Best home defense rifle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hammerhead6814's argument holds no water and is borderline irrational. Let's just do a couple of comparisons of the fundamentals of his argument:

Length:
AR with 16 inch barrel and stock collapsed (and even fully expanded) is a more compact choice than most shotguns.
Shotguns tend to be longer weapons than most rifles unless it is purchased in an exclusive defensive configuration. The average shotgun is actually quite long. Fixed stock means ergos are what they are.
The AK maintains compactness, but the stock is one size fits all, hurting its ergos.
Advantage: AR

Recoil:
AR 15 shoots a low recoiling round and utilizes a buffer tube that largely mitigates recoil. Expect some muzzle rise, but little pressure on the shoulder.
12 Gauge has the highest shoulder recoil available in the home defense department. Not a bad thing unless you have a bad shoulder like the OP. Also, follow up shots may be difficult.
AK has significantly more recoil than the AR, but is not unmanageable. Follow up shots will be slightly more difficult than an AR.
Advantage: AR

Round Power:
AR 15 has the smallest round of the group, but is still a very effective solution. It has been effective on the battlefield.
12 gauge with 00 or #4 is going to be the best stopper you can fire in your house.
AK is a definite step up in power over the .223 and will deliver the goods in a home defense scenario
Advantage: Shotgun

Penetration/Over-penetration:
AR 15 has a variety of options available, from heavy grains to light grains. All are very effective on targets. The lighter rounds will penetrate less, but break up quickly against walls.
12 gauge shot effective enough to stop an attacker over-penetrates on a grand scale. The notion that the shotgun doesn't over-penetrate is a complete myth.
AK is a big penetrator capable of effective depth in an attacker and also going through your house completely.
Advantage: AR 15 provides the best balance

Nighttime/CQB customization:
The AR has the widest variety of CQB options on the market. Red dots, lasers, vertical grips, and easy flashlight attachments make excellent quick CQB deployment possible in any situation
12 gauge shotgun can be outfitted with lights and possibly a red dot. Red dot sights must be able to withstand recoil of the round
AK's offer the most difficult path to upgrade to a good night CQB. Awkward scope mounting. No rails in traditional configs for adding lights or vertical grips. It can be done, but it isn't done often, and for good reason.
Advantage: AR by a huge margin.

Assuming reliability is good on the weapon selected, ammo prices are almost a wash. Of these three options, I think it is pretty clear that the AR is the obvious choice. Of course, there are many more options than just these three selections. If not an AR or shotgun, I would most likely select a pistol caliber carbine.
 
The AR is a fine CQB weapon.

This argument makes no sense. It works great at 100+ but not closer? What, are its bullets going to bounce off people at close range? LOL.

The Ar platform stomps all over Ak's. What can an Ak do that an AR can't do better? Accuracy-no, speed-no, basic weapon manipulation-NO. Oh, and the AK no longer has a power advantage over the AR. AR's chambered in 6.8spcII are pushing some hot numbers now. And the Ak's bullet drops off alot at longer ranges.

The Ar rocks at short ranges, say...5-25 yards. Training, training, training......
 
While it's fun to argue in threads like these, I have to wonder how much weapon choice really matters in a typical home defense scenario. I'm assuming here that such a scenario takes place in a world where there is still rule of law, and not a post apocalyptic "Mad Max" world.

Isn't it less about the weapon, and more about getting the drop on the intruder? I'm not going to pretend to be a tactical expert, but it seems to me that if you wake up to a BG standing over your bed, it won't matter if you are armed with a single shot .22 or a minigun.

Once again, I'm no expert, but going on common sense, I would think a self defense firearm choice should be based on the following criteria.

1. Can you be reasonably certain the gun will go off every time?

2. Is the chambering sufficient to fairly reliably stop an attacker at an across the room distance? To me, this means more power than a .22 LR.

3. Can you afford the firearm and its ammo? I'm sure ARs are a lot of fun and very useful, but they also tend to be expensive. Cost can be cut by building one from the ground up, but not everyone is the tinkering type.

4. Do you enjoy shooting the firearm? If you like shooting it, you'll practice more, and knowing your firearm inside and out to the point where it is an extension of yourself will, IMO, go a lot farther than technical specs.

5. Have a plan to increase the chances of getting the drop on the intruder and not the other way around.

That's all my very unprofessional opinion, anyway.
 
Someone who says that the AR is ONLY a 100+ yard rifle sounds like someone who hasn't been trained to use it correctly. In the correct configuration and with the correct ammo, it is more suitable than an MP-5. You need to either set up optics for close range, or learn to adjust with the existing sights for CQB. We do this every day.

I learned to clear houses with a full-size M-16 A2.

The truth is, I prefer the M-1 carbine, but I will also admit that the reason I have one is that I inherited it, and if I hadn't, I don't know if I would have otherwise gotten around to buying one. Their current price and lack of options for mods (when compared to more modern platforms) probably would have put it on my list to 'get around to' as I collect historical weapons.
 
Because it's what they're issued.

Work for most scenarios doesn't mean work for one specific in the best sense.

This is the fundamental danger of using 'what the military or police use must be the best' as a yardstick blindly.

It's not following blindly if you review the facts and agree with their choices. I didn't say the gun works well in close quarters JUST because they use it. There's a few dozen other reasons in this thread alone that explains why they work well. The military issuing them for that purpose doesn't prove that it's the BEST gun for the job or for every person on the planet, but by them using it effectively in that situation, it proves that the gun DOES work for that purpose. SWAT teams wouldn't adopt it just because it's cheap if it didn't do the job they needed it to do. They may choose that over an equally effective gun for the lower price, but they aren't simply aren't using whatever cheap useless junk they can get their hands on just to save a buck.
 
The 'assault weapon' hating jury...
Don't base your decision, in a home defense weapon, on what someone else might think. Pick a good tool for the job, and try and stay above ground.

But the tie should go to the platform that looks less "evil".

  • M1 .30 Carbine is a good choice (load it with soft-points), and they just look *cute*.
  • A .22LR autoloader is a lot better than you might expect.
  • My HD rifle is a Marlin 1894C in .38/357. It holds twice as many rounds as a comparable .30-30, and in the extremely unlikely case where I need to reach out farther than 75 yards (TEOTWAWKI), I also have a M1 Garand battle rifle with lots of loaded clips :)
  • Also check out SKS's with wood furniture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top