better home defense

[Vonderek]

After clearing a dark house in the middle of the night with a 12GA, flashlight, an adrenaline dump and no clothes I choose none of the above and would rather have a handgun for home defense.

 

[mortablunt]

More like .32 balls.

And the reduced recoil 8-pellet stuff has some very real advantages over 3" 12 pellet loads and full power 9-pellet loads, mainly better patterns and faster followup shots, which aren't automatically unnecessary just because it's a shotgun.

Thanks, NG VI, I didn't know that.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Vonderek
After clearing a dark house in the middle of the night with a 12GA, flashlight, an adrenaline dump and no clothes I choose none of the above and would rather have a handgun for home defense.

+1

A true SBR would be a good choice as well, however, I'm not sure if the OP was referring to a NFA weapon or just a rifle with a short(er) barrel (i.e. 16"). A decent caliber handgun definitely works better in close quarters where there are narrow hallways and corners.

 

[ShotgunFanatic]

Saiga 12 for me: 20 rnd drum mag loaded with 00 buckshot, cant beat it for defense.

 

[CONNEX 3300]

I don't know what SBR you have in mind. There are quite a few variations in the SBR options so it is difficult to give you an accurate answer.

Just using the choices you gave, I would go for the coachgun. Load it with 00 buck and keep a good flashlight handy.
But if possible I would rather use a short-barreled pump action 12 guage.

 

[geologist]

Between the 2 choices in the OP, I'd go with the coach gun.



But I'd prefer a 14" pump.

 

[kozak6]

Of the two, I'd go with the coach gun simply because the SBR is a bad choice.

NFA weapons generally aren't recommended for defense purposes. In the events of a bad shoot, there's the risk of higher legal penalties. Also, the increased muzzle flash and blast are a problem for a firearm that may be discharged indoors at night.

A coach gun isn't exactly ideal, but it would hopefully prove adequate.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Whether it's a pistol, rifle or shotgun, I'll have a laser/light on it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

NFA weapons generally aren't recommended for defense purposes. In the events of a bad shoot, there's the risk of higher legal penalties

If it's a bad shoot, the gun type won't matter anyway. I'm not aware of any law that gives increased penalties for using an NFA firearm to commit murder vs any other type of firearm.

Who is it recommending against using NFA firearms for defense purposes and what are their qualifications to make such a recommendation?

What would be the argument for NOT using such a firearm other than the fact you might have it taken away for a while as evidence, same as with any other gun you might use to defend yourself?

This is one of these off the wall "gut feeling" things that comes up now and then but it really doesn't seem to have any merit. Sure there is always the chance that some prosecutor would argue that it matters, but it doesn't seem to have ever actually happened. The Harold Fish case is an often cited example of the gun type making a difference, but it seems to be the only one. That one was overturned anyway and wasn't in the home.

 

[Bubba613]

If it's a bad shoot, the gun type won't matter anyway. I'm not aware of any law that gives increased penalties for using an NFA firearm to commit murder vs any other type of firearm.

"And isn't it the case that you used a Federally-restricted Class III weapon to kill my client? Aren't Federally restricted Class III weapons like MACHINE GUNS limited because of their very lethality? And yet you saw no problem using one on my client because you wanted to KILL him, right?"

I'd hate to be the one on the receiving end of that line of questioning in a civil lawsuit. I'd rather be saying "yes your honor the man invaded my home and I grabbed my squirrel gun/dove gun/deer rifle and defended my family from certain death."

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'd hate to be the one on the receiving end of that line of questioning in a civil lawsuit. I'd rather be saying "yes your honor the man invaded my home and I grabbed my squirrel gun/dove gun/deer rifle and defended my family from certain death.

Unless you live in a state with civil immunity for lawful shoots in your home, of which there are plenty.

And again, you propose something that hasn't actually happened before. Anything CAN happen, do you make all your plans around the worst case outcome?

There are documented cases of lawful self defense with submachine guns without any of the doom and gloom you describe.

And we are not talking about machine-guns in this particular thread anyway, the OP specifically mentioned Short Barreled Rifles.

It's certainly a personal decision for everyone to make but if, for whatever reason, I felt that an NFA Short Barreled Rifle was the best solution for defense of my home (and I do by the way) the potential threat of some lawsuit wouldn't stop me from using the best tool for the job. If I and the firearm do our job right at the worst the family will be alive to see any lawsuits that come along.

Back when the Federal Assault Weapon law was still in place we saw people making the same arguments against using what were called, during the ban, "high capacity" magazines. "Oh, don't use a high capacity magazine in your defensive handgun, since some lawyer will argue that those are banned and must be extra dangerous". It didn't make any sense then either.

 

[EvilGenius]

I'm more of the shotgun camp.

But if you're not worried about over penetration and/or hearing loss.

I can see an SBR'd version of one of these.

Or any off the shelf 7"-10" AR pistol.

 

[Rob G]

"And isn't it the case that you used a Federally-restricted Class III weapon to kill my client? Aren't Federally restricted Class III weapons like MACHINE GUNS limited because of their very lethality? And yet you saw no problem using one on my client because you wanted to KILL him, right?"

I don't remember the fellow's name but I recently read an article about the HK employee who killed a man in self defense with a full auto Ruger back in the early 80s. He said that during the trial the prosecutor repeatedly waved the gun in front of the jury and pointed out that it was a machinegun and this somehow made the defendant more guilty. Interestingly enough every time that happened the judge then reminded the jury that the type of weapon used was irrelevant, all that mattered was what the defendant may or may not have done with it.

As for that line of questioning, if it was me I'd wait a second to see if my lawyer objected to it ( a good one would ) and if required to answer I'd say: "I grabbed it because I wanted to stop the assailant from attacking me and that is the most effective tool I have for stopping someone." And I'd stop right there.

 

[Bubba613]

The criminal trial isn't an issue. It's the civil case where they get you. Standards of evidence are much different.
And you cannot take away someone's right to sue. You might have an affirmative defense in self defense. But the plaintiff can argue you used unnecessary force to stop the person. And in that case the plaintiff's lawyer will use anything he can to show you used unnecessary force.
I personally consider an SBR to be a bad choice, and someone who uses one without a really good explanation (which I can't presently imagine) has a presumption in my mind of using poor judgment.

 

[hirundo82]

Between the 2 choices in the OP, I'd go with the coach gun.

But I'd prefer a 14" pump.

This is one of the few advantages you Canucks have in terms of gun laws (import laws being another). With shotguns, we are limited to both 26" overall length and an 18" barrel, while I believe Canadian law is OK with factory guns with a barrel shorter than that as long as OAL is over 26".

 

[Kendal Black]

I think a shotgun is the best home defense firearm, but I don't think the double barrel is the best shotgun for the purpose. The repeaters, obviously, hold more shots. But some like the old double gun for its very simple operation and the shorter length of its receiver. The gun is shorter than a repeater of the same barrel length.

The cowboy action shooters reload the double gun rather quickly, and you oughta watch how they do it if you are determined to use this kind of arm for your house gun. F'rinstance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Go8gGzF90

 

[TexasRifleman]

The criminal trial isn't an issue. It's the civil case where they get you. Standards of evidence are much different.
And you cannot take away someone's right to sue. You might have an affirmative defense in self defense. But the plaintiff can argue you used unnecessary force to stop the person. And in that case the plaintiff's lawyer will use anything he can to show you used unnecessary force.
I personally consider an SBR to be a bad choice, and someone who uses one without a really good explanation (which I can't presently imagine) has a presumption in my mind of using poor judgment.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you still cannot show a case where an NFA weapon changed the outcome of a suit over a justified shooting. Anything is possible, but it does not appear to have ever actually happened, even in cases where full auto weapons were justifiably used. So how far down the fear of lawsuits path should one go? You are at risk of being sued if you shoot someone, no matter what you use. The risks are minimized very much in castle doctrine states.

If a person is that worried about it then no, they should not choose such a firearm for home defense.

If you want to argue straw men you can argue that an SBR is actually less deadly than a full sized rifle since you sacrifice some bullet velocity. Shooting someone with an 18 inch barrel is therefore unnecessary force compared to a rifle with an 11 inch barrel. You can spin anything you want in a courtroom, doesn't mean anyone will listen. If the objective is to stay out of a courtroom then a firearm should not be used at all. If the objective is to stay alive inside your own home then one should use whatever they decide is the best tool for the job.

In the case of the OP he has his own reasons for settling on these 2 choices I assume. Of the 2 an SBR would be much better than a coach gun if for no other reason than being limited to 2 rounds with the shotgun. Another benefit of the SBR is the ability to fit a suppressor and still retain a reasonable length of the rifle. Either of these guns fired inside a house is going to make a very very loud noise.

 

[allaroundhunter]

If I owned both, I would grab the SBR before the coach gun every time. More follow up shots, and less recoil (I'm thinking AR-based SBR here), and less overpenetration.

Also, my hearing is going to be a secondary consideration when my life is on the line, and I'm not too worried about being "disoriented" as some people are. In the heat of the moment, I honestly don't think that I would know the difference between a coach gun report and that of an SBR.

I would also rather fight a civil suit in court (should I have to) than pick a weapon with more drawbacks

 

[Onward Allusion]

Bubba613
The criminal trial isn't an issue. It's the civil case where they get you. Standards of evidence are much different.
And you cannot take away someone's right to sue. You might have an affirmative defense in self defense. But the plaintiff can argue you used unnecessary force to stop the person. And in that case the plaintiff's lawyer will use anything he can to show you used unnecessary force.
I personally consider an SBR to be a bad choice, and someone who uses one without a really good explanation (which I can't presently imagine) has a presumption in my mind of using poor judgment.

So if someone broke into my home, I should locate my most politically correct firearm in a decent caliber (which probably would be some kind of 38 revolver) rather than grabbing my 9mm that holds 20+1 rounds? If I'm interpreting your comment correctly, I should be more worried about the aftermath (i.e. civil suit) rather than surviving the attack???

 

[EvilGenius]

A lot of folks here keep referring to ARs because of a "reduced risk of over penetration."

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3_2.htm

According to the various tests here, the only 12 gauge round that could pose a risk of that is a 1oz slug.

The most common defense rounds only penetrate half as much as the most common pistol and riffle calibers.

 

[allaroundhunter]

According to the various tests here, the only 12 gauge round that could pose a risk of that is a 1oz slug.

The most common defense rounds only penetrate half as much as the most common pistol and riffle calibers.

EvilGenius, the .223 round that they are referring to is M193 BALL ammo. That means FMJ, not an expanding, defensive round that those of us with AR's for HD keep our magazines loaded with.

An AR loaded with an expanding, varmint-type round will penetrate less than buckshot.

Here is one source (but no, buckshot is not tested by this group)

Here is one source that includes 00 buck

 

[hso]

Any effective ammunition will penetrate more than 2 layers of drywall. The question then becomes whether to consider "over penetration" to be leaving the residence and entering another through the drywall, sheathing, siding, siding, sheathing, drywall of your house and the next.

A double barrel is not preferable to a pump of semi shotgun.

 

[EvilGenius]

EvilGenius, the .223 round that they are referring to is M193 BALL ammo. That means FMJ, not an expanding, defensive round that those of us with AR's for HD keep our magazines loaded with.

An AR loaded with an expanding, varmint-type round will penetrate less than buckshot.

Here is one source (but no, buckshot is not tested by this group)

Here is one source that includes 00 buck

I new they were using FMJ, but I didn't read anywhere that everyone in here with an AR had the sense to use HP or fragmentation rounds.

I wonder how the "reduced recoil" 00 buck compares. I seem to hear most PDs carry it now a days. Although I'm not sure that it translates to lower FPS.

 

[NG VI]

Reduced recoil buck will penetrate almost exactly the same as regular buck, because the projectile itself isn't changing and the speed isn't significantly lower. Unplated lead buck at 3000 feet per second would likely behave very differently from normal full power or reduced recoil buck at 1000-1600 feet per second.

 

[EvilGenius]

Reduced recoil buck will penetrate almost exactly the same as regular buck, because the projectile itself isn't changing and the speed isn't significantly lower. Unplated lead buck at 3000 feet per second would likely behave very differently from normal full power or reduced recoil buck at 1000-1600 feet per second.

Where does the 3000fps buck come from?