I was trying to decide today if there is such a thing as too much power in a handgun meant for home defense/self protection. Would a Magnum Research BFR (460 SW, 500 SW, 45-70, 450 Marlin,etc) or a Taurus Raging Bull (44 Mag, 454 Casull, etc) be excessive? Just wanted to toss out the question and see what you all think. Thanks for the opinions.
Self Defense Over Kill?
- Thread starter clancy12
- Start date
- Status
Deus Machina
Member
Only on the shooter's end.
If self defense moves out of "get the bad guy to leave" and into "the BG needs to stop, NOW", whatever is closest, that will get him to stop doing what he's doing the fastest, is the best tool.
(Edit) So, yes, the .460, .500, .45-70, .450 Marlin, even .357 or .44 may be excessive--to the shooter. Only because they're punishing on the eyes, ears, and wrist, and thus make it harder to shoot again.
If self defense moves out of "get the bad guy to leave" and into "the BG needs to stop, NOW", whatever is closest, that will get him to stop doing what he's doing the fastest, is the best tool.
(Edit) So, yes, the .460, .500, .45-70, .450 Marlin, even .357 or .44 may be excessive--to the shooter. Only because they're punishing on the eyes, ears, and wrist, and thus make it harder to shoot again.
General Geoff
Member
Lethal force is lethal force, be it a .22lr or a .50BMG. Secondary factors such as recoil, follow-up shot speed, capacity, muzzle flash, weapon weight, and size/maneuverability should determine your caliber, not just raw power.
If i had other options I don't think I'd want to be explaining why I used a 500mag for self defense. An "excessive force" charge is definitely in someone's future.
All the guns mentioned are very large, making them tough to carry. They produce horrendous noise and flash and I am not sure they are any more effective than a lot of other things. Larry Flynt took two rounds of .44mag and is still on this earth.
All the guns mentioned are very large, making them tough to carry. They produce horrendous noise and flash and I am not sure they are any more effective than a lot of other things. Larry Flynt took two rounds of .44mag and is still on this earth.
highlander 5
Member
I'm a firm believer in overkill but the above for the most part are rifle calbers and a bit much for home defense. Why not a 45 Colt or 45 auto?
Deanimator
Member
Assuming that you do your part, "overkill" (whatever it is) usually involves you being alive tomorrow.
Sometimes "underkill" involves you NOT being alive tomorrow.
Choose the one you prefer.
Sometimes "underkill" involves you NOT being alive tomorrow.
Choose the one you prefer.
Once you have good ammo in a major caliber, going any further probably doesn't make any significant difference. There's always going to be that 5-10% of the BG population that can't be stopped by one or two hits from any handgun.
I've never heard of a really big handgun such as the ones you mentioned being used in SD, so it's impossible to say for sure. In theory, the bigger the better. In practice, I doubt it.
If I wanted something more powerful than a .45 loaded with DPX, I'd use my SKS or AR-15 or a 12 ga shotgun. But you have to remember that some guys have kept right on with their attack after being hit in the right place with the big stuff.
I've never heard of a really big handgun such as the ones you mentioned being used in SD, so it's impossible to say for sure. In theory, the bigger the better. In practice, I doubt it.
If I wanted something more powerful than a .45 loaded with DPX, I'd use my SKS or AR-15 or a 12 ga shotgun. But you have to remember that some guys have kept right on with their attack after being hit in the right place with the big stuff.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Usually, generally, most of the time, etc a good shoot is a good shoot.
But, if the prosecutor has any reason to doubt that he may bring up anything he can to cast doubt on the shooters intentions.
Google Harold Fish for an example with his 10mm defense shooting. Eventually reversed but a horrible long saga.
Most of the legal expert types recommend using a caliber in common use by law enforcement to avoid that argument.
Rare, but it's something to think about.
But, if the prosecutor has any reason to doubt that he may bring up anything he can to cast doubt on the shooters intentions.
Google Harold Fish for an example with his 10mm defense shooting. Eventually reversed but a horrible long saga.
Most of the legal expert types recommend using a caliber in common use by law enforcement to avoid that argument.
Rare, but it's something to think about.
In Michigan, we have legislated Castle Doctrine. If the police register the firearm as a handgun (which is all we can carry lawfully for self-defense) then it can be carried for self-defense.
That said, there are more important factors than caliber. Accuracy above all else, and sufficient penetration to disrupt normal function, thus stopping the attack. For my part, given how well I fire 9mm and .45 ACP, I see no reason to go with anything else. But that's me, in the state of Michigan. Your opinion and the laws in your state may vary.
Geno
That said, there are more important factors than caliber. Accuracy above all else, and sufficient penetration to disrupt normal function, thus stopping the attack. For my part, given how well I fire 9mm and .45 ACP, I see no reason to go with anything else. But that's me, in the state of Michigan. Your opinion and the laws in your state may vary.
Geno
macadore
Member
There are some downsides to heavy calibers in home defense. The recoil will mean that follow up shots will be much slower. The muzzle flash and noise indoors will make follow up shots slower still. Of course, if you don't miss and there is only one person, that may not matter.
BeerSleeper
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 688
"Excessive force" is typically in reference to force used by LEO's in situations where lethal force is not justified.bubba613 said:
I don't think there's such a thing as "excessive force" in personal self defense with a handgun. Lethal force is either justified, or not, and if you use a firearm for SD, I think it's considered lethal force whether it's .22LR or 50BMG, although if you got a super-monster-mega-caliber like that, you put your self at risk of an overzealous prosecutor attempting to portray you as a nut with a bloodlust.
I think any of those is a lousy 'starter' handgun. If you're already proficient and can afford to practice with such a beast, why not?
Most of those calibers you listed are not sold as 'self defense' calibers, rather hunting calibers.
Most of those calibers you listed are not sold as 'self defense' calibers, rather hunting calibers.
Hypnogator
Member
Legally, no. Deadly force is deadly force.
Tactically, yes. Excessive muzzle-flip will reduce your ability to get off fast follow-up shots. Even if your 45-70 BFR puts down the goblin immediately, you don't want to absorb 2 or 3 9mms from the second goblin while you're recovering from recoil.
jiminhobesound
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 261
Overkill with big handguns
Reminds me when i had a super blackhawk .44 mag and a security six .357. I bought them for deer hunting in pennsylvania when we had freezing rain. I could never recover for a second shot, in time, on a running deer with the .44. The security six was much easier to recover after the first shot. I go with the police caliber semiautomatic pistols. Much easier to handle and point, a lot more bullets and easier to shoot.
Reminds me when i had a super blackhawk .44 mag and a security six .357. I bought them for deer hunting in pennsylvania when we had freezing rain. I could never recover for a second shot, in time, on a running deer with the .44. The security six was much easier to recover after the first shot. I go with the police caliber semiautomatic pistols. Much easier to handle and point, a lot more bullets and easier to shoot.
memphisjim
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,265
My major concern would be over penetration and hitting a second target
Larry E
Member
Sort of like hunting deer with a .375 H&H, kills 'em dead on both ends if the rifle is light enough to pack around. To me overkill would be using any caliber issued to the police or military, and shooting the shootee more times than is needed to put him/her out of the fight. That usually isn't known until it's all over though.
Thankfully there are castle doctrine laws to protect self defense shooters in some states from overzealous persecutors (yes I know how to spell!).
Thankfully there are castle doctrine laws to protect self defense shooters in some states from overzealous persecutors (yes I know how to spell!).
BADUNAME37
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,434
I suppose if the shot has to go lengthwise through the bad guy and that is the only choice you have and it has to go into the rear and out the head, no, there is no such thing as overkill.
mgregg85
Member
The shooter is really the defining factor in this. If you can handle the recoil and afford all the ammo to practice with then go for it.
Everybody recommends shotguns for home defense. We now have handguns that really closely resemble shotguns, with slug loads. Why not use them?
If I have a choice, I'm bringing a Mosin Nagant M44 to the party...short of that,
.500JRH is just fine.
If I have a choice, I'm bringing a Mosin Nagant M44 to the party...short of that,
.500JRH is just fine.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
Rule #37
"There is no "Overkill", just Open Fire and Reload...
"There is no "Overkill", just Open Fire and Reload...
MilitisDeii
Member
I would say that you can use everything for
self defense that fires a bullet with sufficient
energy.
Of course you could use .500 S&W Revolver or
a 50 BMG rifle for self defense.
But I would much prefer a 9mm, .357 or .45 over
a .500 S&W simply because they are much cheaper,
have a lot less recoil and a lot less muzzle flash.
Of course recoil, destruction and muzzle flash are
fun, if you are just plinking but if you just want
to defend yourself, there is no desire for them.
self defense that fires a bullet with sufficient
energy.
Of course you could use .500 S&W Revolver or
a 50 BMG rifle for self defense.
But I would much prefer a 9mm, .357 or .45 over
a .500 S&W simply because they are much cheaper,
have a lot less recoil and a lot less muzzle flash.
Of course recoil, destruction and muzzle flash are
fun, if you are just plinking but if you just want
to defend yourself, there is no desire for them.
NMGonzo
Member
"You honor, my .44 magnum revolver was loaded with rather wimpy 240 grain hollowpoints that merely reach 1100 feet per second out my particular gun. The potential ballistic performance can double the energy, but since I want an attacker merely stop I chose half of the potential energy with my choice of ammo and handgun"
Since you could miss and may need to shoot more than one assailant, you need to be able to make quick, accurate followup shots. Since most people cannot do this with very powerful calibers in handguns, they have to use handguns chambered in weaker calibers, or rifles or shotguns (and some calibers/loads are still too powerful for long guns, with regard to personal defense).
On the other hand, if you can shoot .500 S&W Magnum both quickly and accurately (and can afford to train with it properly), then go for it.
On the other hand, if you can shoot .500 S&W Magnum both quickly and accurately (and can afford to train with it properly), then go for it.
mes227
Member
In the process of defending yourself you absolutely do not have the right to endanger anyone other than the assailant. A 500 Magnum, for example, poses a lethal threat to neighbors and people on the street and should you kill one you'll do serious jail time as well as suffer civil consequences. The issue is both over penetration and missing your target.
Thus that class of handguns are a bad choice as your primary home defense weapon. I'd certainly grab mine if that's all I had at hand, but it's a much wiser (and less legally risky) choice to pick something designed for SD.
Thus that class of handguns are a bad choice as your primary home defense weapon. I'd certainly grab mine if that's all I had at hand, but it's a much wiser (and less legally risky) choice to pick something designed for SD.
Cosmoline
Member
There is no such crime. If you've shot a person, you have by definition used deadly force. There is no such thing as "extra deadly" force. Conversely, claiming you "only shot him with bird shot" or "only used a .25" will fall on deaf ears.
There are tactical considerations when you're looking at the platform. You should use a long gun when you can, and it should be one you know very well and can use effectively in an array of conditions with all the stances. But in general, if you are about to be killed, you should use the most potent weapon you can to keep from being killed. Life or death is as serious as it gets.
- Status
