Home defense carbine: 9mm v. 223


PDA






Balrog
July 29, 2013, 12:32 AM
Ok so for home defense only, inside the house, short ranges, which would be the better choice? a 9mm carbine such as the Beretta CX4 or just stick with the trusty old Colt 6920?
Assume both are equipped the same with, with a red dot, light, and 30 round mags.

The 223 prob gets the nod for effectiveness? but would the low recoil/low flash of 9mm make up for the difference?

If you enjoyed reading about "Home defense carbine: 9mm v. 223" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArchAngelCD
July 29, 2013, 12:34 AM
Just my opinion but I would rather use a pistol caliber with a HP bullet than a high speed 223 inside the house.

cslinger
July 29, 2013, 12:42 AM
People seem to really get hung up on the tool. As somebody who has worked for a major metro PD any gun will get you home so to speak.

You want terminal effectiveness get a 12 bore with 00 buck or slug.
You want to fend off a clan of ninja then 30 round mags in an AR are great.

At the end of the day a 6 shot .38 will most likely do you just fine assuming you know how to use it.

So for your specifics probably the AR since lighter weight .223 tends to disintegrate going through drywall faster then 9mm. Course its louder and has more flash and the chances of having ANY long arm near by are much less then a pistol but whatryagonnado? You pick the tool and learn it and you will be fine.

Hell don't rub another man's rhubarb, don't deal drugs, don't operate an illicit enterprise and don't flaunt your wealth and the chances of needing said arm is pretty nill.

LowspeedHighDrag opinion so take for what it is worth.

Take care, shoot safe.

jbj
July 29, 2013, 12:43 AM
All tests show that 223/5.56 has far less penetration on sheetrock than most common handgun rounds (55 gr vs 125-230grain).

That said, and as much as I like long guns for defense, think about being on the phone with the PD while hoisting a rifle.

horsemen61
July 29, 2013, 12:46 AM
Yeah I would also recommend the 9mm with hollow points it won't over penetrate as bad

rcmodel
July 29, 2013, 12:46 AM
I would disagree.

A high-velocity, relatively light weight (50 - 60 grain) .223 bullet is less likely to over-penetrate and kill a neighbor in the next house or apartment then a larger pistol bullet at much lower velocity.

That's why SWAT teams have almost universally switched from 9mm sub-guns to .223 carbines for urban use.

Much Less chance of over-penetration.
And a MUCH greater chance of a one-shot stop then with a handgun caliber sub-gun.

rc

cslinger
July 29, 2013, 12:48 AM
Varmint grain weight .223 penetrate far less then most .9mm in almost all tests. That being said...itsa tad bit noisier with a bit of flash in low light. :D

Everything is all about weighing pros and cons.

JShirley
July 29, 2013, 01:21 AM
We've had at least two large threads about this in the last week or so.

Yes, software is better than hardware, and yes, any gun is better than none.

BUT if you have the money for a Beretta carbine, you have the funds for a .223. The .223 is a much more decisive stopper while offering less penetration in structure. People who assume 9x19mm will penetrate less just don't understand bullet terminal ballistics, and should not advertise their lack of understanding.

John

tlr683
July 29, 2013, 02:27 AM
Its the sound of you racking a round into your pump 12 gauge that screams home defense. And nothing beats a 12 gauge with a staggered buck shot and slug combination. Mossberg 500 20" barrel 8 round capacity.

mljdeckard
July 29, 2013, 02:52 AM
Um.....NO. If racking a shotgun is so effective, why load it at all?

There is no good reason to stagger loads. If you think you MUST have both kinds of ammo handy, use a sidesaddle with the other, and practice rapid loading from it. Or ger a KelTec KSG with twin magazines. When you shoot, you need to KNOW which load is up next. Pick the one that is most effective and stick to it.

Listen to RC. It may sound counterintuitive, but good defensive 5.56 loads are far less likely to go through multiple barriers than pistol rounds.

tlr683
July 29, 2013, 03:32 AM
Look I love 223 round, it stops coyotes with no problem . But for home defence I vote against it. I work with military vets, and they have all told me stories about shooting people with the 556 or 9mm and they keep charging . So they would pick up ak's for the stopping power. But besides that im in California so I can't legally have 30rd mags. And to me for protecting my wife and son 8rds of 12ga. Is more fire power then 10rds of 223. Plus at 2 or 3am Im a little groggy eyed. But that's just me.

MistWolf
July 29, 2013, 04:22 AM
The Colt 6920 is a much better choice for HD than any pistol caliber carbine for reasons already covered.

The AR is 5.56 is also a better choice than a shotgun. However, tlr683 pulled me up short with his situation in California. The advantages of the AR outweigh those of the shotgun enough that I still want to choose the AR. But, being limited to a 10 round mag and a bullet button does negate a couple key features of the AR- superior capacity and rapid mag changes. In this case, the shotgun is easier to top off. Makes a guy want to build a featureless rifle and refurbish all those tired and worn preban mags

Torian
July 29, 2013, 09:15 AM
I would disagree.

A high-velocity, relatively light weight (50 - 60 grain) .223 bullet is less likely to over-penetrate and kill a neighbor in the next house or apartment then a larger pistol bullet at much lower velocity.

That's why SWAT teams have almost universally switched from 9mm sub-guns to .223 carbines for urban use.

Much Less chance of over-penetration.
And a MUCH greater chance of a one-shot stop then with a handgun caliber sub-gun.

rc
Entirely dependent on the TYPE of .223 / 5.56 ammo. M855 would absolutely over-penetrate...since many of us like this type of ammo...it is worth mentioning. If you are referring to something like PRVI 75 grain BTHP, then yes, I would agree with you.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2013, 09:20 AM
The number one factor in the effectiveness of any firearm is shot placement - so being able to put shots where you want them is the first priority. For some people, the flash and blast of .223 can be disconcerting even though the recoil is minimal. My first recommendation is to get some trigger time with both and see if you shoot one dramatically better.

If you shoot both about the same, then I think the AR is the more effective tool for the reasons already stated.

eastbank
July 29, 2013, 09:57 AM
i have a old dcm m-1 carbine in very good condition that has been dead nuts reliable and sets in a corner ready for any invaders. eastbank.

Hanzo581
July 29, 2013, 10:13 AM
Taking muzzle flash and sound into account in my small house, I would never want to fire a 5.56 inside. Some will say to just pop on some hearing protection but I don't want to have to worry about that in a think fast situation.

I chose a pistol because I believe something you can operate single handed is of supreme importance in a defensive situation.

C0untZer0
July 29, 2013, 10:13 AM
In order, I'd want a 12ga loaded with #1 Buck, a 9mm carbine, a rifle in 5.56

My own reasoning for the 9mm carbine over the 5.56 is that IMO, generally speaking, an errant 9mm is going to go about 100 to 150 meters before it falls to Earth and the 5.56 can hypothetically go a lot longer distance...

Just my thought.

ejfalvo
July 29, 2013, 10:28 AM
I have a Beretta Storm in 45ACP to complement my Sig P220s. Shoots great, accurate. Only downside is it only holds 8 rounds, which, hopefully would be more than I need.

avs11054
July 29, 2013, 10:41 AM
6920 hands down. Better stopping power and less chance of over penetration if you are using ammo made for HD. And I wouldn't use a shotgun for the sole reason that joe biden says I should use a shot gun.

HoosierQ
July 29, 2013, 10:43 AM
Its the sound of you racking a round into your pump 12 gauge that screams home defense. And nothing beats a 12 gauge with a staggered buck shot and slug combination. Mossberg 500 20" barrel 8 round capacity.
This may be the worst possible thing in terms of the 4th rule: know your target and what's behind it. What's gonna be behind your target is going to be a wall. Now if it's concrete, fine. If it is just about anything else? Massive overpenetration and dead neighbors. And all that nonesense about the sound of the pump gun is just movie business. In a stressful situation, nobody is going to hear that.

.223 with a 55gr hollowpoint or something frangible. I had some "Varmint Grenades" that somebody gave me along with a gun I bought.

I am confining my comments to the OPs question "...carbine". Thus no comments from me about handguns.

CoRoMo
July 29, 2013, 10:44 AM
Some will say to just pop on some hearing protection but I don't want to have to worry about that in a think fast situation.
The silencer should already be mounted on the muzzle.

Hanzo581
July 29, 2013, 10:48 AM
The silencer should already be mounted on the muzzle.


Was that an offer to buy me one? :p

gotigers
July 29, 2013, 10:51 AM
Buckshot is great for effectiveness, but over penetrates which is bad for friendlies in the other room and can be difficult to move in close quarters.

9mm is great for close quarters, but penetrates more walls than .223/5.56

.223/5.56 with the right ammo has less wall penetration than either buckshot or 9mm, but a 16" rifle can be difficult to use in close quarters.

All 3 are good HD weapons. Just choose one that fits your needs and train with it.

My choice is a 10.5" 5.56 SBR with can. My stamp should be in any day for my SBR. Can coming end of year.

Currently, i keep a 9mm with hi capacity mags close by and a 12ga moss 500 for more serious issues in the next room. My current 16" AR is ready, but more for SHTF.

M1key
July 29, 2013, 11:13 AM
If you are NOT concerned about shooting your neighbors (I am not), then a 9mm carbine will work fine. My Ruger PC9 loaded with Federal 115+P+ clocks over 1600 fps out of the carbine and is still much quieter than any pistol or 223 rifle.

M

Girodin
July 29, 2013, 11:40 AM
I'd rather have a 5.56 than a 9x19. The 5.56 has lower risk of over penetration when using appropriate ammo. It also offers superior terminal ballistics. The 9x19 may have some advantage in less blast but I'd say its mostly theoretical. Suppressor a can also d a lot for that. Either one is likely to be adequate if the user is. However, I do think there is a reason that subguns are falling by the way side and M4 type weapons are.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2013, 12:24 PM
Personally, the difference between a 9mm pistols indoors with no hearing protection and 5.56mm with no hearing protection isn't that big a deal to me. Both are going to be plenty loud, both are well past hearing safe and I'd just as soon someone in my house illegally feel like I am hurling thunderbolts at them.

However, I have noticed that some shooters can be sensitive to flash and muzzle blast, even on cartridges that don't have that much recoil. To use one example, I often find new shooters handle 9mm or even .45 better than say .40S&W or .357 SIG. Since putting rounds on target is problem #1, I think it is usually best to figure out what weapons you can shoot well and then work on the other considerations.

tlr683
July 29, 2013, 01:15 PM
What it comes down to is we will all have our own opinions on what's best. For me its my 12 ga. I can swep my house in several seconds and handle it very accurately. And the way my house is set up my neighbors will not be in my shooting lanes. Any over penetration will go to my garage or a parking lot to a building that is empty at night.

Now what's best for you. Just think what gun do you want in your hands when your family is in danger. Witch one are you more confident in. Remember protect your family first apologize to your neighbors later.

Trent
July 29, 2013, 01:17 PM
I've got 5 kids, guardianship of my mentally disabled sister, 2 large dogs, and several of my wife's cats running around a multi-level (5 level/ 3 story) house.

Overpenetration is not an option here.

I keep a PS90 by the bed at night.

Just so happens I still have a pic on my clipboard from the thread I just opened.

200 yards, 20 shot group, prone.

It's not just a short range gun, contrary to popular opinion.

http://i.imgur.com/WMhYNNNl.jpg

mavracer
July 29, 2013, 02:13 PM
Um.....NO. If racking a shotgun is so effective, why load it at all?
It might not work, duh.
If it works great, if not awe buck.

And the way my house is set up my neighbors will not be in my shooting lanes. Any over penetration will go to my garage or a parking lot to a building that is empty at night.
Knowing where your shooting lanes are before hand is an important factor.

As to the OP It's a toss-up to me either is going to require proper ammo and placement for good effect. pick one and practice.
For me I went in the middle and have a M1 carbine and a 12g.
No slugs for me, switched all my slugs for Flite controlled buck

JustinJ
July 29, 2013, 02:59 PM
Personally, the difference between a 9mm pistols indoors with no hearing protection and 5.56mm with no hearing protection isn't that big a deal to me. Both are going to be plenty loud, both are well past hearing safe and I'd just as soon someone in my house illegally feel like I am hurling thunderbolts at them.

I'm not so sure. .45 ACP out of a 16" barrel is incredibly quiet. The first time i shot my HK USC i thought it might have been a squib. I would expect 147 grain subsonic 9mm rounds from a 16" barrel to be waaay quieter than a 16" AR. Obviously a 147 grain 9 mm is going to penetrate far more though.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2013, 03:38 PM
A subsonic pistol cartridge out of a 16" barrel will be quieter; but nowhere near hearing safe. OSHA recommends no more than 15 minutes exposure at 100db and allows no more than 2 hours exposure @ 100db (which is like being 15m from a jackhammer according to OSHA).

An MP5SD firing subsonic 9mm is 126 decibels. The threshold of pain is 140 decibels. Pretty much any type of handgun, centerfire rifle or shotgun will exceed 150db unsuppressed. So even a 10db drop using a pistol cartridge in a 16" barrel (which would be optimistic I think) would still put you around 140db.

tuj
July 29, 2013, 03:51 PM
If you have to use it, its going to be loud no matter what you use. 10dB up or down won't make a difference; your ears WILL be ringing unless you have a suppressor. I made the mistake of shooting a .44mag without hearing protection once. One shot had my ears ringing for days and that was outdoors.

I personally like the expansion of the TAC-XP Barnes solid copper bullets, which you can get in .223 or 9mm. That said, the 9mm round has been shown to penetrate many types of barriers and still expand in gelatin.

Therefore I would go .223 with some type of expanding load. While the standard .223/5.56 FMJ round will generally tumble and stop in a barrier, I'd rather have an expanding load.

I'm a big fan of 9mm but if you are using a carbine, might as well use .223.

JShirley
July 29, 2013, 04:25 PM
In order, I'd want a 12ga loaded with #1 Buck, a 9mm carbine, a rifle in 5.56

My own reasoning for the 9mm carbine over the 5.56 is that IMO, generally speaking, an errant 9mm is going to go about 100 to 150 meters before it falls to Earth and the 5.56 can hypothetically go a lot longer distance...

How exactly will that 9x19mm go 100 meters inside your home? In real life- not hypothetically- if you miss the target, the 5.56x45mm will penetrate less in structural materials than the 9mm. If you do hit the threat, the 5.56 will tend to effect a sooner stop.

John

mavracer
July 29, 2013, 04:49 PM
an errant 9mm is going to go about 100 to 150 meters before it falls to Earth
I think you might want to look at a ballistics table a little closer with a meager 4 degrees of elevation a 9mm will go 1000 yards.

tlr683
July 29, 2013, 04:51 PM
Although I prefer my 12 ga. For my house. Your circumstances are different then mine. Over penetration isn't an issue for my house, so for maximum devastation 12 ga. Is it for me. But you said 9mm or 223, pick the one that you can clear your house with safest. It doesn't matter witch one it is to us, its not our family in your home. The best one is the one you can handle and maneuver the best. As for over penetration their is ammo for both designed for home defense, with over penetration and stopping power in mind. ( 9mm hornady has critical defense ammo) ( 223 barnes has mpg. Multi Purpose Green, designed for police ) in the end what ever you choose is up to you, just protect your family with your life, as all of us would.

Deltaboy
July 29, 2013, 05:04 PM
I use a 12 gauge and when I had one a old 30/30.

JustinJ
July 29, 2013, 05:19 PM
A subsonic pistol cartridge out of a 16" barrel will be quieter; but nowhere near hearing safe. OSHA recommends no more than 15 minutes exposure at 100db and allows no more than 2 hours exposure @ 100db (which is like being 15m from a jackhammer according to OSHA).

An MP5SD firing subsonic 9mm is 126 decibels. The threshold of pain is 140 decibels. Pretty much any type of handgun, centerfire rifle or shotgun will exceed 150db unsuppressed. So even a 10db drop using a pistol cartridge in a 16" barrel (which would be optimistic I think) would still put you around 140db.

I'm not arguing it would be hearing safe but the degree of damage is directly related to how loud a noise is. So yeah, 145 dB could do some damage but would be less than 165 dB. Of greater importance though, in a HD scenario, is the amount of disorientation one inflicts upon himself and I believe it would be much less with a pistol caliber carbine than an AR of equal barrel length.

mljdeckard
July 29, 2013, 06:09 PM
So mavracer, what you're saying is.....it isn't that effective. Why have that step in the process at all?

Keeping the chamber empty so you can rack the slide and scare someone delays your reaction time, gives away your plan and position, may not be a deterrent AT ALL, and may just as easily invite aggression from someone who may have been deciding whether or not to attack you.

mavracer
July 29, 2013, 06:32 PM
So mavracer, what you're saying is.....it isn't that effective. Why have that step in the process at all?
A: I prefer to store my shotgun cruizer ready
B: If it does detour them it's a great success.
C: If I'm worried about how long it's gonna take to rack the slide, I'm just going to engage with the 1911.
D: I'm sure the dogs will have already given my position away.
E: like I said already there's buckshot ready if they wanna come on.

tlr683
July 29, 2013, 09:49 PM
187081

Warp
July 29, 2013, 10:01 PM
Ok so for home defense only, inside the house, short ranges, which would be the better choice? a 9mm carbine such as the Beretta CX4 or just stick with the trusty old Colt 6920?
Assume both are equipped the same with, with a red dot, light, and 30 round mags.

The 223 prob gets the nod for effectiveness? but would the low recoil/low flash of 9mm make up for the difference?

I chose the Colt LE6920

Warp
July 29, 2013, 10:05 PM
A 12 ga. with BB Shot or #4 Buckshot ("Hamburger Helper" in Vietnam) is as lethal as it gets closeup.


More effective than #1 buck or 00 buck?

I don't think so.

...besides, it isn't about killing. Not at all.

JShirley
July 29, 2013, 10:11 PM
Killing ain't the goal, but the things that accomplish a rapid stop are likely to result in death.

Matt, I'd disagree. The most dramatic stops I've seen have almost all been rifle shots, with the exception of my first buck...who was so close I shot him from the hip.

C-grunt
July 29, 2013, 10:30 PM
Rifle all the way. From experience as a LEO and as an Infantryman the rifle tends to drop people like they were hit by a truck. Especially with a good hollow point load. At work we use the Federal Tactical 55 grn HP and it is VERY effective.

Also at work I have seen far far more people run away or continue fighting after good COM hits with any handgun than have fallen down and died where they stood. Handguns are carried because they are convenient, not because they are terribly effective.

Also having shot rifles indoors, you probably will hardly notice it if the time comes.

Ive shot hundreds, if not thousands of rounds without hearing protection, been blown up with 3 direct hits on my vehicle with IEDs, taken a few close range rockets/mortars/artillery, been around armored vehicles for four years and lost my right eardrum during a training accident. I can still hear decently. Not great but not bad. Your body is tougher than you think.

The last thing you should be worrying about during a gunfight is future hearing loss. What you should be worrying about is shooting and maneuvering on your enemy. Because if you don't then you wont have to worry about your future.

Texan Scott
July 30, 2013, 01:51 AM
Personally, I would start from the ASSUMPTION that ANYTHING you fire has the POTENTIAL to pose an overpenetration hazard. Assuming otherwise encourages careless behavior. Of course, if it really WOULDN'T go through sheet rock, I wouldn't trust my life to it.

As far as noise goes, ANY gun fired in the house will damage your hearing. Wear hearing protection or resign yourself to the idea of partial hearing loss as the potential price of protecting your loved ones.

If you have a 6920, that'll do as well as anything. If you really want a 9mm carbine, go for it.

My personal options include buckshot, 7.62x39, and two handgun calibers. My PREFERENCE would be ... whatever's closest. Usually, I'm WEARING one.

coloradokevin
July 30, 2013, 03:09 AM
There's little doubt (whether this comes from anecdotal shooting reports, or ballistic studies) that the .223 is far superior to the 9mm in terms of its ability to stop an attacker. You're comparing a rifle cartridge to a handgun cartridge, and there's a world of difference between these two in terms of terminal ballistics. A lot of the hype about .223 in-home over penetration is simply that: hype. A .223 with a carefully selected bullet will stop a fight, and not go ripping through your neighbor's house afterwards (at least not any more than any other effective defensive cartridge/bullet combination).

The only advantages I could think of for a 9mm carbine vs a .223 carbine are these: 1) The 9mm might yield faster follow-up shots, and 2) the 9mm may be less deafening when fired indoors.

If you want raw "stopping power" for a single intruder who isn't protected with body armor, I'd say you'd still be hard pressed to best a 12 gauge with 00 buck or slugs. And, you'd probably preserve more of your hearing by firing that gun indoors.

I carry an M4 style AR-15 at work. It's a great versatile gun for work, but I'd still choose the 12 gauge if I had to stop a single unarmored attacker at less than 25 yards, and only got one shot to do it. I've also strongly considered the addition of a suppressor to my rifle. My department doesn't provide suppressors, but I started thinking about it after attending a wound ballistics class with some officers from a better equipped department elsewhere in my state... all of their rifles are suppressed due to their consideration for hearing protection if they need to fire their rifles in the close quarters environment of a house or apartment. Really, that's not an unreasonable concern in my opinion (an AR-15 is darn loud when fired in a small bedroom without hearing protection).

2@low8
July 30, 2013, 04:40 AM
Originally Posted by MattShlock View Post
A 12 ga. with BB Shot or #4 Buckshot ("Hamburger Helper" in Vietnam) is as lethal as it gets closeup.

Response In Post #43 - More effective than #1 buck or 00 buck? I don't think so.

The poster said, “… as lethal as it gets close up.” #4 Buck will kill you just as dead as #1 or 00 buck up close. Dead is dead. My preference is for the #4 Buck for less wall penetration than larger shot sizes.

I only mention "killing" (as in lethal) because that was the reference in both the quoted posts. As JShirley said, "Killing ain't the goal, but the things that accomplish a rapid stop are likely to result in death." #4 Buck up close will accomplish a rapid stop.

Warp
July 30, 2013, 08:34 AM
There's little doubt (whether this comes from anecdotal shooting reports, or ballistic studies) that the .223 is far superior to the 9mm in terms of its ability to stop an attacker. You're comparing a rifle cartridge to a handgun cartridge, and there's a world of difference between these two in terms of terminal ballistics. A lot of the hype about .223 in-home over penetration is simply that: hype. A .223 with a carefully selected bullet will stop a fight, and not go ripping through your neighbor's house afterwards (at least not any more than any other effective defensive cartridge/bullet combination).

The only advantages I could think of for a 9mm carbine vs a .223 carbine are these: 1) The 9mm might yield faster follow-up shots, and 2) the 9mm may be less deafening when fired indoors.

If you want raw "stopping power" for a single intruder who isn't protected with body armor, I'd say you'd still be hard pressed to best a 12 gauge with 00 buck or slugs. And, you'd probably preserve more of your hearing by firing that gun indoors.

I carry an M4 style AR-15 at work. It's a great versatile gun for work, but I'd still choose the 12 gauge if I had to stop a single unarmored attacker at less than 25 yards, and only got one shot to do it. I've also strongly considered the addition of a suppressor to my rifle. My department doesn't provide suppressors, but I started thinking about it after attending a wound ballistics class with some officers from a better equipped department elsewhere in my state... all of their rifles are suppressed due to their consideration for hearing protection if they need to fire their rifles in the close quarters environment of a house or apartment. Really, that's not an unreasonable concern in my opinion (an AR-15 is darn loud when fired in a small bedroom without hearing protection).

Why are you limiting the scenario to a maximum of one shot?

fireside44
July 30, 2013, 08:52 AM
Because when I have to defend my life and the lives of my families I'm worried I might have a little ringing in the ears afterwards.:rolleyes:

Warp
July 30, 2013, 08:56 AM
The poster said, “… as lethal as it gets close up.” #4 Buck will kill you just as dead as #1 or 00 buck up close. Dead is dead. My preference is for the #4 Buck for less wall penetration than larger shot sizes.

I only mention "killing" (as in lethal) because that was the reference in both the quoted posts. As JShirley said, "Killing ain't the goal, but the things that accomplish a rapid stop are likely to result in death." #4 Buck up close will accomplish a rapid stop.

I disagree that BB shot (which is what I quoted, was BB shot or #4 buck) is as effective...even "up close"...as #1 or 00.

coloradokevin
July 30, 2013, 01:14 PM
Why are you limiting the scenario to a maximum of one shot?

I'm not, I was merely eliminating a variable in this discussion for the sake of making a single point. I'd say that the overwhelming majority of defensive shotguns owned in this country are pump actions. All AR-15's are semi-automatic. The point I was driving at was merely that I believe a shotgun is a more effective flight stopper when used at sub-25 yard distances against an unarmored target than an AR-15. I made this example on the basis of one shot simply because there's an obvious advantage in follow-up shots with a semi-automatic... personally, I wouldn't feel outgunned in a home defense situation with either choice listed in this thread (or the choice of a shotgun), I was only trying to highlight the fact that a single well-placed shot from a 12 gauge is darn effective at stopping a bad guy.

Because when I have to defend my life and the lives of my families I'm worried I might have a little ringing in the ears afterwards.

Yeah, I get it... given a choice of dying or suffering some hearing damage we'd all take the hearing damage. But, when you're PLANNING for a home defense situation you have the luxury of considering a variety of options. And, I've considered this planning aspect (as it pertains to hearing loss) because I routinely clear homes with an AR-15, and I've been in a home when an AR-15 was fired within the home... and, it is loud, and it probably caused some hearing damage for some of us who were in the home.

I posted that information here just to give the OP some other things to think about. My work rifle still resides close to my bedside on my days off, and I'd still grab it if the zombies were beating down my door some night. But, I'd be happier to listen to the sound of a 12 gauge indoors, or better yet, a suppressed AR.

Warp
July 30, 2013, 01:40 PM
I made this example on the basis of one shot simply because there's an obvious advantage in follow-up shots with a semi-automatic...

You arbitrarily set a seemingly-unrealistic limitation in order to create a scenario that best fits your argument.


personally, I wouldn't feel outgunned in a home defense situation with either choice listed in this thread (or the choice of a shotgun), I was only trying to highlight the fact that a single well-placed shot from a 12 gauge is darn effective at stopping a bad guy.

You also stipulated only one attacker/bad guy for your scenario.

I agree that if I am facing one, single, un-armoured attacker, a 12 gauge pump is quite good. But if they have armour, or they too have rifles, or there are more than one of them (VERY common)...I'm going to feel (and BE) a lot better off with the 5.56 carbine than the 12 gauge pump. Since I can't predict who or what I will face in the unlikely and unfortunate event of an intrusion, I choose the carbine to be kept ready.

And even if it's a single attacker, I still think I'm better off with the 5.56 carbine.

Sunray
July 30, 2013, 01:54 PM
"...assuming you know how to use it..." That applies to any firearm. No point having anything if you don't. And/or don't practice with the ammo you intend using.
"...5.56 has lower risk of over penetration..." Only with a varmint bullet.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 30, 2013, 02:07 PM
Terminal Ballistics of .223 - since a lot of people here seem to be confused by the subject:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146306

coloradokevin
July 30, 2013, 04:03 PM
You arbitrarily set a seemingly-unrealistic limitation in order to create a scenario that best fits your argument.

...

You also stipulated only one attacker/bad guy for your scenario.

I agree that if I am facing one, single, un-armoured attacker, a 12 gauge pump is quite good. But if they have armour, or they too have rifles, or there are more than one of them (VERY common)...I'm going to feel (and BE) a lot better off with the 5.56 carbine than the 12 gauge pump. Since I can't predict who or what I will face in the unlikely and unfortunate event of an intrusion, I choose the carbine to be kept ready.

And even if it's a single attacker, I still think I'm better off with the 5.56 carbine.


Are you just trying to argue at this point? 'cause I certainly wasn't. I have no particularly strong argument to make on this subject, other than saying that a 5.56 or a 12 gauge are each ballistically superior to a 9mm carbine, which is something of at least notable value to me in certain HD situations. Obviously (short of choosing a semi-automatic shotgun) you lose some rate of fire by moving to a shotgun. But, my intent was not to derail this thread into some debate about every little possible variable that could be debated on this subject. Granted, some of those considerations are important in the overall thread, but they weren't really within the scope of the point I was trying to illustrate.

My intended point remains, whether the example I used to illustrate it was arbitrary or not: a shotgun has a lot of power per round. Obviously I realize that there are other advantages to a semi-automatic, just as there are advantages/disadvantages to many other types of guns.

You would choose a 5.56 carbine for the threat of a single attacker, and that's perfectly fine, and based on sound logic. Personally, if I was waiting in an ambush position in a bedroom for what I believed was a single nighttime intruder (the manner of response I believe is the smart way to handle such a situation in many, but not all, cases), I'd probably reach for a shotgun. My neighbor drives an SUV, I drive a truck. Neither of us is "right", and neither of us is "wrong".

I'm not trying to tell you what to carry, and I'm not even trying to come up with a 'right' or 'wrong' choice. I'm just highlighting some options/features. I've used shotguns, handguns, and AR-15's professionally, and each has their advantage in certain situations. I've also had each of these available for home defense at one point or another (my bedroom currently features my CCW handgun and an AR-15 of carbine length). My one-shot example was merely to highlight where a shotgun does its best work. If you feel that you may have to face the threat of multiple intruders, longer distances, a likelihood of missing your first shot, opponents wearing body armor, or so on, there's plenty of argument for an AR-15 over any other manually fed weapon. If you need an affordable and simple weapon that has a huge amount of bad-guy anchoring capability, a shotgun isn't a bad choice.

I believe that many people are trying to equip their home for a situation in which they are planning around a threat of one attacker, who is quite often an unarmored burglar. This is also probably the most common threat I've seen in my career. Is it always possible that the threat is greater than they anticipated? Sure, it certainly is, but that wasn't really within the scope of my point. Anyway, I've yet to find myself in a situation (outside of work) where I felt that I was insufficiently armed with a 12 gauge shotgun... others obviously have.

Anyway, more to the original point of the thread, and with the caveat of saying that I'm talking of a situation falling well short of a Zombie Apocalypse, I would feel fine with either a 9mm carbine or a 5.56 rifle. I'd let the needs of the particular user dictate the decision in this case, and the most obvious difference I can point out between the two are:

1) .223/5.56 has more "stopping" power
2) 9mm will generally provide faster follow-up shots
3) 9mm will likely be more quiet (my 9mm carbine certainly is)
4) More parts, accessories, etc are available for the AR-15 platform.
5) The .223/5.56 will defeat most soft body armor.

I'm sure I missed quite a few points, and advantages/disadvantages to me may not be for someone else.

Warp
July 30, 2013, 04:07 PM
"...assuming you know how to use it..." That applies to any firearm. No point having anything if you don't. And/or don't practice with the ammo you intend using.
"...5.56 has lower risk of over penetration..." Only with a varmint bullet.

You should visit www.boxotruth.com

5.56 doesn't have any additional over-penetration risk even with quality defensive rounds, which are NOT varmint bullets

coloradokevin
July 30, 2013, 07:49 PM
You should visit www.boxotruth.com

5.56 doesn't have any additional over-penetration risk even with quality defensive rounds, which are NOT varmint bullets

This fact is also supported by seminars put on by ATK (the parent company of Speer, Federal, etc) for LE/Military. I attended one of their wound ballistics workshops a couple of years ago, and it was quite eye-opening.

At that time we had been carrying one of the Federal TRU rounds that many of us didn't really care for (it was loaded with a 55gr SMK bullet, if I recall correctly -- essentially a varmint bullet). That bullet just didn't really perform well in our tests that day, which included various shots into calibrated ballistic gelatin through a variety of intermediate barriers (per the so-called "FBI protocol"). In one of the tests that bullet only managed to get a small fragment to a depth of 7", which is not acceptably deep penetration for our purposes. I'd have to find the data file from that class again, but I want to say that this was the case for the bullet of that type that was fired through windshield glass.

Anyway, we got our department to switch ammo as a result of this class, and picked a bullet that resulted in the desired 12-18" of calibrated ballistic gelatin penetration when shot through any of the standard intermediate barriers (glass, wall board, light clothing, heavy clothing, etc). The bullet chosen gave results that suggested more effectiveness than any handgun bullet, with no greater risk of over penetration.

As such, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend an AR-15 to anyone as a defensive rifle. With proper ammo it simply won't produce the "shoot through three houses and kill grandma on the next block" results that so many people (including some of my fellow officers) are fearful of. With that said, we certainly didn't test any of the green-tip penetrator ammo during this test, and I don't know what the results would have been with such a load... it simply wasn't among the choices we were evaluating for our department (similarly, that wouldn't be my choice for a defensive round anyway -- regular AR-15 ammo, even our "failed" round, will easily defeat a soft ballistic vest... as such, I have no need for the penetrator stuff for my purposes).

In fact, the biggest offender in the over penetration department was the trusty Remington 870 shotgun. We shoot a reduced recoil slug from a 2 3/4" shell in those guns, and I fired the test shot on that one during our workshop. The slug greased through the windshield glass, then went through two gelatin blocks that were set lengthwise (one behind the other). The round exited the second block with an upwards trajectory, and dinged the steel ceiling plate near the backstop at the end of our range. This was a result that actually surprised me a bit. But, it does speak to one potential negative of a shotgun (with slugs) in a home environment. NOTE: buckshot didn't produce this kind of result, and might be a better choice for home defense in urban/suburban/occupied house environments.

mavracer
July 30, 2013, 08:11 PM
But, it does speak to one potential negative of a shotgun (with slugs) in a home environment.
That test doesn't surprise me at all, local PD stopped using slugs years ago when a officer touched one off in a trailer park. It exited the trailer he was in and was stopped 2 1/2 trailers later by a cast iron dutch oven.

jmr40
July 30, 2013, 09:07 PM
A good read on the topic

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/

And a few thoughts:

Shotguns and pistol caliber carbines are being ditched as fast as possible in favor of carbine length AR's by virtually all LE agencies. They basically do everything better except in a very few rare cases. Buckshot has always been over rated.

The only advantage a shotgun offers is lower price, but with todays AR prices that difference is smaller than ever.

Balrog
July 30, 2013, 11:50 PM
Shotguns and pistol caliber carbines are being ditched as fast as possible in favor of carbine length AR's by virtually all LE agencies. They basically do everything better except in a very few rare cases. Buckshot has always been over rated.

Its important for the police to have cool guns, and price doesnt matter since taxpayers are picking up the bill. Plus, if the department in the next town over decides to militarize, the local cops are gonna go Jonesing for some ARs too.

Call me an anarchist, but we don't need near as many AR's in police service as we have.

JShirley
July 30, 2013, 11:57 PM
Kevin, reduced recoil slugs have considerably more penetration than standard velocity slugs. With full-speed Foster slugs at close range, you get less penetration than 00. This is a demonstration (again) of the tendency for penetration to increase as velocity decreases.

C-grunt
July 31, 2013, 12:05 AM
Its important for the police to have cool guns, and price doesnt matter since taxpayers are picking up the bill. Plus, if the department in the next town over decides to militarize, the local cops are gonna go Jonesing for some ARs too.

Call me an anarchist, but we don't need near as many AR's in police service as we have.

What about agencies who require their officers to buy their own equipment?

So just because of my job, which by the way has a much larger chance of getting in a shooting with an armed subject than normal people, I shouldn't be allowed to carry the most effective weapon?

coloradokevin
July 31, 2013, 01:34 AM
Kevin, reduced recoil slugs have considerably more penetration than standard velocity slugs. With full-speed Foster slugs at close range, you get less penetration than 00. This is a demonstration (again) of the tendency for penetration to increase as velocity decreases.

That I did not know. Interesting though.

Its important for the police to have cool guns, and price doesnt matter since taxpayers are picking up the bill. Plus, if the department in the next town over decides to militarize, the local cops are gonna go Jonesing for some ARs too.

Call me an anarchist, but we don't need near as many AR's in police service as we have. What about agencies who require their officers to buy their own equipment?

So just because of my job, which by the way has a much larger chance of getting in a shooting with an armed subject than normal people, I shouldn't be allowed to carry the most effective weapon?

No kidding! I work for an agency that required me to buy my duty pistol, my backup gun, and my AR-15. If I choose I can use a department shotgun that looks like it was used to paddle a canoe, or a shotgun that looks like it was used as an impact tool in a fist fight against a bear... or I can by my own shotgun, just like I bought the other three guns.

And, as you said, C-grunt, we have a heck of a lot higher chance of getting in a shooting than any given citizen. I've had friends killed by gunfire in my department, and I've been shot at on a few occasions (they missed, fortunately). We also haven't had a year go by in my career in which we haven't had multiple officer involved shootings. Add to that the fact that bad guys are better armed and equipped than they used to be, and I'm happy to have an AR-15 in the trunk, just in case.

I found it counterproductive to the 2nd Amendment cause when people accuse us LE officers of being "militarized" for having AR-15's, but then turn around and argue to our legislature that these are popular sporting rifles that shouldn't be thought of as implements of death designed solely for the battlefield... they're just pieces of gear that help us do our jobs better (and more safely), and in my case I've got probably $1650 worth of my own money tied up in it!

MistWolf
July 31, 2013, 02:06 AM
Its important for the police to have cool guns, and price doesnt matter since taxpayers are picking up the bill. Plus, if the department in the next town over decides to militarize, the local cops are gonna go Jonesing for some ARs too.

Call me an anarchist, but we don't need near as many AR's in police service as we have.

An AR doesn't militarize a police officer any more than it does a civilian

GRIZ22
July 31, 2013, 03:27 AM
The 223 will have less penetration. That can be very important depending on your situation.

One of my S&W Model 10s is a lot handier to deploy.

JShirley
July 31, 2013, 09:18 AM
I have no problems with LEO having the same weapons as the rest of the citizenry.

I do tend to have a problem with them owning APCs.

John

Warp
July 31, 2013, 09:27 AM
I guess we are having this discussion after all.

I believe patrol officers ought to have access to rifles (such as an 'AR15'), provided that they qualify with it (available funds dictating who pays for the rifle), in any and every jurisdiction where a private citizen can purchase/possess that same rifle.

M1key
July 31, 2013, 10:46 AM
Its important for the police to have cool guns, and price doesnt matter since taxpayers are picking up the bill. Plus, if the department in the next town over decides to militarize, the local cops are gonna go Jonesing for some ARs too.

Call me an anarchist, but we don't need near as many AR's in police service as we have.


(slightly off topic)

Speaking of militarizing, our local police dept recently acquired an MRAP vehicle. What in the heck do they think they need one of those for in a town of 10,000?

M

Shawn Dodson
July 31, 2013, 11:26 AM
The OP asks: ...but would the low recoil/low flash of 9mm make up for the difference?

In my experience the Beretta CX4 9mm carbine has greater felt recoil and muzzle jump than an M4 5.56mm carbine.

The only reason I'd suggest a pistol caliber carbine is for SHTF purposes - provided it shoots the same cartridge as your defense pistol.

2@low8
July 31, 2013, 11:29 AM
Warp - "I disagree that BB shot (which is what I quoted, was BB shot or #4 buck) is as effective...even "up close"...as #1 or 00."

Would you disagree with this - 12 Gauge Birdshot Up Close:


NOTE - VERY GRAPHIC PHOTOS OF HUMAN TISSUE DAMAGE

Birdshot To Shoulder: http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=187200&stc=1&d=1375329419


Debris Removed (Note wad at bottom right): http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=187201&stc=1&d=1375329432


Repair: http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=187202&stc=1&d=1375329452


Put this birdshot load in the nipple to neck triangle and the guy won't be home for dinner... ever!

Warp
July 31, 2013, 12:16 PM
Birdshot is NOT an equal to #1/00 buckshot for reliably stopping an attacker.


And I think we could do without the gore photos embedded in the post.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 31, 2013, 12:44 PM
Put this birdshot load in the nipple to neck triangle and the guy won't be home for dinner... ever!

Your pictures demonstrate the problem with birdshot quite well. If that man had taken a load of buckshot in the same location, it would have continued on to that neck nipple triangle you are talking about instead of stopping in his shoulder.

2@low8
July 31, 2013, 04:00 PM
Warp - “Birdshot is NOT an equal to #1/00 buckshot for reliably stopping an attacker.”

I NEVER said it was. It was YOU that challenged the statement that birdshot was effective up close. So now you disregard the up close stipulation and you make this general statement so it gets you off the hook? Please…


Warp - “And I think we could do without the gore photos embedded in the post.”

You make a statement about birdshot and offer nothing to back up what you have to say. I offer proof and you use the old “divert the attention routine” to save face when you are wrong? Why don’t you just man up and say something like “Gee, I had no idea” or some other nicety when someone calls you on what you say.

As to the gore, I was a homicide investigator for 6 years in one of this country’s largest cities and my sensibilities to mayhem is much lower than most. If I have insulted anyone’s sensibilities I sincerely apologize. I forget that sometimes folks on these boards talk about killing and/or causing great bodily harm, but have no idea of the brutality that it entails.

I have no problem with taliv substituting the links for the pictures. In the future, I’ll provide links instead of gore along with a graphic disclaimer. If you are going to talk the talk, then maybe you should see just what you are proposing.

taliv
July 31, 2013, 04:08 PM
guys please do keep in mind this forum is supposed to be family friendly and kid friendly. at least give people a warning before exposing them to this sort of gore

Warp
July 31, 2013, 04:31 PM
Birdshot is not to be relied upon to stop an attacker, even at close range.

A shallow shoulder injury is proof of...what? That birdshot can wound? Okay. That's great.

You could start here:

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=109958

2@low8
July 31, 2013, 05:33 PM
Warp - "A shallow shoulder injury is proof of...what? That birdshot can wound? Okay. That's great."

“ A shallow shoulder injury…” Do you realize how foolish that statement is? The proximal end of the humerus is totally shattered as well as part of the shaft, a good part acetabulum, extensive soft tissue damage to the deltoid and other ancillary muscles and you dismiss it as nothing more than “A shallow shoulder injury”? This “shallow shoulder injury" (really a wound) placed in the nipple to neck triangle as I previously stated and which you ignore hoping to give yourself any credence, would go through the much, much thinner manubrium in that triangle, enter the mediastinum and shred the heart. Come back and talk to me when you have some real world experience.

Just so we are clear, one of homicides I handled in my last year before retiring involved a close up birdshot wound as I described above and the victim was instantaneously stopped and after convulsing for a few seconds apparently died. Pretty reliable close up performance with birdshot in light of my extensive experience.


Warp - "Birdshot is not to be relied upon to stop an attacker, even at close range."

Neither is anything else with poor shot placement. In case you missed the gist of this discussion we are not talking about a shot to the shoulder, but a shot placed in the triangle. Perhaps it might do you some good to reread my post #71 and revisit the “gore” to reunite you with reality.

AKElroy
July 31, 2013, 05:45 PM
BUT if you have the money for a Beretta carbine, you have the funds for a .223. The .223 is a much more decisive stopper while offering less penetration in structure. People who assume 9x19mm will penetrate less just don't understand bullet terminal ballistics, and should not advertise their lack of understanding.

+1. In fact, it is hard to find a round that has worse OP issues than the 9mm. It seems to have the right combination of weight, diameter and velocity to be particularly troublesome with regard to OP. That said, I have 5 of them because I love the cheap practice, controllability and capacity. In studying this, it is hard to find any significant difference in 1 shot stop percentage between the 9. .40 and .45.

For an HD gun, I do keep really light, fast loads in the bedside 9. 115gr DoubleTap +P+ just to limit the OP issues.

Warp
July 31, 2013, 05:54 PM
Birdshot is not to be trusted to reliably stop an attacker.

Akita1
July 31, 2013, 06:14 PM
Echo the "whatever you're best with" posts. We did a test at our hunting camp to try to settle this argument (we have it all the time around the fire at night) with our various favorites, which included .223, 300 bo, 7.62 x 39, 9mm, .40, .45 ACP and 12 gauge 00 & slugs). We shot each one through drywall, glass, defunct appliances, 2 x 4, hollow and solid wood doors, cinderblock and brick - all at 50 feet. We lined them up in succession from perceived weakness to strength, then shot & moved to each successive target.

The results were obvious ballistics 101 (won't restate them here because they are in many other places on this forum), but as expected the most consistent outcome with each one of us was the gun each one of us shoots the most or with which each feels most comfortable. All of us have kids ("sweeping the hall" and shooting through walls were perceived as unacceptable) and agreed we wouldn't be shooting through exterior walls so the cinderblock became a fun last one to see if our chosen holy grail would do the job.

My personal favorite was the HK USC with XST 230 grain. It went through everything at 50 feet, excluding the cinderblock but it blew it apart from all the energy. I just bought 300 bo SBR and have yet to shoot it (yay BATFE timeline), but am expecting the subsonic ammo with an AAC SDN on it to be quite an exhilarating experience…could replace the USC(?). :)

AKElroy
July 31, 2013, 06:16 PM
Birdshot is not to be trusted to reliably stop an attackr.


Not true. The great dove rebellion has been brewing for years now. It's only a matter of time before the little bastards get even.

jrdolall
July 31, 2013, 06:59 PM
Amazing!
The OP started off saying "for home defense ONLY, inside the house, close ranges" and we get discussions about why police departments are switching from shotguns to ARs. Unless your home is 35,000 SF with REALLY long hallways your longest HD shot will be what? 30 feet? Is an AR more effective at 30 feet than 00 buck? I've seen holes in targets that tell me it's not. As the distance increases it certainly is but once again this is inside the house. At 20 feet my shotgun using my HD ammo has a 10" spread so assuming I aim straight(after soiling myself) I should put 6-7 pellets in the target area with one trigger pull.
At 30 feet in the semi dark while I am possibly groggy I am not certain I want the AR. Most civilians don't practice being awakened at 3 AM and having to respond properly and I know I can't find my glasses half the time when I get jarred from a sound sleep. I seldom practice shooting in my bedroom or living room as the family tends to object. If I have kids in the house I probably am reluctant to keep a round in the chamber of any available gun but I know that is a personal call. My safe is 7 feet from my bed and I have a fully loaded 9mm, 45, and AR inside the locked safe(okay it's an RSC). Beside the bed I have a 12 g pump without a round in the chamber so the action is going to be audible. As mentioned earlier my dogs will have already, I hope, have made it a relatively noisy situation.
As far as hearing protection in an HD scenario I have to call "poo" on that philosophy. I know it's gonna be loud and I know it's gonna hurt my ears but I can't really see a situation where I have my ear muffs available as well as a set for my wife and kids before I attempt to shoot a bad guy. I have ear muffs and plugs in the safe but I seriously doubt I will take the time or have the forethought to put them on in a tense situation like a home invasion. "Here honey, put on these ear muffs before you fire your gun" probably won't come into the equation.

Warp
July 31, 2013, 07:04 PM
Amazing!
The OP started off saying "for home defense ONLY, inside the house, close ranges" and we get discussions about why police departments are switching from shotguns to ARs.

SWAT officers moving in on a small house or even a trailer are more likely to select an AR than a shotgun.

Effective range is FAR from the only advantage a 5.56 carbine offers over a shotgun.

Akita1
July 31, 2013, 07:11 PM
Amazing!
The OP started off saying "for home defense ONLY, inside the house, close ranges" and we get discussions about why police departments are switching from shotguns to ARs. Unless your home is 35,000 SF with REALLY long hallways your longest HD shot will be what? 30 feet? Is an AR more effective at 30 feet than 00 buck? I've seen holes in targets that tell me it's not. As the distance increases it certainly is but once again this is inside the house. At 20 feet my shotgun using my HD ammo has a 10" spread so assuming I aim straight(after soiling myself) I should put 6-7 pellets in the target area with one trigger pull.
At 30 feet in the semi dark while I am possibly groggy I am not certain I want the AR. Most civilians don't practice being awakened at 3 AM and having to respond properly and I know I can't find my glasses half the time when I get jarred from a sound sleep. I seldom practice shooting in my bedroom or living room as the family tends to object. If I have kids in the house I probably am reluctant to keep a round in the chamber of any available gun but I know that is a personal call. My safe is 7 feet from my bed and I have a fully loaded 9mm, 45, and AR inside the locked safe(okay it's an RSC). Beside the bed I have a 12 g pump without a round in the chamber so the action is going to be audible. As mentioned earlier my dogs will have already, I hope, have made it a relatively noisy situation.
As far as hearing protection in an HD scenario I have to call "poo" on that philosophy. I know it's gonna be loud and I know it's gonna hurt my ears but I can't really see a situation where I have my ear muffs available as well as a set for my wife and kids before I attempt to shoot a bad guy. I have ear muffs and plugs in the safe but I seriously doubt I will take the time or have the forethought to put them on in a tense situation like a home invasion. "Here honey, put on these ear muffs before you fire your gun" probably won't come into the equation.
Good point on HD. I still barely hear the shot when shooting at a buck - not that it's not doing damage but the environmental circumstances (concentration on the shot, heart beating, proper breathing, trigger control, etc.) seem to overpower the noise. Great sarcasm jr.

AKElroy
July 31, 2013, 08:48 PM
Most civilians don't practice being awakened at 3 AM and having to respond properly and I know I can't find my glasses half the time when I get jarred from a sound sleep

For every problem, there is a solution. This is the tie breaker for me; my glasses won't fit in a .223 bore.

AKElroy
July 31, 2013, 08:57 PM
As mentioned earlier my dogs will have already, I hope, have made it a relatively noisy situation.

Not my first / best line of defense. I'll stick with the shotgun while fang here hides under the coffee table.

Balrog
July 31, 2013, 09:07 PM
And, as you said, C-grunt, we have a heck of a lot higher chance of getting in a shooting than any given citizen. I've had friends killed by gunfire in my department, and I've been shot at on a few occasions (they missed, fortunately). We also haven't had a year go by in my career in which we haven't had multiple officer involved shootings. Add to that the fact that bad guys are better armed and equipped than they used to be, and I'm happy to have an AR-15 in the trunk, just in case.

Electicians have a higher chance of dying from electrocution. Doctors have a higher chance of dying of hepatitis. Over-militarized police forces tend to want to play with their toys. That gets people unnecessarily hurt.

coloradokevin
July 31, 2013, 09:36 PM
Electicians have a higher chance of dying from electrocution. Doctors have a higher chance of dying of hepatitis. Over-militarized police forces tend to want to play with their toys. That gets people unnecessarily hurt.

I'll be blunt here, since subtle and polite didn't work initially: you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about when it comes to the manner in which we conduct ourselves in law enforcement, or the means by which we do it. You've never done my job, you've never faced the threats we face each day, and you don't know the first thing about how we operate. You don't like that we have AR-15's. Fine, got it. We still have them, and I paid for mine (no tax dollar argument to be had). We aren't "playing with our toys", nor are we getting "people unnecessarily hurt".

So, now that this little issue is settled, can we stop derailing a home defense thread with unnecessary cop bashing?

Warp
July 31, 2013, 09:38 PM
I think the end of that analogy should be "Police have a higher chance of dying from a car accident or felonious assault"

monotonous_iterancy
July 31, 2013, 10:10 PM
Birdshot...

(sigh). Not this again. My thread had so many birdshot recommendations, why are we re-hashing it?

Birdshot is designed to deal with birds, who are quite fragile. Not only is it made for birds, but it's designed to do minimal damage as to not harm meat that will be eaten. My experience with birdshot is that when shot at a relatively hard plastic, most pellets won't go all the way through, and some will even get stuck in the first layer.

Would I rely on birdshot to defend myself? It might be a step above a BB gun, but otherwise, no!

2@low8
July 31, 2013, 10:20 PM
Warp - “Birdshot is not to be trusted to reliably stop an attacker.”

Well, I’ll be…! You finally get the big picture!!! Remove the qualifier “close up” and presto chango your statement becomes valid. That wasn’t so hard was it?

But wait, just so you can get the last word in let me post it for you:

Warp - “Birdshot is not to be trusted to reliably stop an attacker.”

Amen... hopefully.

Warp
July 31, 2013, 10:21 PM
See post #76

jrdolall
July 31, 2013, 10:56 PM
Quote:
As mentioned earlier my dogs will have already, I hope, have made it a relatively noisy situation.
Not my first / best line of defense. I'll stick with the shotgun while fang here hides under the coffee table.
Oh I promise my dog will run and hide at the first sign of danger but he will raise all kinds of Heck for at least 10 seconds. A 150 pound Great Dane gets people's attention. Of course my little ankle biters are much more likely to actually bite someone.

jrdolall
July 31, 2013, 10:59 PM
SWAT officers moving in on a small house or even a trailer are more likely to select an AR than a shotgun.
Hopefully the SWAT guys are not mostly asleep when they storm the trailer. They will also be backed up by other guys with guns as well as helicopters in many cases. They will follow flash-bangs and be wearing vests and helmets for protection.In a case of HD it will probably be just my wife as I hide under the bed so I need her to hit what she shoots at. I will be in my underwear(maybe) and slippers if I accidentally step on them. My helicopter pilot will not be on duty.

cfullgraf
July 31, 2013, 11:08 PM
How about 300BLK?

I feel it would be a dandy home defense carbine.

2@low8
July 31, 2013, 11:44 PM
monotonous_iterancy - “(sigh). Not this again. My thread had so many birdshot recommendations, why are we re-hashing it?”

I believe this was Balrod’s thread and shotguns and various loads entered the discussion as a viable alternative that should be considered. For you and others who came in late, I NEVER recommended birdshot. This rehashing only exists as a result of clarifying some unsupported and erroneous statements.

monotonous_iterancy - “Birdshot is designed to deal with birds, who are quite fragile. Not only is it made for birds, but it's designed to do minimal damage as to not harm meat that will be eaten.”

… not to harm the meat? That all depends on what the distance to the bird is. When I first started hunting close-holding quail I made the error of shooting the closest bird out of the covey and then taking the lead bird. The result was a tuft of feathers that was the only remnants of the closest bird and an edible lead bird. I now take the lead bird first in a close-holding covey. And that was the gist of the discussion that birdshot is devastating up close. If you don’t think so check out these previously posted links:

NOTE - VERY GRAPHIC PHOTOS OF HUMAN TISSUE DAMAGE

The Wound: http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=187200&stc=1&d=1375329419

Debris Removed (Note wad at bottom right): http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=187201&stc=1&d=1375329432

Repair: http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=187202&stc=1&d=1375329452


This is the x-ray that abstractly relates to the devastation in the “gore” links. It also shows the peripheral birdshot that was not removed from the wound. I’m not advocating the use of birdshot, but just mentioning that it should not be scoffed at either.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=187199&stc=1&d=1375328347

BTW: Skin is a whole lot less resilient than hard plastic.

Balrog
August 1, 2013, 12:35 AM
I'll be blunt here, since subtle and polite didn't work initially: you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about when it comes to the manner in which we conduct ourselves in law enforcement, or the means by which we do it. You've never done my job, you've never faced the threats we face each day, and you don't know the first thing about how we operate. You don't like that we have AR-15's. Fine, got it. We still have them, and I paid for mine (no tax dollar argument to be had). We aren't "playing with our toys", nor are we getting "people unnecessarily hurt".


This type attitude is why some people don't like cops and don't think they need to be militarized.

dprice3844444
August 1, 2013, 12:47 AM
http://www.mechtechsys.com/ pistol carbine using glock/1911 lowers

coloradokevin
August 1, 2013, 01:29 AM
As to the birdshot argument, I really don't think it is a reliably viable choice for home defense. It has certainly worked in some cases. On the other hand, if you get close enough to an attacker, even many "less lethal" rounds are lethal; the same can be said for birdshot. But, the lethality of birdshot quickly diminishes as distances increase, even within the distances that are available inside of an average home. I've seen a few cases where people were shot with birdshot at home defense distances and didn't suffer more than superficial injuries (painful injuries, to be sure, but not injuries that would take a reasonably determined attacker out of a fight).

Many years ago I actually got hit with a partial load of light birdshot, at a distance that was still close enough that I could have certainly engaged the person who shot me with a pistol (it was a negligent discharge situation on the part of a childhood acquaintance, and the person got an earful of some very choice words instead of a bullet). Anyway, I had some minor cuts from the incident, but wasn't injured to the point that I needed to seek medical treatment, other than applying very basic first-aid to the cuts myself.

Again, birdshot can work in some instances, it just isn't the shotgun load I'd choose to bet my life on, even at home defense distances.


This type attitude is why some people don't like cops and don't think they need to be militarized.

Respectfully, you're the one who entered a home defense thread and started preaching about how you believe that you know what tools I should and should not use in the performance of my job. My job hasn't been "militarized", as you so eloquently put it, but we have adapted our toolset to an evolving set of threats that we deal with. In the course of my career I've responded to gang shootings in which multiple active shooters were involved in firing at each other with semi-automatic rifles, and I've responded to mass shootings (some that you've certainly heard about) where up-armored psychopaths were intent on doing others harm. Truth be told, I'd have gone to each of these events even if I was only armed with the classic .38 Special 6-gun of yesteryear, but there's no sense in doing that when we have other more adequate options at our disposal. And, as I've repeatedly pointed out, your tax dollars didn't pay for the tools that I carry (that was indeed one of your original arguments against my ability to field an AR-15 as a special purpose tool for use in performing my job).

EDITED TO ADD: Ha! My bad, this was your own thread that you derailed, so I guess I can't fault you for taking it off-topic... I didn't even notice that until just now. Anyway, good luck with your selection of a home defense tool. I think I've probably provided nearly all of the useful advice I can give to this thread at this point! Take the advice if you'd like it, ignore it if you think it's foolish (that's the beauty of internet advice). If you have any further questions about anything I suggested I'll still be happy to expand on those points, but do understand that I'm still not giving up my trusty AR-15 :)

Robert
August 1, 2013, 02:57 AM
Oh enough. This is going in circles so lets call it done and add it to the heap of thread on what's best for home defense.

If you enjoyed reading about "Home defense carbine: 9mm v. 223" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!