I don't quite understand using a rifle for home defense

[Correia]

Bazooka,

I'm thinking you might want to go back over what Corriea said...

Nah... That's not nearly as fun as making up bizzare analogys, and just fabricating crap. Because I totally said you need a full auto .50 BMG to defend your house, and TOW rockets, and handgun bullets bounce off of well starched shirts. As far as I can tell, his main hang up is that I said handguns suck.

Well, comparably to rifles and shotguns, they do. Sorry if that offends you. Don't mean they can't kill you. They just don't do anything as well as a long gun, except conceal.

As for the race car vs. regular car analogy? Yes, both are cars. If all I have is the Yugo, good for me. But if I'm going to go get in a race, why not take the race car?

Bringing a chainsaw to a knife fight? Well... duh...

And yes, handguns break bones. I never said they didn't. Yes, they pierce skulls. Like I said, I've killed a couple hundred cows with pistol bullets directly to the skull. But breaking bones on a human is one of the least reliable ways to achieve a physiological stop. CNS is fastest, followed by blood loss to the brain.

Look, where I get ALL HANDGUNS SUCK from is that I teach this stuff for a living. My average student is relatively new to guns. Most of what they've learned comes from TV. They fully expect somebody hit with a .45 to fly backwards through a window, do a flip, roll through the street, and catch on fire... Because that's what they've been taught a pistol does. I write ALL HANDGUNS SUCK!!! on the board when we get to ballistics, and it gets their attention.

When I teach a CCW class, I'm very limited in time. I have to cut through a lot of indoctrinated BS. I try to take the information from an 8 hour wound ballistics course and compress it down to about a 15 minute segment of a 5 hour class that has to cover 50 other topics. The main thing I try to convey to them is that handguns are the worst choice of firearm possible for actually, you know, shooting people.

Your asinine analogys are bothersome and tiring. No, I don't think you need a 50 BMG. No, I don't think you need to pierce a tank. Give me a break. You pick the best tool for the mission at hand. This mission is defending your house. I've said since the beginning, the goal is to achieve a stop, right away. A intermediate caliber, semi-auto, carbine, or a shotgun achieve this goal far better than any handgun.

As for moving with a long gun? What does Booner know? He only, you know, actually TEACHES THIS STUFF PROFESSIONALLY and has tons of real world experience. Real world experience is never as good as made up stuff on the internet.

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

I'm thinking you might want to go back over what Corriea said...Never once did he mention a bullet from a handgun would break a bone.

Haha, I just read what i wrote there. wouldn't is the word that should have been there, so I fixed it.

I'm pretty sure you knew what I mean't but I just wanted to clarify.

I wouldn't want to tell him to read over what you wrote if I disagreed with it.

 

[bdjansen]

Nah... That's not nearly as fun as making up bizzare analogys, and just fabricating crap. Because I totally said you need a full auto .50 BMG to defend your house, and TOW rockets, and handgun bullets bounce off of well starched shirts. As far as I can tell, his main hang up is that I said handguns suck.

I did not fabricate any crap. And never once did I say anything about .50 BMG. And you accuse ME of making up stuff?!?

Yes, my main hang up is you said handguns suck. This is just a stupid thing to say. If you want to say it to your class for shock value and to dispel Hollywood myths then fine. But spare us please.

Handguns do not "suck". They do what they do and do it well. Other guns do other things better or worse. They are all just tools.

Handguns are not caliber specific. There are handgun calibers that overlap the energy produced by common rifle rounds. You know this and yet you label all handguns as suck. If you have a problem with the energy produced by and below a certain caliber then why not say it? And produce some scientific reasoning to back it up.

I was bothered by the fact you said handguns do not do well against bones. I provided scientific proof of how little energy it took to destroy a human bone. I never said that we should just use .22s like you accused me. Why would you want to use the minimum?

I thought it would be an interesting read and a scientific look at the interaction between bone and projectile energy. Nowhere does it say that less is better. In fact it clearly shows why more energy is better. Yet I was ridiculed for posting it.

YOU are the one labeling handguns as "suck". YOU are the one who in your last post alone said these things about me:

That's not nearly as fun as making up bizzare analogys, and just fabricating crap.

Your asinine analogys are bothersome and tiring.

....made up stuff on the internet.

So lets go over what you said to offend me so we are clear:

- You said that all handguns "suck."
- You said that handguns "don't do well against bones."
- You accuse me of saying things I did not say.
- You make snide little remarks about what I am saying as "asinine analogys," "fabricating crap," and "made up stuff on the internet."

Yeah, I think that's more then a little bit to be offended by. I would expect better from somebody wearing a moderator label.

 

[Correia]

- You said that all handguns "suck."

Compared to long guns, they do. Deal with it. If this thread was about handguns vs. point sticks, then I would have to say that sticks suck.

- You said that handguns "don't do well against bones."

Let me rephrase then. Breaking bones is the least effective way to stop somebody, with CNS and blood loss coming first. Handguns can break bones (have said that every time), but when they do break them, they don't tend to cause as much secondary fragmentation, which gives you blood loss. More blood loss is better. I get people in every class talking about breaking the pelvis with a handgun, and stupid crap like that. It doesn't work in real life.

-You accuse me of saying things I did not say.
- You make snide little remarks about what I am saying as "asinine analogys,"

Here, let me help you:
This would be called a strawman:

Do you think all those victims from Virginia Tech are glad they were only shot with a 9mm and .22? I mean, why didn't a few people jump the small Asian guy with such weak guns?

Not only bad, but asinine, and offensive. To see how I feel about this topic, read my sig line. I spent $1,800 of my personal money to advertise this in college newspapers, and eaten about $4,000 worth of class fees.

This would be a logical fallacy:

The human body is very fragile. How badly do you have to destroy it to be impressed?

Here, let me help you. You're shooting to stop. STOP. Not kill. I don't care if they die. I want them stopped. Handguns don't stop as well as rifles. Therefore, they suck.

Just like you saying that I wouldn't think shotguns are good, because your wife put somebody's leg back together and they lived. I only got a B in Logic, and that was a really long time ago, but I believe that would also be a Strawman.

And this would be a bad analogy:

Is my Honda slow just because a race car is faster?

In a race, the race car wins. So for racing, yes, your Honda SUCKS.

That's just from two posts on one page, and I don't really care enough to go back any further. Couple that with stuff about me needing to "pierce a tank" (which is why I said .50 BMG and TOW rockets).

Suck hind tit "be inferior" is Amer.Eng. slang first recorded 1940.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

Curse you moderator for your use of slang! CURSE YOU TO HELL!

So basically it comes down to you being all sorts of offended because of my choice of words that all handguns suck. Otherwise you agree with everything else. Hoo kay then. Moving right along.

And by the way, the only time I find posters bringing up the fact that the person they're arguing with is a moderator is when said poster is getting mudstomped in the thread, and they hope that they can rally some other posters behind them against the big mean bully moderator. It usually doesn't work.

 

[coyote_jr]

are you boys about finished?

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Handguns don't stop as well as rifles do.

Therefore handguns suck.

Rifles don't stop as well as 155mm Howitzers do.

Therefore rifles suck.

155mm Howitzers don't stop as well as Thermonuclear Warheads do.

Therefore 155mm Howitzers suck.

Thus we all need Thermonuclear Warheads for home defense.

Are you sure you got a 'B' in logic?

 

[Correia]

No, because a thermonuclear warhead would suck for homedefense, what with destroying the whole town and whatnot. As would a 155mm when I take out the whole cul-de-sac.

Now if the subject was what's best for MAD, then the warhead wins, and yes, your rifle sucks. It's all about picking the right tool for the job.

Yep, got a B, but I was an accounting major. Mostly I screwed around.

 

[woof]

I think while you might be on the high road literally (handguns compared to long guns blah blah), but by "saying" handguns suck, you're not recognizing that a statement like that is usually not taken literally. It is taken to mean the fanciers of handguns suck as well. Steelers suck? Go to Pittsburgh and see if anyone takes it personally. Remingtons suck? That might be one's opinion but it is pretty inflammatory to come out and say it. Muzzleloaders suck? I'd be real careful where I said that!

 

[akodo]

Read the freaking PDFs people. Try to understand some science. Handguns (all sizes) provide more then enough power to destroy the strongest part of any body.

This is NOT about handguns vs rifles. Everyone knows rifles have far more power. I have said this in every single post!!!

Okay, everyone knows that handguns can kill. Even the lowly .22LR can kill. Doesn't mean it is great for stopping people like you cut the strings on a puppet. Often times people shot at close range with a handgun can still function for a few seconds. I believe the famous 'one shot stop' tables use a 10 second window between shot fired and hostile stopping.

Handguns kill. Rifles kill better. In some cases we are talking 90% vs 94%. I'll still take every percent I can get. But lets just set aside that segment of the debate for a second. While I don't agree, I will temporarily conceed the point.

So handguns and rifles both can stop attackers good enough, so lets go a step farther in home defense.

Rifles beat handguns in capacity. Sure, there are some single shot ruger #1s running around that don't, but then there are some single shot and double shot pistols too. We are of course talking average handguns and average home defense rifles. 20-30 beats 6-15.

Rifles beat handguns in accuracy/ability to shoot well. There is no denying this, you have a longer sight radius, heavier overall weapon, more steady platform, etc etc. The only way this changes is with a huge discrepmacy in training time. Misses dont' stop anything, hits do. More hits beat less hits.

as far as grabbing, long and unwieldy, tie. A pistol held out in a standard weaver stance, well that is plenty long to get ahold of. If you have some training, maybe you will hold it at your side, off arm ready to block any intruder's rush while you shoot. But then there are some very effective carbine techniques too. but still, unwieldy is IRRELEVANT in home defense, because you should be hunkering down, not out hunting badguys.

Pistols win on concealability, but again, that shouldn't be a consideration for home defense (although it may be for door answering)

pistols win for ease of storing in a close by spot, simply because they are smaller, hence you have more options to have them right were you need them. Ive never been able to fit a carbine into my nightstand.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

No, because a thermonuclear warhead would suck for homedefense, what with destroying the whole town and whatnot. As would a 155mm when I take out the whole cul-de-sac.

Now if the subject was what's best for MAD, then the warhead wins, and yes, your rifle sucks. It's all about picking the right tool for the job.

Yep, got a B, but I was an accounting major. Mostly I screwed around.

Haha.

The right tool for the job is what is up for debate. Myself, I would feel fine with a 1911 for making sure loved ones were alright in my household. I'm not saying I would not prefer an M4 with a Felony Switch, but If I needed a collapsible stock AR-15 for home defense, first off I believe I might want to move out of the projects.

 

[mpmarty]

This was fun!

I've read and even reread some of these posts. I disagree with some, agree with others and have mixed feelings with the rest.

Home defense for us here at rancho starvouto does not begin and end with weapon choice. My bedside guns are pistols because I like to keep my shotguns, carbines and rifles in a large safe with multiple dehumidifiers, we're in Oregon after all, drip, drizzle, drip for much of the year.

We live on a mountaintop surrounded by land we own. We have remote PIR sensors and some "other" type of sensors scattered around and we have audio and visual notification of anyone walking or driving onto our property long before they get in sight of the house. In the daytime the safe is unlocked and close to where we drink our coffee and listen to the shortwave. At night I admit I rely on the weaker protection provided by a 10mm with sixteen rounds and an XD 45 with a dozen or so Barnes solid copper hollow points. The fact that I am an active IPSC competitor and have been for many years and pride myself on being able to run and gun under pressure helps my level of confidence. My plan is to absolutely STOP intruders before they breach the walls of my home. If they get in, I've already lost the initiative and yes, I am willing to shoot them down in the front yard before they have a chance to harm me or mine. I'll sort out the legalities later thank you.:banghead:

 

[Correia]

It is taken to mean the fanciers of handguns suck as well.

I own a bunch of pistols, teach pistol shooting, compete with pistols, am ranked Expert in IDPA with a pistol, love to shoot IPSC, and sell pistols out of my store. I've got 20,000 rounds through my carry gun. I reload .45 ACP. I have two suppressed pistols. The only time I don't have a pistol on is when I'm asleep or in the shower.

Yes, so I totally meant that everybody who likes pistols sucks. That is absolutely what I meant. Since I love pistol shooting, I must suck too.

People on the internet need to learn to divorce their hardware from their self-esteem, or they're gonna get their feelings hurt, a lot.

When I teach, I don't care about how the student FEELS, I care that my students learn how to stop badguys and stay alive. I hurt a lot of feelings. If you've got some personal worth invested in your hardware, oh well. Don't let your feelings hold you back from doing something more effective.

 

[coyote_jr]

The right tool for the job is what is up for debate. Myself, I would feel fine with a 1911 for making sure loved ones were alright in my household. If I needed a collapsible stock AR-15 for home defense, first off I believe I might want to move out of the projects.

Yeah or the wealthy suburbs of Chesire, CT.

Maybe you should stop projecting your obvious personal fears of actually handling an AR-15, as many home invasions happen outside the projects.

 

[woof]

So do you think that so far, in this thread, you have helped anyone by saying all handguns suck and the sooner we get that through our heads the better off we'll be? Let me guess - you offered them the help and if they didn't get it that's their own fault. What you have is just another run of the mill opinion. I know people more accomplished than you who rely solely on handguns for self-defense. I would invite others to ask around of experienced shooters and yes, instructors. Ask them if they think all handguns suck for self-defense. Tell them you have it from a great expert that they do. See what they say.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

They are all out today aren't they.

Yeah or the wealthy suburbs of Chesire, CT.

Maybe you should stop projecting your obvious personal fears of actually handling an AR-15, as many home invasions happen outside the projects.

Where did I mention I have a personal fear of handling an AR-15?

Oh wait, I didn't. Don't make assumptions.

 

[Correia]

Woof, that's my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, it is worth what you paid for it.

So do you think that so far, in this thread, you have helped anyone by saying all handguns suck and the sooner we get that through our heads the better off we'll be?

If one person, just one person, upgrades to a 5.56 carbine loaded with proper ammo, or a properly fitted shotgun, instead of a handgun, then yep, I sure do. You don't seem to realize that the average person new to this stuff gets most of their information about gunfights from TV.

Average student off the street expects people to go flying backwards when struck with a .45. I'm pretty certain that we have plenty of beginners on here also.

I know people more accomplished than you who rely solely on handguns for self-defense. I would invite others to ask around of experienced shooters and yes, instructors.

I'm no expert. I'm just some dude with an opinion who happens to have had great opportunities to work and train with some really amazing and qualified people.

I would be really, really, really curious who one of these instructors are, who given a choice between a pistol and a rifle, would take a pistol to a gun fight. I would actually love to talk to said expert. I think it would be fascinating. Why don't you do me a favor and shoot me a PM with their name and contact information? Let me know where they teach, if you don't mind?

Most professional firearms instructors have no problem talking to each other. I talk to a bunch of other instructors on a regular basis, and we disagree about plenty of topics, but I'm not aware of any who think pistols are superior to long arms for anything other than concealment.

Which agency or organization says pistol over rifle for actually shooting people, honestly, send me the info. Because I would love to talk to your expert buddy and see how they arrived at this conclusion.

Or is this just another battle about semantics, and I hurt your feelings when I said pistols suck? Because you know, I've typed like a dozen long winded posts to this thread, and the only thing people can seem to fixate on is the definition of the word suck. And yes, I posted that too.

So if your feelings are so deeply bruised because I said your handgun sucks, in your mind take my original post, ALL HANDGUNS SUCK, insert a comma, and put COMPARED TO RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS. There. Feel better?

 

[coyote_jr]

Where did I mention I have a personal fear of handling an AR-15?
Oh wait, I didn't. Don't make assumptions.

I was going to respond until I noticed you edited your original post #137. Nice to be able to edit eh?

 

[woof]

I just called one instructor friend. He says sorry, he doesn't want to talk to you because you sound like a big meany-pants . He did say that saying all handguns suck is a super generalization and all super generalizations are stupid. (In fact, that is the only super generalization that isn't stupid). He also said if he had to shoot someone who was an imminent threat and he was certain he could hit his target in equal time in either scenario, he would of course prefer to hit them with the mostest. But, he adds, there are multiple factors involved. You have to get your projectile to its target in time. And even before that you have to see your target. There are, he says, many times for many people when their best chance to do that is with a handgun. Why? Because some handguns are better than some rifles - if only because of rapidity of follow-up shots. Sounds to me like he is saying, "depends." Assuming he isn't talking about the diapers, "depends" is probably closer to the truth than any other position on this or amny other subjects.

 

[marley]

More power is better. I too use a ar for hd. I shoot it pretty quick. Most people would be afraid if they saw me with it. I do have a .45 by the bed as well. I don't care how they stop. Don't care why they stop I just want them to stop. 30 rds of 5.56 will stop better than 9 rd of .45. Sure the .45 is with me more often. The handgun is to get to the long gun. Every instructor I have had said the same thing. When you read in the paper that someone was shot and treated and released it almost always is with a handgun rd. Very rarely is it a shotgun or rifles. Handguns do suck. Can't live with out them though. The first rule is have a gun. Second rule is have a rifle. Third rule is bring friends with rifles. Saying handguns are the best tool is crazy. Sure they are easy to carry. That is really what they are best for. Patrick

 

[Geronimo45]

Because some handguns are better than some rifles - if only because of rapidity of follow-up shots.

Yes, and that's why a lot of folks are disagreeing with you. They are talking about very low recoil, high capacity rifles with a million attachments for lights, lasers, suppressors, pistol grips, and tactical toaster ovens. You are talking about rifles in general... Remington 700s and such - hunting rifles with five rounds or less.

 

[XD Fan]

Maybe Correia's use of the word "suck" is annoying (I guess ), but his other arguments make more sense than his opponents.

Look, using the word "Suck" is a rhetorical tool. It is all about emphasis; don't take it personal.

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

Correia,

I hurt a lot of feelings

Yes you do, and I am not sure if we can be best buds anymore!

I find the term "handguns suck" HIGHLY offensive...It's as if you were looking directly at ME when you said it!(end sarcasm)

Why? Because some handguns are better than some rifles - if only because of rapidity of follow-up shots. Sounds to me like he is saying, "depends."

I'm trying to think really hard about one single handgun(.22's aside) that I can accurately follow up shots with better than my AR....And I'm drawing a big blank.

So I'm guessing you either misconstrued your friends words when he said handguns are better than rifles and you don't want to give his contact info to Correia, or he knew he was BSing you and thats why he doesn't want to give his contact info to Correia.

So which is it, huh? huh? huh?



Just messin' with ya Woof

 

[SaMx]

the bottom line is that handguns give up range, power, and accuracy to get portability.
for HD, you want the best accuracy and power you can get (range is less important for inside your house), portability isn't as important, because you don't need to carry it around everywhere you go.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Where's Tamara When You Need Her?

...don't forget that SIGs rust, 1911's jam, USP's break firing pins, Delta Elites crack their frames, and Berettas break their locking blocks right before putting the back half of the slide through your bridgework.

The faster most folks realize that all guns suck, the happier they'll be.

-Tamara

Huh.

Huh, huh.

Huh, huh, huh.

She said "suck."

 

[larry_minn]

Correia,
You tried. Some people do not want to learn. Some will make up any proof they need to make their point.
I bet I could almost/sorta/kinda get a instructor I know to say something about pistol being quicker for follow up shots if I explained things to him/her in right way.
Then again every course I have taken that I recall (pistol/rifle/shotgun/other) the handgun was part of class ONLY (in long arm classes) to be used to fight your way to long arm.
Nothing wrong with pistol for HD. Use what you have/are comfortable with.
BTW can I say Honda's suck? (since it was brought up) Not that I believe it but why not?

Reminds me of story about trying to dress up a pig.