AK versus Shotgun versus 45ACP Carbine

[VA27]

Kindrox is right, ANY gun is better than no gun. I saw someone's sig line that read, 'Better is the enemy of good enough", and that fits this situation. Almost anything between a High Point Carbine and a Benelli S90 will work. Pick what you like that you can afford, get extra magazines if needed and several hundred rounds that work. You can 'upgrade' later, if the urge hits you.

 

[JWarren]

One great thing about THR is that you DON'T see very much "Fanboy-ism" here. I routinely see and talk to people who prefer the AR platform, the FAL, the G3, the AK, the... you name it.

I notice that people comment on what they have experience with and do very little "attacking" of other's choices. For instance... I have never even held a High Point carbine. You proabably shouldn't put too much stock into anything I could say about them.

I'm proud to be part of an on-line community such as this.



-- John

 

[strat81]

Not sure about your area, but shotgun ammo is VERY available here. I've even seen gas stations that sell it during hunting season. You also have the option of shot and slugs. I'd hate to be searching for x39 ammo in a SHTF situation. 12ga ammo is everywhere.

I wouldn't even bother with the .45 carbine.

ETA: Shotguns are also very media-friendly. AKs aren't, and neither are carbines that look evil. If your shotgun has wood furniture, you can say "it's my duck gun." Being PC can go a long way in Katrina situation.

 

[OrvilleYertleson]

If you are not worried about distances past about 40 yards, then I personally would go with a good shotgun. A mossberg 500 will probably fit the bill just fine.

The AK has more range, but it's control features are horrible. It is also a lot less 'handy' than a carbine or shotgun.

The carbine would be a step up over a pistol, but a small one. You would still have all the same limitations of a pistol caliber, with only a marginal increase in effectiveness (in my opinion) and range.

The shotgun is a big step up over the carbine in effectiveness, is simple and reliable, and won't raise any eyebrows (more than being armed by itself would, anyways).

 

[JWarren]

I'd hate to be searching for x39 ammo in a SHTF situation.

You won't be.


The first POWERFUL lesson I learned in Katrina is that the first thing the authorities did was temporarily ban the sell of all firearms AND ammunition.


I've said this on a few threads, and it probably bears repeating. If you need to get ammunition during an emergency, its already too late. I personally favor the principle of reducing the number of calibers you have to feed and then stack the ammunition as deeply as you can afford.

In my household, I have limited myself to 7.62x39, .308, 12 guage, .22 rimfire, 9mm, and .45ACP. Ok, I could have done better, but you get the idea. I'll probably be tossing a .223 Saiga into the mix as well. I don't know if I'll stack the ammo as deeply for it-- since I would be getting it for a common caliber with our LEO and military. I normally don't have .223 in my overall planning model, but with a Saiga .223 at around $250, why not have one in the safe? I'd probably pass if I had to invest AR kind of money into getting one.


-- John

 

[JWarren]

The only thing about the "handgun vs. long gun" thing is that I *personlly* feel that you should have both. Long guns, whether they be carbines or shotguns, have their place and purpose. Their limitations are as follows:

- They are likely to scare the hell out of people if you have to go into town for anything. You WILL have to go into public eventually.

- Not very concealable.

- Impossible to work while keeping one near enough to actually use it.

A lot of us think we will just be sitting around watching the treeline for looters. We won't be. Likely, you have a LOT of work to do. You will be getting that tree out of your Master Bedroom. You'll be setting up water distribution. You'll be cutting out to even be able to leave your home.

When you are doing that, you will most likely have your long gun in a vehicle or leaning against a tree or such. As you work, you will meander further and further from where the firearm is left. It will be unattended and you cannot be assured that 1.) a kid doesn't shoot himself with it, or 2.) it will be there when you get back, or 3.) you will be able to get to it when/if you need it.


Even though I had an AK available to me during our 8 week aftermath of Katrina, it really only stayed in the Jeep-- or it was secured away from my neice and nephew at the house. When I went into public, I made sure that it was handy in the Jeep.

However... when I was working throughout the day-- or when I had to go into public, I had a Glock 19 on me. In public it was easy to conceal in an IWB holster as to avoid any undue concern or attention. When working, it never got in my way while carrying on my belt in a cheap nylon Uncle Mike's holster.

And it was with me if I needed it. I figure that I carried it 95% of the time. I was nowhere near that percentage with the AK. You simply have too much to do in a SHTF like Katrina to keep up with a long gun.


If I were on a tight budget, I'd rather get a cheap AK and a Rock Island 1911A1. Its entirely possible to get that setup for the $650-ish range. It would be alot better than just spending $600 on a long gun or on a handgun alone.


That's just my take on it.


-- John

 

[Zundfolge]

AK versus Shotgun?

Why not an AK Shotgun?

 

[Kindrox]

Amen to what J said. Shft is not going to be the gaza strip, where we all mill around with rifles slung over our shoulders. Shft is going to be work 23.6 hours of the day, and maybe a little defending every once in a while. So pick something you can have real close.

 

[VARifleman]

There's also the Mech-Tech .45 ACP carbine if you have a glock 20 or 21, or 1911 around...

http://www.popguns.com/mech_tech.htm

 

[geekWithA.45]

Even out of a carbine, the max effective range of .45acp is about 80, 100 yards. While the carbine form factor makes obtaining hits at that range easier than with a handgun, it really presents you with no additional capability.

So, scratch the .45 acp carbine.

The shotgun will provide you with the maximimum firepower possible, within 30 to 50 yards. This is a good thing.

The AK will provide you with greater than pistol, somewhat less than shotgun firepower out to 300 yards.

As you can see, each has its place and purpose, and having all 3 at your disposal is not a bad idea.

My personal preference is biased against shotguns, and so I tend towards riflery for all my ranged needs.

The thing to remember though, is that rifle ranged engagements really are a stretch. The circumstances under which you could convince the law that you really were under immediate threat of life and limb, and therefore needed to open fire while they were hundreds of yards away are few and far between.

 

[Stretchman]

+1 re above.

How many of us are going to be engaging people at football field distances? Anything close in, you are definitely going to want the power of a shotgun. Be it a predator of any kind, even feral dogs, or rabid coons, or anything else, including snakes. Shotty means that your odds of survival are greater.

Pucker factor for everyone else is way down. At about .50 a round, it is easy to procure, and you can have different types of rounds. If you have to use it to stop an attack, odds are at home defense ranges you will have the upper hand. Guns themselves can be had for under 300 bux. They are highly reliable. revolver for backup can be had for about 300 bucks. .357 Magnum, or 44. If you have the money, an autoloader, like a Glock, is very good too.

Remember, the gun is a last resort weapon. Hiding, or lots of people detering an incursion are always the safest bet. More people, more guns, means less trouble. Count on your neighbors if you can.

 

[Ala Dan]

"Short barrel shotgun"

Stoked it with #4 buckshot, and never have any worries~! Overall the
shotgun is best against multiple assailants at close range.

 

[Gord]

The thing to remember though, is that rifle ranged engagements really are a stretch. The circumstances under which you could convince the law that you really were under immediate threat of life and limb, and therefore needed to open fire while they were hundreds of yards away are few and far between.

This is why I recommend shotgun vs. rifle every time in the "which gun for self-defense?" threads - and I constantly wonder why people recommend the rifle instead, based on its distance-shooting merits in some imaginary SHTF scenario.

As geek and Stretch note above, I can't think of a single lawful excuse for engaging someone in excess of 100 yards unless you happen to be stuck on a vast plain somewhere, with no cover whatsoever, and you're already being shot at - otherwise, run-and-find-cover should be a pretty simple thing at that distance and in an urban environment. If you are pursued, that's the time to hole up and get out the shotgun.

Even assuming one needs the ability to engage at range for whatever reason, most all slug manufacturers tout 5-shot groups of 2 1/2" at 100 yards. If five 12-gauge slugs into COM (we can't all jack our shotguns into vices for the advertised-accuracy headshot, after all) doesn't put down whatever you're shooting at, you should be spending less time shooting and more time running like heck anyway.

So stripping away the rifle's "advantage" of a 300-yard range, you're left with overpenetration issues, and as the OP mentioned, he lives in a very tightly-packed neighborhood. Rifle rounds going through a house or two probably isn't the most desireable side effect of a self-defense shooting.

With regards to magazine capacity, a 00 buckshot round has nine pellets which are (by diameter) approximately equal to a .32-caliber bullet; even a four-round tube gives you 36 projectiles - with one in the chamber, 45. The "defensive" configurations with extended mag tubes (Remington's are 7+1 standard, Mossberg's are 8+1) make available lots and lots of lead with which to discourage BGs. Why capacity is such an issue with shotguns while yet so many are perfectly happy with their trusty single-stack 1911s is beyond me.

The only scenario I can think of where I would prefer a rifle to a shotgun is the presence of body armor, another not-so-likely thing. If you're really worried about that factor, a CZ-52 already fits the criteria of cheap and reliable, with hot surplus ammo going for about ten cents a round. Same penetrative abilities, less weight and bulk than a rifle.

As far as I can see, the game goes to the shotgun.

 

[Hook686]

Quote:
I'd hate to be searching for X ammo in a SHTF situation.


You won't be.


The first POWERFUL lesson I learned in Katrina is that the first thing the authorities did was temporarily ban the sell of all firearms AND ammunition.


I've said this on a few threads, and it probably bears repeating. If you need to get ammunition during an emergency, its already too late. I personally favor the principle of reducing the number of calibers you have to feed and then stack the ammunition as deeply as you can afford.

In my household, I have limited myself to 7.62x39, .308, 12 guage, .22 rimfire, 9mm, and .45ACP. Ok, I could have done better, but you get the idea. I'll probably be tossing a .223 Saiga into the mix as well. I don't know if I'll stack the ammo as deeply for it-- since I would be getting it for a common caliber with our LEO and military. I normally don't have .223 in my overall planning model, but with a Saiga .223 at around $250, why not have one in the safe? I'd probably pass if I had to invest AR kind of money into getting one.


-- John
__________________
"My name is a killing word."

-------------------


Saiga AK discussion: http://forum.saiga-12.com/
SHTF and Zombie Hoardes: http://zombiehunters.org


JWarren
View Public Profile
Send a private message to JWarren
Find More Posts by JWarren
Add JWarren to Your Buddy List

Yesterday, 08:49 PM #31
JWarren
Senior Member



Join Date: 01-05-07
Location: MS and LA
Posts: 1,649 The only thing about the "handgun vs. long gun" thing is that I *personlly* feel that you should have both. Long guns, whether they be carbines or shotguns, have their place and purpose. Their limitations are as follows:

- They are likely to scare the hell out of people if you have to go into town for anything. You WILL have to go into public eventually.

- Not very concealable.

- Impossible to work while keeping one near enough to actually use it.

A lot of us think we will just be sitting around watching the treeline for looters. We won't be. Likely, you have a LOT of work to do. You will be getting that tree out of your Master Bedroom. You'll be setting up water distribution. You'll be cutting out to even be able to leave your home.

When you are doing that, you will most likely have your long gun in a vehicle or leaning against a tree or such. As you work, you will meander further and further from where the firearm is left. It will be unattended and you cannot be assured that 1.) a kid doesn't shoot himself with it, or 2.) it will be there when you get back, or 3.) you will be able to get to it when/if you need it.


Even though I had an AK available to me during our 8 week aftermath of Katrina, it really only stayed in the Jeep-- or it was secured away from my niece and nephew at the house. When I went into public, I made sure that it was handy in the Jeep.

However... when I was working throughout the day-- or when I had to go into public, I had a Glock 19 on me. In public it was easy to conceal in an IWB holster as to avoid any undue concern or attention. When working, it never got in my way while carrying on my belt in a cheap nylon Uncle Mike's holster.

And it was with me if I needed it. I figure that I carried it 95% of the time. I was nowhere near that percentage with the AK. You simply have too much to do in a SHTF like Katrina to keep up with a long gun.


If I were on a tight budget, I'd rather get a cheap AK and a Rock Island 1911A1. Its entirely possible to get that setup for the $650-ish range. It would be alot better than just spending $600 on a long gun or on a handgun alone.


That's just my take on it.


-- John

I really agree with this. I have a Marlin 1894SS in .44 magnum and a S&W 629 in .44 magnum. I also have a Remington 1100, 12 Gage. I have a bag of .44 magnums, as a 'Bug Out Bag', and a bag of 12 Gage slugs/buckshot. Guess which bag is bigger and heavier in a Bug Out situation ?

I figure the shotgun is good for defending the home front, but if I need leave the castle, the shotgun will stay behind. Personally, since you already have the pistol in .45acp, I go for the .45acp carbine, as the more versatile choice. I'd the begin saving for a used 12 Gage pump gun + shells.

 

[Chris B]

not to take the thread on a tangent but...

It's a moot question; when the next hurricane hits, Uncle Sugar will just take your guns from you.

Didn't we see a bill passed some what soon after Katrina barring any local govt' from confiscating firearms in a crisis situation? Do we just not have any faith in it or am I making it all up?

 

[foghornl]

One Word:

Mossberg500Series

Due to the closeness of other homes, I vote for the shotgun. After the Springfield 1911-A1, next up in my HomeLand Security Plan is the Maverick 88 with the 18-1/2" barrel, and Mossberg 500 set up for more general "Water-n-Woods" work..28" Mod choke barrel.

If I run those dry, next up is the US Rifle Cal .30 M1 . . .Popularly Known As "The Garand".

Ruger has discontinued the PC-9 & PC-40 carbines, don't remember them ever releasing a .45ACP carbine. Hi-Point hasn't released their .45ACP carbine yet, but I'm gonna get one of those. Wish I hadn't sold my Marlin Camp Carbine .45ACP in a moment of foolishness many years back.

 

[JWarren]

Didn't we see a bill passed some what soon after Katrina barring any local govt' from confiscating firearms in a crisis situation? Do we just not have any faith in it or am I making it all up?

The problem with that line of thinking is that there were ALREADY laws preventing what was done. After the confiscations, it was determined by the courts that the confiscations were illegal and a violation of the Bill of Rights.


So, there WERE laws "protecting" us prior to Katrina-- and yet, those did not prevent the confiscations.

And now we have new laws written to do the same. Considering the madness in the aftermath of Katrina, I suspect that those laws will be equally effective.

Oh sure, I can always seek legal remedies and the courts will rule that an action was illegal. But none of that prevents the actual confiscation from occuring in a time where you truly NEED all the tools you can.


As I figure it, they knew it was illegal from the git-go and it was a calculated risk that they wouldn't receive too much fallout from it. Remember, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

So to answer the question... I suppose I don't have a lot of faith that the law will protect me DURING an emergency. It would only pave the way for the MASSIVE lawsuit I'll be filing afterwards.


-- John

 

[mjrodney]

Yup. A bill was passed both at the Federal level and at the Florida level that would make confiscation after a disaster an unlawful act.

In any case, thanks to all for replying.

One thing is certain, there would be one of my .45's hanging off my hip should a disaster situation occur.......but I believe my pursuit of a long gun is probably more for the "intimidating look" it would bring to those who would otherwise glance my way with looting in mind.

Either an AK or a Shotgun would do that, and Mr. Decisive here will likely end up with both.

(Oh for mercy sakes. Now which one do I get first?)

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I've been through a couple of disasters, hurricane related.

I have to agree with JWarren's assessment:

I've said this on a few threads, and it probably bears repeating. If you need to get ammunition during an emergency, its already too late. I personally favor the principle of reducing the number of calibers you have to feed and then stack the ammunition as deeply as you can afford.

It may be illegal to confiscate, but that don't mean they can't freeze ammo sales.

and:

But do not forget that likely your handgun will be with you FAR more than any long arm. I learned that from experience. For Natural Disaster planning-- on the lines of Katrina-- a good handgun and a good long gun will get you through in terms of firearms.


And get one of those BIG-sized Swiss Army Knives. You'll thank yourself for it. Mine weights like 14 pounds-- but I used it a LOT during Katrina.

There really is a lot to do after a disaster. It isn't just you holding down the fort like Jose Wales. You're cutting trees out of your roof, or your neighbors. You're getting in touch with family and letting them know you're okay, or that the worst has happened. You're preparing food, and finding water sources.
And, of course, your neighbors will need help too.

Holing up inside your house with a shotgun is really more fiction than anything, for most hurricane survivors. And, chances are, you may have to face down one or two people, but won't need stack of ammo to repel protracted assaults of people who want your TV or food.

I'd say that any of these choices are good, but given that the OP has said he lives elbow to elbow, I'd go with the shotgun or the carbine. The Carbine might match your handgun and may make a better choice since you'd only need one type of ammo, and it would also have less penetration.

 

[outofbattery]

I have 3 Mossberg 500's-the most expensive of which was $150.For virtually all disaster scenarios outside of "Hurricane makes former sniper go off his rocker", a 12 gauge pump will do nicely in terms of range,accuracy,and capacity.
I'm not saying it can't happen but the packs of dozens of heavily armed thugs a la Death Wish movies have rarely manifested in non-Hollywood America -even in NOLA.A tricked out M-4 and chest rig with a dozen mags might impress the neighbors,but wearing it all day waiting for the FEMA man might make one a little even more stinky.

 

[ROMAK IV]

Let me explian again. Weapons choice is based on a number of factors, including budget and even personal preference. My advocation of the rifle is a matter of capability and dealing with uncertainty. For most situations, a 45 automatic pistol in fine, even in a disaster situation. It is the possible needs that a rifle can fullfill for the reason of geting one. A rifle is an asset because of its longer range and penetration. In the DFW, Texas area, we recently had a crime spree. What would happen is, the criminals would steal a large SUV, like a Suburban and use it to both penetrate and haul off the goods. It happend to several convenience stores, but it also happened to a well known gun store. That isn't to say every disaster will bring killer SUV's as a threat, but which would be easier? Putting a hole in a radiator at 300 yards with a rifle or trying to stop one at 50 with a pistol or shotgun? If you are inclined to fire a warning shot, the same applies, do you want people to steer away at several hundred yards, or at 50? Of course, if you are not proficient with a rifle, or unwilling or unable to do so, but something else. Personally again, I would have a rifle in at least 308 power, and would have a pistol as backup. It should have gone without saying that you have a supply of ammunition before hand that is consistant with what firearm(s) you own. Having calibers consistant with law enforcement and the military for the purposes of resupply, is a bit preposterous. If you have to resupply off of dead police of beg the military for ammunition, I think you will have problems. It wouldn't hurt either, to have a temporary supply of food and water, and other supplies consistant with the needs of the most likely disaster. Have an evacuation route planned, if need be. And, it may sound paranoid, but I think it would be a good idea to pre-arrang plans with neighbors and friends, for the possibility of a disaster. A sharing of resources as well as responsibilities could make any disaster easier to live through, plus it's a good way to meet your neighbors.

 

[JKimball]

+1 on the "Duck Gun"

Everybody should have a shotgun.

 

[PAshooter]

Yup. A bill was passed both at the Federal level and at the Florida level that would make confiscation after a disaster an unlawful act.

Just to play devil's advocate... the supreme law of the land was the Constitution, last time I checked. Not to stir up controversy here (or post something that ought to be in L&P) but if an act was performed in NO that was already unconstitutional, do we really think a paltry federal law will stand in the way next time?

 

[KC&97TA]

$320 on a Remington 870 18" barrel, add a tube extention for a few bucks, the 870 remmy and mossy 500 are a bullet proof, battle proven design and CHEAP.

Personally the AR-15 with a good stock pile of NATO M885 SS109 and quality mags, military green tip will penetrate a level 3 vest, never know who will come knocking or what they'll be wearing when the SHTF. After the whole Katrina after math... I don't think this is crazy to consider haveing to punch through body armor.

Personally, not to flame anyone; AR's don't look as "thug" as AK's do.

 

[Kindrox]

Romak,

Just how are you going to know that the SUV 900 feet away is coming to ram you? I think you are going to be lucky to have 50 feet of warning, if you even see it coming.

And to see it coming means I guess that you are just sitting around, on guard 24 hours a day. Um ok, if the above situations describe a defensive play you can make, keep your 308 at the ready. Frankly if an SUV was bearing down at my house and I had 50 feet of notice, I would want my 30 rounds of 45ACP.