HD Rifle characteristics

[Cal-gun Fan]

I'm kind of curious as to the mindset of a lot of people on this website when applied to home defense firearms, especially rifles. I see many people recommend high end AR's or comparable quality rifles. When you consider that, if they are actually used (god forbid) in a HD type shooting, the firearm will be taken for evidence and you have no assurances as to when it will be returned or how it will be treated in that time, is that type of firearm still the best choice? To me, it seems as if a Hi-Point carbine would be an ideal choice. Good HD round that would make target aquisition and follow up shots easy, wouldn't overpenetrate, and wouldn't deafen you. Most of all-its inexpensive, so its not a huge problem if you lost it. What do you all think?

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

if i have to use a firearm for self defense, getting that firearm back from law enforcement is gonna be last thing on my mind. this shouldn't even be a factor in the decision process.

cost of the firearm will be nothing compared to the lawyer fees.

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

While the lawyer fees would certainly be more, why purposefully have an expensive gun as an HD choice?

 

[Hocka Louis]

Cal, that's a strawman question: nobody SAID to buy an expensive gun. Buy what you want. Chances are it'll be more reliable and useful than the reputation or capability inexpensive guns have. Hence an AR. Great guns for the stated purpose, obviously, and great value.

As suggested, price might not really be a consideration. Not a consious one. If it is I think people will also buy the best they can for the money which also implies they won't be buying the cheapest thing they can and, rationaly, certainly not because they should think it is disposeable.

But you're free to. America -- what a country!

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

why purposefully cheap out on a gun you may have to count on to defend yourself?

i have a $200 shotgun for home defense. just as reliable as any firearm i've ever fired.

i'm not saying you need to spend a lot of money on an HD firearm. what i am saying is you shouldn't just try to find the cheapest thing to get the job done. get what you feel will work best for you in your home situation.

 

[sixgunner455]

Odds are, I won't ever have to use a gun to defend myself any more than I ever have in the past. That is to say, in all previous "events" of my life, the presence of the firearm defused the situation.

However, if I ever DO have to use one, I want it to be one with which I am familiar, whose operation, function, accuracy, reliability, and effectiveness I am completely confident in. In order to be able to be worried about the disposition of the firearm after the incident, I must first survive.

Hence, the weapon with which I have the most training and experience: the AR15. If I'm worried about being deafened, I'll get a suppressor. The weapons with which I have the second-most training and experience: 9mm pistols and .38 revolvers.

 

[ACP]

I would never, ever choose a home defense firearm based on its "lost value" if taken in a civilian shooting case.

It should be reliable and powerful, period.

12-gauge pump, choose your flavor.

 

[Lee D]

people will spend $2500 on a TV but they wanna skimp out on a firearm that may save their life. makes no sense to me.

 

[HankB]

To me, "Home Defense" means protecting my life, and the lives of my family - something I take very seriously.

Deliberately choosing a "cheap" firearm to defend life makes about as much sense as deliberately finding a cut-rate surgeon to do a bypass or some other serious procedure.

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

You're missing my point. There are plenty of inexpensive firearms that are very reliable. 12 Gauge pumps, hi-point carbines, etc. Its just that, in plenty of threads, I've seen people recommend high-end ARs and other such tactical carbines. What I'm asking is if you think a high end tactical carbine is really best for a defense type situation, considering the reality of the scenario and the possible aftermath.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

What I'm asking is if you think a high end tactical carbine is really best for a defense type situation, considering the reality of the scenario and the possible aftermath.

what's best for me isn't what's best for the next guy and so on.

i will never understand why folks come on here, ask a question, and then wanna argue when they don't get the answer they wanted.

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

what's best for me isn't what's best for the next guy and so on.

i will never understand why folks come on here, ask a question, and then wanna argue when they don't get the answer they wanted.

Of course not. That being said, plenty of people come on here for advice on which rifle for whichever purpose, often times it is for HD, and often times expensive rifles are recommended.
No need to be snide, I'm just wondering what the idea behind some of the other views are because I didn't really get it.

 

[tahoe2]

trapper carbine

16" barrel levergun in a pistol caliber(.38spl/.357mag, 44spl/44mag, 45 lc, etc...) makes a great hd gun(10 shots)
or a camp carbine(9mm, 45acp) from Marlin also works, and I believe they use S&W magazines but I'm not sure on that.
just my .02 cents

 

[Chindo18Z]

What I'm asking is if you think a high end tactical carbine is really best for a defense type situation, considering the reality of the scenario and the possible aftermath.

And the answer to your question is yes...in the sense that you can't really predict with any exactitude how a defensive situation will go down. You can imagine likelihoods, but you have no control over worst case scenarios...other than using your abilities, attitude, and equipment choices to best effect.

The reality of a defensive situation is that someone may die. The aftermath is absolutely irrelevant if it happens to be you. All other outcomes are of secondary importance.

Any reasonable edge that you can give yourself is advantageous. A high end tactical carbine does in fact give you an edge. You may not need it. You may not use it. But it's there. Even if 75% of the high-end carbines in civilian possession are overly accessorized hobby guns...they are still superlative defensive arms.

Reduced to a simple question of equipment choice...will any firearm suffice for self defense (including a Hi-Point carbine)? Sure.

However, the AR is the professional's tool of choice for war, law enforcement, and self defense. In the Intelligence Analysis world...that's called an Indicator.

The fact that you can use a lesser performing weapon for defense is not a convincing argument for doing so. It's merely a choice.

 

[gatorjames85]

In the event that I have to use deadly force to defend my family, I am not going to be worried about whether I lose my entire gun collection, let alone one rifle (no matter how expensive).

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Good HD round that would make target aquisition and follow up shots easy, wouldn't overpenetrate, and wouldn't deafen you. Most of all-its inexpensive, so its not a huge problem if you lost it. What do you all think?

Sounds like you've never shot a gun indoors without hearing protection. I have, and I can tell you that any gun will temporarily cause impaired hearing. Other than a paint ball gun, BB gun, or pellet gun there is NO gun that "wouldn't deafen you."

If losing the gun is your personal biggest worry, then you pick the gun that you wouldn't mind losing permanently. If you want a rifle in a repeater - get a lever action in .44 magnum. If you want a shotgun - get an inexpensive pump. If you want a pistol, get something like a Glock, XDm, or S&W M&P. If you want a revolver, get a Ruger Redhawk in .357 or .44 magnum.

Me personally? I'll grab whatever's handy including my Wilson Supergrade. If I need to protect myself, cost isn't even a factor.

What do I keep in my bedroom? An FN SLP and a S&W .44 Special. What do I take in my car? A SIG P290. Thinking of adding a S&W M&P 9mm compact or an XDm compact .45 single stack.

The main criterion are to use firearms that you are familiar with, practice with regularly, and are confident they will work when needed. I'm not sure where cost fits into the choice.

 

[firesky101]

AR's can be had for under $600. I choose one for HD for the predictability of high velocity rifle round behavior. Nothing wrong with other options, but with my life on the line, the difference between $200 and $1000 does not seem like a lot.

 

[allaroundhunter]

To me, it seems as if a Hi-Point carbine would be an ideal choice. Good HD round that would make target aquisition and follow up shots easy, wouldn't overpenetrate

The 5.56 round will overpenetrate less than JHP handgun rounds....And I keep an AR on hand because I have it for other purposes as well, it just also happens to be a great HD gun

I also don't see why you are worrying about your gun after you have just had to shoot another human being to protect yourself and/or your family....I will be thankful that my family and I are still alive. If I have to buy another gun so be it.

 

[NG VI]

There are lots of very good basic ARs in the $600-1000 range. At the bottom end, that's about double the cost of the high-point for a rifle in a more capable anti-personnel caliber that also is less likely to pass through an exterior wall intact.

A rifle that also holds more than three times the ammunition is cheap, ubiquitous magazines, has easy and solid mounting for any type of sight, optical or mechanical, electronic or inert, can be steadily improved with higher quality parts as time goes by, and is known to be fairly accurate even in baseline models. And is a lot of fun. And has the control layout all other service and fighting type rifles have striven to emulate.

Doesn't seem like all that much worse on the wallet than a High-Point, given what you get.

If your budget absolutely cannot tolerate a $500+ dollar gun and keeping defense ammunition of a separate caliber than your carry gun, then the High-Point is very much a serviceable weapon, by all accounts they are reliable and more accurate than you'd expect. But objectively, a decent budget AR is a better defense weapon.

 

[Girodin]

is that type of firearm still the best choice?

The general proposition of choosing something less expensive over something more effective to defend myself with based on possible confiscation and possible damage or delay in its return, is so wrongheaded to me it borders on the ridiculous. My AR with do dads on it is worth over $2K. $2k is worth much much less than my life. I want the weapon I am the most proficient with and that is otherwise best for the task. If it is a good shoot in most JX the gun will come back to you, assuming it was taken. My defensive firearms are working guns. They get scratched up training and shooting. Avoiding extra scratches is not worth more than my life. I probably wouldn't use some heirloom or collectors piece (but I wouldn't use them anyways because I wouldn't want to put them through the wear and tear of training) but I can buy another Noveske.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out one can get a good AR, say a PSA for around $600. The threat of losing $400 more than I might motivating me to pick an inferior weapon is inane, plain and simple.

The OPs line of logic would tend to push one towards keeping no gun at all. After all, simply having a lawyer consult with you and accompany you to a police interview will cost you $400 an hour. If you are sued civilly you are looking an many thousands of dollars. If you are charged criminally you are looking at $60K and up in attorneys fees.

All that makes a $600 AR, or even a $2000 one, look like peanuts.

Sounds like you've never shot a gun indoors without hearing protection. I have, and I can tell you that any gun will temporarily cause impaired hearing. Other than a paint ball gun, BB gun, or pellet gun there is NO gun that "wouldn't deafen you."

Sounds like you have shot a limited selection of firearms indoors and not really though through your statement. Any number of suppressed firearms firing subsonic ammo will not deafen you one bit. Your contention about 'NO gun" is completely incorrect.

That said a hi point carbine may not deafen you to the same extent as an AR but if you touch one off indoors it will still deafen you to some degree.


Having owned both an AR and hi point carbine I wouldn't say a hi point couldn't be used for home defense but I would much rather have my AR. Heck given that the highpoint only has reliable 10 round mags I think I would rather have a $250 shotgun with 8 rounds of 00 buck if I was simply trying to keep a cheap gun on hand. That said I do think a PCC would be better than a shotgun for many users.

 

[MistWolf]

I'm kind of curious as to the mindset of a lot of people on this website when applied to home defense firearms, especially rifles. I see many people recommend high end AR's or comparable quality rifles. When you consider that, if they are actually used (god forbid) in a HD type shooting, the firearm will be taken for evidence and you have no assurances as to when it will be returned or how it will be treated in that time, is that type of firearm still the best choice? To me, it seems as if a Hi-Point carbine would be an ideal choice. Good HD round that would make target aquisition and follow up shots easy, wouldn't overpenetrate, and wouldn't deafen you. Most of all-its inexpensive, so its not a huge problem if you lost it. What do you all think?

What is a "high dollar" AR? $2000? $1500? $1000?

I wouldn't use a HiPoint to defend the life of my family or myself unless it was the last resort. Most would go "bang" when needed but not one I bought. HiPoints are made to be "carried a lot and shot a little". I don't believe any firearm I trust my life to should be shot a little and it wouldn't take long for me to wear out a HiPoint. My favorite handgun, one I do trust my life to had 500 rounds put through it before I got it home and has been shot quite a bit more in the years since.

Not all self defense shootings result in the confiscation of the weapon used. Even so, when a person finds themselves in a fight for their life or the life of a loved one, sacrifices will be made and the world forever changed. That's the price we pay for surviving

 

[JustinJ]

If one should limit their HD gun's price based on possible confiscation wouldn't the same then be true for a carry gun? Cop guns are confiscated after shootings also so shouldn't they then follow the same principle? Of course not because the advantages a weapon offers in defesnive situation are all that matters, assuming it's a legally owned weapon. Until i see a cop or soldier carrying a hipoint i'll never choose it as the gun my life could depend on. I do think the rifle caliber indoors is a valid concern though. True, any gun will deafen you but a rifle caliber will certainly disorient more than a pistol from a long gun. IMO, the best HD rifle is a 5.56 semi auto with a can although there are potential legal concerns of using a NFA in a HD shooting. One thing i think is a good idea for a HD AR is to have a bolt with low round count that is installed when one gets home from the range. A bolt failure at the range is an inconvenience. A bolt failure in a HD situation could be much worse.

 

[Sam1911]

You're missing my point. There are plenty of inexpensive firearms that are very reliable. 12 Gauge pumps, hi-point carbines, etc. Its just that, in plenty of threads, I've seen people recommend high-end ARs and other such tactical carbines. What I'm asking is if you think a high end tactical carbine is really best for a defense type situation, considering the reality of the scenario and the possible aftermath.

It's your life you're defending. If it isn't, you'd better not have a gun in your hands.

Use whatever weapon you can make the MOST, MOST accurate hits with, FASTEST. Nothing else really matters.

To get to the goal of being able to make the most, most accurate, and fastest hits you possibly can, you should be shooting as much as possible. That tends to indicate a decent quality firearm that is comfortable and ergonomic to shoot. Something that you will shoot a lot in training and practice (and competition won't hurt you, either). Becoming proficient with your training, practice, and competition gun -- but then buying a $200 plastic "disposable" weapon for self-defense -- just seems completely backward.

Analogy: "I drive a $50,000 sedan with seven airbags, 5-star rated crumple zones, and best-in-class driver survivability ratings. But if I'm going to get hit by a tractor-trailer, I'd rather be on a moped. It'd be cheaper to replace the moped."

 

[Orkan]

There is a 18" barreled shotgun in virtually every room of my house loaded with 2-3/4" #4 buckshot. I pity the fool comes through our door with ill intention. Remington 870's and Mossberg pump's with a couple benelli's for good measure. Everyone in my house is very familiar with them and their locations.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is as lethal as a shotgun inside of 10yds. It doesn't matter what the attacker is wearing, or what position they are in, a shotgun can be leveled accurately in half a second with point-and-shoot ease. It doesn't matter where you hit them, they will be incapacitated at the least.

I've had this argument with people at matches before. They all scream bloody murder BS. Yet when I have them put up some IPSC cardboard in various unknown locations and run through it with my 18" benelli M2 without ever shouldering the shotgun, the critics are silenced.

In a home defense scenario, you need something that you can use effectively when you are awaken from a dead sleep.

If a shotgun with 2-3/4 4buck is lethal on a coyote at 150yds... It should work on a person at less than 10yds.

 

[Lee D]

im curios how many BGs have ever got up and ran off/continued to fight after a couple rounds of buckshot when hit center of mass? im betting very very few.