shotgun vs rifle for home defense

[iyn]

I'm a pistol owner thinking about getting a long arm for home defense. I live in a the city. In my area the .223 round is plentiful, however the rifles that shoot .223 are expensive. I've been told for home defense a pump shotgun is better than a rifle. But are there any disadvantage of a shotgun rather than a rifle for home defense? I'm not sure if I'm influenced by all those end of the world terminator movies that have the good guys with pump shotguns.

 

[Snarlingiron]

Either will certainly work. I own both.

An AR type weapon is smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than the shotgun. There can be little question that the round is effective. The cost of the weapon is going to be near 5 times the cost of a serviceable HD shotgun.

The shotgun has an extremely wide array of ammunition readily available and relatively inexpensive. It can be highly effective. The amount of firepower that you can put down range with the shotgun is pretty amazing.

With regard to recoil, the shotgun is certainly going to bump you harder than an AR.

Clearly the AR wins with regard to range, but again given proper ammunition the shotgun will take care of you out 100 yards.

Having said all that, the shotgun is my weapon of choice for HD. The primary reason is that I have taken professional training with the shotgun. I practice with it a great deal. I have total confidence in the weapon and my ability to effectively deploy it. I am not nearly as familiar with the AR. I fumble and fiddle and just don't have the familiarity with it that I do with the shotgun. With the shotgun, my hands just go to the controls. With no thought at all and without looking my hands just slide new rounds into the magazine. It seems to come to my shoulder and on target by its own accord.

So where all this leads us is that either will work admirably IF YOU TRAIN AND PRACTICE WITH IT!

 

[loadedround]

Se above post about my Maverick 88 shotgun. Ideal HD weapon with it's 20" barrel and 8 round mag tube.

 

[jlv08]

I live in the city here in Tidewater, VA.

It's not a really densely populated area, but it is still a suburban enviroment.

I have houses within an easy stones throw from my house and a .223 would

be way to much rifle for a HD weapon for me. I have shotguns that will do

what I need for ranges that would possibly be encountered in an HD situation.

I have various loads that can be utilized to handle an intruder within those

ranges and not hurt someone on the other side if my hard plaster, sub

lathework under plaster, covered with heart pine clapboard,covered with vinyl siding, walls.

A shotgun would be all you need in an urban enviroment and if you do a

search , you will find a plethora of good info regard the use of shotguns for

all manner of HD applications.

 

[SnakeLogan]

For home defense, it's all about stopping the threat immediately. Even with a direct shot through the BG's heart, he will have enough oxygenated blood in his brain for at least 10 seconds of willful action. That means 10 seconds to run up and stab you or hit you with a baseball bat.

What does all this have to do with shotgun vs rifle? Well, the only way to immediately stop a BG is to damage the central nervous system (CNS), meaning the brain or spine. Headshots are unrealistic so you aim COM. With 00 buck you have at least 9x (my HD load is 12 pellet 00 buck) the chance of hitting the BG's spine with a COM shot, putting him out of commission, than you do with a single shot of 223.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[CoRoMo]

The primary reason is that I have taken professional training with the shotgun. I practice with it a great deal. I have total confidence in the weapon and my ability to effectively deploy it.

This is key. Training/practice will make you effective with whatever weapon you settle on.

 

[Gunfighter123]

For room to room fighting , a pump or semi-auto shotgun is hard to beat.

With 2 3/4" OO buck , you get nine .32 size bullets on the way with each pull of the trigger.

BTW -- check out the Saiga S-12 , truely a great HD shotgun.

 

[jmr40]

I think both work fine with a slight edge to a lightweight AR type rifle. The rifle is smaller, lighter and easier to use in the home. Much less recoil. A shotguns main advantage, throwing a pattern that makes hits easier, is negated by the close ranges in homes. You must carefully aim either at these ranges.

Using soptpoint 223 ammo is quite deadly at close range and if worried about overpenetration don't. They will penetrate less than most handgun rounds after hitting people or building materials.

Of course the versatility, and much lower cost of the shotgun is a consideration as well.

 

[ronto]

Unless you want to also take out your neighbors with an AR...

Get a pump 12ga shotgun for home defense and keep it in "rack n' go" condition loaded with 00 Buck Shot...Equavalent to 9 9mm rounds to the intruders chest all at once will stop him in his tracks for sure.

 

[ugaarguy]

Whichever one you have the most training on or can get the most training on.

As for all the folks saying you'll take out your neighbors with a 223 they need to do some research. Anything that will reliably incapacitate a 200 lb mammal will also penetrate multiple layers of sheet rock / drywall. There's just no way around it. If you stay away from steel core and heavy bonded JHP ammo almost every .223 round will penetrate as many or less layers of sheet rock than a 12 GA with buck or heavier loads. This topic has beaten to a pulp in the rifle forum. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=210739

 

[iyn]

thanks guys. For the price the shotgun is the way to go. I'm noticed at our local sport authority stores there is plenty of 12 GA ammo available.
as far as minimal recoil, what is the lightest shot i can use for HD?

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

The lightest shot that reliably reaches the ~12-14 inch penetration required for incapacitation is #4 buckshot. You can buy reduced recoil 00 buck loads that have lower recoil and tighter patterns in most guns, but you sacrifice some velocity, though not any amount that would matter in a close range situation.

 

[spyderdude]

I have limited experience with HD shotgun loads, but the few buckshot loads I have tried are,

Remington Express 2 3/4" 8 pellet 00
Fiocchi 2 3/4" #4 buck
Federal LE Tactical 2 3/4" 9 pellet 00

The lowest recoil loads out of those three I tried would be the Federal LE Tactical 00 buckshot. They also have the Flite-Control wads which help control the spread of the shot so you get tighter patterns. I have yet to pattern this particular load since I wasn't shooting at paper last time I took my shotgun out.

 

[AcceptableUserName]

Shotgun. Less penetration/range, more stopping power. A rifle is an OFFENSIVE weapon in my opinion rather than defensive like a shotgun. You're not going to be clearing rooms like Rambo in an Hd scenario. You're gonna be holed up in a safe spot while you try and assess the threat/call the police/make the scattergun go boom if threatened...if you know what's good for you.

 

[ugaarguy]

Shotgun. Less penetration/range, more stopping power. A rifle is an OFFENSIVE weapon in my opinion rather than defensive like a shotgun.

Did you read the thread I linked? Have you looked at any ballistic testing? You're assuming that a shotgun with proper HD/SD loads (bitd shot isn't a proper SD/HD load) is going to penetrate less than a .223/5.56 carbine with proper HD/SD loads. That simply isn't the case.

You're not going to be clearing rooms like Rambo in an Hd scenario. You're gonna be holed up in a safe spot while you try and assess the threat/call the police/make the scattergun go boom if threatened...if you know what's good for you.

How do you know what's good for him? There are plenty of military installations on the Hawaiian Islands, so he may have access to a world class carbine instructor there. He may also have access to a world class shotgun instructor in Hawaii. I didn't assume anything, which is why I said "whichever you can get the most training on". I can assure you I'm no less affective holed up with a .223 carbine than I am with a 12 Ga shotgun. I own and use both. I've just had much more training with the AR-15 / M16. Use what works for you, but don't make false assertions about something else just because it doesn't work for you.

 

[Tirod]

The common weapon used on board ship is a shotgun. I see lots of marine grade shotguns - and few marine grade carbines.

The use of shotguns on board ships parallels the application at home. Tight quarters, close ranges, and the ability to select the load gives shotguns an advantage. The streamlined profile of shotguns, like the Ithaca, Mossberg, or 870, is certainly a lot easier to use, and will hang up less on obstructions than a iron sighted, pistol gripped, magazine fed carbine.

Any weapon should be optimized to the average shooter in HD. Penetration of flimsy sheetrock construction is also a consideration. Varmint loads are notorious for wild richochets. Since family members may be just an inch of sheetrock away, it has a lot to do with caliber selection. What you choose does reflect how you intend to use it in your circumstances - but when you do need stopping power, the 12 ga slug is an option. A 5.56 doesn't guarantee it as well.

I believe the handling, use, versatility, and purchase of a HD shotgun offers a decided advantage over a military battle rifle that is hard to maintain, buy ammo for, or train with. Most civilian homeowners aren't prepared for the cost of purchase, expense, and use - but many of them can buy a shotgun, go to the range, and shoot a case of shells, which can be good familiarization. It far more likely to happen than signing up for a weekend at a CQC battle course.

Having used AR's for 22 years, and owned a HK91, the last weapon I would recommend for home use is either. Like 4 wheeling an Escalade off road on a camping trip, you may not like the cost, especially if that's all you ever do with it. Home defense shotguns are the better choice, and the average family will get more from them.

 

[ugaarguy]

The common weapon used on board ship is a shotgun. I see lots of marine grade shotguns - and few marine grade carbines.

None of the commercial "marine grade" shotguns are in military use. Their military counterparts are black/grey phosphate finished just like military rifles.

The use of shotguns on board ships parallels the application at home. Tight quarters, close ranges, and the ability to select the load gives shotguns an advantage. The streamlined profile of shotguns, like the Ithaca, Mossberg, or 870, is certainly a lot easier to use, and will hang up less on obstructions than a iron sighted, pistol gripped, magazine fed carbine.

Infantry men have no trouble climbing in and out of the even tighter confines of trucks, APCs, and other land vehicles with carbines.

Any weapon should be optimized to the average shooter in HD.

Interestingly, many shotgun manufacturers are moving to AR-15 style collapsible butt stocks so that the pump shotgun's LOP may be easily adjusted to shooters of various sizes. .223 / 5.56 Carbines are lighter, have lower recoil, less muzzle climb, and are faster to make follow-up shots with. The average shooter can shoot a .223 carbine much easier than a 12 ga shotgun.

Penetration of flimsy sheetrock construction is also a consideration.

Buckshot is going to penetrate sheet rock just as much .223 hunting loads.

Varmint loads are notorious for wild richochets.

People used to assume that .223 carbines would penetrate more than pistol caliber carbines, but scientific testing showed that wasn't true. I've seen #4 buckshot ricochet as it shattered plate glass that it was skip fired off of. The ricochet argument can go both ways.

Since family members may be just an inch of sheetrock away, it has a lot to do with caliber selection.

Even bird shot will go through sheet rock. Once again, ANY load capable of incapacitating a 200+ lb mammal is going to penetrate multiple layers of sheet rock.

What you choose does reflect how you intend to use it in your circumstances - but when you do need stopping power, the 12 ga slug is an option. A 5.56 doesn't guarantee it as well.

First you argue for a 12 ga with shot for lower sheetrock penetration than a 5.56 (which usually isn't the case anyway), and now you're arguing for 12 ga slugs for better stopping power. Again, First you advocate the shotgun as being easier to use, and now you're advocating some of the heaviest recoiling loads commonly fired from any long arm in North America. Which is it?

I believe the handling, use, versatility, and purchase of a HD shotgun offers a decided advantage over a military battle rifle that is hard to maintain, buy ammo for, or train with.

Really? I can field strip my AR-15s with no tools. It takes punches to field strip an 870 or a 500/590. There are plenty of online and print guides that show and explain how to maintain an AR-15. The US Military trains thousands of troops who've never even touched a gun in their life on how to use and and maintain an M-16/M-4. The US Air Force does it in just a few hours. AR-15s are not hard to maintain.

How is it hard to buy ammo for an AR-15? Seriously, I'd like to know. I can buy 08 Lake City headstamp 5.56 for $9 / box of 20 at the local gun store. Even cheap 12 Ga bird shot is $7 or $8 for a box of 25. Buckshot is $6 or more per box of 5.

How is it hard to train with an AR-15? Most indoor ranges have at least one rifle bay, and even though it may only be 25 yards it's still a place to shoot a rifle. They'll usually let you shoot shotguns too, but what's the advantage to shooting a shooting from fixed firing position shooting lanes?

Most civilian homeowners aren't prepared for the cost of purchase, expense, and use - but many of them can buy a shotgun, go to the range, and shoot a case of shells, which can be good familiarization. It far more likely to happen than signing up for a weekend at a CQC battle course.

Ohh, so you need a carbine course to learn to shoot an AR-15, but just going to the range on your own is sufficient training with a longer, heavier, and harder recoiling shotgun? So no one needs to take a defensive shotgun course to have training equivalent to what they'd receive in a defensive carbine course?

Having used AR's for 22 years, and owned a HK91, the last weapon I would recommend for home use is either.

I wouldn't recommend an HK-91 either. It's another heavy gun, with heavy recoil, and slower follow up shots.

Like 4 wheeling an Escalade off road on a camping trip, you may not like the cost, especially if that's all you ever do with it.

Escalades weren't built for off road use. You can buy a base model Toyota Landcruiser for the same money as an Escalade and have an incredible off road vehicle. In the same way, AR-15s are actually built to be run hard and employed for defensive use. A Browning BAR hunting rifle used for nothing but HD would be equivalent to using an Escalade only as an off road vehicle.

Home defense shotguns are the better choice, and the average family will get more from them.

To use your own automotive metaphor, you can play off road with a stock base model Jeep Wrangler . Alternately you can buy a Wrangler Rubicon off the lot, or spend quite a bit of money upgrading the base Wrangler and have a purpose built off road vehicle. Likewise you can buy an 870 Express and probably be just fine. Alternately you can buy an 870P or send your Express off to someone like Scattergun Tech, and get a purpose built fighting shotgun with beefed up internals.

 

[Groucho_]

In the end, the deciding factor for me personally is my environment. I live in a thin walled apartment with people, including family, all around me. The .223 has more penetrating power than the 12 gauge shotgun load I use. How much more is up for debate, but we know the two weapons are two different ballparks.

I can see how someone might use a .223 rifle for home defense, but in my scenario it's just not feasible and is possibly dangerous.

 

[Tirod]

The current cultural climate against EBR's influences how people think, regardless of the actual facts. Shotguns are culturally more acceptable to use for home defense, hands down, and that has a lot to do with what people buy considering their neighborhood.

The use of shot or slug offers a wider variety of loads more commonly available, right down to the local store level. Shot or slug gives a breadth of response that no single caliber varmint round can duplicate, especially one that has had to be reconfigured to improve accuracy and reduce tumbling. You don't want overpenetration to endanger other building occupants.

While 5.56 may be available, it's not for a lot of folks right now as the hoarders continue to buy it up, and have caused prices to escalate beyond what I consider reasonable. Further, I can walk into the local Academy and find cases of slugs on closeout for cheap. Quoting a stacked comparison of prices can always make the other look good.

In my experience, the mag fed pistol grip configuration is a nightmare of snag-prone protuberances. Having actually spend weeks it the field training and hunting with AR type rifles and conventional stocks, the comparison is hands down a winner for the shotgun. Further, pistol grips and magazines force the user to expose more of their profile to an opponent as the weapon cannot have a reduced profile. If using a pump, you could say the difficulty still exists just to work the action - but apples to apples, the auto shotgun lays flatter.

Cleaning is a matter of circumstance - I do prefer military takedown methods, and companies that refuse to incorporate them in designs don't help the owner. Nonetheless, civilian owners have the time - and don't have to clean their weapons nearly as often. Frequent daily cleaning is the norm for a battle rifle that is literally dragged through every environment in combat within hours, covered in debris, and used as a aid in climbing or tool in combatives, and fires hundreds of rounds daily. With a reputation for stoppages directly attributable to the underweight bolt design and abusive environment, AR's darn well better be easier to clean - but it's of little value to a homeowner who keeps one in the house 24/7. The shotgun will be.

Training at the range - yes, any gun will do, most ranges want you there. But the AR is virtually banned from any skeet or trap range, and using the shotgun there is still good training and familiarization. It promotes shooting a moving target - something few CQC courses even address. A shotgunner has to learn that on a S&T range, and it's more available at more ranges. This offers the shotgunner a wider range of training facilities at reasonable cost close to home, and helps get the family involved. AR's can't do that as well.

Some experienced users will feel more comfortable with a weapon they have trained with for years. NEW USERS TO HOME DEFENSE need a weapon they can familiarize with rapidly at a wide variety of ranges, without breaking the bank. Daddy deals with a lot of decisions at home - and a new HDTV can quickly be a higher priority than an equally priced boutique firearm that sits in the closet, adding nothing to the entertainment menu. That's another plus for the shotgun - a good used pump shooter can often be bought same day as the TV, no breaking the budget.

Again, after 22 years of using AR type rifles, I don't see them as the best application in home defense. Frankly, I don't much care for them at all, having gotten over the love affair and finally seeing the warts, defects, and compromises in design. The average homeowner will be better served with a HD shotgun of plain and simple design, straight from the factory. Modifying it with a plethora of AR style doodads just complicates and degrades it's capability.

 

[jjohnson]

+1 for Shotgun and #4 Buck

I carried an M16 for 3 years, and I'm a believer in the shotgun (pump in my case) for HD. The .223, as many pointed out, gives you more penetration - and this can be dangerous - than you need at "home" ranges. So does a shotgun slug - but #4 buck is a favorite load for many law enforcement applications, and with good reason. A good hit at home ranges with a load of #4 buck is pretty effective. Many like 00 buck, which is popular in the military, because it does have more penetration than #4. Military applications aren't always at that close range, so 00 gets the nod there. I'm sticking with #4.

 

[RyanM]

My take on it, anyway.

Shotgun
pros: Cheap, cheap practice ammo, good "stopping power."
cons: Very, very, very heavy recoil compared to any of the other options. Pump action introduces possibilities for operator error, requiring a lot of practice.

Intermediate caliber rifle
pros: .223 and 7.62x39 both actually give you about the same size hole as 9-12 pellets of 00 buck, and with far less recoil. Magazine capacity is high. Semi-auto.
cons: ARs are expensive, AKs aren't very ergonomic.

Pistol caliber carbine
pros: Pretty cheap, in the same price range as shotguns. Ammo is cheap. Almost no recoil to speak of. Much less muzzle blast. Very compact and lightweight models are available. Semi-auto. High cap magazines are usually available.
cons: Far lower "stopping power" than any true longarm caliber. According to MacPherson's models, a 9mm JHP is equal to 3 pellets of 00 at 1290 fps. So 3-4 shots of 9mm = 1 shot of 12 ga buck, if you want a concrete figure based on real physics.

Pistol caliber carbines tend to be really overlooked, when people are considering home defense guns.

But the choice is, like everything else in life, a tradeoff. Decide what priorities are most important to you, for your particular situation, and go from there.

 

[SHusky57]

Shotgun - how do you control where the pellets go?

Anybody ever done an IPSC shoot where there are hostages and targets close to each other? I've never hit a "no-shoot" in IPSC because I use IPSC as a training tool. Hitting no-shoots is unacceptable. At 10 yards with a shotgun loaded with buckshot, I don't know that I could accomplish that easily.

If I am on one side of the house and a family member is on the other side of the house, and I fire a shotgun - how do I know those rounds won't penetrate and hit the loved one after not hitting the BG?

Box o' truth.... anything from .22 to birdshot is going to penetrate dry wall. I think a BB gun may be the only thing that won't.

So with a shotgun, isn't that a huge sacrifice to controlling where every round goes?

What SWAT teams are employing shotguns in roles other than breaching (serious question)? The reason is because if you live in an apartment or have family members.... box o' truth shows that #4 buck is going to penetrate drywall just as easily as .223. Even if only 2 of the 9 pellets miss, that's easily enough to seriously injure or kill someone in the apartment next to you.

 

[Tom609]

My opinion, and take it for what it's worth... In most cases, it will be hard to say you used any firearm in self-defense at a distance greater than 10 yards. Go with the shotgun in 12 or 20 gauge with buck shot. If it's zombies, then all bets are off and you go with the AK or AR.

 

[duckman007]

In most cases, it will be hard to say you used any firearm in self-defense at a distance greater than 10 yards

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that it may be hard to justify to the police or the courts that shooting someone in self defense at a distance of 10 yards or greater wasn't justified. This may be true in some courts and with some juries, I can't commit on that. I will however say that the closest you want a BG to you is 10 yards. Let them get any closer and you're putting yourself in unnecessary danger.

The reason is that a human's reaction time is typically between 0.15 and 0.30 seconds. A BG in decent shape can cover 10 yards in 1.5 to 2.0 seconds, maybe quicker if he's an athlete. That leaves little time for error. With all that might be going on around you in a situation where you've got someone at gunpoint, the least little distraction could be deadly for you. You look away for a second and the BG has the time to close the gap to the point of being able to grab your gun or otherwise do you harm.

I went to a training course where the instructor asked how close we felt comfortable with a BG armed with a knife. Most people's response was about 10 feet. He then demonstrated just how fast a human can close such a gap and do harm. Very eyeopening for me who thought that 10 feet was more than enough. They trained us to shoot anyone that is armed (not a gun, but with a knife, baseball bat, etc.) that gets within 20 feet if they are slowly approaching. If they are approaching at a fast past, as in running, drop them at 30 feet. Do not let them closer because too much can go wrong too quickly.

Anyone in such a situation has to decide for themselves what their particular situation calls for in the way of what gives them cause to harm another human being. I just want to impress upon everyone that what you think may be a safe distance, very well may be way too close.

 

[ugaarguy]

In the end, the deciding factor for me personally is my environment. I live in a thin walled apartment with people, including family, all around me. The .223 has more penetrating power than the 12 gauge shotgun load I use. How much more is up for debate, but we know the two weapons are two different ballparks.

I can see how someone might use a .223 rifle for home defense, but in my scenario it's just not feasible and is possibly dangerous.

The .223, as many pointed out, gives you more penetration - and this can be dangerous - than you need at "home" ranges. So does a shotgun slug - but #4 buck is a favorite load for many law enforcement applications, and with good reason. A good hit at home ranges with a load of #4 buck is pretty effective. Many like 00 buck, which is popular in the military, because it does have more penetration than #4. Military applications aren't always at that close range, so 00 gets the nod there. I'm sticking with #4.

You folks continue to repeat common knowledge that's based on an assumption. Testing has revealed that assumption to be false.

The use of shot or slug offers a wider variety of loads more commonly available, right down to the local store level. Shot or slug gives a breadth of response that no single caliber varmint round can duplicate, especially one that has had to be reconfigured to improve accuracy and reduce tumbling. You don't want overpenetration to endanger other building occupants.

I wasn't aware that .223 was strictly a varmint round. In first post I specifically said to avoid steel core ammo. Further, M855 ball was not developed to increase accuracy, nor reduce tumbling. It was developed during the cold war to increase penetration against Soviet soft body armor. Reduced tumbling was a side effect. The 1:7 twist adopted to stabilize the 64 grain M856 tracer, which is a much longer projectile, in any environment. The side effect is that M855 ball is slightly more accurate than M193 ball in barrels of that twist rate. Regardless, most civilian AR-15s have 1:9 twist barrels, and those are perfect for 55 to 64 grain softpoints. Those SP rounds don't rely on tumbling to wound. They expand and slow down.

While 5.56 may be available, it's not for a lot of folks right now as the hoarders continue to buy it up, and have caused prices to escalate beyond what I consider reasonable. Further, I can walk into the local Academy and find cases of slugs on closeout for cheap. Quoting a stacked comparison of prices can always make the other look good.

You're quoting close out pricing. I quoted pricing on two readily available, current production, rounds. I work in the industry, and I frequently look at current ammo availability from distributors to dealers. Even with current demand .223 / 5.56 still has better availability than 12 GA buck. You're the one making the stacked comparison quoting close out pricing from a single retail chain.

In my experience, the mag fed pistol grip configuration is a nightmare of snag-prone protuberances. Having actually spend weeks it the field training and hunting with AR type rifles and conventional stocks, the comparison is hands down a winner for the shotgun.

Your training was in the field. My training was in the field doing maintenance on comm equipment. When you walk into a comm van (kinda like a hallway in a house) barrel length is the biggest draw back - AF issued 20" A2s to us REMFs. An M4 with collapsible stock would have been far easier to maneuver than even a 12 Ga with fixed stock and 18" bbl.

Further, pistol grips and magazines force the user to expose more of their profile to an opponent as the weapon cannot have a reduced profile. If using a pump, you could say the difficulty still exists just to work the action - but apples to apples, the auto shotgun lays flatter.

Pistol grips and detachable mags don't make the gun wider. In a basic stance with the off hand at the back of the handguard or front of the mag well I can be just as compact as with a mag tube shotgun. Also, if we're talking semi-auto shotguns then your huge cost savings advantage just left town.

Cleaning is a matter of circumstance - I do prefer military takedown methods, and companies that refuse to incorporate them in designs don't help the owner. Nonetheless, civilian owners have the time - and don't have to clean their weapons nearly as often. Frequent daily cleaning is the norm for a battle rifle that is literally dragged through every environment in combat within hours, covered in debris, and used as a aid in climbing or tool in combatives, and fires hundreds of rounds daily. With a reputation for stoppages directly attributable to the underweight bolt design and abusive environment, AR's darn well better be easier to clean - but it's of little value to a homeowner who keeps one in the house 24/7. The shotgun will be.

So you now say that ease of cleaning doesn't matter because home owners have more time to clean their weapons. Yet, you say one gun has more value than the other, based on what exactly?

Training at the range - yes, any gun will do, most ranges want you there. But the AR is virtually banned from any skeet or trap range, and using the shotgun there is still good training and familiarization. It promotes shooting a moving target - something few CQC courses even address. A shotgunner has to learn that on a S&T range, and it's more available at more ranges. This offers the shotgunner a wider range of training facilities at reasonable cost close to home, and helps get the family involved. AR's can't do that as well.

There are more fixed indoor ranges in urban & suburban areas. Most IPSC & IDPA clubs offers regular three gun matches where you train with shotgun, rifle, and pistol. In most suburban areas IPSC clubs are just as available as trap & skeet clubs. This makes range availability & cost equal on the two platforms.

Some experienced users will feel more comfortable with a weapon they have trained with for years. NEW USERS TO HOME DEFENSE need a weapon they can familiarize with rapidly at a wide variety of ranges, without breaking the bank. Daddy deals with a lot of decisions at home - and a new HDTV can quickly be a higher priority than an equally priced boutique firearm that sits in the closet, adding nothing to the entertainment menu. That's another plus for the shotgun - a good used pump shooter can often be bought same day as the TV, no breaking the budget.

It's been my experience that new user learn better on a lighter weight, lower recoil gun which can be easily adjusted to fit the individual. Above you argue for the semi-auto shotgun to make the comparison apples to apples. Now you're back to arguing for the cheaper pump shotgun. You're having to cherry pick advantages of two different types of shotgun to attempt to match the advantages of a single carbine.

Also, if the HDTV is a higher priority than the best defensive firearm you can afford (whether it be a .223 carbine, a 12 or 20 ga semi-auto shotgun, or a higher end defensive pump shotgun) you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Stick with your standard definition TV for a few more months, get the better firearm, and then buy the new HDTV later. In the long run a few months without the new TV isn't going to matter. The firearm is also going to hold its value far better than a TV that will be outdated in two years.

Again, after 22 years of using AR type rifles, I don't see them as the best application in home defense. Frankly, I don't much care for them at all, having gotten over the love affair and finally seeing the warts, defects, and compromises in design.

You focus on the defects, and ignore the advantages.

The average homeowner will be better served with a HD shotgun of plain and simple design, straight from the factory. Modifying it with a plethora of AR style doodads just complicates and degrades it's capability.

The Knoxx recoil reducing collapsible stock actually increases a pump shotgun's capability. The LOP can be immediately adjusted to fit any family member. The recoil reduction makes the shotgun easier for a new shooter to learn on, and provides longer range sessions before recoil wears the shooter out. You can get a 20 ga 870 express with said stock, 18.5" bbl, and mag extension straight from the factory. It's more money than a base express, but less money than most .223 carbines. In that configuration it combines many of the best features of pump shotguns and .223 carbines.

I'm not at all opposed to shotguns for HD use. I also don't think they're always the best option either. Many of their asserted advantages are nothing more than more than assumptions that have been repeated for so long they're accepted as fact, but don't hold up under unbiased testing.