AR15 vs. 12 gauge shotgun for home defense

[ctdonath]

After much consideration, I'm switching my HD gun to an AR-15 SBR with silencer. Reasoning?

Shotgun:
- Large for indoor manuverability. Needs to be around 20" barrel plus action & stock for adequate capacity, which is kinda big.
- Capacity is limited. Few shotguns have enough, with (IMHO) 6 in mag being minimum. Higher capacity (8 for Mossberg 590) demands longer barrel.
- Reload time is slow. Reloading may not really be an option due to fumbling & inserting individual rounds.
- The "spread" is irrelevant indoors. Yes it spreads 1" per yard. We're talking indoor distances of 3-5 yards max, not outdoor winged game at a dozen or more yards. With a max indoor spread of 1-5", you don't get much spread.
- Shot spread, if any, diminishes effect. You're trying to stop a 6' healthy drugged/psyched hardbody male, not a duck. Any appreciable spread will degrade effectiveness dramatically.
- Loud. Very loud. While a secondary concern, I'd rather not damage/lose my hearing if possible.
- Penetration is limited. Walls and what may be beyond is of course a concern, but is much less so than making sure the target gets penetrated. Kevlar-hide perps may not be stopped.

Suppressed SBR:
- Compact. A short barreled rifle is about the same size as a comparable subgun. You're not going to get much more power in a room-friendly size.
- Capacity is considerable. A 20, 30, or even 40-round mag is compact & light - and right there. More rounds does not demand more length, and only slightly more height.
- Reloading is fast. Shove 1-2 mags in your pocket and you can reload dozens of rounds in a couple seconds.
- No spread. All that energy gets dumped where you put it. Hostage-type shots are viable. Distance is irrelevant.
- Silence (so to speak) is an option. While not cheap and not available everywhere, sticking a silencer on the end reduces the flash-bang problem. I'd rather not blow out my own ears and blind my eyes in the process, if possible.
- Penetration is assured. Penetration is one key to stopping power. Perps with Kevlar hides can still be stopped. Shooting thru cover, while strongly not recommended, is an option.

Tack on a red-dot co-witnessed sight, add a flashlight, and a short AR becomes a preferred home-defense gun.

Most of the pro-shotgun views I see tout the "scare 'em" noise and "general direction" aiming. While a shotgun is surely a formidible HD weapon, I prefer quiet precision that will penetrate and will not likely run dry.

 

[444]

That sounds like a winner to me

One point though:
"short barreled rifle is about the same size as a comparable subgun".

Very true until you add the suppressor. Then a 11.5" AR becomes a little longer than a 16" AR w/o suppressor.
No big deal, just a minor point.
This would make an excellent indoors weapon.

 

[taliv]

since we're nitpicking

Shooting thru cover, while strongly not recommended, is an option.

you mean "concealment"



seriously though, i agree with several of those points and was using the ar15 for HD instead of a shotgun, until i bought a PS90.

 

[B Easy]

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if you nail a guy with a suppressed SBR, they're gonna say that you're the type of guy who looks for trouble.

To be quite honest, I think that the suppressor is a bad idea. Even if you don't get nailed for the suppressor itself, it still just isn't as effective.

To make it useful, you're gonna want to go subsonic, which means decreased velocity (22 lr velocities) and sketchy cycling.

Versus...11.5" barrel with a nasty Noveske flash suppressor on it. It's significantly shorter, you can use full velocity ammo with it, and it'll cycle just fine.

 

[swingset]

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if you nail a guy with a suppressed SBR, they're gonna say that you're the type of guy who looks for trouble.

To be quite honest, I think that the suppressor is a bad idea. Even if you don't get nailed for the suppressor itself, it still just isn't as effective.

To make it useful, you're gonna want to go subsonic, which means decreased velocity (22 lr velocities) and sketchy cycling.

Versus...11.5" barrel with a nasty Noveske flash suppressor on it. It's significantly shorter, you can use full velocity ammo with it, and it'll cycle just fine.

You know of a single case where a gun owner was convicted or charged in an otherwise good shoot for using an SBR or suppressed gun to defend himself?

And, the suppressor isn't about remaining silent...it's about reducing the shock of a rifle indoors, where having the muzzle next to your head is very very bad. Wonder why entry teams use suppressors? It's not about going stealth. Going subsonic with a rifle caliber, especially a .223 that needs to hit high vel. to properly fragment is retarded.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

You know of a single case where a gun owner was convicted or charged in an otherwise good shoot for using an SBR or suppressed gun to defend himself?

Gary Fadden comes to mind:

Every self-defense shooting I've run across with a Class III weapon, however justified, has at the very least ended with the shooter facing a grand jury. Asked what he thinks would have happened if he'd shot Hamilton with a Remington 870 Wingmaster instead, Fadden replies with certainty, "I would have gone home that night. I've told dozens of people since, 'Do not use a Class III weapon for personal defense."

http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsgarchive.cgi?noframes;read=468242

 

[ctdonath]

Then a 11.5" AR becomes a little longer than a 16" AR w/o suppressor.

Still shorter than a suitable shotgun, and I'll be able to discuss the incident afterwards (vs. "huh? what?")

you mean "concealment"

Yes, I did.

if you nail a guy with a suppressed SBR, they're gonna say that you're the type of guy who looks for trouble.

1. No, obviously trouble found me, and it's a darn good thing I prepared. Happened IN MY HOME.
2. If they object to the suppressor, then I'll happily demo unsuppressed to the jury. Indoors. No hearing protection. 11.5" barrel. Full-power military-grade ammo. Oh, judge won't allow it for obvious reasons (severe hearing damage)? well that's exactly why I got & used it - at significant personal cost.
3. SBR probably won't bother anyone; not exactly portrayed as EEEEEVIL in society.
4. Police increasingly use such setups. Good enough for cops, good enough for me. Cops weren't there when I needed 'em, so good thing I had comparable tools.
5. Having to not once, but TWICE (2 NFA items) get a thorough fingerprints-included background check, federal permission, sheriff permission, and pay hundreds of dollars in taxes should assure anyone that I'm a proven good guy.
This issue has been kicked around a lot on NFA boards. Usual conclusion is NFA won't be a problem so long as it isn't a machinegun.

with a nasty Noveske flash suppressor on it

You tell me how bad a silencer will be, then use the term "nasty" to describe your solution?

<Fadden case>

Fadden wasn't home, and IIRC he used a machinegun.
I don't mind a grand jury, as their job is to say whether the case comes merely close to being worth a trial.

 

[Lou629]

The "spread" is irrelevant indoors. Yes it spreads 1" per yard. We're talking indoor distances of 3-5 yards max, not outdoor winged game at a dozen or more yards. With a max indoor spread of 1-5", you don't get much spread.

Sounds like more than enough to me, as opposed to a spread of what, .223? If i could only have one shot, then i think i'd rather take the one that's 1-5" wide.

 

[swingset]

Carpetbagger, Fadden's case was extraordinary, not in his home, and he remained a free man. Poorer? Yes, but he's a free man.

A good shoot is a good shoot, and if you're a Class III owner defending your home, the choice of your weapon is irrelevant. Even a zealous DA won't be able to shut the door on you for a suppressor or SBR if you're defending your life in your own home. Hasn't happened, not likely to happen any time soon.

 

[B Easy]

ctdonath, in criminal court it won't affect you.

In civil court, if you've got a scratch that *looks* like a bodycount strike, they're going to bring it up.

Civil court is a circus. Whether or not it'd weigh heavily is one thing, but the prosecution would DEFINATELY bring it up in a civil case.


Edited for non-THR comment. See Rule #2
You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer. - BR

 

[ctdonath]

They go to civil court, _I_ go to civil court. I'd have no problem suing the pants off the estate of some guy who bashes his way into my home at oh-dark-thirty and behaves in so dangerously reckless a manner that I actually have to do something horrible to him out of fear for my life - wasn't my choice, it was his. 10x whatever he (or his estate) sues me for should be enough to cover damages, emotional lifelong trauma, expenses suffered, and punative.

 

[ctdonath]

If i could only have one shot, then i think i'd rather use the one that's 1-5" wide.

Awright, let's consider HD single-shot-only scenarios.

The first that leaps to mind is: hostage. If a home invader is holding my wife as a shield, I do NOT want a variable-width load. An AR may shoot 2" below the sights, but at least I know that and can compensate to deliver a precise shot. I can't narrow the damage radius on a shotgun ("'scuze me while I swap chambered buckshot for a slug...").

Next is penetration: an invader with a Kevlar hide is presumably seriously prepared to do me extreme harm. That first shot had better penetrate - not just wind him, not just nick him, not just cause compression injury, I want high-velocity thru-and-thru. Birdshot & buckshot & fat slugs won't. Pistol rounds won't. Rifle rounds will, and one shot will likely be enough (with more to follow fast from a semi-auto).

Penetration redux: should he duck behind a wall in a still-a-threat manner, and firing thru cover is reasonable & responsible (rare), shots fired thru the cover medium should penetrate enough to do the job if he's in the line of fire. Two layers of drywall will likely render buck/birdshot ineffective, but .223 or better will probably do enough to discourage him. The odds of hitting the right location is low (and I hate blind "spray-and-pray" so it pains me to write this), so the one ball coincidentally heading in the right direction had better work.

Should the conflict move outside for some reason, buckshot effectiveness rapidly drops off with distance, birdshot even faster (with the initial premise involving shot spread, slugs aren't really an option here). For a rifle, even from a relatively anemic 11.5" barrel, effectiveness reaches well out beyond he's-not-a-threat-anymore ranges while retaining MOA accuracy.

If my lethal adversary is a clear and un-armored target in the same room, then buckshot would be preferred ... but rifle ammo will also do well.

Finally, pulling the trigger at oh-dark-thirty means enough noise & light to possibly induce discombobulation (as if going to Condition Red then wasn't enough). I can put a suppressor on a rifle, but not a shotgun; without it, you may not get much of a second shot - and when discussing one-shot HD scenarios, I want a second-shot option.

I don't mean to completely belittle the shotgun. A big messy hole will do a fine job of stopping most nocturnal invaders. 81 9mm projectiles launched in just 9 trigger pulls will discourage most rather rapidly; heck, 9 on the first shot should be enough, even if some miss. It's certainly a respectable HD tool. I'm just concerned about instant precision, adequate penetration, and going deaf/blind on the first pop.

 

[1911 guy]

I'm O.K. with both.

I'm kinda sorta alright with either one. I'm not too concerned about the spread of shot pellets because our house isn't all that big. Longest shot would be fron the front door, down the hall, to the back door. About 50 feet. Not a pinpoint weapon, but not a barn door sized pattern, either.

As far as muzzle blast indoors, I'd call it a draw. Either one will make your ears ring. I was in a situation where several .223's were going off at the same time in an enclosed space. Lot's of rounds in a few seconds and the sound actually made me feel ill. Went away about 5 or 10 mins. later.

 

[wixedmords]

It would be a little closer with an AR pistol, but not by much. The .223 or 5.56 also has pretty heavy penetration, likely unusable in a home defense scenerio. It would somewhat depend on if you lived alone or had family. Only you would know how your place is layed out.

The 12 guage is a great defensive weapon.

 

[jason10mm]

That box o truth test was interesting. Certianly seems to contradict the FBI tests. But even so, all it shows is that 5.56 and buckshot BOTH penetrate 4 sheets of drywall. So what would you rather have, ONE round of 5.56 go through a wall, or NINE pellets? Seems like the shotgun gives a MUCH greater chance of injuring folks since there are more projectile to account for. Obvioulsy if the bad guy is in close the pellets won't have time to spread, but if you miss those things are going to go everywhere.

And birdshot WILL penetrate the torso and go clear through to the spine, ricochet and end up all over the chest and abdominal cavities. Granted, it was a near contact shot and the pellets were still clumped, but to say that birdshot will just leave a flesh wound with no qualifiers is distracting. At a few meters it will still work well. Cheney's buddy is living proof that at distance birdshot looses its oomph, but from 6 feet away it can still kill.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

But even so, all it shows is that 5.56 and buckshot BOTH penetrate 4 sheets of drywall.

But what it doesn't show is which round is more lethal after penetrating the four walls. Usually that will be the round with the most momentmum

So what would you rather have, ONE round of 5.56 go through a wall, or NINE pellets?

Also important to note that both .223 and the shotgun pellets deviated from their original point of aim considerably after passing through the drywall.

And birdshot WILL penetrate the torso and go clear through to the spine, ricochet and end up all over the chest and abdominal cavities. Granted, it was a near contact shot and the pellets were still clumped, but to say that birdshot will just leave a flesh wound with no qualifiers is distracting.

We had a good discussion on this not too long ago.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=181618&highlight=birdshot

Personally, I don't like birdshot because at the distances where I feel confident it will retain its effectiveness, you are already way too close to the intruder. I've talked with a person who was shot at a distance of 15' in the upper torso with birdshot. He made his own 911 call.

 

[OrvilleYertleson]

Up until recently I kept a shotgun ready as my primary home defense weapon. Then I started thinking about how bulky and awkward it was, as well as how much more familiar I am with ar-15's/M-4's and I decided to keep my ar next to be bed instead because it is what I have trained on. I figure my familiarity with my ar-15 will make up for any performance gap.

 

[chopinbloc]

The .223 or 5.56 also has pretty heavy penetration

okay, seriously. read box o' truth and ammo oracle before you go and say stuff like that. there is no effective round that won't penetrate multiple layers of drywall. the 5.56mm like buckshot, may or may not exit the target but neither is likely to have much energy left over if they do.

birdshot tends to make very ugly, very shallow wounds at any reasonable defensive distance.

even though this sort of topic is oft revisited i love reading and debating the subject. if we're going to do so, however, can't we at least debate the real advantages and disadvantages of the particular platforms?

 

[ArmedBear]

I figure my familiarity with my ar-15 will make up for any performance gap.

That's probably the bottom line, whichever gun you choose. If you hunt and practice with an 870, that's probably your best choice because you can use it in your sleep. If you shoot matches and plink with an AR, then it is for the same reason.

 

[clange]

Awright, let's consider HD single-shot-only scenarios.

The first that leaps to mind is: hostage. If a home invader is holding my wife as a shield, I do NOT want a variable-width load. An AR may shoot 2" below the sights, but at least I know that and can compensate to deliver a precise shot. I can't narrow the damage radius on a shotgun ("'scuze me while I swap chambered buckshot for a slug...").

Valid point, although that would be a pretty risky shot to pull off. I'd take it if no other options, but if it isnt perfect and you dont shut them down right away the hostage could get a bullet, knife, etc.

Next is penetration: an invader with a Kevlar hide is presumably seriously prepared to do me extreme harm. That first shot had better penetrate - not just wind him, not just nick him, not just cause compression injury, I want high-velocity thru-and-thru. Birdshot & buckshot & fat slugs won't. Pistol rounds won't. Rifle rounds will, and one shot will likely be enough (with more to follow fast from a semi-auto).

If the first load or two of 00 buck isnt doing anything the next one is going at their head. (semi-auto saiga-12 for what its worth, so rate of fire isnt a concern)

Penetration redux: should he duck behind a wall in a still-a-threat manner, and firing thru cover is reasonable & responsible (rare), shots fired thru the cover medium should penetrate enough to do the job if he's in the line of fire. Two layers of drywall will likely render buck/birdshot ineffective, but .223 or better will probably do enough to discourage him. The odds of hitting the right location is low (and I hate blind "spray-and-pray" so it pains me to write this), so the one ball coincidentally heading in the right direction had better work.

The 5.56 does not have a penetration advantage through drywall. If thats what you're looking for you'd actually be better off with a pistol caliber carbine or higher power rifle.

Should the conflict move outside for some reason, buckshot effectiveness rapidly drops off with distance, birdshot even faster (with the initial premise involving shot spread, slugs aren't really an option here). For a rifle, even from a relatively anemic 11.5" barrel, effectiveness reaches well out beyond he's-not-a-threat-anymore ranges while retaining MOA accuracy.

Why arent slugs an option? Have some slugs ready to go on a side saddle, or in my case with a saiga-12 have a mag with slugs ready to go, or have the bottom half of the mag be slugs, etc.

If my lethal adversary is a clear and un-armored target in the same room, then buckshot would be preferred ... but rifle ammo will also do well.

Finally, pulling the trigger at oh-dark-thirty means enough noise & light to possibly induce discombobulation (as if going to Condition Red then wasn't enough). I can put a suppressor on a rifle, but not a shotgun; without it, you may not get much of a second shot - and when discussing one-shot HD scenarios, I want a second-shot option.

Moot point for me and many others. I cannot legally own a suppressor in MO.

I don't mean to completely belittle the shotgun. A big messy hole will do a fine job of stopping most nocturnal invaders. 81 9mm projectiles launched in just 9 trigger pulls will discourage most rather rapidly; heck, 9 on the first shot should be enough, even if some miss. It's certainly a respectable HD tool. I'm just concerned about instant precision, adequate penetration, and going deaf/blind on the first pop.

I understand, but IMO the first is the only time the rifle has an advantage, and it gives things up in other areas (like 9 shells of 00 buck ready to go as fast as I can pull the trigger). There is simply no way a semi-auto rifle can do as much damage in as little time as a semi-auto 12ga. In half a second or less I could have 18 ~.30cal sized pellets going toward someone.

 

[CCWMAN]

The 12 guage is too big/heavy for indoors, and......

The 12 guage is way to big/heavy for indoors, has too much recoil and too much blast for me. I'd use an AR-15, an Uzi Carbine, or a pistol.

 

[XavierBreath]

Either weapon can make an effective home defense tool.

What must be remembered, however, is the tool does not do the job at hand. The man's skill with the tool and his willingness to use that skill to preserve his life and family is what allows for survival in a lethal encounter.

If I were a home invader, I would rather face a man with both an AR and a shotgun but no training in their use rather than enter the home of a man with a knife and the skill and willingness to kill with it. It is the person using the tool, and their level of training that makes the difference, not the tool itself.

FWIW I chose the 18 inch pump shotgun with standard wood furniture, as much for it's reliability and stopping power as it's innocuous appearance in front of a jury. The encounter is not over until you walk out of the courtroom.

 

[Correia]

B Easy, have you ever shot a suppressed .223? Despite what you hear on the internet, the "sonic crack" isn't really that loud. It is more of a chuff noise to the shooter. Even indoors, the suppessed .223 is much-much-much quieter.

I love taking suppresors to the range, because it really blows most shooters minds. There is just such a misconception out there about the sonic boom. The only reason to ever use subsonic ammo is when you want it to be really quiet.

My next AR build is going to be an 11.5 inch gun with a Tac 65 can.

 

[Zak Smith]

A suppressed 223 fired inside an enclosed space is quite a bit louder than shooting one outside, and for me it is well above the threshold of pain and causes some ringing. Of course a non-suppressed 223 fired in an enclosed space is going to be EXTREMELY loud.

-z

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW, there's a lot to be said for a handgun.

It's small, fits conveniently in a drawer or a quick-access safe, and it can be fired effectively with one hand. If you're actually defending yourself and your family from, say, a knife-wielding thug, you might end up with a hurt hand. It's nice to be able to just use the other hand to shoot.

Just a thought...