AK versus Shotgun versus 45ACP Carbine

[Fletchette]

Tactical Ninja said:

You cannot legally fire upon a fleeing vehicle or person. They have broken off the engagement, and by firing after them you have initiated an assault yourself. If you wound or kill them you open yourself to legal consequences ranging from being sued in civil court to being tried for murder or manslaughter.

True in the vast, vast majority of case law, but I think I do remember someone firing on kidnappers fleeing the scene (at cars tires) and it was deemed defense of the child.

 

[Fletchette]

goon said:

Also, if you decide you don't need to take life, there is the option of putting a load of #8 into the brick wall or old chevy that the BG is hiding behind. I would imagine that a load of shot hammering into what I was hiding behind would convince me to move on but the small shot size would mean no penetration and therefore, no legal mess to clean up later. Definitely not wise in all circumstances but it does give you the choice at least.

Shotguns can also fire rubber shot, flares and all sorts of options that are often not considered.

 

[Gord]

True in the vast, vast majority of case law, but I think I do remember someone firing on kidnappers fleeing the scene (at cars tires) and it was deemed defense of the child.

A one-in-a-million ruling, to be sure - and yikes, I wouldn't want to be the guy shooting at a car with a kid in it.

Shotguns can also fire rubber shot, flares and all sorts of options that are often not considered.

Don't forget pepper spray rounds. Flares could indeed be useful during a disaster.

 

[ROMAK IV]

I lumped you in with antigunners when you assume that I'm using my rifle to necessarily kill people, and to necessarily kill at a distance. I don't see the reason you are arguing. In certain areas, especially the South, a generator could be essential for the survival of elderly and young children. Someone flles in a vehicle, and you are far more likely to be able to disable it with a rifle. So what would you do if looters stole esential equipment? Wait for help? Calmly watch your familiy die? If you have to wave the legal ramifications of every action, that isn't a good place to be. So, what if a mob of people comes to take your food, and ignore your warnings, are you going to let them do it? Call the police? How? So they surrender instead of leaving, how will you restrain them, How will you apprehend them? Live in a city? Can you stay there? The original question did involve a self-defense siutation, but with conditions implied of a possible disaster setting.

You also failed to mention or deflect, being assaulted by rifle wielding attackers. Certainly you wouldn't want to use a shotgun or a pistol caliber carbine in that situation?

You sure go to alot of trouble to dismiss, all the possible scenarios, and things that could go wrong. Some of us do live in rural or semirural areas. Some of us do have special circumstances that would require a need for certain essentials. And no, I don't plan or envision combat manuevers in the event of a disaster, I just don't want to be caught without the proper firearm to deal with all possibilities. I don't want to have to worry about all the possible legalities. If you have to shoot anyone, you are going to be put through hostile legal proceedings anyway, no matter how justified. It is best to avoid conflict and lay low during a disaster, but sometimes that isn't possible. I'm willing to do that for the safety of my family. Imagine living in a place where simple self defense isn't even possible. I'm also a Christian, and it is immoral to commit murder or shoot people without cause. The same arguments are used by antigun people claiming, "you don't need this" or you can't use that". I bought a Saiga 12, and i hear the same things, like, the shotgun looks threatening or you don't need 10 shells. Thing is, you don't really know what you need until you don't have it.

 

[Gord]

I lumped you in with antigunners when you assume that I'm using my rifle to necessarily kill people, and to necessarily kill at a distance. I don't see the reason you are arguing.

Because this is precisely the reason you are presenting the alleged need for a rifle:

Sometimes you need to shoot at things beyond 300 yards

Shooting rabid or wild dogs a distance.

wouldn't it be prudent, if you have a decent rifle, to disengage and reengage at 2 or 300 yards

If you don't intend to kill, why are you using deadly force?
What, besides another human with a gun, is a threat at 300 yards?

In certain areas, especially the South, a generator could be essential for the survival of elderly and young children.

I can't think of how, unless it's used to run medical equipment. Water can be boiled over a fire instead of machine-filtered, shade and hand-fanning can cool you down instead of AC, and so on. If you can think of something I've overlooked that would truly be a life-or-death difference, let me know - I'm just not seeing any myself.

If you have to wave the legal ramifications of every action, that isn't a good place to be.

It's called The High Road for a reason. From the General Discussions sticky:

With that in mind, make sure that remedy of shooting anyone is only considered if all other legal options are exhausted.

While this does not apply so much in a disaster situation ("yeah, hi, 911, I'm in the middle of three tornadoes and a lake made of lava and some guy just stole my last two cases of water, think you could get a deputy out to take a report?") it's also not a convenient excuse for disregarding deadly force law.

While I have already mentioned that

such things are (when it comes down to it) personal decisions

it is just silliness to throw the law completely to the wind. Shoot/no shoot in a disaster situation is a very subjective thing, I'm sure, but you can't possibly think that when it's all over and order is restored you'll be A-OK and not scrutinized for your actions. Ergo you should think said actions through accordingly.

You've also failed to address any of my numerous previous questions and haven't made any clearer case for the rifle in your last post. Example:

You also failed to mention or deflect, being assaulted by rifle wielding attackers. Certainly you wouldn't want to use a shotgun or a pistol caliber carbine in that situation?

I thought I already covered this three or so times. If you are being attacked at "rifle ranges" (i.e., 100+ yards) your first order of business should be getting to effective cover - same idea as driving off vs. drawing down when presented with a "situation" while you are in a car with a clear lane of traffic ahead. If the jury feels that you could have reasonably de-escalated and escaped the situation but chose not to do so you will probably be the Bad Guy. Some states also have a "duty to retreat" clause in their deadly-force laws.

If you are being attacked at close range, anything will work - I'll take the shotgun, you may feel free to use your rifle.

You sure go to alot of trouble to dismiss, all the possible scenarios, and things that could go wrong.

You mistake debate for argument. I'm here just as much to broaden my own views as to put them forth (see Soybomb's discourse on short-range rifle ballistics) - any lack of effective rebuttal on your part isn't my fault.

I debate based on logic for the purpose of learning and helping others learn. I do not have a "favorite" or "pet" gun brand, or type, or anything else - simply an opinion as to what will get Job X done most efficiently. You are welcome to differ in your opinion and to do what you feel is best, using what you feel is best. I am not trying to tell you what is "right" for you - just seeking the logic behind your choices. We grow and become more knowledgeable through others' dissections of our views, whether we then choose to change those views or not.

 

[sixgunner455]

Rifle caliber carbine>shotgun for protecting self.

Less recoil=quicker follow-up shots, much more ammo in the gun, lighter and more compact for better maneuverability.

Yes, I know that 8 rounds of 00 buck holds, what? 9x8=72 .30 caliber round balls in it. So? All 72 of them are in 8 shells, and they recoil hard. That is 8 shots.

Contrast with a 5.56mm carbine, with 20 or 30 shots of very effective softpoints.

YMMV, but I'll take my AR. I want the gun I'm most used to, most comfortable with. The one I slept with for a year in the desert, honestly. The one I can hit from here to way over yonder equally well with.

 

[Gord]

I want the gun I'm most used to, most comfortable with.

The "best" gun is the one you are most comfortable using. If that happens to be a Kel-Tec .32, so be it. "Software, not hardware."

 

[madcratebuilder]

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.

I have to agree, my 870 well cover everything out to 100 yards. I do have the AR for backup in case those crazed bikers show up, oh.... wait, it's my friends.

 

[one-shot-one]

$0.02

if you're sure that you're staying put 18" pump shotgun good defense, loads for different game/defense
if you're sure that you're leaving ak47 range with power and large cap mags.
if you're not sure then the .45 carbine might be a good choice, range past that of shottie and compact ammo that will fit your pistol.

 

[Kindrox]

I just don't understand how a person comes to the mindset is that come the next shft, everybody better start looking at tagging SUVs/people at 300 yards. It's absolutly crazy. Just because this is an internet forum does not mean you can be crazy here.

If you go poping off people when you don't know who they are or what they are doing, unless you are some bog farmer really out in the sticks, I don't think you will survive shft.

If my 32 45ACP rounds all bounce off the windsheild, I guess we have a new answer to all the "how can I bullet proof my XYZ". Simple, just hang windshields.

I'll just go ahead and say it. I believe city folks would be better served, collectivly, by a 9mm MP5 than a .308.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I believe city folks would be better served, collectivly, by a 9mm MP5 than a .308.

The feds in their infinite widsom put that option out of reach for anybody that doesn't have $18,000 to blow.
It's unlikely you'll need to use a weapon in defense, and even more unlikely it'll be at more than 25 yards. However, if someone is shooting at you from a distance greater than you can effectively hit, or aren't going down from the hits on them you do manage, something with a little more reach and punch would give you more options than ducking and praying.

 

[goon]

I think you might be right about the MP-5 theory (with the exception that there is too much BS in owning one).
But there isn't really any BS in getting a semiauto UZI or other 9mm carbine, or finding an old Marlin Camp Carbine, or buying a Marlin 1894, all of which would do about the same thing.

The thing about full power rifles is that they will shoot through stuff or hit stuff way out there, if you NEED to. Its true that you might not need to and that you probably won't need to. But you can cancel out the penetration issue by using different ammo and then still have all the potential of your black rifle by just switching a magazine. They also hold more rounds. A 12 gauge slug and a 7.62 Nato will both probably punch through a cinderblock wall without any isses but you are going to have 20 with the rifle instead of 5-8 with the 12 gauge.
So if you are educated and choose your ammo wisely, why not have the extra capability?
Why does it always come down to "need"? Realistically, you could probably defend yourself with a single barrel shotgun if you had to. But that doesn't mean you wouldn't feel a whole lot more comfortable with 7 extra shots in case something went wrong.
Just because you can shoot that far doesn't mean that you will automatically become a deranged psycho and start sniping at your neighbors every time they go out to feed their pets.

For me, the shotgun is great. It is reliable, versatile, and cheap enough I can use the crap out of it and not feel guilty. And if it gets damaged its not too expensive to replace.
But if you like a Garand or M1A, more power to you. I have even been considering setting up a 30-30 Marlin as a pseudo-scout type rifle just because of how handy and useful a lever action carbine is, and I would stick with the 30-30 just because of the extra range, power, and penetration (basically just because its a "rifle" round).
As long as you are using good expanding ammo and being careful about where you shoot (and you really have to do that anyhow), I don't see the problem.

 

[REOIV]

Look at it this way:

A cheapie AK (WASR 10) is about 350.

vs

1 SKS (150 to 160)
1 Remington 870 (150 to 170 used 220 new)

Meaning:

For the price of one AK you could have both a shotgun and an SKS which is as reliable and tough as the AK.

Plus you don't have to worry about either, if they get confiscated, destroyed, gummed up etc.

OR

spend $430 and get an AK Shotgun the Saiga 12.

Best of both worlds, looks like an AK but shoots shotgun shells and has a 20 round drum.

Depends on your budget and what you really want to do with it.

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

AK.

Per round cost = or <the cost of .45 ammo.

Weapon cost likely less than the .45 carbine.


More versatile in combat conditions than a shotgun. My AK will print 2moa from the sitting position... thats plenty to engage rifle-armed badguys from 200yds out. I've been told not to count on slugs past 100yds... not to mention I think rifle rounds would bust cover better than slugs... but assault rifle calibers aren't great for that either.

 

[Kindrox]

You also failed to mention or deflect, being assaulted by rifle wielding attackers. Certainly you wouldn't want to use a shotgun or a pistol caliber carbine in that situation?

By rifle I am assuming you mean someone else with a 308, attempting to engage me at 300 yards. Most likely I am in one of two situations. I am on the road, or I am at or in a residence.

If I am in a car/driving my weapon initially will be pointless. I cannot do much to someone 300 yards away while I am in a moving car, except drive off. Lets say the attacker disables the car, and I get to cover. Ok now a rifle my come in handy, or not. 300 yards in the city is a lot of distance for me to E and E. In any case it took two implausible events (getting shot at from long range, and then actually getting out of the car in good condition) to get to where a rifle might do me more benefit than another weapon.

If I am in a residence (which does not apply to me, you cannot see my house from 300 yards) I cannot say a .308 won’t be useful, but again the situation seems far fetched compared to the defensive use of firearms experienced time and time again back in reality.

 

[Kindrox]

You and Goon are correct, which is why I don't own a MP5. But I pointed it out to show how a light, compact, maneuverable 9mm carbine would serve city people better than a .308.

People like to bring up being outranged and oh my gosh what will you do when that happens, and forget they could be outmaneuvered by someone not weighted down by a heavy .308. God forbid I ever get into such a situation, but if I do I am not going to stay in one situation and duke it out, my training has taught me to MOVE and I don’t want to be weighed down either.

The real question for city folks is not to .308 or shotgun, but to ak/ar/shotgun/carbine. And again I would say you can make all of them work effectively.

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

so much and many 'ifs' in the question. I suppose several here (and maybe many) have all three of the choices. since you already have .45 cal pistol a carbine in that chambering is 'icing on the cake' and a couple-three 10 round mags gives ya some firepower if faced with a gang.
maybe you should look around for a like-minded neighbor who is willing to buddy up and tote a scattergun and/or SKS either way you both win big.

 

[goon]

I don't really know that you can discount a .308 just on the basis of weight alone. For one, it depends a whole lot on the particular .308. Too heavy for me (I'm a little out of shape) may not be too heavy for you.
Ammo does weigh more buy you don't have to carry enough to have a prolonged fire-fight. Remember, we're not soldiers (not in this case anyhow), we're just guys who want to be able to get ourselves and our loved ones through rough situations. So if you can carry 100 rounds for your AK, you can carry that much for a FAL too.
And yes, a FAL does weigh a few more pounds but so what? It is a little less maneuverable but anyone who would voluntarily choose to fight CQB with anything is just asking to get shot full of holes. But if that does happen, a full sized battle rifle does give something up to a carbine or shotgun, especially an M-4 (in my experience they just handle really quickly) or lever action.
And for penetration, you can't really choose one over the others either. Think about it:
Can you imagine yourself ever saying "Gee, this is only buck shot and not a .50 BMG round, so I can use that mobile home for a backstop." or "Gee, this is only a 5.56mm and not a 7.62x51 so I can depend on that doublewide to stop all of my lighter 55 grain bullets without posing a threat to any occupants."
I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that. Remember, if you are there just trying to keep your family in toilet paper and powdered milk, your neighbor might be doing that too. Could you really risk using his home to stop your bullets? I don't think that caliber matters a whole lot on this one because most calibers, even a .22LR, will penetrate too much to really risk it. So it still comes back to choosing your shots carefully.
It really is an individual choice. Like anything else, shoot as many as you can (this may mean OWN as many as you can) pick what you like best, and learn to use it as well as you can afford.
I would feel OK with an SKS, FAL, AR, AK, Winchester 94, Marlin, etc...
Doesn't really make a huge difference as long as you can use it well.

 

[Kindrox]

I am just pointing out that even in the very unlikely event I have to go against determined criminals with .308’s, I don’t have to die just because I don’t pack one myself.

I’m tired of the .308/50 club tossing out implausible situation stacked on implausible situation and drawing the conclusion that your dead meat if you don’t have the .308/50.

Well I don’t have to have a .308/50 to survive. If for weird twist of fate I find myself in your made-for-.308 scenario, I am pointing out that I have options, I can adapt and thrive on alternatives.

I am not a WWII expert, but it was my understanding that the 45acp grease gun was a priced possession over the Garand. And of all the elite forces around the world, who can carry whatever they want, just how many are carrying the .308/50?

A .308/50 might be great for you. I did not say it cannot be used. I have an M44 and the only reason I don’t have a battle rifle .308 is ammo cost and the wife won’t use it. If she would I would probably own one. But how about this crowd letting off telling everybody else that the .308/50 is best and anything else is probably going to get you killed.

 

[goon]

I don't remember what you said your choice was, but it does make sense to go with something else if you wife can't handle a .308. They aren't for everyone.
There are arguments for going with something else too, which is why most militaries in the world only use the 7.62x51 on a limited basis.
About the only way I can see anyone facing a .308 at a disadvantage at close range is in the amount of things they will shoot through. But again, if someone was peppering my hiding place with accurate fire from a 10/22, I doubt that I would be inclined to stick my head up just to tell them that they weren't able to shoot through my cover. Even at longer range, capability doesn't mean certainty. At this point I would probably be hard pressed to take advantage of the longer range because I don't get to practice enough to be that good anymore.

And at the end of the day, the 12 gauge is still the one I have access to right now. Inexpensive and reliable and it will still do the job.

 

[ROMAK IV]

IT'S A DISASTER! You have no idea what is going to happen. First, in any self defense situation, you hope to have the advantage, because even lousy shots, sometimes get lucky. It's the old: "Don't bring a knive to a gunfight thing." Handguns are important, but the primary use of you pistol is to get to your shotgun or rifle. No one is going to be carrying a rifle or shotgun all the time. Even at 100 yards, a rifle is far more accurate than a pistol. I also fail to understand some of your thinking. Are you absolutely sure you are going to be able to stay in the city? Not everyone lives in the peaceful Cul-de Sac. Can you really stay in your apartment, in Florida in July, without power? Are you sure that while traveling, you aren't going to need a rifle? As others have shown, a rifle doesn't have to be all that expensive, and a Saiga 308, isn't that heavy, even though it is a full power rifle. Women hunt with full powered rifles all the time, as does my niece, and she is quite a little thing. I never said anything like you have to get an M1-A, though semiautos are even more versatile than bolt actions. There are still $100 K-31's out there, $80 M-44's, ect. What would be a $200 investment in an M-44 and a couple hundred rounds of ammunition. Maybe you don't need it and maybe you wil never need it, but it is there, hopefully like the decent size supply of ammunition stored, just in case, for your self defense guns. I never said you had to buy one, an M-44 will wear you out if you let it, get a slip on recoil pad and use enough of your ammunition, to get familiar, and find out any potential problems. Yugo M-48's are a little more nad so is 8mm, and that rifle is about the price of lower priced K-31's, a real bargain of a rifle. The surplus ammunition is quite good, and the recoil moderate, and the PRVI Partisan brand is also excellent. Ammunition will cost more, but it's almost a match grade rifle for a surplus rifle price. Around $400, will get you the rifle and a couple of hundred rounds. An SKS is almost the same price as the K-31. he ammunition is cheaper, but a unissued SKS is going to be a bit over $200. If you buy one cheaper, make sure it works properly.

As for having to stop vehicles. 12 ga. slugs do have a reputation for being able to stop vehicles. A Saiga 12 would be better since you could load buckshot into one magazine and slugs in another. It's hard to have the right shells in a regular shotgun. How does anyone know they aren't going to need to stop a vehicle in a disaster/self defense situation.

 

[goon]

Kind of a different debate but I used to think that about handguns too. Then I got to doing some reading about the mess they had/have in Argentina. A guy does some writing about that - he goes by the name FerFal on a couple forums. Some of his writing indicates that a handgun might be the most useful gun you have. You can have a small handgun on you just about all the time but you will have to leave a rifle or shotgun behind much of the time. Even if its in a vehicle 50 yards away, it is still 50 yards away whereas your SP-101 is tucked right inside your waist band. If I could only have one gun for defensive uses, it would have to be a mid sized handgun. Terribly underpowered compared to many other weapons but the convenience of having it on you all the time is just too much to overlook. In a bad scenario it could very well become your "primary" weapon.

But I do agree about having a rifle if it is at all possible. Many milsurps are cheap and so are lever actions. I'd really rather have a semi-auto in most circumstances but I wouldn't feel at all at a disadvantage with a lever action 30-30 or an Enfield (which BTW are going for about $100 right now in 7.62Nato !). You are right that you never really know what you are going to need until you REALLY need it. You may never need the 200+ yards that a rifle gives you, but if you do you will be very glad that you have more than your Glock and a couple hi-caps.

 

[Kindrox]

Where does it stop? Maybe I need even more. What's to say I won't need to stop an airplane, or an armored vehicle, or a bulldozer. Maybe said vehicles are driven by machine gun armed former SEALS.

So I guess I better put rocket propelled grenades, mortars and mines on the must-have-for-survival list. After all it’s a disaster and anything goes and anything could happen.

Life is full of things that could happen and it is impossible to prepare for them equally. Instead one must prepare in proportion to the likelihood of the threat, the seriousness of the threat, and the alternatives that exist for mitigating the threat.

Your taking something that for most folks is not that big of a threat (relative to needing a .308 and 12 gauge and god knows what all) and turning it into something that not only is certain to happen, but is certain to happen the worst way possible and is only the man with a high powered rifle will survive.

In the real world shft may never seriously effect me. You do realize that most people do actually go there entire lives not actually needing a high powered rifle, right? What if I pass on my long term disability insurance for a few years to afford the rifle, I get injured in a car wreck and disabled, and shft never comes?

I mean really, which is really more important to the average person, long term disability insurance or a high powered rifle? Or a safer car? Or better medical coverage. Or this or that.

Some times it is good to take a step back and look at the big picture.

 

[goon]

At the very least, it gives us something gun related to talk about (again, and again, and again...)

 

[akanotken]

Strengths of each ...

I think any firearm is better than none, but here are the strengths I think of with the major platforms considered, in the order that they would be on my list if I were in your situation.

Handgun is always there. Period.

AR- M4gery. Cheaper kits can be ordered (but still $500 and up) Strength is the round, Excellent damage (stopping power) with minimal overpenetration and light recoil. Rifle means that shots are more precisely placed even at close range, double taps are cake and devistating. Round tumbling/fragmentation is a function of distance (velocity), so short bbl can perform at contact out to 100 yards. Spend money and you can get a kit with a folding bbl (slinging a full length rifle all day = unlikely). Cinch 2 mags together and you can switch to a better penetrating round if it looks to be needed. Folded shortish bbl rifle could be slung fairly well.

Saiga Shotgun. Cinch 2 mags, seat the buckshot (my preference is #4, but I'm considering #1) and keep slugs in the other mag. Now you can cut your bbl back (even go to SBS if you like) because mag length isn't an issue, and folding stocks are plentiful, so again very easy to sling on your back to improve the "always there" ability.