I don't quite understand using a rifle for home defense
- Thread starter ShooterMcGavin
- Start date
- Status
Geronimo45
Member
First weapon of choice, or the first weapon you're liable to have with you?
I think that there can be some confusion, also, because different people think of something different when they hear "home defense."
I've been in one-story sprawling ranch-style houses that had living rooms where you could see an intruder 50 yards away. My place, on the other hand, is a 3-story townhouse where a rifle would get in the way going around corners and there's no possible shot longer than 8 yards or so. Overpenetration is a serious issue.
I wouldn't rely on a pistol in the first instance, but in my place, a rifle would be an unwieldy weapon to repel a random intruder (a full-scale LA-style riot is another thing, of course). Doesn't mean I don't have any rifles; it means that, ALL things considered, a pistol IS my first choice.
That does assume a rational criminal who doesn't really like getting shot. Drugs or serious mental illness require different defenses, again, though I'm thinking that most people who would quietly sneak in would have their wits about them.
Like I said, your "first choice" depends on a lot of things.
I've been in one-story sprawling ranch-style houses that had living rooms where you could see an intruder 50 yards away. My place, on the other hand, is a 3-story townhouse where a rifle would get in the way going around corners and there's no possible shot longer than 8 yards or so. Overpenetration is a serious issue.
I wouldn't rely on a pistol in the first instance, but in my place, a rifle would be an unwieldy weapon to repel a random intruder (a full-scale LA-style riot is another thing, of course). Doesn't mean I don't have any rifles; it means that, ALL things considered, a pistol IS my first choice.
That does assume a rational criminal who doesn't really like getting shot. Drugs or serious mental illness require different defenses, again, though I'm thinking that most people who would quietly sneak in would have their wits about them.
Like I said, your "first choice" depends on a lot of things.
Feanaro
Member
For a variety of reasons, I haven't been able to practice my rifle shooting more than about ten times in the past two years. I'd kept up with my pistol shooting, usually with an IDPAish match every week.
About a month ago, I had time for a tactical rifle match. Without having kept up my practice, I had no problem pulling off quick hits. If it hadn't been for the 200 yard stage, it would have been a breeze compared to an IDPA stage.
About a month ago, I had time for a tactical rifle match. Without having kept up my practice, I had no problem pulling off quick hits. If it hadn't been for the 200 yard stage, it would have been a breeze compared to an IDPA stage.
Bazooka Joe71
Member
I really don't know much about ballistics other than what some of the experts on here tell me, but it seems I keep hearing(especially in this thread) that a handgun round is going to overpenetrate far more than say a .223 rd, because of the weight of the bullet.
Armedbear, on penetration, go back and look at Booner's posts where they tested that.
As for moving, and it being unweildy, or too long, that is a matter for tactics and training. I would be happy to put you in touch with some people who could teach you how to use a carbine indoors. One of my mentors is in the San Diego area, he primarily does LE SWAT instruction, but I'm sure he would have no problem directing you to somebody in your area who does good training.
As for moving, and it being unweildy, or too long, that is a matter for tactics and training. I would be happy to put you in touch with some people who could teach you how to use a carbine indoors. One of my mentors is in the San Diego area, he primarily does LE SWAT instruction, but I'm sure he would have no problem directing you to somebody in your area who does good training.
Okay, let me explain.
We're comparing light, high velocity rifle bullets vs. pistol bullets.
The 5.56 round (and not AP, SS109, or anything like that, I prefer TAP) is going fast, and is lightly constructed. They tend to fragment in tissue. The fragmentation destroys a lot more tissue area, causes a lot more blood loss, and generally makes a mess. The pistol bullet tends to poke a hole.
The same thing happens in building materials, in that the high speed, lightly constructed bullet starts to deform and fall apart faster in walls. The pistol bullet still pokes a hole.
There's a reason pretty much every SWAT team in the country is using an M4 and ditching their MP5s. I'm not making this stuff up. Don't take my word for it. Go shoot some stuff with both and see for yourself.
cbsbyte
Member
I believe it depends on the location, and size of the house. But generally a high power hunting rifle will not be a good choice for HD. Maybe if a brown bear was trying to knock down your front door but the rest of the time it would be unwieldy in a confined space. An AR M4 clone might be fine for others with more land around their house, or in SHTF property defense scenarios. In the residential area I happen to live, any rifle including a AR would not be a wise choice. The houses are just too close together. A stray bullet could easily pass though a window and end up hitting a neighbors house. Which would make things go from bad to worse for me since I will have enough legal problems after shooting a criminal. For me a handgun is the best choice in my old Victorian era house which has small rooms. For others with larger rooms maybe a shotgun would be a wise choice.
A stray bullet could easily pass though a window and end up hitting a neighbors house.
In that case, a Corbon 165gr +P in my 1911 or a Federal low recoil slug from my Defender shotgun could zip through a window and into a neighbor's house. How do those rounds going out the window differentiate from a TAP in my AR going out the window?
In that case, a Corbon 165gr +P in my 1911 or a Federal low recoil slug from my Defender shotgun could zip through a window and into a neighbor's house. How do those rounds going out the window differentiate from a TAP in my AR going out the window?
Bazooka Joe71
Member
Did you read the post before yours???
Once again, I am no expert, I just try to listen to the ones on here...
But what you just said in the above quote seems to totally contradict what Correia said the very post before yours.
cbsbyte
Member
Any bullet will pass through a window. So one has to be careful where one aims. But I would not use a rifle or a shotgun for HD in my house because of the size of the rooms. A long barrel, even 16" would be too unwieldy in very close quarters. I have read the main reason SWAT teams use M4s is to penetrate body armor or other cover at short distances that an MP-5 can't penetrate. Their is also a reason why many SWAT teams use .45 1911s. That is so the bullet stops the subject without over penetration. And usually only one or two members of a team will have M4s.
Nope. The vast majority have M4s, unless you count the breacher with a shotgun, and if they employ a shield guy, then he's got a pistol only. Otherwise they're M4s across the board. The only departments I know of that are still strictly using MP5s are because of budget or politics. Neither is a decision made by the actual trigger pullers. (and I sell this stuff to police departments, so I know what they like to buy)
Anything is going to penetrate some barriers.
Anything is going to penetrate a window.
That is when strategy and tactics come into play. That's another reason that nobody advocates clearing your house by yourself unless you have absolutely no choice. Because in a dynamic environment it is tougher to always have a safe backstop. Ideally you want to set up and wait for them to come to you. Put some bookshelves at the end of your hall.
We're not talking about "high-powered" rifles, nor are we talking about AP ammo. We're talking about 5.56, lightly constructed, high velocity bullets. None of us rifle advocates have once said for you to take your elk rifle, bolt gun and use it. I'm pretty sure that most of us are recommending a 5.56 semi-auto carbine with the CORRECT AMMO.
Once again, don't pay attention to the internet. Go stack up a bunch of building materials. Three or four sheets of dry wall, some insulation, 2x4s, and stack a row of water jugs behind them. See what happens for yourself. It is really cool when by the last wall the .223 comes out sideways or in a couple of pieces and kills one milk jug, and the 9mm kills a couple of milk jugs.
A lot of you guys are going off of conjecture, and internet rumors. There is no reason you can't try this for yourself.
Anything is going to punch a couple layers of drywall. The question is, what shape is the bullet in after doing so? You can find this out for yourself.
Or we can talk about this here for another 9 pages.
If you're well and truely that worried about penetration, load a shotgun with birdshot. It is still going to beat the pistol at close range in the massiveness of the wound, it is easier to shoot accurately (you still need to aim!). But even then, don't take the word of the internet, go shoot those same walls with the shotgun and see what happens! At the ranges we're talking about you're gonna blow a big hole right through several layers.
Guys, please. There is no need for conjecture. $20 worth of scrap materials, a couple boxes of ammo, and a bunch of recyled milk jugs will tell you a whole lot more than any ten people guessing on the internet.
cbsbyte
Member
Maybe the police in your region of the country are moving to M4s but I know for certain most police agencies around here in Mass still use Mp-5s. I have never heard of them switching. The state police use Mp-5s. The reason probably varies but I would believe most of it is political.
Personally I would never use any assault rifle for HD, the costs out weight the positives. It would be very hard to justify the use of a AR-15 for HD shooting to the police and DA. It goes without saying that I would be charged for a HD shooting in this state. The DA would have a field day in front of the jury with the evidence. Where you live you might get away with using a AR for HD. Sorry, I will stick to my .357 mag with HP regardless of the stopping power.
Personally I would never use any assault rifle for HD, the costs out weight the positives. It would be very hard to justify the use of a AR-15 for HD shooting to the police and DA. It goes without saying that I would be charged for a HD shooting in this state. The DA would have a field day in front of the jury with the evidence. Where you live you might get away with using a AR for HD. Sorry, I will stick to my .357 mag with HP regardless of the stopping power.
See, the legal atmosphere of your state is a valid concern. Why didn't you just say that to begin with, rather than fixating on concerns (penetration) that have already been addressed ad nauseum?
Kind of like the other fellow with a small child, and no good idea how to secure a long gun. Also valid.
And honestly, if I lived in a place where criminals were a protected species, I would probably have a pump shotgun or http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_7615.asp because either is far more effective than a pistol, and neither will cause a Mass. jury to wet themselves in fear.
Kind of like the other fellow with a small child, and no good idea how to secure a long gun. Also valid.
And honestly, if I lived in a place where criminals were a protected species, I would probably have a pump shotgun or http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_7615.asp because either is far more effective than a pistol, and neither will cause a Mass. jury to wet themselves in fear.
ShooterMcGavin
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2007
- Messages
- 629
I'm still here, reading along. 
I just can't spend the time responding on the internet like I used to.
You can claim to have another supporter for the use of a rifle for HD (I was never "against" the use of a rifle). Now, it is just a matter of budget for me. Until then, I will continue working on proficiency with the gun available to me.
Thank you, everyone... and thank you Correia and others, for your experience and background on this subject.
I just can't spend the time responding on the internet like I used to.You can claim to have another supporter for the use of a rifle for HD (I was never "against" the use of a rifle). Now, it is just a matter of budget for me. Until then, I will continue working on proficiency with the gun available to me.
Thank you, everyone... and thank you Correia and others, for your experience and background on this subject.
ctdonath
Member
Worth repeating.
Got a handgun? it can do the HD job adequately. No question it's better than, say, a potato peeler.
That said AND ACKNOWLEDGED, per the lead question of this thread, there is a LOT to warrant using a long gun instead.
What's puzzling is why a few here keep insisting on pushing handguns as superior for HD, and keep dissing better options with snide remarks.
I've been to LFI and Gunsite; the notion that they "say the handgun is the first weapon of choice for home defense" is preposterous. Realistically, they recognize that a handgun is most likely what people will have handy, but for more thought-out & prepared defense they'll advocate something in the carbine or shotgun range.
Yes, it does - and that's why I kept a 12ga at hand for years. On further consideration, I concluded that: 30 rounds was better than 6, semiauto is better than pump, mag fed is better than tube, suppressed is better than not, HD involves distances under 10 yards, and if the military is actively using the M4 for urban combat then it should work nicely for my purposes. Apply similar considerations for other "bigger" rifles & shotguns. I've evaluated options, and come to this conclusion.
Notice we're now arguing the difference between the .223 carbine and other rifle/shotgun platforms - not handguns. If the latter is all you have, use it ... but pretty clearly an upgrade is worth a serious argument with your wallet.
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
Sigh. I'm always so sad to miss an "sm" post, and now I think I've missed like five.
Pistol in the pocket or waistband during the day, then under the pillow or on the shelf by my bed at night. And at night, the CAR15 leaning against the bookshelf right next to the bed. Glad to have choices.
Pistol in the pocket or waistband during the day, then under the pillow or on the shelf by my bed at night. And at night, the CAR15 leaning against the bookshelf right next to the bed. Glad to have choices.
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
If you live on a ranch, there is no excuse for not having a 155mm Howitzer sighted in for all ranges within 500 yards of your house. There are also no excuses for not having an automated system that launches and reloads said howitzer automatically when any lifeform crosses within eye sight of your house in a 500 yard defensive encirclement. Anything less sucks.
monkeykevin
Member
IMO a shovel and a backyard would do fine for me... I think I rather have more work than use my Glock leaving a mess in my home... especially when people walk there shoes all over my carpet.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
I know your reply was meant to be witty or scathing or something, but perhaps you should actually pick a weapon system that is useful from 0-500 yards.
As mentioned by Soybomb, the thread has gone far beyond silly hyperbole. Let's try to stick to a bit of realism at this point.
This thread is still going?
Sadly, this thread is evidence that many people are unable to view the world through a lens other than the one afforded by their own goldfish bowl that is their life.
We have seen passionate advocates of certain positions. We have seen emotional responses and even a person get his feelings hurt to the point that he suggested that he would support a Ban on "Assault Weapons."
All this because people live in different situations, have different views of what is best for them in those situations, and have an overdeveloped need to be right.
God help the person that lives in a anti-gun state. It really is a valid concern that juries would not look favorable on using an AR or AK for home defense. But this person has no basis for exporting his situation to the rest of us. We don't exist in that scenerio.
More than likely, a jury here facing a homeowner with an AK would have deliberations more like the typical AR verses AK debates we see in Rifle Country-- not demonizing the homeowner.
But I can't export our situation to Mass. It doesn't fly there.
We have someone that has small children in the home. This person brought up the concern of their safety. I don't have kids. His situation and mind are very different. Again, there is no validity in exporting his situation to my home. Nor it there any in my doing the same to him.
The problems with this thread, however, are two-fold beyond the above concern.
First, some people who have advocated one position have made their preferences known and cited some reasons. When those reasons were questioned, they came up with more, and then more, and then more-- only to find the root cause much later such as legislation or child safety in THEIR home.
Second, when some persons come to their own conclusions of what is best in their own situation, they have some inexplicable need to generalize their situation to the rest of the world. They have sought a "Universal Doctrine" of home defense. There isn't one, there won't be one, and it is foolish to believe otherwise.
Overpenetration concerns? How on earth could this be a universal situaiton?
A person living in a home in a rural area and a guy living in a condo have different situations even if overpenetration did occur.
And not all homes are built the same. Not all of us live in modern homes.
For instance, *I* live in a 100-year old house that has all interior walls made of 1"x4"s of HEART pine. On top of that, they have 1" of sheetrock. That means to penetrate one interior wall, a bullet has to pass through 2 inches of heart pine and 2 inches of sheetrock.
For penetration of an external wall, the bullet still needs to penetrate 1 inch of sheetrock, 1 inch of heart pine, and 1 inch of heart cypress (exterior wall).
And even if the bullet did penetrate to the outside of the house, where is it going? I don't have a neighbor for 5 miles. I live deep in private and posted property. The only entrance to this property is gated with a remote-activated gate. We don't get drop-in guests, and we surly don't have neighbors.
This is a dramatically different situation from what I lived in back in Orlando. I lived in a condo with neighbors on each side. There, I would have been concerned.
But the thing is that we cross a very significant line when we start trying to see all situations as equal. We cross that line when we start seeking a "Univeral Doctrine" on home defense.
Is is only a matter of time before someone decides that they (or those like them) believe themselves to be the ones to determine what that Univeral Doctrine should be. We saw that with AW Ban I.
Who is to decide what the universal answer is? Surely, it isn't you. It isn't me, either.
Are we done now?
-- John
Sadly, this thread is evidence that many people are unable to view the world through a lens other than the one afforded by their own goldfish bowl that is their life.
We have seen passionate advocates of certain positions. We have seen emotional responses and even a person get his feelings hurt to the point that he suggested that he would support a Ban on "Assault Weapons."
All this because people live in different situations, have different views of what is best for them in those situations, and have an overdeveloped need to be right.
God help the person that lives in a anti-gun state. It really is a valid concern that juries would not look favorable on using an AR or AK for home defense. But this person has no basis for exporting his situation to the rest of us. We don't exist in that scenerio.
More than likely, a jury here facing a homeowner with an AK would have deliberations more like the typical AR verses AK debates we see in Rifle Country-- not demonizing the homeowner.
But I can't export our situation to Mass. It doesn't fly there.
We have someone that has small children in the home. This person brought up the concern of their safety. I don't have kids. His situation and mind are very different. Again, there is no validity in exporting his situation to my home. Nor it there any in my doing the same to him.
The problems with this thread, however, are two-fold beyond the above concern.
First, some people who have advocated one position have made their preferences known and cited some reasons. When those reasons were questioned, they came up with more, and then more, and then more-- only to find the root cause much later such as legislation or child safety in THEIR home.
Second, when some persons come to their own conclusions of what is best in their own situation, they have some inexplicable need to generalize their situation to the rest of the world. They have sought a "Universal Doctrine" of home defense. There isn't one, there won't be one, and it is foolish to believe otherwise.
Overpenetration concerns? How on earth could this be a universal situaiton?
A person living in a home in a rural area and a guy living in a condo have different situations even if overpenetration did occur.
And not all homes are built the same. Not all of us live in modern homes.
For instance, *I* live in a 100-year old house that has all interior walls made of 1"x4"s of HEART pine. On top of that, they have 1" of sheetrock. That means to penetrate one interior wall, a bullet has to pass through 2 inches of heart pine and 2 inches of sheetrock.
For penetration of an external wall, the bullet still needs to penetrate 1 inch of sheetrock, 1 inch of heart pine, and 1 inch of heart cypress (exterior wall).
And even if the bullet did penetrate to the outside of the house, where is it going? I don't have a neighbor for 5 miles. I live deep in private and posted property. The only entrance to this property is gated with a remote-activated gate. We don't get drop-in guests, and we surly don't have neighbors.
This is a dramatically different situation from what I lived in back in Orlando. I lived in a condo with neighbors on each side. There, I would have been concerned.
But the thing is that we cross a very significant line when we start trying to see all situations as equal. We cross that line when we start seeking a "Univeral Doctrine" on home defense.
Is is only a matter of time before someone decides that they (or those like them) believe themselves to be the ones to determine what that Univeral Doctrine should be. We saw that with AW Ban I.
Who is to decide what the universal answer is? Surely, it isn't you. It isn't me, either.
Are we done now?
-- John
Correia, as WE and OTHER SERIOUS End users, Understand the Pro's, con's and limitations of of our gear cause we Train. We seak higher knowledge and facts and actual useage data. and THOSE of US that actually do get out and train and practice what we have trained in....(not just what we like to do or are good at to save ego's) We are better off for that.
I have mounds of info. on this subject but Yah know.... I get a headache from those that know better....... (or so they think) cause by all means Im still learning every day i do this.
I have mounds of info. on this subject but Yah know.... I get a headache from those that know better....... (or so they think) cause by all means Im still learning every day i do this.
Booner, guys like us are serious students. We like to learn things and then test them for ourselves.
But that is a lot of work. And this is the internet, we should just randomly make stuff up. It would be a lot easier.
For example:
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person
From Nizkor.org
Venkman, do you have anything to acutually add to this debate, or do you just like to bring up random childish distortions of your opponent's position? You'll note that Booner and I have repeatedly brought up 5.56 weapons for home defense, and the superiority of certain types of long guns.
If I was engaged in major combat operations and land warfare, then the 155mm howitzer wins, and my rifle sucks. But this topic was about home defense.
I own this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTaHejAdF-4 (that is PvtPyle in the video)
I own most of the guns in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxLoahwIwqU In fact, the suppressed AR toward the beginning is my home defense gun. I'm the big dude with the goatee shooting it.
But as you'll note, I've advocated the use of some very specific long guns, over and over, in this thread. If I honestly believed your asinine hyperbole and strawmen, I would set up a PKM behind my bedroom door and I could literally hose down my entire neighborhood. I could punch engine blocks at 1,500 meters. And with the people I hang out with, I can call in a friggin' mortar strike if I felt like it.
So getting yet another of your asinine strawmen out of the way, I'm an advocate of semi-auto long guns, chambered in an intermediate caliber, using ammo with a history of fragmentation, for home defense, whenever possible.
For home defense, handguns suck. If I'm taking on a village full of Taliban, my rifle sucks, but an 81mm mortar rules. Get it yet?
You know, once before in this thread you made a similar post, (I think that was insinuating that if we had a 30 round mag, we we're going to hose all of them, which ironically is a Brady Bunch argument against "assault weapons") and when you got called on it by a bunch of posters, you backtracked and said ha ha, I was like totally joking. I'll be waiting for that again.
In the meantime, we've got several people who're going to take a serious look at upgrading to a long gun for self defense in their home. Good for them. At least these behemouth of a thread accomplished something.
But that is a lot of work. And this is the internet, we should just randomly make stuff up. It would be a lot easier.
For example:
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person
From Nizkor.org
Venkman, do you have anything to acutually add to this debate, or do you just like to bring up random childish distortions of your opponent's position? You'll note that Booner and I have repeatedly brought up 5.56 weapons for home defense, and the superiority of certain types of long guns.
If I was engaged in major combat operations and land warfare, then the 155mm howitzer wins, and my rifle sucks. But this topic was about home defense.
Dude, I have access to weapons that would blow your mind.
I own this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTaHejAdF-4 (that is PvtPyle in the video)
I own most of the guns in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxLoahwIwqU In fact, the suppressed AR toward the beginning is my home defense gun. I'm the big dude with the goatee shooting it.
But as you'll note, I've advocated the use of some very specific long guns, over and over, in this thread. If I honestly believed your asinine hyperbole and strawmen, I would set up a PKM behind my bedroom door and I could literally hose down my entire neighborhood. I could punch engine blocks at 1,500 meters. And with the people I hang out with, I can call in a friggin' mortar strike if I felt like it.
So getting yet another of your asinine strawmen out of the way, I'm an advocate of semi-auto long guns, chambered in an intermediate caliber, using ammo with a history of fragmentation, for home defense, whenever possible.
For home defense, handguns suck. If I'm taking on a village full of Taliban, my rifle sucks, but an 81mm mortar rules. Get it yet?
You know, once before in this thread you made a similar post, (I think that was insinuating that if we had a 30 round mag, we we're going to hose all of them, which ironically is a Brady Bunch argument against "assault weapons") and when you got called on it by a bunch of posters, you backtracked and said ha ha, I was like totally joking. I'll be waiting for that again.
In the meantime, we've got several people who're going to take a serious look at upgrading to a long gun for self defense in their home. Good for them. At least these behemouth of a thread accomplished something.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
