|
Post by Richard Arias on Dec 24, 2016 3:32:00 GMT
Well I was out at the range and a few people were talking about how under gun you would be with a shotgun for home defense or if the riots like in ferguson were to happen here. they were saying that a AR is what you need cause even with deer slugs a shotgun can't stop or drop people in plate(why would you need to :P ) and that if you get attacked they could be a large group were 7rd would not get the job done.
Now too me that sound like just AR guys running off at the mouth but what do you guys think? I know a shotguns stopping power is something no one needs to question and i have seen steel shotgun slugs and also if was carrying any long gun i would have a handgun for back up anyways so really is one at a lose with a 870 7+1 or a 590 with 9+1 and handgun if a shtf An AR is a tool for a very specific narrow type of shooting. Its only effective when you are a crack shot and or have a large full mag to work with. They are very mechanical and not easy to gun manipulate if your not trained. There is not much natural point shoot to them. I have watched countless people screw up on the range with them. A shotgun is relatively simple in form and function. Less parts that are more straight forward in operation. Given that there are infinite kinds of shells from less fatal rock salt, bean bag, rubber ex. To slugs, bird or Buck shot Magnum loads ex. Your trading round count and weight for simple platform and options on ammunition. The best gun is the one the user shoots best with for its intended use. At close range under stress shot is likely to be more effective because of the ability to literally point in a center mass and put someone down. Not with scalpel like precision like an AR, but more like a Bat behind the door cracking someone over the head. A shotgun much like a revolver can sit loaded and oiled for long periods in wait (its why I recommend revolves for car guns). The AR is a gun for wars and long fire fights involving a lot of missed shots. Home defense is about grab and go concealment warning the intruder that you have a gun and the police are on their way. I would recommend a Ruger SP101 over a rifle or shotgun for home defense for beginners. But having taught people defense in the home (I'm an NRA basic pistol and home defense instructor) I can say keep it simple works best. To many people want "tacticool" without really thinking about where, how and when the gun will be used. Your range chatter guys are guys with money who have probably never had to point a gun at a would be attacker. Same with some of the opinions here coming from a lot of movie scenario video game love of a platform or fun gunning at the range.
|
|
|
Post by L Driggers (fallen) on Dec 24, 2016 6:30:02 GMT
Ok have you ever pointed a gun at a person, I have. A rifle or shotgun is far better than the SP101 you recommend. A small handgun is a lot harder to aim.
Maybe you need to take a few rifle or shotgun schools.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 24, 2016 6:40:06 GMT
Well I was out at the range and a few people were talking about how under gun you would be with a shotgun for home defense or if the riots like in ferguson were to happen here. they were saying that a AR is what you need cause even with deer slugs a shotgun can't stop or drop people in plate(why would you need to ) and that if you get attacked they could be a large group were 7rd would not get the job done.
Now too me that sound like just AR guys running off at the mouth but what do you guys think? I know a shotguns stopping power is something no one needs to question and i have seen steel shotgun slugs and also if was carrying any long gun i would have a handgun for back up anyways so really is one at a lose with a 870 7+1 or a 590 with 9+1 and handgun if a shtf An AR is a tool for a very specific narrow type of shooting. Its only effective when you are a crack shot and or have a large full mag to work with. They are very mechanical and not easy to gun manipulate if your not trained. There is not much natural point shoot to them. I have watched countless people screw up on the range with them. A shotgun is relatively simple in form and function. Less parts that are more straight forward in operation. Given that there are infinite kinds of shells from less fatal rock salt, bean bag, rubber ex. To slugs, bird or Buck shot Magnum loads ex. Your trading round count and weight for simple platform and options on ammunition. The best gun is the one the user shoots best with for its intended use. At close range under stress shot is likely to be more effective because of the ability to literally point in a center mass and put someone down. Not with scalpel like precision like an AR, but more like a Bat behind the door cracking someone over the head. A shotgun much like a revolver can sit loaded and oiled for long periods in wait (its why I recommend revolves for car guns). The AR is a gun for wars and long fire fights involving a lot of missed shots. Home defense is about grab and go concealment warning the intruder that you have a gun and the police are on their way. I would recommend a Ruger SP101 over a rifle or shotgun for home defense for beginners. But having taught people defense in the home (I'm an NRA basic pistol and home defense instructor) I can say keep it simple works best. To many people want "tacticool" without really thinking about where, how and when the gun will be used. Your range chatter guys are guys with money who have probably never had to point a gun at a would be attacker. Same with some of the opinions here coming from a lot of movie scenario video game love of a platform or fun gunning at the range. I could not agree more with many of your points, factoring maintenance, beginning competency, potential for minimal amount of training (most people do indeed keep a handgun in the sock drawer untouched for years...then expect to be Wyatt Earp). That Ruger SP101 (I have the 3"brl.) is an everything gun, and the shotgun has many pluses. There is a but in this, of course , as with a minimal amount of proficiency, the AR platform leaps to the top, and by a long shot. I'm not sure of the exact parameters of the definition of a crack shot, but the AR is insanely accurate, and of course, you can and do have a large full mag to work with...which can unload with minimal recoil at near full auto speed (close range, of course). Shotguns are not street sweepers indoors, as the round does not fan out like in the movies, and the AR hits with twice the energy of a .357 magnum...center mass, your down. Another aspect, not touched on, is interest level. If a person likes a pistol, revolver, shotgun, and practices, plays with, becomes familiar with these tools, he/she will be more competent with them than with an AR (which as you wisely noted) has a larger learning curve.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Arias on Dec 24, 2016 7:22:46 GMT
An AR is a tool for a very specific narrow type of shooting. Its only effective when you are a crack shot and or have a large full mag to work with. They are very mechanical and not easy to gun manipulate if your not trained. There is not much natural point shoot to them. I have watched countless people screw up on the range with them. A shotgun is relatively simple in form and function. Less parts that are more straight forward in operation. Given that there are infinite kinds of shells from less fatal rock salt, bean bag, rubber ex. To slugs, bird or Buck shot Magnum loads ex. Your trading round count and weight for simple platform and options on ammunition. The best gun is the one the user shoots best with for its intended use. At close range under stress shot is likely to be more effective because of the ability to literally point in a center mass and put someone down. Not with scalpel like precision like an AR, but more like a Bat behind the door cracking someone over the head. A shotgun much like a revolver can sit loaded and oiled for long periods in wait (its why I recommend revolves for car guns). The AR is a gun for wars and long fire fights involving a lot of missed shots. Home defense is about grab and go concealment warning the intruder that you have a gun and the police are on their way. I would recommend a Ruger SP101 over a rifle or shotgun for home defense for beginners. But having taught people defense in the home (I'm an NRA basic pistol and home defense instructor) I can say keep it simple works best. To many people want "tacticool" without really thinking about where, how and when the gun will be used. Your range chatter guys are guys with money who have probably never had to point a gun at a would be attacker. Same with some of the opinions here coming from a lot of movie scenario video game love of a platform or fun gunning at the range. I could not agree more with many of your points, factoring maintenance, beginning competency, potential for minimal amount of training (most people do indeed keep a handgun in the sock drawer untouched for years...then expect to be Wyatt Earp). That Ruger SP101 (I have the 3"brl.) is an everything gun, and the shotgun has many pluses. There is a but in this, of course ;) , as with a minimal amount of proficiency, the AR platform leaps to the top, and by a long shot. I'm not sure of the exact parameters of the definition of a crack shot, but the AR is insanely accurate, and of course, you can and do have a large full mag to work with...which can unload with minimal recoil at near full auto speed (close range, of course). Shotguns are not street sweepers indoors, as the round does not fan out like in the movies, and the AR hits with twice the energy of a .357 magnum...center mass, your down. Another aspect, not touched on, is interest level. If a person likes a pistol, revolver, shotgun, and practices, plays with, becomes familiar with these tools, he/she will be more competent with them than with an AR (which as you wisely noted) has a larger learning curve. my experience the spread from buck shot is about fist to hand diameter. As for the AR your also forgetting that at close range that high powered .22 is likely to zip right through an attacker and not yaw like those types of Rounds can at more distance. You will fall down... BUT many find that bad guys take multipe .223 hits and keep coming. If your not pin point to an organ or firing a 5 shot burst the AR has a major weakness. Also you run a risk of over penetration and stray bullets if you know you have a lot of rounds many shooters tend to spend them quick. Shooters may find their way to an AR as a Doomsday prep gun. But for a Riot or Home invasion you can't sell me an AR over a good shotgun. Cost is another... Yeah good prime shotgun ammo is expensive, but a good shotgun is Half or a third of a good reliable AR. But hey I am a Big FN Five Seven fan. It like the AR has way more pros than cons. But when being honest its pros are in areas designed for things that civilians will likely never see in a WROL scenario. I find starting shooters with basic but demanding platforms like a shotgun and the revolver they develop good shooting habbits. I think buying a gun based on interest without experience is a rookie mistake. People make it here with swords also. They see a sword and ask "is it good?" And people rave making popular suggestions. But again simple can help beginners find what works for them and what does not. In my experience ballistic numbers don't matter as much as combat accuracy. But again for home use there are so many ways that Rifles in general are at a disadvantage. But having any kind of weapons are better than not. I often carried my Tokarev in a Police holster when I was in AZ and I had a range pro give me the .45 speech saying some silly talk about "you may as well have a sling shot". My response was "let me shoot you with both and let's see". ;)
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 24, 2016 9:10:07 GMT
I could not agree more with many of your points, factoring maintenance, beginning competency, potential for minimal amount of training (most people do indeed keep a handgun in the sock drawer untouched for years...then expect to be Wyatt Earp). That Ruger SP101 (I have the 3"brl.) is an everything gun, and the shotgun has many pluses. There is a but in this, of course , as with a minimal amount of proficiency, the AR platform leaps to the top, and by a long shot. I'm not sure of the exact parameters of the definition of a crack shot, but the AR is insanely accurate, and of course, you can and do have a large full mag to work with...which can unload with minimal recoil at near full auto speed (close range, of course). Shotguns are not street sweepers indoors, as the round does not fan out like in the movies, and the AR hits with twice the energy of a .357 magnum...center mass, your down. Another aspect, not touched on, is interest level. If a person likes a pistol, revolver, shotgun, and practices, plays with, becomes familiar with these tools, he/she will be more competent with them than with an AR (which as you wisely noted) has a larger learning curve. my experience the spread from buck shot is about fist to hand diameter. As for the AR your also forgetting that at close range that high powered .22 is likely to zip right through an attacker and not yaw like those types of Rounds can at more distance. You will fall down... BUT many find that bad guys take multipe .223 hits and keep coming. If your not pin point to an organ or firing a 5 shot burst the AR has a major weakness. Also you run a risk of over penetration and stray bullets if you know you have a lot of rounds many shooters tend to spend them quick. Shooters may find their way to an AR as a Doomsday prep gun. But for a Riot or Home invasion you can't sell me an AR over a good shotgun. Cost is another... Yeah good prime shotgun ammo is expensive, but a good shotgun is Half or a third of a good reliable AR. But hey I am a Big FN Five Seven fan. It like the AR has way more pros than cons. But when being honest its pros are in areas designed for things that civilians will likely never see in a WROL scenario. I find starting shooters with basic but demanding platforms like a shotgun and the revolver they develop good shooting habbits. I think buying a gun based on interest without experience is a rookie mistake. People make it here with swords also. They see a sword and ask "is it good?" And people rave making popular suggestions. But again simple can help beginners find what works for them and what does not. In my experience ballistic numbers don't matter as much as combat accuracy. But again for home use there are so many ways that Rifles in general are at a disadvantage. But having any kind of weapons are better than not. I often carried my Tokarev in a Police holster when I was in AZ and I had a range pro give me the .45 speech saying some silly talk about "you may as well have a sling shot". My response was "let me shoot you with both and let's see". I find myself (again) in agreement with most of your post (I rhymed). However (almost as bad as the dreaded...but ). The only stopping power question I have EVER heard of regarding .556 was at a distance of several hundred yards (bad guys were not dropping in the desert because the rounds lost kinetic energy and penetration. Unless I'm mistaken, the Five Seven round is a wildly different (for piercing Kevlar) round. Even if it does not expand (I use hollow points or specialty rounds that do), or do the tumble, that velocity (completely different animal coming from a rifle) still does damage. Sorry, but if you take multiple chest shots in the room, you will not keep coming. With 30 rounds as standard, you can spend as many rounds as you want. In short, while I agree with a lot of your points, I feel you are under estimating the stopping power performance of the AR cartridge, and to an extreme degree. If bad guys "kept coming" as you say, after being repeatedly shot by SWAT with AR, then wouldn't SWAT use shotguns instead? I have heard of quick incapacitation problems with 9mm and less, but not .556. Maybe I need to switch over to my M1A .
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Dec 24, 2016 9:40:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by L Driggers (fallen) on Dec 24, 2016 19:34:43 GMT
I'm ready for anything beside my bed is a 12ga pump shotgun, Glock model 19 and a Steyr AUG loaded with hollow point great for indoor or outdoor usage.
And yes I have a sniper rifle, a real sniper rifle.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Arias on Dec 24, 2016 20:09:23 GMT
my experience the spread from buck shot is about fist to hand diameter. As for the AR your also forgetting that at close range that high powered .22 is likely to zip right through an attacker and not yaw like those types of Rounds can at more distance. You will fall down... BUT many find that bad guys take multipe .223 hits and keep coming. If your not pin point to an organ or firing a 5 shot burst the AR has a major weakness. Also you run a risk of over penetration and stray bullets if you know you have a lot of rounds many shooters tend to spend them quick. Shooters may find their way to an AR as a Doomsday prep gun. But for a Riot or Home invasion you can't sell me an AR over a good shotgun. Cost is another... Yeah good prime shotgun ammo is expensive, but a good shotgun is Half or a third of a good reliable AR. But hey I am a Big FN Five Seven fan. It like the AR has way more pros than cons. But when being honest its pros are in areas designed for things that civilians will likely never see in a WROL scenario. I find starting shooters with basic but demanding platforms like a shotgun and the revolver they develop good shooting habbits. I think buying a gun based on interest without experience is a rookie mistake. People make it here with swords also. They see a sword and ask "is it good?" And people rave making popular suggestions. But again simple can help beginners find what works for them and what does not. In my experience ballistic numbers don't matter as much as combat accuracy. But again for home use there are so many ways that Rifles in general are at a disadvantage. But having any kind of weapons are better than not. I often carried my Tokarev in a Police holster when I was in AZ and I had a range pro give me the .45 speech saying some silly talk about "you may as well have a sling shot". My response was "let me shoot you with both and let's see". ;) I find myself (again) in agreement with most of your post (I rhymed). However (almost as bad as the dreaded...but ;) ). The only stopping power question I have EVER heard of regarding .556 was at a distance of several hundred yards (bad guys were not dropping in the desert because the rounds lost kinetic energy and penetration. Unless I'm mistaken, the Five Seven round is a wildly different (for piercing Kevlar) round. Even if it does not expand (I use hollow points or specialty rounds that do), or do the tumble, that velocity (completely different animal coming from a rifle) still does damage. Sorry, but if you take multiple chest shots in the room, you will not keep coming. With 30 rounds as standard, you can spend as many rounds as you want. In short, while I agree with a lot of your points, I feel you are under estimating the stopping power performance of the AR cartridge, and to an extreme degree. If bad guys "kept coming" as you say, after being repeatedly shot by SWAT with AR, then wouldn't SWAT use shotguns instead? I have heard of quick incapacitation problems with 9mm and less, but not .556. Maybe I need to switch over to my M1A :D . If you dig around you can find a lot of articles written by Marines, Rangers and Private security serving the middle east and Africa that put into question the issue of the .556. Some private security use AK platform specifcally ovrer AR. If I dig through my class notes I might find them. But the round is secondary to my main point. You keep bringing up SWAT and military, BUT they are not my target point in this debate of ours. I am talking about civilian shooters. Yes if your a high trained swat or military in a firefight an AR Is a great choice. But for everyday home defense of the beginner or intermediate home defense shooter a good Moss 500 of Rem 870P is a better bet. Accuracy always matters more. If you look through police history in Europe the Eastern Block .30cal pistols (.7.65 Browning 7.63 Mauser 7.62 Tokarev) have had great success because stopping power is something more to do with the hallow point argument in modern times. In the Fairbairn and Applegate years the one round stop was a myth spread to boost confidence of soldiers so they would have less fear about survival. Its Why the Five Seven has not had any major police and military service problems... Because they are being used by trained skilled people... Professionals. And when even a .22 hits organs it still kills. A bigger round in hallow point in my mind is just to help make up for everyday people or beat cops having rounds not be in fatal areas. See the 1986 Miami FBI shootout. One of my favorite carry pistols is a colt 1903 for god sake :) A gun is only "under gun" when you can't use it to its ability under stress. In my mind an AR is more under gun in a WROL scenario to most civilian shooters. Even patrol cops by large in most parts of America still pack a shotgun because its simple and immediate as far as likelihood to put someone down fast in close. People keep recommending a Lamborghini when a Subaru will do just fine :)
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 24, 2016 22:59:50 GMT
I find myself (again) in agreement with most of your post (I rhymed). However (almost as bad as the dreaded...but ). The only stopping power question I have EVER heard of regarding .556 was at a distance of several hundred yards (bad guys were not dropping in the desert because the rounds lost kinetic energy and penetration. Unless I'm mistaken, the Five Seven round is a wildly different (for piercing Kevlar) round. Even if it does not expand (I use hollow points or specialty rounds that do), or do the tumble, that velocity (completely different animal coming from a rifle) still does damage. Sorry, but if you take multiple chest shots in the room, you will not keep coming. With 30 rounds as standard, you can spend as many rounds as you want. In short, while I agree with a lot of your points, I feel you are under estimating the stopping power performance of the AR cartridge, and to an extreme degree. If bad guys "kept coming" as you say, after being repeatedly shot by SWAT with AR, then wouldn't SWAT use shotguns instead? I have heard of quick incapacitation problems with 9mm and less, but not .556. Maybe I need to switch over to my M1A . If you dig around you can find a lot of articles written by Marines, Rangers and Private security serving the middle east and Africa that put into question the issue of the .556. Some private security use AK platform specifcally ovrer AR. If I dig through my class notes I might find them. But the round is secondary to my main point. You keep bringing up SWAT and military, BUT they are not my target point in this debate of ours. I am talking about civilian shooters. Yes if your a high trained swat or military in a firefight an AR Is a great choice. But for everyday home defense of the beginner or intermediate home defense shooter a good Moss 500 of Rem 870P is a better bet. Accuracy always matters more. If you look through police history in Europe the Eastern Block .30cal pistols (.7.65 Browning 7.63 Mauser 7.62 Tokarev) have had great success because stopping power is something more to do with the hallow point argument in modern times. In the Fairbairn and Applegate years the one round stop was a myth spread to boost confidence of soldiers so they would have less fear about survival. Its Why the Five Seven has not had any major police and military service problems... Because they are being used by trained skilled people... Professionals. And when even a .22 hits organs it still kills. A bigger round in hallow point in my mind is just to help make up for everyday people or beat cops having rounds not be in fatal areas. See the 1986 Miami FBI shootout. One of my favorite carry pistols is a colt 1903 for god sake A gun is only "under gun" when you can't use it to its ability under stress. In my mind an AR is more under gun in a WROL scenario to most civilian shooters. Even patrol cops by large in most parts of America still pack a shotgun because its simple and immediate as far as likelihood to put someone down fast in close. People keep recommending a Lamborghini when a Subaru will do just fine I'm only debating the question of lethality of the .223 at close range, and to a lesser degree, effectiveness of the platform in competent hands (why so many the police, military, etc...units carry them). The inherent accuracy of the AR is astounding (shoot a mans eyeballs out at 100 yards). Recoil...what recoil. I can put three holes of .44 magnum powered goodness, each round making a football sized permanent crush cavity (roughly 14" penetration in gel) in the chest of a man compared to the one (admittedly nasty) shotgun round placed in mine. Multiple assailants...30-40 round magazines that can fire from close range at almost full auto is a nice ability. I agree with you on the choice of shotgun (or even revolver) for beginners. I believe you agree with me on very proficient individuals choice of semi. We may be splitting hairs and agreeing with each other on the intermediate range of competency. I like talking about this stuff with people like you, as I can tell you are quite informed on many various fields of self defense. I admit to you that I'm just a goof on the internet who simply has an interest. Again, I believe the critique of the .223 was from extreme range, addressed slightly when they went to the heavier 77grain over the 55. The internal temporary stretch cavity effect on the nerve plexus alone is often (but cannot be counted on...drugs, individual disposition to pain, etc...) enough to incapacitate a bad guy long enough to gain the upper hand (another long subject on why the .357 mag was so effective). Point is, this sucker (AR) has TWICE the energy of the .357. Can anyone say a 9mm is as good (or better) than an AR? No doubt, as you pointed out, that placement is important, as I am already assuming a shot to the chest. I have a Mossberg pump and semi, a Ruger SP 101 with 3"brl, S&W 627pro 8-shot 4"brl, Springfield M1A, Colt carbine, various semi handguns. Say, I have an idea, lets talk about which is best between the 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 . Light and fast (velocity) verses slow and big (momentum). Foot pounds, kinetic energy, penetration...12"...less than 10"...the CRAZY FBI concept of 18"-20" or whatever the hell it is. In the end, AR or Shotty are better choices than a handgun...but as you pointed out, even that is debatable for beginners and whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Arias on Dec 25, 2016 5:30:05 GMT
howler Avatar Dec 24, 2016 8:59:50 GMT -8 howler said: Richard Arias Avatar Dec 24, 2016 6:09:23 GMT -8 Richard Arias said: If you dig around you can find a lot of articles written by Marines, Rangers and Private security serving the middle east and Africa that put into question the issue of the .556. Some private security use AK platform specifcally ovrer AR. If I dig through my class notes I might find them. But the round is secondary to my main point. You keep bringing up SWAT and military, BUT they are not my target point in this debate of ours. I am talking about civilian shooters. Yes if your a high trained swat or military in a firefight an AR Is a great choice. But for everyday home defense of the beginner or intermediate home defense shooter a good Moss 500 of Rem 870P is a better bet.
Accuracy always matters more. If you look through police history in Europe the Eastern Block .30cal pistols (.7.65 Browning 7.63 Mauser 7.62 Tokarev) have had great success because stopping power is something more to do with the hallow point argument in modern times. In the Fairbairn and Applegate years the one round stop was a myth spread to boost confidence of soldiers so they would have less fear about survival. Its Why the Five Seven has not had any major police and military service problems... Because they are being used by trained skilled people... Professionals. And when even a .22 hits organs it still kills. A bigger round in hallow point in my mind is just to help make up for everyday people or beat cops having rounds not be in fatal areas. See the 1986 Miami FBI shootout. One of my favorite carry pistols is a colt 1903 for god sake :)
A gun is only "under gun" when you can't use it to its ability under stress. In my mind an AR is more under gun in a WROL scenario to most civilian shooters. Even patrol cops by large in most parts of America still pack a shotgun because its simple and immediate as far as likelihood to put someone down fast in close. People keep recommending a Lamborghini when a Subaru will do just fine :)
I'm only debating the question of lethality of the .223 at close range, and to a lesser degree, effectiveness of the platform in competent hands (why so many the police, military, etc...units carry them). The inherent accuracy of the AR is astounding (shoot a mans eyeballs out at 100 yards). Recoil...what recoil. I can put three holes of .44 magnum powered goodness, each round making a football sized permanent crush cavity (roughly 14" penetration in gel) in the chest of a man compared to the one (admittedly nasty) shotgun round placed in mine. Multiple assailants...30-40 round magazines that can fire from close range at almost full auto is a nice ability. I agree with you on the choice of shotgun (or even revolver) for beginners. I believe you agree with me on very proficient individuals choice of semi. We may be splitting hairs and agreeing with each other on the intermediate range of competency. I like talking about this stuff with people like you, as I can tell you are quite informed on many various fields of self defense. I admit to you that I'm just a goof on the internet who simply has an interest. Again, I believe the critique of the .223 was from extreme range, addressed slightly when they went to the heavier 77grain over the 55. The internal temporary stretch cavity effect on the nerve plexus alone is often (but cannot be counted on...drugs, individual disposition to pain, etc...) enough to incapacitate a bad guy long enough to gain the upper hand (another long subject on why the .357 mag was so effective). Point is, this sucker (AR) has TWICE the energy of the .357. Can anyone say a 9mm is as good (or better) than an AR? No doubt, as you pointed out, that placement is important, as I am already assuming a shot to the chest. I have a Mossberg pump and semi, a Ruger SP 101 with 3"brl, S&W 627pro 8-shot 4"brl, Springfield M1A, Colt carbine, various semi handguns. Say, I have an idea, lets talk about which is best between the 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 :-X . Light and fast (velocity) verses slow and big (momentum). Foot pounds, kinetic energy, penetration...12"...less than 10"...the CRAZY FBI concept of 18"-20" or whatever the hell it is. In the end, AR or Shotty are better choices than a handgun...but as you pointed out, even that is debatable for beginners and whatnot.
In extreme close like clearing your own house I would always opt for a handgun because I am a fair point shooter and can fire my handguns one handed if need be having a free hand to hit or hold a knife or blunt impact object. In close all guns lose advantage pretty fast to clubs, knives and bare hands. Even more so in a riot or the like. Which is why I tell students to not let would be attackers advance once drawn on.
As a good teacher you have to point student in good directions. If you learn a simple but demanding platform like a Shotgun or Revolver you develop good defensive habbits that make learning other weapon systems easy. People may not find a wheel gun cool compared to a 1911, but if you can shoot a 3in .44 well you won't have to much of a problem moving up or down. Same with a shotgun. Bolt action is where I stay for distance trying to condition the one shot kill mindset.
I say again you can find someone that can make most any gun sing. What I am trying to say is that if someone starts with an AR they get to used to its perks and won't be much use if handed something like a shotgun. Same with friends who can't shoot revolves well. I am not a great shot with even my favorite gun. But I can hit center mass with most pistols. I guess I prefer to be well rounded :)
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 25, 2016 8:07:17 GMT
howler Avatar Dec 24, 2016 8:59:50 GMT -8 howler said: Richard Arias Avatar Dec 24, 2016 6:09:23 GMT -8 Richard Arias said: If you dig around you can find a lot of articles written by Marines, Rangers and Private security serving the middle east and Africa that put into question the issue of the .556. Some private security use AK platform specifcally ovrer AR. If I dig through my class notes I might find them. But the round is secondary to my main point. You keep bringing up SWAT and military, BUT they are not my target point in this debate of ours. I am talking about civilian shooters. Yes if your a high trained swat or military in a firefight an AR Is a great choice. But for everyday home defense of the beginner or intermediate home defense shooter a good Moss 500 of Rem 870P is a better bet. Accuracy always matters more. If you look through police history in Europe the Eastern Block .30cal pistols (.7.65 Browning 7.63 Mauser 7.62 Tokarev) have had great success because stopping power is something more to do with the hallow point argument in modern times. In the Fairbairn and Applegate years the one round stop was a myth spread to boost confidence of soldiers so they would have less fear about survival. Its Why the Five Seven has not had any major police and military service problems... Because they are being used by trained skilled people... Professionals. And when even a .22 hits organs it still kills. A bigger round in hallow point in my mind is just to help make up for everyday people or beat cops having rounds not be in fatal areas. See the 1986 Miami FBI shootout. One of my favorite carry pistols is a colt 1903 for god sake A gun is only "under gun" when you can't use it to its ability under stress. In my mind an AR is more under gun in a WROL scenario to most civilian shooters. Even patrol cops by large in most parts of America still pack a shotgun because its simple and immediate as far as likelihood to put someone down fast in close. People keep recommending a Lamborghini when a Subaru will do just fine I'm only debating the question of lethality of the .223 at close range, and to a lesser degree, effectiveness of the platform in competent hands (why so many the police, military, etc...units carry them). The inherent accuracy of the AR is astounding (shoot a mans eyeballs out at 100 yards). Recoil...what recoil. I can put three holes of .44 magnum powered goodness, each round making a football sized permanent crush cavity (roughly 14" penetration in gel) in the chest of a man compared to the one (admittedly nasty) shotgun round placed in mine. Multiple assailants...30-40 round magazines that can fire from close range at almost full auto is a nice ability. I agree with you on the choice of shotgun (or even revolver) for beginners. I believe you agree with me on very proficient individuals choice of semi. We may be splitting hairs and agreeing with each other on the intermediate range of competency. I like talking about this stuff with people like you, as I can tell you are quite informed on many various fields of self defense. I admit to you that I'm just a goof on the internet who simply has an interest. Again, I believe the critique of the .223 was from extreme range, addressed slightly when they went to the heavier 77grain over the 55. The internal temporary stretch cavity effect on the nerve plexus alone is often (but cannot be counted on...drugs, individual disposition to pain, etc...) enough to incapacitate a bad guy long enough to gain the upper hand (another long subject on why the .357 mag was so effective). Point is, this sucker (AR) has TWICE the energy of the .357. Can anyone say a 9mm is as good (or better) than an AR? No doubt, as you pointed out, that placement is important, as I am already assuming a shot to the chest. I have a Mossberg pump and semi, a Ruger SP 101 with 3"brl, S&W 627pro 8-shot 4"brl, Springfield M1A, Colt carbine, various semi handguns. Say, I have an idea, lets talk about which is best between the 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 . Light and fast (velocity) verses slow and big (momentum). Foot pounds, kinetic energy, penetration...12"...less than 10"...the CRAZY FBI concept of 18"-20" or whatever the hell it is. In the end, AR or Shotty are better choices than a handgun...but as you pointed out, even that is debatable for beginners and whatnot. In extreme close like clearing your own house I would always opt for a handgun because I am a fair point shooter and can fire my handguns one handed if need be having a free hand to hit or hold a knife or blunt impact object. In close all guns lose advantage pretty fast to clubs, knives and bare hands. Even more so in a riot or the like. Which is why I tell students to not let would be attackers advance once drawn on. As a good teacher you have to point student in good directions. If you learn a simple but demanding platform like a Shotgun or Revolver you develop good defensive habbits that make learning other weapon systems easy. People may not find a wheel gun cool compared to a 1911, but if you can shoot a 3in .44 well you won't have to much of a problem moving up or down. Same with a shotgun. Bolt action is where I stay for distance trying to condition the one shot kill mindset. I say again you can find someone that can make most any gun sing. What I am trying to say is that if someone starts with an AR they get to used to its perks and won't be much use if handed something like a shotgun. Same with friends who can't shoot revolves well. I am not a great shot with even my favorite gun. But I can hit center mass with most pistols. I guess I prefer to be well rounded You come at subject from a teacher perspective, this explains your thinking, and why I agree with most of what your saying. With regards to the one handed principle with the handgun (with one hand free), I thought about this as well. What about a sling for your long gun, thus even allowing both hands to be free to grab objects, open doors, grapple, etc...? I purchased semi handguns first, then later picked the revolvers, as there are advantages people don't think about at the time (like if there is a jam or dud round, you simply pull the trigger again on a wheel gun). And ya know, wheel guns start looking REAL COOL (works of art) when you see them in a new light, but then again, my main semi is a Glock (no beauty pageant winner there).
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 25, 2016 12:59:45 GMT
Of all the guns mentioned so far (as an alternate to a shotgun), I'd go with the Glock, a Model 19 size, though not necessarily that particular one. I'd interested in the .357 Sig cartridge, mainly just because I've never had one, though I've had a Glock 19. Why a Glock?
They are simple, simpler than most other automatic and simpler than all revolvers and especially easy to manipulate, though I would only carry chamber empty. The Glock is the easiest pistol to charge a round I've ever used, bar none. I don't know why I don't own one at the moment. Probably because I'm not mentally prepared to kill anyone. That never seems to be an issue with anyone else.
I also dispute the claim that it's hard to hit something with a pistol or revolver. While it's true that only hits count, either with a 9mm or a .30 caliber rifle, my working assumption is that in a home defense situation, the range is going to be very close. And also for that reason, walking through a house with your pistol way out in front of you sure seems like a good way to lose it.
As far as stopping power is concerned, I'm almost certain that in the last 80 years, both game animals and humans have become bigger, stronger and much, much more difficult to kill than ever before. Magnum cartridges are the bare minimum now for killing whitetail deer and bears, almost any bear, are next to impossible to kill. I say that in spite of the many who not only rely on a .22 handgun for defense but recommend them, provided they're loaded with those deadly hollow points. They're even better than the .38 special, apparently. It's funny how the .30 carbine is considered a weak and ineffective round, totally incapable of penetrating the winter jackets of North Korean soldiers, yet the .357 and similar cartridges will blow your head off. The .30 carbine has been chambered in handguns, you know, but apparently it never caught on in that application because, well, you know it has no power.
Well, anyway, that's my view of the world today. Merry Christmas, everyone. Don't miss with the first shot.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 25, 2016 21:20:56 GMT
Of all the guns mentioned so far (as an alternate to a shotgun), I'd go with the Glock, a Model 19 size, though not necessarily that particular one. I'd interested in the .357 Sig cartridge, mainly just because I've never had one, though I've had a Glock 19. Why a Glock? They are simple, simpler than most other automatic and simpler than all revolvers and especially easy to manipulate, though I would only carry chamber empty. The Glock is the easiest pistol to charge a round I've ever used, bar none. I don't know why I don't own one at the moment. Probably because I'm not mentally prepared to kill anyone. That never seems to be an issue with anyone else. I also dispute the claim that it's hard to hit something with a pistol or revolver. While it's true that only hits count, either with a 9mm or a .30 caliber rifle, my working assumption is that in a home defense situation, the range is going to be very close. And also for that reason, walking through a house with your pistol way out in front of you sure seems like a good way to lose it. As far as stopping power is concerned, I'm almost certain that in the last 80 years, both game animals and humans have become bigger, stronger and much, much more difficult to kill than ever before. Magnum cartridges are the bare minimum now for killing whitetail deer and bears, almost any bear, are next to impossible to kill. I say that in spite of the many who not only rely on a .22 handgun for defense but recommend them, provided they're loaded with those deadly hollow points. They're even better than the .38 special, apparently. It's funny how the .30 carbine is considered a weak and ineffective round, totally incapable of penetrating the winter jackets of North Korean soldiers, yet the .357 and similar cartridges will blow your head off. The .30 carbine has been chambered in handguns, you know, but apparently it never caught on in that application because, well, you know it has no power. Well, anyway, that's my view of the world today. Merry Christmas, everyone. Don't miss with the first shot. Buy one of the .357 Sig or .40 S&W model Glock pistols. Then, you can purchase a 9mm conversion barrel (or Sig or .40 conversion barrel different from the model gun you bought), thus giving you three calibers for one firearm. But, you CANNOT buy the 9mm model and put .40 and Sig conversion barrels in it, as it only works the other way around. You can simply swap out the barrels for practice, or, if you want to rely on more reliable defense, change extractor (I think) and make the Sig or .40 a committed 9mm. I get your point on peoples "overkill" concepts of power, but you really don't want a .22 handgun for defense (though everyone should have a .22 handgun for plinking, practice, potential hunting) as there are much better selections, even with minimal recoil increase. A .22 rifle would exponentially increase the accuracy and velocity, with even less recoil. I think for handguns, the 9, 40, 45 and light .357 for revolvers are the generally considered defensive rounds used today. Cleary, you use what you shoot well with (though we would have to define "shooting well"). Oddly, there are people out there whose best choice would actually be a .22 handgun, so we have come full circle and I don't know what I'm talking about . Merry Christmas.
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Dec 26, 2016 3:20:18 GMT
A Glock 23-22 can become a Swiss Army knife pistol. Not only can you get a 357sig barrel and use the stock 40 mags, get a 9mm conversion barrel and get a couple 9mm mags and then in that, but you can also get a 22 slide and mags and have the one gun shoot 40, 357sig, 9mm, and 22lr.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 26, 2016 11:21:54 GMT
We could argue what constitutes shooting well but the only real necessity is shooting "well enough."
I can see the appeal of having two otherwise identical pistols or revolvers chambered in a service cartridge and a second in .22 rimfire. S&W used to have several matching revolvers like that, although I don't think there was ever a .22 N-frame. Both the K and L frames had .22 versions as well as the small frame revolvers. It hasn't been that long that .22 revolvers were sold as primary defensive weapons. I think the Banker's Special was one such revolvers, though I haven't looked up any details.
Personally, I'd like to have a .22 version of the Walther P99, which I have. I also have a CZ for which a conversion unit is sometimes available. But I'd rather have a complete separate pistol in .22 rather than a conversion kit. But I could go on and on about things that I'd like to have.
|
|
|
Post by L Driggers (fallen) on Dec 26, 2016 16:29:57 GMT
Remington model 700 PPS rifles in 308win. and 300win mag.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Dec 27, 2016 20:58:50 GMT
As a Canadian with minimal means, I would even take a .22 for protection. Any ballistic weapon could protect a person. If for some reason you have armored men attacking you, maybe having more than a strong gun would be wise. Bear traps would be helpful. Armored or not, it would hurt to have a spiked metal clamp bite down on your leg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2016 22:04:26 GMT
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Dec 27, 2016 22:25:35 GMT
No sh*t it's illegal. But so is attacking someone when armored. And so is using a gun to defend yourself. I'm talking about staying alive. I don't even know if an AR is legal in Canada. Pretty sure defending ones self with a shot gun is illegal too.
|
|
|
Post by vinland on Dec 28, 2016 4:06:41 GMT
No sh*t it's illegal. But so is attacking someone when armored. And so is using a gun to defend yourself. I'm talking about staying alive. I don't even know if an AR is legal in Canada. Pretty sure defending ones self with a shot gun is illegal too. An AR15 counts as a restricted firearm. So you can own them, but they require a restricted license, can only be transported to the range, and are registered. This also applies to handguns While it's possible to defend yourself with firearms here legally, you're going to get screwed in court anyways. Storage laws say your gun must be stored in a safe, ammo can be stored in the safe but not in the gun. You would have to prove/convince them that your life was in danger but that's hard to do when you apparently had enough time to get your gun out, load it, and shoot the attacker. The RCMP will also want to see how your storage is setup, and you can't say no to that since saying no gives them the right to kick your door down and do whatever they want. You'd be better off using some detachable magazine fed rifle like say the non restricted type 97 by Norinco (It's NR even though it fires the same bullet as the AR15 and are both semi auto, yay illogical gun laws!) as you can store ammo in magazines, so in a home defense, you could unlock the safe slam a magazine in and chamber a round. Ideally we could keep a loaded gun for this purpose but that's illegal here. Though that comes back to the question others have had in this thread, is a rifle really the ideal gun for defense in your home environment?
|
|