9MM "SMG" for Home Defense?


PDA






TITAN308
May 20, 2012, 01:51 PM
...or .45ACP as an alternative. I'll use the term "SMG" just for the sake of commonality, we all know these are semi-automatic.

Seriously considering building a HD SMG. Does anyone here own one, or something similar?

Something similar to below, cept I would probably use a MOE butt stock and rig a Magpul AFG more forward. You can get up to 50 round 9MM mags too.

http://www.glockworld.com/DisplayPic.aspx?PIC=495464

http://i1.ifrm.com/3696/143/upload/p1042848.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "9MM "SMG" for Home Defense?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dogtown tom
May 20, 2012, 01:56 PM
TITAN308 ... I'll use the term "SMG" just for the sake of commonality, we all know these are semi-automatic.
How about "carbine"? (since that's what they are)

FIVETWOSEVEN
May 20, 2012, 01:58 PM
I think a .223 would be better for being able to fire a more powerful round that penetrates less especially with frangible ammo. I personally use an AK 74 loaded with Hornady V-Max. The 9mm would do the job for sure but over penetration could be a serious issue.

TITAN308
May 20, 2012, 02:16 PM
How about "carbine"? (since that's what they are)

Fair enough, the manufacturer lists them as a rifle, but that just sounded funny.

Ramone
May 20, 2012, 02:19 PM
I think a 9mm carbine, loaded with sub-sonic ammo is about the ideal HD weapon.

Short and handy, but still long enough to control well if you have to grapple for it.

Short enough to work doors/corners, but far more 'pointable' than a pistol.

Low recoil, and with Sub sonic loadings, very quiet with minimal muzzle flash, making it ideal for enclosed spaces and low light.

Even with SS loadings, acceptable 'stopping power' at close quarters.

Carl N. Brown
May 20, 2012, 03:01 PM
PCC pistol caliber carbine

-v-
May 20, 2012, 03:15 PM
Would certainly work, and I am sure there's quite a few people who do that. 9mm subsonic is your standard 147gr ammo - which is hardly anemic by any standards.

An other option is a KelTek Sub-2000, especially since it can take the 33rnd glock mags.

And not to steer this in an other direction, one of those 10" or 7.5" AOW ($5 stamp!) shotguns is not a bad idea either. Just have to contend with it being a bird's head or pistol grip. At across the room distance, I doubt it'd be too much a hinderence.

Skribs
May 20, 2012, 03:45 PM
I'm with fivetwoseven. Since the invention of the small, fast rifle cartridges (like .223), SMGs are becoming much less common than rifles for police teams and special forces. Unless you're using subsonic ammunition with a silencer, I don't really see the advantage of a 9mm over a .223. The rifle round creates a bigger wound channel and overpenetrates less, and is has very little recoil to begin with.

The only reasons to use a PCC are: with a silencer, if the rifle rounds are illegal or hard to come by where you are, or if you're going to be training at a location with a FPS limit on their range. You can get 100 round magazines in both 9mm and .223 from beta products.

Now that I think about it, I guess (especially with the magazine in the pistol grip) you could get a slightly shorter weapon while remaining legal. But I think the power of the .223 is worth a couple of inches.

Fremmer
May 20, 2012, 04:16 PM
So are you basing your hd round on "over penetration"?

And doesn't every sufficiently powerful round over penetrate?

Snowdog
May 20, 2012, 04:19 PM
I've long considered something similar for HD but more along the lines of a Beretta CX4 Storm with some can attached.

That's been put on the back burner since I already have an M1 Carbine and 16" mid-length AR15 for the HD role, but I still see a suppressed 9mm carbine as something very desirable for indoor use.

Maybe someday....

-v-
May 20, 2012, 05:45 PM
An other value of the PCC is they can be much more dimensionally compact then an AR15. In a situation where space is at a premium this can be a big plus. Also, if you want total ammo commonality among all your small arms they make sense, since you only need 1 caliber of ammunition versus having both pistol and rifle caliber ammo. Accuracy wise, these little buggers can shoot out to 100 yards just fine and still get it done, especially with JHPs

browningguy
May 20, 2012, 07:59 PM
I have a KT Sub 2000 with the G17 magwell, for a HD firearm I think it is quite useful. I keep mine loaded with the Glock 33 round mags. I also have an HK USC in .45, and although it only takes 10 round mags it would also work quite well.

HankB
May 20, 2012, 08:53 PM
For HD, an HKMP5SD would be very close to an "ideal" firearm . . . the last one I saw on the open market went for, IIRC, around $18,500.

So I don't have one, nor am I likely to ever have one.

The next best would be a semi-auto SBR ($200 tax) with a suppressor (another $200 tax) which isn't out of the realm of possibility.

The short barrel means it would be handy, the suppressor means it won't blow out my ears. For caliber, 300 Whisper rates serious consideration.

Vern Humphrey
May 20, 2012, 09:10 PM
If you're at home, the best defense weapon is a shotgun, bar none.

Consider the location of your safe room and the likely sector of fire. Test various loads on "walls" made of scrap 2X4s and sheet rock and see how your chosen load penetrates.

mgregg85
May 20, 2012, 09:11 PM
You'd likely be better served by an AR-15 in 5.56 instead of a semi-auto MAC clone dressed up like an AR-15.

sgtstryker
May 20, 2012, 09:11 PM
You might want to try the new Israeli Uzi Pro. Uses polymers with a six inch barrel and weighs about five pounds. Sounds pretty handy. It's a 9mm, but, is a true sub gun. So, restrictions apply, but would be nice to have around.

dusty14u
May 20, 2012, 09:41 PM
I have a KT Sub 2000 with the G17 magwell, for a HD firearm I think it is quite useful. I keep mine loaded with the Glock 33 round mags. I also have an HK USC in .45, and although it only takes 10 round mags it would also work quite well.
+1

Good reliable and accurate gun. A couple of 33rd mags and you are good to go for a while.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa119/dusty14u/shooter/0919102002.jpg

Warp
May 20, 2012, 09:54 PM
For home defense I would be satisfied with a 9mm carbine that was reliable, durable, easy to shoot, and had a good site + flashlight.

Depending on the cost of said gun, however, I would probably rather have a centerfire rifle caliber instead.

JFrame
May 20, 2012, 10:10 PM
Many people feel perfectly content to defend their home with a 9mm pistol or .38 revolver, and don't seem to receive any criticism for those choices. I don't see what suddenly marginalizes the 9mm carbine other than that the rounds are coming out some significant feet per second faster...??? :confused:


.

Warp
May 20, 2012, 10:19 PM
Many people feel perfectly content to defend their home with a 9mm pistol or .38 revolver, and don't seem to receive any criticism for those choices. I don't see what suddenly marginalizes the 9mm carbine other than that the rounds are coming out some significant feet per second faster...???

I think it stems from several things. Often a handgun is selected as a primary home defense firearm because:

1) It is very easy to lock up in an accessible location, such as a nightstand or drawer, due to its size.

2) It allows easy one handed use, so that the other hand is free for a phone, opening or closing doors, picking up/carrying/directing other family members or young children, etc.

3) They only have one or two firearms and select something that can be carried on their person or in their vehicle as well as serving on the home front.

The pistol caliber carbine generally does not have any of those advantages, or if it has them it is to a lesser degree than a handgun.

People seem to think that if they are going to be using a platform that lends itself very easily to the additional power and effectiveness of a rifle round (or shotgun shell), then why keep the handgun cartridge?

mljdeckard
May 20, 2012, 10:27 PM
Not at all a bad option, but I would still keep my shotgun first, my M-1 carbine second. But if I hadn't inherited an M-1, I'm not sure I ever would have gotten around to buying one, especially at today's prices.

If I hat to use a pistol caliber carbine in this role, I would keep the emphasis on the advantage of low recoil to get as many hits as I could as quickly as possible.

ugaarguy
May 20, 2012, 10:29 PM
So are you basing your hd round on "over penetration"?
What the two gents actually said were:
I think a .223 would be better for being able to fire a more powerful round that penetrates less especially with frangible ammo. I personally use an AK 74 loaded with Hornady V-Max. The 9mm would do the job for sure but over penetration could be a serious issue. (Emphasis mine)
I don't really see the advantage of a 9mm over a .223. The rifle round creates a bigger wound channel and overpenetrates less, and is has very little recoil to begin with. (Emphasis Mine)
And doesn't every sufficiently powerful round over penetrate?
Of course they all do. That doesn't mean we should discount a round that (with proper load selection) typically provides less penetration of building walls of typical construction, AND greater terminal performance on aggressors.

To the op, yes a PCC will work; but modern carbines (like AR-15, AK-74s, and similar) and shotguns are more effective while typically having less risk of stray shot over penetration with proper load selection.

Skribs
May 20, 2012, 10:33 PM
Many people feel perfectly content to defend their home with a 9mm pistol or .38 revolver, and don't seem to receive any criticism for those choices. I don't see what suddenly marginalizes the 9mm carbine other than that the rounds are coming out some significant feet per second faster...???

Like Warp said, handguns are about compromise. You wouldn't be able to use a pistol that held .223 rounds in the grip, and out of a 5" barrel the .223 isn't going to get up to speed. Pistols, and their cartridges, are designed around a smaller platform. You don't get much performance boost from the added size, except for the sight radius and the stock. When you're talking about a legal rifle, which has a 14.5" barrel and 1.5" flash hider, the .223 is going to be near its full potential, and the 9mm is going to be just a bit better than out of a pistol.

There are many properties of the .223 that make it superior to the 9mm. The wound channel is significantly greater, despite a negligable increase in recoil. More importantly, 9mm JHP rounds will clog up when going through drywall and fail to expand, overpenetrating more. .223 rounds do not have this issue.

Pistols are a compromise. You lose the stock, you lose the powerful rifle cartridges, and you gain recoil due to the smaller size. However, it is something that is easier to hide and easier to carry.

dprice3844444
May 20, 2012, 11:17 PM
do not consider using nfa weapons as part of home defense if you have to.you bring in the feds,which you really don't want them snooping around or deciding you violated a federal law and them dragging you into fed court while your dealing with state/county courts.depletes the finances for defense real quick.for home defense,keep it simple and effective.

Warp
May 20, 2012, 11:19 PM
do not consider using nfa weapons as part of home defense if you have to.you bring in the feds,which you really don't want them snooping around or deciding you violated a federal law and them dragging you into fed court while your dealing with state/county courts.depletes the finances for defense real quick.for home defense,keep it simple and effective.

...so don't violate a federal law?

And why would they be snooping around anyway?

rjrivero
May 20, 2012, 11:22 PM
http://www.revolverforums.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=46&pictureid=266

Or it's perm attached muzzle device that covers the suppressor:

http://www.revolverforums.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=46&pictureid=286

JEB
May 20, 2012, 11:22 PM
i think a 9mm carbine would be a fine choice for HD. low recoil, easy handling, less noise than many other platforms; i say go for it.

FIVETWOSEVEN
May 21, 2012, 12:32 AM
So are you basing your hd round on "over penetration"?

And doesn't every sufficiently powerful round over penetrate?

You don't want to accidentally shoot the neighbors now do we? 5.56 and 5.45 tumble when they hit a target and because of their very high speed and lightweight bullets, they slow down much faster from lack of momentum after passing through something and they deform much more after hitting something because of their size.

JustinJ
May 21, 2012, 09:16 AM
I think many underestimate the flash and sound of a rifle cartridge in a confined space. Assuming your ears still work after firing a 5.56 inside a house you might then get to listen to the smoke detectors going off. Pistol caliber carbines have a very distinct advantage in this regard. .45 out of a 16" barrel is incredibly quiet as would be subsonic 9mm. As far as i'm concerned a 5.56 should be used with a can if fired indoors. The primary danger of using NFA items for HD is mandatory sentencing if somehow your actions are found to be illegal.

Ramone
May 21, 2012, 12:35 PM
I think many underestimate the flash and sound of a rifle cartridge in a confined space. Assuming your ears still work after firing a 5.56 inside a house you might then get to listen to the smoke detectors going off. Pistol caliber carbines have a very distinct advantage in this regard. .45 out of a 16" barrel is incredibly quiet as would be subsonic 9mm. As far as i'm concerned a 5.56 should be used with a can if fired indoors.

Indeed. Even though I am a .45ACP guy by inclination, I tend to recommend the 9mm just for the inexpensive ammo.

The other great advantage to a PPC is that it's going to be far more effective in the hands of person with less firearms experience than a pistol, and far safer as one is much less likely to shoot oneself in the foot with a 16" barrel.

steveracer
May 21, 2012, 01:33 PM
I wouldn't hesitate to use one.
I have a Beretta 9mm Carbine (SBR) with an 11" barrel and supressor. Nothing better inside the house for defense, in my opinion. Accuracy, capacity, light weight, and quiet.

flyskater
May 21, 2012, 02:23 PM
I have a KT Sub 2000 with the G17 magwell, for a HD firearm I think it is quite useful.
I don't trust my sub2k. Very cheaply made. The plastic parts have broken on me 2x already and was replaced by Keltec warranty. Great plinker though.
My choice for HD is my Saiga S12 w/20 round drum, then my Saiga 5.45 then my AR.
Nothing beats a reliability of a Russian.

TITAN308
May 21, 2012, 02:35 PM
You'd likely be better served by an AR-15 in 5.56 instead of a semi-auto MAC clone dressed up like an AR-15.

Proof? I get what your saying, but if you are going to make such claims; its generally good form to provide facts and/or data as to why.

Your comment comes off as fanboy'ish.

rjrivero
May 21, 2012, 05:20 PM
Proof? I get what your saying, but if you are going to make such claims; its generally good form to provide facts and/or data as to why.

Your comment comes off as fanboy'ish.

From the "overpenetration" side of the arguement, there is plenty of it. Start HERE. (http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=26)

Flash and bang from a .223 in close quarters is something I'd rather avoid, but from limiting overpenetration, .223 is a pretty good choice.

A fast moving .223 round is a real "neat" round. It'll punch soft body armor and dump it's energy into what lies beyond, penetrates the "required" 13.5" or so in ballistic gel, but looses energy more quickly than handgun rounds when punching through home building materials.

The only real drawback is the loud flash/bang associated with that round especially in closed quarters. A short barrel (7.5") 5.56 was reviewed in a SWAT Magazine Aricle in November 2011 or 2010. I don't remember which year. It's an interesting read if you can dig it up.

If you're alluding to the Platform opinion, well everyone is entitled to their opinions.

hso
May 21, 2012, 08:23 PM
Unless you're willing to pay the $200 tax on an SBR or that and the price of a real SMG I don't understand the merits of picking a platform that lacks the benefits of a modern intermediate cartridge carbine. A 16-in AR can have almost any caliber for the upper half, all the common features found on them (smoothie anyone?), and at the same or lower price than an SMG replica. Factor in common parts, experienced gunsmiths for anything you can't do yourself watching a video (and that's almost anything with an AR) and the ability to switch calibers between a nearly bewildering array of calibers from the .22lr to the 9mm to the 6.8. BTW, tests we ran with drywall and 2x4 framing showed 9mm (and .45 and 10mm) penetrated more layers of drywall (each separated by 4-in gaps) than 5.56 and 5.45 out of standard 16-in barrels.

Other than "it looks so cool" (and I'm all for that), I don't see a practical argument for it.

Buck Kramer
May 21, 2012, 08:57 PM
Taurus is coming out with what looks like a UMP knockoff, looks kinda cool. It was at the SHOT show this year, heres the link.

http://www.rsrgroup.com/catalog/product/TI90161CTG2

JustinJ
May 21, 2012, 09:17 PM
I've read and heard AR pistol caliber conversions can be finicky. Not to mention my UMP conversion has a folding stock and HK reliability. But no, she wasn't cheap.

Skribs
May 22, 2012, 10:46 AM
You know, despite what I've said about PCCs, I do think a UMP/clone in .50 GI would be pretty cool.

Driftertank
May 22, 2012, 11:15 AM
I've said for several years now that i wis HK would quit this USC/SL-8 crap and just build G36 and UMP carbine variants in the states. I personally think a UMP carbine with an integrated suppressor (a la MP5SD) would be a great CQB/HD gun.

elrowe
May 22, 2012, 11:30 AM
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must agree that the defendant's paranoia led to the ambush he set for the victim of this brutal murder with this vicious military weapon that has no purpose in polite society. Clearly, the defendant's intent was to kill this poor young man in the most violent means possible, with blatant disregard for his human rights. You simply must convict this heinous sociopath of cold premeditated murder. The prosecution rests."

Stick with common service-caliber pistols and hunting guns for any intended defense application, it'll make both the criminal and civil cases easier for you if you ever have to use them. Besides that, the anti-gunners will use you as an example to try to pry our tactical guns away from those of us that use them for recreation. It's all about appearances after the shooting stops, keep the "fun guns" in the safe.

FIVETWOSEVEN
May 22, 2012, 11:40 AM
I've said for several years now that i wis HK would quit this USC/SL-8 crap and just build G36 and UMP carbine variants in the states. I personally think a UMP carbine with an integrated suppressor (a la MP5SD) would be a great CQB/HD gun.

I would definitely want both.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must agree that the defendant's paranoia led to the ambush he set for the victim of this brutal murder with this vicious military weapon that has no purpose in polite society. Clearly, the defendant's intent was to kill this poor young man in the most violent means possible, with blatant disregard for his human rights. You simply must convict this heinous sociopath of cold premeditated murder. The prosecution rests."

Stick with common service-caliber pistols and hunting guns for any intended defense application, it'll make both the criminal and civil cases easier for you if you ever have to use them. Besides that, the anti-gunners will use you as an example to try to pry our tactical guns away from those of us that use them for recreation. It's all about appearances after the shooting stops, keep the "fun guns" in the safe.

Oh look, it's that myth again.

JustinJ
May 22, 2012, 12:35 PM
Oh look, it's that myth again.

Its not as outlandish as you might think. I don't have time to look them up but there has been one more more cases in which a prosecutor argued that a defendant carried hollow point ammo because he wished to kill and inflict maximum injury. Of course the counter arguement in either scenario would be to ask if LE uses such ammo or gun because they wish to kill and inflict maximum injury.

Skribs
May 22, 2012, 12:43 PM
Of course the counter arguement in either scenario would be to ask if LE uses such ammo or gun because they wish to kill and inflict maximum injury.

My counterpoint, which I got from this site and I have said numerous times in posts and rhetoric, and I wouldn't have to think about if asked on the stand, is that my goal in any self defense situation is to stop the attack. It's a protective goal.

TITAN308
May 22, 2012, 01:26 PM
Its not as outlandish as you might think. I don't have time to look them up but there has been one more more cases in which a prosecutor argued that a defendant carried hollow point ammo because he wished to kill and inflict maximum injury. Of course the counter arguement in either scenario would be to ask if LE uses such ammo or gun because they wish to kill and inflict maximum injury.

This must be a state by state thing; we don't have this problem in Georgia.

If you come on my property and as soon as you break, kick, tear into something in an attempt to gain entry I can mow you down through the wall and its an open and shut case.

<3 Castle Doctrine :)

From my understanding not all states have this. So while I won't argue the situation you present is possible, thankfully my state laws pretty much squash that from happening.

Edit: If you are ever subject to a house invasion and must use your firearm, make sure there is only one side of the story to tell. Just saying...

TITAN308
May 22, 2012, 01:48 PM
Taurus has this nifty 9mm PCC - but for the love of god tell me someone out there is making an AR-15 adapter for the rear so we can chop off from the pistol grip back and use an AR pistol grip and butt stock.

Photoshop anyone? :(

http://www.cypressarmory.com/cypress/images/products/ti90161ctg2.jpg

Edit: Here my MSpaint skills to get you started: (looks a ton better already....)

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7595/ti90161ctg2.jpg

CoRoMo
May 22, 2012, 04:04 PM
http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa394/CodyMonahan/Frankenstein.jpg

FIVETWOSEVEN
May 22, 2012, 04:14 PM
Its not as outlandish as you might think. I don't have time to look them up but there has been one more more cases in which a prosecutor argued that a defendant carried hollow point ammo because he wished to kill and inflict maximum injury. Of course the counter arguement in either scenario would be to ask if LE uses such ammo or gun because they wish to kill and inflict maximum injury.

I actually do remember that case in Arizona but it was a 10mm HP. There was little defense as I recall reading.

Edit: If you are ever subject to a house invasion and must use your firearm, make sure there is only one side of the story to tell. Just saying...

Yep, even if you just wound them with the first shot and they're on the ground, just execute them. :rolleyes:

Warp
May 22, 2012, 04:23 PM
I actually do remember that case in Arizona but it was a 10mm HP. There was little defense as I recall reading.

Harold Fish. Yes, it was a 10mm (Glock, IIRC) loaded with JHP and he was attacked by a psycho who had a screwdriver in his pocket, with a history of going psycho.

There was a lot of crud going on with that case. Unfortunately the shooter was found guilty and sent to prison. Fortunately they "fixed" the situation and he is now free, and the law has changed.

Edit: If you are ever subject to a house invasion and must use your firearm, make sure there is only one side of the story to tell. Just saying...

If this were my board I would ban you for suggesting that people commit murder. Just saying...

Skribs
May 22, 2012, 04:37 PM
If you are ever subject to a house invasion and must use your firearm, make sure there is only one side of the story to tell. Just saying...

1) The family can still sue
2) The prosecution can make it look like you could have just incapacitated the guy, but instead chose to execute him, especially if that is what you did. If you had no choice but to use lethal force to stop the attack that's one thing, but once it's stopped you no longer have the need to defend yourself.

Vonderek
May 22, 2012, 04:38 PM
Cool idea. But if you've ever had to clear a dark house in the middle of the night with a flashlight you will wish you had a handgun instead of a rifle/shotgun. I agree that a shotgun or carbine is a good idea but only if you are going to stay in place and defend a room while you wait for the cavalry to arrive.

Vonderek
May 22, 2012, 04:52 PM
Cool idea. But if you've ever had to clear a dark house in the middle of the night with a flashlight you will wish you had a handgun instead of a rifle/shotgun. I agree that a shotgun is a good idea but only if you are going to stay in place and defend a room while you wait for the cavalry to arrive.

jmorris
May 22, 2012, 04:58 PM
My sub machine gun is well a machine gun that's only semiauto when the selector is in that position. It's hearing safe with the suppressor on but there are a bunch of other guns I would use before my NFA firearms.

CoRoMo
May 22, 2012, 05:08 PM
...you will wish you had a handgun instead of a rifle/shotgun.
No I will not. Ever.

TITAN308
May 22, 2012, 05:14 PM
If this were my board I would ban you for suggesting that people commit murder. Just saying...

Talk about over blown liberal retort. (Edit: I just realized how your statement puts fault with the victim of a home invasion and pity on the lunatic who broke in. Are you sure you are not an undercover liberal spy trying to scoop stories and ideas?)

Its not murder if you break into my house (or worse have a weapon).

You don't shoot to wound. You shoot to kill.



1) The family can still sue
2) The prosecution can make it look like you could have just incapacitated the guy, but instead chose to execute him, especially if that is what you did. If you had no choice but to use lethal force to stop the attack that's one thing, but once it's stopped you no longer have the need to defend yourself.

I can only assume you are speaking from a state that treats you like a second rate citizen (obviously not of your choice, so don't get offended).

I'm not going to debate #2 as it would be pretty irrelevant anyhow, but I think you've been watching to much CSI.

CoRoMo
May 22, 2012, 05:19 PM
Well... your intent is not supposed to be to kill. It should be to stop the attack/threat. That can certainly result in the attacker's death, but it isn't the primary goal. Otherwise, if you shoot the BG, he falls down and seems to be unconscious but still breathing, you wouldn't stand over him and put one in his head. That's an execution and yes, murder. If you hit him with a round and he flees, you wouldn't pursue him down the sidewalk and continue to fire.

Skribs
May 22, 2012, 05:28 PM
Titan, the goal is to shoot to stop. Not wound or kill. Wounding and killing happens, but the goal is to stop the attack. If he has given up and is leaving, or he is unconcious, you can get in legal trouble for shooting him in the back or executing him. Also, saying "you shoot to kill" on a public forum can be ammunition for a prosecutor against you.

I am not putting fault on the homeowner or pitying the victim. I am saying that up until the attacker stops, you are acting in self defense. After he stops, it is either vigilantiism, vengeance, or sadism, none of which are a good defense.

As to #2, there was a story in WA a while back where someone shot two home invaders, killed one and wounded the other. He was praised as a hero, but once the coroner realized that the bullet wound in the dead BG was fired at an angle that suggested he was turning around to run away, the man got arrested for murder. Not CSI, real life. And that was with a split second. If you know the attacker stopped, and you still fire, you have no defense.

oneounceload
May 22, 2012, 05:32 PM
If you come on my property and as soon as you break, kick, tear into something in an attempt to gain entry I can mow you down through the wall and its an open and shut case.

You might want to reread your CD regs =- mowing down through a wall is murder as there is no threat yet to you when they are outside - but you do as you wish

TITAN308
May 22, 2012, 05:36 PM
I don't recall mentioning shooting someone in the back (outside of my home) or executing anyone.

The point that was missed that when confronted with something like a home invasion one magazine on average carries 10-20 rounds it would not be all that hard to empty all, if not close to all before the guy hits the ground.

I'll share the flip side of your argument;

- guy lives and then gets his homies to kill or rape your wife/daughter

- guy lives and then gets his homies to wack you while you are at McDonalds

- guy lives and sues you (remember story of the home invader falling through a skylight on a knife set, sued and won)

- guy lives, serves jail time, has a change of heart, gets a bunch of liberals and their politicians to feel sorry for him and then tries to pass laws to further hamper your right to self defense

In the end one saying comes to mind; Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

"Shoot to stop" is just a politically correct way of saying "Shoot to kill". I can only imagine the slop police departments would get in if it was leaked their training taught them to "Shoot to Kill".

Whats one of the main rules of firearms? Don't point it at anything you are not willing to utterly and completely destroy.

You might want to reread your CD regs =- mowing down through a wall is murder as there is no threat yet to you when they are outside - but you do as you wish

You should re-read. Standing outside and doing nothing you are absolutely correct.

Once you try to physically gain entry all bets are off. Your regs may vary by state of course.

benEzra
May 22, 2012, 05:37 PM
I think many underestimate the flash and sound of a rifle cartridge in a confined space. Assuming your ears still work after firing a 5.56 inside a house you might then get to listen to the smoke detectors going off. Pistol caliber carbines have a very distinct advantage in this regard. .45 out of a 16" barrel is incredibly quiet as would be subsonic 9mm. As far as i'm concerned a 5.56 should be used with a can if fired indoors. The primary danger of using NFA items for HD is mandatory sentencing if somehow your actions are found to be illegal.
True, .223 out of a 16" to 18" barrel is going to be louder than 9mm out of a 16" to 18" barrel, but .223 isn't any louder in terms of peak dBA than most defensive-caliber handguns or 18" barreled shotguns, and is considerably less loud than a .357 revolver.

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

TITAN308
May 22, 2012, 05:39 PM
As far as Georgia goes;

There are 3 code sections that govern when lethal or deadly force may lawfully be used.

Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force which may harm or kill only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (unless it is regarding defense of habitation, which has it's own requirements below). You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)

Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

1. A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.
2. A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
3. The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

Check and mate. ;)

If your state does not afford you this inalienable right, then work on getting it or move. Anything else is unacceptable.

And just the icing on the cake to squash the "getting sued" after the fact:

(Stand Your Ground/Shoot First/License To Murder - went into effect July 1st, 2006) If you have determined you need to use lethal force (as stated in one of the underlined "Defense" sections immediately above) you do not have to try to retreat before using that force. If your defense is valid, you are immune from criminal prosecution (unless it is illegal to carry that weapon where you used it) and civil liability actions.(16-3-23.1, 16-3-24.2, 51-11-9)

Warp
May 22, 2012, 05:46 PM
You don't shoot to wound. You shoot to kill.

No. You do neither of the above.

You shoot to stop the threat.

I don't recall mentioning shooting someone in the back (outside of my home) or executing anyone.

You, you did not specifically mention execution. You only hinted at it because you know it would be wrong to actually say that.


I truly hope that, despite what you are typing here, you realize there IS A DIFFERENCE between using lethal force and shooting to kill, or making sure there is "only one side to the story".

What you are suggesting is illegal and, to most people, immoral. (which is why it is illegal, malum in se)

CoRoMo
May 22, 2012, 05:52 PM
I don't recall mentioning shooting someone in the back (outside of my home) or executing anyone.
Sure you do. See here:
Originally Posted by TITAN308
You don't shoot to wound. You shoot to kill.
You're saying that if the threat is stopped, but very much alive, you still have work to do. Otherwise, clarify it for us, if the threat is stopped, but very much alive, then what?

Skribs
May 22, 2012, 06:00 PM
Titan, I wasn't saying shoot once, pause to see if he stopped, and repeat. What I am saying is that if you realize the target has stopped attacking, your job in self defense is done. This isn't a jurisdictional thing, it's a transition from self defense to killer, for whatever motivation you have to kill him.

- guy lives and then gets his homies to kill or rape your wife/daughter
Or his homies do it in retaliation for his death.
- guy lives and then gets his homies to wack you while you are at McDonalds
Or they do it in retaliation for his death.
- guy lives and sues you (remember story of the home invader falling through a skylight on a knife set, sued and won)
Or he dies, and either you get charged, or his family sues you.
- guy lives, serves jail time, has a change of heart, gets a bunch of liberals and their politicians to feel sorry for him and then tries to pass laws to further hamper your right to self defense
Or he dies, and media/politicians try to pass such laws.

Both cases can happen whether he lives or dies. If he has stopped the attack, then the only difference between "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop" is whether or not you kill him. Anything that he can have people do in retaliation, they can do of their own free will if he dies. Therefore, all you're doing is following the principle of "the best defense is a good offense" and getting revenge for his potential future crimes by killing him on the spot.

You didn't mention shooting someone in the back, but your attitude, as was said by Coro and Warp, is that you're not done until they're dead. If they're walking away, that would mean shooting them in the back.

Unless you were just trying to be macho and say that you take him down instead of just wounding him, in which case you're missing the point. Self defense isn't about being macho, its about survival.

CoRoMo
May 22, 2012, 06:02 PM
...one magazine on average carries 10-20 rounds it would not be all that hard to empty all, if not close to all before the guy hits the ground.
Good to know.

So the question is this, you do your best and the guy hits the ground hard... the threat is stopped... but the guy is actually still alive there... he's sort of moaning a bit, but he ain't moving. You definitely hit him in just enough places to put him down, but not in enough vital places to end him for good.

That's the situation I'd ask you to speak towards. So tell us, what's your next move there?

TITAN308
May 22, 2012, 06:07 PM
What I see are assumptions, not proof of what you claim I said.

Very liberal mindsets in some of these comments, which is a shame.

I'm sorry some real talk got some people all on edge - because we both know its the same type of talks that happen with your buddies around the camp fire.

I find it more offensive you pretend to take offense to something that is openly talked about outside of a recordable media.

You guys crack me up.

Good to know.

So the question is this, you do your best and the guy hits the ground hard... the threat is stopped... but the guy is actually still alive there... he's sort of moaning a bit, but he ain't moving. You definitely hit him in just enough places to put him down, but not in enough vital places to end him for good.

That's the situation I'd ask you to speak towards. So tell us, what's your next move there?

Call the cops.

If he so much as makes any movement to any pockets or other areas that could carry an item I will assume he is still an active threat and respond accordingly. Just so we are absolutely clear, my main concern is the safety of my daughter and wife, then myself, then my dogs, then my hardwood floors. If you expecting any mercy on the criminal look elsewhere.

Hopefully the guy isn't bleeding on my furniture, cause I'll have to drag him to a different spot and that will have them asking some questions.

(PS that last part was a joke)

Skribs
May 22, 2012, 06:11 PM
From a post count over 100, I wouldn't have assumed troll, but instead of answering our question you are baiting us, calling us liberals, and insulting us.

What would you do? Home invasion, you hit the target a few times and put him down. He isn't moving, but is alive, and you have a phone handy. Do you "shoot to kill" so he can't have his homies whack you or your family, or do you call the cops and let them take him in to custody?

As an aside, we have literal proof that you said "shoot to kill" and made very clear you would not want him alive. You never said anything about letting him go. So our assumptions are safe to make. What people talk about on unrecorded media is different, but when I am talking to people about my self defense strategy, it isn't about a kill fantasy, it is about the mindset to stop the attack.

TITAN308
May 22, 2012, 06:20 PM
From a post count over 100, I wouldn't have assumed troll, but instead of answering our question you are baiting us, calling us liberals, and insulting us.

What are you trying to say? Being a liberal is insulting? lol

What would you do? Home invasion, you hit the target a few times and put him down. He isn't moving, but is alive, and you have a phone handy. Do you "shoot to kill" so he can't have his homies whack you or your family, or do you call the cops and let them take him in to custody?

Already answered.

As an aside, we have literal proof that you said "shoot to kill" and made very clear you would not want him alive.

Yes if I ever have to use my firearm on a home invader I am going to ponder, "Gee I hope he doesn't die, shoot to stop! shoot to stop! Oh man, did I fire to many shot?" Pretty sure if I am using a tool meant to destroy things I am thinking "holy %^& die die die!"

You never said anything about letting him go.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? (and before you get all in a tizzy, this isn't meant in a literal sense)

So our assumptions are safe to make.

Assumptions are not facts. You are free to put stock in whichever you want however.

What people talk about on unrecorded media is different, but when I am talking to people about my self defense strategy, it isn't about a kill fantasy, it is about the mindset to stop the attack.

Ah, the good ol' fall-back of the exaggeration method. Now its a "kill fantasy". I see the media has taught you well. Even though you "admit" (using your terms) you probably speak the same way outside of recordable media, I'm the one with a "kill fantasy".

Stay classy.

SabbathWolf
May 22, 2012, 06:22 PM
*16" barrel= more velocity and accuracy than pistol barrels.
*Overall total length=30 1/4" (depending on stock spacers...can still be shorter or longer)
*Adjustable length of pull by addition and subtraction of stock spacers.
*Light weight.
*Fast handling.
*Accurate as hell.
*30-round factory 9mm magazines.
*No tax stamp necessary for still such a short package.
*Light and optics mounting friendly.
*Functions superbly with both ball & HP ammo.
*Excellent for HD as well as the occasional coyotes harassing my horses.
*Cheaper to shoot than my other rifle calibers and shotguns.
*A bazillion after-market accessories available to customize to your hearts content.
*And can be set up for both left & right handed users too.

What's not to love?
:D



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/15acd3f1.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/543dd6c4.jpg

TITAN308
May 22, 2012, 06:24 PM
I've been considering a the Beretta PX, but I just can't bring myself to like thumb hole stock (or style) weapons.

Hell I just recently decided to get an Accuracy International stock for one of my R700's cause they are finally making them with standard pistol grips.

Has anyone made any kits for the PX like the 10/22?

Edit: Although you know - cutting the extra plastic off the stock could be completely doable... lol

Skribs
May 22, 2012, 06:30 PM
You edited the post after I made mine. I do agree, if he makes a move for what could be a weapon, I wouldn't hesitate to put another round into him.

Yes if I ever have to use my firearm on a home invader I am going to ponder, "Gee I hope he doesn't die, shoot to stop! shoot to stop! Oh man, did I fire to many shot?" Pretty sure if I am using a tool meant to destroy things I am thinking "holy %^& die die die!"

The difference here is that you're too focused on the difference between a wound and a kill, when the goal is to stop the attacker. I don't care if he dies. Which means, I don't care if I kill him or not. I want to stop him from attacking either way. But I'm not set on killing him - that's just a likely course of me stopping him.

I did not admit to speaking that way out of recorded media, and in fact said that my unrecorded rhetoric is always on the mindset of stopping the attack, not killing the attacker. You can kill without stopping, if he dies two days later due to complications with fine birdshot.

Assumptions are not facts. You are free to put stock in whichever you want however.

You originally said to make sure there was no witness. Then you said if he survives, he can do a number of things, so its better if he doesn't. You never even alluded to the fact that you might let him go until after we asked you directly. So yes, you seem to have a macho attitude towards self defense. "Kill fantasy" wasn't an exageration. You have said that in order to prevent retaliation or having another side to the story, you would finish him off.

Your later posts change that viewpoint, and then attack us for "assuming" based on your earlier posts.

TITAN308
May 22, 2012, 06:37 PM
You originally said to make sure there was no witness. Then you said if he survives, he can do a number of things, so its better if he doesn't. You never even alluded to the fact that you might let him go until after we asked you directly.

In this day in age, a tongue in cheek comment can still get people riled up.

Also you keep referencing "letting him go" and I'm not quite sure I understand this line of wording. I would assume you mean "let him live".

So yes, you seem to have a macho attitude towards self defense.

Your perceptions don't equal fact. I think this is the major disconnect. You 'assume' that what you think is ultimately correct or fact.

"Kill fantasy" wasn't an exageration.

Considering I've never had such a thing, I'm pretty sure it is. Just because you say something, doesn't mean its true.

You have said that in order to prevent retaliation or having another side to the story, you would finish him off.

Please quote me (and listen carefully...) where I said "I will kill him so I don't get retaliated upon".

If you can't provide that quote without the use of fractured sentences and quotes you should really back off on your whole agenda.

Your later posts change that viewpoint, and then attack us for "assuming" based on your earlier posts.

I did not change anything, I still stand behind everything I said. :scrutiny:

I mean is this all the conversation is going to be? You stating assumptions and opinion and trying to pass them off as fact? I would have assumed you would have got bored of being repeatedly told the same thing over and over a few posts back.

SabbathWolf
May 22, 2012, 06:43 PM
No I will not. Ever.

Me neither!

Skribs
May 22, 2012, 06:51 PM
Yes. Let him live. I also didn't take it for tongue-in-cheek when you spent a few posts defending the position of "shoot-to-kill".

- guy lives and then gets his homies to kill or rape your wife/daughter

- guy lives and then gets his homies to wack you while you are at McDonalds

- guy lives and sues you (remember story of the home invader falling through a skylight on a knife set, sued and won)

- guy lives, serves jail time, has a change of heart, gets a bunch of liberals and their politicians to feel sorry for him and then tries to pass laws to further hamper your right to self defense

In the end one saying comes to mind; Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

"Shoot to stop" is just a politically correct way of saying "Shoot to kill". I can only imagine the slop police departments would get in if it was leaked their training taught them to "Shoot to Kill".

Whats one of the main rules of firearms? Don't point it at anything you are not willing to utterly and completely destroy.

Here you are defending "shoot to kill" and nowhere did you make any comments that you would let the person live. Your attitude seemed to be such, based off of the information you provided, to be that based on the possibility of the man retaliating out of anger and either sending homies after you or seeking to have the law punish you, you give him no chance to do so and kill him.

I am not sure if you made a tongue-in-cheek response, defended it, and are now backpedaling and saying you're just not trying to be PC about everything; or if you purposefully baited us. Either way, the information you presented made a very clear case that your goal is to kill anyone who attacks, not just to stop the attack, but to prevent retaliation for your use of self defense. You can say "you only assume" but you made it very clear that your position was as such in the earlier posts in this thread.

Saying I'm a second-rate citizen, calling me liberal when you have no idea what my politics are outside of guns (and when I'm very conservative when it comes to guns), and saying I'm making assumptions when they were assumptions your post seems to want people to jump to, that is what made me think "troll."

Considering I've never had such a thing, I'm pretty sure it is. Just because you say something, doesn't mean its true.

Maybe not a kill fantasy per se, but at the very least you have advocated killing beyond what is legally acceptable for a civilian. At least with your previous anti-retaliation posts.

In this day in age, a tongue in cheek comment can still get people riled up.

Some things just aren't good to go tongue-in-cheek about.

LeonCarr
May 22, 2012, 06:53 PM
9MM SMG for Home Defense?

Basically NO. For what a transferable SMG costs I can have Remington 870Ps with Surefire forends in every room of my house and all of my vehicles.

I can put 30 holes in a target faster with an 870 than I can with an SMG, and it will be a much tighter group :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

hso
May 22, 2012, 06:56 PM
This one's done due to bloodlust and insults.

If you enjoyed reading about "9MM "SMG" for Home Defense?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!