.30-30 or 12 ga as better truck gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grayrock

Grayrock

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
1,828
Location
The great state of TEXAS
I just had a lever action .30-30 refurbished and had a thought. Would it make a better truck gun than the 12 ga pump that is currently serving in that position and why or why not?
 
Well, my grandfather kept a 30-30 in his truck behind the seat, as well as on the tractor, but kept a Remington Model 11 12 ga. in the corner behind the front door. The 30-30 dispatched a decent number of rabid animals, mostly raccoons, while the Remington was the bane of armadillos and feral cats. I'm sure if my grandfather saw a rabid raccoon in the front yard, the Remington would have been deployed.

All that said, the Winchester was more compact than the Remington. Also, he grew up in the rural panhandle of Florida, remembered when everyone went about on horse, went with his father to buy their first car - and drove it home for his dad. The Winchester even there was a fine saddle-rifle and, well, a truck and tractor were modern ways to be in the saddle (even if the tractor was a Ford made in the 1940's or the truck was a 1962 Ford).

He kept a S&W Model 10 38 special in the car (used to carry a Hopkins and Allen Safety Police in 38 S&W). My grandfather was a very wise man. He never fought, was one of the few men I knew without doubt was a saved Christian, was a Free Mason, and was just as instrumental in my upbringing as my dad (who was himself a mighty fine man). For that reason, I have no problems with the Free Masons even if I'm not a member, and think the 30-30 makes a fine truck gun. If my grandfather (or my dad) did it, I figure their reasons were very, very good. Those are two men on whose wisdom I trust and deeply regret neither are around any more for future wisdom.

Ash
 
I have used both in my farm pick up. The rifle(mini-14) for coyotes and the shotgun(Ithaca 37) for crows and social work. Bob Allen made a behind the seat 2 gun case that worked for me in two different trucks (a chevy and a dodge). When I carried only the 37 I would need a rifle and when I only carried the mini-14 I needed a shotgun.
 
For farm use, I'd keep a rifle in the truck. I wouldn't put a nice little lever gun in there, though. I'd stick a cheap SKS behind the seat. :D I think the SKS makes neigh on the perfect beater farm truck gun.

Used to just lay my 12 gauge double up on the gas tank behind the seat in my 64 Chevy heavy half. They don't put the gas tank in the cab anymore. While it was a handy gun shelf, I sorta appreciate the tank not being there. LOL
 
Where do You live? What's your topography? What's your crime rate and demographics? Need More Info..........Essex
 
It's a cheapie that I inherited. And not very much farm use- mainly urban/ suburban everyday protection when my CCW won't do.
Click to expand...

In that case, most definitely the shotgun. You will not be trading shots at long range justifiably. A shotgun is both more effective and a more effective deterent at close range and buckshot is a little bit safer to be letting loose around town than multiple shots from a .30-30 if you DO have to use it.

Rifles on the ranch/farm are for vermin I might run across or the odd hog that presents itself. They have absolutely no place in an urban setting for self defense, not in Texas anyway. You have the obligation to retreat before using lethal force and if you are beyond shotgun range, you will most definitely, in a court of law, be seen as being able to retreat. By the time the prosecutor gets through with you, you'll be retreating to a 5x8 cell if you shoot it out with a rifle at 100 yards.

Just a thought. Personally, I cannot imagine a truly self defense scenario that couldn't be handled with my carry. That's all I ever have on me. Of course, hard to stash a shotgun on a motorcycle, which more often than not I'm on. But, really, think about it. If you're more'n 25 yards, say (that'd be an iffy defense in itself, you can likely run from a guy at 25 yards) you're going to have to prove you could not retreat. That's going to be hard to do against a tough prosecution, unless maybe the guy shot you in the leg and you can't run or something.
 
If your urban/ suburban area was around Mosul or Basra, I'd sugggest the 30-30. In TX, I'd want something with more punch.
 
By the time the prosecutor gets through with you, you'll be retreating to a 5x8 cell if you shoot it out with a rifle at 100 yards.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember some nut shooting folks from a school tower down there. Are you suggesting it would have been illegal to return fire under Texas law?
 
I seem to remember some nut shooting folks from a school tower down there. Are you suggesting it would have been illegal to return fire under Texas law?
Click to expand...

That was in 1968, and folks who lived in the area did come out and fire back, mostly with deer rifles. That said, I think the laws may have changed since then. I sure know law enforcement attitude has, and I would not want to be popping off at someone 100+ yds away with a deer rifle when the LEO's roll in these days.

Which is why my truck gun is an 870 pump 12 gauge w/18" barrel. If someone is shooting at me from 100yds away, I am going the other direction fast and finding some sort of cover.
 
The law requires you to retreat. I know this for fact. You can't just come out of your house firing and anything or anyone you hit, you are responsible for criminally, if you miss the bad guy. I had a friend that was sitting around at the track outside of Katy, Texas kicking back in a lawn chair that caught a FMJ .223 in his foot, had to have it removed. It just came out of the air and stuck in his foot. Shooting up in an urban area brings all sorts of problems along with just the fact that you're violating a class C misdemeanor by firing a gun in the city limits. I'm not sure what the penal codes were back then for use of deadly force. I think it was more like 1965 or 6 'cause I wasn't in high school at the time. But, today, you would NOT be justified in returning fire and it'd be a stupid thing to do at any rate. he's barracaded, you fire on him, he's going to likely direct his fire upon you. Let the law take care of stuff like that, what they get paid to do. I'd just sit back and watch the action from behind cover, myself. You might think that selfish, but lawyers are expensive now days. I don't care how many innocent children die in the interim that I could have stopped. Ain't gonna be me that's the hero. I can't afford the legal fees even if I'm in the right. I ain't gonna lift a hand to help the cops, either. That's their job, they want it, they can have it. It's enough I pay their salary. A recent occurence has changed my thinking on that. There was a time I would have defended someone else other than me or mine in a fight. No longer. Let the "pros" handle it. :rolleyes: You can get in enough of a bind defending yourself, let alone anyone else. I frankly don't care how many people die that I could have saved, not my problem, sorry.
 
It's not illegal to return fire with a rifle in Texas. If you're justififed in returning fire in the situation, whether it is a rifle or pistol you return fire with is immaterial.

That said, I think problems might arise if you return fire with a rifle on someone 100yds away. Not saying it would not be justified, just that it might not be the wisest choice. If someone is 5 yds from you and firing at you at an ATM machine, it's a lot easier to convince a jury you were in fear of your life when you returned fire with your pistol, than if you were 100yds away in your truck, stopped your truck, got out, reached under the back seat, and returned fire.
 
Okay, I'll answer again, you have no right to return fire if you can retreat. You have, under the law, the duty to retreat. If you come out of your house or car and start shooting, you stopped retreating.

In today's political climate, you just best not get involved. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. Let the cops handle it. Retreat and live to read about it in the papers. They won't give you a paper in county lock up.
 
You have the obligation to retreat before using lethal force and if you are beyond shotgun range
Click to expand...
Despite any other conversation that may be occuring here - this comment is absolutely flat out incorrect. No such duty EXPLICITLY exists, and the litmus test will be nothing more difficult than 'reasonableness'.

You have, under the law, the duty to retreat.
Click to expand...
Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it any more true than before. It's just not true.

Retreat and live to read about it in the papers
Click to expand...
Sound advice, but a bit different from the 'it's the law' approach.

And, as way of counterpoint - I have known folk who've been shot at by poachers trying to scare 'em away off their own land, and immediate and accurate return fire was the best option.

But back to the OPs question; varmint control will likely require some range (especially for coyotes and such) and pest control will require a scattergun. if you're on a chunk o' land and need one, you'll likely need both.
 
Here's an article that says "duty to retreat" didn't come along until 1973 in Texas, sort of explains why those citizens in the UT towers incident didn't have a lot of persecution over their actions, above and beyond a dramatically different political climate at the time, of course. The law they mention that does away with duty to retreat is only in your home or workplace. It covers you in a car, but I don't know that it would apply to you driving down the street, jumping out, and engaging a guy 100 yards off with a rifle.

Seems this law is selectively enforces. I remember a hunter on I45 coming home one Sunday, saw a cop fighting a guy in the north bound lane, pulled over and got his rifle and when the BG got his hands on the cops handgun and was about to shoot him, the deer hunter blew him away. I don't think that guy got charged, save a DPS officer's life. Obvious defense of a third person. Had it been some Joe Blow, well, could have been different.

Standing their ground

Apr 19th 2007 | AUSTIN
From The Economist print edition
A man's office is his castle. And his car, too

ON TUESDAY afternoon, as news about the Virginia Tech murders filtered out, the staff of a hamburger restaurant in downtown Austin gathered in front of a television suspended over the bar. A boyish-looking waiter speculated that if the gunman had really used a 9mm handgun, he must have had an accomplice. That handgun can hold a fair number of bullets, he said, but the gunman would have had to stop to reload.

It is not unusual for a Texan to be casually conversant about firearms. A state resident does not need a permit to buy a gun and guns do not have to be registered. Police are, as a result, not sure how many guns there are in the state. But the number is substantial. In a 2001 poll by the Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, 36% of respondents said that their household had at least one.

The state's gun laws are lax, and becoming more so all the time. In March Governor Rick Perry signed a bill into law that gives increased discretion to open fire. Previously, Texans were justified in killing someone only if “a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated”. The new law, which takes effect in September, eliminates the need for escape attempts. It assumes that the otherwise law-abiding citizen had a good reason for standing their ground. It also gives shooters immunity from civil suits.

The law has plenty of critics. Law-enforcement officials say the duty to retreat saves lives because it discourages people from escalating conflicts. The new law seems to protect hysterical trigger-fingers who feel themselves genuinely threatened when no real threat exists.

The law was probably not necessary anyway. There is no carjacking crisis in the state. And juries have never been sticklers about the duty to retreat. There is widespread sympathy for the idea that, as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it in 1921, “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.”

Still, the bill flew through the legislature with broad support. In a way, it simply marks a return to form for the state. Texas did not acknowledge a duty to retreat until 1973. And Texas is just the 16th state to pass such legislation since Florida did so in 2005. Florida's law goes even further, as it presumes that any cat burglar has murderous intent.

Texans largely support gun ownership, despite the fact that the state has experienced mass murders of its own. In 1966 Charles Whitman, a student at the University of Texas at Austin, shot almost 50 passers-by from the top of the campus clock-tower. Sixteen died. And in 1991 George Hennard drove his truck into a restaurant in the small town of Killeen, where he killed 23 patrons before killing himself. Before this week, those episodes were, respectively, the deadliest campus shooting and the worst mass shooting in America's history.
Click to expand...

Despite any other conversation that may be occuring here - this comment is absolutely flat out incorrect. No such duty EXPLICITLY exists, and the litmus test will be nothing more difficult than 'reasonableness'.
Click to expand...

I couldn't convince my lawyer of that and in my case we're talkin 20 feet! The man has been practicing criminal law for 30 years. It was in my yard, not in the house, so I wouldn't have been covered by the castle doctrine anyway.
 
The duty of retreat does not forbid use of force in defense of others. I'm not sure where you got the idea it forced people to move along and let the slaughter happen. Anyway this is what the Texas penal code says:


§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
...
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
Click to expand...

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

Also this:

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
Click to expand...
 
The duty of retreat does not forbid use of force in defense of others.
Click to expand...

That would be your "defense to prosecution" after your arrest and posting of bail after the bond hearing and at least one night in lock up. Been there, done that. I'll let you be the hero. Me, I'm outta there. I can't afford such crap on what little I have to retire on. I have three defenses to prosecution including self defense, but it looks like it'll go to trial anyway. Won't say any more about that.

I wouldn't defend some stranger in Austin, anyway. Probably some liberal prick that wouldn't appreciate it, probably sue me for mental anguish or something.. :rolleyes:
 
Not all states have a duty to retreat. Any firearm is better than none
at all. Close up and moving, the shot gun is more forgiving for obtaining
hits. The rifle could keep any threats at a distance:rolleyes:
 
Can't go wrong with the 30-30, 12 gauge, or SKS as a truck gun. I think an AK would be great, too, but if you had to use it for self defense the jury might look at you funny if you had an AK in your truck.
-David
 
With a few slugs, if you feel the need, you can turn your shotgun into a 100 yard rifle. Just how far do you think you're going to have to shoot, anyway? For any sort of urban, suburban defense, the shotgun every time for me over and above any rifle. I usually just have a pocket handgun on me, though.
 
It's no surprise at all that self-serving LEO organizations and rabid prosecutors want the ridiculous "duty to retreat" forced upon law-abiding citizens, and no surprise at all that they rush to raise the imaginary boogey-man about all the supposed mayhem that will supposedly occur from allowing citizens to defend themselves and others with the use of deadly force, even though Real Life proves that thoroughly false.
That dangerous Gestapo doctrine not is not only a form of job security for LEOs and rabid prosecutors but also fits well with the "We are God" personalities so common among them.
More and more the abundant and increasing newspaper accounts of LEO aggression is convincing me the American Public should demand that police not be allowed to carry any form of lethal weapon except in cases where a specific warrent for arrest has already been issued.

Local opinion(s) may vary, of course. :cool:
 
It's no surprise at all that self-serving LEO organizations and rabid prosecutors want the ridiculous "duty to retreat" forced upon law-abiding citizens, and no surprise at all that they rush to raise the imaginary boogey-man about all the supposed mayhem that will supposedly occur from allowing citizens to defend themselves and others with the use of deadly force, even though Real Life proves that thoroughly false.
That dangerous Gestapo doctrine not is not only a form of job security for LEOs and rabid prosecutors but also fits well with the "We are God" personalities so common among them.
More and more the abundant and increasing newspaper accounts of LEO aggression is convincing me the American Public should demand that police not be allowed to carry any form of lethal weapon except in cases where a specific warrent for arrest has already been issued.

Local opinion(s) may vary, of course
Now that's practical. Officer is on patrol. Get's a call for a rape in progress...heads straight to the crime scene...then remembers he has to go back to the station to get his gun first...and get a warrant...and then get his gun...
Maybe he can just go ask the rapist to wait with the woman until he gets back with the warrant and the gun?
Seriously, dude. You just advocated gun control...for cops.
-David (a rabid prosecutor)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Marlin 336
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
StretchNM
S
E
  • Locked
Used Marlin 336 30-30 for $199. Should I get it?
Replies
18
Views
7K
crashm1
C
R
  • Locked
PAST Recoil Shoulder Pads
Replies
9
Views
645
280shooter
2
G
  • Locked
Whats a good use for a Mini-14?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
ErikO
E
R
  • Locked
Glenfield Model 30 Golden 50
Replies
10
Views
6K
moooose102
M
Back
Top