an HK USP45 Tactical. I have several 9mms and could use them for HD but the 'Tactical is already a bit large to CCW so I mounted a Surefire X300 Ultra to it. Power and capacity.

Having said that I don't see you wouldn't choose a long gun if you could. Size and portability isn't an issue, so go with something that has more legit stopping power. I have an 870 Remington but I haven't had a chance to wring it out yet; once I do it will probably take over as the primary.

I think some type of M4-gery would probably be the best HD gun that a civilian could own (provided you live in a house, not an apt/mobile home). I don't own one but it's on my list.

There's an old adage that says when BGs are shot with handguns they run away; when they're shot with long guns they're DRT.
 
my suggestion - fire some guns at the range. different guns and different calibers. choose the gun you feel most comfortable with ... the one where you are relaxed, it feels good in your hand, and you are hitting the target the most.

shot placement is everything.
go with the flow.

CA R
 
No need to settle or compromise.

FNP-45....14+1 rounds of 45acp in a great gun.
 
Just to use Glock as an example, would you take a Glock 17 (9mm) with 17 round capacity or a Glock 21 (45ACP) with a 13 round capacity?
I've got both these guns, and I keep the 21 loaded in my night stand as my HD handgun. I honestly would not feel undergunned with the 17 and from my reading and research there is probably minimal difference between the two calibers when loaded with modern, premium JHP ammo. I just happen to shoot the 21 better than the 17. ;)
 
For the nightstand gun, an EAA/Tanfoglio Witness Elite Match with a Hennings 24+1 magazine full of 9x23 Win.

Pardon me for pointing out that makes my choice Full of Win.

It's a bit bulky to carry, alas.
 
While I'm a huge fan of .45ACP, my wife is not, since there's a chance she'll be the one that has to use our HD pistol I set it up for the "worst case scenario".

DSC00741_zps4a2a79d5.jpg

M&P-9 5" Pro with Surefire X400. I believe that using modern ammo the difference in the normal SD calibers isn't that great a factor. For HD since concealment is not a consideration for me, I go the increased capacity route.

Chuck
 
I didn't bother reading all of the replies, but I would recommend a 9mm for the following reasons:

1. Higher capacity
2. Generally higher resale value
3. Ability for other family members to shoot more comfortably
4. Cheaper practice and more plentiful ammo since it's a NATO caliber
5. It's been used successfully for almost 114 years so it must be doing something right.
6. Ability to shoot more easily with your weak hand if your strong hand is ever injured
7. With +P defense ammo it's not the huger power gap that it used to be.
8. Most pistols aren't death rays. Unless you hit a vital area they're not going down instantly. I would rather have more chances to hit a vital area with the higher capacity of a 9mm. Even a .22 to the head or heart and it's game over. You don't need a Desert Eagle to take a bad guy down.

With all of that being said, my home defense gun is a shotgun. After reading several articles by medical examiners, shotguns(with buckshot or slugs) are the absolute best close quarters gun to use. Generally, shotguns>rifles>pistols. Good luck with whatever you choose.
 
Last edited:
The most important factor in handgun wounding effectiveness is shot placement. There are two components to shot placement - first you need to place the round on target and second, it needs to penetrate muscle, bone and flesh well enough to reach the vitals without deflection.

So basically, you want the cheapest ammo (because the more you practice, the better you'll be) that you can shoot well and that meets the penetration criteria. If all else is equa after these criterial, then I'd start going for higher capacity.
So, I take it your home defense caliber is the .22 rimfire?

It fulfills all of your requirements. If your placement is "proper," it won't deflect.
 
So, I take it your home defense caliber is the .22 rimfire?

It fulfills all of your requirements. If your placement is "proper," it won't deflect.
Not to start crap but actually you're wrong. There have been countless times that bullets were on course for vitals and were deflected by the skull, sternum, ribs, etc. That is the one disadvantage of smaller calibers, but I'm willing to take that risk with my accuracy and more capacity. I only use a pistol to get to a rifle or shotgun.
 
David E said:
So, I take it your home defense caliber is the .22 rimfire?

It fulfills all of your requirements. If your placement is "proper," it won't deflect.

Were you asking a genuine question or trying to make some kind of point? .22LR doesn't meet my criteria for penetration because I rely on the same criteria the FBI uses and only a few .22LR loads meet even the minimum requirements in bare gel.

As a result of this low penetration, the number of spots where I can place a .22LR where it will penetrate deep enough to hit the vitals reliably is relatively low; and even with tens of thousands of rounds of centerfire pistol ammo downrange, I can't shoot well enough to reliably hit those small spots (eyeball for example) from any angle at the range, let alone in a life-or-death situation - and that's before we consider cover and intermediate barriers. So no, I don't use a .22LR, though I certainly wouldn't be foolish enough to laugh at someone shooting at me with one.
 
I keep my XD 9mm loaded with hollow points next to the bed. I'm hoping the HP expansion will keep them from penetrating too far into the walls, or the next apartment.
 
Why not Glock 17 with 33rd magazine on bedside? No matter how I want to argue for hotter calibers it just cant beat 33 rounds of quality 9mm bullets out of a very reliable gun.

Rest is just gimmicks.
 
6 rounds of 44mag or 357mag , if you ever get a chance, shoot one in a small room with low light , and you will know why ! were ear plugs !!!:D
 
Shootablility-capacity-caliber in that order, with the mainstream handgun calibers (no 22lr). I have found no data that indicates 9mm is not enough to get the job done.
 
A handgun is what you use to fight your way to your rifle. Get an AR carbine in 5.56 NATO with a twenty round magazine with good hollow points. Easy for you or your wife to handle. Keep a magazine handy with steel core in case the bad guys bring body armor.
 
A handgun is what you use to fight your way to your rifle. Get an AR carbine in 5.56 NATO with a twenty round magazine with good hollow points. Easy for you or your wife to handle. Keep a magazine handy with steel core in case the bad guys bring body armor.

I love my AR but under no circumstances should you use steel core ammo for home defence. Besides the fact it will shoot through a cinder block wall, body armor can't even hope to stop any load that is available for 223/555 (including straight lead bullets). Unless intruders in your area are wearing ceramic body armor, there is no need to worry about an AR being effective. I would be more worried about overpenetration hitting people in other rooms or sending bullets over to the neighbor's house.
 
It's your home where you have every conceivable advantage. Gangs of criminals have been operating for hundreds if not thousands of years, is not some new phenomenon.
 
Next to my bed is a S&W Tactical Series .45acp. It holds 7 rounds including one in the chamber. You do not need a lot of ammo if you can hit what you are shooting at, I can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top