Ar-15 as handy as a shotgun?


PDA






walking arsenal
May 24, 2012, 02:41 PM
I was just struck by a major epiphany.

A 20" barreled A2 AR-15 is only one inch longer than an 18.5 inch barreled shotgun.

Lose the flash suppressor and they are very close to the same length.

Bushmaster XM-15E2S
http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_military_MCWA3S20.asp

Remington 870 tactical
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/shotguns/model-870/model-870-express-tactical.aspx

That makes it odd then that we call shotguns "nice and handy for home defense" while at the same time advising everyone that we have to cut down our AR-15s to 16" barreled carbines to make them maneuverable.

No doubt a 16" barreled rifle is easier to move in a hall than a 20" but it looks to me, judging by the numbers, that a 20" is just fine.

Calibers and gauges aside, has anyone else ever noticed this?

If you enjoyed reading about "Ar-15 as handy as a shotgun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Skribs
May 24, 2012, 02:45 PM
The reason we say to chop it down is because 16" is handier than 20" (or 14.5" if you have a 1.5" muzzle adaption). The smaller you go, the handier it is (up to a point).

Personally, I think an AR-15 is a better self defense weapon than a shotgun. And yet, I own a shotgun. It's not hypocritical - I have reasons which make the shotgun much more practical for my situation, and the shotgun is still very good.

jon86
May 24, 2012, 02:56 PM
"Handiness" is very subjective. I think most shotguns are handier than most AR's. A well fitted shotgun "jumps" to the shoulder quickly and almost effortlessly. There are several qualities of an AR that I don't find very handy when compared to a shotgun. A shotgun's receiver seems more trim than an AR's. The pistol grip is protruding on an AR. I guess for me, shouldering a shotgun is more ingrained in my muscle memory than shouldering an AR. But again, it's all subjective. It's not that an AR is NOT handy, but trimmer, simpler designs are handier. I think a slim trim lever gun is more handy than a shotgun. Overall length of the weapon is not the only factor for me when considering handiness.

fatcat4620
May 24, 2012, 02:59 PM
A rifle is a good defensive weapon but the wound that buckshot makes at very close range is devastating. I think that is a main reason (as well as reliability/ease of use) why a scatter gun is recommended for HD use.

Skribs
May 24, 2012, 03:12 PM
Fatcat, have you seen the wound profiles from rifle cartridges? It offers a very different approach than buckshot, you get one giant hole instead of 9 little ones.

I should also point out that scatterguns are no more "reliable" and "easy to use" than a rifle. You still have to aim, and shotguns are not without reliability issues (many due to training of the user).

Dr.Rob
May 24, 2012, 03:20 PM
The more extras you add to either one the less handy they become.

A no frills 16 inch carbine and a no frills 4 shot traditional pump shotgun are both very fast.

You get into magazine extemtions and flashlights and other such on a shotgun you lose a lot of the speed to the shoulder. The extra weight is all out at the end of the barrel.

You can counteract that somewhat on an AR by mounting a flashlight further back on the receiver.

walking arsenal
May 24, 2012, 03:24 PM
The handiness of anything drops when start screwing stuff to it. Talking barrel length though.

ny32182
May 24, 2012, 03:25 PM
I've never seen the "handiness" touted as an advantage of a non-SBS shotgun.

I thought it was mostly that they were cheap, and each round of buckshot is pretty devastating at close range, and they are pretty easy to get from a non-chambered state into a chambered ready-to-fire state if that is your method of storage.

A 5.56 from across the room distance will also be... "devastating". Also as noted, the average 16" AR15 is shorter, lighter, and contains 30 rounds instead of ~8. And since I've personally had terrible luck with shotgun reliability, it all adds up to AR for this guy, between the two.

fatcat4620
May 24, 2012, 03:36 PM
I did not know .223 made a 3/4 inch entry hole and 9-15 separate wound channels. (and I an aware of the temporary stretch cavity that .223 makes) I also think that the shotgun has the advantage when you hit places other than center mass.

walking arsenal
May 24, 2012, 03:42 PM
I did not know .223 made a 3/4 inch entry hole and 9-15 separate wound channels. (and I an aware of the temporary stretch cavity that .223 makes)

That has nothing to do with the maneuverability of barrel lengths either. Try to stay with the topic.

Also, I've never seen a shotgun that holds 30 rounds.

mgmorden
May 24, 2012, 03:43 PM
For quick handling I still find the shotgun more comforting. Say what you will, but while it still has to be aimed, a shotgun does NOT take the precision aiming that a rifle does. You shoulder it, get a quick bead on the target and pull the trigger. I've shot enough ducks and done other wingshooting to know that I can hit all sorts of stuff with a shotgun that I couldn't DREAM of hitting with my AR15.

Also, it may be a product of my upbringing (I shot my first shotgun at 5 years old - I was 17 before I shot a rifle and 21 before I fired a handgun), but a shotgun just feels a lot more natural in the hand - particularly compared to an AR which I've never much liked the ergonomics of.

Overall, the only places to me where a shotgun suffers are capacity and range. Neither is particularly a big issue in HD scenarios.

Put simply - if I'm going to war - give me the AR - for home defense, I'll always take a good shotgun.

fatcat4620
May 24, 2012, 03:56 PM
Waking, if you let 30 rounds go in a hd shooting I hope you play golf with the DA. As noted by others a shotgun shoulders fast, aims fast, and and can put down almost anything that lives conus.
OP are we talking about oh snap someone just kicked in the door or room clearing baghdad style?

Skribs
May 24, 2012, 03:58 PM
Fatcat, the thing is, the shotgun makes all those little holes. The rifle round has enough velocity to actually cause a very wide wound tract which is stretched far beyond the .223 caliber. This picture (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/223%20Remington%2050gr%20JSP.jpg) illustrates how a .223 works when it hits a target. Yes, you get one hole instead of 9, but it's a much bigger hole, and you have much faster follow-up shots with a .223 than you do with a 12-gauge.

Mgmorden, at 10 feet (self defense ranges), you're likely to get maybe a 2-4" pattern, depending on specific load. It isn't the cone of death you think it to be. You're also hunting with birdshot, which holds lots of pellets and patterns throughout. With 00-buck, probably the most popular self defense shell, you have 9 pellets. If the pattern is such that you'll hit within a cone, you're only going to hit with one or less pellets.

For HD, I do believe a rifle is better than a shotgun. The disadvantages of a rifle are cost, and where you can practice with them. Personaly preference or "what I'm used to" aside, that's pretty much it.

Water-Man
May 24, 2012, 04:21 PM
Just get a Mini-14.

Loosedhorse
May 24, 2012, 04:36 PM
Handier, IHMO.I did not know .223 made a 3/4 inch entry hole and 9-15 separate wound channels.Actually, it does this:

http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/uploads/223_62_Barrier_4website.jpg

You'll barely notice the recoil compared to 12 gauge, and they'll be 29 more in the magazine. .223s aren't shotguns, but they're nothing to sneeze at.

Bubba613
May 24, 2012, 04:40 PM
Ar-15 as handy as a shotgun?
No.
The ergonomics are completely different. And then add the noise and blast factor and there is a reason the 12ga shotgun occupies the premier place for long guns outside of the military.

fatcat4620
May 24, 2012, 04:47 PM
Shotgun gel test from brass fetcher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBFS3HWoIU

Skribs
May 24, 2012, 04:52 PM
Like we said, we're not denying the power of the 12-gauge. But we are saying you shouldn't deny the power of the .223. It's not your grandpa's .22.

Hypnogator
May 24, 2012, 04:58 PM
To paraphrase our much-loved (pun intended) former President, "It depends on what the meaning of the word handy is." :rolleyes:

Most of my shotguns are lighter than my ARs. Comparing one of my AR-15s with my Ithaca 37 featherweight 18 1/8" HD shotgun, although overall length is very similar the shotgun is much lighter. Lighter translates to less inertia to move quickly, if necessary, and therefore faster on target. Therefore, the shotgun is handier. :cool:

At HD distances, you're going to be pointing and shooting anyway, so there really isn't any difference in sight acquisition. The recoil of the shotgun is quite a bit greater, so followup shots are faster with the AR, but I've never heard of anyone absorbing a charge of 00 Buck at close range and needing a followup hit to disable them. Followup shots have however, been necessary with 5.56/.223 hits. :uhoh:

walking arsenal
May 24, 2012, 04:59 PM
Waking, if you let 30 rounds go in a hd shooting I hope you play golf with the DA. As noted by others a shotgun shoulders fast, aims fast, and and can put down almost anything that lives conus.
OP are we talking about oh snap someone just kicked in the door or room clearing baghdad style?

None of the above. We're talking about how all these years we've called 18" barreled shotguns fast and pointable while at the same time calling 20" barreled AR-15s clunky and unwieldy when, in actuality, they are very close to the same length.

You're the one who wanted to build a straw man and debate calibers and home defense scenarios.

fatcat4620
May 24, 2012, 05:09 PM
Thats because they are fast and pointable, they have a simple manual of arms, and are more snag free. I was pointing out that there is more to it than what you listed. If what you say is true we would have stopped using shotguns and switched to our ARs and AKs 30 years ago.

walking arsenal
May 24, 2012, 05:45 PM
If what you say is true we would have stopped using shotguns and switched to our ARs and AKs 30 years ago.

It is true. Check the links if you don't believe me. 39.5" (AR-15) - 38.5" (Shotgun) equals a 1" difference.

And shotguns are going out of vogue. A lot of police departments are switching from shotguns to ARs and they are becoming a lot more common place in the home as well do to their softer recoil and lower penetration on interior walls.

I don't ever see shotguns fading out of existence though. There will always be a call for their abilities and they definitely fill the niche for cheap home defense arms.

Panzercat
May 24, 2012, 07:01 PM
The AR-Shotgun would like to say "Hi!"
In a convenient .410 package too.

http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/at-14.jpg (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/01/26/at-14-the-410-ar-15-shotgun/)

flyskater
May 24, 2012, 07:19 PM
Also, I've never seen a shotgun that holds 30 rounds.
Here's a 30 round shotgun, I do prefer a 20 round drum though.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kpvEjjFk4Dg/0.jpg

Skribs
May 24, 2012, 07:25 PM
When you start using detachable magazines, the shotgun becomes significantly less weildy than an AR. Standard saiga drum mags for 12-ga are 20 shells, for .410 are 30. You can get 100-round drums for .223, and they're smaller.

Similarly, you can only get 4-5 shells in a magazine the size of a 30-round .223 magazine. When you get an 8 shell magazine for the Saiga, it's like carrying a camera around with the tripod attached. I personally think that a shotgun is easiest to use with no pistol grip and a tube magazine. 7+1+1 beats 4+1 in a reasonably sized package in my book, and the tube-fed is easier to top off.

Eyeplink45
May 24, 2012, 07:50 PM
This a 5.56 video also from brassfetcher. Just some food for thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55CkeT7qdtM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

fatcat4620
May 24, 2012, 07:57 PM
Nice over penetration, bet your kids will love that.

mgmorden
May 24, 2012, 08:58 PM
Mgmorden, at 10 feet (self defense ranges), you're likely to get maybe a 2-4" pattern, depending on specific load. It isn't the cone of death you think it to be. You're also hunting with birdshot, which holds lots of pellets and patterns throughout. With 00-buck, probably the most popular self defense shell, you have 9 pellets. If the pattern is such that you'll hit within a cone, you're only going to hit with one or less pellets.

Important note: I've actually hunted pretty extensively with buckshot for deer. In SC we still can drive deer with dogs where the only legal ammo is buckshot. For one, I typically shoot 15-pellet 3" loads, not 9 pellet 2.75", and for two, no, its not a "cone of death", but I'll stand by my statement that I can hit a LOT easier with the shotgun.

BTW, the first deer I ever dropped I hit with 1 - I repeat ONE - #3 buckshot pellet from a 20ga, but it was straight through the heart. That deer made it about 25 feet before he keeled over and bled out. You don't need to put the whole load in the chest to drop an animal (and people are just smarter animals).

Eric M
May 24, 2012, 09:17 PM
Nice over penetration, bet your kids will love that.
Yea well it's got a steel core which is meant to penetrate so your remark is sort of pointless.

M193 on the other hand, doesn't have a steel core.

ByAnyMeans
May 24, 2012, 09:20 PM
I don't think rifle or shotgun matters much. They will both serve you well. Better served through training and then practicing what you learned.

If the price of training and supplies means you get a shotgun in order to afford both then you are ahead of the game if you get an AR and it is barely shot. If you just like the shotgun better than you are still an force to be reckoned with. All this applies if you choose an AR as well.

Train, practice, and pray your aim is true and you and yours come out safe.

Skribs
May 24, 2012, 09:22 PM
Dave, if you'll look here (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#OVERPENETRATION), you'll see that the .223 tends to overpenetrate less after going through walls than a shotgun does, and you have only one projectile instead of 9+. With that said, anything capable of stopping an attacker will go through several walls.

Texan Scott
May 24, 2012, 09:40 PM
I'd consider a good .30-30, .44, or .357 as an alternative to a pump shotgun. 'Handy' it is, but not my first worry... I worry about reliablity and breakability issues. I KNOW 80% of THR will hate me for saying this, but I am NOT comfortable staking my life on an AR-15 if things are going long-term bad or dirty. Admittedly, my only experience with AR-types is with military issue, which may be why I'm biased against them (my dear Uncle Sam loved me enough to arm me with pieces of $#!%) but I'd rather have something I cycle manually. Also, something that keeps working when the batteries fail. I HATE batteries, I distrust accessories that require them.

+1 vote for the shotgun

jmr40
May 24, 2012, 10:00 PM
Shotguns have all but completely disappeared from LE and military use because of many points already discussed in this thread. An AR is lighter, more compact, has far less recoil, far greater ammo capacity, less concern with overpenetration in building materials and better perfromance when the proper bullet strikes human targets at close range. A shotguns only advantage is a cheaper price and with AR prices dropping the gap is getting smaller every year.

Skribs
May 24, 2012, 10:11 PM
Texan, the problem is that a .357/.44 magnum doesn't reach the velocity to cause significant cavitation trauma that a rifle round would. They're useful in revolvers because (excepting the 5.7 and I think maybe the 7.62x25) no handgun round really does. I'll give you the .30-30, but I don't think a quality AR is going to have the jamming issues you think it will.

fatcat4620
May 24, 2012, 11:09 PM
Shotguns have all but completely disappeared from LE and military use because of many points already discussed in this thread. An AR is lighter, more compact, has far less recoil, far greater ammo capacity, less concern with overpenetration in building materials and better perfromance when the proper bullet strikes human targets at close range. A shotguns only advantage is a cheaper price and with AR prices dropping the gap is getting smaller every year.
A shotgun its not an offensive weapon in this case and a shogun does not require proper bullet strikes. A shotgun does not put all its eggs in the hydrostatic shock basket. It is more like a destroy all tissue in its path basket.

-v-
May 24, 2012, 11:25 PM
A shotgun its not an offensive weapon in this case and a shogun does not require proper bullet strikes. A shotgun does not put all its eggs in the hydrostatic shock basket. It is more like a destroy all tissue in its path basket.
Huh? Military ball ammo relies on tumbling and fragmentation for its damage. Civilian ammo is either JHP or SP and relies on the exact same mechanics that any other hunting or varmit ammo relies on - to a quite devastating effect.

Personally, I find my AK or my AR a lot handier in a "CQB" style environment then a shotgun. a 20" mossberg 7+1 is about 4-5" longer with a heavier muzzle swing then either my AK or AR. Its a longer an a much less maneuverable weapon.

Plus the traditional stock forces me to adopt a more spread out stance which makes retention of the weapon difficult and puts me in a much less balanced stance then my AK or AR around which I can hunch down and wrap around and have much greater control of the said long arm.

Not to mention at typical HD distances, the grand total spread of 1-2" from a open choke isnt going to give the shotgun any significant accuracy leg up on the AR. Hell, I can ignore the rear sight on my AR/AK and use the front solely as a shotgun bead, and I give up nothing in practical accuracy in under 10 yards versus aimed fire.

The other thing, weight wise, my bone stock M500 with 7+1 of 000 3" buck basically just as much or more then my 18" AR with a 30 round mag in it, or my bone stock SGL.

Don't get me wrong, I do like my shotgun, but my go-to gun has always been a rifle for the above stated reasons.

fatcat4620
May 24, 2012, 11:31 PM
I give up. I am going to make sure my AK has a mag in it.

walking arsenal
May 25, 2012, 10:47 AM
I was thinking about this last night again and things really do fall into favor for the AR. Not only is a full size rifle as short as a 18" barreled shotgun you can also get them shorter.

It's a mad mad world.

Deanimator
May 25, 2012, 12:21 PM
No non-NFA long gun is practical in my home.

That's why my AR stays in the safe, regardless of whether it's got the 20" or 16" upper. The same goes for my 20" Ithaca Model 37 DSPS.

jrdolall
May 25, 2012, 01:14 PM
No.

Loosedhorse
May 25, 2012, 02:52 PM
Thats because they are fast and pointableA lot of folks think ARs are, too. They are certainly lighter; in 16" config an AR goes about 6.25 lbs, or you can get one in polymer for 5.5 lbs. Lightest 870 you'll find is about 7 lbs. And the AR will still recoil less.they have a simple manual of armsSimple if you already know it. I know lots of folks who short-stroke their pumps in rapid fire. And reloading is part of the manual of arms: much easier for the AR.Nice over penetration, bet your kids will love that.Several companies make .223 rounds with disintegration cores, if you are worried about over-penetration (I personally think everyone should be, unless they live alone in a rural setting). For example (http://www.hornadyle.com/products/more_detail6ea4.html?id=130&sID=143&pID=1):

http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/uploads/83265-223_45_GR_TAP_NTX-n.jpg

Personally, I don't think there's an advantage to either AR or shotgun for overpenetration concerns; it's completely load dependent, and so can be adjusted for either gun depending on the load.

http://papercut.mercenariesguild.net/Wound/bird_8_heavy_dove_a.jpg

And with either, the less concern about overpenetration, the more concern about underpenetration--can't avoid that.A shotgun does not put all its eggs in the hydrostatic shock basket.Neither does the .223. The temporary cavitation and fragmentation of the .223 bullet leads to actual tissue destruction, a much wider permanent wound channel than the bullet diameter. It is not depending on hydrostatic shock, just on tissue damage.

Chemistry Guy
May 25, 2012, 03:26 PM
I have ARs and AKs that are shorter and lighter than my 870, but I still would choose my 870 for HD. I simply have more confidence in my ability to point a shotgun with a bead sight quickly than to aim a rifle. With my AR I really rely on my eyes, rather than the feel, to predict where the bullet will go. With my shotguns I can close my eyes and point it at an object fairly accurately.

If I trained with a rifle I might feel differently, but 90% of the shots that I fire are at a clay bird with a shotgun. I feel that this familiarity makes the shotgun the superior tool for home defense in my case.

Warp
May 25, 2012, 04:30 PM
And reloading is part of the manual of arms: much easier for the AR.

Not that reloading is much of a concern for home defense.

+ the AR would have to have a spare magazine mounted on it. Unless you keep one next to it and slip it into your pajama pockets, I guess, or buy one of those purse things the gun rags keep trying to sell us on.

Owen Sparks
May 25, 2012, 04:30 PM
I picked up a customized Saiga 12 GA the other day and it just did not point or swing like a conventional shotgun. I felt slow with it.

Certaindeaf
May 25, 2012, 04:38 PM
Nothing points or handles quicker than an old fashioned AR.. not one of those bloated gewgawed out specimens.

Loosedhorse
May 25, 2012, 04:45 PM
Not that reloading is much of a concern for home defense.Depends on whom you've trained with. I've been trained, once the fight seems over and the area seems secure, you put a fresh mag in. I want one available in case of jams, too. Same as for pistols.the AR would have to have a spare magazine mounted on it.It does. If it helps, there are spare shells on the shotgun, too.

;)

Warp
May 25, 2012, 04:53 PM
Depends on whom you've trained with. I've been trained, once the fight seems over and the area seems secure, you put a fresh mag in. I want one available in case of jams, too. Same as for pistols.It does. If it helps, there are spare shells on the shotgun, too.

;)

I would also be worried about jams with an AR.

Certaindeaf
May 25, 2012, 04:55 PM
I would also be worried about jams with an AR.
That's odd. Have you ever shot a "good" one.. ie Colt etc?

leftymachinist
May 25, 2012, 04:56 PM
Back when I was young a shotgun with a short bbl. was a riot gun, and a rifle is one with a bbl. more than 20 inches. Carbines generally had 20" orshorter barrels(Winchester model 94s). The M16/AR15 is a carbine to me. Just my 1.375 cents.

Warp
May 25, 2012, 04:57 PM
That's odd. Have you ever shot a "good" one.. ie Colt etc?

Nope. Too expensive.

Which is why I don't have one of my own at all. Just too $$$

holdencm9
May 25, 2012, 05:23 PM
Just kidding.

I think they could both be used to devastating effect on any intruder(s) who might come into your home wanting to do you harm. I really think it comes down to what you have trained with, and what you think you could grab and use at night after just being woken from a deep sleep and you are still groggy.

I'd say the AR might be better for clearing your house, and the shotgun is better for hiding behind the bed and pointing at the door while on the phone with 911. Hence, I keep my Mossberg 500 loaded and ready to go. The AR sits in its case in another corner of the room, not loaded but magazines nearby.

Cosmoline
May 25, 2012, 05:38 PM
One in each hand!

Seriously, the up-front cost strongly favors the shotgun. But the AR hits real hard at close range and is more than enough for the purpose. And once you have it, it's very economical to practice a lot with it. 5.56 rounds cost much less than 12 ga self defense shells.

In the end it comes down to preference and which you'll be able to train more with.

Loosedhorse
May 25, 2012, 09:05 PM
I would also be worried about jams with an AR. Or any semiauto (handguns and shotguns included). Or pumps (short-stroking). Or revolvers (bullet jump or short-stroking).

Jams are parties--everyone is invited. :DWhat sounds scarier? Pumping a shotgun or AR charging handle? Neither action is going to clear a double-feed jam for either firearm.

armysniper
May 25, 2012, 09:28 PM
Here is my choice. AR15. I spent 5 years in the army as an infantryman. Have shot literally 10s of thousands of rounds, probably more. Ive slept with it, jumped up in the middle of the night with it from a dead sleep to engage enemy advancing on our base with seconds. Time carrying and using an m-4 / m16 thousands of hours.

So I would have to say that an AR is very handy for me to move around and shoot than a shotgun. To me a shotgun is a clumsy retarded feeling weapon. If I had used a shotgun as my primary battle rifle in my military career, I may have felt different about it.

atomd
May 25, 2012, 09:58 PM
The ergonomics are completely different. And then add the noise and blast factor and there is a reason the 12ga shotgun occupies the premier place for long guns outside of the military.

I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with the fact you can get a 12 gauge at Walmart for $185 and an entry level AR costs 4 times that. Just because it's the most popular doesn't mean it's the best. Is the top 40 music chart always filled with the greatest musicians of our time? :rolleyes:

That being said....I don't think most people even consider noise or blast factor. We're talking about it because we are the minority of people who are on a firearms-related forum. If you offered every single person in this country an AR15 in n even exchange for their 12 gauge home defense shotgun....you would need a heck of a big warehouse to store all those shotguns in.

I think both are good at what they do....and neither is best for absolutely everyone. Isn't it nice to have choices?

SabbathWolf
May 25, 2012, 09:59 PM
My personal choice is "neither" the AR15 nor the 870 you linked to either.

Your shotgun example comes in at 38 1/2" over all length.
The AR is even longer.
Barrel length alone cannot be your deciding factor. You simply "must" look at the OAL as well at the end of the day.

My 7.62x39 AK, including the muzzle brake comes in @ just under 37" total.
So both the shotgun and the AR15 as well come in somewhere between my AK and my bolt rifle.
And....just in passing...measuring an M4 for example with the butt stock "collapsed" is actually cheating.
You cannot shoulder and fire the weapon effectively from that mode unless you are a midget.

My own "personal" choice is my 9mm Cx4 with 30 round mags for HD.
It is outstanding in small rooms and tight hallways compared to anything I own other than a pistol.
Second choice would still be my AK over a shotgun.

My "Black Gun" collection (so to speak) is based on long-range, intermediate range, close range...and then a back-up handgun to support any of the others.
I don't own a "lot" of guns. But the few I do have, I try to pick very wisely with quality, and a very specific purpose and intent in mind.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/133952fc.jpg

B!ngo
May 25, 2012, 10:05 PM
Fatcat, the thing is, the shotgun makes all those little holes. The rifle round has enough velocity to actually cause a very wide wound tract which is stretched far beyond the .223 caliber. This picture (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/223%20Remington%2050gr%20JSP.jpg) illustrates how a .223 works when it hits a target. Yes, you get one hole instead of 9, but it's a much bigger hole, and you have much faster follow-up shots with a .223 than you do with a 12-gauge.

Mgmorden, at 10 feet (self defense ranges), you're likely to get maybe a 2-4" pattern, depending on specific load. It isn't the cone of death you think it to be. You're also hunting with birdshot, which holds lots of pellets and patterns throughout. With 00-buck, probably the most popular self defense shell, you have 9 pellets. If the pattern is such that you'll hit within a cone, you're only going to hit with one or less pellets.

For HD, I do believe a rifle is better than a shotgun. The disadvantages of a rifle are cost, and where you can practice with them. Personaly preference or "what I'm used to" aside, that's pretty much it.

I agree with the post (above). To add, seems like you can be a bit less precise with a shotgun than an AR or pistol carbine. The AR or pistol carbine can be more readily reloaded but if you need to do that, you're in a firefight and that's a whole different thing. In terms of ease of aiming/swinging the barrel it's a wash.

To me, it's either a shotgun or a handgun. The handgun is far more maneuverable and is likely my choice, though there is not doubt that the shotgun is more effective and more likely to score a hit. I own and AR and a pistol carbine but needing to use two hands, without the advantage of more leeway in accuracy just doesn't seem like a good trade. Hmmm, maybe I need to purchase a scattergun after all. Just don't want to train with it, since I otherwise wouldn't use it much.

One more thing, and I'm unclear on the answer. For the sake of maintaining situational awareness as well as ones long-term health, which of the four is the loudest and is likely to cause the shooter the most short- and long-term auditory damage: a 9mm handgun?; a 16" AR?; a 9mm carbine?; a 20" 12 gauge?
B

Samari Jack
May 25, 2012, 10:10 PM
This would be my choice from Kel-tec. Short, I shoot a long gun left-handed so ejection is a concern. Soft-nose or frangible ammo.

I've been wanting one since they came out. Kind of pricey though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNoUt3aVrus

scythefwd
May 25, 2012, 10:17 PM
ITs more than just barrel length that makes a gun "handy". It's the ergos of it, it's the balance of it.

The AR has great ergos, as long as you don't have to snap to the shoulder... any straight stocked rifle or shotgun will have an advantage.

Oh, and you don't "aim" shotguns, you point them. Many don't have the second device to call it aiming (rear sight).

I don't know if the 30 rnd mag makes the gun more or less maneuverable honestly. It looses its swing, but might actually be faster to redirect.. definitely different feel from a shotgun though.

If you handle it well, use it.. who cares what experts on the net say.

SabbathWolf
May 25, 2012, 10:22 PM
I agree with the post (above). To add, seems like you can be a bit less precise with a shotgun than an AR or pistol carbine. The AR or pistol carbine can be more readily reloaded but if you need to do that, you're in a firefight and that's a whole different thing. In terms of ease of aiming/swinging the barrel it's a wash.

To me, it's either a shotgun or a handgun. The handgun is far more maneuverable and is likely my choice, though there is not doubt that the shotgun is more effective and more likely to score a hit. I own and AR and a pistol carbine but needing to use two hands, without the advantage of more leeway in accuracy just doesn't seem like a good trade. Hmmm, maybe I need to purchase a scattergun after all. Just don't want to train with it, since I otherwise wouldn't use it much.

One more thing, and I'm unclear on the answer. For the sake of maintaining situational awareness as well as ones long-term health, which of the four is the loudest and is likely to cause the shooter the most short- and long-term auditory damage: a 9mm handgun?; a 16" AR?; a 9mm carbine?; a 20" 12 gauge?
B


No offense, but some of you guys are crackin' me up with this "you don't have to aim a shotgun...or it spreads at close range" stuff.
Nothing could be farther from the truth!

Warp
May 25, 2012, 10:31 PM
Oh, and you don't "aim" shotguns, you point them. Many don't have the second device to call it aiming (rear sight).

Even if it only has a bead, you still ought to be aiming. The top of the barrel/receiver serves this purpose.

But since I have tritium ghost rings on mine, it definitely qualifies as aiming, for me.

FIVETWOSEVEN
May 25, 2012, 11:07 PM
A rifle is a good defensive weapon but the wound that buckshot makes at very close range is devastating. I think that is a main reason (as well as reliability/ease of use) why a scatter gun is recommended for HD use.

Times have changed.

I went from a 12 gauge pump, to a 12 gauge semi to finally an AK 74 loaded with Hornady V-Max. 5.45 x 39 V-Max will penetrate far less walls then a shotgun loaded with buckshot and since I live in a neighborhood, I have to be mindful about them regarding overpenetration.

atomd
May 25, 2012, 11:24 PM
No offense, but some of you guys are crackin' me up with this "you don't have to aim a shotgun...or it spreads at close range" stuff.
Nothing could be farther from the truth!

No kidding. It's not like the movies where you shoot one shot and it fills the room with shot, destroying everything in sight. Go and measure your bedroom..then shoot a piece of cardboard at that same distance with your hd shell. It's not going to spread much at all. People really confuse the whole pointing versus aiming thing when it comes to shotguns too. They think pointing means basically pointing the barrel in the general direction you want and bang, you hit your target.....no need to "aim" because it's a "scattergun". :uhoh:

SabbathWolf
May 25, 2012, 11:38 PM
No kidding. It's not like the movies where you shoot one shot and it fills the room with shot, destroying everything in sight. Go and measure your bedroom..then shoot a piece of cardboard at that same distance with your hd shell. It's not going to spread much at all. People really confuse the whole pointing versus aiming thing when it comes to shotguns too. They think pointing means basically pointing the barrel in the general direction you want and bang, you hit your target.....no need to "aim" because it's a "scattergun". :uhoh:

Exactly.
Too much TV and movies...and not enough "hand-on" around here.
:D

wdyasq
May 25, 2012, 11:55 PM
What an interesting conversation.

My personal choice on home defense shotgun fodder is 'low brass bird shot'. At "home defense ranges" it is going to cut large holes. It is not going to have a problem with over-penetration.

If I ever do need a 'home defense gun', I will pick the nearest one to me. I am very comfortable with one of my large frame S&W revolvers, my 1911 in one of several calibers or a rifle or shotgun. I'll think about what I MIGHT have used if survive the incident/adventure.

This is somewhat like the first rule of a gun fight, "Have a Gun". It would be preferable we fight with good boots on, a vest full of spare magazines and flashlights, our favorite gun and good aiming system and out best shooting buddy backing us up (or a SEAL team - 'Boys, he in there ,,, there may be more than one!)

Odds are if confronted, I'll be nude (I sleep that way), I'll have a wheel gun in my hand (there is one on the night stand) and be trying to figure out, "WHAT the 'F' is going on!"

Ron

Ron

scythefwd
May 25, 2012, 11:59 PM
Warp.. you are pointing if you are using the rail. You can point accurately enough, but you aren't aiming by any stretch of the imagination. There isn't any pin point precision involved (where aiming allows for that level of precision).

Would you consider it "aiming" if your handgun only had a bead and you were just looking down the slide? It'd be called point shooting for a reason.

Secondly, if you are using that shotgun right, you don't necessarily see the front bead. Take the bead off a competent shotgunner's shotgun and he'd still bust clays more often then not..


Sabbothwolf.. I too think the cx4 is just about perfect for that role, or any bullpup gun out there.. don't think it's as fast to the shoulder as a straight stock.. but good enough, plenty of power, good and short...

Warp
May 26, 2012, 12:01 AM
Warp.. you are pointing if you are using the rail. You can point accurately enough, but you aren't aiming by any stretch of the imagination. There isn't any pin point precision involved (where aiming allows for that level of precision).

Not aiming by any stretch of the imagination? I'm pretty sure putting slugs onto a pie plate at 50 yards constitutes aiming rather than merely pointing pointing.

Would you consider it "aiming" if your handgun only had a bead and you were just looking down the slide? It'd be called point shooting for a reason.

If I could hit man size targets at 50 yards then hell yes I would consider it aiming.

You seem to lack the experience necessary to adequately contribute to this conversation

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 12:05 AM
Not aiming by any stretch of the imagination? I'm pretty sure putting slugs onto a pie plate at 50 yards constitutes aiming rather than merely pointing pointing.



If I could hit man size targets at 50 yards then hell yes I would consider it aiming.

You seem to lack the experience necessary to adequately contribute to this conversation


Quite frankly, I agree with ya here Warp on the aiming part.
I've "aimed" plenty of shotguns over the years...and on purpose too.
lol...
;)

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 12:09 AM
Sabbothwolf.. I too think the cx4 is just about perfect for that role, or any bullpup gun out there.. don't think it's as fast to the shoulder as a straight stock.. but good enough, plenty of power, good and short...

The shouldering speed I think is really just what you personally are used to I suppose. I mean, I'm used to these kinds of stocks along with pistol grip types like an M4 just from being in the army for so long.
It's the "straight" stocks that "I" find slow and weird.
But that's not the case for everybody either way I suppose.

The Cx4 is a bad *ss lil mamma jamma though. I couldn't be more pleased with it.

scythefwd
May 26, 2012, 12:10 AM
warp.. I can do that without anything on top of my barrels.. it's still pointing. It's relatively accurate.. but by no stretch of the imagination anywhere near what you can do with proper sights and aiming. I can do the same thing with just about every handgun I own at 20y.. it isnt aiming though. Hell, I keep it on a pie plate at 80 with slugs and just a bead.. but... it isn't precise. I suspect we actually are having more of a disagreement on semantics(connotation, not denotation) than principle.

I do think it's funny that you presume to have any clue as to my experience level based on a couple of comments though..

Warp
May 26, 2012, 12:17 AM
warp.. I can do that without anything on top of my barrels.. it's still pointing. It's relatively accurate.. but by no stretch of the imagination anywhere near what you can do with proper sights and aiming. I can do the same thing with just about every handgun I own at 20y.. it isnt aiming though. Hell, I keep it on a pie plate at 80 with slugs and just a bead.. but... it isn't precise. I suspect we actually are having more of a disagreement on semantics(connotation, not denotation) than principle.

I do think it's funny that you presume to have any clue as to my experience level based on a couple of comments though..

How is hitting a pie plate at 80 yards not aiming??

scythefwd
May 26, 2012, 12:25 AM
not if I'm not using sights to do it.

A bead is a reference, just like sights, but you need 2 objects in order to aim (3 actually, two fixed to the rifle, one in the same plane or line).

you see, its all about geometry.. between any two points (points are 2 dimensional), there is exactly 1 line. If I don't have two fixed points in relation to my barrel, I can be off... that's why a bead isn't aiming.. its a referenced point fixed to a barrel, one point... with any infinite number of sighting lines through it.

Same thing with dusting a 4" clay at 50y.. its not aiming.. I'll say it again, you can't aim without sights.. you can point accurately enough though. Take the bead off my shotgun.. and I'm still going to hit, but I might not hit exactly where I want it (I do require a bead for 80y.. not at 40-50 though and a 8" pie plate). If I have 2 beads.. then it's aiming, but not all shotguns have that intermediate bead.

A bead is no different than using a pointsight.

AT 30 yards, I just mount and shoot.. I can tell you generally where it's going to hit.. within a deers vitals which is about 6".. and thats not even looking at the end of the barrel... I don't even see it.. all I see is deer hide.

I still suggest you take all sights off a shotgun and put someone who knows that shotgun behind it and watch em shoot clays. Olympic level shooter will still run a clean round as often as not.. with nothing but a mount and cheek weld.. no sights required.

Skribs
May 26, 2012, 12:26 AM
The beretta is a pistol-caliber carbine, which means you're getting pistol performance with the stability of a stock, as opposed to rifle or shotgun performance. It's like having a martial art's match where the AR is Jet Li, the shotgun is Jason Statham, and the PCC is David Spade.

Warp, you can call it "pointing" or "aiming", but the fact is you're going to be doing the same thing with an AR as you do with a shotgun at a distance of 10 feet. Regardless of what you're calling it, you're going to have to be just as precise with both.

Wdyasg, you do not seem to have a warrior mindset. Instead of "I'll just use whatever is near me with whatever is in it," you should have a gun in mind, place it where it will most likely be the one near you, and load it with ammunition you want to use for self defense (even if it's just WWB JHPs).
Also, birdshot (unless you're talking BB or higher, which is still on the very low end of penetration) doesn't penetrate enough to reliably cause damage to the vitals, unless you hit a skinny attacker striaght on. You're left with a large, shallow hole, that an attacker in a nutso mindset can ignore and still tear into you with whatever he has. With a defensive shotgun, you definitely want something in the range of BB-slugs*, with buckshot being preferred.
*All birdshot is on the low end of penetration, and unless you have a very good reason, you shouldn't look at anything but buckshot.

I'm not trying to be rude, here, but anyone who thinks "you should use a [pistol-caliber carbine/birdshot] for HD so it won't go through walls" really needs to learn about ballistics inside the home and body and defensive bullet design.

Warp
May 26, 2012, 12:31 AM
Warp, you can call it "pointing" or "aiming", but the fact is you're going to be doing the same thing with an AR as you do with a shotgun at a distance of 10 feet. Regardless of what you're calling it, you're going to have to be just as precise with both.


Exactly.

scythefwd
May 26, 2012, 12:32 AM
Skribs.. that PCC is going to be more than enough in most homes penetration wise. I doubt most people even have 20y stretches they can shoot in their homes. 9mm will definitely have enough penetration to do a through and through... even if it doesnt, that cx4 can put em on target at that distance about as fast as you can shoot. And you're actually gaining a slight velocity increase from the longer barrel. It ain't rifle level, but it's better than +p. Honestly I'd love a mec tech ccu in 460 rowland.. can't argue 900+ ft lbs of energy.. It'll go through humans, walls, car doors...

So we, as a community, can get pedantic about magazines and clips but not aiming vs. pointing?

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 12:44 AM
The beretta is a pistol-caliber carbine, which means you're getting pistol performance with the stability of a stock, as opposed to rifle or shotgun performance. It's like having a martial art's match where the AR is Jet Li, the shotgun is Jason Statham, and the PCC is David Spade.






Wow.
What a complete and total load of pure crap!
Come stand in front of it for me and I'll bet you'll change your tune.
There is a REASON why the HK MP5 for example is still popular to this day.
And it has nothing to do with full-auto either since it has single shot mode as well and is often employed that way.
Plus, you get added velocity from the longer barrel than you do with the same round from a pistol, and 30 rounds of stable firepower to go with it.

For that matter, 9mm pistols alone have been used for HD for decades as well....and you don't see people like you and your erroneous opinions complaining about that now do ya?

You've been watching too many Kung-foooey movies or something.....lol
:rolleyes:

"No offense" as you put it...but anybody who thinks PCCs suck for HD doesn't know the first thing about them first hand at all other than what you may have read on the interwebzzz from other people who don't know anything about them either. :banghead:

kb58
May 26, 2012, 12:53 AM
As was said, define "handy." Take an AR to a skeet shoot. Or, take a shotgun (with shot) to hunt deer at 150yards.

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 01:00 AM
As was said, define "handy." Take an AR to a skeet shoot. Or, take a shotgun (with shot) to hunt deer at 150yards.

In the very first post, he said handy for "home defense."
So I think hunting and skeet were not part of the question?
Just sayin'....

CSC_Saint
May 26, 2012, 01:04 AM
Handy comes down to training. Especially when talking matters of life and death. You never use equipment until your familiar with it and the same should apply to your defensive tools along with planning. Arguing barrel sizes and heft of either is moot without training. You can train to shoot an AR reflexively and have a pair of rounds on target faster than a pair of shells from a shotgun, with practice. You can have a semi-auto shotgun and have a pair of shells on target just as fast as a pair of bullets from an AR. It comes down to preference and practice. To do either well requiures familiarity. Then it comes down to ballistics, "well shotguns leave 9 wound channels, AR's can do this and this..." If a shotgun is where your faith is, then use the shotgun, if an AR is your brand of whiskey, grab the black gun.

scythefwd
May 26, 2012, 01:07 AM
CSC - One hell of a first post, and I couldn't agree with you more.

You'd be surprised at how fast a pump can be done too.. I think I've seen 8 hand thrown clays busted with a pump shotgun, of course in the air. I'll NEVER be that good.. hell, my only shotgun right now is a single shot. correction, 7.. and he definitely was pointing .. he was shooting from the hip ;)

Warp
May 26, 2012, 01:14 AM
CSC - One hell of a first post, and I couldn't agree with you more.

You'd be surprised at how fast a pump can be done too.. I think I've seen 8 hand thrown clays busted with a pump shotgun, of course in the air. I'll NEVER be that good.. hell, my only shotgun right now is a single shot. correction, 7.. and he definitely was pointing .. he was shooting from the hip ;)

Tom Knapp has done 10 with a semi, I think, and 7-8 with a pump

scythefwd
May 26, 2012, 01:15 AM
It's up to 10 with a maxxis I believe now.. its insane.

Tom Knapp is using benelli's... maybe it was fastest shots out of a maxxis.. been a while since I could find the video ... tyring now.

Found the video .. its a winchester.. dunno where the browning is comming from.

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 01:26 AM
I've seen some of Tom's videos too. Pretty darn impressive!

GunnerShotz
May 26, 2012, 01:34 AM
Interesting convo indeed....

I'll "point" a shotgun or "aim" an AR with the common goal of hitting my intended target. Both are "handy". Either way, practice makes better :)

scythefwd
May 26, 2012, 01:39 AM
hell, at the distances I would be shooting in my house (no room is bigger than 12 ft, the hallway is maybe 15 ft.. from end to end.. probably 50ft at best.. longest shot possible. At that distance.. I'm not aiming anything but a handgun. No need for sights on an AR at that distance either.. I'll keep 90 % of my shots in the COM...

In my house.. I'd rather have my handguns.. they point well enough to keep it com at across the room distance that I don't need sights much on them. Might not be kill shots.. but at the same time.. I should be able to hit and slow him down a hair.

tarosean
May 26, 2012, 01:41 AM
If a shotgun is where your faith is, then use the shotgun, if an AR is your brand of whiskey, grab the black gun.

This.

Choose either and practice for what will likely never happen.

Skribs
May 26, 2012, 01:50 AM
Wow.
What a complete and total load of pure crap!
Come stand in front of it for me and I'll bet you'll change your tune.
There is a REASON why the HK MP5 for example is still popular to this day.
And it has nothing to do with full-auto either since it has single shot mode as well and is often employed that way.
Plus, you get added velocity from the longer barrel than you do with the same round from a pistol, and 30 rounds of stable firepower to go with it.

For that matter, 9mm pistols alone have been used for HD for decades as well....and you don't see people like you and your erroneous opinions complaining about that now do ya?

You've been watching too many Kung-foooey movies or something.....lol


"No offense" as you put it...but anybody who thinks PCCs suck for HD doesn't know the first thing about them first hand at all other than what you may have read on the interwebzzz from other people who don't know anything about them either.

You obviously missed my sig. I won't stand in front of a PCC , but if I have the choice between a PCC, shotgun, or rifle, the PCC is going to be a distant third. I'm not saying that PCCs won't do the job, but they don't do it any better than a rifle or shotgun, for reasons I believe I've stated earlier in this thread.

A 9mm pistol (or pistol caliber carbine) will poke a 9mm hole through the target. It's lack of velocity has two very important effects. It does have increased velocity compared with a pistol, but because those cartridges are designed for short barrels, you don't get that much in a longer barrel. Even a .357 magnum in a lever action doesn't reach nearly the speeds of a rifle round. Those two important effects I mentioned are:
1) It does not reach the velocity required to cause damage with the cavitation effect. All of the damage done with a pistol is simply the bullet crushing tissue as it passes through. With a rifle, like a .223, the damage is both from the bullet passing through, and from the tearing of tissue from the resulting shockwave. The shockwave still occurs with a pistol round, it's just that at the lower velocity the tissue doesn't stretch beyond the elastic point. Thus, you get a much bigger hole with a .223 than you will with a 9mm. This isn't just information on the interwebz, it's corroberated by real-life use and by gel reports.
2) With the lower velocity, bullet engineers cannot control how the bullet expands. With a JHP 9mm round, if it misses the target and goes through a wall, or if it hits a target with heavy clothing, it could clog up with dry material and fail to expand and function like a ball round, complete with a thinner wound channel and MORE overpenetration.

Thus, for two of the biggest considerations for HD - those being "will it stop a target?" and "will it kill my neighbor?", the advantage goes to a rifle.

The MP5 is still popular, but not nearly as popular as it once was. SWAT teams and special forces are largely phasing out the MP5 for the M4 or similar carbines. The MP5SD is a different animal. If you want stealth, you want subsonic. When you go subsonic, you want a fat, heavy bullet, because you lose all the benefit you would have had with a rifle cartridge (it is impossible to be under the speed of sound and over 2000 FPS at the same time).

A lot of what you said about the MP5 (or a civilian 30-round PCC) applies to an AR. A non-NFA PCC and rifle will have very similar features, including size, layout, capacity, and aftermarket modifications available. Granted, the PCC will be slightly smaller, and the recoil will be slightly less. But the recoil of the .223 is negligable at worst, and the small size difference is a huge tradeoff when you consider the difference in wound tract and overpenetration mentioned above.

So no, I'm not full of crap. I didn't say they sucked, they'll do the job, and they'll do it better than a pistol. But a rifle offers all the benefits, plus a lot more. If all you have is a PCC, it'll work, and it'll work well. But if you're picking a gun specifically for HD, unless you really need the smaller package, a rifle is much more suited to the task.

It's like when you're buying ketchup. Yeah, Hunts is still ketchup, but it aint Heinz.

walking arsenal
May 26, 2012, 02:31 AM
Wow. Has this thread ever gotten off topic.

How does a post discussing the similarities of the overall length of a 20" barreled AR and an 18" barreled shotgun devolve into this mess?

12 ga is 12 ga.
AR-15 is AR-15.
Apples to Oranges.

A 20" inch AR is as long as an 18" barreled shotgun. Isn't that interesting?

scythefwd
May 26, 2012, 02:37 AM
Walking Arsenal... I think there are too many variables to call it that black and white on the length comparison... I prefer a shorter than stock buttstock on my shotguns... I usually lop off 1" to get a proper fit. Action length and stock length come into play for both...

With a similar length stock on the AR and shotgun, I'd actually expect the shotgun to be shorter. Are the actions really that long on them to be longer than an AR's action?? Dont own an AR to check, don't own a repeating shotgun for comparison either. Someone got a pic handy to do a comparison of a mossy 500 action vs. an AR action vs. a SBEII action vs. an 870 express action?

B!ngo
May 26, 2012, 02:56 AM
No offense, but some of you guys are crackin' me up with this "you don't have to aim a shotgun...or it spreads at close range" stuff.
Nothing could be farther from the truth!
Can't know for sure who you are referencing, but since you included my post, perhaps it was me. Sure hope I'm not the one your are citing though. I said, 'you can be less precise'. I am well aware that the lore of shotguns just spraying pellets is false, and I chose my words properly. 'Less precise' is exactly accurate. Perhaps you just read it again?
B

Warp
May 26, 2012, 02:58 AM
I guess how much less precise depends on the load/setup you are running.

Here is my "scattergun" pattern from ~8 yards. Not a whole lot of room to be less precise.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g105/austin3161324/d2d173f7.jpg

scythefwd
May 26, 2012, 03:03 AM
you could shift that 3" in any direction and still be pretty deadly... you'd have to be slightly (and I mean that.. not much.. depends on when you stop shooting) more picky about placement with a handgun. I'd prefer a carbine or handgun to a shotgun though.

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 03:05 AM
You obviously missed my sig. I won't stand in front of a PCC , but if I have the choice between a PCC, shotgun, or rifle, the PCC is going to be a distant third. I'm not saying that PCCs won't do the job, but they don't do it any better than a rifle or shotgun, for reasons I believe I've stated earlier in this thread.

A 9mm pistol (or pistol caliber carbine) will poke a 9mm hole through the target. It's lack of velocity has two very important effects. It does have increased velocity compared with a pistol, but because those cartridges are designed for short barrels, you don't get that much in a longer barrel. Even a .357 magnum in a lever action doesn't reach nearly the speeds of a rifle round. Those two important effects I mentioned are:
1) It does not reach the velocity required to cause damage with the cavitation effect. All of the damage done with a pistol is simply the bullet crushing tissue as it passes through. With a rifle, like a .223, the damage is both from the bullet passing through, and from the tearing of tissue from the resulting shockwave. The shockwave still occurs with a pistol round, it's just that at the lower velocity the tissue doesn't stretch beyond the elastic point. Thus, you get a much bigger hole with a .223 than you will with a 9mm. This isn't just information on the interwebz, it's corroberated by real-life use and by gel reports.
2) With the lower velocity, bullet engineers cannot control how the bullet expands. With a JHP 9mm round, if it misses the target and goes through a wall, or if it hits a target with heavy clothing, it could clog up with dry material and fail to expand and function like a ball round, complete with a thinner wound channel and MORE overpenetration.

Thus, for two of the biggest considerations for HD - those being "will it stop a target?" and "will it kill my neighbor?", the advantage goes to a rifle.

The MP5 is still popular, but not nearly as popular as it once was. SWAT teams and special forces are largely phasing out the MP5 for the M4 or similar carbines. The MP5SD is a different animal. If you want stealth, you want subsonic. When you go subsonic, you want a fat, heavy bullet, because you lose all the benefit you would have had with a rifle cartridge (it is impossible to be under the speed of sound and over 2000 FPS at the same time).

A lot of what you said about the MP5 (or a civilian 30-round PCC) applies to an AR. A non-NFA PCC and rifle will have very similar features, including size, layout, capacity, and aftermarket modifications available. Granted, the PCC will be slightly smaller, and the recoil will be slightly less. But the recoil of the .223 is negligable at worst, and the small size difference is a huge tradeoff when you consider the difference in wound tract and overpenetration mentioned above.

So no, I'm not full of crap. I didn't say they sucked, they'll do the job, and they'll do it better than a pistol. But a rifle offers all the benefits, plus a lot more. If all you have is a PCC, it'll work, and it'll work well. But if you're picking a gun specifically for HD, unless you really need the smaller package, a rifle is much more suited to the task.

It's like when you're buying ketchup. Yeah, Hunts is still ketchup, but it aint Heinz.


Sorry, but yep, you're full of crap dude on this one.
:D

I already own an AK as shown in my pic, and also owned a Benelli M3Super90 for almost 10 years. Likewise served in Ordnance and shot A2s and M4s for 20years in the army. So I do have experience with these platforms.

"TRUE" that a shotgun and an AR both have more "power" than a 9mm PCC at close range.
I agree.
Stretch that out a little and the shotgun is out of the running already unless you load slugs too.
But hell man, I could equally say that the 50cal Browning Ma Deuce that I was a trainer on has more power than ALL of them combined.
But "so what?"

You need to understand however that the shotgun and the AR both have limitations too. ESPECIALLY in a HD scenario.

If your plan is to sit still in one room, not move at all, and HOPE that your shotgun or carbine happens to be in there with you at the time...then fine.

But I already know first hand that maneuvering through rooms and down tight hallways is MUCH easier with a 29 1/2" PCC than my AK, an AR or a shotgun either. And much more accurate than a handgun. Also with less recoil and faster follow-up shots than any and every gun mentioned so far.

The point of this thread is what would be more "handy."
A shotgun or an AR?
My answer is still "neither."
Same reason the AK isn't my "first" choice either.

A 9mm PCC, or 40cal or 45acp PCC for that matter, loaded with 30 rounds of quality HPs will still kill a bad guy dead with ease. And...do it at close range in a much smaller package with less recoil and faster follow-up shots. It's been proved time and time again.

So, I'm not following your point at all.
Is your point that a shotgun with it's extremely low capacity by comparison and limited range and slow reloads and massive recoil and much longer length...or an AR will kill somebody "deader" than already dead?

Yep..."this time"...you're still full of it.
:neener:


Oh yeah.....as for your martial arts example...
Bruce Lee only weighed in at 130lbs when he started out, and could easily whip all 3 of your guys.
Don't discount the lil guy.
:D

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 03:08 AM
Can't know for sure who you are referencing, but since you included my post, perhaps it was me. Sure hope I'm not the one your are citing though. I said, 'you can be less precise'. I am well aware that the lore of shotguns just spraying pellets is false, and I chose my words properly. 'Less precise' is exactly accurate. Perhaps you just read it again?
B

Nope. Not directed at you specifically.
Just mentioning across the board that at close range a shotgun practically does not spread at all.
Sorry for the confusion there.

SabbathWolf
May 26, 2012, 03:11 AM
I guess how much less precise depends on the load/setup you are running.

Here is my "scattergun" pattern from ~8 yards. Not a whole lot of room to be less precise.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g105/austin3161324/d2d173f7.jpg

Yep. Exactly.
I don't think I can even shoot 24 feet in my house.
So closer would be an even tighter pattern.

Omaha-BeenGlockin
May 26, 2012, 10:26 AM
Seems the OP is extolling the virtues of the 20in AR----which I find extremely clunky with what is offered these days----that might be different if the SP1 configuration were still available.

I have 3 long guns that share HD duties--a 930 SPX---a 6920 and a Mini-30-----I trade them out from behind the bedroom door to the safe on a whim and am confident any one of them will do the trick if called upon.

The only thing constant is the pistol.

Robert
May 26, 2012, 10:35 AM
It is a beautiful day, well here at least, go to the range...

If you enjoyed reading about "Ar-15 as handy as a shotgun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!