1911 or AK for HD

Status
Not open for further replies.
some of the postings in this thread... wow.

a wise man once said that the purpose of your pistol is to fight your way back to your shotgun. the purpose of your shotgun is to fight your way back to your rifle... which you never should have laid down in the first place.
 
Wow I didn't expect this thread to keep going to 4 pages.

I guess the bottom line is that you use whatever you feel most comfortable with, or whichever you can get to first. Just remember to be sure of your target, don't miss, and never fire more rounds than needed to neutralize the threat. Use of excessive force can land you in some pretty hot water.
 
As several people who've actually done the research instead of repeating "common knowledge" myths have said, good .223 penetrates less in structure than other common choices...while delivering a good deal more destructive power to your target than .45 ACP.

Also, a lot of other "reasons" given for using a handgun are solely related to training. Which makes me ponder the "lots of practical training" comment from someone who suggests doing something different than what the best instructors suggest.
 
Of course I keep a handgun for HD use...it is easy to keep handy, and suitable for being out in the yard. And, contrary to the advice expressed here several times, it is a four inch S&W 686 357mag loaded with hot 125gn JHP's. I couldn't care less about hearing damage, as long as I am the one who walks away from an HD encounter.
My main goto HD weapon is an M1 carbine loaded with 15 SP's. I have no problem moving around the house with the short M1, it points like a finger, and has the ability to reach out to 100yds easily. It also has the court-friendly appearance (if that is really worth anything) of walnut and steel. Plus, if some prosecutor wants to claim it is some kind of deadly assault war-weapon, I can say "But, the gov't sold it to me...". It came from the CMP.
 
http://230grain.com/showthread.php?t=65428

there's a test someone did shooting several .223 defense rounds at simulated walls made of drywall, as well as buckshot and some pistol rounds.

The .223 penetrated fewer interior walls than the .45 ACP. The only .4 ACP tested was hardball, but if you want to see the same type of test with .45 JHPs, check out the box-o-truth. The box-o-truth also tested 5.56 FMJ, which penetrated just as many interior walls as the pistol rounds.

based on that info, I would say a .223 carbine loaded with a decent defensive round would be a better choice for home protection than a pistol. Not only does it penetrate fewer walls, it puts more energy on target, and is easier to hit with.
 
there's a penetration problem with the ak.
For example, you might end up in court because you shot your neighbor through a wall. A handgun isn't going to have as much penetration, but still requires awareness.
Click to expand...

HOLY "didn't read the thread," Batman!

:rolleyes:

-Sam
 
The only thing I want to emphasize is that the 5.56 is a great HD round that penetrates less than most pistol rounds WHEN YOU ARE USING THE CORRECT AMMUNITION. Don't load up with surplus M855 and not expect it to shred your house AND your neighbor's house, because it will.

I have also said before that I think people worry too much about overpenetration in their ammo selection. ANY projectile that is effective for HD will have a chance of overpenetrating, and a certainty when you MISS the target. The only way to guarantee you won't put a round through a wall is to give up on guns completely. You can only prevent good guys behind the walls from getting hurt in your planning and execution. Do a walk through and figure out your likely fields of fire, and make sure there aren't beds behind them. The rule; "know your target and what's behind it" ALWAYS applies. On the range, in your house, to soldiers in war. There is no such thing as a bullet that won't overpenetrate.
 
I use a 5.56 AR15, so, given your options, I'd go with the Saiga.

I generally believe missing, rather than overpenetration, would be a bigger concern.
Click to expand...
I agree. An errant round poses a risk to anything in its path, until it hits enough of anything to stop it. And any round suitable for defense ammo will penetrate a wall.

Pistols are harder to shoot than rifles. I am more likely to be on target with a long arm, so that's what I use.

Pistols are compromise guns. They're what you use when you cant use, or dont have access to, a rifle or shotgun.

... a shotgun well we all know just point in the direction of the BG and pull the trigger.
Click to expand...
Try that with mine. I get 8" patterns at 25 yards. At room distaces, its about the size of my fist.
 
I will say I have fired an M4 at close quarters indoors, and even with hearing protection it was a memorable experience.
 
The overpenetration issue is so far overblown it's rediculous. RIFLES DO NOT OVERPENETRATE FOR DEFENSIVE USE WHEN LOADED WITH APPROPRIATE AMMUNITION!! It is a matter of bullet selection. If you have a Para-FAL or M1A SOCOM that you trust due to its reliability that you want to keep for home defense, it can be accomplished sanely and safely. We have the technology, I promise. A 155 gr Hornady TAP will give you 70% of the tissue disruption and cavitation of your typical 12 gauge buckshot round with 14 to 16 inches of penetration in ballistic geletin. This is nearly ideal. Have a 7.62x39 AK? Wolf's Military Classic 124 gr JHP is loaded with the Uly 8m3 projectile, which has earned a reputation for being about the most reliable performer available in the caliber. It consistently expands in both tissue and geletin, acheiving .60+ caliber and penetrates 14 to 16 inches, again, nearly ideal. In addition to the TAP and bonded JSPs on the market for the 5.56, there's also the OTM rounds, with the 77 gr SMK loads having already proven effective in combat, albiet giving up just enough penetration to make it more suitable for home defense than most normal infantry use. But bullet selection is critical, esp in rifles, but in handguns as well. I guarantee you a properly loaded rifle is going to be far safer for your neighbors than an improperly loaded handgun, and all things equaled, with proper bullet selection given to both, a good deal of evidence has been accumulated by the FBI and others that suggests the high velocity achieved by rifles, namely the 5.56mm, combined with fragnible or thinly-jacketed expanding projectile is actually at least as safe as any JHP-loaded defensive pistol. It's all moot, however, as any caliber/bullet combination capable of achieving adequate penetration for defensive use is going to penetrate several interior walls. Any round capable of penetrating 12 to 16 inches of tissue is going to make short work of drywall. See also, "Box O' Truth." This is only a concern if you miss. An appropriately loaded rifle or pistol that hits an assailant and exits is probably going to have expanded and/or fragmented enough, and lost enough velocity, so as to remain in the structure, or at least enough to greatly reduce its lethality upon exitting it.

Here again, it has been studied, and the results are usually pretty clear. Most people find hitting under stress far easier at all distances with a long gun than with a handgun. I know some of you think you're Agent Jack Bauer, but most people find hitting with a handgun, esp under stress, to be a great deal more difficult. Since most of us would be best advised to post up in a hallway rather than clearing the entire domicile, the increased manuverability the handgun offers isn't nearly as important as the increased difficulty achieving hits. Look at the statistics available from the FBI and others regarding accuracy at distances as close as 3 to 7 feet with a handgun. I've seen camera footage from police vehicles in which people spun in circles within a pace of two of each other and dropped entire magazines without scoring a single effective hit. And even if you have to move in a house, a 16 inch barreled carbine is simple enough to do this with, if you have the proper training.

Finally, I don't prepare for the average scenerio. I don't point guns at people on a normal night. So if I am pointing a gun at someone, the night isn't normal. So if you think 8 rounds is fine because "normally" it's "adequate" so be it. But me, I say I'd rather have 30 rounds and not need them than need them and not have them. I'd rather be able to deal with body armor, even if it is unlikely, and again, I'd rather like to be able to deal with more than one or two assailants, even if such a scenerio is unlikely as well. I am bringing to bear the most effective tool at my disposal to neutralize a dynamic situation as quickly and effeciently as possible, and because I live in one of the freer states in The Union, I have the luxery of saying I'll deal with the potential "overkill" accusations when and if they come.

The AK has all the advantages. It is more accurate and effective, easier to score hits with quickly and under pressure, and has greater capacity. If it can be stored safely and still accessed quickly enough for defensive use, it is the clear and obvious choice. The 1911 is a distant second, though still adequate choice better suited to fighting your way to the AK than it is as your primary defensive option.
 
1 – Irrelevant, we’re talking about .45JHP. No.

2 – My 16” barreled AK measures roughly 34” long and weights almost 10lbs. My 1911 is about 8” long and weighs less than 3lbs. Now you’re telling me you can move through the close quarters of a house, open doors, manipulate phones, and still maintain control of your firearm? No.

Plus what happens when you need to quickly conceal your firearm? What happens when the cops show up? What happens if you have to walk outside, or even worse, bug out? A pistol easily goes into a pocket or holster – strolling around out in public with an AK over your shoulder is a great way to invite unwanted attention.

3 – See, the inherent problem with rifle-mounted flashlights is that they require you to throw rule #1 right out the window – anything you want to shine your flashlight on, you also must cover with your muzzle. Check out a “bump in the night” with a flashlight equipped AK, and you’ll quickly find yourself pointing your rifle at your family, neighbors, pets, etc. Plus you lose a lot of control over your light, because you either have to rely on a pressure pad (take your hand off the rifle, lose your light), or you’re stuck with a constant light attached to your muzzle, which isn’t a good tactical decision either. Try again.

4 - A 1911 is not an “assault weapon,” nor does it accept “high capacity magazines,” both of which are common targets for unwelcome legal scrutiny. This ultimately has to come down to a matter of opinion, but it would appear that most of the thread, along with authorities on the matter (Ayoob, among others) agrees with me on this one. One more try...

5 – A loaded rifle propped against the corner of your bed is hardly what I would consider “securely stored.” It may work for you in your state, but for most of us (those of us with family, or who live in states with storage laws), that ain’t gonna cut it. I'll have my pistol out of my gun vault before you can get the flashlight on your AK turned on. Wrong again...

Plus a shiny rifle sitting out in the open makes a great target for theft.
Click to expand...
2) I dont intend on clearing my house. Its not a one man job. And yes, I can juggle a rifle, phone, and open doors at the same time.

To get an accruate shot with your pistol, its going to be an arm's length away. The muzzle will be about the same place as one on a 16" rifle.

I'm not going outside. If I have to bug out I think I'd be past a HD scenerio (ala Katrina). A slung AK can also be a deterrent to unwanted attention. Using Katrina as an example, again, looters will outnumber cops tremendously, and some of the cops will be too busy looting to notice me.

3) That's a problem with all weaponlights, and one reason mine wont replace my Surefire G3 or maglight. Flashlights are used for general illumination, weaponlights are used to identify targets. And it does so quite well at low-ready, where I dont have to have the potential BG in the line of fire. And all my weaponlights can be activated without removing my hand or changing my grip.

4) They'll spin it any way they can, if they want. Remember, the 1911 was designed for the Army. It was the standard sidearm for our military for 75 years. Not many police departments allow them because they're regarded as "dangerous" or scary because they are single action. Or, thay are regarded as an "experts' firearm" for those with extensive training. Take, LAPD SWAT and SIS, FBI HRT, Delta Force, and Force Recon Marines for example.

5) All I have to do is stand up and get it off my shelf.
 
LS240 said:
As for the legal issue, could anyone cite a case where a person was convicted of a crime in a case of self defense and where it could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon used in the case was a deciding factor in the outcome of the trial? I know I've read cases where prosecutors tried to fry someone for their use of a certain weapon, but I haven't seen one where it actually mattered in the end. By no means am I saying it hasn't happened, I just think that if we're going to continue a discussion on whether using an AK would get you convicted the folks saying so should present evidence for this claim. So are there any cases like this?
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with finding a case like that. I'm sure I could find a few within twenty minutes. However, the cases, most likely, would also present a homeowner who is not a "choir boy" in matters unrelated to the home invasion. People would write off the case immediately without analyzing it too much. I'm not wasting my time.

That's how the law goes. There is never an ideal case to fit the facts you have in mind in your head. If you think about Heller, that case took something like 15+ years just to get the ideal facts together before lawyers filed suit. Heller is, in fact, a staged case. Even then, the SCOTUS holding for Heller is far from ideal, but I digress...

=====

My overall point is that a jury is like dating a new woman. You may get a rational one that understands all the guy stuff you do. You may get an irrational one that is on PMS and wishes you didn't have a penis.

I tend to plan for the worst and hope for the best. In this case, planning for the worst would be looking forward to a trial after I shoot someone in my home and imagining I'll have an irrational jury. The 1911 with extra magazines is more than sufficient, and will look far less threatening on the evidence table. Also, the prosecutor's main question before a trial is, "Do I have a case?" When the prosecutor imagines how the AK would look in front of a jury, the prosecutor just might answer "yes" to that question. Further, the AK would likely lull me into a false sense of security, causing me to practice less often. I know me, and that's how I am.

For those who aren't understanding the concept of an irrational jury, I'll put it into 8 words you might understand:

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

The irrational jury who heard those words acquitted O.J. despite sufficient evidence to find him guilty. It may seem illogical, unfair and atrocious, but sometimes that's how a trial goes.
 
Last edited:
"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

The irrational jury who heard those words acquitted O.J. despite sufficient evidence to find him guilty. It may seem illogical, unfair and atrocious, but sometimes that's how a trial goes.
Click to expand...

That's not irrational; it's the system working. The American Justice System was designed under the premise that it is better for one hundred guilty men to go free, than for one innocent man to be punished. If there is any reasonable doubt in a juror's mind as to the guilt of the defendant, then the juror is obligated to vote "not guilty."
 
Hi Everyone,

Some people here are quite logical, like computers. However, unlike computers, juries are not always so logical. One thing for certain in a trial is that the logic of jury is uncertain. For this reason, lawyers typically do not want to go to trial. In the OJ case, the glove (illogically) gave the jury a reasonable doubt, merely the look of it on OJ's hand in court. Likewise, merely the look of a 1911 may give a jury a reasonable doubt, whereas the look of an AK might not.

Anyway, no amount of arguing here on the Internet is going to change what would happen if you ever go to trial. Nevertheless, I hope this discussion makes everyone feel warm and cozy, regardless of your stance on this issue of 1911 vs. AK. There are plenty of arguments on either side to support your position, whatever it is.

If you're a law abiding gun owner, then I wish you the best. If any of you ever shoots someone, I know that any fake bravado displayed here would be beat out of you before you're even charged with anything. At that point, you'll have to hire one of my colleagues. Heck, you might even be calling me. :)

Best of Luck,
Jake
 
Last edited:
Anyway, no amount of arguing here on the Internet is going to change what would happen if you ever go to trial.
Click to expand...

I disagree; is this forum not comprised of our peers? Is it unimaginable that someone who visits this forum, may be summoned to appear on the jury for a trial of another member here?

The Internet is comprised of people. And so is the court room. The two do meet, from time to time.

edit; also, there was a post about a study done awhile back about juries and how they perceive different firearms based on cosmetic appearance alone. The study did in fact show that certain types of firearms (so-called evil-looking ones) did result in a higher likelihood to convict, and harsher sentences as well, compared to a firearm of the same action type and caliber, but less "evil looking". It was hypothesized during that thread, that if one did in fact use an "evil looking" firearm to defend himself, and found himself facing a trial by jury, he could use that study to compel the judge to rule the type of firearm used as inadmissible due to irrelevance (and the probability that the jury may disapprove of the use of the weapon for purely cosmetic reasons, and thus unduly influencing their decision). This would be a logical course of action in a self defense trial, where the actual weapon used is not a contention of fact (the defendant freely admits to using said firearm to shoot his assailant). Thus its presentation at trial is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Interesting...If someone goes to a jury trial for shooting someone, then they were likely charged with murder and/or manslaughter. I don't know of any case where the alleged killing weapon was inadmissible due to irrelevance. I think that's a stretch, but maybe it could happen somehow in the future.

At least you've acknowledged the fact that a certain type of weapon can be prejudicial merely because of the way it looks. You even cited a study, gee thanks. :)
 
Last edited:
That's because in most murder trials, the defendant does not freely admit to using a specified weapon to kill a specified person. In a self defense trial, the homicide is not being disputed; merely the justifiability of said homicide. Thus the weapon used (and in fact the deed itself) is not a point of contention on either side.
 
At least you've acknowledged the fact that a certain type of weapon can be prejudicial merely because of the way it looks. You even cited a study, gee thanks.
Click to expand...

People are prejudiced. Justice is blind. The hard part is removing a jury's prejudice before/during trial. I would argue that it's still far better to deal with that problem, than purposely use inferior equipment to defend your life in the first place. The courtroom is a controlled environment. A home invasion scenario is not.
 
So we have come full circle. Everybody should fully understand the issues and make their own decisions based on their particular situation. Everybody's situation is different.

The general consensus is that an AK would be more desirable during a home invasion based on effectiveness only, but a 1911 would be more desirable on the evidence table during a trial.

How much effectiveness do you need? If you want to be closer to 100% effective, we can step up the equipment far beyond merely an AK. Let's go with two pit bulls, a moat, a monitored alarm system, steel reinforced doors and frames, no windows, a bullet proof vest, a helmet, a video surveillance system, a triple backed-up power supply and phone system, etc.

All things considered, I would feel completely comfortable with having a 1911 on my nightstand, rather than an AK. That's my situation. Others may be different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Selling my UZI. What should I get next?
Replies
14
Views
749
30 cal slob
3
R
  • Locked
The same type on gun for CCW and HD?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
GeezerwithGuns
G
C
  • Locked
Which AK or Variant(s) should I buy?
Replies
9
Views
747
PabloJ
P
D
  • Locked
Help Me Decide on HD gun collection.
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Bazooka Joe71
B
W
  • Locked
Best AK-74 deal?
Replies
7
Views
950
jwsturr
J
Back
Top