Via SayUncle I’m pointed to this 3 part series on home invasion defense.

The intentions are good, but I take issue with a few things.

From part 2

Handguns are more portable and easier to keep with you, and can be kept on your person if they are not too large.

If they are not too large? Can someone show me a handgun that is too large to keep on your person? OK, maybe some of those “pistol AR’s” or something like the Ruger Charger. But most of your traditional “full sized handguns” (think 1911 with a 5″ barrel) are able to be kept on your person. Concealed even.

Then in part 3:

Revolver manufacturers also make double action only (DAO) revolvers, such as the Smith and Wesson Model 640 at right. The advantage of the DAO revolver is the fact that the hammer is completely enclosed.

And how is a completely enclosed hammer an advantage in a home defense situation? It’s useful in a concealed carry situation, sure, but I’m unclear as to how it’s an advantage for home defense.

Semi-auto handguns come a a wide variety of sizes and functions. The Beretta Model 92 at right is the civilian version of the military issue M9. It comes in 9mm Luger caliber. The Model 92 is a double action/single action autoloading handgun. This means that the first cartridge is fired with a long DA (heavy) pull, and subsequent shots are fired single action (light). Pro – proven as the primary US military sidearm for over two decades, large capacity magazines. Con – fairly heavy.

Fairly heavy is a con? No, that’s a pro because being heavier will help with recoil management. The author also implies the DA/SA trigger is a pro. No, that is a con. Previously in the article the author says how the double-action trigger pull is a con of revolvers (for the correct reasons). If a double-action trigger is a con, it’s a con.

The author then goes on about a S&W 640 (snub revolver), and other small guns like a Sig P238 and Kel-Tec P3AT. He talks about how great they are because they’re so lightweight, portable, how they can be carried in a holster. Um…. I thought this article was supposed to be about home invasion defense? The choice of guns here is arguably more geared towards carry guns, tho I’d debate some of the selection there too.

While the author’s intentions are good, the article loses focus and even contradicts itself. The guns recommended are not good choices for home invasion defense. While I have my take on good tools for home invasion defense, if we want to talk handguns for home defense I’d have to err on the side of larger guns. You can shoot larger guns better. You’re not necessarily going to carry this thing around, so it’s not a consideration. While a self-defense situation on the street is likely to happen within 5 yards of you, a home defense situation could require a shot up to the longest distance across your house. In my house it could be 25 yards, and frankly I’d rather take a 25 yard shot with a full sized handgun that provides me with excellent sights and a long sight radius vs. say a snub revolver or pocket semi-auto with their crappy sights and miniscule sight radius. So big gun, proper gun fit, adequate caliber, that’d be my general guidelines for a home-invasion defense handgun.