Maximum caliber for home defense?

[9mmrevolver]

50 dtc

[RickD427]

I agree with you on this. The only issue I have with a long gun is accessibility. My nightstand safe just wont take anything bigger than an HG with a 4" barrel and my wife hates it when I leave my Mossberg 12 gauge pump laying around.

That said, what HG caliber do you recommend? I own a couple of .357 mag revolvers, but I tend to load them with .38 +P JHP's. I was always worried the .357 mag would be ripping through walls.

I also own .45 ACP and 9mm. I just prefer the revolver for its' simplicity.

I am guessing your Dept. spends a lot of time researching this subject.

Any advice is appreciated.

In your situation, I'd actually recommend a bigger nightstand safe, or (if you don't any kids around) a concealment device that could accommodate a long gun.

In terms of actual incapacitation, I haven't been impressed that there is much difference in the larger calibers. You'll see all sorts of measurable differences under lab conditions, but none of that translates very well to reality. The key distinction being shot placement.

Many moons ago, the FBI went to the 10mm after all of the lab data suggested that it would be a lot more effective. In reality, it wasn't. Then they went to the "10mm lite (.40 S&W)" and repeated that discovery cycle all over.

Between the 9mm, 10mm, .38, .357 and .45, I think you'll find that shot placement will matter far more than will the terminal ballistic qualities of the round.

My first duty handgun was a S&W 19, It was great, but only had six rounds. Then my agency went to the Model 59. It had 15 rounds, but could only fire a couple before malfunctioning. We successfully petitioned our Chief to go back to the model 19s. I carried a 1911 in Alaska and went (inadvertently) swimming in the Bering Sea with it twice. It was the only weapon that I could strip down to component parts to clean with fresh water and oil. Had I done that with a Model 19 or 59, the weapon would have been toast before I could get it to a gunsmith. With the LASD, I carried a model 686, a Beretta 92 and an HK USP .45.

My overall preference was for the USP .45, not because of the cartridge, but because that weapon provided me with the best "feel" and because I could shoot it most accurately. The Beretta was a close second. But it's the "feel" of the weapon, and the not the caliber that was more important.

I also have to comment on the 1911. It's "feel" and ability to instinctively shoot actually exceeded the USP and Beretta, but the LASD did not authorize it during my time. The 1911 also has a slight downside in that the trigger pull is quite short and that makes it prone to reflexive unintended discharges. One of my academy DI's was a sergeant for an Orange County agency that went to 1911's and had a plethora of such discharges during the transition.

My department did do a lot of research into stuff before picking equipment, and/or making policies. I had the opportunity to run the unit that did those functions for a couple of years. We did a study into a couple of cases where deputies were involved in shootings where a lot of rounds were fired, with the idea of identifying alternatives (we internally called it the "Megafire Study"). One of the lessons learned was that deputies tended to contain armed suspects at short ranges and in large numbers, and while armed primarily with handguns. Cases where suspects were contained at longer distances, and engaged with long guns, turned out much better. At the time, we had a very restrictive carry policy for the few AR-15's in our inventory. At about the same time, we got the results of our study, a lot of federaly excessed M-16's and a range training staff that also saw the need to update the AR-15 policy to routinely field the rifle. The range staff did a very detailed study of the "overpenetration" risk of the .223 round and I worked up the lessons learned from our study. We presented the policy change to the executives at one of their "round table" meetings kinda expecting that there would be a real debate over making the change. There wasn't. Just a quick glance of folks around the table, and then the Undersheriff said "Do It." In the years that followed, we saw a big decrease in "Megafire" incidents, and a corresponding increase in the use of rifles to engage armed suspects at longer distances.

[ar15barrels]

The 1911 also has a slight downside in that the trigger pull is quite short and that makes it prone to reflexive unintended discharges.

There are not unintended discharges.
There are negligent discharges.

[RickD427]

There are not unintended discharges.
There are negligent discharges.

Randall,

I see your point, and agree to an extent. But before I will state that a person's actions are "Negligent", I feel an obligation to make an individual assessment of those actions. I can't do that with a "quid pro quo" statement that all unintended discharges are negligent.

Having said that, and being aware of the circumstances of more than a hundred unintended discharges, I can only argue that one of them was not also "negligent." And in that case I'm only prepared to argue that the involved deputy was not negligent, there was some level of negligence in the design of equipment.

[ScottsBad]

I like these...

10ga slug.jpg

[RedFord150]

...Between the 9mm, 10mm, .38, .357 and .45, I think you'll find that shot placement will matter far more than will the terminal ballistic qualities of the round....

In the years that followed, we saw a big decrease in "Megafire" incidents, and a corresponding increase in the use of rifles to engage armed suspects at longer distances.

Thank you for a long and well thought out response. Your knowledge is clearly a lot better than mine.

I will make it a point to keep the 12 gauge a little easier to reach. I don't own any rifles at this time.

Thanks, again.

[ar15barrels]

Randall,

I see your point, and agree to an extent. But before I will state that a person's actions are "Negligent", I feel an obligation to make an individual assessment of those actions. I can't do that with a "quid pro quo" statement that all unintended discharges are negligent.

Having said that, and being aware of the circumstances of more than a hundred unintended discharges, I can only argue that one of them was not also "negligent." And in that case I'm only prepared to argue that the involved deputy was not negligent, there was some level of negligence in the design of equipment.

I can unequivocally state that all unintended discharges with a finger on the trigger are negligent.

Tell me more about the one you feel was not.
Was it a reholstering event with incompatible holster that tripped the trigger?

[M1NM]

Any larger than .416 Rigby is just showin off

Does that mean I need to put my 458 Win Mag away?

[RickD427]

I can unequivocally state that all unintended discharges with a finger on the trigger are negligent.

Tell me more about the one you feel was not.
Was it a reholstering event with incompatible holster that tripped the trigger?

We had a number of unintended discharges when we converted from revolvers to the Beretta 92. They were pretty well reported at the time. In the revolver days, most deputies used a Hoyt break-front holster. The department worked with Safariland to create a retention holster that would function similarly to the Hoyt. They came out with their Model 295 and it's use was mandated by the department. That holster had a large cut-out in the front and a set of pinch fingers that latched onto the Beretta's trigger guard for retention. To make that system work, the strap has to be loosely mounted to the holster so that it would fall free from the front when drawing. The hazard of that design is that if the loose strap entered the trigger guard when reholstering, it would force the trigger to the rear as the weapon was seated in the holster - resulting in a discharge. That drawback was noted early in the transition process and the transition training included a requirement to place one's thumb behind the hammer when reholstering. To create that unintended discharge, a deputy had to make two mistakes at the same time: 1) Allow the strap to enter the handguard, and 2) Fail to properly position the thumb when reholstering. I have to assess those as being "negligent" for those reasons. It's important to note that none of those discharges were due to an "incompatible" holster. They all occurred with a holster specifically designed for the weapon.

The one that I have trouble classifying as "Negligent" occurred with an Ithica 37 shotgun. At the time, we carried the shotguns in a horizontal rack at the forward edge of the bench seat in the patrol unit. That kept the shotgun out of public view as was desired by the Sheriff at the time. Two deputies responded to an emergent call, and both got out of the car simultaneously. The driver deputy grasped the shotgun by the balance point of the receiver and started to lift it out of the rack. The shotgun discharged, killing the passenger deputy. It would have been impossible for the driver deputy to have placed his finger on the trigger. The rack had an enclosure that was between his hand and the trigger when he grasped the weapon and that would have blocked access to the trigger. Once grasped, the finger joints would not articulate in a way that any finger could reach the trigger. Re-creation of the event suggests that the upper part of the receiver (where it begins the curve to join the stock) may have struck the bottom of the steering wheel. When that potential impact was recreated with the involved shotgun, the impact was sufficient to release the sear.

There was negligence involved in the entire incident. The shotgun rack design was certainly unsafe. The shotgun should never have been placed into the rack with a chambered round (unfortunately, it was the deceased deputy that had last placed the shotgun into the rack). But in that case, I'm having a hard time assigning "negligence" to the deputy who was handling the shotgun at the moment of the discharge.

[fnlrun]

M134?