inexpensive home defense weapon vs high end.


PDA






Redlg155
October 18, 2010, 02:22 PM
I'm sure this topic has been covered before, but how many folks here choose a relatively inexpensive, but reliable weapon for home defense due to confiscation/evidence concerns?. I have an AR that when equipped, totals over 2k in cost for the weapon, light, accessories, etc.

I would much rather have a $300 870 confiscated, even if for just a short period of time.

If you enjoyed reading about "inexpensive home defense weapon vs high end." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mcdonl
October 18, 2010, 02:23 PM
USE THE GUN YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE WITH!!

Thats all that matters... to me...

TheWarhammer
October 18, 2010, 02:26 PM
+1!!! I use what works the best. I don't care whether an expensive gun or a cheap gun gets held for months as long as it saves my life first.

Bubbles
October 18, 2010, 02:27 PM
I have read that in some jurisdictions after a SD shooting in the home, every firearm will be taken for testing.

kwelz
October 18, 2010, 02:28 PM
The more important question is "What is your life worth".

My HD weapon is an AR. Once my Paperwork comes back it will be an SBR with a AAC suppressor.

Onward Allusion
October 18, 2010, 02:46 PM
Use what works for you and is dead on reliable in a decent caliber if possible. Be it a Hi Point :eek: or a Sig.

Russ Jackson
October 18, 2010, 02:54 PM
Did you not build the AR to defend yourself? I am confused. Last thing I would worry about is a gun being confiscated....Russ

youngda9
October 18, 2010, 03:06 PM
That's the last thing that I would worry about. Your life is worth more than 2k, right? So use the best tool that you feel the need to. Be glad you are alive, you're firearm will be back in your alive hands soon enough. The odds are low you'll ever even need it...but wouldn't you rather have the best available tool handy for the job at hand?

That about covers it.

pro2
October 18, 2010, 03:08 PM
Armchair commandos keep AR rifles for home protection. Suppressors for home defense?

Firearm owners and shooters will keep a quality multi shell shotgun on hand for home protection. A tactical light is a solid accessory.

Choosing the proper shells will limit wall penetration. The loud noise and violence of action will cause the intruder to crap their drawers.... and will alert neighbors. You have a much better chance of incapacitating the intruder with a shotgun in close quarters than with an AR. If I do not hit the intruder, they are not going to stick around... which is fine with me.

Old Shooter
October 18, 2010, 03:08 PM
As mentioned, use the gun you are most comfortable with. If you are concerned about the AR being confiscated and feel you would be well served by an 870 and are able to use it enough to be comfortable with it, go for it. The 870 should work just as well as the AR in a HD situation (IMHO). We are talking of a distance of a few feet, perhaps at night, in what will likely be a high stress situation. Unless you see a need for the pinpoint accuracy of the AR vs the Ka-boom! of the 870, and are able to use that accuracy in such a situation I believe it's a coin toss.

My go to for a bump in the night is a 1911 followed by an 870 followed by (don't laugh) a pre-64 Winchester 94 in 32 Winchester Special. There's a couple of others in the corner for grins and giggles but if those three don't take care of it I'm probably toasted anyway.

I can hit what I'm pointed at with all three weapons and feel comfortable with each.

oldbanjo
October 18, 2010, 03:10 PM
I'm going to use the nearest gun, I don't care what it cost. If they take all my guns then while they have them I'll buy a cheap Mossberg to use till I get them back.

ServiceSoon
October 18, 2010, 03:10 PM
If I successfully used a $2,000 firearm to protect me/my families life and the police take the firearm afterwards; IMHO that's a small price to pay.

Russ Jackson
October 18, 2010, 03:18 PM
I think the purpose of this thread is just to start something. I do not think the origanal question is real. Guy is laughing right now at the posts. I am not buying it...Russ

doc2rn
October 18, 2010, 03:50 PM
Lets see they still have 3 of mine, and I keep getting them back usually after all appeals are exhausted, what I hate is the court number etched into the frame!

mcdonl
October 18, 2010, 04:01 PM
And the BS is rising. My response was honest though, I reach for the gun I shoot the most and the best... mine happens to be a .357 wheelgun.

doc2rn
October 18, 2010, 04:04 PM
Medina, Ohio S&W Mod 10 3"
Topeka, Kansas Ruger 77 in .223
Thorton, Colorado Ruger SP 101 in .32 H&R Mag


Just for mcdonl, when I get home I will give him the case #s from the receipts.

VegasAR15
October 18, 2010, 04:11 PM
Armchair commandos keep AR rifles for home protection. Suppressors for home defense?



Maybe some people would like to not having hearing loss after a break in??

/k/anadian
October 18, 2010, 04:12 PM
Many guns can be good for home defense, cheap or expensive. Boils down to knowing how to properly use it and using the right load. Even a cheap single shot 12ga with buck can be very effective in the hands of someone that knows how to aim, fire and reload properly.

A guy that fumbles and can't get his multi-thousand dollar contraption working 'cause he spent more money on lasers and rails will be a lot less effective at protecting himself and his own than a man that has thousands of rounds behind even the crude hi-point. Even then, I don't see what's wrong with using an AR for home defense if the user is competent with it. With the right bullet, it will fragment and become less lethal quicker compared to pretty much every other common caliber. It's an exception to the "anything that penetrates a BG penetrates drywall". BIRDSHOT IS FOR BIRDS. On the subject of suppressors, I'd use one for HD if it was legal here. You can't be expected to throw on your hearing protection and most calibers, when fired in a house, can easily blow your eardrums out.

tl;dr use what you have the most practice with, try to keep it to a long gun, shotguns need to be aimed just like any other firearm and don't use birdshot.

mcdonl
October 18, 2010, 04:19 PM
Dont bother. Nothing surprises me.

MTMilitiaman
October 18, 2010, 04:31 PM
Armchair commandos keep AR rifles for home protection. Suppressors for home defense?

Firearm owners and shooters will keep a quality multi shell shotgun on hand for home protection. A tactical light is a solid accessory.

Choosing the proper shells will limit wall penetration. The loud noise and violence of action will cause the intruder to crap their drawers.... and will alert neighbors. You have a much better chance of incapacitating the intruder with a shotgun in close quarters than with an AR. If I do not hit the intruder, they are not going to stick around... which is fine with me.

Surely you jest?

You broadly define all those who keep an AR, and presumably any other semi-auto carbine for defense "armchair commandos" under the assumption that all knowledgeable shooters stick to the shotgun, then go on to explain why the OP should adopt the tactics of a poor action movie? Steven Seagal, is that you?

Nevermind all the real advantages a carbine has over the shotgun in terms of versatility, reduced recoil and increased fire rate, capacity and firepower, range, ect. Also pay no attention to the fact that a semi-auto carbine can usually be made shorter than a shotgun, legally, or the fact that many of them are lighter and more maneuverable. Also pay no attention to the fact that with proper ammunition selection, a carbine can provide excellent terminal effect with less penetration through interior walls...

Lets instead focus on racking the slide to scare away the intruder? Really? And you call us the armchair commandos?

HAHAHAHAHA!!

Redlg155
October 18, 2010, 05:21 PM
I am surprised at the number of responses so far. As for home defense, I always have several options on hand. I of course subscribe to the school of using whatever weapon you are most familiar with, and in this instance, my AR. I've been using this platform on both a professional and personal level for over 20 years.


On another seperate note.....I just returned from FT Stewart, GA where I attended a welcome home ceremony for my stepson. I decided to check out the local Wallyworld, aka Wal-mart to see if the gun selection was any better since it is located just outside of the gate of a major armored division. Guess what....no guns. You have to travel 40 miles away to the Walmart in Jesup to purchase a rifle. As we all know, this does not make good business sense to not sell rifles when you have thousands of Army soldiers stationed near the town. Therefore it must be a political decision from Walmart combined with the input of the Army not quite trusting Armed soldiers outside of the confines of the post.

pro2
October 18, 2010, 05:26 PM
MTMilitiaman, please excuse my ignorance for my leading men through three Infantry deployments and service as a trained Sniper does not measure up to your vast real world knowledge and experience. ;)

I am extremely proficient with an AR platform. For close quarter defensive battle, the shotgun is superior. Yes, you still have to aim. 00 buckshot is more likely to stop the intruder in their tracks than 5.56, even if I miss center mass. 5.56 to the shoulder or leg may not prevent an intruder from moving forward (especially if scared into "survival" mode from the injury). 00 is more likely to put the intruder on his ass. Even if I miss completely, the receiving end of the blast will do more to disorient the intruder. I will have PLENTY of time for a follow up shot.

I can tell you first hand that a 00 buckshot will not do any more damage to your ears in closed quarters than a carbine AR. Different sound, both extremely uncomfortable. BOOM vs. CRACK. When defending my family and self, I can deal with the discomfort.

A very bright TACTICAL mounted flashlight provides the defender with a significant advantage. It is amazing just how effectively the bright light will disorientate an attacker. No, do not walk around with the light on.... making yourself a target. Aim as you illuminate. Fire.

Pistol grips that replace the buttstock suck. A collapsible AR type buttstock on a shotgun is nice. Length is NOT an issue, unless you are using your G-fathers goose barreled shotgun.

Regarding sidearms... I'm not as proficient with a handgun as I am with either an AR or a 870, therefor it would not be my first choice, but a SIG P229 .40 should serve as adequate back-up.

Aside from all the tough guy BS talk about shooting people, I just assume scare the invader(s) off without any blood shed. I have no desire to expose my family to it.

Russ Jackson
October 18, 2010, 05:32 PM
:what:Plus you would not want to scratch that nice AR or knock off some of the accessorys walking down a dark hallway...Russ;)

benEzra
October 18, 2010, 05:37 PM
Armchair commandos keep AR rifles for home protection....Firearm owners and shooters will keep a quality multi shell shotgun on hand for home protection.
If you prefer a shotgun, great, but using a shotgun (or not) vs. using an AR (or not) has no bearing on one's "armchair commando" status. Like mcdonl said, use what you're comfortable with, but don't call people names just because they choose differently than you do.

A tactical light is a solid accessory.
Agreed.

pro2
October 18, 2010, 05:39 PM
Regarding the armchair commando statement, I forget that some people have thin skins. Excuse me. It was a joke.... not anymore serious than question presented in the first post.

230therapy
October 18, 2010, 06:13 PM
I choose to use moderately priced self-defense tools because that is what I can easily replace.

The gun involved in the shooting is a drop in the bucket in terms of cost. Someone once told me the rule of thumb is $50,000 per shot in legal fees (or should that be $50k per body?).

The gun is just another expense. If you cannot stand thinking of the gun that way, then it's probably not appropriate to use that vintage 1911 that Grandpa carried in WW II.

***

Armchair commandos keep AR rifles for home protection. Suppressors for home defense?

The problem with flat text is that the tone used in conversation to indicate a joke is not present. It can be difficult to remember this when you're chuckling while typing.

***

If it won't penetrate a wall, or has very limited wall penetration, how can you expect the bullet to penetrate clothing and variable dense human tissue to cause enough damage to stop the attack in a very short time?

There are more important topics to think about, such as which high end 1911 I'm going to buy next :)

***

BIRDSHOT IS FOR BIRDS!

I like that. It even says so in the name.

JohnBiltz
October 18, 2010, 06:56 PM
I have pistols, a shotgun and an AR I've got $2,000 in with the Aimpoint and mount. A bump in the night I'm probably going to investigate with a pistol. A bump is probably nothing but it needs to be investigated. Something more gets the shotgun. That is what I bought it for ten years before I bought the AR. I like the stopping power. I also think you would be less likely to into trouble in court with a shotgun than an assault rifle if you get some liberal on the jury or a crusading DA. Where I grew up everyone had a shotgun. Its hard to paint it as a weapon only owned by some mad militia guy. Recently, I've been thinking of going to the AR. I shoot the AR a lot more, I carried a M16 for 20 years in some bad places. I'm still thinking about it and I'd honestly say at this point you could make a case either way for one being the superior weapon. But the decision would have nothing to do with losing a more expensive weapon to the law.

Hunterdad
October 18, 2010, 06:56 PM
Who cares how much it cost? If it does end up as evidence, that means it most likely save your life, or the life of a loved one. $2K will seem like a steal when your wife and kids are sitting next to you.

hardworker
October 18, 2010, 07:26 PM
The 2000 would be worth it if price was directly related to quality, which it isn't. There's a too many reliable guns for less than 600 to bother listing. Expensive guns belong in politicians photo-shoots and shooting contests. If you spend two grand on a double barrel because you think it will save you better than a 400 dollar stevens you're wrong.

Deltaboy
October 18, 2010, 07:29 PM
I have used 870's that I got back in the 1980's for under $200 bucks a Charter 38 in my pocket and Hi_point 45 in my easy chair. It is 12 feet from my EZ chair to the Front door. I can sitting put all my rounds in a 3 inch circle. The 12 Gauge destroys target The 45 about 1/1/2 inch circle the snub 2 with a flyer now and then.

pro2
October 18, 2010, 07:34 PM
Who said anything about bird shot?

Check out the ballistic characteristics regarding 00 buckshot. There is a reason why a shotgun filled with 00 buckshot is prized by soldiers in CQB.

In a nutshell, 00 buckshot as awsome stopping power, especially when compared with 5.56. It also loses velocity QUICKLY after impact.... it may penetrate a wall point blank, but the velocity will be greatly retarded (why would anyone shoot a wall point blank anyway?). It will not penetrate through multiple walls. Chances are you will have to fire down your hall way into the kitchen or front room. By the time the shot hits the wall at opposite side of the house, it has lost velocity and will not penetrate into your neighbor's home like 5.56 (or in combat, your buddies possibly stacked outside the building).

Regarding cost, I really like ex police S&W M-3000 series shotguns. Nearly identical to 870, without the plastic and aluminum.... and can be found for around $200.

racine
October 18, 2010, 07:45 PM
The issue of confiscation has always been a primary one for me in HD or CCW. My primary concern is weapon familiarity, weapon reliability, stopping power, easy of use, penetration(ammo), simplicity, cost and durability of weapon. In as much as I like the 1911 trigger, I've not yet shot 1911s long enough to feel 99.99% confident in it's reliability( guess that comes from my lemon Para O but I've had a 1911 for as long as the Glock) so it's a glock in 40sw. I've got a history of 22 years with my glocks and it's dependability is superb. With the shotty issues, I'm using either a Remy 1100 or FN SLP. For rifle it will be either an M1 Garand for LD or a 223 for modest ranges but probably not within the house. I guess I'm not using that fancy red dot S_I 38 super for HD (don't have one anyhow).
So I guess my primary priority is reliability...

staggerlee213
October 18, 2010, 08:05 PM
'In a nutshell, 00 buckshot as awsome stopping power, especially when compared with 5.56. It also loses velocity QUICKLY after impact.... it may penetrate a wall point blank, but the velocity will be greatly retarded (why would anyone shoot a wall point blank anyway?). It will not penetrate through multiple walls.'

Oh really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYHBmNI8154

Guns and more
October 18, 2010, 08:26 PM
Picture a jury being told the defendant was waiting for a chance to kill someone.

1. He holds up a $2000 AR with all the bells and whistles, red dot, light, green laser.
2. He holds up a .410 you inherited from your grandpa.

Which one will the jury believe?

Hopefully, neither, but who knows?

MTMilitiaman
October 18, 2010, 08:54 PM
MTMilitiaman, please excuse my ignorance for my leading men through three Infantry deployments and service as a trained Sniper does not measure up to your vast real world knowledge and experience.

You're excused. We all learn something new every day...

benEzra
October 18, 2010, 09:09 PM
In a nutshell, 00 buckshot as awsome stopping power, especially when compared with 5.56. It also loses velocity QUICKLY after impact.... it may penetrate a wall point blank, but the velocity will be greatly retarded (why would anyone shoot a wall point blank anyway?). It will not penetrate through multiple walls. Chances are you will have to fire down your hall way into the kitchen or front room. By the time the shot hits the wall at opposite side of the house, it has lost velocity and will not penetrate into your neighbor's home like 5.56 (or in combat, your buddies possibly stacked outside the building).
00 buckshot can be expected to penetrate multiple American-style drywall-faced interior walls:

http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html

In .223/5.56x45, civilians are not limited to using military FMJ, and civilian .223 JHP and light SP penetrates even less in wallboard than 00 buckshot does. If the situation is such that civilian .223 JHP would overpenetrate, so would 00 buckshot.

I do agree that 5.56x45mm FMJ is not the best choice for HD, particularly if you live in a lightly constructed home with close neighbors, but there are much better loads available for civilian use, and the civilian rounds are arguably more effective from a terminal ballistics standpoint anyway.

Picture a jury being told the defendant was waiting for a chance to kill someone.

1. He holds up a $2000 AR with all the bells and whistles, red dot, light, green laser.
2. He holds up a .410 you inherited from your grandpa.

Which one will the jury believe?

Hopefully, neither, but who knows?
I am not aware of any otherwise justifiable shooting that was ruled unjustifiable because someone used a AR-15 or civilian AK instead of something with a straight wooden stock. In the one study I have seen using polls of mock jurors, effects as to justifiability/unjustifiability were not statistically significant, even though that study intentionally used a very ambiguous case.

Generally speaking, if a self-defense shooting is clearly justifiable by the facts of the case, the model or styling of the weapon used generally does not come into play (assuming the weapon was a legally possessed Title 1 firearm). I am under the impression that weapon choice would generally come into play only if the case were questionable to start with. Weapon choice could play a bigger role in civil suits, though.

It seems to me that the choice of any practical NFA Title 1 firearm (whether handgun, rifle, or shotgun) would be much less important than things like the homeowner's demeanor, aggressive posturing prior to the incident ("trespassers will be shot" signs, that sort of thing), intoxication, and whether the homeowner was engaged in illegal activities at the time. I would expect that factors undermining the components of justifiability, i.e. imminent jeopardy and the mantle of innocence, would take precedence over the aesthetics of the firearm itself.

Where weapon choice can become more of a factor is in a civil case, particularly if an attempt is made to portray the shooting as a negligent discharge rather than intentional self-defense (which, as I understand it, would allow financial recovery from the homeowner's insurance). Demonstrated competence prior to the incident, and intelligent weapon choice (i.e., no hair triggers) can reduce the likelihood of such a claim.

But to go back to the .410 vs. AR question, there is unlikely to be any difference whatsoever in trial outcome between the two guns. One of them, however, is arguably a much more capable defensive weapon than the other. So it circles back around to using whatever effective weapon that you are most competent with. For me, that's a 9mm or an AR; for you, it may be something else.

pro2
October 18, 2010, 09:13 PM
:rolleyes:

Apparently, real world experience need not apply here.

Avoid shooting your walls point blank when you know your kids are on the other side... unless you live in a castle. Then again, if your walls are solid brick, you will not to shoot your way point plank with ANY firearm. Do you see where I am going with this? Common sense???

If your walls are so flimsy that you can put your fist through it (as with the walls used in the video), 0000 may be a better choice.

Please, do not use bird shot to protect your family.

If you are my neighbor, please do not use 5.56. Thanx. If you hate the idea of using a shotgun, and want to become more proficient with a sidearm, let me know. I'll join you at the range, I can also use the practice.

:cool:

SSN Vet
October 18, 2010, 09:18 PM
Quick grab to defend against the boogie man home invader is and most likely always will be a handgun for me.... one that I shoot frequently and well.

Some day when I'm rich and famous, I'll put a laser grip on my Commander and that will be an improvement.

For me, the big black meanies are for Katrina redo scenarios or worse.

YMMV

MTMilitiaman
October 18, 2010, 09:21 PM
Apparently, real world experience need not apply here.

No. Apparently, your "real world experience" isn't the end-all, be-all experience. Other people have shot a lot of stuff too, and if the consensus is that their experience is contrary to yours, then maybe the only reasonable explanation(s) are that a) your experience is an anomaly or that b) you pulled the wrong lessons from your experience.

And the fact remains that racking a shotgun for dramatic effect looks just as asinine and retarded when you do it as it does when Steven Seagal does it. So if that is the extent of the knowledge you gleaned from your experience, do not pass "Go," do not collect $200...

benEzra
October 18, 2010, 09:31 PM
Avoid shooting your walls point blank when you know your kids are on the other side... unless you live in a castle.
Avoid shooting your walls at all if you know your kids are on the other side, if you live in a typical American home. Any firearm that will reliably incapacitate anything larger than a poodle will penetrate multiple layers of drywall at any inside-the-home distance.

Please, do not use bird shot to protect your family.
Agreed.

If you are my neighbor, please do not use 5.56. Thanx.
If I were your neighbor, you'd be less likely to have rounds exiting my house if I'm using .223 55gr JHP or 55gr SP than if I were using 00 buckshot or 9mm/.40/.45 JHP.

I realize you have quite a bit of experience with 5.56x45mm FMJ in structures (out of 14.5" M4's? or 20" M16's?), but M193/M855 are not civilian JHP. If you look at the link I posted, some of the civilian .223 loads fragmented when they hit the first sheet of drywall; they still exited the wall, but they didn't penetrate a second.

If you hate the idea of using a shotgun, and want to become more proficient with a sidearm, let me know. I'll join you at the range, I can also use the practice.
I don't hate the idea of using a shotgun, but I don't have enough interest in shotguns to own one at this point. I shoot USPSA with a 9mm and a 16" AR, and those are what I choose. I'm not knocking your choices at all, but 12ga is not the only rational choice.

Hatterasguy
October 18, 2010, 09:40 PM
I know someone who uses an MP5, pre ban class 3, ie the good one for HD.:D He used one in the service, except with a can on it. Said it worked great but was more for the shooters than not being heard like in the movies. Problem is as most of you guys know can's do not make for silent guns, and as he said when the rounds hit drywall or people they made a bit of noise.

the foot
October 18, 2010, 09:56 PM
I have my SIG-Sauer on the night table, but the gun in the corner there, my Remington 870 is what I reach for in the middle of the night. My M4 is in a safe, ready for use in other situations.

Out here in the country, with nobody around, my only worry is about my family's location in the house. No matter what weapon we use for home defense, we always have the problem of avoiding shooting in the direction of loved ones.

But my choice for home defense inside my house? First choice shotgun, backup handgun.

MTMilitiaman
October 18, 2010, 10:35 PM
I have a Rem 870 loaded with 00 buck and an AK with a reflex sight and a light loaded with 124 gr Uly JHP. I am a rifleman. Even though I've put tens of thousands of rounds through the 12 gauge and feel more than adequately capable with it, I feel more confident in my abilities with the AK, and I prefer the added capabilities of that platform (and carbines in general) over the shotgun, so that is what I reach for first. The Glock 20 stoked with 175 gr Silvertips is a distant 3rd in most situations, unless I awake to find the intruder already in my room, or find the need to investigate something that requires more discretion than poking around in my boxers with an AK. Overall, weapon cost matters very little in my choices--more my confidence in my abilities with it, and my understanding of its capabilities for my needs. Regardless, I have adjusted my tactics so that I am not shooting towards my housemates.

/k/anadian
October 18, 2010, 10:40 PM
One thing I wanted to mention. I've been making shotgun slugs for cheap practice out of birdshot. I don't melt them or anything, I just close the shot cup with tape (no it doesn't leave residue, I've made that pretty definitive after the hundreds of shot-slugs I've fired). This basically means that I've been shooting safe cut shells. I want to shoot these birdshot slugs into ballistic gelatin to see how they do.

These might be safer alternatives to most loads. Even if it has to be loaded with a bigger shot size, like a duck shot size load instead of a skeet shot size load to get a 12" of penetration, it would still break up when hitting a wall, the shot would disperse and lose energy very rapidly, making it safer for family/neighbors. Basically making a glaser type safety shotgun slug. I have details on my blog, even a range video where I try these out. Fired them at water jugs, they were pretty impressive.

http://unlimitedshootingworks.blogspot.com/2010/07/very-cheap-shotgun-slugs.html
http://unlimitedshootingworks.blogspot.com/2010/10/thorough-series-advanced-shotshell.html
http://unlimitedshootingworks.blogspot.com/2010/10/thorough-series-range-time.html

I think it's not a bad idea.

staggerlee213
October 18, 2010, 11:10 PM
'If your walls are so flimsy that you can put your fist through it (as with the walls used in the video), 0000 may be a better choice.'

I don't know what your interior walls are made of but drywall is pretty much drywall everywhere and it's what almost any interior wall in the US will be made of

Sheepdog1968
October 18, 2010, 11:15 PM
My biggest conern about home defense weapons is reliability and enough stopping power. I think there are options out there (e.g. Mossberg 500, glocks) that can be both 100% reliable and inexpensive. From my perspective, confiscation is very low on my list of concerns.

TexasGunbie
October 18, 2010, 11:24 PM
I don't care if they confiscate my gun or take away everything I have as long as I survive.

MTMilitiaman
October 18, 2010, 11:46 PM
I think there are options out there (e.g. Mossberg 500, glocks) that can be both 100% reliable and inexpensive.

I don't care if they confiscate my gun or take away everything I have as long as I survive.

Both of these are 100% correct and at the crux of the matter. I don't think the weapon cost should be a major concern to you when it comes to protecting yourself and your loved ones. Spend the money you need to get a reliable platform that you feel confident in. If you're one of the ones that does feel the extra cost of a certain platform, like a Noveske or an HK, over another platform, like a Stag or Glock, provides that much of a quality difference, then the confidence that affords you sleeping at night might be worth it. But effective solutions exist that don't cost a lot of money, so there is no need to spend a lot to be well protected.

taliv
October 19, 2010, 12:48 AM
rbernie is right as usual.

of course, I also shoot USPSA et al with pistols and ARs, and no longer own a shotgun.

If you think shotguns are the best thing evar, you should go to a 3gun match and watch people attempt to manipulate them under the "stress" of a timer. In my experience, your average n00b will fumble less with a pistol or rifle, and will clear malfunctions MUCH faster with rifle/pistol than a shotgun.


re: the OP, it's possible to get a reliable, inexpensive weapon, but like most things in life, usually you get what you pay for.

stereotypes, unfortunately, are a fact of life we have to deal with. I wish this graphic also had a column for "as seen by the responding officer"

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=548848

Ole Coot
October 19, 2010, 12:58 AM
Somehow I just can't see a better weapon than the 870 or Winchester Defender and if you need it price is the last consideration. I also keep a 45 on the nightstand but I use what feels right for me and a break in or home invasion in this part of WV is legal grounds to use any "necessary" force to save your hide.

DasFriek
October 19, 2010, 01:16 AM
Ill have to say any HD gun i use will be a relatively and moderately priced gun as that's all i own. Granted i have $1300 wrapped up in a 1911 project im doing, But that wouldn't be my first choice to pick up. Its a $550 gun originally but has become an obsession of late.

But as a whole i say cost effective guns are easier to acquire more of, And give you more choices and more places to put them. That's essential in a multi story house and if you have a ccw license and carry concealed and also like to shoot alot at the range. Thus requiring you to own more guns as no one gun can do it all.

Unless your wealthy and can afford 5 or 6 $2k-$3K guns then its all good also, I dont hold that against anyone and kinda envy them. As long as they shoot them anyhow. Safe queens dont do much good in a home invasion in most cases id guess to say with a locked tight safe.

I live with my ailing parents who i help take care of and live with, But both own 9mm's that stay by their side where they spend the most of their time downstairs.
I own more guns all located upstairs 3 of which are great HD weapons.
Depending on the situation id pick up my Mossberg 500 SPX or my 5" 1911.

The 1911 when its time to investigate that bump in the night.
The Mossberg when i know the bump in the night was someone kicking in the backdoor.

Wilson Combat makes excellent combat shotguns that well exceed anything i could afford. And it would do just as good as my 500, But it couldn't do anything better tho. It would just be worth more when sold is all.

Some people say having so many guns spread out in a house and each family member having their own as being "Paranoid". Well my folks are both in their mid 60's and not paranoid, Just realistic as older people are generally higher risk for home invasions imo. But we have always had at least 1 shotgun in our house for HD for as long as i can remember all the way back at 10 years old.
We never used it, And i hope it stays that way.

JTHunter
October 19, 2010, 01:41 AM
There is a 12 gauge SxS - double trigger with 2 3/4" 00 buck in IC barrel & 3" #4 buck in the Skeet 1 side. Fire both at the same time, drop it and grab the AK with the 40 rd banana from the rack above the shotty. Of course, there's the .38 in the dresser by the bed as well. ;)

MinnMooney
October 19, 2010, 01:52 AM
I'm going to use the nearest gun, I don't care what it cost. If they take all my guns then while they have them I'll buy a cheap Mossberg to use till I get them back.


I hear ya and you have some good logic.

My HD guns are purposely reliable first ; deadly second ; cheap third. In that order so if you make any comments about "So your life is only worth "cheap"........... reread my priority. Why use some British dbl bbl worth $15,000 when a $350 Mossberg 500 has proven to be one of the best home defense weapons that can be deployed???

BTW.... if I used an AR-15 with $1500 worth of snap-on accessories then I'd remove them before LE arrived. They can then confiscate my $800 AR.

pro2
October 19, 2010, 01:43 PM
No. Apparently, your "real world experience" isn't the end-all, be-all experience. Other people have shot a lot of stuff too, and if the consensus is that their experience is contrary to yours, then maybe the only reasonable explanation(s) are that a) your experience is an anomaly or that b) you pulled the wrong lessons from your experience.

And the fact remains that racking a shotgun for dramatic effect looks just as asinine and retarded when you do it as it does when Steven Seagal does it. So if that is the extent of the knowledge you gleaned from your experience, do not pass "Go," do not collect $200...
Geesh.... NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT RACKING A SHOTGUN BUT YOU. Amazing................

If you are at the receiving end of a shotgun, it is much more "impressive" than a rifle, ESPECIALLY in a closed environment. If I miss the intruder(s), the shock will be more likely to encourage immediate self extraction!

Also, in my area, a shotgun blast is more likely to gain attention of the neighbors than a rifle shot. Rifle and pistol shots are not uncommon and may go unnoticed.

I would rather afford the intruder the opportunity to leave, than have my family see a dead dude in the hallway and deal with the legal strife.

HGUNHNTR
October 19, 2010, 01:49 PM
Doubtful if the badguy will be sizing up the bore diameter as it is pointed at him. It is impossible to predict how a person will react to any firearm pointed in their direction, or if one type causes more reation than another. Would your neighbors be able to tell the difference between a rifle and a shotgun? If rifle and handgun fire goes unnoticed, what makes you think they would react to a shotgun being fired?

pro2
October 19, 2010, 02:12 PM
rbernie is right as usual.

of course, I also shoot USPSA et al with pistols and ARs, and no longer own a shotgun.

If you think shotguns are the best thing evar, you should go to a 3gun match and watch people attempt to manipulate them under the "stress" of a timer. In my experience, your average n00b will fumble less with a pistol or rifle, and will clear malfunctions MUCH faster with rifle/pistol than a shotgun.


re: the OP, it's possible to get a reliable, inexpensive weapon, but like most things in life, usually you get what you pay for.

stereotypes, unfortunately, are a fact of life we have to deal with. I wish this graphic also had a column for "as seen by the responding officer"

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=548848
You hit the nail on the head..... this discussion has ZERO foundation if the shooter has limited experience with "X" firearm. Remember that anti-firearms sorts love to pull this card. If a firearm owner is not proficient with "X" firearm, using it to protect their household is NOT the ideal recourse.

For home defense, it is important that you establish a plan. I do NOT consider blasting away with whatever gun is close at hand a "plan." As a firearms owner, I believe it is my responsibility to keep firearms secured in case of break-in, therefor I do not have multiple firearms laying all over my house. Whatever is necessary for home defense is easily accessible for my wife and self, but an intruder will not find them without great effort.

pro2
October 19, 2010, 02:43 PM
Doubtful if the badguy will be sizing up the bore diameter as it is pointed at him. It is impossible to predict how a person will react to any firearm pointed in their direction, or if one type causes more reation than another. Would your neighbors be able to tell the difference between a rifle and a shotgun? If rifle and handgun fire goes unnoticed, what makes you think they would react to a shotgun being fired?
No kidding? Of course you cannot predict how everyone will react in every situation. That is why you as the defender will hit the intruder hard and fast with as much violence as possible (regardless of firearm). Based upon personal tangible experience, a shotgun in close quarters is more likely to scare the piss out of the enemy than small arms fire. If choose a different firearm, cool. That being said, using an AR if you have neighbors close by is irresponsible (unless you are highly trained). By overwhelming the intruder, he/she will either haul ass, lay dead, or fold and freeze under duress. Arguing otherwise is choosing to be ignorant.

I do not believe that I stuttered.... my neighbors will be more alarmed by a shotgun blast than a rifle or pistol shot, as would I. Your personal mileage and environment may vary.

eye5600
October 19, 2010, 03:29 PM
I have read that in some jurisdictions after a SD shooting in the home, every firearm will be taken for testing.

I'm sure this is true.

Look at it from the LEO side. They have "shots fired." They may or may not have shells or bullets. Suppose they take just one gun from the homeowner plus any from the perp back to the lab and they end up with a non-match. Then they'd have to come back for any other guns long after the homeowner has had a chance to make one disappear.

Most shootings do not happen when there is a home invasion at the residence of Mr. Lawful CCW-man. Mostly they happen between two persons on the wild side. LEO protocol has to be based on that assumption, no matter what it looks like on the surface.

I suppose if you have a regular gun museum like Charlton Heston, they'd have to make allowances.

HGUNHNTR
October 19, 2010, 05:29 PM
pro2: Relax dude, its just a discussion, not an attack on your manhood.

JohnBiltz
October 19, 2010, 07:18 PM
What is going to happen to your firearms is going to depend on what they determine. In a castle state with an armed intruder you may not even lose the one you shot them with. The more questionable the circumstances the more you may lose. If you are charged I doubt they would leave any firearms in your home at all.

MTMilitiaman
October 19, 2010, 09:08 PM
The loud noise and violence of action will cause the intruder to crap their drawers.... and will alert neighbors.

I originally thought this was referring to the noise and violence of the shotgun's action. If this isn't what you were getting at, I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, using an AR if you have neighbors close by is irresponsible (unless you are highly trained).

Also, if this is a reference to the supposed over penetration of the rifle, it has been disproved here and abroad, is patently false, and no one is going to pay you or your experience any mind as long as you cling to fairy tales and urban myths. You're neighbors are actually in more danger with you using 00 buck from a shotgun than from any defensive, expanding 5.56mm round from an AR. That is a fact.

Shadow 7D
October 19, 2010, 09:16 PM
what ever you got, what ever you like, what ever think will do the job, for some a shotty is king, other want to rock and roll with a SBR AR-10....

pro2
October 19, 2010, 10:04 PM
pro2: Relax dude, its just a discussion, not an attack on your manhood.
Dude, totally relaxed. If anything, the thread is comical.

Cheers! ;)

HGUNHNTR
October 19, 2010, 10:16 PM
^ I understand you are new to this forum. Differing opinions are appreciated and welcome, but should be done in a manner that is respectful to others who post here. As it says in the house rules, attack the argument, not the arguer.

Just a friendly reminder, these discussions are much more educational when they don't become pi#*ng matches.

There are only a few house rules:

1. All topics and posts must be related to firearms or 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' (RKBA) issues.

2. Multiple user registrations are prohibited.

3. As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.

4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

The Wiry Irishman
October 19, 2010, 10:28 PM
Like everyone's saying, use what you're best with. If you shoot your $2000 custom 1911 the most, it would be silly to use your $250 Sigma for defense purposes. Conversely, if you shoot your $250 Sigma the most, it would be silly to use your $2000 custom 1911 for defensive purposes.

shockwave
October 19, 2010, 10:44 PM
I'm sorry, guys, but am I missing something here? The single, most important reason to own firearms is to defend yourself against a deadly threat. In the unlikely event that you would actually have to deploy a firearm to protect your home, why would you pick anything other than the best, most effective tool you own for the job?

My order of choice, all things being equal, would be the Mossberg first. If I can lay down some 12 ga. fire, I'm going to do that. If I'm pressed for time and the occasion allows, and I can't get to the shotgun, then one of the .357s is my next choice. Drills and practice have given me confidence with them. They're accurate and pack a punch.

Lastly, the 9mm is the new option. It's the weakest round I have available, but 18 of them on tap means somebody would have to walk through a wall of DPX to get at me. So that's my thinking. The cost of any of these weapons is totally immaterial. If you fail, then you get the whole nightmare torture thing. I'm planning to avoid that scenario if possible.

FIVETWOSEVEN
October 19, 2010, 11:38 PM
I think that if you shot and missed the perp, I think adrenaline would take over and he wouldn't be thinking straight. You never know what people are gonna do in that kind of situation.

stuckinsocal
October 20, 2010, 12:01 AM
I'd use the gun that best works for me, whether that's a rifle, pistol or shotgun. Price isn't a concern as long as I can afford to buy the gun in the first place. Don't discredit a certain type of weapon- specifically rifles- as a defense option without taking a good look into different loads. There are good loads on the market for the .308 and 5.56 that would be sutable for SD/HD.
To the OP: If you feel the need to use a less expensive weapon for SD because of the money you'd use if it was confiscated, then use a less expensive weapon. Just as about every other aspect of guns, use what works best for you based on your needs, desires, and skill level. It's all up to you because the guys who think that rifles are the only appropriate guns for SD or that shotguns are the only guns appropriate for SD aren't going to be the ones shooting the intruder trying to kill you and your family.

BushyGuy
October 20, 2010, 12:19 AM
i prefer my Bushmaster Commando AR for home defense, 30 rounds of Lake City 55gr FMj should do the job for 1 or more intruders. shottys are good but have limit capacity if you miss in the dark.


high capacity is golden when your defending your castle cuz ya never know whats gonna come thru your door...:fire:

pro2
October 20, 2010, 11:25 AM
I originally thought this was referring to the noise and violence of the shotgun's action. If this isn't what you were getting at, I apologize for the confusion.



Also, if this is a reference to the supposed over penetration of the rifle, it has been disproved here and abroad, is patently false, and no one is going to pay you or your experience any mind as long as you cling to fairy tales and urban myths. You're neighbors are actually in more danger with you using 00 buck from a shotgun than from any defensive, expanding 5.56mm round from an AR. That is a fact.

:rolleyes:

Nobody compared "defensive, expanding" 5.56 ammo to off the shelf hunting 00 but you. The majority of us have FMJ or hunting ammo for our ARs. There are a variety of "defensive" shotgun rounds, including 00. If we compare "defense" 5.56 to "defensive" 00, the 00 wins.... especially if you take into account the previously discussed pros of using a shotgun for defense.

You also need to take into account your environment and choose accordingly. If you home older, and walls made of sheet rock, with framing made from ACTUAL 2"x4" studs, or do you live in a cookie cutter build in 5 days by a crew of 4 armed with nail guns? A mobile home? An apartment complex? Rural or urban? Brick home? Alone or with family? Plan accordingly.

If some militia nut job who lives alone in their trailer, in the middle of nowhere, wishes to chase the boogyman around with their AR, they can knock themselves out. They are a danger to nobody but themselves. ;)

.... and lets be realistic. If a trained assailant breaks into your home with the intention taking your life, and you are not expecting it, your toast. You best bet will be to have a shotgun next to your bed or a powerful handgun, because that is where the assailant will find you.

Your BEST DEFENSE IS DETERRENCE, such as a DOG(S) and/or quality alarm system.

CHEERS!

mptrimshop
October 20, 2010, 11:58 AM
i think it's so funny that if you call someone on here a arm chair commando ....or a mall ninja it's way worse than telling a woman that she looks fat in those jeans......LOK

pro2
October 20, 2010, 12:06 PM
i think it's so funny that if you call someone on here a arm chair commando ....or a mall ninja it's way worse than telling a woman that she looks fat in those jeans......LOK
Ha ha! The woman who gets offended is the one who KNOWS that she looks fat in those jeans.

hardworker
October 20, 2010, 12:15 PM
Because, boiled down, calling someone an arm chair commando is essentially saying they don't know their #@# from a hole in the ground on the topic of gun use. And those people see that as an attack on their masculinity. And deep down, no man likes that

MTMilitiaman
October 20, 2010, 12:21 PM
Nobody compared "defensive, expanding" 5.56 ammo to off the shelf hunting 00 but you. The majority of us have FMJ or hunting ammo for our ARs. There are a variety of "defensive" shotgun rounds, including 00. If we compare "defense" 5.56 to "defensive" 00, the 00 wins.... especially if you take into account the previously discussed pros of using a shotgun for defense.

Actually, the only one not talking about defensive rifle ammo is you. Just about everybody else understands that FMJ are a poor choice for self defense in just about anything, be it a .45 or a carbine. As for "hunting" 00 buck, you, again, are the only one to have brought that up. Everybody else has assumed from the beginning that we are discussing defensive shotgun rounds as well. And no, as has been brought up and proven multiple times on this very thread, the 00 buck does not win. It still penetrates more on average than many defense oriented rifle rounds. For someone who claims to have been there and done that, you sure don't pay attention much.

And what "pros" would that be? The shotgun has a good reputation for stopping power but still isn't a death ray, and most pump action shotguns can be had for cheaper than most semi-automatic carbines. But that is it. In everything else, the carbine is superior. The carbine is more accurate, has less recoil by a considerable margin, and vastly superior magazine capacity. Most shotguns have magazines between 4 and 7 rounds. Longer magazine tubes exist, but usually require longer barrels, which detracts from handling and makes them more cumbersome indoors. Most semi-auto carbines relevant to this discussion have standard magazine capacities of 20 to 30 rounds, which means that you can easily hammer pair by default and still engage more times without reloading than you can with a shotgun. Many of the defense orientated rifle ammunition available now produce wound cavitation on the order or 4 to 6 inches at its widest point. Stack two of these within a couple inches of each other COM, and the supposed terminal effect advantage of the shotgun all but completely evaporates. Hammer pairs like this are relatively easy to accomplish in a much faster time period than the average person can rack the slide and recover from the recoil of the 12 gauge, even for a complete novice. And this is only 5.56. Don't even get me started on the 7.62mm carbines. In something like a 16 inch barreled FAL or M1A SOCOM, a 110 gr or 155 gr Hornady TAP, you get over 70% of the tissue displacement and cavitation of your typical 12 gauge 00 buckshot round, and you still have over twice the capacity, less recoil, and a shorter weapon. The shotgun is limited to a barrel of 18 inches or longer, unless you want to spring for a stamp. The rifle can have a barrel of 16 inches. The recoil of the 12 gauge is much greater than that of any popular carbine round, including the 7.62x51--so much so that it requires special recoil absorbing stocks and low recoil ammunition to even put it in the same ballpark. Combine lower recoil with greater intrinsic accuracy, lighter weight, and better maneuverability, and most people will hit better with a carbine under duress. Then factor the greater firepower provided by the carbine and it isn't difficult at all to see why they are becoming increasingly more popular for defensive purposes.

I won't discuss the increased range and the ability to penetrate body armor and most common barriers with a simple magazine change--both of which are advantages the carbine possesses over the shotgun--but which aren't applicable to most defensive scenarios.

Think back to summer of 09, after the election, when the gun buying frenzy was in full swing. If your local FFL was anything like mine, there was still plenty of 12 gauges left on shelves devoid of any sort of semi-automatic carbine for months. You think all those people buying up those ARs faster than people could make them were just looking to shoot paper? Or maybe some or most of them just "get it." The carbine has a lot to offer over the shotgun. The shotgun can't say the same about the carbine. It, by comparison, is much more limited in capability and is really more of a specialized weapon, esp within the realms of civilian self defense, when less lethal, breaching, flechette, and other novelty rounds aren't a factor.

hardworker
October 20, 2010, 12:40 PM
I think calling fmj a "poor" choice for defense indicates a lack of understanding of the word "poor".

pro2
October 20, 2010, 12:52 PM
:rolleyes:

I'm not sure whether I want to yawn or laugh.

Rock on with your bad selves!

Cheers!

alohachris
October 20, 2010, 03:12 PM
I didn't read all 4 pages of responses, so if this is redundant please forgive me. Some things you may want to consider:

There was a recent study of Jurors that demonstrated a bias against a shooting being judged as 'self defense' depending on the type of weapon used. The study showed that you were more likely to be found guilty if you shot with an EBR vs a blued steel & walnut rifle/shotgun. The same for a glock vs a stainless revolver.

Secondly, as others have mentioned, consider which you would rather have impounded in an evidence locker for years: your $2,000+ NFA item with $200 tax stamp (that you may never get back) or a $325 Remington 870?

Just food for thought.

yeti
October 20, 2010, 04:48 PM
Gun confiscated after shooting:

If I lost I probably don't really care, if I won I consider it a really good trade.

Double Naught Spy
October 20, 2010, 05:25 PM
There was a recent study of Jurors that demonstrated a bias against a shooting being judged as 'self defense' depending on the type of weapon used. The study showed that you were more likely to be found guilty if you shot with an EBR vs a blued steel & walnut rifle/shotgun. The same for a glock vs a stainless revolver.

Secondly, as others have mentioned, consider which you would rather have impounded in an evidence locker for years: your $2,000+ NFA item with $200 tax stamp (that you may never get back) or a $325 Remington 870?

And just what study would this be? I would just love to know how they controlled for those using EBRs and shotguns who were actually guilty versus those who actually were not...and the same for Glock v. stainless revolver.

What you have is a correlation without causeation. Given that the cases were to ascertain guilt or innocense, for all you know or the people doing the study, it very well may be that the jurors determined a much higher level of folks using EBRs as not guilty than was reality.

When it comes to lethal force self defense, you should use the best weapon you have at your disposal at the time as the consequences of using a less optimal choice means a greater chance of losing your life or the life of a loved one. If the best weapon for the job is more expensive, then that it should be your choice...because it is best for the job.

It woud suck to have your family killed because you were too afraid of losing a more expensive gun to the cops and so you chose something less adept for the job. I somehow doubt knowing you successfully protected your more expensive gun from the cops temporarily will bring you much consolation knowing that it was at the cost of losing your family permanently.

You can get a new gun much more easily than you can get a new life, new wife, or new family, and much cheaper too!

Redlg155
October 20, 2010, 06:03 PM
The original intent of this post was to inquire as to whether or not, given the same effectiveness, user familiarity and gun quality, you would use a less expensive weapon for fear of losing the weapon due to potential confiscation.

Would you choose to use a Les Bauer or similar high end 1911 versus a Taurus 1911 given that both weapons were equally reliable, possesed the same ergonomics, and were otherwise identical in form and function with only the major distinguishing characteristics being the maker?

This thread has seemed to evolve somewhat from the original question.

On a side note about shotguns, I have noticed that users who do not practice diligently with a pump action often have problems shortstroking. I've seen this a hundred times during weapons qualifications.

MTMilitiaman
October 20, 2010, 06:48 PM
I think calling fmj a "poor" choice for defense indicates a lack of understanding of the word "poor".

Compared to throwing the gun at the intruder, maybe. But better options exist for sure, and the FMJ has a far higher chance of leaving the structure and injuring someone else than a quality JHP or JSP. So relative to other options, yes, the performance of most FMJ can only be characterized as "poor."

I'm not sure whether I want to yawn or laugh.

Rock on with your bad selves!

Cheers!

No evidence? No rebuttal? Nothing cheeky or clever? You can do whatever you wish. As for me [yawn]...

benEzra
October 20, 2010, 07:12 PM
The majority of us have FMJ or hunting ammo for our ARs.
Most of us shoot FMJ at the range, sure. But most of us with AR's for HD load up with FMJ? No. The most often recommended loads I see where penetration is not a huge concern are 77gr OTM's, and lighter JHP or SP where limiting penetration is a priority. FMJ is for cheap practice, competition, and zombies. :)

The super-lightweight .223 JHP's (e.g., Federal 40-grain "Blitz" JHP and similar) are generally judged as not having enough penetration for most defensive use, FWIW. Some of these will barely penetrate 6" in gelatin and will fragment in a single residential interior wall.

There are a variety of "defensive" shotgun rounds, including 00. If we compare "defense" 5.56 to "defensive" 00, the 00 wins.... especially if you take into account the previously discussed pros of using a shotgun for defense.
And again, 5.56x45mm middleweight civilian JHP (50-60gr) penetrates less in the same drywall than 00 buckshot. If you prefer the shotgun for reasons of single-round lethality or the intimidation factor, great, but the only way to get a shotgun to penetrate less than civilian .223 JHP is to use birdshot, and most people agree that birdshot is not a particularly good choice from an effectiveness standpoint.

If you have a university library near you, check out Roberts G.K., "Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Weapons: the Wounding Effects of 5.56mm/.223 Carbines Compared with 12 ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant," Police Marksman, Jul/Aug 1998, pp. 38-45. That article includes gelatin and barrier penetration testing of .223 vs. buckshot, and one test looked at lethality after wall penetration; .223 JHP was the least penetrative round tested, and most of the .223 rounds that were rejected as unsuitable were rejected because they didn't penetrate *enough* for LE use, although that limited penetration may be an asset in the HD role.

You also need to take into account your environment and choose accordingly. If you home older, and walls made of sheet rock, with framing made from ACTUAL 2"x4" studs, or do you live in a cookie cutter build in 5 days by a crew of 4 armed with nail guns? A mobile home? An apartment complex? Rural or urban? Brick home? Alone or with family? Plan accordingly.
I absolutely agree. Just don't assume that 00 is safe; if Remington .223 55gr JHP will penetrate your walls, so will 00. FWIW, my house is brick.

.... and lets be realistic. If a trained assailant breaks into your home with the intention taking your life, and you are not expecting it, your toast....

Your BEST DEFENSE IS DETERRENCE, such as a DOG(S) and/or quality alarm system.
I agree with this.

There was a recent study of Jurors that demonstrated a bias against a shooting being judged as 'self defense' depending on the type of weapon used. The study showed that you were more likely to be found guilty if you shot with an EBR vs a blued steel & walnut rifle/shotgun. The same for a glock vs a stainless revolver.
Here's the study:

http://www.astcweb.org/public/publication/article.cfm/1/21/5/Weapons-Issues-and-the-Fears-of-the-Legally-Armed-Citizen

The actual difference was that EBR users *convicted of murder* were given a somewhat longer sentence, on average, than non-EBR users convicted of murder. There was not a statistically significant difference in the likelihood of being convicted, even though the study intentionally used an ambiguous situation (shooting a guy who is trying to steal your VCR).

Would you choose to use a Les Bauer or similar high end 1911 versus a Taurus 1911 given that both weapons were equally reliable, possesed the same ergonomics, and were otherwise identical in form and function with only the major distinguishing characteristics being the maker?
If the Taurus has the same sights as the Les Baer, the same ergonomics, and is equally reliable, then it still comes down to which one you shoot best, IMO. If I owned those two guns and shot one better (or shot it more), that's the one I'd use, personally.

When you're talking about mid-priced guns, though, it seems to me that the reason someone typically pays more money for a particular gun (Wilson or Les Baer over Taurus, Noveske over Olympic, S&W/Beretta/Glock over Hi-Point/Jennings/etc.) or accessories (Aimpoint/Eotech over Tasco or NCStar) is for better reliability/sights/ergonomics/accuracy, unless you are talking about collectibles, raceguns, or presentation-grade firearms. I'm sure there are exceptions, though.

ChCx2744
October 20, 2010, 07:12 PM
My primary HD tool used to be a stock AR, now it's all packaged up to be sold. If I had the money, I would go top dollar and juice it up or buy something that already has all the bells and whistles. But because I'm a poor college kid, the GLOCK will have to do. :D

alohachris
October 20, 2010, 07:48 PM
Here's the study:

http://www.astcweb.org/public/public...-Armed-Citizen

The actual difference was that EBR users *convicted of murder* were given a somewhat longer sentence, on average, than non-EBR users convicted of murder. There was not a statistically significant difference in the likelihood of being convicted, even though the study intentionally used an ambiguous situation (shooting a guy who is trying to steal your VCR).

Thanks for finding the link to the study. You are correct that the use of an EBR for self defense didn't reach statistical significance. The researchers did say that EBR use could very well be detrimental as seen by a Jury.

...In short, shooters using an AR-15 may violate the perceived norms of someone in a defensive mode. Mock jurors may not see an AR-15 as a 'normal' defensive weapon for the typical homeowner. This viewpoint may be even more damaging for women....

benEzra
October 20, 2010, 08:54 PM
Thanks for finding the link to the study. You are correct that the use of an EBR for self defense didn't reach statistical significance. The researchers did say that EBR use could very well be detrimental as seen by a Jury.
Well, it was clearly detrimental in some cases...but only for people who were convicted of murder first. Then using an EBR showed a statistically significant tendency toward harsher sentencing.

Given the popularity of EBR's now, though (in 2010, they're not just in the mainstream of the shooting sports, they *are* the mainstream) I think the old "wood and steel good, aluminum and polymer bad" attitudes are fading even among the non-gun-owning public. Look at pistols; Glocks were considered "out there" by traditionalists at first, too, but now they are the archetype of a civilian defensive pistol. It seems to me that rifles have traveled a similar path.

As I mentioned over at the link, it seems to me that the homeowner's demeanor, aggressive posturing prior to the incident ("trespassers will be shot" signs, prior macho posturing, that sort of thing), intoxication, and whether the homeowner was engaged in illegal activities at the time would be far more significant than the aesthetics of the firearm used. The innocent-or-guilty question will hinge on the components of justifiability, i.e. imminent jeopardy and the mantle of innocence, not what color the stock is or how the handgrip is shaped, IMO.

gym
October 21, 2010, 01:23 AM
Having "been there" and having NYPD, take both my guns, "For no reason", I have posted the story before and it's too long to do so again, but they were ordered by a judge and a Captain at 1PP, to return the weapons and permit. They convientlly scribed the case numbers all over a custom Pistol. I could no l longer keep it. I advise carrying a Glock or Glock type weapon. Something around $500.00 that is a reliable pistol, and that you shoot well. Dead is dead, don't much matter what did the deed. You can occasionally take your expensive piece with you, if you are going someware and plan on exposing your wares, "just the pistol fellas",but why take the chance on a fight breaking out, and some wise ass rookie sees a chance to make his first gun collar on your pretty new Nighthawk. "They do that you know". That's what happened to me, "short version" I was not even involved in the fight. It can happen to you too.

Dr.Rob
October 21, 2010, 05:29 AM
I get what you are saying. I'd hate to have my rare as hen's teeth Colt Magnum Carry confiscated and potentially abused when a 4 inch Dan Wesson I bought for a couple hundred bucks will do the job.

I shoot my 'cheap' 9mm a LOT more than I do my 45's these days. And that's the most likely arm I'd reach for. Not because it's 'cheap' but, because I shoot it a lot.

When I've been limited to a long arm (for instance traveling by RV through non handgun friendly places) it's a stone simple 12 ga. 870.

Redlg155
October 21, 2010, 08:29 AM
Ahh..finally some validation to the original question. With the exception of a "red dawn" scenario, where things go to you know where in a handbasket, my M1A sitting in. Troy MCS stock stays in the safe.

lobo9er
October 21, 2010, 08:46 AM
wow whats up with pro2 lol jeez take it easy partner we are in this together.
AR, shotgun, AK, or various pistol would work if you know how to use it.

jwash3rd
October 21, 2010, 10:43 AM
I live in the People's Republic of Illinois, and even though I'm in a rural area there's a good chance my gun(s) would be taken after a self defense situation. That said, if I do have to do it, I shoot best with my Kimber Custom II and that's what I keep in the nightstand. After an accidental (OK, negligent) discharge of my AK in the basement, I would not want to risk my hearing by using any kind of rifle indoors if I didn't have to. My Hi-Point carbine is as effective as a .357 and would be my next choice. I don't think cost should be a factor when your life is on the line. There are dependable firearms in all price ranges.

benEzra
October 21, 2010, 11:10 AM
That said, if I do have to do it, I shoot best with my Kimber Custom II and that's what I keep in the nightstand. After an accidental (OK, negligent) discharge of my AK in the basement, I would not want to risk my hearing by using any kind of rifle indoors if I didn't have to.
Be aware that a pistol or shotgun is about as loud, in terms of peak dB/dBA.

http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml


Table 1. SHOTGUN NOISE DATA (DECIBEL AVERAGES)

.410 Bore 28" barrel.....150dB
26" barrel...............150.25dB
18 _" barrel.............156.30dB
20 Gauge 28" barrel......152.50dB
22" barrel...............154.75dB
12 Gauge 28" barrel......151.50dB
26" barrel...............156.10dB
18 _" barrel.............161.50dB


Table 2. CENTERFIRE RIFLE DATA
.223, 55GR. Commercial load 18 _" barrel.....155.5dB
.243 in 22" barrel...........................155.9dB
.30-30 in 20" barrel.........................156.0dB
7mm Magnum in 20" barrel.....................157.5dB
.308 in 24" barrel...........................156.2dB
.30-06 in 24" barrel.........................158.5dB
.30-06 in 18 _" barrel.......................163.2dB
.375 — 18" barrel with muzzle brake...........170 dB


Table 3. CENTERFIRE PISTOL DATA
.25 ACP...........155.0 dB
.32 LONG..........152.4 dB
.32 ACP...........153.5 dB
.380..............157.7 dB
9mm...............159.8 dB
.38 S&W...........153.5 dB
.38 Spl...........156.3 dB
.357 Magnum.......164.3 dB
.41 Magnum........163.2 dB
.44 Spl...........155.9 dB
.45 ACP...........157.0 dB
.45 COLT..........154.7 dB

Although the sound spectrum is different between shotgun, pistol, and rifle, there's not a lot of difference in peak loudness; the shorter barrel of a pistol offsets the lower velocity and smaller gas volume. For 7.62x39mm, the peak dB would be about the same as .30-30, which it resembles.

pro2
October 21, 2010, 02:03 PM
benEzra, great information. Regarding penetration, my argument was primary pigeon holed into 5.56 FMJ and 00.... which I am experienced with. I admit that I was not thinking outside the box.

That being said, it is not fair to strictly compare 5.56 JHP to off the shelf hunting 00, when there are a variety of shotgun rounds designed specifically for home defense and CQB.

I wholeheartedly agree that you cannot assume 00 would be safe, or any other round for that matter.

lobo9er
October 21, 2010, 07:36 PM
wholeheartedly agree that you cannot assume 00 would be safe, or any other round for that matter.

that can be said in reverse for rifle ammo also. Not all rifles or ammo is to unsafe for self defense in a home setting.

If you enjoyed reading about "inexpensive home defense weapon vs high end." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!