I have your solution for dealing with multiple BGs line them up in a hallway, but you probably won't be able to hear anything for a few days.
M44 Carbine For Defense?
- Thread starter Joshua M. Smith
- Start date
- Status
Unless you have nothing else, I vote no. Any bolt-action is less than ideal for a close-quarters situation where the ability to pull off multiple shots is highly desired. The Mosin is especially bad as it has a rather awkward bolt and is hard to cycle quickly and easily. If you have nothing else, go ahead, but it's not my first choice. By the way, I have an 1891/30, so the Mosin is one of the few guns I regularly talk about that I actually have significant experience with. 
Don't get me wrong. I prefer a handgun or shotgun in this case. But you can also get through a mosins ammo pretty quick if you have the right motivation. Like I said before. I would much prefer, my CZ52, P1, or shotgun to any of my mosins for HD. I like my neighbors too much to want to wing one 2-3 houses down.
Referring back to earlier posts about 'anything' having a good chance to leave your home - more and more the .223/5.56 appears like it might be the smartest all-around choice for a defense caliber, given its propensity to tumble and fragment rather than go through things.
Might be time for some manufacturer to start an ad campaign disspelling the old shotgun myths (don't have to point, won't go through walls, etc.) in favor of their AR.
Might be time for some manufacturer to start an ad campaign disspelling the old shotgun myths (don't have to point, won't go through walls, etc.) in favor of their AR.
Have you ever had a M44, bayonet fixed, pointing at your face? Amazingly intimidating. Power-wise, it's not a bad choice. It should stop any attacker south of Godzilla. The biggest attribute for HD purposes on that rifle is the bayonet, IMO... and the (fairly) short length of the rifle as a whole. If you have to use a gun with a low rate of fire, the bayonet is a very nice perk. If I had to use a bolt rifle for HD, I'd choose one with a wicked-long bayonet.
It can do the job, but it's not optimal for that purpose. Still, I'd love to see somebody making the rounds in the tactical carbine courses with an M44.
It can do the job, but it's not optimal for that purpose. Still, I'd love to see somebody making the rounds in the tactical carbine courses with an M44.
Josh, the other two firearms you mentioned are preferable to your rifle. The handgun is more compact and can fire faster than your bolt-action Mosin-Nagant. The shotgun has the power and intimidation factors. Given that you possess alternatives, leave the Mosin-Nagant for hunting or plinking. By the way, the last bayonet charge performed by U.S. troops occurred during the Korean War if my knowledge of history is correct.
Timthinker
Timthinker
Mr. Smith. Being safety conscious as I know you are it is going to take a lot of practice with a Mosin Nagant as an HD weapon. First, don't we all keep the bolt removed from the rifle so it won't discharge accidentally? Then there is the ammunition. We may keep our HD weapon next to our bed but safety demands that the ammunition be in locked storage. There is the trigger lock to deal with too. The key should be hidden well enough that a child can't find it yet accessible in the the pitch black of 2:00 A.M. on a cloudy, moonless night. I personally recommend a combination lock as it eliminates the need for a key. The bayonet should remain unattached and sheathed(or alternatively, "corked") until the rifle is brought into play. No matter how significant the threat the 4 rules must be reviewed before the gun is handled. Safety first.
I don't know that I have covered everything, but practice, practice, practice. You may have only scant minutes to respond. Best of luck. I rely on good karma to keep me safe. YMMV.
I don't know that I have covered everything, but practice, practice, practice. You may have only scant minutes to respond. Best of luck. I rely on good karma to keep me safe. YMMV.
An M44 for home defense is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. A 91/30 with a fixed bayonet will give you more power, velocity and about a foot more reach with the pigsticker, so why would anyone opt for the M44?
Loading the Mosin without a stripper clip is a fine motor skill. Practice helps, but at least in my experience, it takes a moment to make sure you have the cartridge lined in the slot right or it'll jam.
As far as blind loading goes, an SKS is much easier to load if you don't have strippers.
As far as blind loading goes, an SKS is much easier to load if you don't have strippers.
If you are even considering scenarios of having an M44 for HD, your plans for HD are really, really bad.
To me, a mosin is only useful mid to long range and for bayonetting wounded, barely alive bodies left behind from a battle. So no I wouldnt use it for home defense, but if its all you got...then its all you got. But when a neighbor sues you/presses charges for the round going into they're home and possibly injuring innocents then you may regret using a mosin in a home.
OP
OP
Gents,
I figured I'd start a discussion about this, but I'm going to make it clear again that
I am not a novice, have been handgunning for at least 11 years and shotgunning for even longer, and have not, nor have I ever, considered the M44 as a home defense weapon, or for anything inside 25yds except for coyotes.
I started the thread only to try to understand why some advocate using this, and other outdated weaponry, as close in defensive weaponry. I don't get that mindset, and I wanted to understand it.
I have plenty of handguns to choose from, and a shotgun that's loaded beside my bed. The M44 does stay loaded, but only because there's a large coyote problem here.
Josh <><
I figured I'd start a discussion about this, but I'm going to make it clear again that
I am not a novice, have been handgunning for at least 11 years and shotgunning for even longer, and have not, nor have I ever, considered the M44 as a home defense weapon, or for anything inside 25yds except for coyotes.
I started the thread only to try to understand why some advocate using this, and other outdated weaponry, as close in defensive weaponry. I don't get that mindset, and I wanted to understand it.
I have plenty of handguns to choose from, and a shotgun that's loaded beside my bed. The M44 does stay loaded, but only because there's a large coyote problem here.
Josh <><
Josh, two reasons immediately spring to my mind why someone might choose a military surplus rifle for home defense. First, military surplus rifles generally possess more "stopping power" than centerfire handgun rounds. This is not an original observation. I recently read a thread on THR about rifles vs. handguns as home defense weapons. You might wish to read this thread for more detailed information. Second, some of these rifles are inexpensive compared to the cost of a new centerfire handgun or rifle. Yes, economics does matter.
My observations are not derived solely from previous discussions conducted on THR. I know of three older gentlemen who purchased military surplus rifles during the 1960s for home defense purposes. They would agree with the two points I made here.
Timthinker
My observations are not derived solely from previous discussions conducted on THR. I know of three older gentlemen who purchased military surplus rifles during the 1960s for home defense purposes. They would agree with the two points I made here.
Timthinker
I heard this fictional story once (I believe that it originated with Mel Tappan) that was supposed to illustrate this very point. The story was about two guys who were armed with bolt action hunting rifles after some sort of natural disaster or major civil unrest taking a look around their neighborhood and then being approached at close quarters by three hostile bad guys armed with inexpensive semi-auto .22 rifles.
The point of the story is that even though the guys with hunting rifles might take out one or even two of the bad guys (if they had a round in the chamber) and even though their weapons were more powerful at extended distance, that the third bad guy armed with the .22 rifle would more than likely put some rounds into them just because his rifle is semi-automatic. Even though they were armed with inexpensive and very common .22 rifles, those rifles were better suited for close quarters than the bolt action hunting rifles were. The close quarters circumstances negated the more powerful round of the hunting rifles and the ability to put down rounds quickly became more of a factor.
Mel Tappans point with all this was to say that if you had a few guys that at least 50% of your party should be armed with semi-autos as they can take care of the closer threats alot better even if you're just putting down suppression fire. Even a pump action shotgun lends itself to quicker operation and has a higher rate of fire than a bolt action rifle. So if you are by yourself and you're worried about more than one guy (burglars and home invaders do work in twos, three's and fours) then a semi-auto (pistol or carbine) or pump action firearm might be the way to go if it's to defend yourself inside the house with.
More than likely I'll bet that you'd be faster than you think if you had quite a bit of practice with it, but then again the adrenaline coursing through your body and your fear might make you fumble at exactly the wrong moment. With a semi-auto you don't have to worry about that, you could just pull the trigger again if you needed to.
A M44's virtues are that it's a powerful, rugged and inexpensive rifle. It makes a great truck rifle for those three reasons, but it's not what I'd choose to defend myself at close quarters with if I had a choice about it. The blast alone might make them take flight or crap their pants and freeze in terror. Then again it may make them charge you in a last desperate attempt to save their life and/or empty their gun in your direction to make sure that you didn't do to them what that rifle just did to their buddy.
Maybe in such a circumstance where multiple criminals or home invaders broke into your home or were otherwise threatening you then that little used Gettysburg type bayonet that comes on it might actually come in handy for something. I'd prefer to avoid any sort of home defense plan that involves a bayonet charge, but it might work. If the blast of the M44 being fired indoors didn't make them run, the sight of their buddy being impaled on a loooong spike might do it.
The point of the story is that even though the guys with hunting rifles might take out one or even two of the bad guys (if they had a round in the chamber) and even though their weapons were more powerful at extended distance, that the third bad guy armed with the .22 rifle would more than likely put some rounds into them just because his rifle is semi-automatic. Even though they were armed with inexpensive and very common .22 rifles, those rifles were better suited for close quarters than the bolt action hunting rifles were. The close quarters circumstances negated the more powerful round of the hunting rifles and the ability to put down rounds quickly became more of a factor.
Mel Tappans point with all this was to say that if you had a few guys that at least 50% of your party should be armed with semi-autos as they can take care of the closer threats alot better even if you're just putting down suppression fire. Even a pump action shotgun lends itself to quicker operation and has a higher rate of fire than a bolt action rifle. So if you are by yourself and you're worried about more than one guy (burglars and home invaders do work in twos, three's and fours) then a semi-auto (pistol or carbine) or pump action firearm might be the way to go if it's to defend yourself inside the house with.
More than likely I'll bet that you'd be faster than you think if you had quite a bit of practice with it, but then again the adrenaline coursing through your body and your fear might make you fumble at exactly the wrong moment. With a semi-auto you don't have to worry about that, you could just pull the trigger again if you needed to.
A M44's virtues are that it's a powerful, rugged and inexpensive rifle. It makes a great truck rifle for those three reasons, but it's not what I'd choose to defend myself at close quarters with if I had a choice about it. The blast alone might make them take flight or crap their pants and freeze in terror. Then again it may make them charge you in a last desperate attempt to save their life and/or empty their gun in your direction to make sure that you didn't do to them what that rifle just did to their buddy.
Maybe in such a circumstance where multiple criminals or home invaders broke into your home or were otherwise threatening you then that little used Gettysburg type bayonet that comes on it might actually come in handy for something. I'd prefer to avoid any sort of home defense plan that involves a bayonet charge, but it might work. If the blast of the M44 being fired indoors didn't make them run, the sight of their buddy being impaled on a loooong spike might do it.
I think you should get a Winchester Super X3 for home defense. Buckshot in it will probably drive you into the next room, but man you can get some lead in the air with it.
My HD weapon is always kept loaded and ready to roll. Otherwise what's the point?
I'd rather have an M-1 carbine if going semiauto. But again I think there's a tendency to assume a surplus bolt gun is going to be as slow as a Monte Carlo stocked, fully scoped deer rifle. As anyone who's seen the mad minute can attest, that ain't nec so!
I could probably shoot the first round my deer rifle quicker, because it has a MUCH better stock design that fits me like a glove. It's quick to get on target. The bolt works well and quickly without so much muscle, but it does take more fine motor control. The scope has a very forgiving focal length, though.
But nobody said to use that for defense, either.
Compare a Mosin to, say, a Marlin 336 if you want. A .30-30 lever gun is certainly not the top choice for a defensive long gun if you have a semiauto carbine with a whiz-bang modern electronic sight, but it beats the Mosin.
The sights are quick, the stock design is comfortable and quick for me, it has less recoil for quicker followups, it cycles a lot faster without displacing the sights, has a slightly larger magazine which can be topped off with a round from my pocket without taking my eyes from the sights or target, and it is lighter and shorter.
But nobody said to use that for defense, either.
Compare a Mosin to, say, a Marlin 336 if you want. A .30-30 lever gun is certainly not the top choice for a defensive long gun if you have a semiauto carbine with a whiz-bang modern electronic sight, but it beats the Mosin.
The sights are quick, the stock design is comfortable and quick for me, it has less recoil for quicker followups, it cycles a lot faster without displacing the sights, has a slightly larger magazine which can be topped off with a round from my pocket without taking my eyes from the sights or target, and it is lighter and shorter.
Yeah, so would I.
That would be what the M1 Carbine was meant for and that would actually be a very good choice.
It wasn't my story though. I think that Mel Tappan was just making the point that even an inexpensive and common semi-auto rifle in .22LR is better for CQB against multiple opponents than a bolt action rifle as your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th (and so on) shots will be much quicker that if you just had a bolt action rifle to work with. If the bad guys in the story had of used M1 Carbines, then the moral of the story wouldn't have been so readily clear as it's a good choice.
- Status
