.357 for Home Defense?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Eagleks: If they are worried about their hearing, they are assuming they will win the gunfight over the BG ..... if the BG wins, you wont' have to worry about your hearing.

That's an interesting point, but it does not address the OP's question.

You probably won't even remember hearing it.

That's possible--and it, too, is irrelevant.

It wont' damage your ears ..... if you aren't doing it all of the time.

That misconception has been addressed by lamdb, and there is a lot more to substantiate that answer.

People often bring up the subject of auditory exclusion, but the sound that one hears and the damage caused by loud noise are two different things.

Shoot what you are good at, will do the job, and allow you to be still alive to make the call to 911 and to your attorney.

It would be nice to be able to hear the questions from the 911 dispatcher.

For reasons unknown to me, many people assume that the .357 Magnum is at the top or the list for defensive shooting. Perhaps they confuse the boom and blast and the effect on a water jug with "stopping power". Perhaps they have never availed themselves of any relevant training in which the importance of extremely rapid repeat shots has been stressed, or considered that a .357 Magnum is very difficult to use effectively in that regime. Perhaps they haven't thought very much about over penetration.

This puts it well:

Posted by lamdb: What some of us are saying is, we have first hand knowledge of the question asked. There are much better choices for inside work. And, yes excessive muzzle blast can and will affect follow up shots. Conjecture has no ground to stand on here. Hd is best suited for low pressure rounds.

There are much more appropriate choices out there.

[pete2]

The last thing I'd worry about is how loud the .357 is. As for muzzle blast make the first shot count, it may be the only shot you get to make.

[buckhorn]

PETE 2 Your right, if I ever have to kill someone in my house, I don't think I'm going to worry about ringing ears. That's a situation that will stick with you the rest of your life. If you survive, which means you used the right gun, regardless of caliber!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

1. There is no reason not to plan for the totality of the encounter before it happens. Thus, sound can be planned for. As I said before - you can keep a pair of muffs near the gun.

2. Kill - wrong answer - your goal is to prevent grievous bodily harm, not kill.

If one gets into these issues more, you move beyond the cliches.

BTW, auditory exclusion is a couple of things:

a. Selective attention
b. Selective memory

- neither have anything to do with the hair cells in your cochlea being damaged. If you look at an enlargement of those things you can see how fragile they are.

[pete2]

#1 The plan is to have a gun, be prepared

#2 The object is to stop the threat

[buckhorn]

If someone is in my house posing a threat to home and family, I'm NOT gonna shoot to wound, as I might miss completely. Center mass and if he or she lives to face charges, so much the better. I DON'T WANT TO KILL ANYONE! I want to protect my life and those of my family, first and foremost.

[themalicious0ne]

sorry

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I was going to delete the above post - however, it is totally and completely incorrect.

Continuing with such mistakes will lead to sanctions. We will not allow posts that will cause harm to readers.

[Nighthawk681]

I like to let you know that I have aSW686 and a Colt trooper both 357 mag.and I shot them in a close combat type range and I'll use it in my home for defense...and to neutralize any intruder ...I'm using 158 gr.hollow point copper jackets ...just the look down these two barrels will make you mess your pants...but if I need a back up I'll pull my Sig P220 Elite 45ACP...

[iamdb]

And there you have it.... "The book is wrong" and "Who's on first" all in one thread.... So lets summarize the OP's original questions. Apparently he asked:

A. Will the .357 actually stop someone?
B. Will the sight of your gun, make an intruder defecate?
C. What is the object and plan?
D. Are you man enough to deny a 357 shot physically hurts ones ears?

Where is the emoticon of the smiley banging his head on the wall?

[FairWarning]

Originally Posted by iamdb

the 357 is almost twice as loud as a .45acp and louder than a 30-06 w/ an 18" barrel. Could you be anymore wrong?

It does not matter is someone says "well I don't think .357 is any louder", etc.

It IS much louder and this has been proven as fact with db meters. Rest assured, it's very bad for your ears.

And regarding arguments of "I'd rather be alive and deaf than dead", etc....you can plan for SD now and come up with a rig that won't take your hearing but will still do the job with ease.

[Doug S]

And there you have it.... "The book is wrong" and "Who's on first" all in one thread.... So lets summarize the OP's original questions. Apparently he asked:

A. Will the .357 actually stop someone?
B. Will the sight of your gun, make an intruder defecate?
C. What is the object and plan?
D. Are you man enough to deny a 357 shot physically hurts ones ears?

Where is the emoticon of the smiley banging his head on the wall?

I think it's pretty clear that the two sides are really talking about two different topics, and this thread has degraded into nothing more than an ego trip argument about semantics.

1. In a S&W 686+ 6", is it too loud or too much recoil to use effectively in a self defense situation?

2. Would the noise and blast make you hesitate more between shots?

3. I've shot one before and it didnt seem too bad, but I'm sure it's differet when you just woke up in the middle of the night and it's pitch black.

To answer the OPs questions...

1. The answer to question number "1" is "no", not for a healthy person, who has taken a little time to familiarize themself with the gun. Police and others have used it for such things for many years.

2. When we are talking about a real survival situations, there are going to be a lot of factors that keep you (read your body) from responding as you think you might when we sit around and contemplate such things. Flash and bang might be one of them, among many others. Again, training and experience will help reduce these issues.

3. I'm sure waking up suddenly in the middle of the night in pitch black, startled (having had that happen to me before), defending yourself with anything is going to be more difficult. But, you sound like you're on the right track. Just keep shooting, and choose whatever caliber, 357 or otherwise, that you feel most comfortable with. I wouldn't rule 357 out because of anything discussed in this thread.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by pete2: The last thing I'd worry about is how loud the .357 is.

That does not mean that it is prudent to disregard the fact.

As for muzzle blast make the first shot count, it may be the only shot you get to make.

Those with even a little relevant training will readily understand that in a quickly developing violent criminal act, counting on doing so is not a reasonable expectation.

Self defense is not the same as target shooting.

[OldMarksman]

I think it's pretty clear that the two sides are really talking about two different topics, and this thread has degraded into nothing more than an ego trip argument about semantics.

I disagree. I think there's one topic: is the .357 Magnum a good choice for home defense. The original question had to do with noise and blast and the time between shots.

There are those who have some understanding of the realities and some who are in denial.

The really interesting thing, however, is how many people, not only here but almost everywhere, have for whatever reason become enamored with the .357 Magnum as a self defense weapon.

It was never intended for that. Rather, it was intended to provide better penetration of automobile bodies than the .38-44 Heavy Duty for law enforcement purposes; and early ads promoted it for hunting. I's a great cartridge for those applications.

For self defense indoors, it is not. The disadvantages of the blast of the high pressure supersonic cartridge in a short barreled firearm are real, both in terms of physiological effects and on the impairment of rapid fire capability. The advantages against a human target over other service sized firearms are largely imaginary. And there's the issue of the number of rounds available....

[Doug S]

I think there's one topic: is the .357 Magnum a good choice for home defense.

Hi Oldmarksman.

Yes, I think that what you've said in the quote above is the general question. I would only add to what you've said, that the OP phrased that general question in there distinct parts (which I've tried to answer in my most recent comments). When a person addresses the individual specifics of the questions posed by the OP, I don't think one can preclude the use of a 357 Mag for home defense. Regardless of whether or not one feels that the 357 has too much flash and bang for their own personal uses.

By the way, I don't use a 357 as my home defense gun, but that decision has nothing to do with anything discussed in this thread. I do think it has become an argument about semantics (and personal opinion), but of course everyone is entitled to think otherwise. I'm going to back out now, thinking that the OP has gotten a sufficient answer to his question regardless of my or anyone elses desire to argue the point further.

[Dragline45]

It wont' damage your ears ..... if you aren't doing it all of the time.

I guess to correct myself, it will do damage to your ears but if you are young your hearing will return and do little to no permanent damage

I'm not guna lie, its kinda starting to **** me off how these so called "experts" are coming on here giving not only bad advice, but completely and utterly wrong advice. I would encourage a Mod to delete their comments before someone goes off destroying their ears because since their young and don't do it all the time they wont need ear protection.

In case anyone did not read my previous post leme break it down.

I was 25 years young, one single shot of a hot 125gr .357 round indoors left me with permanent high frequency hearing loss and permanent Tinnitus (ringing of the ears. No I do not do this all the time, nor am I old, and I still suffered permanent damage, go figure huh.

[amd6547]

I sometimes rely upon a 2.5" S&W Model 19 for HD, and yes, it is usually loaded with the dreaded (by some, it seems) 357 magnum.
Some here claim it is hard to fire rapidly with control. Not my experience.
Loud? Certainly. But so was WWII, and my fathers hearing seemed fine even though he had repeated exposure to .50 and .30 cal browning MGs, as well as the 37mm cannon on his armored car and both incoming and outgoing artillery. In fact, he was well known in his unit for sleeping through an artillery barrage.
He also trained some units on nazi mg's like the MG42 and 34.
Yet, in his 80's, he seemed to hear fine.
Amplified hearing pro for SD? IMHO, I don't see that as viable for the great majority of home SD situations, and probably a distraction to what should be the main effort: getting sights on target.
I once fired a short barreled 380 six times in extremis. My ears rung afterward.
Once I fired a 16" 5.56 with my hearing pro back off my ears by accident. It was loud and my ears rang. Big deal, life goes on.
Finally, the ridiculous assertion that the 357 mag was only intended to penetrate engine blocks at its inception and not for anti-personnel use ignores the tremendous success it found as a police weapon, success which was only stemmed by political correctness re: "magnums", and the adoption of the large capacity auto pistol.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by amd6547: ...my fathers hearing seemed fine even though he had repeated exposure to .50 and .30 cal browning MGs, as well as the 37mm cannon on his armored car and both incoming and outgoing artillery. In fact, he was well known in his unit for sleeping through an artillery barrage. He also trained some units on nazi mg's like the MG42 and 34. Yet, in his 80's, he seemed to hear fine.

Those assertions are neither scientifically based, supportable, nor responsible.

Amplified hearing pro for SD? IMHO, I don't see that as viable for the great majority of home SD situations, and probably a distraction to what should be the main effort: getting sights on target.

You may not, but many reputable trainers see otherwise.

Finally, the ridiculous assertion that the 357 mag was only intended to penetrate engine blocks at its inception and not for anti-personnel use ignores the tremendous success it found as a police weapon, success which was only stemmed by political correctness re: "magnums", and the adoption of the large capacity auto pistol.

You missed the point completely.

First, a correction: the .357 Magnum will not penetrate an engine block.

However, in the early 1930s, criminals began using automobiles in increasing numbers. Conventional police handguns of the time would not penetrate those newer automobiles that had steel bodies. Some gangsters were also using "bullet-proof" vests, which also posed a problem. The new Colt .38 Super was superior and was adopted by some law enforcement agencies. Smith and Wesson's initial answer was the .38-33 Heavy Duty, which was loaded in the standard .38 Special case and was intended for use in heavy (".44") frame revolvers; it could also be used in large and medium frame Colt revolvers.

In 1937, Smith and Wesson introduced the even more powerful .357 Magnum revolver. Advertised for hunting, the revolver was also provided, in its 3 1/2 barrel form, to J Edgar Hoover for consideration by the FBI. Hoover kept the first one.

These were in fact issued by the FBI--but they were not carried for general use. Rather, they were issued for particular missions. With the loads of the time, the short barreled Magnum had such violent blast and bright muzzle flash that even experienced testers had difficulty with it in indoor ranges.

Colt adapted several of their DA revolvers to use the cartridge, along with the Model P. Later, S&W produced what we now call "K Frame" revolvers in .357 Magnum, but they experienced problems and they were replaced by the L Frame design.

Yes, these powerful revolvers were ultimatel widely used by law enforcement, and yes, in that role they certainly served as "anti personnel" reapons, but their raison d'etre was to enable LEOs to engage persons in cars, or behind plate glass, or wearing protecting vests. There was simply no reason for that much power for routine SD use, and there are plenty of reasons that mitigate against it, particlarly for indoor use.

This has been hashed out at extreme length here.

[Doug S]

You missed the point completely.

First, a correction: the .357 Magnum will not penetrate an engine block.

However, in the early 1930s, criminals began using automobiles in increasing numbers. Conventional police handguns of the time would not penetrate those newer automobiles that had steel bodies. Some gangsters were also using "bullet-proof" vests, which also posed a problem. The new Colt .38 Super was superior and was adopted by some law enforcement agencies. Smith and Wesson's initial answer was the .38-33 Heavy Duty, which was loaded in the standard .38 Special case and was intended for use in heavy (".44") frame revolvers; it could also be used in large and medium frame Colt revolvers.

In 1937, Smith and Wesson introduced the even more powerful .357 Magnum revolver. Advertised for hunting, the revolver was also provided, in its 3 1/2 barrel form, to J Edgar Hoover for consideration by the FBI. Hoover kept the first one.

These were in fact issued by the FBI--but they were not carried for general use. Rather, they were issued for particular missions. With the loads of the time, the short barreled Magnum had such violent blast and bright muzzle flash that even experienced testers had difficulty with it in indoor ranges.

Colt adapted several of their DA revolvers to use the cartridge, along with the Model P. Later, S&W produced what we now call "K Frame" revolvers in .357 Magnum, but they experienced problems and they were replaced by the L Frame design.

Yes, these powerful revolvers were ultimatel widely used by law enforcement, and yes, in that role they certainly served as "anti personnel" reapons, but their raison d'etre was to enable LEOs to engage persons in cars, or behind plate glass, or wearing protecting vests. There was simply no reason for that much power for routine SD use, and there are plenty of reasons that mitigate against it, particlarly for indoor use.

This has been hashed out at extreme length here.

And none of that has anything to do with what the OP asked. In my last two posts I laid out rational responses to your earlier comments. You ignored them, choosing to continue arguing a non-argument. I'll say it again (as I laid out in some detail above), when you address the OPs specific questions, one shouldn't rule out the use of a 357 mag.

If on the other hand this conversation is only about db ratings, then I guess all firearms should be excluded from defensive purposes, because they are all loud enough to cause hearing damage. Maybe we should start recommending big sticks. Wonder is someone screaming from being beaten with a big stick would cause hearing damage? I can see it now, OldMarksmen, arguing how the stick is no good for defensive purposes because it causes criminals to scream so loud that ones hearing would be permanently damaged.

[amd6547]

Posted by amd6547: ...my fathers hearing seemed fine even though he had repeated exposure to .50 and .30 cal browning MGs, as well as the 37mm cannon on his armored car and both incoming and outgoing artillery. In fact, he was well known in his unit for sleeping through an artillery barrage. He also trained some units on nazi mg's like the MG42 and 34. Yet, in his 80's, he seemed to hear fine.

"..Those assertions are neither scientifically based, supportable, nor responsible.."--Oldshooter
"scientifically based"? His hearing was tested during the course of yearly physical exams and found to have what was described as slight hearing loss.
"Supportable"? I am merely stating the facts.
"Responsible"? You are obviously personally invested here in an irrational crusade against the 357 magnum as a self defense round. This is obvious from a previous rant in this thread which you ended by disparaging the six round capacity of the most common platforms:
" The advantages against a human target over other service sized firearms are largely imaginary. And there's the issue of the number of rounds available...."-Oldshooter
Different platforms offer different advantages and different challenges. Six rounds of decent SD 357 mag ammo is a good option for HD use.
The 357 mag ammo sold specifically for SD use today is available in differing power levels...from loads that are barely over 38spl +P level, to the ear destroying 125's which seem to be described in this thread as if they are the only option in 357mag ammo. I hazard to guess that the DB data quoted in this thread is based on testing of the most powerful end of the spectrum.
I often carry a Glock 26 loaded with Ranger 127gn +p+. I use it because it has proven to be one of the most accurate loads in my 9mm's, and because it has a proven track record in LEO use.
I have no doubt that it will ring my chimes if I have to use it...and no, I don't make a habit of carrying hearing pro at my job. In fact, I would guess that the little Glock is about as loud as my Model 19 2.5" when my choice of ammo for both is taken into consideration.

[Webleymkv]

A few things that I think we need to stop and remember here:

First, all common handgun cartridges from .25 Auto up generate noise levels above the 140dB theshold for causing permanent hearing damage even from a single exposure. Whether you're shooting a .357 Magnum or the "kinder, gentler" .38 Special, if you do it without hearing protection you're likely going to have some degree of permanent hearing loss. If you want to make sure that you won't suffer any hearing loss from firing you HD gun, you're going to have to either keep some sort of hearing protection nearby or go through the NFA process to get a supressor.

Secondly, people here seeming to be thinking of the .357 Magnum as though all loadings for this cartridge produce the same report, but they don't. I've seen several charts showing the dB levels of various cartridges, and some even specify a barrel length, but I've yet to find one that specifies the particular loading used. I have fired .357 Magnums fairly extensively and, subjectively at least, some loadings seem louder and much sharper pitched than others. By far the worst of these are the full-power 125gr loadings due to their very loud, very sharp report which seems much like that of a centerfire rifle. The heavier 158gr loadings are much more pleasurable to shoot because of the difference in their report. Instead of the sharp "crack" of the 125gr loads, the 158's produce more of a deep "boom" which, to my ears, seems roughly comparable to the report of a 155-165gr .40 S&W (not surprising since their ballistics are similar). The even heavier 180gr .357 loadings are even gentler and produce a report which sounds, to me, similar to a 185-200gr .45 ACP +P.

Third, the assertation that a .357 Magnum is too much for self-defense due to recoil and/or penetration is a matter of opinion rather than fact. If one chooses their ammunition carefully, .357 Magnum loadings which penetrate about the same or less than the other standard service cartridges can be found. Due to their violent expansion and moderate fragmentation, the full power 125gr SJHP loadings typically penetrate anywhere from 11-13" in 10% ballistic gelatin, 110gr JHP loadings often penetrate 12" or less, and "midrange" or "medium velocity" loadings such as Speer's 135gr Short Barrel Gold Dot or Remington's 125gr Golden Saber display penetration similar to that of a medium weight 9mm.

Overpenetration is something that's somewhat blown out of proportion anyway. The truth of the matter is that any bullet which can meet the FBI's 12" minimum penetration depth also has the potential to overpenetrate under the right circumstances. The reason for this is to ensure that the bullet has adequate penetration should the bad guy need to be shot at an oblique angle or through an extremity. In a straight-on frontal shot to the upper torso, 12" would easily be completely through the average adult man much less someone of smaller stature or a shot that only hits an arm or leg. Likewise, almost all common handgun cartridge are capable of penetrating mulpile interior walls unless frangible ammunition is used and, even then, there's no guarantee that they won't. Because of this, I think that the better way to address overpenetration is to adjust your tactics through actions such as taking a knee or sidestepping before shooting so as to make the angle of your shot represent the least danger to bystanders due to overpenetration. Knowing your target and what's beyond it applies in more situations than just plinking at the range.

As to the thought that the recoil of a .357 Magnum is too much for self-defense, that all depends on the person shooting it, how much training they're willing to devote to shooting the cartridge, what type of gun they've chosen, and what ammunition they have it loaded with. As I said before, not all .357 Magnum loadings are equal and just like some have more severe report than others so too do some have more recoil than others. A 180gr hunting load is going to have substantially more recoil than a 125gr "medium velocity" load when all else is held equal.

Likewise, the smaller and lighter the gun, the more severe the recoil will be. A S&W 360PD is going to have much more severe recoil and be much more difficult to shoot than a S&W 686.

While the recoil of the cartridge does make it more difficult for some to master and it probably isn't the best choice for the one-box-per-year shooter, it can indeed be done if sufficient time is devoted to it as is evidenced by the thousands of police officers who used the cartridge successfully for decades. Finally, some people are just more recoil sensitive than others. I've known some people who simply could not handle anything more than a .38 Special or 9mm from a full-sized gun and other who found shooting .44 Magnums and .454 Casulls to be a boatload of fun.

One of my regular carry guns is a S&W M66-2 with a 2 1/2" barrel wearing Hogue cocobolo stocks which I load with Remington 158gr SJHP. With this loading or equivalent handloads, the recoil slows me down no more than the reset of the guns DA trigger and I am not appreciably faster with .38 Special ammo from the same gun. Speed of follow-up shots is an argument that we must be careful not to take to its logical extreme as I think most of us would probably be much faster and more accurate shooting a .22 target pistol yet we wouldn't recommend that package to most people for obvious reasons. Each and every one of us must decide at what point recoil becomes too excessive for SD use, and for me the .357 Magnum from a medium frame revolver is well below that point.

Finally, the assertation that the .357 Magnum's only advantage over the .38 Special is barrier penetration is also incorrect. In 1935, when the only commonly available bullet types were LRN, FMJ, and SWC this might have been true but we live in 2012 when most people prefer to use expanding bullets of some sort for SD. While advances in bullet technology have certainly improved the situation, the .38 Special still often has trouble both expanding reliably and penetrating adequately, particularly in barrels shorter than 4". The only non-boutique .38 Special hollowpoint loadings which I personally trust for SD use in <4" barrels are Speer 135gr +P Short Barrel Gold Dot, Remington 158gr LSWCHP +P, Cor-Bon 110gr +P DPX, and Hornady 110gr Critical Defense in either standard pressure or +P (though +P is preferred if the gun can handle it). By comparison, almost any .357 Magnum hollowpoint in the 125-145gr range and most of the 158gr HP loadings can be trusted to both expand and penetrate adequately even from short barrels. While in an ideal world we would all be able to get the specific loadings we want regardless of caliber, sometimes that just isn't possible as was the case during the ammo shortage of '08-09. In such a situation, it's advantageous to have a cartridge that is at least "OK" with almost any hollowpoint loading you can find for it.

Finally, the .357 Magnum is capable of effects that most of the other common self-defense cartridges aren't. The .357 Magnum is capable of producing useful fragmentation because it can drive a heavy enough bullet of fragile enough construction fast enough to fragment moderately without sacrificing adequate penetration. The 125gr SJHP loadings are the most striking example of this, though they certainly aren't the only ones capable of it. These loadings fairly routinely shed their jackets in large shards at 6-10" penetration with a lead core comprising 60% or more of the bullet's weight continuing on for several more inches. This produces a synergistic effect between the lacerating effects of the fragments which weakens the surrounding tissue and the temporary stretch cavity which results in a permanent crush cavity many times larger than the expanded diameter of the bullet itself. Dr. Martin Fackler noted the same effects with fragmenting centerfire rifle bullets, partciularly .223 Remington/5.56 NATO and, while I would expect the .357 Magnum to produce this effect to a lesser degree due to the lower energy involved, I see no reson to believe that it isn't capable of analagous performance on a somewhat reduced scale.

.38 Special simply cannot produce high enough velocity to fragment without using a bullet so light and so fragile that penetration is reduced to undesirable levels. Similarly, the common semi-auto service cartridges (9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP) cannot produce high enough velocity and/or they are loaded with bullets that cannot fragment in the same manner due to the constraints of reliable feeding in a semi-automatic handgun. While there are no guarantees in a gunfight, I do believe that the .357 Magnum is more likely to stop a threat with fewer rounds than the other common SD cartridges due to the difference in its performance and that, to me at least, is a worthwhile tradeoff for the increased report, YMMV.

[Strafer Gott]

I think a .357 Sig is every bit as effective as a .357 mag for HD, and I wouldn't let one of those off in the house without some serious hearing protection either.
For the obvious reason, both seem less furious in autos (Sig239/Coonan). I load Nyclads in revolvers for HD. Guess I should put earplugs handy to the ready rack.

[themalicious0ne]

I appologize for my above comment as I am no expert, I was simply giving my own personal experience. Good luck to whatever you decide, and thank you "experts" for your clarification

[OldMarksman]

Posted by amd6547: You are obviously personally invested here in an irrational crusade against the 357 magnum as a self defense round.

Not at all. It's just that it is not my first choice

The question was about home defense, and most people who have addressed the question rationally on an informed basis have said that shooting a .357 Magnum indoors is not a good idea, and many have said that there are better choices. Noise is the reason most often cited. Measurements and conclusions based on scientific medical studies trump subjectively based opinions for me. It is not untested theory.

How about outdoors?

We see caliber wars here all the time. Is a .380 adequate? What about a .22LR? Which is better, the 9MM or the .45? And then there are those who seem to believe the .357 Magnum to be ideal.

There are obviously two factors; the effectiveness of the round, and the effectiveness of the firearm with its round.

This is a rather thorough official FBI report in the effectiveness of common service handgun cartridges. It is worth reading in its entirety at least once.

From the conclusion; note that these relate to the performance of common handgun service rounds, not high intensity rifle cartridges, which are a different story:

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed. Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet.

Emphasis added

Given adequate penetration and adequate expansion, and thus assuming powerful loads with the right bullets, a .38 Special or 9MM will create the same wound channel and will thus be just as effective as a .357 Magnum in terms of "stopping" effectiveness, and for most people, it will be easier to shoot either of them rapidly--say, four rounds per second--and score hits.

A .40 S&W or a .45 ACP might be more effective, per shot. As a defensive choice? There has been a lot of electronic ink put down on that question, and I do not know the answer. I do know that I prefer the .45 ACP indoors.

This is obvious from a previous rant in this thread which you ended by disparaging the six round capacity of the most common platforms.

I won't disparage it, but this does bring into play other aspects of the effectiveness of the firearm. Training I have had has made me aware of the need to deal with an assailant who is likely to be moving rapidly at close range, and of the fact that, regardless of the round used, the likelihood of hitting areas that are not vital may well create the need for several very rapid hits to stop him. Adding in the very real possibility that there will be more than one attacker makes the capacity of the firearm something that has to be weighed. Will six be enough? Probably. Is "probably" good enough? Consider the stakes.

These factors have led me to adopt a 9MM double column. Simple risk management.

I have a .357 Magnum revolver. I keep .38 special cartridges in it. If I were to take it on a trail where dangerous animals would be a concern, I would carry magnum rounds. But I do not need them for self defense against humans.

I will add that when one is buying any revolver of sufficient weight that would enable one to shoot .357 Magnum loads with any degree of proficiency, it would be prudent to buy the Magnum version rather than one that is limited to .38 Specials. The question then becomes what to put in it and when.

[Noreaster]

A long arm is certainly more capable then a handgun but try searching and or clearing your house some night. You will probably have a flashlight or phone in one hand and a firearm in the other, or you will be opening doors and turning on lights with one hand. You could mount a light on your rifle or shotgun but you risk flagging a loved one with the muzzle while searching or securing. Also the handgun works very well in tight quarters.