Fred, it's more about my trust in my own ability to use a carbine under certain CQB conditions rather than the carbine itself.
You question your “possible” in-ability to use a carbine vs. the “KNOWN” poor effectiveness of any handgun cartridge. Regardless of how well you deploy it.
Under "normal" conditions (for appropriate values of normal), the carbine is preferred, even taking into account my lack of formal training.
Of course.
Lack of practice with the short carbine led me to exclude it in preference of the 4-inch .357 (7-shot) revolver.
Yet ironically the 357 will “over penetrate” more than any defensive load in your carbine. I simply don’t understand.
If I were going to go for a long gun, I'd probably use my AR carbine for reasons others have stated above, but there isn't a way for me to keep it handy in my bedroom. Too much other junk in the way. The pistol on the other hand sits on my dresser, right next to the bed, out of the way but easily accessible.
This is the either the best or worst excuse I have ever heard.
Handguns can be carried, stashed, and secured in ways that carbines can't.
If that was the reason or purpose of a home defense weapon that would be great. It isn’t. The purpose of a home defense weapon SHOULD BE to stop any criminal activity in your home as quickly as possible, with the weapons that are permitted.
CQB implies foreknowledge: you know you're going into battle, or at least that you're going somewhere "hot".
BINGO!
That is why long arms are called for. If in your own home, you don’t know your home well enough to know when someone is breaking in, then you need more work learning your own ground, not in weapons. Good rational reconnaissance is much more important. Know your immediate surroundings, the ground you live in and on. Reconnaissance doesn’t cost you a dime. Just time and work. In fact you have all the time until you homes defenses are penetrated.
Then when that happens and your home is attacked, you NEED to bring as much firepower as you can to that point of attack, and definitively stop the attack. This means a shoulder weapon. Cause if you have done your Recon properly you will know where the bad guys are and you should have your killing ground prepared for them. And if the bad guys don’t leave, you finish them in or on your killing ground.
This isn't just about ballistics, and your own quote from Dr. somebody says that VERY CLEARLY.
I've seen one too many of these "carbines are everything and if you use a .45 you will die!" posts. They're just plain stupid, because defense with a firearm is not just about ballistics.
You are right. Hopefully you do know what they are about. Most folks here don’t seem to. But when you do get to your selection of firearm, you will chose a shoulder weapon upon closing with your enemy. Why would you choose otherwise? Particularly if your “other” than ballistics work has been done and prepared for?
If one should get knocked out of my hand I can continue fire with the other.
Yup, but my question is, if the bad guy is close enough to knock number one from your hand, I would propose that he would do the same with the other.
No disrespect for the long guns, but they are hard to maneuver in close quarters and around corners and we're talking about close quarters combat and the less there is for an attacker to grab, the better.
Why are you maneuvering? Second, if you are that close to the bad guy when you do get your shot, it had better be as effective as possible. That indicates a shoulder weapon, for maximum effectiveness in CQB. The exact reason that virtually all agencies have gone to carbines from sub machine guns (pistol caliber weapons) for CQB. More effectiveness on target. Chew on that.
I can understand the short carbine theories, but you can't realistically have one in each hand, can you? No, you can't.
Nope, any more than I would deploy with a handgun in both hands. One shoulder weapon is still much more effective than two handguns. Even in my experienced hands.
It seems to me that the best home defense weapon for most people is the one with which they are the most familiar, most qualified, and therefore with which they are the most confident. Like I posted earlier, I own pistols, AR carbines, AR target rifles, a shotgun, and some accurized bolt rifles. The shotgun and the carbines are potentially superior HD weapons to any of my pistols. But if I am most confident with the pistols, then which is the better HD weapon for me, in MY house — not yours, or his, or someone else's?
Actually what is the “better” weapon doesn’t change because you want it to. Those shotguns and carbines are not potentially superior HD weapons, they are superior HD weapons. Your confidence not withstanding. Even in YOUR house, and mine or his, or someone else’s.
The facts don’t change. Regardless whether you want them to or not. Your belief in your ability with your pistols, is interesting.
If your ability to win a NASCAR race will not be improved because you can drive your F-150 pickup better than a NASCAR prepared race car. Both will work, but one ain’t ever going to be competitive.
I love my carbines, and I can even shoot them respectably well.... ....from a bench! But I've never had any military or law enforcement training with a long gun, and I'm 56, out of shape, and seriously gimpy (back surgery, bad knee, etc.).
How much LEO or military training do you have for you handguns? Regardless of your age or health.
Sounds to me your need for shoulder weapons is GREATER than a handgun. You need to take care of business BEFORE the bad guy can reach you. Yup, shoulder weapons.
This ain’t the movies or TV. You CAN NOT depend on you handgun “stopping” the bad guy, no matter who trained you. Particularly with a handgun. The potential of the bad guy NOT reaching you in a CQB situation is GREATLY reduced with a shoulder weapon, not a handgun.
The truth is that I will probably never spend the money to get trained up all tactical like, and most old dudes like me aren't going to either. I live in suburbia in a neighborhood of only average size lots, so neighboring houses are fairly close by. And while my wife has a carry permit and can shoot a pistol acceptably well, she's not a rifle shooter at all. Consequently, layers of defense are limited to my doors and windows, an alarm system, an aging blind and deaf dog, and whatever firearm I am most confident with in an actual situation. That happens to be my pistols - which is why one of those is on the dresser, instead of a carbine or shotgun.
Why do you use a handgun instead of a Taser or Pepperspray? Because they are known to fail, regularly. Well so do handguns, regularly. Less than the taser or pepperspray, but A LOT MORE OFTEN THAN A SHOULDER WEAPON.
One of the biggest benefits of shoulder weapons is they take A LOT LESS training or practice to use and/or stay proficient for the purposes of home defense, than any handgun. They are MUCH EASIER to deploy than any handgun.
That said, if I lived on a large piece of property where layered defense made practical sense and I had some maneuvering room, I would definitely prefer a stand-off weapon like a carbine or shotgun. It just doesn't seem to work for me in my person situation.
Interestingly enough, it is more critical to use a shoulder weapon when you can’t stand off than up close. It is about effectiveness on target, not convenience.
A handguns only advantage is convenience and ability to conceal, there is NO OTHER ADVANTAGE. None, zero, zilch.
If you're in a real fight in your own home in the middle of the night, two Glock .40s are more than twice as good as one carbine.
No they are not. They are two weapons that are equally weak effectively on target.
"Life is just as deadly as it looks. Fiction is more forgiving."
--Richard Thompson
It is America, where you are still free to get on line to prove Darwin’s theory correct.
Go figure.
Fred
Stupid should hurt
