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

[ArfinGreebly]

Good Enough Sucks

I say give me any edge I can get. "Good enough," sucks when your a$$ is on the line.

Now, that there is a sig line quality quote.

I think even Larry would agree with you.

 

[JKimball]

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.

Correia and Booner,

Thanks for the great info. You've got me convinced. I hadn't really thought of my mini-14 as my go to gun for HD. But I like the idea. With a 20 round mag it's double the capacity of my shotgun and about 12" shorter. So what would be proper ammo? I've got some Win. 45 gr. JHP's and som Federal 55 gr. trophy bonded bear claw. And a bunch of Wolf 55gr copper hp's. Any of those preferrable?

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

20-30 rounds for home defense seems a just a little bit much. Penetration tests should account for 20 rounds of .223 as opposed to 7 of 230 grain .45 ACP, especially for repair costs.

 

[Kilgor]

Dr. Peter,

How do you know what situation you will find your self in and that 7 rounds will handle it?

Also, if you know that, why not just be somewhere else?

Obviously you can't know, so having more rounds on tap is not a bad thing.

 

[coyote_jr]

Kilgor you should just move out of the projects

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

At least Coyote understands where I'm coming from.

 

[ctdonath]

20-30 rounds for home defense seems a just a little bit much.

Running out too soon is way, way too little.

30 rounds in an AR mag is so compact, convenient, and useful that I have to be suspicious of anyone advocating against it.

Penetration tests should account for 20 rounds of .223

You won't be dumping all 20 rounds into a 1" square. Most impact sites will be fresh.

especially for repair costs.

A stranger broke into your house at oh-dark-thirty, intends to kill the occupants, and you're worried about repair costs?

 

[Kilgor]

coyote,

Your comment adds nothing to the discussion. You have little clue as to where I live and it isn't pertinent to the discussion. Murderers aren't stopped at the edge of a good neighborhood. There are no crime free zones.

Whatever level of armament you choose is fine with me from nothing to an FAL.

Just quit trying to divide gun owners by their choice of armament. That's an antigun tactic.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

20-30 rounds for home defense seems a just a little bit much. Penetration tests should account for 20 rounds of .223 as opposed to 7 of 230 grain .45 ACP, especially for repair costs.

Just my take; but we have already discussed that handgun wounds have a survival rate of about 80% if they receive medical care within an hour. So if you want someone to stop doing whatever it was that justified the lethal force in the first place, how many pistol rounds are you going to need to guarantee they stop the threatening behavior immediately? How many rounds will you need to get a better than 50% chance?

Second, if your life (and possibly the lives of friends or family) is on the line - what number of rounds in a magazine is "too much"? At what point do you feel comfortable making that bet? I realize that is a personal question; but 7 rounds is a lot bigger comfort margin than I have.

 

[woof]

Someone should get a rifle or shotgun or whatever it takes and put this thread out of its misery.

 

[BOONER]

WHy cause we are right........

I would choose in the mini-14 the 55 federal bonded bear claw, if thats what you have on hand. other wise 55-65 grain Tap, or even JSPammo is a winner in a pinch


most of the replys against sound like shooters and not that of fighters,

at any time there is a concern of life limb and family home.....and some of you are talking about 7 rounds of this or that. when it comes time to KILL yes (KIll I said those words) or stop the the threat.... cause the threat is going to try to kill you first or your family or has choosen to bring the fight to you your family in your own home that you pay for....... and your saying well my 7 rounds yaddyadda yah and since when is a home invasion only ONE person..... not very often any longer. the suprise advatage is theres then you can mitigate that by increasing your use of defensive hardware. you are talking about LIFE and the LIVES of YOUR LOVED ONES.

THINK about it 2 BG's 7 -8 to 15 rounds in your handgun. or or 28 in your carbine, then there is the factor of clothing. possible armor.(has happaned)
winter time multply layers of heavy clothing the other officers can tell you

heavy jackets carhart, goose down items, then followed by vest.... and sweatshirts tshirts and long johns, lots of stuff for your whimpy handgun to fail in.

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

home defense can many many things. a good plumber takes many tools to the job, knowing he may only need a wrench. select from your tools what's necessary, and being prepared, able to adapt to a better variety of circumstances.


st

 

[woof]

Well we are on the eighth page of this, any conclusions? I myself still think it is foolish to say all handguns suck. All I've heard so far that was at all persuasive is that there "are" rifles that would be better than a handgun. "If" you can arrange to have them in your hand at precisely the right time. The problem even with that is that most people who have a handgun don't have one of "those" rifles. If they have a rifle at all it is very likely a bolt action. So what exactly is the recommendation of the "handguns suck" crowd? That everyone should get rid of their handgun and go buy an AK or AR and become as paranoid and obsessive as they are?

 

[benEzra]

A couple things to keep in mind after looking at though though. Hollow points won't expand in drywall, fmj or jhp won't matter.

Actually, lightweight .223 JHP's tend to fragment in drywall, and hence tend to penetrate somewhat less in building materials than 9mm JHP's, and have less wounding potential on the other side of walls they do penetrate. Most handgun JHP's act like FMJ when they encounter drywall, but a .223 JHP is less than half the weight of a 9mm, more fragile, and is going three times as fast.

See Roberts, GK, "Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Weapons -- The Wounding Effects of 5.56mm/.223 Carbines Compared With 12 Ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant," Police Marksman, July/August 1998.

20-30 rounds for home defense seems a just a little bit much. Penetration tests should account for 20 rounds of .223 as opposed to 7 of 230 grain .45 ACP, especially for repair costs.

There's no penalty for leaving unfired rounds in the magazine, nor is there any reason to believe that you'd fire more rounds with a .223 than with a .45; .223 outclasses .45 ballistically and is easier to shoot well, so the carbine shooter is less likely to miss and less likely to need multiple followup shots. A 20-round magazine is merely insurance, just like the spare mags the .45 user probably has on hand.

As others have stated, the big advantage of the handgun is its portability, but if you aren't carrying the gun on your person, a rifle is not a bad choice (actually, it's a very good choice).

I have a CHL, so the gun I would normally have at hand in my home would by my S&W 9mm, but if I thought someone was breaking in, I'd certainly grab a .223 carbine if I could.

That everyone should get rid of their handgun and go buy an AK or AR and become as paranoid and obsessive as they are?

High Road, please. Those who would choose a small-caliber carbine for HD rather than a handgun are no more "paranoid and obsessive" than those who would choose a 12-gauge shotgun--and if you search the archives, you'll find that many people consider handguns to be inferior to shotguns as HD weapons, as well.

Pick what works for you and what you're comfortable and competent with. For me, that's a carbine, if the situation permits, even though I am halfway decent with a 9mm (I shoot IPSC/USPSA, FWIW).

 

[Correia]

Someone should get a rifle or shotgun or whatever it takes and put this thread out of its misery.

Now there's the complaint of somebody who just got their argument beaten with a stick.

JKimball, good for you. Minis are handy little guns.

20-30 rounds for home defense seems a just a little bit much. Penetration tests should account for 20 rounds of .223 as opposed to 7 of 230 grain .45 ACP, especially for repair costs.

Uh, why? That's also a Strawman. None of us rifle advocates are pushing you to fire entire magazines out of control, nor to miss, nor to waste ammo. In fact, since each individual round has far more power, then you probably won't need to fire as many shots.

As for excess capacity, nobody in history has ever survived a gunfight, and then said "Darn it, I had too much ammo!"

Should you need the extra firepower, it is awfully nice to have on tap.

This whole thing about fighting fair, chainsaw at a knife fight, etc. Those words are not usually spoken by somebody who's had to defend themselves in an actual fight to the death. There is no such thing as "fair". My goal is to incapacitate the other guy as fast as possible so he'll leave me alone and quit trying to kill me. People who've had to fight for their life, want to WIN and LIVE. I don't care about his feelings. This isn't a game.

Your mindset should be to do everything in your power to maximize your chance for survival. No matter how brutal, ruthless, or efficient you need to be, it is your job to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Well we are on the eighth page of this, any conclusions?

Yeah, most of us came to a consensus about 7 pages ago. Those of us on this thread that do this for a living came to the same conclusion several years ago. My conclusion is that a couple of your are all twisted up in the definition of the words sucks, and somehow your self esteem is tied to winning an argument on the internet.

See, you're not going to convince anybody of anything. (I'm not really sure what your point is, other than I'm a big meanie, so you might convince people of that!) Booner and I have managed to educate a few folks, (see above), and even after this thread drifts off into obscurity, guys like me and him are going to keep on teaching decent people how to defend themselves from bad guys, out in the real world, and not in some hypothetical magic fairyland of internet myths.

If they have a rifle at all it is very likely a bolt action.

You can get a very reliable 5.56 autoloader for below $300. The Saiga isn't the best fighting autoloader ever built, but it blows the doors off of getting into a gunfight with a pistol. There are many decent 5.56 guns in the $500-$600 range that pistols also SUCK in comparison to, and in the $800 range, you can get a superb weapon. Hmmm... comparing that, for the price of a mediocre hunting rifle and decent optic, you can get a true fighting rifle...

So what exactly is the recommendation of the "handguns suck" crowd? That everyone should get rid of their handgun and go buy an AK or AR and become as paranoid and obsessive as they are?

I don't even know what the debate term for that is, but I think it might be grasping at straws!

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

I'm glad to see you guys can take a joke.

 

[Jimmy Newman]

Boy, this thread is funny .

I would just add that anyone (ANYONE) who has shot deer with a centerfire rifle and also with a pistol in any cartridge less than .454 Casull would know that a rifle works a lot better than a pistol.

Even knowing a lot of what has been discussed in this thread, I was initially pretty surprised with how LITTLE damage is done by my .41mag when I kill deer with it, and it's a much more powerful cartridge than anything most people suggest to be reasonable for home defense.

Hey, better late than never, right?

 

[marley]

I think a lot of people here have an ar or a shotgun. Most compete in some sort of game. Clays, idpa, three gun, or something. The fact is I have enough time I would rather have a long gun in a fight. It is true I am more like based that most of the time I will have a hand gun with me. In a perfect world there are times I might like to have a long gun with me. I will try to avoid what ever fight but once in it I want the best tools I can have. So that I can win. Patrick

 

[coyote_jr]

coyote,

Your comment adds nothing to the discussion. You have little clue as to where I live and it isn't pertinent to the discussion. Murderers aren't stopped at the edge of a good neighborhood. There are no crime free zones.

Whatever level of armament you choose is fine with me from nothing to an FAL.

Just quit trying to divide gun owners by their choice of armament. That's an antigun tactic.

Inside joke from about 30 posts ago. Read the whole thread before commenting.

 

[woof]

Correia, I've never taken a position on the argument at hand at all. In fact I've said the only handgun I own is a .22. I've also said it is foolish to say all handguns suck. It is foolish. I've said there are plenty of people for whom the handgun they have is better for them than the rifle you would have them get. True again. You have been trying your best to get out of your unnecessarily inflammatory comment "all handguns suck" by twisting it into a rifles are better argument. (All field goals suck too, touchdowns are much better.) But you can't change the fact that you made a poor statement you realized immediately you shouldn't have made. And then instead of manning up and saying you were sorry because it is a gross overstatement, you've been busy trying to spin it differently. I don't care whether you like it or not, my opinion is that the belief that everyone should own an assault rifle (or they suck?) is paranoid and obsessive. Sad as this might make you, you are going to get old and die in bed and never have your home invaded and never see the SHTF and never get a chance to kill a bunch of people. No gun will help fight demons that are on the inside. I believe more stringent gun controls are coming and thanks to discussions like these I'm rapidly leaning toward supporting them. I believe in gun rights but any movement needs to control its own extreme fringe or the whole movement will be damaged.

 

[Correia]

Paragraph breaks are your friend... They help people understand what you're trying to say.

I stand by my original statement. I've already explained my reasoning, and why I use it to teach. Several times now I've explained it, nor have I ever backpeddled from it. In fact, I explaind it in the very same post that set off your personal Jihad on Suck.

No gun will help fight demons that are on the inside.

No, that requires Priesthood, salt, and holy water. Thanks for playing.

I believe more stringent gun controls are coming and thanks to discussions like these I'm rapidly leaning toward supporting them. I believe in gun rights but any movement needs to control its own extreme fringe or the whole movement will be damaged.

I think nothing further needs to be said, that pretty much sums up your side pretty well. Your post should stand on its own merits.

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

First off, All Handguns Suck.

That was from post #34...120+ posts later and there are people STILL fixated on the word suck. I really just don't get it?

 

[Soybomb]

. So what exactly is the recommendation of the "handguns suck" crowd? That everyone should get rid of their handgun and go buy an AK or AR and become as paranoid and obsessive as they are?

Calling people obessive and paranoid because they have a scary looking gun, man that sounds like something the gun control people say.

you are going to get old and die in bed and never have your home invaded and never see the SHTF and never get a chance to kill a bunch of people. I believe more stringent gun controls are coming and thanks to discussions like these I'm rapidly leaning toward supporting them.

Oh, there it is, full tilt projection too, at least my gun grabber sense is still working.

Hanguns are poor stoppers of men. Rifles are far better stoppers of attacking men. To me this also means handguns suck because at home I'm not looking for the concealment or portability of a handgun. Sure they're better than a sharp stick, but since a rifle is so easily available and so much better, they suck to me. You're welcome to use the handgun or the stick and think its the most perfect weapon in the world.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Gratingly Obvious

Y'know, I'm not an expert.

I'm not an instructor.

I'm not even a terribly accomplished shooter.

I AM, however, an engineer.

I have over-thought, over-drilled, and fantasized about the various ways in which my home might be invaded. Everything from one guy to a mob. From the front door to the garage and back doors. From forcible entry to an "invited guest" turning violent.

I've considered how best to bring such violence to a halt without harming my family or the neighbors or passers by.

To this end, I've read, at some length, the writings of people who train others and people who've lived through such battles.

The one thing of which I was certain, going in, was that I DIDN'T KNOW and that I had to learn.

My conclusion is that, while you might actually KILL someone with a handgun while they're attacking, you might not actually STOP them.

The objective (to bring such violence to a halt) is accomplished when you STOP them. KILLING them only results in more bodies for chalk outlines, and one of them might well be yours.

And that, if you'll pardon the expression, would SUCK! And a poor choice of weapons that merely led to mutual destruction would SUCK! And the use of a weapon that allowed you to have a friendly debate with the police about whether you used too much gun would SUCK a whole lot less.

And so, in light of that, and in light of my experience with shooting reactive targets (did you know that 9mm makes a hole in a jug of water, while .223 makes it explode?), I have elected to re-train myself so that I can competently defend my home with the most effective STOPPING round I can.

No, I won't be using that weapon for CCW, since it's a little long for that, but there are no length restrictions on what stands by the bed.

When it all goes down, I hope I don't SUCK too much to be effective.

 

[woof]

Are there any statistics on how many incidents of self-defense with a firearm took place inside the home and how many of those were with a handgun? I'm betting that in cases where people successfully defended themselves with a gun inside their homes, it was a handgun that saved them by a multiple of 10 to 1 or more. Also, are there any instruction classes available anywhere on how to defend oneself inside the home specifically with a long gun?