.45 ACP versus .223; 10 feet away

[Auto426]

Why do you have to fully extend your carbine's stock? Are you 7'11"? In the first photo it's impossible to tell whether they have 14.5" M4-type uppers, or if they've got 16" uppers on. A 16" AR with the stock collapsed is what, 29-31" long? Unless you are 4'11", the difference between a 16 and an NFA compliant 10-14.5" barrel won't make a legitimate difference in handling, and the firing position shouldn't leave the rifle any further out than a pistol in firing position.

It's amazing to me that even though no one here has ever seen me or the layout of my house, they are experts on what I should be using to defend it. Somehow now I am absolutely helpless because I would grab my pistol instead of my rifle. We all know that handguns don't kill people, right?

As I have said before, I don't find my AR comfortable or easy to aim with the buttstock collapsed, and I don't care how far the stock can collapse, a 16" barreled AR is still much larger than my 1911. I'm simply more comfortable with a handgun in my home than a long gun. What is so hard to understand about that?

And you can only lower your pistol so far before the large, exposed, moving mechanism of it starts to short stroke because the slide is taking chunks out of your wrist.

What? If your having trouble operating your pistol, then maybe you should seek some help.

 

[DefiantDad]

A few things have popped up in this thread that were not actually within the scope of my original intent. Not that they are irrelevant to the question in general, but I was only focused, in my inquiry, on the physical aspects of the caliber choice. The issues raised by others, for good reason, include over-penetration and legalities (e.g., the "black gun" image in a HD scenario, and a concept possibly of "overkill" or not meeting threat force with comparable defense force).

These are all important issues. I just wanted to point this out as someone reading this thread for home defense thinking might not be on the same page as me, which was to understand caliber choice in a very dire situation (so that *I* would have the correct information to make a correct decision, when my brain won't likely be working very well under extreme stress).

Just one thing though, even if the AR "black gun" issue can complicate a subsequent legal case (if there even is a legal case; there is not in my fantasy scenario of SHTF to be honest, but that is outside the scope of this thread or this forum), but it is better to have to explain why you used a black AR in court, than to be dead and have THR posters debate why you didn't pick up that black tacticooled AR in your bedroom and tried to used a bolt action .22LR instead. (I think I posed that the bad guy had already killed mostly everyone else on his shotgun/machine gun rampage, so AR is probably justified).

 

[gym]

I still have to disagree, not because the AR isn't a more lethal weapon, "I have one also", but rather that having had a home invasion, you don't have time, no matter what you think in your mental scenarios, to get to that closet where your rifle is and get a mag place it in and come out firing. That's not how home invasions occur.
Usually you are near the front door as I was, either going in or about to leave. The door flies open and 5 men came in with 5 weapons all pointed at myself and my live in girlfriend.I was immediatlly hit in the forhead with the gun barrell. I went down, in the first 2 seconds. The constant bickering about things that people refuse to understand about professionals entering your house drives me nuts. NO you won't have time to get your rifle. Especially if it's upstairs in a closet and your wife and kids are downstairs. That's why they keep having this type of crime, because it is so fast and deadlly.
If you can't get a gun into action as soon as that door flies open, you are a victim.
If you knew they were coming it wouldn't be a suprise, you obviouslly could sit there with a bazooka. The problem is that most of us don't walk around the house with an AR.
But many do have a pistol on them. If you can manage to drop the first guy, you may win the battle. Once they make entry and they grab a kid or your spouse, all the theory goes out the window. Then your negotiating skills come into play. The part that we didn't mention, is having a large dog, an alarm and cameras, so they don't come into you life.
Sometimes it's like there are a group of teenagers in here with weapons all over their home, thats not the norm, only a single man can live that way. If you have grandkids, kids, and a wife,sister,etc, you aren't keeping a loaded AR at your front door. The good guys don't always win. It's almost impossible to fully protect yourself from this type of crime unless you live like a monk. Wealthy people spend in the 5 million per year area to gaurd their home alone, CNBC had a story on protecting the rich, this week, just scale it down. At least now we have cameras and alarm systems, back in 1979, we didn't. That made it very hard to protect yourself, along with being in NYC, But even now it happens in heartbeat, you won't have the kind of time to implement these plans once they are in. As I sit here I am wearing a Glock 26, I know I can get to that, I don't know if I would make it 40 feet to my bedroom to get my AR, I highlly doubt it, if they are pro's. Ask an agent or dective, they will enlighten you if you don't believe me.
Obviouslly if you had a choice you would take a rifle every time, but the question is squewed, when you say coming through the door, I take it as though it was a suprise. If you knew that they were coming then a rifle would be in order.

 

[Cosmoline]

That's certainly a valid point--and the big advantage of the pistol is its portability and concealability. It's far from impossible to keep a loaded AR next to your bed or nearby. But the question here is comparing two platforms assuming either would be available.

We all know that handguns don't kill people, right?

We know that they tend to miss--a lot--in these kinds of encounters. Even at close range. Even when the shooter has loads of experience. And we know that the wounds they inflict, while significant, are not always enough to stop a determined attacker. The question is really, if your life is in danger, why would you choose the less accurate, less powerful platform over the more accurate, more powerful one?

, a 16" barreled AR is still much larger than my 1911.

Are you including your outstreched arms in the 1911's length?

 

[Auto426]

We know that they tend to miss--a lot--in these kinds of encounters. Even at close range. Even when the shooter has loads of experience. And we know that the wounds they inflict, while significant, are not always enough to stop a determined attacker. The question is really, if your life is in danger, why would you choose the less accurate, less powerful platform over the more accurate, more powerful one?

So your just assuming that I will miss wildly with a handgun at the extremely short ranges inside my home, but I will somehow be a crack shot with a rifle?

And I think I've stated the reasons for choosing the handgun plenty of times, though none of the "experts" here seem to pay any attention.

Are you including your outstreched arms in the 1911's length?

My arms don't have to be fully outstretch every single second that I'm holding the handgun. I can also fire my handgun without my arms fully outstretched if need be. I can't, however, magically shrink the barrel on my AR.

 

[TimboKhan]

Rifles are much, much easier to shoot accurately than handguns. Argue all you want, but the rifle is always the better weapon, though not always the best option. Handguns fill a role, mainly that they are easier to haul around than a rifle.

Also, with my stock slid in, my AR is plenty short, and I can shoot it from unconventional positions if necessary.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Creature]

The carbine, the choice of dynamic entry teams the world over. Why do you suppose that is?

I am pretty sure that OBL was sent to his maker while standing in his bedroom courtesy of a carbine, not a pistol.

 

[420Stainless]

The constant bickering about things that people refuse to understand about professionals entering your house drives me nuts. NO you won't have time to get your rifle. Especially if it's upstairs in a closet and your wife and kids are downstairs. That's why they keep having this type of crime, because it is so fast and deadlly.

Although that may be the way the professionals invade, you don't have to read too many of the articles referenced in the Armed Citizen column of the NRA publications to see that many non-professional invasions occur and in many cases a home owner was able to run across the house, locate a weapon, and successfully face down the invader. You do make a very good case for carrying on the body while at home, but even if I'm doing so I'll make every attempt to get to a shotgun (my personal choice over both presented in this case). I'm a competent handgunner and ardent believer in all things .45, but it is easier to hit at any range beyond muzzle contact with a long gun for me.

 

[psyopspec]

For me, the pistol is simply a better option. I'm much quicker with it and I can get around my house much easier with it. It may not do as much damage in a single shot as a .223, but it's still very capable of eliminating the threat quickly and efficiently.

Dude, fair enough, but that's not what you said in your first post. Speaking generally, you stated that pistols were easier to work with indoors. I'm saying, generally, that is an utter falsehood. My offer of pics was to demonstrate the point that a rifle can indeed be effectively and easily wielded in CQ. No one mentioned video except you, but thanks for turning me into your mall ninja straw man.

Pistols are more effective indoors = false in most cases.

Pistols are more effective in Auto's house = Sure.

For the record, despite your playing the victim to the contrary, no one is telling you what's best for you or your home. Neither I nor anyone else have an issue with what you choose to use to defend yourself. My issue is with your original argument, not you as an individual nor your home.

 

[psyopspec]

Quoting gym:

That's not how home invasions occur.

For the purposes of this thread we're playing within a scenario of very narrow scope where the OP postulated early warning and weapon choice, which is why I believe the rifle is the clear choice. Right this second I have a handgun within reach, but not a rifle. I have that handgun with me because the AR would be impractical. At night or while relaxing in the bedroom that's easy to change. Still, if I had a choice (which we do in this thread), I go with the rifle.

Speaking in terms of the given scenario, rifle>pistol.

Speaking in terms of reality, use the best tool available for the job at any given time.

I think your points are valid, and obviously more grounded in reality than a scenario since you speak from experience. Thanks for posting.

 

[Auto426]

Dude, fair enough, but that's not what you said in your first post.

That's almost exactly what I said in my first post:

However, I don't want to be using my AR15 when trying to maneuver inside the home. A handgun is much easier to get through narrow hallways and doorways.

Maybe I should have added a "for me" at the end of the last sentence, but I did not tell that OP that it's impossible or impractical to use an AR15 inside of his home. And I'm still fairly certain that the smaller the weapon, the easier it is to use in tight spaces.

For the record, despite your playing the victim to the contrary, no one is telling you what's best for you or your home.

I seem to recall at least 3 different posters quoting me and trying to question my choice of a handgun inside of my home, in an attempt to argue that an AR15 would be superior.

Frankly, I think it's time that this one gets locked. The OP has his answer, and the discussion has drifted far off topic.

 

[Teachu2]

Just a refresher:

.45 ACP versus .223; 10 feet away

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.45 ACP versus .223 (comparing FMJ and JHP).

Which one would you rely on for stopping an imminent threat coming around the corner / in your doorway (e.g., bad guy with shotgun or full-auto, etc).

For .45 ACP assume you can use either handgun (e.g., 1911, Glock 36, etc.) or pistol ammo carbine in .45 ACP.

For .223 assume something like an AR but you can also opt for a pistol/SBR chambered in .223.

Probably you have the element of surprise and the chance to put ONE SHOT into the bad guy.
__________________

We've drifted well off-topic here. The OP defined a scenario here that most of us are unwilling to accept as realistic, simply because it doesn't fit with our personal perceptions of a likely scenario. We add stuff to it, trying to get it to fit some reality (or fantasy) that we can imagine ourselves involved in.

I'm the son of a federal probation officer, and a former LEO myself. I've dealt with armed idiots who intended to do me and/or my family harm. The scenario presented by the OP is not representative of any such encounter, nor any I can realisticly envision, and the real choice is much, much simpler.

When faced with an imminent threat coming around the corner / in my doorway (e.g., bad guy with shotgun or full-auto, etc) - I'm going with the weapon that I have the most confidence in THAT I CAN GET TO THE QUICKEST.

TEN feet, ONE shot - no time to go get anything. If it's not within reach, it doesn't matter how effective it would have been - it's not in the picture.

How many of you have a .223 within arm's reach RIGHT NOW? Ten feet away is a BG with a shotty or a MG -

 

[Ben86]

I'd trust the high powered rifle round over the pistol round for a quick stop every day, expanding ammunition or not.

That said I prefer a pistol for indoor defensive work. It's more maneuverable and has less muzzle blast. I'd consider an AR for indoor HD if I got a suppressor for it, but then it will be even longer and less maneuverable.

 

[Slimbo]

I'll take my AR.

 

[gym]

Teach u, that is the exact point. Trying to run away from the perp, instead of running to them is wasting valuable seconds. Those seconds will ,"not may" decide who lives or dies. If you can't hit a man sized target in the upper torso or head, at ten feet with your carry weapon. There really is no reason for you to be fooling yourself in as far as thinking that it serves any purpose other than showing that you have a gun.
Anyone who I ever associated with who shot, "some never held a gun", was a serious shooter. "1 ragged hole at 25 feet with a 4 inch 38 revolver serious".
To imagine that with a hi capacity handgun, regaurdless of caliber,let's agree it's over 9mm. You should be able to put out candles at ten feet. If not then I must be in the wrong forum, I know many of you guys are much better than that.
So let's rehash, you don't have a rifle on you, but you have a glock 26 or a 1911. "just as good as any other 8-13 rounds, with plus 2 and 1 in the chamber. I have a second mag in my left pocket.
You would abandon your advantage "obviouslly why some walk around 24/7 strapped", thus allowing more time for the perps to enter and possiblly grab your family, "this is what happens". Or is it not wiser to make a stand there, taking out the first man and the second immediatlly prior to them getting in your home.
When a gun goes off, it's not like in the movies, "some of you know this, I am not patronising you guys", for those who don't, everyone either heads for a door window or hits the deck. Those outside seeing one or two of their commrades dead or dying, will turn and run, 99% of the time. They aren't going to step over them and continue like nothing happened, the noise has now alerted everyone within earsot.
Now does this make more sense than running someware,"takes time" to get and load or insert a mag into a rifle, and have to come back to a place that has changed in seconds, not knowing who is where?
We seem to agree a rifle is more powerful than a pistol, if you have one there. It seems like a rediculous move and it's working against yourself to not feel that your carry can't put down someone 10 feet away, indoors.
Also don't forget that everyone gets shaken up and has to control their nerves and tunnel vision as all this unfolds, getting the rifle is much harder in that state of mind. Use what you have available and don't abandon your advantage of suprise, you have a gun.

 

[DefiantDad]

Again, thanks for all your inputs. But just to be fair, the scenario posed is not completely impossible. It might not be PROBABLE in terms of ordinary life today in America, but it is possible. Obviously, in a more COMMON scenario (different from saying "realistic" because COMMON is not actually a synonym for REALISTIC, if things change) you'd pull your sidearm (again we are assuming the sidearm is more likely to be on-person than a slung rifle).

In fact it would not be necessary for me to ask this question, if we were postulating common scenarios of home invasion, etc. as it is obvious that one might not have a choice in terms of which firearm is readily at hand. That is why I posed the scenario so you have a choice, and the question is if you had that choice, which is the better caliber.

Just to be more precise here, the question is not actually handgun or carbine, but caliber. The "launching platform" can be anything (and obviously an AR is more likely for the .223/5.56 but as noted by myself and others, there are SBR and pistol configurations chambered in the rifle round).

I agree this thread can be locked, as the various points have already been presented. I do think it is good reading though, in terms of challenging some assumptions about handguns (and even shotguns) in self-defense, which are things that seem to always be repeated in firearms books (e.g., a shotgun is the no-brainer definite weapon for home defense) and there have been valid points raised to present the other side of the coin (e.g., shotgun target re-acquisition is not as quick as with a carbine or even handgun, so you have to be 100% sure you did hit the bad guy on the first shotgun round).

 

[engineer88]

NG thanks for the kind reply. I think I was thinking mass, weight, velocity and then the whole physics thing and my head was drifting when I posted.

More on topic, many folks chose handgun for home defense as a necessity (like myself) where they may have an anti-gun spouse or small children running around, or perhaps both. In this case a small lock box, or locked drawer in the bedroom is much less intrusive and possibly an easier sell. Now that has nothing to do with the efficacy of the rounds in question, but everything to do with the platform.

Personally, if I had my druthers, it would be a 12 guage, and I currently working on a trade with a buddy for his Remington 1100.

I still want an AR and and AK and an SKS, but they are waiting on fundage.

 

[gym]

Thanks for the interesting post, it turned out well I believe. It was indeed a good exchange and brought out several good points.

 

[GLOOB]

Even that doesn't make sense. .45ACP pistol has a louder report than .223 out of a rifle, as I cited earlier in the thread.

I'm skeptical. A .223 rifle might have a lower report outdoors, from the shooter's perspective. But in an enclosed space, I wouldn't think so.

Standing next to a guy shooting a 223 carbine at the range, it's a lot louder to me than a handgun. When you're in an enclosed space, that's what you're going to hear, too.

I shot my 223 rifle at an outdoor range with a walled structure, once (shed with benches and shade). Even with double ears, the noise was just tolerable. Quite the ruckus compared with handguns.

 

[TimboKhan]

Allrighty.... I am guilty as anyone, but this has drifted pretty far. I am not going to close it at this time, but i will if it drifts any further.

 

[9mmepiphany]

For those interested in some objective testing.

Michael Bane just did some test in ballistic gelatin on his show Shooting Gallery...on the Outdoor Channel...and it included comparisons between the 5.56x45mm and handguns rounds for in-home defense

 

[General Geoff]

TEN feet, ONE shot - no time to go get anything. If it's not within reach, it doesn't matter how effective it would have been - it's not in the picture.

How many of you have a .223 within arm's reach RIGHT NOW? Ten feet away is a BG with a shotty or a MG -

The OP scenario stated that you probably have the element of surprise. I take that to mean that for one reason or another, you have foreknowledge of the invader breaking in, and have time to equip yourself with your weapon of choice, be it pistol or rifle. In this particular instance you've prepared yourself to the best of your ability and are standing ten feet from the door awaiting the bad guy who's about to bust in.

So yeah, I think having a .223 rifle in-hand isn't out of the question, if we follow the OP scenario.

 

[NG VI]

I seem to recall at least 3 different posters quoting me and trying to question my choice of a handgun inside of my home, in an attempt to argue that an AR15 would be superior.

It's an objectively superior weapon, hands down, no questions, qualifiers, or maybes. Your situation may not allow you to keep the best choice ready, but that doesn't make the weapon itself a lesser choice.

You've got to be able to recognize the difference. "I don't sleep with a rifle handy" doesn't make the pistol the better weapon. It makes it the weapon you are better able to or are currently set up to grab quickest. If it's what you've got in hand, run it like nothing else has ever been invented, but don't tell yourself or try to claim that it's a reflection on the practical value (for fighting) of the weapon you don't or can't have.

 

[Skribs]

Very well put NG.

 

[Auto426]

You've got to be able to recognize the difference. "I don't sleep with a rifle handy" doesn't make the pistol the better weapon. It makes it the weapon you are better able to or are currently set up to grab quickest. If it's what you've got in hand, run it like nothing else has ever been invented, but don't tell yourself or try to claim that it's a reflection on the practical value (for fighting) of the weapon you don't or can't have.

I'm still trying to find where I said that a pistol was clearly the best choice for every single person out there, regardless of their situation.

I recognize that a pistol is not as effective as a rifle when it comes to shooting bad guys. I said that in my first post in this thread. However, terminal ballistics are not the only factor that goes into choosing a home defense weapon. For me the AR is not the best choice, and that's all I've been trying to say since the beginning.