Biden gives tactical advice...shotgun vs AR

I suppose Uncle Joe watches Doc Holladay in Tombstone over and over, thinking that's the ideal way to fight with a shotgun today.

No need to choose.

I'd actually prefer just one. Lighter, and easier to to hold onto. If I think I'll need more ammunition, I'll load a bigger magazine.

A psychopath with shotgun firing buck shot into a crowd of defenseless victims can kill just as many as one with a semi-auto. Biden has to know that too.

The response to attack with either weapon is the same - Mozambique drill.

Except it's a good bit harder (and more expensive, practice costs) to be good with a shotgun than to be good-enough with an AR.

Click to expand...

I sure hope that you are kidding, because that is wrong on all fronts...

The simple fact is that anything that is good for self defense is usually good for mass shootings, for much the same reasons. Take the AR right now, because it is in the spotlight. Why do I think the AR is the best platform?

-Lightweight (nice if you're bunkered down waiting for the BG to leave or come through the door)
-Easy-to-use (shallow learning curve, also good if I have someone else staying with me)
-Lots of aftermarket support (including familiar trainers/gunsmiths and third-party products)
-Rifle cartridge (very efficient at dealing damage compared to recoil, more likely to stop an attacker quickly)
-Low recoil (good for follow up shots, because one shot often isn't enough)
-High capacity (compared with a pistol or shotgun, which helps with more follow-up shots on a failure-to-stop or against multiple attackers)
-Accurate (although user error in a stressful situation might negate much of this)
-Reliable (what good is a gun if doesn't go bang when you need it to?)
-Less penetration through walls than pistol or shotgun (less risk of collateral damage)

All of these features make the AR very attractive for home defense. I think an AR-15 with a flashpoint and either an aimpoint or trijicon reflex, equipped with a 20- or 30-round magazine (I'd prefer 20, personally, but there's no reason why I think you shouldn't be able to do 30 or even 100 rounds if you feel its a better option) is probably the best home defense weapon.

These features make it good for the military, police, civilian defender, action shooter, or (unfortunately) mass murderer. The problem is, the anti's think that...

1) Because there are devastating bullets available, (and the antis hyperbolize the devastation), that is all we can use in the AR-15, and therefore it is too powerful for most uses.
2) Because we have a 30-round magazine, we will shoot 30 rounds. "You don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer." No, but if someone is in survival mode, it would be better if they could conveniently keep the other 29 in their magazine. That way if more is needed it's ready. "You don't need 30 rounds to stop a bad guy." Depending on their preparation (armor), determination (failure of the psychological stop), and quantity, you might need more than that.

They have a lot more arguments, but these seem to be the two least-moronic I've seen. #1 is ignorance of how bullet construction R&D works, and #2 is simply a misunderstanding as to how we deal with leftover rounds. Correia said it best in his blog post, (and I'm paraphrasing) "we don't want 30 rounds so we can shoot 30 rounds, we want 30 rounds so that they're there if we need it."

Sorry I just have to laugh. Having been reading THR for the last several years when the Home Defense issue comes up, a clear majority of respondents say.. SHOT GUN. As soon as VP Biden says the same thing, OMG he's an idiot. Yes there are plenty of pro shot gun responses in this thread.

So here's my opinion
IN a house. Very short quarters.. a short barreled shot gun. Easy to swing, won't need more than 2 shots, generally. Easy to load, flip open drop in. Dim or NO light (at night). NERVES.. so hitting something is going to be tough, so a wide spread pattern is better. As far as I've seen, most police cars still have a shotgun up front ready for entering a house or other close quarters.

In an open field with a fire fight in the 25 to 200 yard range, YES the AR is going to excel. This is why our military supplies ARs to our troops. If you as a civilian are "defending" yourself at a distance of 100 plus yards you are in trouble no matter what.

If you have to crawl into a tunnel to clear Vietcong, chances are you'll drop the AR, shotgun and take your pistol.

Isn't he jest precious???........

Makes me proud to be a republican.........

Biden said a double barrelled shotgun, which is probably not what most people think of when they refer to a shotgun being a good home defense weapon. two shots....that's it. better make them count.

unless you're Jason Bourne or something.

Biden isn't qualified to give advice on how to find one's behind with both hands. He's been looking for his for fifty years and hasn't stumbled across it yet.

Sorry I just have to laugh. Having been reading THR for the last several years when the Home Defense issue comes up, a clear majority of respondents say.. SHOT GUN. As soon as VP Biden says the same thing, OMG he's an idiot. Yes there are plenty of pro shot gun responses in this thread.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "a majority". The numbers seem fairly evenly split amongst the rifle and shotgun crowd, with a smaller (but still significant) amount of people saying handgun. Most people recognize the benefits and limitations of all 3. Personally, I use a shotgun, because I don't have any rifles. I think the rifle is better, but there are no rifle ranges nearby that I like.

I also think that as education as to how rifles do wounding and the fact that they overpenetrate less through walls has led to an increase in the number of people saying "rifle over shotgun" over the years...me included.

So here's my opinion
IN a house. Very short quarters.. a short barreled shot gun. Easy to swing, won't need more than 2 shots, generally. Easy to load, flip open drop in. Dim or NO light (at night). NERVES.. so hitting something is going to be tough, so a wide spread pattern is better. As far as I've seen, most police cars still have a shotgun up front ready for entering a house or other close quarters.

Click to expand...

I'd argue that reloading a tube-fed shotgun would be just as easy under stress as reloading a double. And while you may say you only need 2 shots, I've read reports of people taking several, even point-blank from a shotgun. Not to mention that at point-blank distances, the spread isn't going to be that much (and if it was, it would be as much a liability as it would be a benefit).

I think there's advantages to a double-barrel shotgun over a tube-fed shotgun or an AR-15, namely the shorter OAL with the same barrel length. However, I'm barely comfortable with 6 in the tube, I'd be more comfortable with 20 in an easily replaceable magazine.

In an open field with a fire fight in the 25 to 200 yard range, YES the AR is going to excel. This is why our military supplies ARs to our troops. If you as a civilian are "defending" yourself at a distance of 100 plus yards you are in trouble no matter what.

Click to expand...

How about the guy who made a shot at 125 (was it feet or yards? saw both) to save a first responder from a crazed sniper?

If you have to crawl into a tunnel to clear Vietcong, chances are you'll drop the AR, shotgun and take your pistol.

Click to expand...

I don't know, a slung AR or shotgun would be a lot easier to keep control of than a pistol.

Skribs said:

I wouldn't say "a majority". The numbers seem fairly evenly split amongst the rifle and shotgun crowd, with a smaller (but still significant) amount of people saying handgun. Most people recognize the benefits and limitations of all 3. Personally, I use a shotgun, because I don't have any rifles. I think the rifle is better, but there are no rifle ranges nearby that I like.

I also think that as education as to how rifles do wounding and the fact that they overpenetrate less through walls has led to an increase in the number of people saying "rifle over shotgun" over the years...me included.

I'd argue that reloading a tube-fed shotgun would be just as easy under stress as reloading a double. And while you may say you only need 2 shots, I've read reports of people taking several, even point-blank from a shotgun. Not to mention that at point-blank distances, the spread isn't going to be that much (and if it was, it would be as much a liability as it would be a benefit).

I think there's advantages to a double-barrel shotgun over a tube-fed shotgun or an AR-15, namely the shorter OAL with the same barrel length. However, I'm barely comfortable with 6 in the tube, I'd be more comfortable with 20 in an easily replaceable magazine.

How about the guy who made a shot at 125 (was it feet or yards? saw both) to save a first responder from a crazed sniper?

I don't know, a slung AR or shotgun would be a lot easier to keep control of than a pistol.

Click to expand...

Skribs -- on top of your fine analysis, I would just like to add that perhaps some people (myself included) added a shotgun or two to their "long gun" home defense inventory because a good, reliable pump was simply less expensive than your typical AR-style rifle, while still satisfying the desire for some ranged defense and power within a circumscribed distance (say, a suburban neighborhood).

Coupled with that, there was the advantage of actually being able to function-test and target-shoot the shotgun at the local suburban indoor range, which is a no-no for any "rifle" caliber.

But I was never under the illusion -- as Plugs Biden appears to be -- that one simply has to point a shotgun at the general direction of a miscreant and vaporize him.

Biden is the most compelling reason I can imagine why we shouldn't have politicians telling us what we can or can't own for home defense, target shooting, or whatever...


.

So which one is it Joe, do they make killing too easy? Or are they too complicated for us peasants... er... "Ordinary Citizens" to use?

Combine this with his constant mangling of terminology, (clip instead of magazine, shell instead of cartridge, not to mention the meaningless euphemism that is "assault weapon") and it's very clear that he has no idea what he is taking about. What position, therefore, is he in to tell me what I need when he clearly has no expertise in the area? If, say, Massad Ayoob told me I didn't need an AR, maybe I'd be more inclined to listen. But he isn't, because he knows the tools of the trade; nobody who knows guns supports such silly legislation, and we can all see why.

Advice from Biden on how much gun is appropriate is like letting the Amish do your car shopping.

So, Joe, I Demand A Plan for you to get bent!

There are pros and cons of every weapon system. I like shotguns for the power they deliver and I like semiauto rifles for the capacity potential. There is no one right answer. One could do far worse than have a side by side shotgun with slugs or OO buck loaded. The most important thing is the training to learn how to really use your weapon well.

Allow me to explain why Biden thinks a double barrel is best, it has nothing to do with facts about what is easier to use or more effective.

1. It is in line with the Democrat party's stance on low cap firearms (until those are in their crosshairs too).

2. It doesn't matter what gun he uses because his bodyguards will protect him. He most likely wouldn't need to fire either barrel from that shotgun.

3. He's rich and lives in a good neighborhood where groups of people don't kick in doors and rob people at gun point. I'd like to know what old Joe would do if three people happened to break in instead of two.

3. He's rich and lives in a good neighborhood where groups of people don't kick in doors and rob people at gun point. I'd like to know what old Joe would do if three people happened to break in instead of two.

Click to expand...

He's a government official though. Feinstein's bill wouldn't effect him so he'd probably grab a fresh off the line m4.

I guess that's why his body guards carry double barrels.

Ludicrous.

Why aren't they trying to ban the tactical double barrel then?

Oh wait, those will be next. Then a stack knife will be better than the double barrel.

I've just realized that if I get a pistol gripped rifle, my cross-eye-dominance isn't an issue, because I can hip fire for self defense!

(sarcasm)

Everything aside, a shotgun is actually a superb defensive weapon, that part is true. Go into a LGS and ask what they recommend for Home Defense. Even some Carbine SMEs opt for the shotgun for defense.

I disagree with the double barrel part, though. They are expensive and an off-the-rack pump has 5 to 7 rounds.

Very good point, bigdipper. I think the reasoning is that a shotgun with 2 shells is good for 2 bad guys. But with a rifle you might need to pull the trigger more, so it's not as good. I'm not saying I agree with the concept, but that's the idea. A shotgun with 2 shells will be harder to kill 20 kids with than a rifle with 30 rounds. This of course ignores the fact that the kids aren't going to be much of a hindrance to reloading.

Click to expand...

If you give a maniac 10 minutes of unhindered access to a school, he could easily kill quite a lot of people with a fireman's ax, maybe not 26, but then again maybe. And, the fireman's ax will get him through the locked doors.

The whole gun thing is divide and conquer. Biden knows that a lot of double barrel shotgun owners want nothing to do with the AR, AK "rabble". He's trying to appeal to the spineless "gun owner" who is happy to compromise the rights of others in the hope that his tools don't get touched.

Don't forget that there are a whole lot of people out there who "own guns" who want to appear to be "reasonable" and they're more than willing to throw ARs under the bus today just to keep up appearances.

I hate ARs, however, I spent 12 long years in the Army defending your right to buy one. I don't care if it's "right" for me, or the best choice for me. For many of you an AR suits your needs and that's all I need to go on. I have made my choices and I am happy with them. I want others to be free to do the same.

I'll tell you one thing for sure. In an urban environment it's irresponsible to sling slugs around the house if you have an AR you could have used instead. It's also way safer to keep a 30 round loaded magazine locked up than it is to keep a pump with shells in the tubular magazine.

Biden is playing for power, nothing more, nothing less.
With the taxpayers it's at least 50% emotion and TV. My in-laws are hopeless, they're ignorant but think they're experts because they watch TV.

If anyone thinks that a shotty would be less devastating in a shooter scenario, has never seen a competitive three gunner, or Sass shooter go to work, both disciplines are absolutely amazing, and show what a little training can do.

What a moron Biden is. Why aren't we banning shotguns then?

Jframe, I agree with you. I thino the AR is the best, but if you choose a shotgun due to price, availability, or familiarity you are not wrong.

A dumba$$ with media access is truly a frightening thing.