.45 ACP versus .223; 10 feet away


PDA






DefiantDad
June 10, 2012, 04:31 AM
.45 ACP versus .223 (comparing FMJ and JHP).

Which one would you rely on for stopping an imminent threat coming around the corner / in your doorway (e.g., bad guy with shotgun or full-auto, etc).

For .45 ACP assume you can use either handgun (e.g., 1911, Glock 36, etc.) or pistol ammo carbine in .45 ACP.

For .223 assume something like an AR but you can also opt for a pistol/SBR chambered in .223.

Probably you have the element of surprise and the chance to put ONE SHOT into the bad guy.

If you enjoyed reading about ".45 ACP versus .223; 10 feet away" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cheeze
June 10, 2012, 05:02 AM
I'll take the .45 any day. 230 grains going 875 fps is going to cause major damage. Would you rather get hit by a golf ball going 60 mph or a bowling ball going 20 mph? If you hit something on the assailant's body, you've likely stopped the threat. The .45 will most likely transfer 100% of it's energy upon impact, where the 223 may pass through and lose energy elsewhere, making it less effective. Also, at 10 feet, I would rather not have a rifle barrel hanging out there to be swinging around and trying to put on target in a hurry. .223 means rifle in most every case. .45 means pistol in most every case. If you're looking for home defense options, the .45 takes the cake overwhelmingly IMO.

DefiantDad
June 10, 2012, 05:13 AM
Sounds good

FuzzyBunny
June 10, 2012, 05:54 AM
It all depends on **** placement.

At home the .45 is a lot easier to retain than a long gun.

Either way be sure your homeowners covers mess cleanup!

As far as one imminent threat never plan on that until the police clear the property and home. All plans fail at first contact with the enemy. Get a few durn good flash lights and extra .45 mags too. When I need my light I plan for it to fail!

Call your attorney right before or during the 911 call.

I said way more than the OP ask, Sorry

I would go with a full size .45 myself

shootniron
June 10, 2012, 06:00 AM
Even though I am a huge fan of the .45acp for a handgun round...at 10ft, I will take the .223 tac round fired from a rifle.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
June 10, 2012, 07:23 AM
.223

mavracer
June 10, 2012, 07:43 AM
I want a carbine and for your scenario caliber really doesn't matter. At 10feet imminent danger requires a CNS hit for a reliable stop. Now in all honesty I don't see any upside to having a carbine in 45acp over an M4gery.

mljdeckard
June 10, 2012, 07:45 AM
Rifle every time. Even if the .45 was more likely to drop all of its energy into the target, it won't knock them down.

If you want a real-world demonstration of the .45's stopping power, set a 50 lb bag of cement on a oil drum. shoot it a few times. That is what it will do to a human target.

357 Terms
June 10, 2012, 08:16 AM
10 feet, 20 feet, 30....223 every time.

Its a rifle! much more effective.

ichiban
June 10, 2012, 08:18 AM
I'd go with the .45acp in a handgun for the tactical consideration that Cheese mentioned. Ten feet is pretty darned close.

CDW4ME
June 10, 2012, 09:51 AM
Line up five water filled gallon jugs of water for each, shoot whatever 45 acp you want, in the .223 use a Barnes TSX, Federal Fusion 62 gr. or Nosler 60 gr. Partition, then decide.

The 45 HP will expand to a much larger recovered diameter, (230 gr. Ranger T very impressive) while the .223 may expand to .41 Partition - .46 Barnes.

However, the impact seen on the jugs will be different; the 45 may (will) split the first jug, but a .223 Nosler Partition 60 gr. at 2,800 fps + can (did) rip it into two seperate pieces.

You are comparing KE levels of maybe 400# vs 1,000+#

The .223 would cause more damage and be more likely to immediately stop the threat (IMO).

hentown
June 10, 2012, 09:56 AM
Why should I assume that I'm only getting one shot? Am I going to be shooting a Lorcin or Hi-Point?? :D

Walkalong
June 10, 2012, 11:15 AM
Ten feet away, in a hallway?

No brainer for me, .45 ACP. I won't loose as much hearing, and at 10 feet away, either one center of mass will do the trick. You can always shoot them again if needed.

Yes, the .223 is more gun, no one will deny that.

Bobson
June 10, 2012, 11:34 AM
I have the element of surprise and time enough for one [aimed] shot at 10 feet? If I was shooting paper with these same elements, I'd aim at the head portion of the target. No reason to pretend I'd do different if it were an armed intruder in my home. Therefore it makes no difference what I'd be armed with; 9mm to a 12 gauge filled with buckshot, and everything in between.

Shear_stress
June 10, 2012, 12:49 PM
I'll take the .45 any day. 230 grains going 875 fps is going to cause major damage. Would you rather get hit by a golf ball going 60 mph or a bowling ball going 20 mph? If you hit something on the assailant's body, you've likely stopped the threat. The .45 will most likely transfer 100% of it's energy upon impact, where the 223 may pass through and lose energy elsewhere, making it less effective.

I'm not sure if you are being serious. Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles. The 45 will poke a hole. The .223 will poke a hole, tumble and possibly break apart at the cannelure. There is absolutely no doubt that the .223 will do much, much more damage.

The question is really not about the effectiveness of the round, but the ease of use around the house.

shinyroks
June 10, 2012, 01:07 PM
I have been debating this with myself (me joined in occasionally). I came to the conclusion that since I:

a) Have no need for concealment within my own home
b) Am more likely to put a second round on target
c) Have a folding stock on my mini (nullifies storage woes)
d) JIC, i have 30 rnds as opposed to 8-10
5) I load 55gr v-max, reducing (not eliminating) pass-through

I keep a Mini-14 near the bed. It is also much easier to point (IMHO) the rifle in close quarters or the dark than it is to aim the handgun. And it gives a much more satisfying racking sound... It's as much a mind game as anything else.

Inebriated
June 10, 2012, 01:12 PM
.45 handgun... becuase if they're at 10 feet, they're probably closing the gap... the handgun goes anywhere my hand goes... not so for the rifle.

Though in general, if there's a choice, take the rifle, and don't let the person within 30 feet.

rcmodel
June 10, 2012, 01:13 PM
For a pretty sure stop?
.223 hands down!

rc

TimboKhan
June 10, 2012, 01:46 PM
Tactically speaking, your weapon should be going where your eyes are going, regardless of whether it be rifle, pistol or shotgun.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Loosedhorse
June 10, 2012, 01:54 PM
.45 200 gr HP:

http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/uploads/45auto200%2bP_4website.jpg

.223 75 gr HP:

http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/uploads/223-rem-75-BTHP-Gelatin.jpg

.45 230 gr HP:

http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/uploads/45auto230%2bP_4website.jpg

.223 62 gr SP:

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

Source: http://www.hornadyle.com/products/index.html

DefiantDad
June 10, 2012, 04:13 PM
OK great; thanks for all the replies. Your replies confirm what I was wondering about, thus posing this question.

By the way, the assumption that you are getting ONE SHOT is because if you miss on the first try, you are probably going to get 00 buckshot or a full mag unloaded into you. You can shoot a second time, but it would be "irrelevant" in that you needed that first shot to take out the imminent threat. (e.g., that bad guy already killed everyone next door and/or all your friends/family so far that he/she has come across; in any case, the scenario assumes you are 100% certain of the clear and present danger).

I chose .45 ACP versus .223 because 9mm versus .223 is a no brainer (no pun intended!) nor is .45 ACP versus .308

I guess the additional factor of barrel length (maneuverability) complicated this question a bit more than I expected. It's definitely an advantage if the handgun can be positioned faster and easier than a rifle (let's use SBR in .223 as the example in this case) but as others pointed out, it may be more accurate target acquisition with the rifle (even in SBR). And yes, we would likely be aiming for a head shot.

By the way, there's nothing to stop a bad guy from buying body armor (did that Norway killer wear a vest? I forget). Will .223 punch through armor/helmet? I think I read somewhere that, at least in FMJ, the 5.56 NATO was designed to punch through helmets (not sure if .223 will fall below the threshold?). I assume .45 will NOT penetrate armor?

stuball
June 10, 2012, 04:15 PM
12 ga pump with 18 inch barrel and pistol grip. Load would be buck shot. Buck shot little bigger pattern area that can hit said target than one .22 cal or .45 cal bullet.

DefiantDad
June 10, 2012, 04:19 PM
Thanks but let's keep it to .45 and .223; also I'd rather have my round CHAMBERED already than to rack it so that the bad guy can hear it. (Let's assume nobody can hear nothing anymore in this scenario after all the loud noises going on :-)

rcmodel
June 10, 2012, 04:19 PM
And yes, we would likely be aiming for a head shot.Oh, don't do that.

Heads never hold still, even when the body is.
Way too easy to miss a bobbing weaving head.
And a head shot miss is a clean miss.

Aim Center Mass, and even a miss will be a body hit of some kind.

Yes, a .223 will easily penetrate most body armor a BG is likely to be wearing.

Yes, a handgun can be positioned faster and easier.
But a BG can also take one away from you much easier then a long arm with the stock against your body to prevent twisting it out of your hand, or slapping it away..

rc

cheeze
June 10, 2012, 04:31 PM
My original thoughts were that I only get one shot, it may be a panic shot, and it might not be placed well due to darkness, adrenaline, whatever circumstances, and there are 10 feet between us and closing. In that case, even though the .223 is more gun, I'll still take the .45. If I hit him in the foot, which is more likely to cause damage, especially felt/percived damage? Also, when the gap closes and the attacker is on me, which am I still going to be able to shoot him with? A lot depends on what kind of bullet is in each, as shown in the pictures above. I didn't even know that there were bullets for the .223 that would slow down that fast upon impact. Still, at 10 feet, the .45 is my pick. 15 yards plus, give me the rifle.

mavracer
June 10, 2012, 04:48 PM
Heads never hold still, even when the body is.
Way too easy to miss a bobbing weaving head.
And a head shot miss is a clean miss.
Are you kidding me at 10 feet the guys holding a shotgun or machine gun.
First off even if you could cause complete cardiac arrest he's still gonna have 15 seconds to shoot to slide lock, and second if you aren't confident that you can make a head shot at 10 feet you should post less and practice more.

rcmodel
June 10, 2012, 04:55 PM
No, I'm not kidding you.

Planning & training for head shots in a gun fight is a recipe for a miss in the heat of a home invasion.

You fight the way you train.
And every major firearms school and police organization in the country teaches & trains COM, not head shots in a gunfight.

There is a very good reason for that.

The exception would be police snipers who have the luxury of distance, stealth, a scope, and surprise to poke holes in heads.

rc

DefiantDad
June 10, 2012, 05:05 PM
The point about the carbine having a longer stock is interesting. While it is longer for the bad guy to grab on to (versus a handgun), the fact that you actually have a longer LEVER to twist the entire firearm (especially with the stock clamped under your arm) so that the muzzle is pointed at the bad guy while you squeeze the trigger, is actually a very good point.

Anyway, we are not at that stage where you are now in melee with the bad guy.

Let's zoom in on the recent discussion. Let's say that now you are shooting Center of Mass, and connect with the first shot. Is the bad guy sufficiently dazed for another couple of seconds, that you can now go for the head shot? (Given the caliber choice).

By the way, we have not brought up the bullet yet. We would be looking to use Hollowpoint on the .223 right? As probably with the .45 as well. But would HP on the .223 penetrate armor or just fragment on impact?

rcmodel
June 10, 2012, 05:11 PM
Any decent 55- 60 grain SP, HP, or ballistic-Tip .223 bullet will burn through about 1/2" of cold rolled steel.

A typical bullet-proof vest will have little impact on it getting inside the BG and turning his innerds to red slime.

Click on the load, then click on "view" to the right of the cartridge data to see ballistic gel results.

http://www.hornadyle.com/products/more_detail8832.html?id=130&sID=86&pID=1

http://www.hornadyle.com/products/detaile159.html?id=130&sID=73

rc

mavracer
June 10, 2012, 05:11 PM
And every major firearms school and police organization in the country teaches & trains COM, not head shots in a gunfight.
BS there aren't any worthwhile close quarters courses that don't teach failure to stop drills.

rondog
June 10, 2012, 05:21 PM
I'd prefer my AR-15 carbine, but my .45 1911 fits in the headboard cubby of my bed. My wife ain't going for no long guns of any kind leaning against the wall in our bedroom. I'd vote for the .223, you can tear off several shots very quickly and the damage is devastating.

But, FWIW, I keep an M1 Carbine under the bed loaded with Remington soft points (the wife doesn't know about it). IMO it's much lighter and handier for a CQB weapon than my AR, and proven very deadly in many wars. Has double the capacity of my 1911, plus 2 more 15 rd. mags on the stock in a pouch. And it's equipped with a red dot sight.

So, argue over .45 vs. .223 all you want, I personally will grab this one. JMHO.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b150/rinselman/guns/my%20M1%20carbines/DSC_0494.jpg

DefiantDad
June 10, 2012, 05:23 PM
Yes I had been reading from various places about soft point being actually preferable to JHP in some cases.

amprecon
June 10, 2012, 05:47 PM
Considering where you are and unless you are expecting trouble, most people would probably have a handgun with them more often than a rifle or carbine.
It is one thing to expect a confrontation and another to be surprised, expecting one at close range I'd want a pistol or even a shotgun.
Not expecting a confrontation I believe the pistol could be more quickly employed.

JohnBiltz
June 10, 2012, 06:06 PM
I don't believe I have ever heard of a SWAT team doing an entry and dropping their carbines and drawing their .45 sidearms. There are good reasons for this.

Loosedhorse
June 10, 2012, 06:14 PM
So, argue over .45 vs. .223 all you want, I personally will grab this one.For one shot at 10 ft, I'll take one of these:

http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4970000_f520.jpg

:evil:

Captain Brown Beard
June 10, 2012, 06:17 PM
Im kind of surprised there's a debate on this. .45 ACP vs .223 at 10 feet? Rifles trump handguns, always have.

And please don't respond with lol .22 rifle vs .500 SW.

I don't believe I have ever heard of a SWAT team doing an entry and dropping their carbines and drawing their .45 sidearms. There are good reasons for this.

There you have it folks. A pistol is a sidearm. It is called a sidearm for a reason.

DefiantDad
June 10, 2012, 06:42 PM
Yup, it didn't seem so clear cut to me so that's why I asked. Anyway the 223 choice so far seems to be very logical based on the input. The ballistic gel results are also very clear!

harrygunner
June 10, 2012, 06:48 PM
Generally, the greater the momentum, the greater the damage done along the bullet's velocity vector. The greater the energy, the greater the damage done orthogonal to the bullet's velocity vector.

In other words, high energy projectiles damage more tissue away from the primary bullet trajectory.

Handgun energies are low, so handgun energy effects are easy to ignore. In this case, the .45 ACP will have a bit more momentum, but the .223 will have nearly three times the energy. That's why I'd use a rifle.

----

An aside: I've noticed on Internet gun sites, people often focus on either momentum or energy, but rarely both.

As the bullet interacts with tissue, both the tissue and bullet velocities change. That's like two unknowns in an algebra problem. You need two equations to solve for two unknowns. In this case, the two equations are energy and momentum conservation.

So, nature can't "do the math" by looking at just momentum or just energy.

Stevie-Ray
June 10, 2012, 06:59 PM
At 10 feet, if I get the first shot, I want my EDC which just happens to be a .45 ACP. I will almost guarantee that hit and therefore will probably have more than one shot. Even though I do have a 5.56 carbine and pistol.

Texan Scott
June 10, 2012, 06:59 PM
Not sure how much it would matter....
but since i could be shooting pistol or long gun with my choice of rounds in either caliber, i'll say .223. I won't limit myself to one shot, because i will probably empty the magazine as fast as adreneline and my finger will allow, be it 8 rounds or 20... not waiting to see if anything hits/ works. 20 rounds of .223 anywhere near center of mass will jelly his innards. he WILL be a snotrag on legs when i run out. he might shoot me; just because i shoot him doesn't mean he won't pull the trigger a couple times before he drops. but, that works both ways. we might BOTH end up dead, as can happen in twp-way gunfights. but again, i'm just selfish enough to let my family live to bury me, rather than living to bury one of them.

Elm Creek Smith
June 10, 2012, 07:07 PM
Ruger Mini-14 with Hornady 55 grain V-Max ammo.

ECS

420Stainless
June 10, 2012, 07:31 PM
Either. I'm more comfortable making any shot with a rifle, so I'd generally say the .223. However, a Thompson or Beretta Storm would be hard to beat by any other rifle in an indoor situation.

TimboKhan
June 10, 2012, 07:58 PM
There aren't any credible close quarters courses that teach you to specfically try and stop someone by shooting them in the head, either. Name me one credible CQB trainer or class that teaches that you should choose the hardest target to hit in a high stress situation as your first option.

kcshooter
June 10, 2012, 08:06 PM
No brainer for me, .45 ACP. I won't loose as much hearing,This.

Heads never hold still, even when the body is.
Way too easy to miss a bobbing weaving head.
And a head shot miss is a clean miss.And this.

.45acp.
I prefer a handgun, and at 10ft, strongly prefer a handgun.
It's a one handed weapon, and at this distance, holes are holes, and I have a free hand should I need it, whether that is used to control the attacker or to control his weapon if he has one.
At 10 feet, chances are, I'll need it, unless he decides to die a Hollywood death (drops dead instantly upon bullet impact).
I'm far less likely to lose retention with a pistol than a long gun.

DefiantDad
June 10, 2012, 08:07 PM
I do remember that in the London (?) event (I forget which exact one) a few years back, the police/security apparatus were shooting at the (later said to be innocent) guy in the subway (?), and they aimed for his head, and gave testimony later that they were trained to hit the base of the brain to deactivate the target so that he/she would be unable to press any bomb triggers. So it seems some teams are trained for that kind of head shot.

On the carbine (e.g., Beretta CX4 Storm), that levels the playing field comparing the pistol caliber to the .223, on a more equal footing with the shooting platform. Seems like .223 still trumps the pistol bullet coming out from the carbine?

Cosmoline
June 10, 2012, 08:18 PM
Honest it isn't even close. Out of a carbine in particular the .223 at that range will do far more damage than a mere .45 ACP. The bullet, moving over 3,000 fps, is likely to blow apart and take an impressive portion of the person with it. The ACP will bore a good hole and pack a punch, but it's not going to have the same explosive effect on tissue.

That's not to say the .45 ACP isn't a fine pistol round. But it's a PISTOL round. It's not an intermediate round. You're really comparing apples and oranges. The .45 has a huge advantage when it comes to carrying the pistol around or concealing it. But if you don't have to conceal it, you'll want something more potent if at all possible. The concerns about hearing loss if you're about to die seem a little off base, as well.

Look to the Miami Shootout for a good example of what happens when sidearm-armed officers go against a .223 carbine. The results were devastating and tragic.

Richard Manauzzi Injured (unspecified injuries).
Gordon McNeill Seriously injured by .223 gunshot wounds to the right hand and neck
Edmundo Mireles Seriously injured by a .223 gunshot wound to the left forearm.
Gilbert Orrantia Injured by shrapnel and debris produced by a .223 bullet near miss.
John Hanlon Seriously injured by .223 gunshot wounds to the right hand and groin.
Benjamin Grogan, 53 Killed by a .223 gunshot wound to the chest.
Gerald Dove, 30 Killed by two .223 gunshot wounds to the head.

That's all from one suspect's Mini-14. They kept hitting him and he kept shooting. You don't bring a handgun to a rifle fight.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

holes are holes

No, they're not. Look at the gel testing. Look at the real world results. At that range in particular the 5.56/.223 hits like a freight train and will create enough temp cavity to do serious secondary damage to organs. The result is a mass of inoperable tissue, even if the subject lives long enough to get to a hospital. A .45 ACP, FMJ or HP, is a big slow slug that bores a nice hole. It is surely lethal, but not in the same category as a .223. And with the .223, even glancing wounds and wounds to arms and legs can be enough to knock a person out of action immediately. The super high velocity leads to bullets that can turn bones to shrapnel, so a hit to the hand doesn't bore a hole through it but turns it to hamburger.

In contrast, you can go on youtube and see many videos of unfortunate folks shooting themselves with sidearms and limping away, continuing to talk or curse. And that's CONTACT wounds. It takes little imagination to picture the results from a .223 in similar circumstances. Lordy.

GLOOB
June 10, 2012, 08:18 PM
First off even if you could cause complete cardiac arrest he's still gonna have 15 seconds to shoot to slide lock
A complete and sudden cardiac arrest would cause a loss of consciousness in a few seconds, tops. Add a large hole in the heart or major arteries and you get a near immediate blackout, like a pilot that pulled too many G's. You'd have to make a good hit, of course. This isn't psychological, either. Works same on a deer.

kcshooter
June 10, 2012, 09:08 PM
You misquoted me by excluding this part:at this distance,

10ft. He's on top of you. Do you really want a rifle in your hands at this point? I don't.

You're missing what I mean by "holes are holes". I'm not saying a .223 isn't more damaging. It is, by far.

But neither one is likely to cause instant death.

So if there is to be a struggle in the conflict, which at the distance specified, there likely will be, at least I have a free hand with a handgun. That's the point I was going for.


The result is a mass of inoperable tissue, even if the subject lives long enough to get to a hospitalTrue, but he most likely will live long enough to fight back, even if only for a matter of second. If he's armed, that's long enough if I am unable to get control of the weapon in his hand, be it a knife or firearm. If I have a free hand, I'm more capable of controlling his attack.

with the .223, even glancing wounds and wounds to arms and legs can be enough to knock a person out of action immediatelyCan be, yes. WILL be, well, maybe, maybe not. Find me a determined or altered state attacker, and the results can vary dramatically.







OK, this is for a different thread but I can't resist: Look to the Miami Shootout Yeah, but now they have .40's instead of 9's and .38's, so they're waaaay better off now, right?

mavracer
June 10, 2012, 09:20 PM
A complete and sudden cardiac arrest would cause a loss of consciousness in a few seconds, tops........Works same on a deer.

Yep, I've seen quite a few game animals shot, and while I probably should have said up to 15 seconds to eliminate any arguments, way to many of those animals have ran or walked more than enough even with a 30/06 class rifle shot to the heart for me to think COM in this scenario. 10 ft , element of suprise and he's holding a long arm this is not the time to try to make it a fair fight.

So if there is to be a struggle in the conflict, which at the distance specified, there likely will be, at least I have a free hand with a handgun. That's the point I was going for.
I'd suggest you take a close quarters carbine class, you are far overrating the effectiveness of having a free hand when compaired to what you can do with a 3ft long club.

SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE
June 10, 2012, 09:32 PM
I was always taught that you use your pistol to fight your way to a long gun and to transition to in the event of a malfunction ! Rifle rounds are much more lethal than handgun rounds ! I love my .45 but I cant carry a rifle all day every day in civilian life ! At home my always ready gun is my everyday carry glock30sf , but the 12 ga with 8 rounds of buckshot is close at hand ! Kevin

kcshooter
June 10, 2012, 09:46 PM
I'd suggest you take a close quarters carbine class, you are far overrating the effectiveness of having a free hand when compaired to what you can do with a 3ft long club. I have. Have you? Remember the part where you drop the rifle to it's sling after firing to be able to control the attacker's weapon hand if you need to? This was taught as part of a transition to handgun.

I can do that while still firing with a handgun. If I had a rifle and a handgun, I could do it while transitioning as was taught, but this scenario was one or the other, not both.

Your 3ft long club should be attached to you by a sling, leaving you less mobility with it than you'd figure.

foghornl
June 10, 2012, 09:47 PM
I'll take the .45 for $400, Alex

Why? I am very familiar with how my "GI-45" shoots, it is my 'Bedside Table Companion', and I don't own a .223 gun

AJumbo
June 10, 2012, 09:58 PM
I love these philosophical exercises, and appreciate everybody's input. In response to those who would the pistol in order to "have a free hand" available for the fight, a couple of questions pop up-

You are in a gunfight; what are you doing with that free hand? It had better be something useful like holding a light. If you are considering hand-to-hand combat as Phase Two of your HD plan, you might want to re-evaluate.

Is there anyone here who physically can't fire at least one round, one-handed, from a .223 carbine or rifle?

If the Bad Guy gets a hand on my carbine and tries to take it away, I believe I can retain it far more easily than I could a pistol.

If one round is all I'm allowed, make mine .223. I'm allowed to dump the magazine, make mine .223. I have no problem with the concept of dropping my empty carbine and drawing my pistol, but I hope that 10, 20 or 30 rounds of .223 should make that unnecessary.

An empty carbine is a far better striking weapon than an empty pistol.

My fondest hope is that none of us ever have to test the validity of our theories!

kcshooter
June 10, 2012, 10:04 PM
If you are considering hand-to-hand combat as Phase Two of your HD plan, you might want to re-evaluate. Truly, no disrespect, but if you think, at only 10ft away, physical contact it isn't likely, you may want to reevaluate.

He's less than half a second away from stabbing you, or you're less than half a second away from pointing his muzzle away from you.

People don't drop dead upon bullet impact. They fight, until they can't.

mljdeckard
June 10, 2012, 10:28 PM
If you can't maneuver a carbine anywhere you can maneuver a pistol, you need to be trained in how to do it.

NG VI
June 10, 2012, 10:33 PM
.45 ACP versus .223 (comparing FMJ and JHP).


Well. There is no legitimate reason to pick FMJ in any reasonable caliber for defense, seeing as we are private citizens and are perfectly capable of researching and picking a proper bullet for the target in mind.

If I were buying a gun strictly for protection in the home, it would be an AR-15, no questions asked, no caliber confusion, no second thoughts. Honestly I'd probably go with a typical 20" A2 style, and then get a light for it. Maybe I'd get a flat top instead and then I'd throw on any Aimpoint or Eotech. If I did I'd probably get it as a 16" midlength, or maybe an 18" with whichever tube works best for that barrel length.

The idea of going with a pistol over the pinnacle of close-mid range individual weapons is absurd to me. And if you can give someone ONE SHOT, you can give them several, and probably should. People usually are pretty committed to whatever caused you to shoot them in the first place, usually too committed to just run away so no one has to be shot any more.

AJumbo
June 10, 2012, 10:39 PM
KCS, you're correct. I think this is kind of plays into the "1 shot" mindset, however; I would not fire just one shot of either .223 or .45ACP in any case. If my assailant is armed with a gun or a knife (or a bloodstream full of bath salts and a bottle of ketchup), then I will try to present a wall of lead for him to advance through.

Should the Bad Guy come to grips with me, I would prefer to use the carbine as a club or striking weapon than to depend on pistol-whipping him into submission. I guess I'm saying that I want H2H to be as far down the list of responses as I can get it.

Like I said before, let's hope we never have any "I survived" stories to compare.

Captain Brown Beard
June 11, 2012, 12:49 AM
If the Bad Guy gets a hand on my carbine and tries to take it away, I believe I can retain it far more easily than I could a pistol

Also this. It's relatively simple to relieve somebody of a handgun. It is considerably more difficult to wrestle away a long gun.

firesky101
June 11, 2012, 01:30 AM
I know that this is not in the scope of the OP question, but maybe .450 bushmaster is for you. Rifle power, large caliber handgun bullets, beats a .45acp unquestionably anytime with the same bullets.

mljdeckard
June 11, 2012, 01:34 AM
For retention, you do have better leverage with a rifle. But you (everyone) should learn retention with both. The basic principles are the same.

Skribs
June 11, 2012, 01:36 AM
.223. There's a reason assault rifles have been replacing SMGs for many special units around the world, be it police or military. The light, fast-moving projectile has tremendous benefits over a slow, heavy projectile, even if the slower projectile is twice as wide. Those benefits come in the form of greater trauma to the target AND less likely to overpenetrate, both due to how the bullet engineers design the deformation of the bullet.

NG VI
June 11, 2012, 01:39 AM
The much longer (proportionally) bullets certainly give ammunition designers/shooters a lot more options as well.

Stringfellow
June 11, 2012, 01:42 AM
Not to derail the thread, but I think Loosedhorse has it right. Isn't the correct answer for ~10 feet a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 shot? Isn't that the preferred close-close quarter combat weapon for police and military?

The bright side is that this is a fraction of the cost of either of the other choices...

DefiantDad
June 11, 2012, 01:46 AM
Nobody wants to test these theories in real life. But I am thankful for all the inputs on this discussion, because now I am not going to waver if it was a life/death situation and I had to pick. Based on all the input here, I think I will stay with my red-dot 16" AR, and not worry that I picked the wrong self-defense weapon. The sidearm will remain backup.

By the way, when I mentioned ONE SHOT it was not meant that you are limited to only that shot, but you do need that first shot to be thoroughly effective in terminating the threat immediately, or doing sufficient damage/shock to slow down the assailant so that you can follow up with more shots. Also there is a slim chance of failure to feed, so I wanted to be super sure which is the right caliber to pick.

engineer88
June 11, 2012, 01:53 AM
I would favor the 45. Even in a carbine. From a carbine your fps would be well over 1,000 and even quiter. I like velocity quite a lot, but as long as there is enough of it to get the job done, then density and diameter start to make a round pull ahead. But to each their own. Most important thing is what you feel comfortable with and shoot the best since it is your bacon in the pan at that point. :-)

psyopspec
June 11, 2012, 01:54 AM
I've never shot anyone. I've been around a lot of outgoing and incoming fire though, and seen the damage a rifle and pistol each (typically) do to a human body enough times make a pistol feel like a useless paper weight.

On my third tour, I was a DA Civilian instead of a soldier in Afghanistan. I only had an M9. The one time I had to draw it under stress, somewhere between my hand reaching down to the holster, between the incoming rifle grenades and the outgoing 5.56, and the incoming 7.62x39 and the outgoing 7.62 long, and the front sight entering my line of vision, my only thought was that a pistol had never felt so damn small, and it wasn't because of the caliber. If I get to pick my tool in advance, it'll be a long gun. If you've never had that feeling I know I won't change your mind. It is my sincere hope that all of you who picked the handgun never meet a moment where you find yourself wishing for a rifle, and that your delusion that they're 'pretty much the same' never has to be shattered by reality.

Water-Man
June 11, 2012, 02:12 AM
.223. A long time ago I saw people shot with both.

W-M

NG VI
June 11, 2012, 02:47 AM
I would favor the 45. Even in a carbine. From a carbine your fps would be well over 1,000 and even quiter. I like velocity quite a lot, but as long as there is enough of it to get the job done, then density and diameter start to make a round pull ahead. But to each their own. Most important thing is what you feel comfortable with and shoot the best since it is your bacon in the pan at that point. :-)


You should change your username. An engineer of any type would know that any two lead cored bullets will have practically the same densities, regardless of caliber.

And 3000-3200 feet per second puts the wounding effects of the .223 well above what any .45 ACP load is capable of meeting. At that point it's the mass of the pistol bullet that's been made irrelevant, not the velocity of the incomparably faster .223. Things start happening in liquid media once you get going that quick. Things that make the projectile itself much less relevant.

rondog
June 11, 2012, 02:53 AM
OK, there's some photos on another forum of a leg wound from a .223, fired at across-the-street range. I was going to post them here, but they're very graphic, so I won't. Let's just say this guy's leg looks like a beef roast that Gunney Ermy shot on one of his TV shows. No .45 round gonna do that.

Cosmoline
June 11, 2012, 04:04 AM
Isn't the correct answer for ~10 feet a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 shot? Isn't that the preferred close-close quarter combat weapon for police and military?

Not anymore. Shotguns have some real utility for certain purposes like breaching or shooting bears. But for close quarter combat the AR type carbines or similar intermediate round platforms are the overwhelming choice.

Auto426
June 11, 2012, 05:27 AM
Single shot to stop the bad guy before he can get a shot off? I'll take a 120mm with a load of M1028 canister shot. 1,000+ 9.5mm tungsten balls should put a stop to the BG in the house, but the neighbors might not like it.

When it comes to the OP's question, a .223 rifle is certainly going to be more damaging than any .45 ACP handgun. However, I don't want to be using my AR15 when trying to maneuver inside the home. A handgun is much easier to get through narrow hallways and doorways. The subsonic .45 round will also be quieter, though they both would hurt indoors.

Dr.Rob
June 11, 2012, 06:20 AM
Rifle trumps pistol, Lizard beats Spock.

mljdeckard
June 11, 2012, 07:52 AM
(Lizard beats Spock. :D

jimbo555
June 11, 2012, 08:14 AM
The beauty of having 3 dogs is you sleep like a baby knowing nobody is going to sneek within 10 feet of you!The negative is you have 3 dogs to take care of!:D

Loosedhorse
June 11, 2012, 08:18 AM
Remember the part where you drop the rifle to it's sling after firing to be able to control the attacker's weapon hand if you need to?No, actually.

I remember transitioning to my handgun if my rifle jams. If I need to deal with his weapon as he approaches, what's the best choice?

1) Shoot him again.
2) Bring the carbine into a one-handed, stock under the armpit, retention position to shoot him again and have a hand free.
3) Use the carbine to fend off his weapon arm, club him, and then shoot him (using the handgun if he takes hold of the carbine).
4) If you really want to deal with his weapon with an empty hand, drop the carbine and use BOTH of your G-d-given hands.
5) Sling the carbine and draw the handgun, so you have a free hand.

Seems like a lot of choices. Not sure your option (#5) is the best for all circumstances. Or any. And if you go back to post #35, I think you can guess what I'd prefer.

:evil:

Let's see: standard Tueller drill is 21 ft, 1.5 seconds. 10 ft, maybe 0.8-1.0 sec if he starts from a standstill, less than 0.5 sec if he's running. You're going to transition to handgun in less than 0.5 sec, because that's a better choice than 1, 2, or 3? Your draw must be VERY fast. :D I think Loosedhorse has it right. Isn't the correct answer for ~10 feet a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 shot? Isn't that the preferred close-close quarter combat weapon for police and military?Apparently not, but it's the right answer for me.

psyopspec
June 11, 2012, 10:50 AM
However, I don't want to be using my AR15 when trying to maneuver inside the home.

Why in the world would you want to maneuver here? You get early warning. You get the element of surprise. You get to be defending in CQB. You get the initiative. You get a far superior weapon if that's an advantage you choose. In FoF, that means you'd win 80+% of the time.

Why would you give up all that for a pea shooter to go maneuvering?

mljdeckard
June 11, 2012, 11:11 AM
Because you can't always sit and wait. If the bad guy is between you and the kids, you can't wait.

psyopspec
June 11, 2012, 11:24 AM
Deckard, per the OP: Which one would you rely on for stopping an imminent threat coming around the corner / in your doorway

Why rush? Dude will be here in seconds. The moment you step in the hallway, you've given up all advantages and gone to an actual disadvantage if the adversary is armed with a long gun and you've got the pistol.

wildehond
June 11, 2012, 11:28 AM
.223 is devistating at that distance. Just make sure you know what it is like to fire a .223 in an confinded space. It might surprise you especially in a carbine version.

Loosedhorse
June 11, 2012, 12:20 PM
I don't want to be using my AR15 when trying to maneuver inside the home.Why not?

When police clear buildings, don't they generally prefer to use carbines or shotguns rather that handguns? Except for the guy in front with the shield of course.

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bdadb177f8b9a2b31720100/swat-team-police-shield.jpg

http://df15.galvestondailynews.com//photos/2012.February/0223-LOC-SWAT-04-KMC.jpg

Cosmoline
June 11, 2012, 02:29 PM
The only circumstances I'm aware of where a handgun would be routinely used by cops or military to clear a space are tunnels in Vietnam or spider holes/caves in the current battlefields. There's ample room to maneuver a carbine in any normal house not occupied by NVA or hobbits.

psyopspec
June 11, 2012, 04:18 PM
Add ewoks and jawas just to round out the list, though a sandcrawler tends to be a sort of industrial camper van, and thus will have more wide open spaces.

wow6599
June 11, 2012, 04:25 PM
What about bears at 10 feet? :rolleyes:

Water-Man
June 11, 2012, 04:55 PM
This thread is deteriorating.

Auto426
June 12, 2012, 04:38 AM
Why would you give up all that for a pea shooter to go maneuvering?

Because as the other poster said, sitting in one spot and waiting is not always an option. And I would hardly call a .45 ACP at point blank range a peashooter. A 230 HP isn't going to bounce off the intruder and a .223 isn't going to make him explode. They are both perfectly capable of stopping the threat, but one is much easier to work with inside of tight spaces.

Why not?

When police clear buildings, don't they generally prefer to use carbines or shotguns rather that handguns? Except for the guy in front with the shield of course.

In those pictures you posted, the officers are all using SBR's, which is something that I don't have. What I do have is an AR with a 16" barrel, and with the butt stock fully extended it's not something that's easy to move around with in my home. My handgun is easier to bring into action and it gives me a free hand if I need it.

General Geoff
June 12, 2012, 05:03 AM
No brainer for me, .45 ACP. I won't loose as much hearing, and at 10 feet away, either one center of mass will do the trick. You can always shoot them again if needed.

.45ACP out of a pistol is louder than .223 out of an 18" rifle barrel. (http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml)


I can't believe this is even a debate. Rifle is far easier to aim, especially under stress and adrenaline dump. .223 rifle in this instance has three times the muzzle velocity and energy of a .45ACP pistol. Wound channels and tissue damage are in completely separate leagues. I'd choose the rifle in pretty much any home defense scenario, let alone this hypothetical scenario which precludes having to maneuver in spaces tight enough to constrain a carbine user.


Rifle, every time. If the .223 rifle is not available, then use a .45ACP carbine. Still better than a pistol.

chieftain
June 12, 2012, 05:10 AM
A fine and glaring example of Amateurs vs Professionals.

Simply amazing.

Fred

DefiantDad
June 12, 2012, 05:19 AM
By extrapolation, a .308 is far better than any handgun, or .223, if you are able to use it.

In fact it seems you would use a handgun only if it is IMPOSSIBLE to use a rifle, based on all the advantages of the rifle/carbine.

These are the take-away learnings I got from this discussion, based on all the various points and counterpoints.

Thanks again to all who contributed.

General Geoff
June 12, 2012, 05:30 AM
By extrapolation, a .308 is far better than any handgun, or .223, if you are able to use it.

..not necessarily. .308 does deliver about twice the muzzle energy of .223, but at the expense of a heavier and bulkier weapon that has much more pronounced recoil, and consequently slower followup shots. In the hypothetical scenario of the original post, where you only get ONE shot, I would agree that .308 invariably trumps .223. But in an actual scenario where followup shots are possible and maybe required, .223 could be considered the better choice.


I personally have a .308 autoloader for home defense, but I don't own a .223 carbine. If I did, I would seriously consider switching to that for primary HD duty.

DefiantDad
June 12, 2012, 06:18 AM
Interesting. Thanks.

GLOOB
June 12, 2012, 06:31 AM
I wonder if people forget that hydrostatic shock is real because it's so often debated in HANDGUNS. A 55gr fmj at 2800+fps does more tissue damage on average than any perfectly mushroomed 45ACP bullet.

kcshooter
June 12, 2012, 10:02 AM
A fine and glaring example of Amateurs vs Professionals.Ha!
Now that was just funny!

psyopspec
June 12, 2012, 10:07 AM
Because as the other poster said, sitting in one spot and waiting is not always an option.

And as I said, the OP says that the aggressor is coming to us.

What I do have is an AR with a 16" barrel, and with the butt stock fully extended it's not something that's easy to move around with in my home.

If the butt stock can be extended, might I assume that it can be collapsed? If so, why not go that route? Finally, if it would make you a believer I'm happy to find (or just take) pics of what it looks like to move through an interior with a 16 inch barrel. Heck, my shotgun has an 18 inch barrel and a fixed stock and I've never had any problems doing dry runs on places I've lived with that. YMMV, and it appears that it does.

Creature
June 12, 2012, 10:34 AM
I have personally seen what a 223 FMJ can do at close range from a 14.5 barrel. It is just plain NASTY! Much more devastating than a 45ACP JHP from the same distance.

TG13
June 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
.45.. because it's what i have..

but for home protection, it's a 12 Gauge in whatever flavor you wish..

not .223, or .45, which are both lesser choices but better than nothing at all..

Creature
June 12, 2012, 11:37 AM
not .223, or .45, which are both lesser choices but better than nothing at all..
I can think of several reasons why a 223 from a carbine would be a better choice than a 12ga for HD...

If youre concerned about the neighbors, a shotgun loaded with 00buck can over penetrate drywall more than 223. Even 9mm will pentrate farther than 223 through drywall.

At average room distance, 12ga shot spread is can still cause misses. You will still need to aim as carefully with a shotgun as you will a rifle or pistol. You will also need to be very familiar with you stogun's pattern. My Mossberg 590 patterns at 3" at 5yds, and 7" at 10yds. I can easily miss my target with a poorly aimed shot from my Mossberg at 15 ft.

Unless youre using a semi-auto shotgun, a pistol and carbine will out perform a shotgun in regards to follow-up shot speed. Even with semi-auto shotgun loaded with 00buck, it is easy to send follow-up shots much faster with a 223 carbine or my 45acp handgun.

Under stress, I have short shucked a pump shotgun. Not a fun problem to clear when facing an adversary.

A shotgun will never offer the ammo capapcity or speed of reloading that an AR does...the only advantage a shotgun offers is the ability "top off" its mag.

As for sheer knockdown power of a shotgun, my 223 will likely penetrate any body armor a badguy might be wearing. Im not so sure about 00Buck pentrating a vest... And if he isnt wearing a vest, a 223 bullet from 10 yards is as DEVASTATINGLY messy as a load from my shotgun...

Skribs
June 12, 2012, 11:59 AM
Creature, the Saiga shotguns offer magazine-fed reloading. But unless you have lower capacity magazine (4 or 5 rounds) it is going to be huge.

mnhntr
June 12, 2012, 12:02 PM
12 ga pump with 18 inch barrel and pistol grip. Load would be buck shot. Racking the pump more a fear factor than anything. Buck shot little bigger pattern area that can hit said target than one .22 cal or .45 cal bullet.
THIS

TarDevil
June 12, 2012, 12:42 PM
I don't have an AR, but if I did it would go with me to a fight. If I get a bonus this year, I'll add a decent pump 12 ga for my go-to HD gun. If I get a GOOD bonus, it will be a Ruger Mini in 6.8.

But transition from rifle to handgun... at night? I don't wear much to bed, and sure ain't gonna take time to put on a belt and holster. It's gotta be one or another.

PRM
June 12, 2012, 01:07 PM
Since the OP stated "which", I am assuming you have the option of either for this discussion.

Personally, I would go to any hand gun, ONLY when I was out of .223 or my weapon malfunctioned. Choosing a hand gun first, over an M4 or similar carbine is pure fantasy. :what:

Skribs
June 12, 2012, 01:23 PM
I have to agree with General Goeff on .308 vs. .223. Here, you're sort of once again getting into a caliber war, although it's .308 vs. .223 instead of .45 vs. 9mm. However, it is a bit different, because the .308 actually does offer a bigger wound tract.

Personally, I'd rather have lighter recoil. If there are multiple assailants, I want to switch faster, and the .223 will allow me to do that easier. This is once I get a rifle, of course. For now, I have a shotgun, and that does the job just fine.

Teachu2
June 12, 2012, 02:17 PM
One shot at ten feet on an armed assailant - it will be a .45acp, simply because I have 35 years of practice with one. Ten feet is very close, 6.5 feet from the muzzle if I extend my arms, two or three steps from the assailant and closing. I will be much faster (supremely important in this scenario) with a pistol, and much more confident in my abilities.

There is no doubt in my mind that a hit with a .223 will do more damage than a hit with a .45 will. I am much more confident in achieving a hit with the .45 in this scenario, given the distance (=time!) and the training and experience I bring to the table. That's my reality - YRMV.

psyopspec
June 12, 2012, 03:26 PM
One shot at ten feet on an armed assailant - it will be a .45acp, simply because I have 35 years of practice with one.

That's the single most sensical reason for choosing the pistol.

Skribs
June 12, 2012, 03:28 PM
Psyop, I think there are more reasons to choose a pistol over a long gun than just what teachu brings up (even though I'd choose a long gun), but its the hardest reason to argue with. Of course, I could say "practice more with a rifle" :P

sixgunner455
June 12, 2012, 03:54 PM
Interesting discussion.

5.56mm AR. No question. I like pistols, have a fair few, and carry as much as I legally can. But whenever I need to destroy something, if I have time to prepare ahead of time, I get a rifle. Rifle>pistol.

AR carbine is light, short, accurate, hits hard, holds 30 rounds, rapid follow-up shots - the scenario provided says "one shot at 10 feet" - at that range, I'm more likely to dump five or six rounds into the target before I can get my finger to stop twitching, but it's usually going to get at least two or three.

engineer88
June 12, 2012, 05:00 PM
NG VI you should change your screen name to nitpicker perhaps. I meant weight not density. Not sure why I typed density. Either way it doesn't make me the dumbest person on the planet nor you the smartest for noting my poor choice of verbage. I guess maybe a Grammar Police gold star?

I suffer no delusion that the 45 will do as much damage. I have done plenty of long hours of reading and understand ballistics and temporary wound cavity, etc. My thought was that at 10 feet in my house (which ain't a mansion, so 10' is about right, lol) the 45 would be plenty and I would worry less about the velocity left on the round after a miss (I do have neighbors). Would the 223 or other rifle round work better? Probably, but the question was which would YOU choose.

I think the post above about the handgun seeming small is very relevant. I sometimes wish I could carry a rifle with me every where. However, I am more glad that I do not live anywhere I would need to and pray I never will. Heck, I hope I never need my pistol either, but it is with me whenever legal to carry it, just in case.
My original conclusion stands, the OP should go with what HE feels most comfortable with.

General Geoff
June 12, 2012, 05:15 PM
My thought was that at 10 feet in my house (which ain't a mansion, so 10' is about right, lol) the 45 would be plenty and I would worry less about the velocity left on the round after a miss (I do have neighbors).

.223 penetrates less drywall than .45acp. it has much higher muzzle velocity but bleeds off speed way faster when going through barriers. I would worry more about the .45 overpenetrating than the .223.

Creature
June 12, 2012, 06:09 PM
Skribs wrote: Creature, the Saiga shotguns offer magazine-fed reloading. But unless you have lower capacity magazine (4 or 5 rounds) it is going to be huge.

A box magazine for the Saiga is no match to an AR 30 round mag in terms of magazine capacity...only with a drum mag will be able to shoot 30 rounds from a Saiga.

In terms of maneuverability, I cant imagine how a Saiga shotgun with a drum mag would match up to an AR carbine...

One thing is for sure though, the Saiga shotgun still wont come close to an AR carbine in terms of follow-up shot speed.

gym
June 12, 2012, 10:35 PM
45, works for me, bigger hole, at close range wouldn't worry about wound cavity, just 2 or 3, 45's in the chest and head. I just don't like rifles in small spaces, unless you are experienced shooting in a shoot house. Too many things can happen that are hard to correct, like hitting a wall with the stock or clearing a jam, overpenetrating, blowing out your ears, and it's overkill, that's why we have handguns.

Auto426
June 12, 2012, 10:43 PM
If the butt stock can be extended, might I assume that it can be collapsed? If so, why not go that route? Finally, if it would make you a believer I'm happy to find (or just take) pics of what it looks like to move through an interior with a 16 inch barrel. Heck, my shotgun has an 18 inch barrel and a fixed stock and I've never had any problems doing dry runs on places I've lived with that. YMMV, and it appears that it does.

It can be collapsed, but I find my rifle uncomfortable to hold and hard to aim with the stock collapsed. And I'm sure that you can show plenty of videos of you running around your house with a rifle, but your house is not my house. You don't know what obstacles there may be to maneuvering inside of my home.

For me, the pistol is simply a better option. I'm much quicker with it and I can get around my house much easier with it. It may not do as much damage in a single shot as a .223, but it's still very capable of eliminating the threat quickly and efficiently.

Skribs
June 12, 2012, 10:45 PM
45, works for me, bigger hole, at close range wouldn't worry about wound cavity, just 2 or 3, 45's in the chest and head. I just don't like rifles in small spaces, unless you are experienced shooting in a shoot house. Too many things can happen that are hard to correct, like hitting a wall with the stock or clearing a jam, overpenetrating, blowing out your ears, and it's overkill, that's why we have handguns.

The stretch cavity makes the .223 produce a bigger hole. Plus, overpenetration is more likely with a .45 than with a .223. Hitting the wall with the stock? If it's on your shoulder, how does it hit the wall? Maybe the barrel...
Clearing a jam? I don't see how that is harder indoors. "Overkill"...I want something more powerful if it's gonna get the job done. We have handguns because they're a compromise.

Only thing that made sense in your post was the sound issue.

gym
June 12, 2012, 10:49 PM
Plus I have a pistol on my person, I would have to get a rifle and load it. The probability of having time to do that contradicts every reason that I carry a gun. Having had armed assailants in my home, I can gaurantee you that you won't have time to go and get your rifle in the 3 to 4 seconds that somone comes through your door. If you knew they were coming you could have planted land mines. But for practical purposes I don't know anyone who carries an AR around.

Skribs
June 12, 2012, 11:07 PM
I find it very hard to believe that when someone comes through my front door, I won't have time to get to my long gun. Unless I wait until they're in my room to go for a gun.

Rampant_Colt
June 12, 2012, 11:15 PM
This one's a no-brainer▬ 5.56/.223


My preference is for a shotgun stoked with reduced recoil 00 buckshot (conversely, I sometimes use #4 buck) with Hydra-Shok slugs in the side-saddle

DC Plumber
June 12, 2012, 11:18 PM
OK, I gotta play too.

I've never been in any type of combat or threat situation, ever! I've read all of the threads so far. To answer the question by the OP, it seems so logical that one shot from a .223 is going give way better results than a 45acp. Neglecting the fact that a bullet may cause collateral damage was not part of the question, so again the .223 wins. A 30 round mag was not an option either.

One shot, ballistically and taking into account tissue damage, the .223 sounds like the winner.

If I were on the receiving end of the situation, facing either one at 10 feet, being unarmed, I'd soil myself and run like heck. I'm sure either round would do the job.

That all said, I do not feel under armed with my 45acp.

Gordon
June 12, 2012, 11:41 PM
10 FEET? Well I guess that is the purpose of my Noveske Diplomat 5.56 7.5" AR pistol ! I keep a 20 round mag in it loaded with Ranger Bonded ammo and it has a light and laser and T-1 Aimpoint on it. It is locked up in the fortified closet with a Class IIa vest with a few things on it for those up close and personal times. :cool:

General Geoff
June 13, 2012, 12:31 AM
Only thing that made sense in your post was the sound issue.

Even that doesn't make sense. .45ACP pistol has a louder report than .223 out of a rifle, as I cited earlier in the thread.

Rampant_Colt
June 13, 2012, 12:38 AM
There's no such thing as "overkill" in a self-defense scenario

GunnerShotz
June 13, 2012, 01:55 AM
.
Probably you have the element of surprise and the chance to put ONE SHOT into the bad guy.

Wow, five pages of "handgun vs long-gun" in a defensive scenario here in the Handgun: Autoloader section! :neener:

No disrespect intended to DefiantDad or Any of the other respondants. I sincerely think this has been a great post!

Given that I "probably have the element of surprise", then I probably have had time to call 911 and I have positioned myself in the best defensible area I can find with the most reliable weapon available. Given the choices (as I see them), that would be .223 ;)

engineer88
June 13, 2012, 02:44 AM
@ GG, your right, I saw a nice demonstration of that on Guns and Ammo show or one of those. Since I don't own a 223 and my only long guns are a 22LR and a 7.62x54 the 45acp works better for me in MY house.

Heck I just want one of those little things that look like a small toolbox but fold out into a miniature glock carbine. Saw that on a show the other day and immediately wanted one. Not really even sure what I would use it for, but it was super cool. :-D

DefiantDad
June 13, 2012, 03:50 AM
This thread has WAY exceeded my expectations for answers, but it has been very informative. :)

By the way, I came across some news that the DHS is contracting for 7000 firearms in 5.56 NATO with a new twist: the requirement of concealability. So it seems they agree with the analysis that even at close range (and even without a long barrel or stock), the rifle caliber is preferable to a handgun caliber.

Apparently there are a few pistol-type (not SBR) 5.56 firearms already. So, it's an interesting thought.

TarDevil
June 13, 2012, 12:56 PM
I've read through nearly all this thread and haven't seen one aspect discussed...

Good friend/customer of mine owns a safe full of ARs and another full of sniper rifles, handguns from derringers to Dessert Eagles. His wife is a lawyer... she tells him if HD is necessary, use something other than an AR.

Not saying I agree, just saying...

NG VI
June 13, 2012, 02:26 PM
In those pictures you posted, the officers are all using SBR's, which is something that I don't have. What I do have is an AR with a 16" barrel, and with the butt stock fully extended it's not something that's easy to move around with in my home.

Why do you have to fully extend your carbine's stock? Are you 7'11"? In the first photo it's impossible to tell whether they have 14.5" M4-type uppers, or if they've got 16" uppers on. A 16" AR with the stock collapsed is what, 29-31" long? Unless you are 4'11", the difference between a 16 and an NFA compliant 10-14.5" barrel won't make a legitimate difference in handling, and the firing position shouldn't leave the rifle any further out than a pistol in firing position.

And you can only lower your pistol so far before the large, exposed, moving mechanism of it starts to short stroke because the slide is taking chunks out of your wrist.

By extrapolation, a .308 is far better than any handgun, or .223, if you are able to use it.

In fact it seems you would use a handgun only if it is IMPOSSIBLE to use a rifle, based on all the advantages of the rifle/carbine.

These are the take-away learnings I got from this discussion, based on all the various points and counterpoints.

Thanks again to all who contributed.

To follow up on post #89, there is such a thing as too much. It's why .223 is such a successful service rifle cartridge, despite being so much less powerful than the .30-06/.308 rifles it replaced. .223 rifles have been proven best in class for combat over the years because it is such a good blend of all of the characteristics that make a fighting weapon successful.

You really can't make a .223 a harsh recoiler, it'll always be pretty moderate at worst, light and sweet from most rifles.

It is fast enough to deliver some good hydrostatic shock effects, and the projectile is skinny enough that it's very easy to make a fragile bullet that really exacerbates the shock wounds by coming to pieces. .308 loads are plenty fast enough for hydrostatic shock, but the physically more robust dimensions of .30 caliber bullets and the overwhelming demand for large game hunting bullets means you have fewer choices in .308 that are properly designed for human enemies, and the most commonly found options are going to be tailored for animals larger than us and built very differently than us.

snake eater 332
June 13, 2012, 02:41 PM
5.56/.233 all day, every day over any normal handgun SD round. SD handgun calibers suck at killing people in general. Rifles, on the other hand....

NG VI
June 13, 2012, 02:43 PM
Neglecting the fact that a bullet may cause collateral damage was not part of the question, so again the .223 wins. A 30 round mag was not an option either.


Magazine size wasn't brought up, and basically any self-loading .223 rifle is going to take STANAG magazines, even if it isn't an AR. Doesn't mean it's irrelevant, he did say he wanted to know about the first shot mostly in case something prevented a second.

And a service pistol, 9mm, .357, .40, .45, those calibers are all better suited for punching through building materials than .223 in basically any loading. It's not about MoaR or le$$ "powerful", it's about tailoring your weapon and projectile to the target you need to shoot. People require very different medicine than elk, which is why .308 and up is usually a far from ideal choice. Pistols don't have the wide margins that rifles do, so designers are stuck in a narrower range of bullet weights and velocities, where a rifle cartridge can be designed around the target with a much larger window for success.


And engineer that was kind of a dick thing to say. You're still wrong, but there was no need for me to deliver the news like that.

Auto426
June 13, 2012, 02:46 PM
Why do you have to fully extend your carbine's stock? Are you 7'11"? In the first photo it's impossible to tell whether they have 14.5" M4-type uppers, or if they've got 16" uppers on. A 16" AR with the stock collapsed is what, 29-31" long? Unless you are 4'11", the difference between a 16 and an NFA compliant 10-14.5" barrel won't make a legitimate difference in handling, and the firing position shouldn't leave the rifle any further out than a pistol in firing position.

It's amazing to me that even though no one here has ever seen me or the layout of my house, they are experts on what I should be using to defend it. :rolleyes: Somehow now I am absolutely helpless because I would grab my pistol instead of my rifle. We all know that handguns don't kill people, right?

As I have said before, I don't find my AR comfortable or easy to aim with the buttstock collapsed, and I don't care how far the stock can collapse, a 16" barreled AR is still much larger than my 1911. I'm simply more comfortable with a handgun in my home than a long gun. What is so hard to understand about that?

And you can only lower your pistol so far before the large, exposed, moving mechanism of it starts to short stroke because the slide is taking chunks out of your wrist.

What? If your having trouble operating your pistol, then maybe you should seek some help.

DefiantDad
June 13, 2012, 04:28 PM
A few things have popped up in this thread that were not actually within the scope of my original intent. Not that they are irrelevant to the question in general, but I was only focused, in my inquiry, on the physical aspects of the caliber choice. The issues raised by others, for good reason, include over-penetration and legalities (e.g., the "black gun" image in a HD scenario, and a concept possibly of "overkill" or not meeting threat force with comparable defense force).

These are all important issues. I just wanted to point this out as someone reading this thread for home defense thinking might not be on the same page as me, which was to understand caliber choice in a very dire situation (so that *I* would have the correct information to make a correct decision, when my brain won't likely be working very well under extreme stress).

Just one thing though, even if the AR "black gun" issue can complicate a subsequent legal case (if there even is a legal case; there is not in my fantasy scenario of SHTF to be honest, but that is outside the scope of this thread or this forum), but it is better to have to explain why you used a black AR in court, than to be dead and have THR posters debate why you didn't pick up that black tacticooled AR in your bedroom and tried to used a bolt action .22LR instead. (I think I posed that the bad guy had already killed mostly everyone else on his shotgun/machine gun rampage, so AR is probably justified).

gym
June 13, 2012, 05:10 PM
I still have to disagree, not because the AR isn't a more lethal weapon, "I have one also", but rather that having had a home invasion, you don't have time, no matter what you think in your mental scenarios, to get to that closet where your rifle is and get a mag place it in and come out firing. That's not how home invasions occur.
Usually you are near the front door as I was, either going in or about to leave. The door flies open and 5 men came in with 5 weapons all pointed at myself and my live in girlfriend.I was immediatlly hit in the forhead with the gun barrell. I went down, in the first 2 seconds. The constant bickering about things that people refuse to understand about professionals entering your house drives me nuts. NO you won't have time to get your rifle. Especially if it's upstairs in a closet and your wife and kids are downstairs. That's why they keep having this type of crime, because it is so fast and deadlly.
If you can't get a gun into action as soon as that door flies open, you are a victim.
If you knew they were coming it wouldn't be a suprise, you obviouslly could sit there with a bazooka. The problem is that most of us don't walk around the house with an AR.
But many do have a pistol on them. If you can manage to drop the first guy, you may win the battle. Once they make entry and they grab a kid or your spouse, all the theory goes out the window. Then your negotiating skills come into play. The part that we didn't mention, is having a large dog, an alarm and cameras, so they don't come into you life.
Sometimes it's like there are a group of teenagers in here with weapons all over their home, thats not the norm, only a single man can live that way. If you have grandkids, kids, and a wife,sister,etc, you aren't keeping a loaded AR at your front door. The good guys don't always win. It's almost impossible to fully protect yourself from this type of crime unless you live like a monk. Wealthy people spend in the 5 million per year area to gaurd their home alone, CNBC had a story on protecting the rich, this week, just scale it down. At least now we have cameras and alarm systems, back in 1979, we didn't. That made it very hard to protect yourself, along with being in NYC, But even now it happens in heartbeat, you won't have the kind of time to implement these plans once they are in. As I sit here I am wearing a Glock 26, I know I can get to that, I don't know if I would make it 40 feet to my bedroom to get my AR, I highlly doubt it, if they are pro's. Ask an agent or dective, they will enlighten you if you don't believe me.
Obviouslly if you had a choice you would take a rifle every time, but the question is squewed, when you say coming through the door, I take it as though it was a suprise. If you knew that they were coming then a rifle would be in order.

Cosmoline
June 13, 2012, 05:23 PM
That's certainly a valid point--and the big advantage of the pistol is its portability and concealability. It's far from impossible to keep a loaded AR next to your bed or nearby. But the question here is comparing two platforms assuming either would be available.

We all know that handguns don't kill people, right?

We know that they tend to miss--a lot--in these kinds of encounters. Even at close range. Even when the shooter has loads of experience. And we know that the wounds they inflict, while significant, are not always enough to stop a determined attacker. The question is really, if your life is in danger, why would you choose the less accurate, less powerful platform over the more accurate, more powerful one?

, a 16" barreled AR is still much larger than my 1911.

Are you including your outstreched arms in the 1911's length?

Auto426
June 13, 2012, 06:36 PM
We know that they tend to miss--a lot--in these kinds of encounters. Even at close range. Even when the shooter has loads of experience. And we know that the wounds they inflict, while significant, are not always enough to stop a determined attacker. The question is really, if your life is in danger, why would you choose the less accurate, less powerful platform over the more accurate, more powerful one?

So your just assuming that I will miss wildly with a handgun at the extremely short ranges inside my home, but I will somehow be a crack shot with a rifle?

And I think I've stated the reasons for choosing the handgun plenty of times, though none of the "experts" here seem to pay any attention. :rolleyes:

Are you including your outstreched arms in the 1911's length?

My arms don't have to be fully outstretch every single second that I'm holding the handgun. I can also fire my handgun without my arms fully outstretched if need be. I can't, however, magically shrink the barrel on my AR.

TimboKhan
June 13, 2012, 06:42 PM
Rifles are much, much easier to shoot accurately than handguns. Argue all you want, but the rifle is always the better weapon, though not always the best option. Handguns fill a role, mainly that they are easier to haul around than a rifle.

Also, with my stock slid in, my AR is plenty short, and I can shoot it from unconventional positions if necessary.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Creature
June 13, 2012, 07:04 PM
The carbine, the choice of dynamic entry teams the world over. Why do you suppose that is?

I am pretty sure that OBL was sent to his maker while standing in his bedroom courtesy of a carbine, not a pistol.

420Stainless
June 13, 2012, 07:11 PM
The constant bickering about things that people refuse to understand about professionals entering your house drives me nuts. NO you won't have time to get your rifle. Especially if it's upstairs in a closet and your wife and kids are downstairs. That's why they keep having this type of crime, because it is so fast and deadlly.


Although that may be the way the professionals invade, you don't have to read too many of the articles referenced in the Armed Citizen column of the NRA publications to see that many non-professional invasions occur and in many cases a home owner was able to run across the house, locate a weapon, and successfully face down the invader. You do make a very good case for carrying on the body while at home, but even if I'm doing so I'll make every attempt to get to a shotgun (my personal choice over both presented in this case). I'm a competent handgunner and ardent believer in all things .45, but it is easier to hit at any range beyond muzzle contact with a long gun for me.

psyopspec
June 13, 2012, 07:30 PM
For me, the pistol is simply a better option. I'm much quicker with it and I can get around my house much easier with it. It may not do as much damage in a single shot as a .223, but it's still very capable of eliminating the threat quickly and efficiently.

Dude, fair enough, but that's not what you said in your first post. Speaking generally, you stated that pistols were easier to work with indoors. I'm saying, generally, that is an utter falsehood. My offer of pics was to demonstrate the point that a rifle can indeed be effectively and easily wielded in CQ. No one mentioned video except you, but thanks for turning me into your mall ninja straw man.

Pistols are more effective indoors = false in most cases.

Pistols are more effective in Auto's house = Sure.

For the record, despite your playing the victim to the contrary, no one is telling you what's best for you or your home. Neither I nor anyone else have an issue with what you choose to use to defend yourself. My issue is with your original argument, not you as an individual nor your home.

psyopspec
June 13, 2012, 07:39 PM
Quoting gym:

That's not how home invasions occur.

For the purposes of this thread we're playing within a scenario of very narrow scope where the OP postulated early warning and weapon choice, which is why I believe the rifle is the clear choice. Right this second I have a handgun within reach, but not a rifle. I have that handgun with me because the AR would be impractical. At night or while relaxing in the bedroom that's easy to change. Still, if I had a choice (which we do in this thread), I go with the rifle.

Speaking in terms of the given scenario, rifle>pistol.

Speaking in terms of reality, use the best tool available for the job at any given time.

I think your points are valid, and obviously more grounded in reality than a scenario since you speak from experience. Thanks for posting.

Auto426
June 13, 2012, 07:55 PM
Dude, fair enough, but that's not what you said in your first post.

That's almost exactly what I said in my first post:

However, I don't want to be using my AR15 when trying to maneuver inside the home. A handgun is much easier to get through narrow hallways and doorways.

Maybe I should have added a "for me" at the end of the last sentence, but I did not tell that OP that it's impossible or impractical to use an AR15 inside of his home. And I'm still fairly certain that the smaller the weapon, the easier it is to use in tight spaces.

For the record, despite your playing the victim to the contrary, no one is telling you what's best for you or your home.

I seem to recall at least 3 different posters quoting me and trying to question my choice of a handgun inside of my home, in an attempt to argue that an AR15 would be superior.

Frankly, I think it's time that this one gets locked. The OP has his answer, and the discussion has drifted far off topic.

Teachu2
June 13, 2012, 07:56 PM
Just a refresher:

.45 ACP versus .223; 10 feet away

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.45 ACP versus .223 (comparing FMJ and JHP).

Which one would you rely on for stopping an imminent threat coming around the corner / in your doorway (e.g., bad guy with shotgun or full-auto, etc).

For .45 ACP assume you can use either handgun (e.g., 1911, Glock 36, etc.) or pistol ammo carbine in .45 ACP.

For .223 assume something like an AR but you can also opt for a pistol/SBR chambered in .223.

Probably you have the element of surprise and the chance to put ONE SHOT into the bad guy.
__________________


We've drifted well off-topic here. The OP defined a scenario here that most of us are unwilling to accept as realistic, simply because it doesn't fit with our personal perceptions of a likely scenario. We add stuff to it, trying to get it to fit some reality (or fantasy) that we can imagine ourselves involved in.

I'm the son of a federal probation officer, and a former LEO myself. I've dealt with armed idiots who intended to do me and/or my family harm. The scenario presented by the OP is not representative of any such encounter, nor any I can realisticly envision, and the real choice is much, much simpler.

When faced with an imminent threat coming around the corner / in my doorway (e.g., bad guy with shotgun or full-auto, etc) - I'm going with the weapon that I have the most confidence in THAT I CAN GET TO THE QUICKEST.

TEN feet, ONE shot - no time to go get anything. If it's not within reach, it doesn't matter how effective it would have been - it's not in the picture.

How many of you have a .223 within arm's reach RIGHT NOW? Ten feet away is a BG with a shotty or a MG -

Ben86
June 13, 2012, 08:19 PM
I'd trust the high powered rifle round over the pistol round for a quick stop every day, expanding ammunition or not.

That said I prefer a pistol for indoor defensive work. It's more maneuverable and has less muzzle blast. I'd consider an AR for indoor HD if I got a suppressor for it, but then it will be even longer and less maneuverable.

Slimbo
June 13, 2012, 08:59 PM
I'll take my AR.

gym
June 13, 2012, 09:59 PM
Teach u, that is the exact point. Trying to run away from the perp, instead of running to them is wasting valuable seconds. Those seconds will ,"not may" decide who lives or dies. If you can't hit a man sized target in the upper torso or head, at ten feet with your carry weapon. There really is no reason for you to be fooling yourself in as far as thinking that it serves any purpose other than showing that you have a gun.
Anyone who I ever associated with who shot, "some never held a gun", was a serious shooter. "1 ragged hole at 25 feet with a 4 inch 38 revolver serious".
To imagine that with a hi capacity handgun, regaurdless of caliber,let's agree it's over 9mm. You should be able to put out candles at ten feet. If not then I must be in the wrong forum, I know many of you guys are much better than that.
So let's rehash, you don't have a rifle on you, but you have a glock 26 or a 1911. "just as good as any other 8-13 rounds, with plus 2 and 1 in the chamber. I have a second mag in my left pocket.
You would abandon your advantage "obviouslly why some walk around 24/7 strapped", thus allowing more time for the perps to enter and possiblly grab your family, "this is what happens". Or is it not wiser to make a stand there, taking out the first man and the second immediatlly prior to them getting in your home.
When a gun goes off, it's not like in the movies, "some of you know this, I am not patronising you guys", for those who don't, everyone either heads for a door window or hits the deck. Those outside seeing one or two of their commrades dead or dying, will turn and run, 99% of the time. They aren't going to step over them and continue like nothing happened, the noise has now alerted everyone within earsot.
Now does this make more sense than running someware,"takes time" to get and load or insert a mag into a rifle, and have to come back to a place that has changed in seconds, not knowing who is where?
We seem to agree a rifle is more powerful than a pistol, if you have one there. It seems like a rediculous move and it's working against yourself to not feel that your carry can't put down someone 10 feet away, indoors.
Also don't forget that everyone gets shaken up and has to control their nerves and tunnel vision as all this unfolds, getting the rifle is much harder in that state of mind. Use what you have available and don't abandon your advantage of suprise, you have a gun.

DefiantDad
June 13, 2012, 10:02 PM
Again, thanks for all your inputs. But just to be fair, the scenario posed is not completely impossible. It might not be PROBABLE in terms of ordinary life today in America, but it is possible. Obviously, in a more COMMON scenario (different from saying "realistic" because COMMON is not actually a synonym for REALISTIC, if things change) you'd pull your sidearm (again we are assuming the sidearm is more likely to be on-person than a slung rifle).

In fact it would not be necessary for me to ask this question, if we were postulating common scenarios of home invasion, etc. as it is obvious that one might not have a choice in terms of which firearm is readily at hand. That is why I posed the scenario so you have a choice, and the question is if you had that choice, which is the better caliber.

Just to be more precise here, the question is not actually handgun or carbine, but caliber. The "launching platform" can be anything (and obviously an AR is more likely for the .223/5.56 but as noted by myself and others, there are SBR and pistol configurations chambered in the rifle round).

I agree this thread can be locked, as the various points have already been presented. I do think it is good reading though, in terms of challenging some assumptions about handguns (and even shotguns) in self-defense, which are things that seem to always be repeated in firearms books (e.g., a shotgun is the no-brainer definite weapon for home defense) and there have been valid points raised to present the other side of the coin (e.g., shotgun target re-acquisition is not as quick as with a carbine or even handgun, so you have to be 100% sure you did hit the bad guy on the first shotgun round).

engineer88
June 13, 2012, 10:09 PM
NG thanks for the kind reply. I think I was thinking mass, weight, velocity and then the whole physics thing and my head was drifting when I posted.

More on topic, many folks chose handgun for home defense as a necessity (like myself) where they may have an anti-gun spouse or small children running around, or perhaps both. In this case a small lock box, or locked drawer in the bedroom is much less intrusive and possibly an easier sell. Now that has nothing to do with the efficacy of the rounds in question, but everything to do with the platform.

Personally, if I had my druthers, it would be a 12 guage, and I currently working on a trade with a buddy for his Remington 1100. :-)

I still want an AR and and AK and an SKS, but they are waiting on fundage.

gym
June 13, 2012, 10:19 PM
Thanks for the interesting post, it turned out well I believe. It was indeed a good exchange and brought out several good points.

GLOOB
June 13, 2012, 11:17 PM
Even that doesn't make sense. .45ACP pistol has a louder report than .223 out of a rifle, as I cited earlier in the thread.
I'm skeptical. A .223 rifle might have a lower report outdoors, from the shooter's perspective. But in an enclosed space, I wouldn't think so.

Standing next to a guy shooting a 223 carbine at the range, it's a lot louder to me than a handgun. When you're in an enclosed space, that's what you're going to hear, too.

I shot my 223 rifle at an outdoor range with a walled structure, once (shed with benches and shade). Even with double ears, the noise was just tolerable. Quite the ruckus compared with handguns.

TimboKhan
June 13, 2012, 11:24 PM
Allrighty.... I am guilty as anyone, but this has drifted pretty far. I am not going to close it at this time, but i will if it drifts any further.

9mmepiphany
June 13, 2012, 11:34 PM
For those interested in some objective testing.

Michael Bane just did some test in ballistic gelatin on his show Shooting Gallery...on the Outdoor Channel...and it included comparisons between the 5.56x45mm and handguns rounds for in-home defense

General Geoff
June 14, 2012, 12:56 AM
TEN feet, ONE shot - no time to go get anything. If it's not within reach, it doesn't matter how effective it would have been - it's not in the picture.

How many of you have a .223 within arm's reach RIGHT NOW? Ten feet away is a BG with a shotty or a MG -

The OP scenario stated that you probably have the element of surprise. I take that to mean that for one reason or another, you have foreknowledge of the invader breaking in, and have time to equip yourself with your weapon of choice, be it pistol or rifle. In this particular instance you've prepared yourself to the best of your ability and are standing ten feet from the door awaiting the bad guy who's about to bust in.

So yeah, I think having a .223 rifle in-hand isn't out of the question, if we follow the OP scenario.

NG VI
June 14, 2012, 01:09 AM
I seem to recall at least 3 different posters quoting me and trying to question my choice of a handgun inside of my home, in an attempt to argue that an AR15 would be superior.


It's an objectively superior weapon, hands down, no questions, qualifiers, or maybes. Your situation may not allow you to keep the best choice ready, but that doesn't make the weapon itself a lesser choice.

You've got to be able to recognize the difference. "I don't sleep with a rifle handy" doesn't make the pistol the better weapon. It makes it the weapon you are better able to or are currently set up to grab quickest. If it's what you've got in hand, run it like nothing else has ever been invented, but don't tell yourself or try to claim that it's a reflection on the practical value (for fighting) of the weapon you don't or can't have.

Skribs
June 14, 2012, 01:12 AM
Very well put NG.

Auto426
June 14, 2012, 02:24 AM
You've got to be able to recognize the difference. "I don't sleep with a rifle handy" doesn't make the pistol the better weapon. It makes it the weapon you are better able to or are currently set up to grab quickest. If it's what you've got in hand, run it like nothing else has ever been invented, but don't tell yourself or try to claim that it's a reflection on the practical value (for fighting) of the weapon you don't or can't have.

I'm still trying to find where I said that a pistol was clearly the best choice for every single person out there, regardless of their situation.

I recognize that a pistol is not as effective as a rifle when it comes to shooting bad guys. I said that in my first post in this thread. However, terminal ballistics are not the only factor that goes into choosing a home defense weapon. For me the AR is not the best choice, and that's all I've been trying to say since the beginning.

DefiantDad
June 14, 2012, 04:55 AM
Maybe comparing these two platforms (just as examples) would help more with apples/apples:

http://www.kriss-usa.com/pistols/vector-sdp-45-acp

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p556-pistol.aspx

FIVETWOSEVEN
June 14, 2012, 01:18 PM
As I have said before, I don't find my AR comfortable or easy to aim with the buttstock collapsed,

It's a matter of getting used to. I have an AK 74 with a Tantal buttstock. Far more uncomfortable yet I manage. The Tantal is my go to weapon.

When faced with an imminent threat coming around the corner / in my doorway (e.g., bad guy with shotgun or full-auto, etc) - I'm going with the weapon that I have the most confidence in THAT I CAN GET TO THE QUICKEST.

If you're thinking about going for a better weapon AFTER they already got inside your home, your tactics are lacking severely.

Teach u, that is the exact point. Trying to run away from the perp, instead of running to them is wasting valuable seconds. Those seconds will ,"not may" decide who lives or dies. If you can't hit a man sized target in the upper torso or head, at ten feet with your carry weapon. There really is no reason for you to be fooling yourself in as far as thinking that it serves any purpose other than showing that you have a gun.

Running away from an intruder means they are already inside: Tactics = fail. You should already be in a safe place calling 911 and that safe place should have a long gun. From what I've seen at the range with regulars, I'm a better shot than those I see most of the time. I can use a handgun effectively but that doesn't mean it's a better weapon or that it's good enough and why bother going for something better? I'm a good shot with a handgun, I'm a better shot with a rifle.

gym
June 14, 2012, 08:00 PM
Definate kriss. Or AK underfolder. Then whatever I had on me. 45 is good enough to hit a quarter size target at 10 feet, you shouldn't need more than that, Rifles are great but 10 feet is handgun territory or shotgun.

GunnerShotz
June 14, 2012, 08:13 PM
Maybe comparing these two platforms (just as examples) would help more with apples/apples:

http://www.kriss-usa.com/pistols/vector-sdp-45-acp

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p556-pistol.aspx

Apples to apples based on your original post or in addition to the Other variables also introduced by the drift this thread has taken?? ;)

Given 10 feet and I know somebody is coming around the corner, and 13 rounds of .45 vs 30 .223 ... I'll Still take the .223 tyvm ... ONE shot allowed or not :D

DefiantDad
June 14, 2012, 10:58 PM
Yeah it's hard to do all the various factors but let's narrow it down.

You hear gunshots, you look out the window (or whatever) and you see this guy rampaging through your neighborhood and house, and shooting everyone, and now he's walking up the stairs to your bedroom where you are.

On your bed is the .45 carbine, and a .223 carbine, just lying there ready to use, fully loaded, chambered, whatever. There is also a photograph of a 12 gauge shotgun and a drawing of a 1911 (hahaha).

Which one do you pick up to terminate the threat as he walks into your bedroom, with you just off to the side waiting for him? You got maybe 30 seconds.

TimboKhan
June 15, 2012, 12:27 AM
Annnnnnd, thats enough. Gentle posters, I am closing this because of drift. I would suggest that this isn't a bad topic to discuss, but maybe someone could start a more focused thread on this topic. With that suggestion, good night now.

If you enjoyed reading about ".45 ACP versus .223; 10 feet away" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!