a handgun is only for when you can't get to a long gun for self defense.

[KodiakBeer]

Shotguns are dandy "safe room" guns, but not the best for house searches.

Which is why the military and SWAT train for house searches with handguns! Oh wait, they don't, they train with long guns.

Look if an armed intruder is in your house, he's probably armed with a handgun. To paraphrase that great Sean Connery line - if he's got a knife, you bring a gun, if he's got a gun, you bring a bigger gun... This isn't a duel and you don't have to fight on equal terms. There are plenty of long arms that are handy enough to use in the home - and have much greater stopping power than a handgun. A shorty shotgun or m1 carbine are two that come to mind pretty quick.

If you have reasons for using a handgun (toddlers, etc, that require a free hand), then fine, use a handgun. But don't kid yourself that it isn't a compromise.

On the street, well, you're going to carry a handgun because it's the only viable option.

 

[SsevenN]

I'd say a handgun is for self defense in public. A long gun is for self defense while in your castle.

 

[bigfatdave]

My rifle is for fighting my way to a gatling gun.

You guys go ahead and plan on a running gunfight with a dive for the stashed rifle, I'll just plan on shoot & scoot or a stationary fight, it seems a bit more likely and I don't have to be continuously loading and unloading a long gun from my car.

 

[David E]

Which is why the military and SWAT train for house searches with handguns! Oh wait, they don't, they train with long guns.

Oh, wait, they use MP-5's.......some of the shortest "long" guns out there or 12" barreled shotguns. (and some handguns, too)

They work in teams and they don't have to be careful about breaking down doors, etc.

Quite the contrary: they use flashbangs, battering rams, etc....oh, wait, that's a totally different dynamic than the homeowner investigating a suspicious noise or reacting to a sudden home invasion.

Nice try, tho.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Ehhhhhhh... No.

Eh Yes. Dead is dead.

 

[Sam1911]

Let's knock off the petty, snippy, little one-liner bickering.

State your case in polite terms and let it stand on it's merits.

If you have to insult someone to make your point, you've lost.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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.

I agree with this. It makes sense today as well.

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.

Enter the pistol-caliber carbine. I would most likely be using my .45 ACP Beretta CX4 Storm in a home defense situation and would prefer it in a crowded situation simply for its sight radius. My wife's choice is her Mares Leg in .44-40 for its sight radius, maneuverability, and close-to-carbine-length barrel.

My "Trunk Monkey" will be a .308 Win bullpup when I can scare up the funds to buy one, or convert an M1 to bullpup configuration.

Woody

 

[KodiakBeer]

Oh, wait, they use MP-5's.......some of the shortest "long" guns out there or 12" barreled shotguns. (and some handguns, too)

Standard Mossberg shotguns with civilian legal barrels, M4's, M16's, etc, are all arms carried by SWAT and Military to clear houses. No authority anywhere is EVER going to train anyone to throw down a long arm and use a handgun to clear a house - or for any other purpose where a fight is expected.

If you have a reliable handgun for home defense then use it. I'm not suggesting a handgun isn't a good weapon for home defense, just that a short shotgun or carbine is even better. I own lots of guns so I can pick and choose. If I only owned a long barreled duck gun, then I'd rely on my handgun and it wouldn't worry me a bit.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Eh Yes. Dead is dead.

It's getting them dead that's the tricky part. Rifles do that better than handguns, but you can't always have a rifle.

 

[Buck Snort]

22-rimfire wrote: "I venture to say that any "self defense" encounter that exceeds 30 feet would probably be questioned intently as to whether your life was endangered."

There are, believe it or not, bad guys who can hit you with a handgun at 30 feet or more.

 

[Buck Snort]

This one is in the "Big Book of Tired, Worn Out Gun Cliches."

Right after "What's your life worth."

The difference between a cliche and sage advice is often hard to determine.

 

[ChaoSS]

Because it's far more likely to kill with one shot?

And what makes you think that it is indeed more likely to kill with one shot? A rifle can fail to kill just as easily as a handgun, getting that fast kill has more to do with shot placement. Once you get out to significant ranges, or if you introduce body armor, handguns will be a little bit outgunned. However, so long as you aren't using a puny round, a handgun is every bit as effective as a rifle at home defense ranges.

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.

No. You often miss. At those ranges you would have to have an absolutely horrible gun for the gun to miss. The fact that you can't hit a squirrel at ten feet means that you are incompetent with your handgun. That's all there is to it.

In a home, you can move the handgun much faster than the long gun. You have corners to go around, you have obstacles to go around, you have doors to go through, and you can maneuver both yourself and your gun faster with a smaller gun.

 

[Buck Snort]

Cosmoline wrote: "I've had squirrels sitting on branches ten feet away and hit nothing but blue sky with handguns..."

Try a good optomitrist!!

 

[KodiakBeer]

And what makes you think that it is indeed more likely to kill with one shot? A rifle can fail to kill just as easily as a handgun,

Not true, unless you're talking about something silly like a .22. I've seen lots of big human-sized animals killed with every variety of weapon. Even a "weak" rifle round like a .30/30 is far more devastating than any handgun round. It's not even worth arguing about.

 

[Rexster]

Well, to get back to the original post, I believe the video in question is the Deputy Dinkeller incident. (Not sure of the spelling of his name, but I don't have time to research it at the moment.) Let's keep in mind that the deputy gave the criminal plenty of time to go for the M1 Carbine; the criminal did not outdraw the deputy. The deputy had plenty of time to justifiably ventilate the criminal with .40 JHPs; the "dream" shot of being able to take out both lungs and the heart was amply presented. The deputy also had time to get back into his patrol car and retreat, had he been so inclined. If we back up to the point when the criminal was doing his insane dance in the street, the deputy could have advanced to cut off the criminal's access to his truck. (Just don't leave the patrol car open and running, of course!) FWIW, a white Crown Vic is my office/workplace; I wear a badge. We were picking apart this incident before it made Youtube.

Handguns are handy. Handguns can be manipulated with one hand, if that is all that is available. Those are their strong points.

Shotguns and rifles have higher accuracy potential, with more points of stability, and usually have the ability to inflict more per-shot damage to the target.

Clint Smith's one-liner about handguns and rifles must be taken in context. Clint Smith himself teaches from the perspective that one will usually have to solve the problem with the handgun. There is a difference between an ideal goal, and reality. If a home invader gives me the time, I will not only greet him with both a long gun AND a handgun, but will be armored as well. (Why leave that kevlar sitting there, if I have time to put it on?) If there is no time or opportunity to fully gear up, well, it's a handgun event.

 

[ChaoSS]

Not true, unless you're talking about something silly like a .22. I've seen lots of big human-sized animals killed with every variety of weapon. Even a "weak" rifle round like a .30/30 is far more devastating than any handgun round. It's not even worth arguing about.

Then you've probably also seen plenty of animals that didn't get killed by rifle rounds, or at least didn't go down for a while.

 

[Readyrod]

A while ago I read up the stories about gunfights on Wikipedia and one of the things that stood out was the fact that the side with the rifle tended to totally outclass the other side. (The other big lesson was the importance of reloading, it's amazing how many rounds were shot.) On the other hand, I remember something that I read in the James book about Harriers; The best fighter, or weapon in this case, is the one that makes it to the fight. The saying about fighting your way to your rifle should be; A handgun is for fighting your way to the rifle you shouldn't have left at home because it wasn't practical to have on you in the first place.
In Canada tho a handgun is virtually illegal so the only choice is to have a long gun in the car.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I've never seen that Dinkheller video until just now. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5646869322100258929#

A pretty good argument for a rifle...

 

[KodiakBeer]

Then you've probably also seen plenty of animals that didn't get killed by rifle rounds, or at least didn't go down for a while.

Yes, and I've seen deer hit by Buicks that didn't go down right away. It's a question of odds. Rifles do far more damage, therefore the odds are much greater that the animal (or attacker) is going down. It's about damage - that's why a .22 is outclassed by a .40 handgun, and that's why a .30/30 outclasses the .40, and why a .300 mag outclasses the .30/30.

If your life is in danger, you grab the most powerful weapon you have. If you have a handgun, grab that instead of your pocket knife. If you have a rifle, grab that instead of your handgun. If you have a tank, well, just lock yourself inside and call the police.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I'm not a soldier and never had to fire a weapon under great stress. I do know that I am better able to hit a target with a rifle than a handgun under normal circumstances. I cannot see fear and adrenaline changing that fact.

 

[ilikepancakes]

whats really the effective range of a handgun in the heat of a gun fight for the average person here(goes to the range, has a ccw, ect.)

I find it amusing when the basis of the handgun argument implies that the shooter is unskilled.

I ask you, what's really the effective range for someone who can't shoot a rifle accurately?

What's the effective range of someone who doesn't know how to aim a shotgun?

This is why handguns are only good to fight your way to your longarm, which in turn is only good to fight your way to your flamethrower.


Okay, my point is regardless what your weapon, be it pistol or rifle or whatever, if you are skilled with it then it will serve you fine. The tool isn't going to magically solve your lack of ability.

+1 to everyone else who already talked about what self-defense actually is by the way...

 

[627PCFan]

You shoot what your familiar and competent with. I shoot 20k rounds a year between sporting clays and hunting. For me a shotgun is a no brainer.

 

[bri]

Seems quite a few replies are assuming the OP is somehow saying that everyone's handgun skills are lacking, calm down a bit huh?

There is no denying the much greater power of a 3" 00 buckshot 12 ga round over a typical handgun round. Although I don't carry a shotgun in the truck, it's ready to go in my family's safe room.

One question... Is it ever a good idea to "clear" your house, assuming all family members are safe? Seems like a good way to get yourself hurt.

 

[KodiakBeer]

One question... Is it ever a good idea to "clear" your house, assuming all family members are safe? Seems like a good way to get yourself hurt.

It's my house and you can bet I'm clearing it. I worked too hard for my stuff to let somebody cart it away.

 

[mljdeckard]

I have said numerous times that I will never reach for a handgun if I have time to get a long gun. When you are fighting for your life, you should always use the most devastating weapon you can. There is no such thing as too much force. I pretty much always keep a rifle or shotgun in my vehicle and home. (Except that I go on and off military posts a lot. I don't keep guns in the car when I know I will be going on-post, which puts a significant dent in when I am allowed to do it. Ironic, I know.) And yes, if I must clear my house, I must make sure that I have a weapon with the best possible terminal performance.

All effective DH/HD rounds will most likely go through the target and hit what is beyond, not just rifles. ALL of the ones that MISS will hit what is beyond. If you're so worried about overpenetration that you won't use a rifle, don't use a gun at all.

Having said that, there are some caveats. There are proper techniques for using a long gun to clear a house. You should seek training for the proper way, as well as retention techniques. An AR is absolutely a great weapon for HD, but use the correct ammo. (I would recommend Hornady TAP, NOT surplus SS109.)