.357 for Home Defense?

Not to beat the dead horse, but homes should be 'fortified' enough to give you warning time to:

1. get the gun
2. call the law
3. put on muffs
4. hunker down - (yes, you might have to go save the kids).

If you wake up with Michael Myers looking down at you - 357 won't help. In fact, Mike took two rounds - one in each eyeball and kept coming.
 
Not to beat the dead horse, but homes should be 'fortified' enough to give you warning time to:

1. get the gun
2. call the law
3. put on muffs
4. hunker down - (yes, you might have to go save the kids).

After all that, if you indeed have to shoot someone in self defence, won't all these 'premeditated' actions be used against you just the same as the oft repeated mantra of "Reloads Are Evil For SD/HD"?

I mean, if you can be accused by an enterprising DA of 'wanting' to kill someone because you hand-loaded your own 'Killer Ammunition' that LEO's do not use, then can't the same be said for having enough time to implement your list being the same as 'Laying In Wait'?
 
I doubt it for some of the factors.

1. Having a gun for SD. Since many households have one, it wouldn't be unusual as compared to indicating a mad killer households. If you have been blathering about how you have a gun to shoot someone, YMMV.

2. Call the law - how is that premeditation? YOU are supposedly to call the law.

3. Protecting your hearing - that means you are waiting to shoot someone? Might be stretch but I have them for competition - oh, I compete - that may may me premeditated in some cases. That has been claimed but not in a clear HD case.

4. Hunkering down is an indicating of trying to avoid the fight. Give warnings not to enter, etc. Thus, if they come to you - how is that premeditation? Much better than the folks who rush out of the house to find the BG and chase him down the street.

We do have reasonable simulation and case evidence for handloads and competition being raised in ambiguous shoot cases. A violent home invasion or even a benign drunk (you don't know that) that comes to your hunkered down position when you have called the law, not the same issue.

Lying in wait in the bedroom and they come through that door. Don't think so.
But better have a good lawyer in any case.

From the cases I've seen, the appearance factors, etc. are active in ambiguous shoots. Of course, YOURS will be a good shoot (as always claimed on the Internet). A break-in and they come to you as you are on the phone to the law, warned them to flee, etc. - not so ambiguous.
 
Protecting your hearing - that means you are waiting to shoot someone?

My mouse-faht plinking loads mean I am wanting to kill someone?...Works both ways, I'd say...

A break-in and they come to you as you are on the phone to the law,

Bugger to talk on the phone with ear muffs on...Do you buy a pair for your Wife too?

Being Johnny contrarian here, as I don't see any difference between protecting your hearing or using reloads that may or may not be more powerful than 'Factory' ammo...

If one can theoretically be used against you, the other most certainly can by the 'right' DA...

As has been pointed out to me more than once when I said "I" do not believe that reloads are an issue, I will say the same to you...Because YOU believe that having the 'forethought' to protect your hearing in an SD/HD scenario has no ulterior motives behind it, does not mean that it won't be seen by others to be a sign of you 'planning' to shoot someone...
 
YMMV - if you don't like the reload risk, you are stretching it in some kind of reaction formation or cognitive dissonance.

With electronic muffs, you can talk on the phone. And we do have more than one set.

But I suggest you don't call the cops if someone breaks in or hunker down. Sounds like a good plan to go with the reloads.
 
Posted by Salmoneye: After all that, if you indeed have to shoot someone in self defence, won't all these 'premeditated' actions be used against you just the same as the oft repeated mantra of "Reloads Are Evil For SD/HD"?
One's use of reloads is most, most unlikely to be "used against" one.

The risk of using reloads is almost entirely an evidentiary one that could deny a defender the use of what could turn out to be important evidence, and it becomes a potential risk only under some circumstances. There's a great deal about that here.

The idea that getting one's gun if there is a break-in could be characterized as an indication of premeditation is preposterous; it is not the same as putting on your firearm before going out to discuss a grievance with someone...

...as would characterizing calling the law as premeditation; who would call the law as he or she undertakes the murder of someone?

If you think there is a possibility that you are going to have to fire a gun indoors, putting on muffs would simply be prudent; many trainers recommend it.

Which would be more likely to indicate the possibility of premeditation, walking forth with gun in hand to meet someone in your house, or getting into a defensive postion and shooting only if that someone should come into your saferoom?
 
YMMV - if you don't like the reload risk, you are stretching it in some kind of reaction formation or cognitive dissonance.

With electronic muffs, you can talk on the phone. And we do have more than one set.

But I suggest you don't call the cops if someone breaks in or hunker down. Sounds like a good plan to go with the reloads.

And here we go again with the attitude that surrounds these 'discussions'...

:rolleyes:

I asked a sincere legitimate question; gave my reasoning behind my concerns; voiced my opinion on what I believe to be other people's double standards, and you immediately go on the defensive...

You seem to want to equate your house to everyone else's...

Sadly, if someone is breaking into my house, I will only find out when they do...There will be no 'hunkering down'...There will be no calling anyone in a house this size...

I will have maybe 2 seconds (at most) from door to bed, and they won't be wasted grabbing hearing protection...
 
One's use of reloads is most, most unlikely to be "used against" one.

Then why since I found this forum (and a few others) have I seen the question at least once a month about reloads, and 90% of the responses saying that they should not be carried?...They may indeed be correct that a case could be made by a DA to a Jury that reloads showed an intent or 'want' to do more harm than just protecting one's self...If so, then that makes my first question about the list of 'preparations' culminating with donning hearing protection more valid in my mind...

The idea that getting one's gun if there is a break-in could be characterized as an indication of premeditation is preposterous; it is not the same as putting on your firearm before going out to discuss a grievance with someone...

I never said otherwise...

...as would characterizing calling the law as premeditation; who would call the law as he or she undertakes the murder of someone?

I never said this either...I was taking the proferred list as a whole and playing devil's advocate, because I believe that in the right situation, with the right DA, all of that could be taken as a WHOLE as to be made to LOOK like someone had been 'planning' on having to shoot someone...The hearing protection clinches it for the DA (just a theory)... :D

If you think there is a possibility that you are going to have to fire a gun indoors, putting on muffs would simply be prudent; many trainers recommend it.

If you have that much time, don't many trainers also recommend leaving the building?...What do you think they would suggest in my scenario where no entrance is more than 30 feet from our bed?...Do I have time to make phone calls and fumble with electronic ear muffs before the BG(s) cover that distance?

Which would be more likely to indicate the possibility of premeditation, walking forth with gun in hand to meet someone in your house, or getting into a defensive postion and shooting only if that someone should come into your saferoom?

As I have attempted to point out, there will be no 'hunkering down' and waiting for someone to approach in this house...
 
Posted by Salmoneye: I asked a sincere legitimate question; gave my reasoning behind my concerns;...
You did ask a question: "won't all these 'premeditated' actions be used against you...". Your question has been addressed. I saw no reasoning behind it. perhaps you could explain.

I will have maybe 2 seconds (at most) from door to bed, and they won't be wasted grabbing hearing protection...
With the majority of home invasions occurring during the day, your strategy should encompass more than reacting from your bed.

Dr. Meyer's comment was "but homes should be 'fortified' enough to give you warning time to....". If the door is the only means of ingress, address 'fortification' inherent in the door. If not, do not stop there. There's plenty to study on the subject.
 
Posted by Salmoneye: I asked a sincere legitimate question; gave my reasoning behind my concerns;...
You did ask a question: "won't all these 'premeditated' actions be used against you...". Your question has been addressed. I saw no reasoning behind it. perhaps you could explain.

I did try above...

Quote:
I will have maybe 2 seconds (at most) from door to bed, and they won't be wasted grabbing hearing protection...
With the majority of home invasions occurring during the day, your strategy should encompass more than reacting from your bed.

Dr. Meyer's comment was "but homes should be 'fortified' enough to give you warning time to....". If the door is the only means of ingress, address 'fortification' inherent in the door. If not, do not stop there. There's plenty to study on the subject.

I have steel man doors in hardwood jambs...

The more I read these forums, the more it appears I live in a very peaceful place, as this kind of stuff simply doesn't happen here much...

As for daytime, I am here all day almost every day...Mostly armed, and seldom far from other guns, as we have an issue with skunks and coyotes...

I am really not worried about a home invasion...I just find it interesting the lengths that other people have to go to in order to simply live day to day...

BTW...To get this back on track, I do not feel that .357 is good indoors, thus the .38 S&W (not special) at the head of the bed, and it even has Winchester factory ammo in it...
 
Posted by Salmoneye: [(in response to "one's use of reloads is most, most unlikely to be 'used against' one)] Then why since I found this forum (and a few others) have I seen the question at least once a month about reloads, and 90% of the responses saying that they should not be carried?
One more time, the reason has to do almost entirely with the rules of admissibility of forensic scientific trace evidence, and with the risk that the inadmissibility of certain evidence could, under some circumstances, tip the scales against the defendant in court. That has been explained repeatedly and at length. See the link above.

They may indeed be correct that a case could be made by a DA to a Jury that reloads showed an intent or 'want' to do more harm than just protecting one's self..
In combination with a lot of other evidence pertaining to state of mind, the use of reloads devised to have unusually destructive capability could conceivably be used to the disadvantage of the defendant in a case with a lot of questions. But that is a very, very secondary reason for not using reloads. It's not on my list.

If so, then that makes my first question about the list of 'preparations' culminating with donning hearing protection more valid in my mind...
Therefore it is not very valid at all.

I believe that in the right situation, with the right DA, all of that could be taken as a WHOLE as to be made to LOOK like someone had been 'planning' on having to shoot someone...The hearing protection clinches it for the DA (just a theory)..
Hmmmm.. someone breaks into your house, unlawfully and with force, and you believe that someone will say that you had been planning to shoot that someone because you grabbed you gun, sought help, and took defensive measures?

Should that happen, the state will have some indication that you invited that person, with whom you have some kind of disagreement, to your home at a particular time; told him to force the door; and fired. Then and only then, the ear muffs might come up.

If you have that much time, don't many trainers also recommend leaving the building?
Not in most states.

BTW...To get this back on track, I do not feel that .357 is good indoors, thus the .38 S&W (not special) at the head of the bed, and it even has Winchester factory ammo in it...
Better choice than the .32 Long that we had for years.
 
Salmoneye said:
...They may indeed be correct that a case could be made by a DA to a Jury that reloads showed an intent or 'want' to do more harm than just protecting one's self...If so, then that makes my first question about the list of 'preparations' culminating with donning hearing protection more valid in my mind...
Anything that can be used against you will be. But some things that may have a potential downside also have enough upside to make them worthwhile. As someone who now wears hearing aids, anything that will help protect what's left of my hearing is just such a thing.
 
After giving few rounds and also reading your advices, 1st two rounds of my Taurus 651 are loaded with .38 Golden Saber +P 125grain; if threat is not down, dialogue will go on with 3 rounds of .357 HP Blazer 158 grain. Now a pair of air muffs are next to my bed side JIC :D
And who knows if Glock 19 will join in the future anyway...
My thanks
 
@melcob: After giving few rounds and also reading your advices, 1st two rounds of my Taurus 651 are loaded with .38 Golden Saber +P 125grain; if threat is not down, dialogue will go on with 3 rounds of .357 HP Blazer 158 grain. Now a pair of air muffs are next to my bed side JIC
And who knows if Glock 19 will join in the future anyway...
My thanks

Sounds like you will have a pretty noisy discussion with the bad guy! :D Actually, that is an interesting strategy, and makes sense to me in the likelihood that the attacker is approaching during your shots, and at first while he's across the room a little more control is useful, while once he's right on top of you, aim is less important and you just want him stopped at all costs...
 
Anybody remember the OP?
.357 for Home Defense?
In a S&W 686+ 6", is it too loud or too much recoil to use effectively in a self defense situation? Would the noise and blast make you hesitate more between shots?

I've shot one before and it didnt seem too bad, but I'm sure it's differet when you just woke up in the middle of the night and it's pitch black.

Answer: It is not to loud if it saves you and your family from harm. Yes you will suffer irreparable damage which you may or may not notice right away, it is accumulative so more exposure later just adds to the damage but that is better than dead. With the OP's gun he will barely notice the recoil because he will be busy thinking about boogerman not muzzle jump.

I shoot magnums a lot but I load 158 gr SWC 38 spcl in my .357 for defense duty. At in house distance the boogerman will be hard put to tell the difference. If he is jacked up on drugs he won't even notice a 44 mag with 300 gr bullets until he is dead. I use 38's because I am a bit faster and a bit more accurate using them.

Hits count more than misses with a boomer, and several hits in a short period of time count more than a few hits with a boomer. My ability to hit a deer at 100 yards or a 5 gallon bucket at 200 yards with .357 mag ammo does not translate to fast and furious shooting at close range against somebody who may be shooting back. I know my limits. You should know yours before you make ammo and caliber choices.
 
Anybody remember the OP?

I was wandering the same thing Old Grump, But You answered the OP with good advise.
All the back and forth between some others was becoming rather annoying.
 
Now guys I've knocked off quite a few deer in my time with guns from .223 to .338 Winchester magnum.

Now this includes .300 WM as well as .338 and they are kind of LOUD. Yet I really can't even remember hearing them go off. Now I do remember when firing them on the range they are quite loud, but when hunting my mind was on other things.

I suspect the same would be for the .357 when fired indoors when fighting for your life.

Deaf
 
Powerful yes but the flash is bright and may mess with your vision and the sound will leave a ringing in your ears that will hurt.
 
Noise level, recoil..you decide.

Howdy,

The awesome power of the .357 magnum cartridge is unquestioned. For decades, it defined "stopping power" when it came to LE.
If you can handle the recoil (which can be severe) and the extremely loud CRACK it emits, then most of your concerns are likely solved. The last "issue" with this high velocity round is overpenetration. If this isn't a concern, then you've found your home defense caliber.
 
Back
Top