Which of these three would you choose?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MikeJ

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
801
Location
Phoenix
Which of these handguns would you use for home defense? Please don't respond if you want to say a shotgun, my Kimber etc. I am only interested in opinions and reasons regarding these choices.

1. Stainless 5 1/2" Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum loaded with 200 grain Gold Dot .44 specials.

2. Glock 23 loaded with 40 S&W 165 grain Remington Golden Sabers or other equivalent round.

3. S&W 2 1/2" 66 .357 magnum loaded with 125 grain Speer Gold Dot .38+P's or other round.

The reason I am asking this is because I normally use my 2 1/2" 66 For HD duty but this past weekend my wife and I had a yard sale where we had to leave some relatively valuable items out on the driveway for a couple of nights. I did set up some trip wires to alarm us should anyone come in the middle of the night to try and steal something. I opted to load up my Redhawk for the express purpose of its intimidation factor should I need to confront anyone. I felt that by just showing the Redhawk through the kitchen window would certainly scare any would be thief away. As it was, no one came by and everything went fine but it did get me thinking that if I were going to use the Redhawk for this situation maybe I should start using it consistently. I tossed the Glock 23 in there as I have used it in the past for home defense and consider it to be a contender.
 
how thick are your walls, and how valuable are the things on the other side?

how much do you like your neighbors, and how thick are *their* walls?
 
Under the situation you describe, none of the above.

Perhaps I am mistaken, and I don't know AZ law, but TX is the only state of which I am aware that allows the use of deadly force to protect property. Even then, the TX law only allows it after dark.

IMHO, brandishing, threatening or implying deadly force when deadly force is not warranted can really backfire on you.

Learn from my experience. :(
 
Well you could have been in big trouble ...

Arizona law will allow you to use deadly force to protect your life, or the life of someone else, or to prevent serious bodily harm. But if you had shot someone in your yard stealing property you’d probably be in jail right now.

Also, if you do have the misfortune to plug somebody proving justification will be up to you. Not a good position to be in. I don’t know what your stuff is worth, but I’ll bet it wasn’t enough to pay for three hours of lawyer time.

While you didn’t specifically say I get the impression that neighbors don’t live too far away. If you did get a justifiable shot at a bad guy (which given the circumstances seems unlikely) a .44 Magnum is not the best weapon of choice, even with high-end .44 Specials. If you missed and hit a neighbor’s house (or the neighbor) you’d be in deep do-do. The .357 using .38 +P ammunition might have been a better choice so far as the cartridge is concerned, but with a 2 ½†barrel it’s probably the least accurate. Between the three I would take the Glock, but I sure wouldn’t shoot anyone in the back yard unless they started first and I could prove it.
 
I would be far more concerned with the competence of the attorney who would have to get me out of jail and defend me following such actions than the particular gun I waved around defending "stuff" out in my yard.

Not to mention his fees.

This isn't a gun issue. It's a common sense issue.
 
Well, I sure don't see any harm in what you did by planning to flash the Redhawk.

If you caught someone prowling around in your driveway after dark, what the hell kind of intentions did he have? Maybe not murder, but nothing good. The flash of a Redhawk would let him know that you are not messing around.

Imagine how that would sound in court:

"He flashed a huge gun at me."
"What were you doing in his driveway after dark?"
"Ummmm... er... Browsing!"
":rolleyes: "
"Did he fire at you?"
"Ummm no."
"Dismissed. Stay off of peoples' property from now on."

IMO, if someone is on your property, you have a right to brandish on them. If they come after you, you are justified in opening fire. If they run, so much the better.

That said, if you do have to fire the Redhawk, you should have Specials loaded unless there is a good distance between you and your nearest neighbor.
 
TX is the only state of which I am aware that allows the use of deadly force to protect property. Even then, the TX law only allows it after dark.
You've mixed two laws.

TX allows the use of deadly force to protect property when the property owner reasonably believes that there is no other way to prevent property loss. There is no requirement that the property loss take place at night.

TX also allows the use of deadly force to prevent criminal mischief--but only at night.

Regardless, shooting someone over property is probably very ill advised.

The fact that you have saved your TV and haven't been criminally charged will be a small consolation if you end up bankrupted by a civil suit.
 
Hey guys, this question isn't about using deadly force to protect my property and maybe I didn't word it properly. The question is; I chose a larger more intimidating gun when I thought I might possibly need one, which of these three do you feel is the best choice for a HD weapon. I'm certainly not stupid enough to go running outside and shoot someone because they are trying to steal some material object. I just found it interesting that when I thought I actually might need to confront someone, the 2 1/2" 66 didn't seem like enough gun.
 
if you decided 2.5" isn't enough, are you sure we can't convince you that something with, say, 26" overall length is the best idea?

of the guns you've listed, i think the .40 is least likely to go through a wall, which is what worries me in this situation. dead badguy on one side of the wall, dead baby on the other... etc.
 
For capacity, ease of reload, and less chance for overpenetration, I'd go with the Glock 23. Plus, that's what I have and I've been very, very happy with it. Finally, the Glock is a comfortable size to handle in a stress situation. Not small, like the S&W, or large, like the Ruger. Though I suppose that depends on your hands. Anyway, that's my vote.

P.S. You can put a light on a Glock, if that suit your fancy...
 
Way too many issues to comment on here... Of the three guns listed, I'd take the G23 for home defense or for carry. Might consider the Smith for a home gun if the barrel was a bit longer but it would be loaded with 357s, not 38s. Flashing the Ruger to intimidate is the definition of brandishing... It would be doubtful that a would-be bad guy would go to the police, but I'd only display the gun long enough to get a couple shots of if needed which brings me to the next point... Some SHTF/martial law/rioting situation aside, I'm not likely to shoot anyone over property that I left in my yard... Esp things I was going to sell anyway! I'd just take the time deciding which gun to flash and put it towards putting the property inside my house or garage.

And I even lived in Texas for over 10 years. :p
 
ALL of them, loaded appropriately of course. There is no reason not to use all of them. Pick the one you shoot best for primary, the next for second etc.
 
The 2.5 inch M66 with ...38 special +P is probably one of the top Home Defense choices around. You can leave it loaded indefinately and it lis still ready to fire whenever you pick it up. It's what I keep ready.....and I live in Texas.
 
I won't get into the whole legality of shooting somebody to protect property - let alone the ethics of using deadly force to protect a TV.

But to answer your question, of the 3, I'd use the Glock 23 - and if it is one that has a rail, I'd get a light for it.

Next choice would be the snubby 66.

This from somebody who doesn't own a Glock but plenty of S&Ws. this is so mainly because I am a believer of lights on HD guns.
 
I would suggest the M66 but consider the new 135 grain .38 +p rounds from Speer.

In case you care, my home defense weapon is a S&W M15 with the rounds mentioned above.
 
I'd choose the M66 just because mine is the most accurate gun I own - it's a 4" and was a police turn-in. If yours is anything like mine I'd use it.
 
Of the three choices you gave- the Glock 23.

The Redhawk and 66, while darn nice guns, still have some disadvantages. The Redhawk especially. I'm not saying this because I'm anti-revolver- I have a 5-1/2" Redhawk, and really like the S&W 19 and 66 for defense. I have a 4" barreled model 19 S&W with a really slick double action just for that purpose. But I think there are better choices.
The Glock 23 is one.

The revolvers are slower to recover from recoil between shots- If you have to shoot, and miss with the Redhawk, you have a lag while it comes back in control to shoot again.
They make a nice big fireball to tell everybody where you are.
They have more blast, so you can't hear for a while afterwards.
With the Redhawk, you have the "issue" of overpenetration risk.

I might think about using Winchester Silvertips (210 grain?) in the Redhawk if you go that way. I think it is designed for less penetration, flash, and recoil.
 
I'd go for the Glock. The grip is comfortable, it points well and has adequate power and magazine capacity.
 
The Glock. It seems to me that a semi-auto is always better for close range personal defense. If you're worried about overpenetration, there are probably very light jhp loads available. YMMV.:)
 
The Glock 23 for sure. Light to carry around, carries more rounds and the .40 is a good enough defensive round.

Next would be the 66. The Ruger .44 IMO is too powerful to use as a home defense weapon. Maybe even the .357 also, but....


Glock 23. Thats my answer. Im sticking to it. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top