Haha, you've obviously never worked nights, or lived with someone that works nights! When sleep is a catch as catch can agenda, no, it's not impossible for someone to break into your house without waking you up.

To be brutally honest, security systems can give you a false sense of security. Lock yourself out of your house a few times and you'll see how easy it is to break in unannounced. In my first house, I was impressed when the alarm went off when the lawnmower through a rock through the livingroom window. However, when I locked myself out and pried the window open with a screw driver, ALARM DIDN'T GO OFF, and it took about 45sec to snap the window lock and get in. At one of my college apartments, I locked myself out, and then knocked the doorknob off with a hammer ($20 knob is much cheaper than broken glass). Again, ALARM DIDN'T GO OFF (granted, it was definitely loud enough to wake up ANYONE inside). Motion sensors are great, unless you have indoor pets. And NO alarm will save you if you forget to turn it on.

Nomercy448; I'm not sure you understood the point I was trying to make. In the case of the "standing at the foot of the bed situation" no matter the weapon in real time you are more than likely dead if that is what the intruder wants no matter what type of weapon you have on the nightstand, under your pillow, etc, etc. As you stated you have multiple things to do do in a second (realistically fractions of a second). If they (the intruder) really means to do harm they will shoot/stab/club etc. you before you even have a chance to wake up.

In other words I'm trying to say that it is flawed reasoning to assume
1. You can do all of these things in a diminished state (just waking up), in a weakened position (laying in bed) in a second or under while under attack from an intruder that by all rights has every advantage, the least of which is not alertness.
2. Assuming the intruder(s) only options are running or diving for your gun.
3. Assuming the intruder(s) is unarmed.

Please keep in mind I am not saying a handgun is a bad weapon. If I did that would simply be foolish. I am just saying the only advantage it holds over a shotgun/rifle is the ability to conceal.

Not at all...anything I say on here is free range...let it roam where it wishes.

Seeing as preparation is more important than anything else. I prefer a heavier hitting round.

If you train yourself to be proficient with whatever firearm you own, then you increase your odds to survive if self defense is your goal.

I own a 1911 pistol myself. It's a nice round. Granted, I prefer to carry my .44 mag around as my sidearm when hunting. No real reason for that, but it's the round I first deer hunted with. I have an obsession with it you might say. :) It was Dirty Harry's chosen round too...

While a .40 can hold more rounds, I view more rounds as a crutch for lack of preparation for hunting or self defense. Unless you are bird hunting. Then more rounds might = more food.

I have worked every shift that there is. I thought you had some good points but now I think you are a few cards short of a full deck. This went from a 45 or a 40, to which is the best HD weapon. Then you guys turned it into a split second quick draw, like you were Billy the kid or something. You may be a trainer but you watch to much TV.

Modern day security systems are pretty good. I know, I have one. You would be surprised at how they can make windows now days. Door locks have came a long way too. Old school security systems are even better. I know, I have several. Again, I will say, no way someone could break into my house without waking me up and giving me plenty of time to greet them with my shotgun.

To get to me (or my family) without waking me up, you would have to be a professional burglar that has spent a lot of time with my dogs. I don't think there are a lot of bad guys that are going to fit that description. But if they did and they were at the foot of my bed and I only have a split nano second to get my weapon, I'll use your advice and grab my 45. In all other more realistic senarios, I'll grab my sawed off pistol gripped Mossberg 500.

P.S. They better not wake up the old lady either, she might grab a shotgun or a pistol or both.:)

My poll was to see who preferred the .40 S&W and who preferred the .45 ACP for whatever reason. Not necessarily which was the best. Accuracy counts no matter what caliber one chooses.

I think it's ok that this thread has taken different twists and turns and went in different directions from what I originally posted. There's some agreements and there's some dis-agreements. It Keeps the discussions alive and makes for some good reading.

Here's another thought Nomercy, If you are going to a bar in downtown New York at 2.30 in the morning should you carry a 40, 45 or a sawed off shotgun? The correct answer is, stay the hell out of the bars at 2:30 am. The same goes with your security at home. The weapon is not near as important as a few simple security precautions. The old saying "an ounce of precaution is worth a pound of cure" applies here. I hope you start teaching that in your class.

Agreed there. Sounds like you believe in being proactive as opposed to being reactive. Smart thinking.

When it comes to calibers and shooting folks.. bigger is not necessarily better. ;) Accuracy counts!

45 ACP all the way! If I was to buy a 40 caliber, it wouldnt be a 40 S&W, it would be a 10mm, you can load the 10mm down to 40 S&W velocities but you cant load the 40 S&W up to the 10mm velocities. The 40 S&W was created because of the women and smaller guys in law enforcement that couldnt handle the recoil of the 10mm, which I find rediculous, I have had two Glock 10mm's, a Glock 20c and a Glock 29, I never thought they recoiled very much.