General wisdom: If a pistol is what you use until you get to your rifle..

[Cee Zee]

Hey listen. I used to live in St. Louis way back when. I worked with a bunch of guys who lacked abundant pigmentation in their skin if you get my drift. Every time we drove through town on the interstate a Caddy filled with 6 guys with lots of pigmentation in their skin drove right beside us all staring at me and my friends in my imposing Toyota Corolla. Needless to say I thought my puny Raven P-25 wasn't up to the job of holding off that bunch or the bikers that rented us a house while we worked in the St. Charles area. And I wasn't even supposed to have it but better to be judged by 12 yadda yadda yadda.

One day it all came to a head when we were forced off the road by one of those big black Cadillacs. I was the only one armed in our vehicle but I did what I could with my mighty Raven. I wish I would have had a go to rifle in the car with me that day. You know what happened next I bet. They killed me of course.

The stuff in the first paragraph was actually true. Nothing in the second paragraph was true at all of course. Still sometimes a handgun just isn't enough gun for the situation you might find yourself in. The bad part is the state of Ohio doesn't allow for carrying loaded long guns in a vehicle. My S&W 629 with the 8 3/8" barrel will just have to be a good substitute. There are times I wished I had a gun like that and driving through St. Louis in the early 1980's was a good example. But it' is hard to CCW a .44 mag that's bigger than a lot of rifles I've seen. There are no perfect answers. Only good questions and politicians who get in the way too often.

 

[Warp]

We've had a few threads that circled around that idea, especially as relates to "truck guns."

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=752143
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=663466

I once wrote this:

Yup. I missed that the first time around, good reference.

Cliff notes: You are almost guaranteed not to fight your way to your rifle as a private citizen. MAYBE in a home defense situation I could see it happening, but then, it hasn't happened to anybody anywhere ever that we know of has it?

I've always sort of wanted to go all "Gecko45" and write a narrative about being mugged, drawing my handgun and engaging the threats -- and then fighting my way back down the street to my car, fighting through traffic back home, tactically retreating up the driveway and into the house, pieing corners and room-clearing up to the gun safe, trying to keep overwatch on the approaches while I work the dial, retrieve my rifle, find ammo, load, turn on the red-dot, and prepare to fight off the remaining attackers!



That would be even funnier than the story I'll write about being surrounded by a hostile mob while driving in the inner city and fighting free with the rifle I keep stored in my trunk...

Turn on the red dot?

Apparently we need to aware you on the wonderful products made by Aimpoint.

Slightly back on topic, I agree with everyone that the whole trunk hun idea is rather silly. If you're capable of returning to your truck to retrieve a rifle/ SBR, you're capable of leaving the scene.

Almost surely.

However, I can't help but recognize that there are potential scenarios where you could get to your vehicle but not be able to safely leave (or leave at all).

Talk about LONG odds though.

 

[Comrade Mike]

Yup. I missed that the first time around, good reference.

Cliff notes: You are almost guaranteed not to fight your way to your rifle as a private citizen. MAYBE in a home defense situation I could see it happening, but then, it hasn't happened to anybody anywhere ever that we know of has it?



Turn on the red dot?

Apparently we need to aware you on the wonderful products made by Aimpoint.



Almost surely.

However, I can't help but recognize that there are potential scenarios where you could get to your vehicle but not be able to safely leave (or leave at all).

Talk about LONG odds though.

I think I'll hedge my bets on that one and leave the rifle at home. 13+1 plus 26 behind that leaves me feeling plenty safe.

 

[jlr1962]

If I keep gaining weight at the same rate as the last 2 years, I should be able to conceal carry an ar by next summer.

 

[ku4hx]

Twice, a pistol has been the gun that stopped a couple of very personal home invasions. Same gun in fact: Glock 23. In point of fact, in both mine and my wife's real world experience a pistol stopped the threat cold ... end of story.

I like rifles of all types and have a bait of 'em. But this argument seems to me to be akin to the one where a hunter in my neck of the woods shows up with the latest superwham-o-dyne-shoulder-breaking-eargusplittenloudemboomer-magnum for southern whitetail deer where his longest shot will be maybe fifty yards. Just how dead do you want that deer? Just how stopped is a stopped threat? There are no degrees of stopped. It either is or it isn't.

A threat that requires a couple of AR-15s with 30 round magazines (wife and I both have one) is likely going to be something the two us can't handle no matter what we do. I mean, who is likely to attack you so ferociously you need a pair of battle rifles? And the key there is "likely". I'm a "boomer" and child of the cold war. We lived in fear of the "yellow hoard" coming over the horizon. Silly maybe, but that was then; this is now.

So what do wife and I rely on after our two experiences? She: a Ruger SR9 with Speer 124 grain standard pressure Gold Dot for bedside table; me: that same Glock 23 with 180 grain Remington standard pressure Golden Saber for bedside table. For carry, we each have an LC9s and we each have a Glock 42. We shoot all four of these guns very well, and in a high stress situation you better believe we feel familiarity with your weapon of choice trumps extreme firepower every time.

We shoot often and we practice with my own stuff that mimics the factory stuff we've chosen. We've been trained (legal instruction and actual range work) by our local sheriff's department. They trained us with our handgun of choice and there was no option for rifle at that course. To my knowledge that never has been a rifle course.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Twiki357]

I hope a serious response won’t be considered as hijacking the entertainment value of this thread, but:

On the road or for an intrusion into my home, it’s handgun only.
In the event of civil disturbance, riot, natural disaster, etc., then the rifle and/or the 8 1oz slugs in the 12 gauge would come into play.

 

[Cee Zee]

On the road or for an intrusion into my home, it’s handgun only.
In the event of civil disturbance, riot, natural disaster, etc., then the rifle and/or the 8 1oz slugs in the 12 gauge would come into play.

I get your point but for me I think a long gun is more appropriate for HD. I have both a shotgun and a battle carbine handy in addition to my handgun Ikepe. No sense limiting my options when there is no reason to.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_Riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ferguson_unrest

This is the same reasoning I used for keeping MANPADS in my trunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

Also, anti-tank weapons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson

 

[Warp]

Twice, a pistol has been the gun that stopped a couple of very personal home invasions. Same gun in fact: Glock 23. In point of fact, in both mine and my wife's real world experience a pistol stopped the threat cold ... end of story.

I like rifles of all types and have a bait of 'em. But this argument seems to me to be akin to the one where a hunter in my neck of the woods shows up with the latest superwham-o-dyne-shoulder-breaking-eargusplittenloudemboomer-magnum for southern whitetail deer where his longest shot will be maybe fifty yards. Just how dead do you want that deer? Just how stopped is a stopped threat? There are no degrees of stopped. It either is or it isn't.

A threat that requires a couple of AR-15s with 30 round magazines (wife and I both have one) is likely going to be something the two us can't handle no matter what we do. I mean, who is likely to attack you so ferociously you need a pair of battle rifles? And the key there is "likely". I'm a "boomer" and child of the cold war. We lived in fear of the "yellow hoard" coming over the horizon. Silly maybe, but that was then; this is now.

So what do wife and I rely on after our two experiences? She: a Ruger SR9 with Speer 124 grain standard pressure Gold Dot for bedside table; me: that same Glock 23 with 180 grain Remington standard pressure Golden Saber for bedside table. For carry, we each have an LC9s and we each have a Glock 42. We shoot all four of these guns very well, and in a high stress situation you better believe we feel familiarity with your weapon of choice trumps extreme firepower every time.

We shoot often and we practice with my own stuff that mimics the factory stuff we've chosen. We've been trained (legal instruction and actual range work) by our local sheriff's department. They trained us with our handgun of choice and there was no option for rifle at that course. To my knowledge that never has been a rifle course.

Just my 2 cents.

1. There is absolutely no way to know what the threat will "require" until after the fact.

2. You can be guaranteed you won't have the ability to call timeout and get 'more gun' in the middle of the situation if it turns out that what you had wasn't enough.

3. Handguns are weak and ineffective as a general rule. It is undisputed that a (properly loaded) shotgun or centerfire rifle is better and reliably and quickly incapacitating an attacker (or attackers).

4. THAT SAID, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with selecting a handgun, especially if that is what you have more training and familiarity with and thus confidence in. Having a reliable firearm that you know how to use, and are willing to use, is BY FAR the most important aspect here.


For full disclosure my preferred home defense firearm has been a shotgun for more time than anything else and even though that has improved to a carbine these days, I have always had a handgun (or more) readily available in addition to the long gun as handguns do offer some advantages of their own.

 

[Scooter22]

Get a good shotgun and plenty of ammo. Best close range defensive gun you'll get. And with the new sabot slugs they are accurate and leathle to around 300 yds.

 

[Warp]

Get a good shotgun and plenty of ammo. Best close range defensive gun you'll get. And with the new sabot slugs they are accurate and leathle to around 300 yds.

I disagree that a shotgun is the best close range defensive gun you can get.

I'd rather have a carbine (or SBR) in an intermediate rifle cartridge (mostly 5.56x45).

Nothing against a shotgun, but in my view it isn't the best...and if it was going to compete to be the best it would have to be an extremely reliable semi auto. Maybe a Benelli M2.

 

[ridgerunner1965]

carrying a pistol to fight your way to a rifle is not as stupid as it may sound in certain situations.

for instance, you live in a very rural area and you arrive home at the end of your 1/2 mile long driveway.

there are 2 perps very obviously loading your belongings into a beat up pickup truck.

you draw your small pistol and use it to cover your sprint to a outbuilding where yu have a more appropriate weapon hidden. which in my case would be various shotguns loaded with buckshot. to me, once a threat is out of buckshot range it is no longer a threat.

but you get the idea. if i simply called 911 it would be 30 min at least to a hr before they got here. id never get my stuff back, if they did find it, i would never be notified and it would be sold at the next police auction and the money would go back to the county sheriffs budget. that is common knowledge around here.

lots of stuff that dont make sense to town people makes perfect sense to country people.

 

[Warp]

carrying a pistol to fight your way to a rifle is not as stupid as it may sound in certain situations.

for instance, you live in a very rural area and you arrive home at the end of your 1/2 mile long driveway.

there are 2 perps very obviously loading your belongings into a beat up pickup truck.

you draw your small pistol and use it to cover your sprint to a outbuilding where yu have a more appropriate weapon hidden. which in my case would be various shotguns loaded with buckshot. to me, once a threat is out of buckshot range it is no longer a threat.

but you get the idea. if i simply called 911 it would be 30 min at least to a hr before they got here. id never get my stuff back, if they did find it, i would never be notified and it would be sold at the next police auction and the money would go back to the county sheriffs budget. that is common knowledge around here.

lots of stuff that dont make sense to town people makes perfect sense to country people.

That seems rather unlikely.

Most people would also recommend you call the police rather than wade into a potential shootout against multiple adversaries armed only with a small handgun, over property.

 

[BSA1]

After overcoming multiple odds by having fought successfully to my vehicle with my handgun why would I then turn to a 55 grain .223 bullet when I have a weapon that weighs several thousand pounds, will take out the largest of attackers, will take out multiple attackers front and rear and can out run and over any attacker while listening to tunes on my radio and enjoying air conditioning?

 

[Nom de Forum]

After overcoming multiple odds by having fought successfully to my vehicle with my handgun why would I then turn to a 55 grain .223 bullet when I have a weapon that weighs several thousand pounds, will take out the largest of attackers, will take out multiple attackers front and rear and can out run and over any attacker while listening to tunes on my radio and enjoying air conditioning?

You choose the .223 because you don't want to scratch the paint on your car.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I think the argument is sound for the most part.

The handgun is going to be quicker into action, far more maneuverable, far more portable, and just all around much easier to get into action NOW if a threat suddenly materializes. If you have a rifle or shotgun available, and have time to access it, then all the better. In this situation, the act of putting the handgun into action first and then either dealing with the threat or procuring a long gun if sufficient time is available allows the saying to ring true.

However, in an away from home scenario truth is not many of us actually have an ability to "fight back to our rifle" as it were as the majority of us are not going to be in immediate reach of said weapon anyway. It is in these situations that is is vital that the handgun not be thought of as something to buy time, it is the primary lethal weapon and the user must be trained in the utmost in it's use.

 

[Tirod]

Typical recommendation:

Most people would also recommend you call the police rather than wade into a potential shootout against multiple adversaries armed only with a small handgun, over property.

Reality:

but you get the idea. if i simply called 911 it would be 30 min at least to a hr before they got here. id never get my stuff back, if they did find it, i would never be notified and it would be sold at the next police auction and the money would go back to the county sheriffs budget. that is common knowledge around here.

What part of "police response time" makes it seem you will get one as fast as a State Farm Agent? Goes to another old saw that makes the rounds, you can get a pizza faster than a cop.

Sure, "call 911" has the unfortunate track record of the cops believing the first one that dials in. But - better to be judged by twelve - cause you survive the stupidity.

And in this particular case, we are already being told "don't bother to dial 911": http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...-decision-will-lead-violence-law-enforcement/

They could have their hands full. Do I need mention New Orleans during Katrina? Yes, a lot of cops may not ditch their jobs, but they may be otherwise engaged. I don't remember seeing pics of the cops patrolling the streets during the LA Riots. I did see pics of armed Korean shop owners defending their property.

How did they get to the roofs to use a rifle when they first saw the crowds approaching on the street? For daily protection, you carry the handgun simply because it's more convenient.

Officers of the law carry a handgun daily - if anything, they suffer from loadout fatigue and back problems more than soldiers simply because it's something they do every day of their career. But when the handgun isn't going to be enough - what is in the trunk of the patrol car?

Donuts?

No doubt the handgun has a tactical edge in carry - but if you have half a clue what might be coming at you, do you just stand there with a backup mag of pistol ammo and wait?

One better course of action is to fire rounds - offensively and deliberately - to protect your property and then move during the delayed response to something that has superior reach.

It's been the long standing doctrine of armies to research and use arms with more standoff in order to have a tactical and even strategic edge. From rock to atomic demolitions is exactly our course in history - we might laugh at cliches but like rumors they always have an edge in truth.

We know the average confrontation has less than three rounds fired. With a complete breakdown of public self restraint tho, I'm gong to suggest something like a P938 and a backup mag isn't enough. Fine for a shopkeeper to have near to hand behind the counter, but it's only good enough to delay a mob long enough to reach the long gun. And by "long," it's not the barrel, it's the range that weapon has carrying over 1,000 foot pounds of energy.

You carry the short range guns to handle short range encounters, but the long range guns aren't exactly off the table, even in so-called modern society.

It would be difficult to list all the riots that have happened in American just since 1960. Here's one list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States#1960s

There were 159 "race" riots in 1967 alone.

So, given that a single handgun won't stop hundreds of unlawful attackers rushing your property, what are you going to use? The few rounds you have convenient to hand while you work your way to the much better firearm that reaches out and creates distance.

The old cliche isn't about a one on one street encounter, it's about how you transition from short range to long range. That is exactly the what the armies of the world have been doing since the invention of the rock.

Depending on society to have limits of behavior and then limiting your defense options to just what currently seems to be the polite options is best characterized as "Pollyanna thinking." Push come to shove the opponents are basically without morals and ruthless. A limited ROE like that is why we have the situation in the Mid East today.

Riots are a very real part of our society and ignoring the possibility or suggesting that we undergun our response should be reconsidered.

 

[Onmilo]

Peace is achieved by the judicious use of overwhelming firepower.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

Yes. Though I think the general case of implementing a strategy of battling back to a rifle with your handgun is folly, the one you describe is a different an understandable case. The key difference being that, in the case of growing neighborhood discourse that is likely to lead to dangerous civil unrest, you have the vision and time to start out with the rifle and using the pistol for backup.
That said, recent references to civil unrest have doubtlessly been motivated, consciously or otherwise, by the recent and anticipated Fergussen conflict and some reach back to the Rodney King LA riots or the Watts riots much further in the past. These are extremely isolated and rare cases but maybe it's a combination of the gun community members overlapping with the prepper community members to create a sense of inevitability for which we all must be readied.
For me, I can imagine using a semi-auto pistol and perhaps a PCC (all well lit and lasered) for home defense. And I can't imagine getting in to a situation that requires persistent longer range fire to potential attackers. I would hope that if such a confrontation devolves to a domestic battlefield, there would be professionals that will more quickly and safely have my back better and sooner than I could.
I should add that I've lived on safe streets comprising safe neighborhoods for many years and would not expect to see the behavior such as in Fergussen near by so I don't spend any time planning for such events.
B

I hope a serious response won’t be considered as hijacking the entertainment value of this thread, but:

On the road or for an intrusion into my home, it’s handgun only.
In the event of civil disturbance, riot, natural disaster, etc., then the rifle and/or the 8 1oz slugs in the 12 gauge would come into play.

 

[csa77]

im far better off with a handgun.

I might shoot a rifle maybe once every 2 years or so....I shoot handguns 3 times a week.

 

[DoubleMag]

facts from the other end of the barrel. Of which, whatever barrel including the lowly 25acp.

fact....producing a firearm into a justified UofF scenario ends the scenario, without a shot being fired, 99.99% of the time

fact #2...if a shot is fired in the general direction of the perp, that ends the scenario 99% of the time

fact #3...if the perp actually gets shot anywhere in the body with any gun including the lowly 25acp, they will end up at the hospital and have to answer why who what where when.....again...here....wait for it....99% of the time

the odds of having to run from gun to another, of any caliber barrel length polymer vs. metal or whatever, are like being hit by a falling meteor specifically from Mars, winning 3 lotteries at the same time, and the wifey saying she really doesn't need another pair of shoes, all those factors happening simultaneously.

 

[bannockburn]

From Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Volume Eight, Number 11:

I am sometimes perplexed by people who refer to defensive rifles, or defensive rifle shooting. The defensive arm is the pistol, since you have it at hand to meet situations that you do not anticipate. If you have the luxury of anticipating a lethal encounter, you pick up a rifle or shotgun, but in that case you go on the attack. Thus rifle shooting is offensive, and pistol shooting is defensive. Of course, life does not always duplicate theory, and there are exceptions to everything, but nevertheless the rifle is not a defensive weapon in concept.

 

[Mman]

If you live in the mideast and ISIS comes to your town, then this line of thinking suddenly makes sense. We take our state of general peaceful lawful order for granted here. The Koreans on the roof with SKS rifles in the LA riots probably felt the same about escalation from pistol to the rifle. Ditto for any number of people invaded just about anywhere in the world if of course they are fortunate enough to have one. Thousands of women raped in Africa by corrupt soldiers would likely agree with Jeff Cooper if he could explain it to them. The rifle is better when the force encountered is bigger. Fortunately such scenarios are extremely extremely rare in the US.

 

[M1key]

QUOTE: "Fortunately such scenarios are extremely extremely rare in the US"

Unless of course you live anywhere near the southern border. Plenty of ranchers and other citizens carry an AR in their vehicles when driving into town. I would be willing to bet it's their first weapon of choice.

M

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't think the phrase was ever intended to be taken literally. It is just a colorful way of stating that a rifle is usually a better option than a handgun.

Apparently, there are a lot of gun mantras like this that in reality are rather nonsensical because they don't actually mean what they are saying, but mean something else.