CoRoMo
Member
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Mr. Clint Smith yet. He was the one who said it anyway.
a handgun is only for when you can't get to a long gun for self defense.
- Thread starter cajun47
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
We had a really interesting thread about this a year or two ago. One poster held firmly that he kept a rifle (SKS, I think) in his car, with the intent that, if he was attacked while out at the store or mall, he would use his handgun to fight his way back to the rifle stashed in his car.
My counter point was, "and then what?" Because if you have fought your way clear (or simply evaded) an active shooter situation, and you've made you way out into the parking lot to your car where you can get to your rifle. ... LEAVE! You've already successfully dealt with the self-defense issue.
We went 'round about it a few cycles with various "what ifs" thrown in. (What if my family is still in the mall and I've got to go back and find them? What if the shooter pursues me out into the parking lot? Etc.) But they all approached vanishingly small probability, and/or presented other more suitable solutions.
We've also explored the question of self-defense in a car, where you just might have that rifle or shotgun on the seat next to you where you could get to it in the case of a carjacking or whatnot. That one usually breaks down into hillarity as we try to describe the gyrations of someone trying to bring a rifle to bear on an attacker at their driver's window -- from the driver's seat.
We've also even explored what the realities might be of going about daily life around town with a slung rifle or shotgun. Assuming such was completely without social/legal drawbacks, it still presents some pretty absurd practical ones.
In the end, all we can really say in favor of long arms is that they are great in situations where they can be used practically. For soldiers in a war zone? Absolutely! For law-enforcement officers during the execution of SOME of their duties? Definitely! Defense of home? Maybe, sometimes. Defense of (rural) property? Surely. "Normal" day-to-day self-defense? Naaah.
The problem with the "...fight your way back..." cliche is that it casts an unrealistic negative light on the carrying of defensive sidearms, as though they are the inferior choice ... when exactly the opposite is true.
My counter point was, "and then what?" Because if you have fought your way clear (or simply evaded) an active shooter situation, and you've made you way out into the parking lot to your car where you can get to your rifle. ... LEAVE! You've already successfully dealt with the self-defense issue.
We went 'round about it a few cycles with various "what ifs" thrown in. (What if my family is still in the mall and I've got to go back and find them? What if the shooter pursues me out into the parking lot? Etc.) But they all approached vanishingly small probability, and/or presented other more suitable solutions.
We've also explored the question of self-defense in a car, where you just might have that rifle or shotgun on the seat next to you where you could get to it in the case of a carjacking or whatnot. That one usually breaks down into hillarity as we try to describe the gyrations of someone trying to bring a rifle to bear on an attacker at their driver's window -- from the driver's seat.
We've also even explored what the realities might be of going about daily life around town with a slung rifle or shotgun. Assuming such was completely without social/legal drawbacks, it still presents some pretty absurd practical ones.
In the end, all we can really say in favor of long arms is that they are great in situations where they can be used practically. For soldiers in a war zone? Absolutely! For law-enforcement officers during the execution of SOME of their duties? Definitely! Defense of home? Maybe, sometimes. Defense of (rural) property? Surely. "Normal" day-to-day self-defense? Naaah.
The problem with the "...fight your way back..." cliche is that it casts an unrealistic negative light on the carrying of defensive sidearms, as though they are the inferior choice ... when exactly the opposite is true.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
And ?
I hope you always have two hands available to work that pump action.
How to negotiate closed doors?
How to round up the baby/toddler when you need both hands?
One hand out of action for any reason creates a major problem with a pump gun.
Shotguns are dandy "safe room" guns, but not the best for house searches.
Handguns are a viable option in many, many situations. As many have already posted, the cliche "to fight your way back to your long gun" has extremely limited realistic application.
Many that espouse long guns for such tasks often do so because they do not possess adequate skill with a handgun. Perhaps that oversight should be addressed first.
Most valid points ever.
There are reasons why the samurai kept a long sword an short sword on them at all times. It was called close-quarters...
BeerSleeper
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 688
In a vehicle:
You can draw a handgun and empty the clip in less time than it takes to reach around and grab that longgun out of the window rack.
In public:
Even given the assumption it were practical to carry a longgun under a full length trenchcoat, you can't raise that gun and get it on target as quick as a handgun, and there's no way you look inconspicuous when not using it.
At home:
Maybe it's practical here, but you've still chosen a slower firearm for use when time on target is critical. Show me someone who can shoulder/aim/fire a long gun in less time than draw/aim/fire a handgun, assuming shooters with comparable levels of proficiency.
You can draw a handgun and empty the clip in less time than it takes to reach around and grab that longgun out of the window rack.
In public:
Even given the assumption it were practical to carry a longgun under a full length trenchcoat, you can't raise that gun and get it on target as quick as a handgun, and there's no way you look inconspicuous when not using it.
At home:
Maybe it's practical here, but you've still chosen a slower firearm for use when time on target is critical. Show me someone who can shoulder/aim/fire a long gun in less time than draw/aim/fire a handgun, assuming shooters with comparable levels of proficiency.
huntsman
Member
Why the focus on money? The cost of a firearm can be important, are you implying that to some guns are just high dollar toys?
I like shotguns also but like stated it's difficult to keep one close at hand in public.
As to the LEO's we might see a point in the future were the handgun is the last choice not the first.
Having been around a long time I think this notion of rifles for self defense is a relatively new one and is based on the trendiness of being "tactical."
The handgun and the rifle serve different roles. The late Jeff Cooper summed it up when he stated that the rifle was essentially offensive; it is the weapon one takes when one expects to get into a fight. When one feels there is the potential, but not the likelihood of being in a gunfight, then the pistol is employed as a weapon that can be easily carried without interfering too much with one going about one's daily business.
I think that arming one's self with a long gun in an urban setting sort of moves one into a gray area beyond the purely defensive. That is, unless one is in a war zone or in a post apocalyptic environment where a rifle slung over the shoulder is commonplace and draws no undue attention.
The handgun and the rifle serve different roles. The late Jeff Cooper summed it up when he stated that the rifle was essentially offensive; it is the weapon one takes when one expects to get into a fight. When one feels there is the potential, but not the likelihood of being in a gunfight, then the pistol is employed as a weapon that can be easily carried without interfering too much with one going about one's daily business.
I think that arming one's self with a long gun in an urban setting sort of moves one into a gray area beyond the purely defensive. That is, unless one is in a war zone or in a post apocalyptic environment where a rifle slung over the shoulder is commonplace and draws no undue attention.
ForumSurfer
Member
Excuse me, I'm assuming. If you're using a slug at 50 yards, all is well. If you're shooting a game gun with a good choke at 50 yards, you might be ok with buck shot.
IMO at 50 yards, assuming I'm not in the open desert I'll have some place to take cover. I can then either leave the situation safely (the goal from the very beginning) or move to get a closer shot. At 50 yards I don't feel safe taking a shot with anything short of a rife if a family member's life, a bystander's life or my life is on the line.
I've seen patterns from 18" self defense type barrels at 50 yards with buck shot. I don't want to be anywhere near that downrange. Too much of a chance that something could go wrong.
There is a pretty good reason police snipers still use rifles inside of 100 or 50 yards. A shotgun is a fine tool for certain occasions.
As I said, when my family members are in the same house, I'd rather trust my ability and precision with a handgun. I consider myself much better with a shotgun as that is what I have shot more of throughout my life. For home defense and personal protection, I'll take the accuracy of a handgun.
Now if I lived alone...yes I may consider a shotgun. I'd still prefer a handgun just to make negotiating corners easier and safer.
KodiakBeer
member
I've been shooting handguns all my life, but in my house I keep a coach gun stoked with buckshot next to the bed, with a carrier on the stock holding extras. A handgun is a poor stopper compared to a load of buckshot.
When I carry other places, I have a handgun.
You adapt. Different circumstances require different tools.
When I carry other places, I have a handgun.
You adapt. Different circumstances require different tools.
Assuming you hit the target with one of the (2) shots.
I am a big fan of coach guns, but I prefer my 14 rounds of .45 hollow points in the event of 1 or more intruders entering unexpectedly. There is cover to hide behind, it's dark,... I personally want more than 2 rounds before a reload. Just my opinion.
I've never understood the concept of being outgunned by a bigger gun. If you have a handgun and the BG has a rifle, how does that make you outgunned? If you are at ranges where the rifle is superior, I can understand it. If there is body armor involved, especially on the guy who doesn't have the handgun, I understand it. But if it is close quarters combat, why is a rifle superior? The handgun is lighter, it is more maneuverable. You can sweep a room faster with it, you can bring it to bear on a target faster. If things get so close that you are within hand to hand range, the pistol really shines.
I'm of the opinion that police who make SWAT style entries into houses usually use long guns more as an intimidation factor than anything else. Scary Black Rifles are tacticool, but unless they are going up against someone who is armored, they aren't really any better than the handgun.
I'm of the opinion that police who make SWAT style entries into houses usually use long guns more as an intimidation factor than anything else. Scary Black Rifles are tacticool, but unless they are going up against someone who is armored, they aren't really any better than the handgun.
KodiakBeer
member
There a Kimber compact next to the bed also, with an extra magazine. I'm picking up the coach first and keeping the .45 as back-up. But there won't be two shots before a reload, just one - anybody in my house is getting both barrels.
KodiakBeer
member
Because it's far more likely to kill with one shot?
ForumSurfer
Member
A shotgun, a handgun nor a rifle are superior. The mindset and skill of the person holding the weapon combined with any number of extenuating circumstances and infinite variables determines the outcome. Picking a weapon and training with it seems to be the best solution to me.
Cosmoline
Member
Handguns have one big advantage--you can conceal them. That means they're the best choice for CCW. But anytime you don't have to conceal, a long gun is superior. The effective range is many times greater, even with iron sights. The power is considerably greater. The chances of hitting a moving target, also much greater. The damage inflicted by a hit is likewise much greater. This is why, outside of Sillywood, you won't see armies of men charging forward with Glocks in hand to do battle.
It's the other way around. Handguns were seen as secondary, defensive weapons until modern times (and modern movies). Even in the old west, handguns were far less commonly deployed than a rifle or scattergun.
Actually, the pistol often MISSES. Even at close "handgun" distances. You can move it around in your hand faster, but that doesn't mean you're going to actually be able to hit and stop someone coming in after you.
Heck, I've put vast quantities of handgun bullets downrange out of an array of pistols and revolvers. I'm only now getting to a point where I feel semi-sorta-competent with the short gun. I've had squirrels sitting on branches ten feet away and hit nothing but blue sky with handguns, all the same. And when there's a potential threat and I can get to a long gun, you better believe I get the @$#@ long gun. Whether it's a shotgun or a Mosin-Nagant, I know I'm going to have a much better chance of winning the fight with it.
I don't worry about having "one hand out of action" or being unable to hold beer or something. I don't worry about followup shots. I worry about hitting and destroying with the FIRST SHOT. That means the rifle is up, on my shoulder, and round chambered. Indeed I'd rather have a FLINTLOCK loaded with buck and ball than a handgun.
This isn't paranoia. Look at what happened to the FBI in Miami or any one of the other instances where sidearm-armed LEO's--even very well trained ones--took on a criminal who had a rifle or carbine and knew how to use it. You go into a rifle fight with a handgun and you're putting yourself at a tragic disadvantage.
It's the other way around. Handguns were seen as secondary, defensive weapons until modern times (and modern movies). Even in the old west, handguns were far less commonly deployed than a rifle or scattergun.
Actually, the pistol often MISSES. Even at close "handgun" distances. You can move it around in your hand faster, but that doesn't mean you're going to actually be able to hit and stop someone coming in after you.
Heck, I've put vast quantities of handgun bullets downrange out of an array of pistols and revolvers. I'm only now getting to a point where I feel semi-sorta-competent with the short gun. I've had squirrels sitting on branches ten feet away and hit nothing but blue sky with handguns, all the same. And when there's a potential threat and I can get to a long gun, you better believe I get the @$#@ long gun. Whether it's a shotgun or a Mosin-Nagant, I know I'm going to have a much better chance of winning the fight with it.
I don't worry about having "one hand out of action" or being unable to hold beer or something. I don't worry about followup shots. I worry about hitting and destroying with the FIRST SHOT. That means the rifle is up, on my shoulder, and round chambered. Indeed I'd rather have a FLINTLOCK loaded with buck and ball than a handgun.
This isn't paranoia. Look at what happened to the FBI in Miami or any one of the other instances where sidearm-armed LEO's--even very well trained ones--took on a criminal who had a rifle or carbine and knew how to use it. You go into a rifle fight with a handgun and you're putting yourself at a tragic disadvantage.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
I have a couple of long guns suitable for self-defense... if you have enough room. I don't. Any non-NFA long guns is nearly worthless in my home. I therefore rely upon my handguns for self-defense.
Deanimator
Member
A bet on a single roll of the dice in a self-defense situation is a bad bet.
As they say, no plan survives contact with the enemy intact.
WoofersInc
Member
One point in this discussion. There have been numerous studies by the FBI and DOJ on this.
The average gunfight takes place inside of 21 feet or less. That means if you do find yourself in a gunfight it is going to be up close and personal. Whatever is the fastest means of defense is going to be the one that works best.
Law enforcement also uses a 21 foot rule when dealing with someone with a knife. It has been shown that someone with a knife can close the distance of 21 feet and get a stab in before someone can draw and fire their weapon.
A long gun is fine for home defense as long as you are willing to train on it.
I keep a Mossberg 590 by the bedside. However I also keep a Springfield XD45 and a spare mag also at the bedside.
The average gunfight takes place inside of 21 feet or less. That means if you do find yourself in a gunfight it is going to be up close and personal. Whatever is the fastest means of defense is going to be the one that works best.
Law enforcement also uses a 21 foot rule when dealing with someone with a knife. It has been shown that someone with a knife can close the distance of 21 feet and get a stab in before someone can draw and fire their weapon.
A long gun is fine for home defense as long as you are willing to train on it.
I keep a Mossberg 590 by the bedside. However I also keep a Springfield XD45 and a spare mag also at the bedside.
jimmyraythomason
Member
Why is a rifle superior for HD? It's not.
That's silly. At HD/SD ranges a handgun is one shot lethal(Were assuming solid COM hits) just as surely as a rifle. A rifle more accurate? not at point blank range to arms length. I rely on handguns for HD/SD entirely. I have a couple dozen rifles I could choose from but reach for the handguns 100% of the time. Use enough gun,my choices are .38+P..357mag,45 acp and 2 differrent 44 mags. One shot/one hit lethality.
KodiakBeer
member
Ehhhhhhh... No.
Cosmoline- 1) I can't relate to the Old West, only my own lifetime. 2) You ignore one of my points which is that most of us live in a world where walking around with a rifle slung over the shoulder (or carried in the hands) is somewhat socially unacceptable.
Discussing long guns as SD weapons presumes that one is permitted and capable of carrying such a gun. Do you want to go about your daily routine packing a rifle? I do not. Would the law (right or wrong the law still prevails) permit the carrying of a rifle? My state does not and suspect most do not thus rendering the whole matter moot.
Perhaps I can see a rifle on a farm or ranch, or in a wilderness area, but not in an urban setting. Even if it were legal, a rifle of even modest caliber will have too much penetration IMO for responsible use in a crowded area. Like it or not we do need to be concerned about where our bullets go.
In a car the pistol is handier and faster to bring into play.
In the home the old penetration bugaboo pops up again AND I do not want a rifle or shotgun for going down hallways in the confined spaces of my home. I want a handgun held close to the body.
Like I said, if I was headed into a gunfight I take my FAL. For going about my business my Model 659 will suffice. No question the rifle is more power and more accurate. But is it more practical? About 99% of the time it is not.
Discussing long guns as SD weapons presumes that one is permitted and capable of carrying such a gun. Do you want to go about your daily routine packing a rifle? I do not. Would the law (right or wrong the law still prevails) permit the carrying of a rifle? My state does not and suspect most do not thus rendering the whole matter moot.
Perhaps I can see a rifle on a farm or ranch, or in a wilderness area, but not in an urban setting. Even if it were legal, a rifle of even modest caliber will have too much penetration IMO for responsible use in a crowded area. Like it or not we do need to be concerned about where our bullets go.
In a car the pistol is handier and faster to bring into play.
In the home the old penetration bugaboo pops up again AND I do not want a rifle or shotgun for going down hallways in the confined spaces of my home. I want a handgun held close to the body.
Like I said, if I was headed into a gunfight I take my FAL. For going about my business my Model 659 will suffice. No question the rifle is more power and more accurate. But is it more practical? About 99% of the time it is not.
I have handguns for HD/SD when I'm away from home. I live out in the country and I've always kept a 30/30 Marlin lever gun along with the handgun in the bedroom just in case I get any outside action. Theives don't just come in the house they will break into your shops and out buildings,barns. I am definately a better shot with the ole 30/30 at those ranges. But when trouble comes through the front door it will be the handy handgun off the night stand. I guess I use both...
Cosmoline
Member
No, I agreed that CCW was the handgun's great advantage. That's only part of the picture, though. Much of the day and night most of us are at home, where a long gun is an option.
A rifle's bullet, properly constructed, will "over-penetrate" no more than a handgun while doing a lot more damage. Furthermore you're more likely to hit what you aim at, thereby risking fewer missed shots which will go a mile even out of a handgun. Any firearm capable of killing a man is going to be capable of missing that man and killing some third party. That's just the way it is.
Not Weaver or a modern stance? Because those, arms extended, take up as much space in front of you as a carbine.
Last edited:
- Status
