Handgun a "BAD" idea for home defense???

[Bob P]

Thanks for the lecture though.

Dude, for one of your first posts on this forum, you ask advice, people give it and you begin to disagree with the advice you're given. You then make some comments about various guns that suggest you're not all that familiar with them. People again respond with good advice and you get upset you're being 'lectured' on going to the range.


We don't know you and therefore don't know how experienced you are with guns. There are plenty of people out there who think buying a gun is enough and never, ever practice with it. Forgive us if our suggestions appear too basic - we're only responding in kind to the questions asked.

 

[BOBKATT]

Pistol grip is another story... as I have never fired one. But had planned on purchasing one due to the size/manuverability. I am well aware that shotguns need to be aimed... again, my exageration seems to have upset some.

The good thing is that you can buy an 870 or a 500 with a short barrel and a stock on it, go to the range, and shoot it from the hip and then if you still think that is acceptable accuracy for a home defense situation you can buy a pistol grip and put it on. Let me know how you make out. Oh, and you can thank me for suggesting to buy the one with the stock on it later.

 

[M1911]

1. The two handguns I've focused my interest in are (a.) S&W M&P .40 and (b.) Ruger P345. My interest in the guns are there "safety" features, I guess unlike most I WANT a gun that has a Mag disconnect safety and a ability to disable the gun with a key. Why are the such "hated" features??

Because they are both completely pointless and can cause their own problems.

The magazine safety disconnect is completely pointless and just a pain in the backside. The only way to ensure that a gun is "safe" is to completely unload it. In a semi-auto, that involves removing the magazine and locking the slide open. Just removing the magazine is not enough and is a dangerous practice even if you have a magazine safety. Furthermore, one of the most prevalent ways that a semi-auto can fail to fire is if you don't have the magazine seated all the way. In a semi-auto without a magazine safety: the first shot fires, the recoil pushes the magazine lower in the mag well, the second round is never stripped off the top of the magazine, so it doesn't feed into the chamber. If you have a magazine safety, the first round won't ever fire. Without a magazine safety, at least the first round fires.

As for an internal lock, that is not only pointless, but it is frankly dangerous. If you are storing your gun with a trigger lock or inside a safe or lock box, you know when you take the gun out of the safe and load it that the gun is ready to go. With an internal lock, you simply don't know. Is it ready to go or is it locked? You can't tell by looking at it. You might take it out of the safe and forget to unlock it -- when you try to pull the trigger nothing happens. You have a poorly shaped club. Hope your hand-to-hand skills are good.

Finally, some internal locks, like the S&W lock on their revolvers, have a history of turning on by themselves under recoil. Just when you need it the most, the gun locks itself and won't fire.

Internal locks are add components, complexity, and failure modes, while not giving you any added safety. Get yourself a lockbox or safe, and a gun without an internal lock.

2. I have read some posts that have mentioned that a handgun is a BAD home defense gun as the round is likely to penetrate "paper thin walls" and that a 12 ga shot gun would be a "safer gun" for the family being defended? (i.e. not penetrating walls ect... )

Any round that will penetrate a person will penetrate a wall. That is true of handguns, shotguns, and rifles.

 

[Starvin]

didn't read all of the banter, but I plan to get an 870 shorty with or without a pistol grip mounted in the bedroom closet above the doorframe using this lock setup:

http://www.santacruzgunlocks.com/setups/select/home.html

 

[RKG]

didn't read all of the banter, but I plan to get an 870 shorty with or without a pistol grip mounted in the bedroom closet above the doorframe using this lock setup:

http://www.santacruzgunlocks.com/setups/select/home.html

I would take a B&E man about 15 seconds to remove that lock.

Putting aside the efficacy of so-called security screws, the diagram shows what looks like a #10 or #12 wood screw about 1-1/4" long. In most closets, the only thing the screw would be screwed into would be sheetrock; you could pull it out with your bare hands. The screw isn't long enough to reach a stud securely, and even if it were screwed into wood paneling (as shown in the photo; how many closets have wood paneling on the inside?), it would pull out easily with about a 10" or 12" bar. Alternatively, just put a slotted screw driver on the "security" screw and turn it in to strip the threads in the substate.

The only way to make this secure is (a) change the design so that the screw head is concealed by the locked portion when locked and (b) use a Molly instead of a wood screw. Even then, someone who wants the gun just punches the sheetrock and even the Molly comes out.

Keep shopping.

 

[PaulD]

Good point. I'm in the southwest where "he needed killing" is still a viable defense in court.

I can't speak to the laws in MA. I only can judge the tactical issues at hand. Sorry for any confusion.

LOL

 

[EddieCoyle]

I would take a B&E man about 15 seconds to remove that lock.

Putting aside the efficacy of so-called security screws, the diagram shows what looks like a #10 or #12 wood screw about 1-1/4" long. In most closets, the only thing the screw would be screwed into would be sheetrock; you could pull it out with your bare hands. The screw isn't long enough to reach a stud securely, and even if it were screwed into wood paneling (as shown in the photo; how many closets have wood paneling on the inside?), it would pull out easily with about a 10" or 12" bar. Alternatively, just put a slotted screw driver on the "security" screw and turn it in to strip the threads in the substate.

The only way to make this secure is (a) change the design so that the screw head is concealed by the locked portion when locked and (b) use a Molly instead of a wood screw. Even then, someone who wants the gun just punches the sheetrock and even the Molly comes out.

Keep shopping.

STEEEE-RIKE ONE!

I think you missed the point. That device is intended to satisfy the Mass storage regulations, not to keep a thief from stealing the shotgun.

 

[Starvin]

I would take a B&E man about 15 seconds to remove that lock.

Putting aside the efficacy of so-called security screws, the diagram shows what looks like a #10 or #12 wood screw about 1-1/4" long. In most closets, the only thing the screw would be screwed into would be sheetrock; you could pull it out with your bare hands. The screw isn't long enough to reach a stud securely, and even if it were screwed into wood paneling (as shown in the photo; how many closets have wood paneling on the inside?), it would pull out easily with about a 10" or 12" bar. Alternatively, just put a slotted screw driver on the "security" screw and turn it in to strip the threads in the substate.

The only way to make this secure is (a) change the design so that the screw head is concealed by the locked portion when locked and (b) use a Molly instead of a wood screw. Even then, someone who wants the gun just punches the sheetrock and even the Molly comes out.

Keep shopping.

Disagree, respectfully.

First, although screw dimensions aren't given, your arguement that a 1-1/4" wood screw wouldn't catch a stud is a little weak. I dont know many people that rock their houses with 3/4" sheetrock, especially in closets.

Not sure why "the only thing you could screw to is sheetrock". Finding a stud in a closet isn't rocket science.

Also, you'd be hard pressed to drive in the safety screws so as to strip the threads if the gun is in the mount. There's not a whole lot of room there to get a screw driver in.

Naturally, if someone REALLY wanted it, yes, they could take it. But it's a hell of a lot better than a loose gun stuffed under the bed. And it's much easier to access than most rifle safes.

 

[BOBKATT]

Naturally, if someone REALLY wanted it, yes, they could take it. But it's a hell of a lot better than a loose gun stuffed under the bed. And it's much easier to access than most rifle safes.

It satisfies MA law and prevents young children from grabbing it. Nothing more, nothing less. Same concept as a quick access lock box for a pistol.

 

[crak]

Can't read the whole thread, but if you're going to get a shotgun, do yourself a favor and pattern it on paper at several distances.

There's some massive bs in here about not needing to aim and 00 Buck penetration that the most simple tests will disprove.

 

[mikem317]

I didn't read the whole thread either, but handguns make fantastic HD/SD firearms. And forget about the manual safeties for all the reasons mentioned.

 

[mark056]

There are two other disadvantages to a magazine disconnect, which may contribute to the level of endearment:

A) For mechanical reasons, they tend to interfere with a crisp trigger release.

B) Pistols with magazine disconnects generally will not drop an empty magazine by gravity, thus interfering with a speedy tactical reload.

If you believe that a magazine disconnect diminishes your need for secure storage and safe handling, I suggest a bit more research. There is no exemption from the Massachusetts storage rules for pistols with magazine disconnects, and anyone who would tread a magazine-disconnect-equipped pistol with a loaded chamber but removed magazine as now inherently "safe" (i.e., incapable of firing under any circumstances) places far too much faith in a small piece of steel and a small spring.

Historically, the primary advocates of magazine disconnects are uniformed police officers, influenced by reports of officers who, on the verge of losing their pistol to a bad guy, managed to push the magazine release and get the magazine to drop just far enough that, when the bad guy aimed at the officer and pulled the trigger, nothing happened.

I agree with your last paragraph, which has always been a strong argument in my opinion for having a magazine safety on any weapon that is open carried. Massad Ayoob claims to have documented actual cases where a LEO was able to de-activate his pistol just when he was about to lose it in an illicit gun grab. With regard to (B in the first paragraph, what you are saying applies to the Browning Hi-Power and perhaps other European pistols that have this feature. It has never been my experience with either the S&W's (1st, 2nd, 3rd Generation) metal semi-autos, nor has it been my experience with the P345. Today, Browning Hi-Powers come with a "mouse trap" spring on the magazine base which allows for the free dropping of magazines in a Hi-Power that does have a magazine safety.

I have always contended that Massachusetts really missed the point in demanding trigger locks for storage (any storage laws are asnine anyway) and should have specified magazine safeties in as an option in lieu of trigger locks in meeting the ridiculous standard. In free states I have known people who have S&W 3rd Gen pistols that they keep a round in the chamber in, and keep the magazine on their person, so that the stored gun can easily be loaded and ready, and yet at the same time provide a level of safety for the gun to be stored and rendered inert should unauthorized hands come upon the pistol. This is an especially attractive feature in situations where there are adults and children around who are not 'gun-proofed" and who are curious.

With regard to a key locking device such as currently found on many "Mass Compliant" guns and S&W revolvers...I have no use for these whatsoever.

Mark L.

 

[Rate_of_Twist]

Thanks for the reply Mark L. I have read similar things in regards to a mag safety, which is why I had wondered why its met with such opposition.....

As far as the internal lock was concerned, I was more interested for longer storage when I'm not home and it will not be needed to be accessed in any sort of quick manner.

 

[PaulD]

Thanks for the reply Mark L. I have read similar things in regards to a mag safety, which is why I had wondered why its met with such opposition.....

As far as the internal lock was concerned, I was more interested for longer storage when I'm not home and it will not be needed to be accessed in any sort of quick manner.

Just use a trigger lock or, better yet, keep it in a safe.

 

[M1911]

As far as the internal lock was concerned, I was more interested for longer storage when I'm not home and it will not be needed to be accessed in any sort of quick manner.

If you can afford it, a safe is far better than an internal lock.

 

[supton]

Bobkatt makes a good point - the sound of a racking shotgun should not enter the picture. The shotgun should be C1 long before the bad guy even hears it. Other than giving your position away, there's little evidence that a hardened criminal has pooped his britches from the sound of a racking 870. <snip>

I'm curious about this statement; many (perhaps uninformed) think this is true: the sound of a gun racking a round is a major threat in of itself. I can see the bit how it gives away your position, but just how many persons who break into your house in the middle of the night are there with training? Or weapons? I'd think that, if the sound was a deterent, it'd give the bad guy a chance to run.

I did some reading on guncite.com, and I recall that something between 800k and 2M incidents were prevented by gun ownership. Obviously, not all ended with the BG having extra holes; but many claim that the true number of prevented incidents is unknown. How many were prevented by the simple racking of a round, or brandishing a weapon?

I'm curious about this bit, as I hear it often enough. On a side note, it'd be part of my home plan: if I have to engage someone, I actually want their attention. It's attention that's hopefully not being directed at other members of my family.

 

[matt]

If you can afford it, a safe is far better than an internal lock.

+10000000

<$100 for a small, secure, pistol safe that will prevent the gun from being stolen if bolted down (at least it'll slow 'em down).

 

[vellnueve]

I had the mag disconnect on my M&P removed when I had Burwell do a trigger job on it. I don't mind it, really, but I do like being able to do dry-fire practice.

 

[Blitz1]

I'm curious about this statement; many (perhaps uninformed) think this is true: the sound of a gun racking a round is a major threat in of itself. I can see the bit how it gives away your position, but just how many persons who break into your house in the middle of the night are there with training? Or weapons? I'd think that, if the sound was a deterent, it'd give the bad guy a chance to run.

I did some reading on guncite.com, and I recall that something between 800k and 2M incidents were prevented by gun ownership. Obviously, not all ended with the BG having extra holes; but many claim that the true number of prevented incidents is unknown. How many were prevented by the simple racking of a round, or brandishing a weapon?

I'm curious about this bit, as I hear it often enough. On a side note, it'd be part of my home plan: if I have to engage someone, I actually want their attention. It's attention that's hopefully not being directed at other members of my family.

I think that is mostly Hollywood. I'd rather them hear a boom than anything, no sense to give up a tactical advantage (suprise and location)

 

[supton]

I guess really I need to take the classes prior to getting my shotgun (planned to anyhow), but don't you have to still have "probable cause" in NH before opening fire? I mean, you come around the corner in your house (after hearing a noise), it's dark--can you just assume that someone who doesn't need to be there is deserving of whatever may happen to them? Or is "I feared for my life" a good enough defense for a state with a castle law in place?

 

[-kj-]

I think that is mostly Hollywood. I'd rather them hear a boom than anything, no sense to give up a tactical advantage (suprise and location)

Remember what state we live in now.

What do you think the consequences would be from suprising a stranger w/ a boom from a hidden corner?

 

[Mass-diver]

Remember what state we live in now.

What do you think the consequences would be from suprising a stranger w/ a boom from a hidden corner?

I think this goes back to the point made about "one story."

 

[CRSIII]

I think this goes back to the point made about "one story."

Yup.

 

[-kj-]

I think this goes back to the point made about "one story."

Hmmm. That'll probably work if you happen to be a LEO.

For the rest of us I'd plan on some serious legal fees and possible jail time.

But hey, I'm new here... what do I know.

 

[Mass-diver]

Hmmm. That'll probably work if you happen to be a LEO.

For the rest of us I'd plan on some serious legal fees and possible jail time.

But hey, I'm new here... what do I know.

As bad as this State is , if someone breaks into your home and is hunting you and your family down, and you defend yourself, I think you are going to in the clear legally. And, even if you may face charges, what's the alternative?

In the movies the good guys do the "drop it or I'll shoot routine,", in real-life I think it needs to be all about survival. There are some mean SOBs out there that don't think much of hurting good people, there's no reason to give them the edge (IMO).

 

[-kj-]

Agreed...

But if you look at your average sub-urban break in, the assailant is a neighborhood kid looking to snag your 60" plasma or home theater system. Not some blood thirsty, brain eating zombie that is "hunting you and your family". But of course... there are always exceptions.

So IMO, to hide in a dark corner, pop out then blast whomever is in your living room as a "tactical move" is not the smartest thing to do.

Unfortunately (and not that I agree in the slightest), we don't have the same rights as that of homeowners that reside in "real" american states such as Texas for instance.

We CANNOT fire on someone intruding in our own god damn home to protect our personal property, even if they're walking out the front door w/ your $4000 tv. Or even if they're murdering your OWN FAMILY DOG!!!

It's absolutely rediculous. The criminals have greater rights then WE DO on our own property!!

If I were to put myself in the un-imaginable situation... I'd have to think that I would 1st try to dial 911... and/or be forced to confront the intruder in the most intelligent, easily and quickly defensible manner... ie: Blinding light in the eyes mounted on the barrel of a loaded/chambered shotgun... (from an area that allows quick and un-obstructed retreat). Followed by loud and clear instructions that they are about to be shot if they make any movement.

If said intruder has gun in hand or begins to reach for something or struggle... only then, BOOM... and hope for the best.

At least once you are in the court room you have some sort of evidence on your side. Instead of an angry mob of family members screaming law suit because we are a bunch of "trigger happy gun fanatics" who gunned down the beloved un-armed paperboy that wouldn't hurt a fly.

It downright sucks. But we only have our wonderful state gov't to blame for making it almost literally impossible to legally protect ourselves.

 

[kevin9]

Here's the specific law regarding home defense that folks need to read and comprehend:

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

It's somewhat of a good news-bad news story. Good news in that self-defense from threat of great bodily injury or death is allowed and there is no duty to retreat inside one's home. Bad in that there is no explicit presumption that unlawful intruders automatically pose such a threat, and that there is no protection from being charged in such cases whereupon one must then prove this defense at trial.

 

[EddieCoyle]

But if you look at your average sub-urban break in, the assailant is a neighborhood kid looking to snag your 60" plasma or home theater system. Not some blood thirsty, brain eating zombie that is "hunting you and your family". But of course... there are always exceptions.

We'll go slow here...

When I'm home, it's pretty friggin' obvious. My car is in the driveway, my lights are on, and there's usually the sound of a radio/TV somewhere in the house.

When somebody decides to break into my house and knows I'm home, or has no reason to think that I'm not at home, I have to assume that they have some sort of a plan in mind to deal with me.

Don't you agree that this is a reasonable assumption?

What would that "plan" involve? Talking me out of my valuables? Probably not. There's no such thing as somebody breaking in to an occupied home with no intent to harm the occupants. No. Such. Thing.

I'm not so afraid of the State that I'm not going to defend myself.

 

[Bill Nance]

the only thing worse than a "Bad Guy" hurting them is something I've brought into the house hurting them. My original thought was that I would be able to completely disable the gun when not in my presence for storage, and transport.

In MA you're required to have guns locked up for storage. If a combo lockbox won't do it, you're screwed anyway.

Basic gun safety and proper gun-safeing of your kids will solve the problem. Oh, and proper supervision. I'm always amazed that some news report carries a story of a few 6 year olds getting daddy's gun and shooting themselves and no one asks: WTF are 6 year-olds doing alone and unsupervised in the house?

 

[Bill Nance]

Remember what state we live in now.

What do you think the consequences would be from suprising a stranger w/ a boom from a hidden corner?

You'd do that and then tell it that way to the cops?

No offense, but if so, you must be really stupid.