NOTHING quiet about an M1 Carbine.
Rifle for Self-Defense?
- Thread starter Nick_007
- Start date
- Status
I used to discount the rifle and thought a shotgun was the only way to go. I bought a 16" lightweight barreled AR with collaspable stock a few years ago and after learning how to use it I have changed my mind. A shotgun is still a formidable gun but I feel that at ranges inside a home the rifle is actually a little better.
The rifle is much shorter, lighter, and softer recoiling. At ranges inside the home a shotgun is going to put all of the shot inside a 1"-2" pattern anyway so either will require careful aim.
The biggest misconception is that rifle rounds will penetrate through 3 houses. Test after test has shown that softpoint 223 bullets are quite deadly to anyone you hit and will penetrate building material much less than most handgun rounds and no more than buckshot. Rifles in other calibers could be a problem.
The way I see it a handgun is at its best at ranges measured in feet. Sure it can be used at longer ranges depending on the skill of the shooter, but beyond 10' or so there are better choices.
A rifle and shotgun are a tie at ranges from 10' to around 50' or so.
Starting at about 50' out to somewhere around 50 yards is where the shotgun is at its best. These are the ranges where you can take advantage of the pattern in the pellets and make hits more likely.
Obviously a rifle is an advantage at longer ranges.
Not saying a rifle is perfect for everyone. Price is certainly a consideration, especially now that AR prices have gone crazy. But I think a rifle can be a perfectly acceptable home defense weapon.
The rifle is much shorter, lighter, and softer recoiling. At ranges inside the home a shotgun is going to put all of the shot inside a 1"-2" pattern anyway so either will require careful aim.
The biggest misconception is that rifle rounds will penetrate through 3 houses. Test after test has shown that softpoint 223 bullets are quite deadly to anyone you hit and will penetrate building material much less than most handgun rounds and no more than buckshot. Rifles in other calibers could be a problem.
The way I see it a handgun is at its best at ranges measured in feet. Sure it can be used at longer ranges depending on the skill of the shooter, but beyond 10' or so there are better choices.
A rifle and shotgun are a tie at ranges from 10' to around 50' or so.
Starting at about 50' out to somewhere around 50 yards is where the shotgun is at its best. These are the ranges where you can take advantage of the pattern in the pellets and make hits more likely.
Obviously a rifle is an advantage at longer ranges.
Not saying a rifle is perfect for everyone. Price is certainly a consideration, especially now that AR prices have gone crazy. But I think a rifle can be a perfectly acceptable home defense weapon.
Well my only firearm is a Romy sks. Is there a cartridge for the 7.63 caliber that'll work for home? I've been thinking of getting a shotgun because somewhere someone planted the seed that a rifle would be overkill in home defense situation. I like the idea of having just the Romy for everything, including self defense in my home. I'm on a budget and would like to avoid having to purchase another gun.
I hear you can shoot that thing after draggin it in the mud. I don't know how to clean it. If i got the manual do I really need to do much else?
No disrespect intended, but I remember going pheasant hunting with my dad when I was a kid once, and remember pretty much pointing and shooting and even once in a while hitting something. I can imagine pulling a gun on a home invader and them turning around and running for their life; or it would be like shooting fish in a barrel if it came down to it. Or even a miss would be good enough to have them running for their life. I don't think you need green beret training for a situation like that.
I hear you can shoot that thing after draggin it in the mud. I don't know how to clean it. If i got the manual do I really need to do much else?
No disrespect intended, but I remember going pheasant hunting with my dad when I was a kid once, and remember pretty much pointing and shooting and even once in a while hitting something. I can imagine pulling a gun on a home invader and them turning around and running for their life; or it would be like shooting fish in a barrel if it came down to it. Or even a miss would be good enough to have them running for their life. I don't think you need green beret training for a situation like that.
Last edited:
duckman007
Member
I never stated that I would prefer pistol over a rifle in a firefight. I am seriously suggesting that, in the civilian world, or any other world that you can imagine, handguns are real weapons. As a matter of fact, I'm not only seriously suggesting it, I'm proclaiming as boldly as I possibly can. I have seen what a rifle can do to a human body, and I have seen what a pistol can do to a human body as well. I'm not talking photos, I've been there and seen it with my own two eyes. I've had to rely on my weapon to survive and have used it in the line of duty. My weapon has saved my life, I doubt I would still be here if I had relied on a toy. So again, claiming that handgun is not a weapon and that a rifle is the only "real weapon" is absurd.
I carried a handgun my entire police career. I approached every situation as though I would be in a firefight and never assumed that everything was safe. However, I never felt inadequate with only a mere handgun. I didn't carry a shotgun or rifle with me every time I responded to a domestic disturbance or a bank robbery, it just didn't make sense. If, as a police officer, another officer needed help, and I knew that I could be walking into a firefight, I would definitely prefer a rifle, in addition to a handgun and a shotgun. But I would not, under any circumstances, leave another officer to perish simply because I only had a handgun.
If you're on the battlefield, a rifle is by far the logical choice. You know that a firefight is a probability. In the civilian world, it's not the same. Are you going to conceal carry a rifle everywhere you go? If, as a civilian, you know that a firefight going to take place, and you, or your family are not involved, nor in any immediate danger, are you going to grab your rifle and head that way, or are you going to stay clear let the police and/or military do their jobs?
We live in a somewhat safe society where the expectation of a battle is simply this, we don't expect to have to fight one. We expect our streets to be safe and we have no foreign powers currently invading. With that said, we all know that even in a civilized society that is relatively safe, we still conceal carry because we know that evil does exist, even in our own backyards. While we don't ever expect a battle, we prepare in the event that we are thrust into one.
Also, no one said that a handgun couldn't be taken away from someone. However, whether you chose to believe it or not, an untrained person walking around a corner or past a doorway with the barrel of the rifle sticking out provides a far easier target for a bad guy to grab than a pistol. The reason, it's longer and sticks out farther. It also provides more leverage for the bad guy. If you walk around a corner with your pistol sticking out as far as you can point it, the bad guy can take that away too. However, in my opinion which is based on what I've seen in the real world, an untrained or under trained person has a greater chance of retention with a handgun when compared to a rifle.
So, with that said, let me go on the record as saying that a rifle is wonderful weapon. So is a handgun and a shotgun. I've also seen enough of the real world to know that a rifle is not the best answer to every firearm question. There are times that a handgun is the superior choice over a rifle. There are times when a shotgun is the best. I don't discount or degrade any of these weapons as each is effective and each has it's place. If you're comfort level is with the rifle, that's great, more power to you. I simply chose not to have the mindset that a rifle is the only weapon and strongly disagree with anyone that states such.
USSR
Member
All things are relative. Compared to most other choices for a self-defense rifle, a .30 Carbine is quite quiet.
Don
JImbothefiveth
Member
The houses here have brick walls. I should actually shoot some bricks and see. (If you shoot bricks etc., beware, they can cause bullets to ricochet like crazy and they send brick fragments flying at you)
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Home defense rifle? Almost any semi-auto with a medium-power cartridge would do just fine. AK/SKS, AR, Mini, GI Carbine--they'd all work. They're all reliable, and all of 'em will hold minute-of-torso.
I ain't worried about all this "drag through mud" stuff. I have carpet over a wood floor. YMMV.
I ain't worried about all this "drag through mud" stuff. I have carpet over a wood floor. YMMV.
Wasn't trying to be flippant, to me the carbine is an excellent defensive arm, but it's a noisy one, even for a rifle... something about the quaility of the crack/boom that sets my teeth on edge.
I usually keep a lever action .44 magnum carbine (a marlin 1894, actually) with at least six rounds for home defense. I am more comfortable with it than with a pistol, I KNOW I can hit an intruder with it without taking too careful a sight picture, and it has great stopping power. (Sometimes I'll keep an SKS loaded with hollow points, depends what kind of mood I'm in, for the same basic reasons.)
And like somebody mentioned earlier, I'm not going to be sweeping the house for intruders, so maneuverability around corners and such isn't a big deal. I'm crouched down behind the couch or by a bed if there's an intruder, not running in like a lunatic.
I could carry my S&W instead, but the bottom line for me is I'm more accurate with the carbine and more comfortable as well.
And like somebody mentioned earlier, I'm not going to be sweeping the house for intruders, so maneuverability around corners and such isn't a big deal. I'm crouched down behind the couch or by a bed if there's an intruder, not running in like a lunatic.
I could carry my S&W instead, but the bottom line for me is I'm more accurate with the carbine and more comfortable as well.
stubbicatt
Member
I've shot 9mm, and 40 S&W pistol cartridges, and 223 Hornady Vmax reloads at gallon water jugs lined up in series. After these tests I concluded for my purposes that the 223 was my choice due to catastrophic expansion in the first jug, and only a very small bb sized pellet in the second jug. The 40 went through 3 jugs, and that was a high priced, high quality, expanding bullet. It did what it was designed to do, but...
I figger a miss is a miss... doesn't stop anything. But a miss will still do damage to interior walls and may penetrate an outside wall and hurt a non involved person. Want to minimize that. But a hit, while the goal of such an unpleasant social encounter, should stay inside the BG. At least this is my thinking. Since I practice to make hits, I hope that training will be effective.
That the Vmax behaved the way it did made me wonder about not penetrating enough to get to a vital organ or CNS or the like to bring the fight to an end. But I figger doubles or triples should be adequate. So I practice them.
I don't suppose any one weapon will accomplish every task, but I think a responsible person owes it to himself and others to work through the likely scenarios and arrive at a reasoned choice. -- Seems easier to defend a reasoned choice than one you haven't thought through.
I figger a miss is a miss... doesn't stop anything. But a miss will still do damage to interior walls and may penetrate an outside wall and hurt a non involved person. Want to minimize that. But a hit, while the goal of such an unpleasant social encounter, should stay inside the BG. At least this is my thinking. Since I practice to make hits, I hope that training will be effective.
That the Vmax behaved the way it did made me wonder about not penetrating enough to get to a vital organ or CNS or the like to bring the fight to an end. But I figger doubles or triples should be adequate. So I practice them.
I don't suppose any one weapon will accomplish every task, but I think a responsible person owes it to himself and others to work through the likely scenarios and arrive at a reasoned choice. -- Seems easier to defend a reasoned choice than one you haven't thought through.
jackdanson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 859
How about a .223 loaded with a varmint round like a 40 gr. w/ a "ballistic tip". Think this would penetrate enough to be effective on a BG? My guess would be yes at "in home" ranges. I also doubt it would penetrate more than two sheets of drywall.
mljdeckard
Member
Are pistols magically more powerful for civilians than they are for soldiers? Pistols are inferior stopping weapons. The reason we spend millions trying to make better JHP ammo and learn failure drills so effectively is that pistols generally suck. When you say "Rifles make sense for soldiers but Pistols make more sense for civilians", what you are really saying is; "Soldiers are required to carry rifles, but as I civilian, I think it's not convenient."
ALWAYS grab the most powerful weapon you can to protect your life. If you aren't comfortable using a rifle in close-quarters, LEARN. Just because you don't KNOW how to use a rifle at close range doesn't make it a bad choice. If you find yourself fighting with a pistol, it should be because you didn't have time to get to your rifle. If you are EXPECTING trouble, grab the long gun. (Of course you should avoid trouble entirely when possible.) If you have to RUN AND GET a weapon, it should be a long gun.
In my home the shotgun loaded with #4 is the primary. My M-1 carbine is backup, (My wife's primary.) and I have an SKS in my truck.
And as far as using 5.56 for HD, go ahead, just don't use M855 ball ammo when you do it. I would use Hornady TAP.
ALWAYS grab the most powerful weapon you can to protect your life. If you aren't comfortable using a rifle in close-quarters, LEARN. Just because you don't KNOW how to use a rifle at close range doesn't make it a bad choice. If you find yourself fighting with a pistol, it should be because you didn't have time to get to your rifle. If you are EXPECTING trouble, grab the long gun. (Of course you should avoid trouble entirely when possible.) If you have to RUN AND GET a weapon, it should be a long gun.
In my home the shotgun loaded with #4 is the primary. My M-1 carbine is backup, (My wife's primary.) and I have an SKS in my truck.
And as far as using 5.56 for HD, go ahead, just don't use M855 ball ammo when you do it. I would use Hornady TAP.
Last edited:
jimmyraythomason
Member
A .45 acp,.38 sp.+P,.357mag,.44sp/.44mag.w/any bullet will kill a human as quickly and effectively at sd/hd ranges (from point blank to 15')as any rifle or shotgun when striking the head/heart of the BG. To say that handguns won't stop an intruder when hit center mass is just silly.
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Guess I'm just silly then. I consider any of the handgun cartridges you mention as weak when compared with rifle cartridges. Most pistol cartridges get you 400-500 ft/lbs or so of energy. Even M193 FMJ gets you 1200 ft/lbs. BSW
jimmyraythomason
Member
"400-500 ft/lbs or so of energy" gets you DEAD if it hits you.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Depends on WHERE it hits you.
jimmyraythomason
Member
^^^That is also true of a 3000ft per sec. rifle round.
mljdeckard
Member
The problem is, most people DON'T get good hits in a fight. They frequently miss entirely. A .22 is good enough if you KNOW you can hit someone in the adam's apple.
Until you have been in enough pistol engagements against people who are shooting back to KNOW you can hit with surgical precision EVERY TIME, you are using an inferior weapon. A rifle is more powerful, and is easier to get good hits with than a pistol. IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO END THE FIGHT QUICKLY. The faster the fight ends, the less likely that the bad guy is going to get more shots at you.
Until you have been in enough pistol engagements against people who are shooting back to KNOW you can hit with surgical precision EVERY TIME, you are using an inferior weapon. A rifle is more powerful, and is easier to get good hits with than a pistol. IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO END THE FIGHT QUICKLY. The faster the fight ends, the less likely that the bad guy is going to get more shots at you.
jimmyraythomason
Member
We aren't talking about misses here. We are talking about solid hits and their ability to do the job. Amiss with a .45acp and a miss with a .12 buckshot yeild the same result. A close quarter HIT in the vitals with the same guns also yeild the same results.
Anyone who believes a handgun is just as effective as a long gun is living on Fantasy Island. Sure handgun rounds will kill you, but I'm not interested in whether someone dies or not. The point is to stop the agressor, NOW. The extra energy from rifle rounds or multiple hits from a shotgun accomplish the job much faster.
Handguns are weapons of convience for places where long guns cannot be used effecively such as is in the enclosed space of a car. Using a long gun where practical is always a better choice.
Handguns are weapons of convience for places where long guns cannot be used effecively such as is in the enclosed space of a car. Using a long gun where practical is always a better choice.
duckman007
Member
So you're saying that a 10/22 is more effective than a .44 Magnum handgun in stopping an aggressor? What about a .40 cal Beretta Storm versus a .40 cal Glock 22? Are you saying that just because the barrel is longer, regardless of the caliber, a long gun is automatically a more effective weapon? I'm not sure that I follow this logic.
Like I stated in an earlier post, no one is saying that a .380 has the power of a 30-06. However, the generic rifle is too broad a term to compare against a generic handgun. If, for the sake of argument, there was a handgun and a rifle with the exact same ballistics and power. Which would be better to use inside a house? Long range accuracy doesn't play a role since the attack zone is less than 25 yards. At this point, size and maneuverability are the only issues. So again, which is better?
My point is that a handgun will stop an aggressor. I've personally seen it done too many time that this is not open to debate. It's a fact. With a high powered rifle, the odds are significantly greater that one shot will stop the aggressor, but it still no guarantee. If the defender (I like this term better than shooter) is more accurate with a handgun and is more comfortable in it's usage, then it's better for that person to have to possibly shoot two or three times than to either miss the bad guy, or worse, loose his weapon.
mljdeckard
Member
Yes, a .40 cal storm is more effective than a .40 pistol because it will have more velocity from the longer barrel. (I still have no use for one. If you're going to use a long gun, why hamstring yourself with a small cartridge?) I use an M-1 carbine, which shoots a cartridge balistically similar to a .357 magnum, but with the longer barrel it generates much more energy. And it holds a LOT more of them. AND it's small enough that my wife can use it quite effectively. And yes, a 10/22 is a more effective weapon than a .22 pistol.
If you gave be a rifle and a pistol which through some miracle of physics were ballistically identical, I would take the rifle. It is easier to fire a rifle accurately, and you can do many more defensive things with a rifle in close quarters than you can a pistol. If you haven't learned to maneuver inside a house with a carbine, you need to learn how. You can keep a rifle just as tight against you when you need to as you can a pistol.
A handgun will NOT necessarily stop an aggressor. It MAY stop an aggressor. A rifle is much more likely to stop an aggressor. Again, when you are fighting for your life, why would you not use the weapon that is the MOST likely to stop the fight quickly?
There is an attitude of political correctness that has been ingrained into society. We grew up on cowboy movies where they mostly shot each other with handguns. Police have been politicked into using varying levels of force which are inadequate (I THINK) to placate those who are alarmed to see police with guns in their hands. It has nothing to do with effective defense.
You do what you want. When it comes to protecting my family, I will not hesitate for one second to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.
If you gave be a rifle and a pistol which through some miracle of physics were ballistically identical, I would take the rifle. It is easier to fire a rifle accurately, and you can do many more defensive things with a rifle in close quarters than you can a pistol. If you haven't learned to maneuver inside a house with a carbine, you need to learn how. You can keep a rifle just as tight against you when you need to as you can a pistol.
A handgun will NOT necessarily stop an aggressor. It MAY stop an aggressor. A rifle is much more likely to stop an aggressor. Again, when you are fighting for your life, why would you not use the weapon that is the MOST likely to stop the fight quickly?
There is an attitude of political correctness that has been ingrained into society. We grew up on cowboy movies where they mostly shot each other with handguns. Police have been politicked into using varying levels of force which are inadequate (I THINK) to placate those who are alarmed to see police with guns in their hands. It has nothing to do with effective defense.
You do what you want. When it comes to protecting my family, I will not hesitate for one second to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.
After the Miami shootout in 1986 I decided if there was ever trouble in or around my house I wanted a rifle, preferably a light, short semi with good mag capacity.
That firefight showed the effectiveness of the rifle over the pistol. If Platt would have been armed with only a handgun the results would have probably been less severe.
IMHO of course.
That firefight showed the effectiveness of the rifle over the pistol. If Platt would have been armed with only a handgun the results would have probably been less severe.
IMHO of course.
- Status
