Sub-machine gun for home defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
SEMI AUTO CARBINE

A semi auto carbine is a good urban / sub-urban defensive weapon.

I use a Kel-tec Sub 2000 in 9mm. My Sub 2000 takes the Beretta mags. My SA XD 9 mags are modified to Beretta config and are usable in the Sub 2000. In fact at one time SA offered pre ban, high cap, modified Beretta mags for their XD series.

The extra 12 inches of barrel on the carbine will add about 250 fps to the 9mm thus putting it in the low end range of 357 mag. ammo. Not bad for a couple hundred dallors and gives you a 75 to 100 meter range. :evil:
 
I think a semi-auto carbine is an excellent home defense weapon. Many others indicate a shotgun would be better. I think a shotgun is fine for someone who is extremely adept with it. It takes a lot more practice to become adept with one, I think, than it does to with a carbine. A shotgun is harder to aim if using slugs, not as hard with buck shot. It kicks like a mule if using a 12 gauge. It is a powerhouse with which to shoot someone. A great gun yet, I would not want to miss with one for sure. I like them a lot but maybe a carbine could be better for home defense - I am in flux over this lately.

A well chosen home defense pistol caliber, coming out of a carbine, is probably less likely to penetrate walls than would be a shotgun slug and maybe even than would be 00 buckshot - a big consideration depending on what or whom is on the other side of the wall. Of course the pistol round would probably penetrate more than pepper shot. Whatever you decide on ammo, I still think the carbine would be a better choice for most shooters. Shotguns are much more difficult to wield in combat situations than are carbines. You can also fire much faster with a carbine for follow up shots and would probably be better able to maintain accuracy under stress than with a shotgun.

And a semi-auto version is only good for the initial shock value
As for this, it makes me laugh. I speak from years of experience as a firearms instructor, specifically as an MP5 shooter and instructor. Granted I have not fired full auto for years, but I have done it. It was not spray and pray once you knew how to do it. In more recent years my job only used 3 round burst - semi-auto versions of the MP5 but I can tell you that when firing it in single fire mode (semi-auto) I could empty three full magazines, at multiple targets, faster than everyone I ever trained while they fired three round bursts. I did it with a good deal of accuracy too even though I had to change trigger fingers (index, to middle, back to index or to ring finger) once or twice before completing three mags of firing. Please tell me about the weapons use only for shock value in semi auto mode.

Of course a pistol is also a good alternative, with less chance of over penetration than a carbine shooting the same ammunition but, I think in many situations you will find more control with a carbine.
Weapon retention is also an issue with a long gun in close quarters.
As for people who believe that weapon retention is a factor to consider, I could not agree more but probably for a reason other than was thought of by the person who said the above. Therefore I would have to say - go with a carbine if you are concerned with weapon retention being a problem. While it may be a bit harder to grab onto a pistol someone is holding - it is definitely easier, MUCH easier, to do a weapon takeaway with a pistol than it is with a carbine. In other words, I believe you have a much greater chance of holding onto a carbine that someone tries to take from you than you do a pistol, that is once the bad guy has grabbed hold of your firearm. I also think a carbine is less likely to be jammed during a takeaway/retention attempt than would be a pistol - this can go for or against you depending on whether or not you retain the weapon. You are also more likely, in my opinion, to be able to control the direction in which the muzzle is pointed in such a confrontation if you are holding a carbine rather than you would be the muzzle of a pistol. If you are in doubt about any of this, just take hold of a red gun pistol (training gun that cannot possibly load or fire ammunition) and ask someone to take it from you - allow them to calmly grab hold of it, then on a count of 3 try to retain it as they try to take it from you. Do it a few times so each of you gets the hang of it. See who winds up being the winner as time goes on and the number of tries goes up. Then ask someone who knows how to do a gun takeaway, like a cop or a felon. Use a pistol first, then try all over again with a red gun carbine. (Make sure your finger is outside the trigger guard during each takeaway attempt with either pistol or carbine or your finger may get broken.) When doing this make sure to hold both in combat ready stance. I think some of you are going to be very surprised at how easy it is to lose the pistol, and how much more difficult it is for an assailant to take away a carbine from you. Sure there are probably some great takeaway moves for a carbine that would make it easy for a well trained and practiced expert but; the two hand hold on the carbine at two different points, many inches apart, in my opinion, makes it much harder to steal the carbine away from your grip.

Now after having said all of that, I will admit my personal preference for a home defense gun used to be a Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun. If there were none of the above tactical considerations, like who is where in my home, reloading, and so on - it possibly still would be my choice> Then again I am very adept with it regarding tactical shooting. While I also shoot an MP5 excellently, I do not own one, it belongs to my job and I do not think they would appreciate my routinely keeping it loaded in my bedroom - ready for action. I do like my shotgun although when I have thought about it lately the carbine comes out better and better. If I owned a carbine, it might be one that would share the same type of magazine as did one of my pistols. This way if I needed to reload, I could use the same mags in either pistol or carbine - a real tactical advantage over a shotgun/pistol combo.

Instead of either though, practicality has made me choose another weapon. I have chosen a pistol (which I sometimes now keep unloaded at bedside - up until recently I usually did not keep a pistol handy when sleeping but certain events have changed my mind about this). Why the pistol and not a carbine. First of all I have the most practice and training with a pistol. Secondly, this is a practicality issue for me; I do not currently own a carbine. I cannot currently afford to buy one. I did have one a Marlin Camp 9 - I believe it a terrible choice for a combat or home defense weapon - but that would be an issue for another thread. Then there is yet an additional concern I did not mention above. Despite my thinking the carbine would be a better choice of home defense weapon once in hand, the thing is getting it in hand that can pose a problem. I can walk around my home with a pistol attached to me somewhere and not even realize I have it on; I cannot do that with a carbine. Yet if ready access to a ready carbine was not a concern, it might well be the weapon I would choose to have if an intruder broke into my home (tough choice between a carbine and an 870 but lately I am thinking more and more of a carbine especially with each resounding thump of the 870 against my shoulder).

A carbine definitely could be an excellent home defense weapon for you and for me. Of course for me, all that would depend upon my ownership of a carbine. I don't currently own one. I may just have to do something about that like start scrimping and saving. If only one had the luxury to always practice that in which they believed - anyone want to make a donation???
 
I only know of one fatal shooting involving a sub machine gun. It was in Florida many years ago.

There were no additional reprecussions, either criminal or civil from the use of the auto weapon.

I still keep a long barreled 870 that looks just like the one that every hunter has in his gun rack. No flashlights or mag extensions to make me look like some wannabe tactical rambo type. Just an implement that the average homeowner would have in the house. I keep it loaded with #4s to keep from killing any neighbors in the next block. Sure makes a mess at 5 yards though.
 
to SryOfcr

SryOfcr

You have people with various backgrounds and opinions telling you various things. Some with tactical training or instructors and 80% of the population without. You need to do what is best for you and go based of your background, training, compfort level. Your choices will be based off of these 3 main things and a few others. If you are a novice to moderately trained (IMO) I would recomend a handgun or shotgun for personal defense. A shotgun chambering a round is somewhat of a deterent in itself and as I recommended earlier, shot instead of slug of course.

2nd option is seek professional training in a CQB environment (house or apt type setting) to see which feels comfortable. Try handgun, Carbine and tactical shotgun. Sounds like you will have less training with the handgun.
 
Sub-machine gun for home defense?
------------------------------------

Heck yes.
I didn't spend all that time and effort building a M2 Carbine just to made noise.:)

M2_Red_Dot.gif
 
If you look at it from a weapon stand point only, and leave all the other baggage, like the media, police confiscation, legal problems out of it, I'd take the SMG, and specifically something closed bolt, like an MP5 or Colt, over a shotgun or semi auto only carbine.

Used properly, there is no "spray and pray", and good, fast hits are very easy. The SMG is easier to handle and shoot well than a 12ga, and offers more flexibility and ammo capacity.

The biggest down side these days is the collectors value on the SMG's. Hell, I quit carrying my P7 when they went way up in value in case it would be taken in a shooting investigation, so I'd really be annoyed to see my now $10-15000 MP5 get taken. For now, I'll just stick to my lowly AK. I figure the Rottie will have his fun with whoever came to play while I get my earplugs in. :)
 
A fellow who worked for me in Arizona collected MG's - we went shooting with his dealer one day (had of fun) and the dealer carried a surpressed MP5 in his car for self protection. It was also his home protection weapon of choice, and after shooting I discovered why. It was the only one of the bunch we shot that day (MAC11, MAC10, Thompson, Uzi and M16) that was easy to keep on target. Amazing gun.
 
Another recent thread addressed this, generally concluding that an M4gery is the better choice. .223 rounds weigh less than 9mm, hit harder, do more damage, over-penetrate less, and do so in a carbine the same length, weight, and cost.
 
I kind of like the m4gery its shorter and handier than an SAR-1 AK clone or an 870 with a shoulder stock also it has excellent accuracy out to 100 yards (as far as I can see in my suburban environment).
Full auto is not needed for home defense IMHO in my neighborhood there are too many opportunities for innocent bystanders to get hit with stray rounds.

I really prefer the .45 acp 1911, because I expect an in home encounter or any ccw encounter will be at no more than 5 yards and most likely less than 10 feet distance. A pistol in a large controllable caliber, one that I shoot well is the best choice.
 
Don't listen to these people, there's nothing better for home defense than a submachine gun - PERIOD.


If it weren't good for CQC, then they would have never been invented or used by any military or police.


The best would probably be a Krinkov...fire a medium cartridge for serious penetration power and serious terminal effects. 2nd would be a Thompson or an MP5...tough to say which. UZI is good too.


I wouldn't mind a grease gun either.


BTW, I do not believe in this over-penetration garbage that people espouse all over the internet. It is perhaps the biggest sack of garbage ever. Overpenetration is a benefit, not a liability. This was perpetuated by those close to law enforcement that claimed the switch from MP5's to AR's was because the .223 doesn't penetrate as much as 9mm. BS. AR's are cheaper for dept's and .223 frags the perps much worse than 9mm. If penetration was their concern, they'd use frangible ammo. They don't. They use some of the heaviest bullets, some of which are bonded, and some dept's have armor piercing. The worst .223 55fmj with thin jacket will easily clear through many interior walls. So much for their concern.




The only thing though...would be interesting to see how the state would deal with something like that being they are so heavily regulated, also, to see how the court would deal with this. Might not be good for the victim with a submachine gun in such an anti-gun, liberty-hating, politically correct brainwashed country.
 
FA SMG????? NAAAAHHHH.......

Twelve gauge Ithaca 37 Featherlight with double-0 buck, and a P-38 loaded with hollowpoints, and a couple of spare full mags. No firing to keep the bad guys bobbing and weaving. That's NOT what your gunsights were designed for.

356839.jpg
 
Having used a few SMGs for fun, I can say that 2-3 round birsts can be very accurate (such as with MP5, M3, MP40) at standard room ranges, not much exceeding the dispersion of the shotgun pattern. Suppressors tend to save your hearing and reduce muzzle flash (already low for SMGs). So, IF SMGs WERE READILY AVAILABLE, I'd use one in preference to a rifle or a shotgun (not fond of the recoil and the length or the noise). Some SMGs (Colt 635, MP5) come with 3rd burst selectors, some fire slowly enough (M3, MP40) that a burst position isn't necessary.
 
handgun with a minimum caliber of .40 for knockdown, penatration and noise factor, so even if you miss the sound scares the crap out of the intruder

Having experienced something as small as a .22LR handgun fired indoors without hearing protection, I can assure you that you don't need to go as high as the report from a .40S&W to make painfully loud and potentially scarey noises.

Regarding the original post, I'd rather have a shotgun than an SMG for indoor home defense. I have neighbors to think of. I'm certain that unloading a magazine in any direction is going to cause so much collateral damage (to cars, if not to people), that I'd be sued for many times the price of my SMG. Not to mention the things are so bloody expensive.

I'd still rather have a shotgun than a pistol caliber semi-auto carbine, too.

jmm
 
Obviously, if you think you can be well defended with a pistol caliber, then a sub machinegun offers you that much more firepower. A collapsed MP5 is quite easy to manage in tight spaces, a real benefit over something like a shotgun, but a shotgun does have substantial power. If not going with a collapsed version, I think I would prefer the shotgun.

If not wanting full auto and not wanting a shotgun, then you are left with something like a carbine. Given the carbine size for a pistol caliber will be comparable to that of a rifle caliber, the power has to go to the rifle caliber. For the same package, you get so much more from a rifle caliber.

As for the supposed liability of full auto, it is only an issue if you shoot somebody and even then the liability isn't in the gun, but in the damage done. It sounds crazy, but a person shot with 3 rounds of 9mm from an MP5 might claim horrendous harm by the evil submachinegun, but those three rounds are a lot better than getting hit by one 1 oz slug, 9 pellts of 00 buck, or however many of #7 shot (1 oz) in the same area from a 12 ga. shotgun.
 
I can think of a few instances in which a Ma Deuce would be appropriate for home defense, so I can think of some in which a SMG would be appropriate as well.

Mainly if your home is far, far away from any help and you run the risk of having a lot of people angry at you for some reason, i.e. a rancher with a nearby meth lab or border crossing with drug runners involved.

In an apartment, I would not be so sure.

-James
 
DMK said:
Ayoob also wrote an article about a guy who had to defend himself with an AC556 from two thugs in his employers parking lot. He had a very long legal battle. The fact that he used a machine gun was a major point of contention.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749

Wow, that's a great article. I can't imagine what Mr. Hamilton and company were thinking of when they chased Mr. Fadden, who had the electronic gate card, to the Heckler and Koch plant. :what:

Excellent example of problem two coming to fruition: problem two being criminal liability. You could even consider Mr. Fadden "lucky" that he did not have to face problem three, civil liability. I did a Google search on Fadden and could not find anything about a civil suit.

I feel that anyone involved in a HD/SD situation should already know about the possibilities of facing problems two and three, provided they survive problem one. And in the end, Mr Fadden succinctly describes his choice in solving problem one, "For twenty years now, I've cherished every morning I've gotten up, because I earned every moment of my life. I fought for it."
 
From the article in the link above:
Gary remembers, "Two prosecutors wouldn't touch it until the third took it. It was all political because of the automatic weapon." ... Asked what he thinks would have happened if he'd shot Hamilton with a Remington 870 Wingmaster instead, Fadden replies with certainty, "I would have gone home that night. I've told dozens of people since, 'Do not use a Class III weapon for personal defense."'
Coming from a guy who's BTDT, I'd say that's rather conclusive.
 
45Broomhandle, have you found any P-38s to reliably feed hollowpoints? I've only tried FMJ rounds because the feed ramp seems rather vertical in that design.

Bart Noir
So how come it ejects to the left?
 
A submachine gun would make a decent home defense gun. Depending on what submachine gun you had, it might make a pretty good one. It has a couple big advantages over the handgun, primarily the fact that you are hitting the person with multiple rounds per second. It is still firing a very poor cartridge, but getting hit by 3-5 of them almost at the same time is a very good deal.
All this stuff about shooting holes in the walls and damaging your property is crap. If you own a submachine gun and can't put a 3-5 round burst COM on a bad guy inside of 10 yards then the problem lies with you, not the weapon.
All that being said, I don't think the submachine gun would be the BEST weapon for home defense. That title goes to the shotgun. With the shotgun, you can easily mount a light on the forearm that allows you to operate the gun with both hands (available on some submachine guns, but not mine). It hits the bad guy with nine pellets at the same time that are similar in diameter to 9mm slugs. In my opinion the shotgun beats a submachine gun on every front for home defense. I suppose I could say that I have a choice in the matter. I own a submachine gun. I also own all manner of AKs, ARs, etc. But, my choice for home defense is definitely a shotgun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top