I disagree that BB shot (which is what I quoted, was BB shot or #4 buck) is as effective...even "up close"...as #1 or 00.
Home defense carbine: 9mm v. 223
- Thread starter Balrog
- Start date
- Status
I disagree that BB shot (which is what I quoted, was BB shot or #4 buck) is as effective...even "up close"...as #1 or 00.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
Warp said:
I'm not, I was merely eliminating a variable in this discussion for the sake of making a single point. I'd say that the overwhelming majority of defensive shotguns owned in this country are pump actions. All AR-15's are semi-automatic. The point I was driving at was merely that I believe a shotgun is a more effective flight stopper when used at sub-25 yard distances against an unarmored target than an AR-15. I made this example on the basis of one shot simply because there's an obvious advantage in follow-up shots with a semi-automatic... personally, I wouldn't feel outgunned in a home defense situation with either choice listed in this thread (or the choice of a shotgun), I was only trying to highlight the fact that a single well-placed shot from a 12 gauge is darn effective at stopping a bad guy.
fireside44 said:
Yeah, I get it... given a choice of dying or suffering some hearing damage we'd all take the hearing damage. But, when you're PLANNING for a home defense situation you have the luxury of considering a variety of options. And, I've considered this planning aspect (as it pertains to hearing loss) because I routinely clear homes with an AR-15, and I've been in a home when an AR-15 was fired within the home... and, it is loud, and it probably caused some hearing damage for some of us who were in the home.
I posted that information here just to give the OP some other things to think about. My work rifle still resides close to my bedside on my days off, and I'd still grab it if the zombies were beating down my door some night. But, I'd be happier to listen to the sound of a 12 gauge indoors, or better yet, a suppressed AR.
You arbitrarily set a seemingly-unrealistic limitation in order to create a scenario that best fits your argument.
You also stipulated only one attacker/bad guy for your scenario.
I agree that if I am facing one, single, un-armoured attacker, a 12 gauge pump is quite good. But if they have armour, or they too have rifles, or there are more than one of them (VERY common)...I'm going to feel (and BE) a lot better off with the 5.56 carbine than the 12 gauge pump. Since I can't predict who or what I will face in the unlikely and unfortunate event of an intrusion, I choose the carbine to be kept ready.
And even if it's a single attacker, I still think I'm better off with the 5.56 carbine.
Sunray
Member
"...assuming you know how to use it..." That applies to any firearm. No point having anything if you don't. And/or don't practice with the ammo you intend using.
"...5.56 has lower risk of over penetration..." Only with a varmint bullet.
"...5.56 has lower risk of over penetration..." Only with a varmint bullet.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Terminal Ballistics of .223 - since a lot of people here seem to be confused by the subject:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146306
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146306
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
Warp said:
Are you just trying to argue at this point? 'cause I certainly wasn't. I have no particularly strong argument to make on this subject, other than saying that a 5.56 or a 12 gauge are each ballistically superior to a 9mm carbine, which is something of at least notable value to me in certain HD situations. Obviously (short of choosing a semi-automatic shotgun) you lose some rate of fire by moving to a shotgun. But, my intent was not to derail this thread into some debate about every little possible variable that could be debated on this subject. Granted, some of those considerations are important in the overall thread, but they weren't really within the scope of the point I was trying to illustrate.
My intended point remains, whether the example I used to illustrate it was arbitrary or not: a shotgun has a lot of power per round. Obviously I realize that there are other advantages to a semi-automatic, just as there are advantages/disadvantages to many other types of guns.
You would choose a 5.56 carbine for the threat of a single attacker, and that's perfectly fine, and based on sound logic. Personally, if I was waiting in an ambush position in a bedroom for what I believed was a single nighttime intruder (the manner of response I believe is the smart way to handle such a situation in many, but not all, cases), I'd probably reach for a shotgun. My neighbor drives an SUV, I drive a truck. Neither of us is "right", and neither of us is "wrong".
I'm not trying to tell you what to carry, and I'm not even trying to come up with a 'right' or 'wrong' choice. I'm just highlighting some options/features. I've used shotguns, handguns, and AR-15's professionally, and each has their advantage in certain situations. I've also had each of these available for home defense at one point or another (my bedroom currently features my CCW handgun and an AR-15 of carbine length). My one-shot example was merely to highlight where a shotgun does its best work. If you feel that you may have to face the threat of multiple intruders, longer distances, a likelihood of missing your first shot, opponents wearing body armor, or so on, there's plenty of argument for an AR-15 over any other manually fed weapon. If you need an affordable and simple weapon that has a huge amount of bad-guy anchoring capability, a shotgun isn't a bad choice.
I believe that many people are trying to equip their home for a situation in which they are planning around a threat of one attacker, who is quite often an unarmored burglar. This is also probably the most common threat I've seen in my career. Is it always possible that the threat is greater than they anticipated? Sure, it certainly is, but that wasn't really within the scope of my point. Anyway, I've yet to find myself in a situation (outside of work) where I felt that I was insufficiently armed with a 12 gauge shotgun... others obviously have.
Anyway, more to the original point of the thread, and with the caveat of saying that I'm talking of a situation falling well short of a Zombie Apocalypse, I would feel fine with either a 9mm carbine or a 5.56 rifle. I'd let the needs of the particular user dictate the decision in this case, and the most obvious difference I can point out between the two are:
1) .223/5.56 has more "stopping" power
2) 9mm will generally provide faster follow-up shots
3) 9mm will likely be more quiet (my 9mm carbine certainly is)
4) More parts, accessories, etc are available for the AR-15 platform.
5) The .223/5.56 will defeat most soft body armor.
I'm sure I missed quite a few points, and advantages/disadvantages to me may not be for someone else.
You should visit www.boxotruth.com
5.56 doesn't have any additional over-penetration risk even with quality defensive rounds, which are NOT varmint bullets
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
Warp said:
This fact is also supported by seminars put on by ATK (the parent company of Speer, Federal, etc) for LE/Military. I attended one of their wound ballistics workshops a couple of years ago, and it was quite eye-opening.
At that time we had been carrying one of the Federal TRU rounds that many of us didn't really care for (it was loaded with a 55gr SMK bullet, if I recall correctly -- essentially a varmint bullet). That bullet just didn't really perform well in our tests that day, which included various shots into calibrated ballistic gelatin through a variety of intermediate barriers (per the so-called "FBI protocol"). In one of the tests that bullet only managed to get a small fragment to a depth of 7", which is not acceptably deep penetration for our purposes. I'd have to find the data file from that class again, but I want to say that this was the case for the bullet of that type that was fired through windshield glass.
Anyway, we got our department to switch ammo as a result of this class, and picked a bullet that resulted in the desired 12-18" of calibrated ballistic gelatin penetration when shot through any of the standard intermediate barriers (glass, wall board, light clothing, heavy clothing, etc). The bullet chosen gave results that suggested more effectiveness than any handgun bullet, with no greater risk of over penetration.
As such, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend an AR-15 to anyone as a defensive rifle. With proper ammo it simply won't produce the "shoot through three houses and kill grandma on the next block" results that so many people (including some of my fellow officers) are fearful of. With that said, we certainly didn't test any of the green-tip penetrator ammo during this test, and I don't know what the results would have been with such a load... it simply wasn't among the choices we were evaluating for our department (similarly, that wouldn't be my choice for a defensive round anyway -- regular AR-15 ammo, even our "failed" round, will easily defeat a soft ballistic vest... as such, I have no need for the penetrator stuff for my purposes).
In fact, the biggest offender in the over penetration department was the trusty Remington 870 shotgun. We shoot a reduced recoil slug from a 2 3/4" shell in those guns, and I fired the test shot on that one during our workshop. The slug greased through the windshield glass, then went through two gelatin blocks that were set lengthwise (one behind the other). The round exited the second block with an upwards trajectory, and dinged the steel ceiling plate near the backstop at the end of our range. This was a result that actually surprised me a bit. But, it does speak to one potential negative of a shotgun (with slugs) in a home environment. NOTE: buckshot didn't produce this kind of result, and might be a better choice for home defense in urban/suburban/occupied house environments.
A good read on the topic
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/
And a few thoughts:
Shotguns and pistol caliber carbines are being ditched as fast as possible in favor of carbine length AR's by virtually all LE agencies. They basically do everything better except in a very few rare cases. Buckshot has always been over rated.
The only advantage a shotgun offers is lower price, but with todays AR prices that difference is smaller than ever.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/
And a few thoughts:
Shotguns and pistol caliber carbines are being ditched as fast as possible in favor of carbine length AR's by virtually all LE agencies. They basically do everything better except in a very few rare cases. Buckshot has always been over rated.
The only advantage a shotgun offers is lower price, but with todays AR prices that difference is smaller than ever.
Its important for the police to have cool guns, and price doesnt matter since taxpayers are picking up the bill. Plus, if the department in the next town over decides to militarize, the local cops are gonna go Jonesing for some ARs too.
Call me an anarchist, but we don't need near as many AR's in police service as we have.
Kevin, reduced recoil slugs have considerably more penetration than standard velocity slugs. With full-speed Foster slugs at close range, you get less penetration than 00. This is a demonstration (again) of the tendency for penetration to increase as velocity decreases.
C-grunt
Member
What about agencies who require their officers to buy their own equipment?
So just because of my job, which by the way has a much larger chance of getting in a shooting with an armed subject than normal people, I shouldn't be allowed to carry the most effective weapon?
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
JShirley said:
That I did not know. Interesting though.
C-grunt said:
No kidding! I work for an agency that required me to buy my duty pistol, my backup gun, and my AR-15. If I choose I can use a department shotgun that looks like it was used to paddle a canoe, or a shotgun that looks like it was used as an impact tool in a fist fight against a bear... or I can by my own shotgun, just like I bought the other three guns.
And, as you said, C-grunt, we have a heck of a lot higher chance of getting in a shooting than any given citizen. I've had friends killed by gunfire in my department, and I've been shot at on a few occasions (they missed, fortunately). We also haven't had a year go by in my career in which we haven't had multiple officer involved shootings. Add to that the fact that bad guys are better armed and equipped than they used to be, and I'm happy to have an AR-15 in the trunk, just in case.
I found it counterproductive to the 2nd Amendment cause when people accuse us LE officers of being "militarized" for having AR-15's, but then turn around and argue to our legislature that these are popular sporting rifles that shouldn't be thought of as implements of death designed solely for the battlefield... they're just pieces of gear that help us do our jobs better (and more safely), and in my case I've got probably $1650 worth of my own money tied up in it!
An AR doesn't militarize a police officer any more than it does a civilian
I guess we are having this discussion after all.
I believe patrol officers ought to have access to rifles (such as an 'AR15'), provided that they qualify with it (available funds dictating who pays for the rifle), in any and every jurisdiction where a private citizen can purchase/possess that same rifle.
I believe patrol officers ought to have access to rifles (such as an 'AR15'), provided that they qualify with it (available funds dictating who pays for the rifle), in any and every jurisdiction where a private citizen can purchase/possess that same rifle.
(slightly off topic)
Speaking of militarizing, our local police dept recently acquired an MRAP vehicle. What in the heck do they think they need one of those for in a town of 10,000?
M
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,207
The OP asks:
In my experience the Beretta CX4 9mm carbine has greater felt recoil and muzzle jump than an M4 5.56mm carbine.
The only reason I'd suggest a pistol caliber carbine is for SHTF purposes - provided it shoots the same cartridge as your defense pistol.
In my experience the Beretta CX4 9mm carbine has greater felt recoil and muzzle jump than an M4 5.56mm carbine.
The only reason I'd suggest a pistol caliber carbine is for SHTF purposes - provided it shoots the same cartridge as your defense pistol.
Would you disagree with this - 12 Gauge Birdshot Up Close:
NOTE - VERY GRAPHIC PHOTOS OF HUMAN TISSUE DAMAGE
Birdshot To Shoulder: http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=187200&stc=1&d=1375329419
Debris Removed (Note wad at bottom right): http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=187201&stc=1&d=1375329432
Repair: http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=187202&stc=1&d=1375329452
Put this birdshot load in the nipple to neck triangle and the guy won't be home for dinner... ever!
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Your pictures demonstrate the problem with birdshot quite well. If that man had taken a load of buckshot in the same location, it would have continued on to that neck nipple triangle you are talking about instead of stopping in his shoulder.
I NEVER said it was. It was YOU that challenged the statement that birdshot was effective up close. So now you disregard the up close stipulation and you make this general statement so it gets you off the hook? Please…
You make a statement about birdshot and offer nothing to back up what you have to say. I offer proof and you use the old “divert the attention routine” to save face when you are wrong? Why don’t you just man up and say something like “Gee, I had no idea” or some other nicety when someone calls you on what you say.
As to the gore, I was a homicide investigator for 6 years in one of this country’s largest cities and my sensibilities to mayhem is much lower than most. If I have insulted anyone’s sensibilities I sincerely apologize. I forget that sometimes folks on these boards talk about killing and/or causing great bodily harm, but have no idea of the brutality that it entails.
I have no problem with taliv substituting the links for the pictures. In the future, I’ll provide links instead of gore along with a graphic disclaimer. If you are going to talk the talk, then maybe you should see just what you are proposing.
Last edited:
- Status
