Thread: Girl-Friendly Home Defense

When it comes to recommending a self-defense pistol for a lady who's never fired one, I follow two guidelines:

1) That the gun is appealing to her. If it is "cute" it might get carried or at least raise her interest in learning how to operate it.

2) That she is able to operate the pistol. By this I mean that she is not only physically able to operate it, but that she can do so effectively.

Years ago I wanted to get my wife a pistol. She thought the Beretta Tomcat was cute. On a more practical note I found that she was unable to rack the slide even on my Beretta 92, making the tip-up barrel and DA/SA action appealing. Slip a round in the barrel and, if the double action pull is too stiff, simply cock it and place it on safe.

Then there is the first concealed carry course I went to. After the classroom instruction we had to fire fifty rounds on the range. There was a couple next to me and the female was firing her Beretta Bobcat .22 quite well. The husband kept bugging her to shoot the Glock 23 he wanted her to carry and when she finally did she shot very poorly. Too much gun for her. Remember that the smaller the handgun, the more felt recoil there will be. If she is able to handle it, the Glock 27 is a fine choice; but don't discount 9mm or even a "mouse gun" caliber such as .380 or .32. I'd rather have my wife get seven rounds of .32 on a target than ten rounds of .45 off one. Also take into consideration whether it will truly be for home defense only or if she will be getting a concealed carry permit. Some compact pistols offer interchangeable backstraps to custom fit her hand and, while bulkier than a subcompact, they offer better accuracy and more versatility for home defense while still being small enough to conceal.

Your best bet may be to take her to a range and let her test a few different designs and calibers. Whatever you do, let her play a part in the selection process. Also, don't buy the gun for her. Either let her buy it or buy it for yourself. Telling the dealer you are looking for a gun for the girlfriend will likely result in him refusing the sale as it might constitute a straw purchase.



EDIT: Syme beat me to the "submit" button. He has a great point which I had not read prior to posting this. Where's that "Live Topic" bs when you need it?

Syme: You make a great point. I didn't even think of that. Since CCW is doubtful, a compact probably isn't in our best interest.

FM: I can dig what you're saying, but as I mentioned above, CCW is doubtful. Proper and effective operation will definitely be practiced thoroughly of course. As far as a straw sale goes, I'm not actually buying her a pistol, I'm just using this as an excuse to buy myself one that she can use . That said, "cuteness" is still a standing factor because this has to be something she's not overwhelmed by when she does have to use it. I can't be expecting her to be comfortable with trying to use a huge unwieldy pistol while I'm away.

She's got no issues with using my AR, and is a good shooter in general, but she has no expperience with pistols. Only what I will be teaching her.

Honestly, why use a pistol for self defense when you can use a rifle?

But if it were me, Id get something in 9mm and dpuble action so the trigger pull isnt so hard. Like a Beretta or something. I have a Taurus PT100 (Beretta clone) in .40 and it kicks about as mich as a polymer framed 9MM.

.22 revolver.

It fires like a BB gun, but still has enough of a "Oh shit I got shot" to make some gtfo in a heartbeat

A Lady Smith J frame .357 magnum 5 shot revolver or a 4" K or L frame 6 or 7 shot .38 Special or .357 firing the time tested FBI load of 158 grain SWCHP.

Originally Posted by Syme

This is not good advice. Your HD weapon's effectiveness should not rely on people deciding to run when they get shot. It should rely on wounding power and thus the ability to incapacitate rapidly. Anything else is irresponsible.

So in order to defend my home I need to be able to kill with the weapon by hitting someone in an easily targeted area(body).

I've only have the experience of shooting a .357, some sort of 9mm, a .22 and I don't remember the name of the other pistol.

If a .22 is not enough to stop an intruder(because unless the person is hopped up on PCP or a ridiculous amount of Adrenaline I think a single .22 shot would be enough to stop someone, and if one isn't that's what the remaining bullets are for), then I'd say a .357 with hollow tipped rounds would be more than enough. But then I do not know if a woman with no experience would be able to fire that accurately, that is why I suggested the .22

Granted I know little about firearms, other than what I've personally used. So my input should be taken with a grain of salt

Guys a .22 is a HORRIBLE self defense round. Period.

What if its a really strong poison? lol

The smallest Id ever go for self defense is a 9MM. I MIGHT... MIGHT go with a .380 if I was looking for something that was super small.

I do agree that the .22 is a poor man stopper, however at a simple distance of generally less than 25 feet the .223 ar-15 isn't going to do much more damage. This isn't me attempting to bash the ar-15 the good quality models are decent battle rifles for longer range shooting, but I wouldn't want to use one up close unless I had to.

If it must be a handgun I would never pick a .22 in anything but a revolver simply due to seeing more dud .22 rounds than anything else. I consider the .380 a little underpowered but it will do much better than a .22 If you decide on a revolver I would recommend a full size .357 mag, if its to powerful for her shoot some lighter .38 specials until she gets used to it. I also say the full sized model because it will be heavier and have a longer barrel leading to less felt recoil and more accuracy.

I don't see why there are so many claims that girls can't operate the slide on semi auto pistols. I see girls shooting there hubby's or boyfriends handguns at work every day with no problem.

Oh and OP I don't suppose I can talk ya into a 12 or maybe a 20 gauge pump shotgun can I? Nothing says GTFO like a face full of 00 buckshot.

Originally Posted by jojo

I do agree that the .22 is a poor man stopper, however at a simple distance of generally less than 25 feet the .223 ar-15 isn't going to do much more damage. This isn't me attempting to bash the ar-15 the good quality models are decent battle rifles for longer range shooting, but I wouldn't want to use one up close unless I had to.

Are you serious? lol

Do you think it gains speed once it leaves the bbl or something? Its going its fastest when it leaves. And a .223 is devastating, they tumble and fragment as soon as they hit flesh.

EDIT: With that being said, I wouldnt want my sister or my mom or any one not experienced with guns to use my AR in the house. over penetration is a big issue with rifles.

Originally Posted by jojo

I do agree that the .22 is a poor man stopper, however at a simple distance of generally less than 25 feet the .223 ar-15 isn't going to do much more damage. This isn't me attempting to bash the ar-15 the good quality models are decent battle rifles for longer range shooting, but I wouldn't want to use one up close unless I had to.

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about. The common .223 ball ammo (M193 and M855) is particularly effective at close range, because as long as it's velocity is above ~2700 fps, it will fragment very effectively and inflict a brutal wound cavity. It's at longer range, once the velocity has dropped below ~2700 fps (which happens around 150-200 yds. from a 20" barrel, 50-100 yds. for a 14.5" M4 barrel), that the .223 round loses terminal effect and could maybe begin to be compared to a .22 LR in terms of wound cavity profile. Within effective fragmentation range, a .223 round is not only vastly more effective than a .22 LR round, it's more effective than most ball/FMJ .30-caliber rifle rounds (because most of them don't fragment effectively).

Please don't try to give firearms advice if you have no idea what you're talking about. There is absolutely nothing about the .223 round or the AR-15 that causes poor terminal performance within 25 feet or whatever. You just completely made that up.

Originally Posted by Syme

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about. The common .223 ball ammo (M193 and M855) is particularly effective at close range, because as long as it's velocity is above ~2700 fps, it will fragment very effectively and inflict a brutal wound cavity. It's at longer range, once the velocity has dropped below ~2700 fps (which happens around 150-200 yds. from a 20" barrel, 50-100 yds. for a 14.5" M4 barrel), that the .223 round loses terminal effect and could maybe begin to be compared to a .22 LR in terms of wound cavity profile. Within effective fragmentation range, a .223 round is not only vastly more effective than a .22 LR round, it's more effective than most ball/FMJ .30-caliber rifle rounds (because most of them don't fragment effectively).

Please don't try to give firearms advice if you have no idea what you're talking about. There is absolutely nothing about the .223 round or the AR-15 that causes poor terminal performance within 25 feet or whatever. You just completely made that up.

I'll choose the bigger hole puncher over something that is suppose to tumble or fragment, thank you very much. The performance of such ammunition will vary greatly by barrel length twist rate and other factors. I will also choose something that is specifically designed to expand while staying together (core lock style hollow points) spreading the energy of the projectile over an even wider area while retaining mass inflicting more injury. Generally keeping all the mass together by controlling fragmentation and spreading it over a wide area is the focus of defensive ammunition. If you want to leave someone full of pieces of material why not just use a shotgun?

If dogs are allowed then that might make a decent alarm system, but dogs are unpredictable in a sense of whether or not they will defend you.

Originally Posted by Syme

Hmm, this seems to be totally unrelated to your earlier post, which is what I was responding to: The post where you claimed that "at a simple distance of generally less than 25 feet the .223 ar-15 isn't going to do much more damage" than a .22 LR. That's utterly wrong, and again, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, so I hope no-one in this thread listens to you.

I think you already pointed that out in your reply after that post, and guess what this one wasn't related to the earlier one.

Originally Posted by Syme

Your post here also has some problems. Firstly, none of the standard AR twist rates will adversely affect muzzle or fragmentation velocity for M193/M855 bullets, so that's a non-issue (again, seems like you don't know what you're talking about). Buy your defensive AR with a 1-in-9 twist or a 1-in-7 twist; it won't make a difference in fragmentation with M193/M855.

Secondly, while barrel length obviously does affect muzzle velocity and thus effective fragmentation range with those bullets, the relationship there is well known and thus the buyer can take it into account. E.g., it's well known that 10.5" barrels may fail to give fragmentation velocity even at the muzzle, so don't buy a defensive AR carbine with a 10.5" barrel. Easy. Stick with 16-18" and you are guaranteed reliable fragmentation velocity at defensive ranges.

I wasn't saying just the twist or just the length would automatically make the ammo ultimate FAIL. I was saying a combination of the things could affect its performance, which you pretty much agree with in saying they may fail to fragment out of a 10.5 inch barrel. Later on in the thread you and Annony agree that the hollow point rounds would be a better choice out of his 10.5 inch barrel than the standard fragmenting ammo. Is it that wrong of me to want to use hollow points out of any defensive weapon?

Originally Posted by Syme

Thirdly, M193/M855 bullets, when they fragment, actually inflict larger wound cavities than .223 hollowpoints; so that nonsense about "spreading the energy of the projectile over an even wider area while retaining mass inflicting more injury" is apparently something you just made up. Within their reliable fragmentation range, M193/M855 are more destructive in tissue than hollowpoints. http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_fbispec.html. There's a reason frangible ammunition has been developed for antipersonnel use in the military.

When they fragment is what I was getting at. While the barrel length would affect velocity and expansion of a hollow point causing it to behave differently, it will still somewhat function. Is it wrong for me to want something that will function at least to some extent whether it is fired out of a pistol AR or a 20 inch barrel?
As for me making stuff up that is in fact the very way hollow points function, whether I made it up or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet Everyone should also read the legality section and you will see that hollow points are prohibited for military use, thus the necessity of fragmenting rounds. It also talks about bonding of the jacket to the core to prevent fragmentation and control expansion

Rule of thumb:



Anything smaller than this is a lady's pistol.

A buddy of mine just got one of the new SW Sigmas. It's light, easy to use 9mm and the trigger has a safety built right in. Apparently no fumbling with a switch or button, just squeeze hard and it'll fire. I haven't shot it yet but for someone who has never fired a gun before that might be great.

Also, I gotta say that a big ass dog will keep most tweakers out. Seriously, some people might see a chick with a gun and be like "she's a lousy shot" but if they see a Rottweiler or Pitbull, they think "Fuck, I can't outrun that."

Originally Posted by SneeBeezums

While I agree that even the sound of a large dog's bark is enough to send the petty thug away, I dont think a dog will work in this situation. Considering they live in apartment, a lot of landlords will not allow dogs over certain sizes, or none at all, into the apartment.

I didn't even think about that. I read an article a few years about about pet store owners claiming that the majority of customers looking for a large dog (100lbs +) are single college girls who want home defense. I wouldn't suggest a single female to own a dog that rivals them in weight, but since they are a couple I figured it might be a good move.

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

A buddy of mine just got one of the new SW Sigmas. It's light, easy to use 9mm and the trigger has a safety built right in. Apparently no fumbling with a switch or button, just squeeze hard and it'll fire. I haven't shot it yet but for someone who has never fired a gun before that might be great.

Also, I gotta say that a big ass dog will keep most tweakers out. Seriously, some people might see a chick with a gun and be like "she's a lousy shot" but if they see a Rottweiler or Pitbull, they think "Fuck, I can't outrun that."

My buddy has a Sigma in .40 and although I hear all kinds of bad stuff online about them, his has never messed up.

Also, a gun is easier to maintain than a dog. Even if she is an animal lover and maintaining a dog isn't a big deal, you also don't have to train the gun or constantly worry about it attacking innocent people or house guests.

Finally, you can actually take a gun out of the house, leave it at home when you're away, get rid of it easily if you don't feel like you want it anymore, etc. Buying a dog that's trained to maim attackers requires far, far greater commitment than getting a gun. I don't see how anyone could even seriously suggest it for home defense to be honest, unless you have people dedicated to the dog's care or you're an insane militant moutaineer who thinks the government is constantly out to get you.

Originally Posted by faesce

that was by and far the worst comparison i've ever witnessed

apples and fucking oranges bro they're two completely different forms of defense that shouldn't be put side by side

err well other people in this thread are directly comparing them, though you're right in that they are quite different. that was part of my point.

Originally Posted by sycld

err well other people in this thread are directly comparing them, though you're right in that they are quite different. that was part of my point.

Other people in this thread dont know shit about self defense.

Dogs are good to let you know someone is around the house by barking, but after that, if the perp has a gun. a dog will not stop him.

Originally Posted by faesce

Obviously a dog can't stop a bullet, why would you even point that out?

Because people are recommending it for a defensive purpose when in reality, it isnt that great.

Originally Posted by faesce

who else is directly comparing them besides you?

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Also, I gotta say that a big ass dog will keep most tweakers out. Seriously, some people might see a chick with a gun and be like "she's a lousy shot" but if they see a Rottweiler or Pitbull, they think "Fuck, I can't outrun that."

...and then others followed suit.

Look, they're both self-defense systems of a sort, and both would protect this girl if they workedl. However, a dog is highly impractical.