.45 too much for home defense?

[devildave31]

I saw something in a forum on another sight that got me concerned. Someone mentioned that (in his/herstate?) using a .45 even to defend your home can be used against you by the law, because it can be considered overkill and you could be charged with aggravated assault because you selected a gun with the intent of doing the most damage or quickest kill. I could see where an anti-gun court might use that to paint you as over aggressive, but otherwise is there any legitiamcy to this concept?

[fredmaidment]

If I fire my weapon, my intent is to kill my target, be it paper or flesh. People have been poisoned with the TV idea of "shoot to kill." If you're shooting, you're trying to kill. Period.

"Overkill" is bull$#!t. I sleep with a .45 under my pillow. If someone busts into my room, I want to make damn sure that if I get the first hit, they don't get another chance to fire.

Period.

[Ironhorse]

This shocked me for a minute, until I recalled an article I read by Massad Ayoob where he mentioned prosecuting attorneys drawing out the word "magnum" to be more like "maaaaagnummm." to give it extra punch in front of a jury.

Bottom line? No, I don't think a .45 is too much. I don't think anything smaller than a .50 BMG or 20mm Vulcan is "too much." I use a .45 for both home protection and CCW. I *want* the most effective tool for the job - I want to end the threat - NOW. I will worry about prosecuting attorneys and juries *after* I survive the encounter.

[Ektarr]

Speaking of Massad Ayoob, you might want to keep in mind something he wrote about years ago. When questioned by an attorney about his "Shooting to Kill", the subject of the questioning responded that he didn't "shoot to kill" . . . he shot to LIVE!

[devildave31]

I agree with Ironhorse, there is not a caliber large enough for ME to consider overkill, if it protects me and my family. I brought this up because i just recently traded a steyr S40 (.40S&W) up for a Ruger P90 (.45 ACP) and just a week later, somebody posts a comment like that and plants that tiny seed of concern in my head.

[acheney46]

I carry a Charter arms off duty 38,,,but it the house I have a Colt M-1991 A1 45 ACP,,, Because the 45 will kill with one shoot,,also if I do not kill him but hit him no matter were it will put him down,,,

[CathyInBlue]

Somewhere, there's a ballistics study where they used live goats as the surrogate BG. If you want to go for the quickest kill, a .357MAG killed faster, at least in that study, not trying to start a pet caliber flame war or anything, than the .45ACP. So, if someone were to pull that "You're just bloodthirsty, on account of your big gun." B.S. in a court, I'd have no choice but to trot that little factoid out.

Right after that, I'd respond with "Every time I've pulled by personal protection sidearm, it has been with a single goal in mind, to end the danger, to stop the threat. If that threat stops after I've pulled my sidearm, but before I've fired a single shot by my assailant throwing down his weapon and running away, then my sidearm will have done its job. If the threat only ends after I've been forced to empty an entire magazine into my assailant because he hasn't been knocked to the ground and lost his weapon yet, then so be it. I never shoot to kill. I shoot to stop. Every time, bar none."

It's not shoot to kill or shoot to live. Those things are just for court room theatrics. Everywhere and all the time, it's shoot to stop.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by CathyInBlue

Somewhere, there's a ballistics study where they used live goats as the surrogate BG. If you want to go for the quickest kill, a .357MAG killed faster, at least in that study, not trying to start a pet caliber flame war or anything, than the .45ACP. So, if someone were to pull that "You're just bloodthirsty, on account of your big gun." B.S. in a court, I'd have no choice but to trot that little factoid out.

Right after that, I'd respond with "Every time I've pulled by personal protection sidearm, it has been with a single goal in mind, to end the danger, to stop the threat. If that threat stops after I've pulled my sidearm, but before I've fired a single shot by my assailant throwing down his weapon and running away, then my sidearm will have done its job. If the threat only ends after I've been forced to empty an entire magazine into my assailant because he hasn't been knocked to the ground and lost his weapon yet, then so be it. I never shoot to kill. I shoot to stop. Every time, bar none."

It's not shoot to kill or shoot to live. Those things are just for court room theatrics. Everywhere and all the time, it's shoot to stop.

actually I even read that a .40 has a higher "1 shot kill) than a .357 magnum and .45. I've never done any studies of this of my own of course... but would be interesting to find out where that data came from... but even according to that.. no a .45 is not overkill at all.

[wolfhunter]

Ma Deuce is adequate protection for my family, or would be if my 2A rights weren't being shredded. The goal is to stop the threat, no twin a PC award for my behavior as a victim.

[devildave31]

I will tell you straight up, that I am no ballistics expert, but after watching the .45 vs. Water Bottle video on this website, I am definitely glad to have .45. The video depicts full water bottles (1 gal or 2L) being shot with a .45 and exploding from the impact.

And to make a good comparison, at one point they shoot one twice with a .380 and then once with a .45. The .380 makes two (technically 4) clean holes and water spouts out both sides. Then they shoot the same bottle with a .45, and even with the internal pressure of the bottle is reduced because of the .380 shots, the bottle still explodes form the impact of the .45.

And then, just for theatrics, they shoot one filled with red jell-o.