Shotgun vs. AR15 for home defense

[OregonJohnny]

At first, I thought, "Well a new 870 at the local sporting goods store is about $300-400, and a decent AR at a gun shop is about $1,000," then I saw:

1. Money is not an object

Then I thought, "Well, a basic pump shotgun is a little easier to master for the average person than an AR (at least it was for me)," but I noticed:

2. The user would be equally trained on both systems.

Hmmm, well in my home (a 2-story townhome with attached neighbors on either side) I'm less nervous about 4buck than I am about .223. But:

3. Civil liability is not a concern.

Dang it. You keep doing that.

4. This is not a Katrina / End of the world riot situation.

Oh, well then, shotgun. Hands down.

 

[Sir Aardvark]

A suppressed AR15 would be my choice with the parameters you listed, but again, in real world terms the cost and ease of use of a shotgun give it the edge.

Anyone ever see the M16's with the shotgun mounted underneath?

The Masterkey system used to breach doors - very cool!

 

[AcceptableUserName]

shotgun. in case of self defense ill always take less guesswork. short stroking is a possibility, but not if you practiced with the gun to the proper extent. and short stroking aside, an AR has nothing on a shotgun in terms of simplicity.

and we're talking DEFENSE here, not offense. hard to make a case for self defense at ranges of 50 yds and greater.

 

[Mr.Davis]

an AR has nothing on a shotgun in terms of simplicity.

Um, yeah it does.

Rack - BANG - Rack - BANG - Rack - BANG - Rack - BANG - Rack - BANG - Rack - BANG

-versus-

Click - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG.

I'm not arguing that the shotgun is a bad choice, but an AR that has been tested reliable is far more straightforward in operation than a pump shotgun.

and we're talking DEFENSE here, not offense. hard to make a case for self defense at ranges of 50 yds and greater.

It is possible (and often preferable) to use a rifle at short range.

 

[trol79]

my coice would be a shotgun, or two! primary because I'm more used to them, secomdry: I don't like the thought of bullets flying with THAT much energy in a place where also my family lives. I would feel better using some low-recoil buckshot or heavy birdshot like BB,T,F or some thing like that.

 

[Dee]

It seems to me that the SG does a lot more damage loaded with buckshot and/or slugs at close range than an AR would but maybe that is just my perception. I think they are both great weapons but I would go with a SG for any HD scenario that I can think of over an AR.

 

[ArmedBear]

I'm never QUITE sure the AR will go

Click BANG BANG BANG as opposed to

Click BANG Click DAMN slam slam BANG

I honestly trust the Mini-14 to go BANG every time, more than the AR. However, I can't really see having a long-range varmint round in a short-range carbine. The AR is much more accurate and so far I haven't welded the barrel to my finger like with the Mini.

 

[figment]

lets all end this now and admit that the AR15 is better than a shotgun. I have a dozen or more of both anyway.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

If you live in a city or populated area, I say go with the shotgun. At close range it is an amazing force to be reckoned with. And with the right choice of shot size you can limit the chance of projectiles penetrating through walls and hurting non-combatants.

If you live in an unpopulated area, especially in a house out of view of others, I'd say go with the rifle. Not because it is better inside the house, but because you may have to engage combatants surrounding your house at a distance.

+1 and my exact thoughts.

 

[benEzra]

I'm never QUITE sure the AR will go

Click BANG BANG BANG as opposed to

Click BANG Click DAMN slam slam BANG

ROFL. You almost had to buy me a new keyboard over that...

 

[Max]

That's a simple one for, me. Since I don't own a shotgun anymore, it's the M4. though realisticaly I might grab for the pistol first and escalate to the carbine if nessesary.

 

[Al LaVodka]

Around here anyway there are VERY few shooting ranges that allow for "combat" type shotgun shooting so the ability to practice with the shotgun becomes very difficult.

Yes, they are relatively easy to use, no question.

Still, having the ability to practice with a home defense firearm is important to me and that seems to be hard to do with a shotgun.

Most of the ranges around here only allow for patterning around dove season

It must be hard to miss all the clay shooting sports places around. Me? SInce there are so many places that let you practice "combat" type RIFLE shooting just as you would in and around your home, I'm gonna shoot trap next weekend with an AR 'cause I have a good cheek weld...
Al

 

[Argent]

Personally I go with a shotgun, but both have the pros and cons. A Shotgun would have a lesser degree of overpenetration through drywall, I would take nearby collateral damage into consideration depending on your situation and dwelling (you have kids, you live in an apartment/condo, etc.) However the sound indoors of the shotgun would be more deafeningl, not to mention the flash from the muzzle at night could temporarily blind you. I would feel more comfortable with the heft of my browning pump stock than my collapsible AR15 if the BG decided to rush in to close the distance in a CQC-scenario. I don't see the advantage of having 30+ rounds in a home-invasion situation unless you plan on missing more than 70% of your shots, or plan on having an extended gun battle in your house. Guessing on average your longest shot indoors would be less than 20 ft, long-range shooting shouldnt be a factor unless you are living in a rural/remote area. Just my 2 cents.

 

[BushyGuy]

AR15 by a mile, i have more ammo capacity and longer range then the shotgun, also the AR15 i can move around faster then the shotgun. when the AR fails then i will go to my Model 94 30-30 , my 870 is my last resort weapon .

 

[ArmedBear]

the AR15 i can move around faster then the shotgun

Wrong shotgun, then.

 

[Mr. Bojangles]

I prefer the shotgun for most home defense situations. The stopping power of a 12-gague is incredible (although with fewer shots available as compared to an AR.)

Some of the decision is personal preference, as situations vary from case to case.

 

[jmr40]

You may handle a shotgun faster, but most people would be better off with a 16" barreled 6 lb AR than a 18-20" barreled 8 lb shotgun with recoil near 300 win mag levels. The AR gives up nothing to a good shotgun except price. You can get 3-4 good shotguns for the price of a good AR. That is something for most to consider, but not a consideration in the OP's post.

Before you get too warm and fuzzy about a shotguns legendary stopping power consider that 1 round of 00 buck is about the same as 1 magazine from a 380 pistol. Not that it won't get the job done if multiple hits are made, but most of us would not think of a 380 as a devastating round. Even if we made multiple hits.

It is not that buckshot does not work, it does, but it is also highly over rated. Most people have watched too much TV and have unrealistic expectations.

 

[Ben86]

If you are using hollowpoints in your AR the risk of overpenetration can't be any more than using buck shot.

 

[Al LaVodka]

I think u r rather mistaken. A shotgun has the highest level of single-shot stopping capability. To your point, 1 round of 0 Buck (actually) is like firing a dozen .32's into your target. Multiple hits are the design, hit probability is much greater, and effectiveness is superior at close range compared to a .223 as I understand it. For all these reasons, the shotgun wins for distances within the optimal and operating range of the arm. Full-auto .223 within the same ranges? I might reconsider but that's not what you've got and that'd have its drawbacks too...
Al

 

[Ben86]

Full-auto .223 within the same ranges?

Who said anything about full auto?

 

[TexasRifleman]

To your point, 1 round of 0 Buck (actually) is like firing a dozen .32's into your target. Multiple hits are the design, hit probability is much greater

The problem with this is that the hit probability isn't really any greater with a shotgun than a rifle.

Here's a great image from Box O Truth showing the group sizes of buckshot at 12 feet, an average "across the room" shooting distance.

At most you can expect a 4 inch group, usually much less. That doesn't really give much more hit probability than a rifle.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, I would disagree with Lee, this really is a software issue as either weapon is more than adequate for the task of home defense and both can be very well adapted to the task. It really comes down to which one works better with your software.

For me that would be the AR, simply because I don't have as much training on it as the shotgun. If the AR did stop running for some reason, I can clear a stoppage almost as fast as I can engage with my secondary. If I short-stroked an 870, I'd be standing around for 30 seconds trying to figure out exactly what happened - and that isn't the 870's problem, that is a failure of my own software because I don't use the 870 much.

 

[Mr.Davis]

I'm never QUITE sure the AR will go

Click BANG BANG BANG as opposed to

Click BANG Click DAMN slam slam BANG

I honestly trust the Mini-14 to go BANG every time, more than the AR. However, I can't really see having a long-range varmint round in a short-range carbine. The AR is much more accurate and so far I haven't welded the barrel to my finger like with the Mini.

Then 1) Buy a decent AR, 2) Take care of it, and 3) Practice a lot, enough to trust the weapon.

ARs are just as reliable, if not more so, than any other semi-automatic weapon. Please don't go projecting insecurities onto everyone else's weapons.

 

[Fred Fuller]

BR,

The thread isn't "AR15 Tactics VS Shotgun Tactics." If a shooter can't run the gun, then he ain't GOT no tactics, no matter which gun it is he can't run.

Thus, this is a pure hardware thread. And thus I moved it back out of S&T to Shotguns from whence it originally came.

Tactics is a discussion of WHEN and WHY you use a gun and WHAT YOU DO while you are using it, not WHICH gun you use.

jmho, ymmv,

lpl

 

[Al LaVodka]

Tex says "the hit probability isn't really any greater with a shotgun," "the most you can expect [is] a 4 inch group" at 12 feet and "that doesn't really give much."


I think it is generally that spread or larger with Cylinder bore, but just for sake of argument, you're saying I only have an inch or two grace at 12 feet with multiple deep penetrating first-strike 32-caliber hits? Probably a foot's grace at as many yards. Where do I sign up!?

As for short-stroking, I was thinking, don't do that! Or, like me, don't grab the 870 first. Interesting how everyone presumes a pump. And "need" a semi-auto? They make those in "shotgun" too -- for about a century. My smallest "HD" shotgun is 5+1. Identifying and stopping the close-in threat immediately is my first consideration. Firing again would be my second and reloading my last.

I stand by my choice(s).

Al