Home Defense Gun for Inexperienced Folks

Status
Not open for further replies.
A light on a home defense pistol means that your opponent not only knows where you are, you have given him a lighted target to aim at. A light on the pistol also means that you must sweep the light and pistol at an unidentified target in your home, in the dark, and in the middle of the night. I am not about to point a pistol at an unknown human in my home. It could be anyone.

A better solution to the light problem is to have motion sensor activated lights near the entry to your bedroom or safe room, but not in them. Best to backlight the "intruder".
 
For inexperienced people if say some type of .357 mag revolver all the way. Probably a 686 or some type of smith. You can use the mini cannon .357 round or a .38 special. Easy to shoot and operate
 
For home defense I would forget about the long guns.
Long guns tend to stay in the closet, or in the safe, or under the bed, or in the gun cabinet, or above the fireplace mantle, etc...they never seem to be close at hand when you really need them.
The handgun is the gun you're going to have on your side no matter where you are.

As for the choice: there's absolutely nothing wrong with a 4" .357 magnum revolver, or even a 4" .38 Special revolver, as a home defense handgun.
 
You can get married, have a kid, drink alcohol, and buy a gun (in most places) with no training. A responsible person on all of these things will seek education
Click to expand...

LOL, "Seek Education", LOL, I'm sorry I must be living on some different planet.

Everyone I know that owns a firearm, drinks, had kids and got married has been self-educated or had some instruction from a grandfather or parent. (Not that the kids will listen)

Don't take this wrong, but you all sound like the anti-gun crowd that thinks in-order to own a gun you need 8 hours of training, have your finger prints & photo runned by the FBI and give a pint of blood to the Red Cross.

The best you can do is be his friend, give him information about the types of guns that are out there, what you think works best and take him to a local gun store TO LET HIM MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND. (you are there to answer questions he may have, not to chose what to get)

Helping him out with HIS choice is not what others here think everyone should own.

Best advice, be a good friend.
Jim
 
After I graduated from an air rifle, the first real firearms I shot were a 22 rifle and a 20 gage shotgun. I was 11 years I believe, and was skinny as a pole. With the simple instructions of my father and uncles, I managed the recoil fine. I would say there are few adults who can not handle the recoil of a shotgun with an appropriate LOP stock and a good recoil pad. The biggest problem is too long of a LOP for short people.

I will grant you that, given no training or practice whatsoever, a SW model 10 is the most intuitive weapon to pick up and use. A complete novice will probably grip the revolver in a reasonable fashion, locate the trigger, and realize that pulling the trigger will fire the gun. They will not use the sights, but they will point it at the target. The recoil of the 38 is not so severe that they will drop the gun or be incapable of a second shot.

In short, the 38 revolver is a good choice as a home defense weapon for a novice shooter.

However, with some minimal practice, a shotgun is much much easier to be effective with. I introduced a novice couple to their shotgun some years ago, and these people had no firearm experience. It was a Rem 870 with an 18 inch slug barrel (no choke). I started them shooting low brass 7-1/2 trap loads at 2 liter soda bottles filled with water at a distance of 12 feet. Then we used a portable clay bird machine. After they were breaking 5 out of 10 clay birds, their confidence was pretty high. I did not have any buckshot loads, but we did shoot some magnum goose loads and some deer slugs... I told them the buckshot loads (to be bought later that week) would be more recoil than the trap loads, but probably not as hard as the slugs and magnum loads. After a couple of hours they (and I) were confident that they could use the shotgun effectively to defend themselves in their home.

With many years of shooting experience, I doubt I could hit a clay bird with a handgun.. and yet a complete novice can do it with a shotgun. That tells me exactly how effective a shotgun is.

Jim
 
[QOUTE]SD + inexperienced = none.[/QUOTE]

My sentiments exactly. Firearms ownership is serious business. If a person is not willing to get the training and experience necessary to responsibly handle a firearm, any firearm, that person is better off without one. If your friend is serious about this he needs to sign up for an NRA approved safety course or maybe even a CCW course. The instructor will go over the various types of guns, take him to the range and show him how to shoot. Then he can go to the range on his own or better yet, with you, rent some different guns and try them out until he finds one he's comfortable with. Having purchased the firearm of his choice he needs to practice with it until he feels like completely comfortable with it and then practice some more. This old idea of telling inexperienced shooters to get a revolver because they're easier to shoot is a total myth. If it was ever true it isn't true anymore. A good quality and well maintained semi-auto is every bit as reliable and easy to shoot as a revolver and has certain advantages, not the least of which is ammo capacity. Nothing wrong with a 686 if that's what he decides he likes after trying a variety of different weapons. Personally, I'd rather have a Glock but that's just me.
 
I usually put a stop to the meaningless conversations by asking 'could you under appropriate conditions , kill someone ' ! If they can't quickly say " yes " ,then I say don't ever get a gun.
There was a very interesting 911 call - A mother bought a handgun to protect herself and young daughter in case BG broke into the apartment. Well it did happen .The mother became completely hysterical. That was obvious to the 911 operator who told the woman not to touch the gun! Fortunately cops arrived in time. The woman was not able to deal with the emergancy and should never have gotten the gun.
 
Meaningless Conversation continued

I am going to have to keep going with the meaningless conversation because my wife is out of town, so I need to argue with someone even if I am completely wrong. The benefit of this media is I can't chase you around the house to keep it going. I don't know why arguing is so entertaining to me. Sorry about that.

http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/homedefense.html This seems like a good article.

http://www.armoryblog.com/firearms/handgun-vs-shotgun-for-home-defense/
This one is for the handgun folks.
https://www.usacarry.com/when-to-use-a-handgun-vs-a-shotgun-for-home-defense/

I guess I will have to compromise and say that shotguns have flaws, too. I thankfully live in an area where I don't worry much about home defense. It just goes against everything I have ever been taught to have a loaded gun out and not locked up. The most sensible opinions seem to have been said already. Home defense doesn't have to be just one type of firearm, and it should be the individuals choice and what is best for them.

In my personal situation it is much more likely that my kid or his friends will find the self-defense gun and have an accident and/or Yellowstone blowing up and covering me in 20 feet of ash than it is for a group of armed intruders in body armor (maybe heavy set guys in leather jackets) breaking into my double wide trailer. If they want my microwave that badly, they can have it. I don't cook meth, or even sell weed, so if they spend a half an hour casing my place they will find a much better one around the corner. A shotgun would still be the best in my case, because every once in a while it will put a goose or a grouse in the pot and in the odd chance that someone does want to come to my house and start trouble I do have something. Handguns really only have one purpose -killing people. I would have a hard time shooting at anyone unless it was absolutely the last resort and my family was in danger. I do have an alarm system, locks on my doors and windows, and yappy/wound up puppies to contend with before it gets to the worst case senario. By that time I will have hopefully either gotten everybody the flock out of there or in the safe room with the shotgun like the last article. I have no business clearing a house or confronting anyone.
 
specs said:
A light on a home defense pistol means that your opponent not only knows where you are, you have given him a lighted target to aim at. A light on the pistol also means that you must sweep the light and pistol at an unidentified target in your home, in the dark, and in the middle of the night. I am not about to point a pistol at an unknown human in my home. It could be anyone.



A better solution to the light problem is to have motion sensor activated lights near the entry to your bedroom or safe room, but not in them. Best to backlight the "intruder".
Click to expand...


Not true. If you're untrained, true.

Same goes for a handheld light and flicking a switch.
 
MarkCO said:
Thanks for keeping me from having to say that Constantine. :D
Click to expand...


Lol no worries. There's always a scenario to oppose someone else's opinion. It can go back and forth for days before it's shut down.

When you know when and how to use a weapon mounted light, it's the best thing for a home defense weapon. Keeping one hand free at all times. You know what, I'm going to post a pic of one of my HD guns in a few minutes.
 
3u6yhane.jpg
 
If a person is not willing to get the training and experience necessary to responsibly handle a firearm, any firearm, that person is better off without one.
Click to expand...
I totally disagree.

Firearms are not complicated.
They are very simple devices.
And "untrained" persons have been using them successfully for decades.

No sane person, with at least Junior High School intelligence, is actually better off without a firearm.

This is just stupid crap the anti-gun establishment pushes.
 
peacefulgary said:
I totally disagree.



Firearms are not complicated.

They are very simple devices.

And "untrained" persons have been using them successfully for decades.



No sane person, with at least Junior High School intelligence, is actually better off without a firearm.



This is just stupid crap the anti-gun establishment pushes.
Click to expand...


I missed that. Thank you for commenting on it PG. Took the words from my thoughts verbatim. I dislike the notion that people are defenseless unless they get training.
Do you think criminals get training? All the good guys have to do is stay situationally aware, because the bad guys always pick the time and place of the crime they wish to commit.

Is training better? Sure.

Does that mean if you have none you shouldn't arm yourself? 110% false and really bad to say.
 
"I totally disagree.

Firearms are not complicated.
They are very simple devices.
And "untrained" persons have been using them successfully for decades.

No sane person, with at least Junior High School intelligence, is actually better off without a firearm.

This is just stupid crap the anti-gun establishment pushes."

You're missing the point. The OP, if I read it correctly, assumes a guy with no experience who wants to buy a simple to use gun and put it away for a HD weapon. I think that's dangerous and, no, I am not part of the anti-gun establishment. I've been handling firearms since I was old enough to hold one. Started with a Daisy BB gun and worked my way up from there. I got my first firearms training from my Dad, who made sure I knew what I was doing before he ever turned me loose with a real gun. When I was 18 I got some more training from my Uncle Sam. Same thing. Uncle Sam made me go to the range and prove I could safely handle a gun before he let me carry one with live ammo in it. When I got my CHL I had to get more training and qualify on the range, even though I was an experienced and well trained shooter at the time. I didn't mind a bit. Police departments make their officers train and qualify before they put them out on the street with loaded firearms for a reason. And if a department changes duty weapons they make all their officers train and qualify with the new weapon to make sure the officers are familiar with the weapon before they carry it on duty. That's just common sense. Myself, whenever I buy a new gun I take it to the range and familiarize myself with it and make sure I can shoot it well before I start carrying it. Again, common sense.

The idea that you're going to counsel someone to go buy a 357 revolver and use it for HD without any firearms training is stupid IMO. This particular person has family members in the house. It would probably be a good idea for him to make sure he's proficient with that weapon and well versed in the laws of firearms safety before the SHTF and he starts blasting 357 rounds through the walls of his house.

Just my opinion but it is an informed opinion. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
There are valid points on both sides of this argument. In Maryland, unfortunately, the requirement to demonstrate proficiency with a handgun has been legislated and is the argument that the antis used to pile on a whole bunch of other senseless restrictions. The cost of this new Handgun Qualification License is between $105 and $105 plus the cost of a course if you don't already own a handgun. However, you can still purchase a shotgun without the added cost, burden, and nonsense of getting the HQL.

The whole "get training" argument has merit and is well-advised, but I cringe at how it's been used to sell our new gun control laws to the naive public.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top