mljdeckard
Member
I suppose Uncle Joe watches Doc Holladay in Tombstone over and over, thinking that's the ideal way to fight with a shotgun today.
Except it's a good bit harder (and more expensive, practice costs) to be good with a shotgun than to be good-enough with an AR.
Sorry I just have to laugh. Having been reading THR for the last several years when the Home Defense issue comes up, a clear majority of respondents say.. SHOT GUN. As soon as VP Biden says the same thing, OMG he's an idiot. Yes there are plenty of pro shot gun responses in this thread.
So here's my opinion
IN a house. Very short quarters.. a short barreled shot gun. Easy to swing, won't need more than 2 shots, generally. Easy to load, flip open drop in. Dim or NO light (at night). NERVES.. so hitting something is going to be tough, so a wide spread pattern is better. As far as I've seen, most police cars still have a shotgun up front ready for entering a house or other close quarters.
In an open field with a fire fight in the 25 to 200 yard range, YES the AR is going to excel. This is why our military supplies ARs to our troops. If you as a civilian are "defending" yourself at a distance of 100 plus yards you are in trouble no matter what.
If you have to crawl into a tunnel to clear Vietcong, chances are you'll drop the AR, shotgun and take your pistol.
I wouldn't say "a majority". The numbers seem fairly evenly split amongst the rifle and shotgun crowd, with a smaller (but still significant) amount of people saying handgun. Most people recognize the benefits and limitations of all 3. Personally, I use a shotgun, because I don't have any rifles. I think the rifle is better, but there are no rifle ranges nearby that I like.
I also think that as education as to how rifles do wounding and the fact that they overpenetrate less through walls has led to an increase in the number of people saying "rifle over shotgun" over the years...me included.
I'd argue that reloading a tube-fed shotgun would be just as easy under stress as reloading a double. And while you may say you only need 2 shots, I've read reports of people taking several, even point-blank from a shotgun. Not to mention that at point-blank distances, the spread isn't going to be that much (and if it was, it would be as much a liability as it would be a benefit).
I think there's advantages to a double-barrel shotgun over a tube-fed shotgun or an AR-15, namely the shorter OAL with the same barrel length. However, I'm barely comfortable with 6 in the tube, I'd be more comfortable with 20 in an easily replaceable magazine.
How about the guy who made a shot at 125 (was it feet or yards? saw both) to save a first responder from a crazed sniper?
I don't know, a slung AR or shotgun would be a lot easier to keep control of than a pistol.
3. He's rich and lives in a good neighborhood where groups of people don't kick in doors and rob people at gun point. I'd like to know what old Joe would do if three people happened to break in instead of two.
Very good point, bigdipper. I think the reasoning is that a shotgun with 2 shells is good for 2 bad guys. But with a rifle you might need to pull the trigger more, so it's not as good. I'm not saying I agree with the concept, but that's the idea. A shotgun with 2 shells will be harder to kill 20 kids with than a rifle with 30 rounds. This of course ignores the fact that the kids aren't going to be much of a hindrance to reloading.