henschman
Member
If you can afford a Colt, you can afford a PSA that is built to all the same specs AND comes with an Aimpoint PRO red dot sight, which is ideal for home defense.
First AR for defense. Needing advice.
- Thread starter Persuader12
- Start date
- Status
BSA1
member
We just had a 7 page discussion about whether the forward assist is really needed on the AR. I would encourage you to read it.
Last November I shopped around and found new S&W Sport selling for $670.00. I had plans to buy one after Christmas but The Great American Caesar changed things.
As the AR banic continues to settle down I may treat myself to a S&W Sport this Christmas.
Last November I shopped around and found new S&W Sport selling for $670.00. I had plans to buy one after Christmas but The Great American Caesar changed things.
As the AR banic continues to settle down I may treat myself to a S&W Sport this Christmas.
Persuader12
I would refrain from recommending any AR for home defense, without knowing what type of residence you plan to lawfully defend. Most justifiable shootings are CQB where your namesake shotgun or a pistol caliber weapon would fit in better.
I would refrain from recommending any AR for home defense, without knowing what type of residence you plan to lawfully defend. Most justifiable shootings are CQB where your namesake shotgun or a pistol caliber weapon would fit in better.
Why? Particularly the pistol caliber weapon. It is inferior in almost every respect to a 5.56 AR. Inferior terminal ballistics, yet greater over penetration risks. Furthermore, why don't you read the OP. He stated this was more of a SHTF gun and he keeps a shotgun for HD. See paragraph two of his post.
What makes you think that??
Handguns, in handgun cartridges, are weak and ineffective as a general rule. They are also more difficult to shoot/hit with than a handgun.
A shotgun is likely to be longer and and probably heavier, with more recoil, lower capacity, and slower follow up shots.
Both handgun and shotgun, when loaded with appropriate defensive rounds for HD use, are likely to penetrate walls and other intermediate barriers at least as much as, if not more than, an AR in 5.56/.223.
Yes, there are advantages to a handgun or a shotgun. No one choice is necessarily the best, and it is up to each individual to make an informed decision regarding what they want to go with (and there's nothing wrong with having, practicing/training with, and keeping all 3 available either).
Just please don't parrot that "rifles penetrate too much and are more dangerous to others" thing.
YZ,
Your post unfortunately demonstrates an ignorance of terminal ballistics, since PCCSs have more penetration than almost every .223 from a rifle barrel.
Likewise, 00 buckshot is about 30-40% more penetrative than most .223.
John
Your post unfortunately demonstrates an ignorance of terminal ballistics, since PCCSs have more penetration than almost every .223 from a rifle barrel.
Likewise, 00 buckshot is about 30-40% more penetrative than most .223.
John
Flfiremedic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 447
Just to add to the above, those nine buckshot pellets have to be accounted for in a real shooting.
JShirley and the Members
I may not know all terminal and other ballistics. I know what terminates life.
Save the drama. A pistol caliber weapon most of the time is just that, a handgun. It is easier to maneuver in confined quarters. A short barrel shotgun covers more area, and is very quick in action. You don't think so, fine by me. I don't know the specific situation to recommend just this or that rifle. If you think you do, it's pompous chatter.
I may not know all terminal and other ballistics. I know what terminates life.
Save the drama. A pistol caliber weapon most of the time is just that, a handgun. It is easier to maneuver in confined quarters. A short barrel shotgun covers more area, and is very quick in action. You don't think so, fine by me. I don't know the specific situation to recommend just this or that rifle. If you think you do, it's pompous chatter.
Last edited:
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
*Keep in mind I did recommend PSA by name...just not the preference for where I would start.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
I've lost count of how many people I've taken 5 minutes to show how to maneuver a carbine in close quarters and thereby dispelled that myth.
An 18" bbl shotgun is no faster into action than a 16" bbl carbine. A shotgun can be used to cover a wider area, or it can be used with slugs or tight patterning buck shot to offer greater precision. Covering a wide area is great for wing shooting, but it's a poor idea for defensive uses. For defensive use of a shotgun you want as many pellets as possible to impact center mass to maximize terminal ballistics. You also want a tight pattern so you can hit the threat and avoid collateral damage. A 5.56 NATO / .223 Rem semi-auto carbine, 7.62x39 carbine SA, or 5.45x39 SA carbine (to name the most common intermediate rounds) will offer superior terminal ballistics to any buckshot load, and far less over penetration against almost all barriers with proper ammo selection. Such a semi-auto carbine will also provide faster follow up shots than any 12 or 20 gauge shotgun, pump or semi-auto.
It's not pompous chatter. It's a combination of training, practice, and understanding terminal ballistics. This isn't a pissing contest. These are repeatable results.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I wish people would quit with the "not as court friendly" stuff.
You are FAR better off knowing the laws in your jurisdiction with respect to justifiable use of deadly force than worrying about what is or is not "court friendly".
Bottom line is that if you're not justified in using deadly force in whatever scenario you happen to be in, then it doesn't matter one bit what kind of weapon you shot another human being with.
You use deadly force as a last resort to save your life, or the life of another, when all else has failed or cannot reasonably be employed. It doesn't matter WHAT the source of that deadly force was...only that it was deadly and you used it.
If you, or another person on this site, can actually cite court records where the type of gun actually made a difference in determining whether or not the person using it in self-defense was actually declared "guilty", then please cite them. Not media reports or hearsay...actual court records.
Even if someone CAN cite one, I seriously doubt anybody can make anything even approaching a verifiable historical trend where this is any kind of a statistical worry.
Bottom line: be far more concerned about actually using deadly force in strict accordance with the laws.
A decent patterning shotgun with 9 pellet 00 buck will have a pattern that covers a few inches at most reasonable home defense distances. Yes that "covers more area" but it is nearly negligible. Further in real life one better being doing their best to put all 9 pellets on target since everyone that is not is a liability.
See for example these patterns at 12 feet:
what drama? Explaining why you are factually incorrect in what you are saying.
You hyperventilate over nothing. I don't like the ninja attitude of getting armed with a tactical rifle to "defend" one's apartment. Perhaps I missed the original reference to SHTF, because normally I wouldn't even go there. I told OP what I think, not as a fact but as an opinion. Tell him why I am wrong, let him decide.A decent patterning shotgun with 9 pellet 00 buck will have a pattern that covers a few inches at most reasonable home defense distances. Yes that "covers more area" but it is nearly negligible. Further in real life one better being doing their best to put all 9 pellets on target since everyone that is not is a liability.
See for example these patterns at 12 feet:
what drama? Explaining why you are factually incorrect in what you are saying.
As a courtesy, self quote: I would refrain from recommending any AR for home defense, without knowing what type of residence you plan to lawfully defend. What is not clear.
Last edited:
Gunnerboy
Member
I tend to keep my ak74 for home defense.... and dont worry about overpenetration one bit
I see this is the point in the discussion where you have run out of facts and thus turn to using labels and names and avoid any kind of thoughtful discussion of why one tool might be better than another. Getting defensive and resulting to such immature tactics when one points out that your contentions do not align with reality is not really highroad behavior.
Why is it a "ninja" attitude to use a "tactical rifle" (what is that even?), which I take to mean something like an AR?
I'm not sure why the word defend is in scare quotes in your sentence. One of the primary reasons many people own guns is to defend hearth and home and those who reside there. Is that not a valid reason to own a gun? If one wants a gun for that purpose is there anything wrong with choosing a weapon that is best suited for the job? There are a lot of arguments for an AR or similar type of weapon for a HD gun.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. There is also a world of difference between a bald assertion and a contention or position that is substantiated by facts and reasoning. The sum total of what you have offered in support of your opinion is that you think it is a ninja attitude to have an AR for HD and a bunch of fallacies concerning the use of an AR vis-a-vis other weapons.
Last edited by a moderator:
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
I and several others have repeatedly explained that 5.56mm / .223 Remington and similar intermediate cartridge carbines and rifles (this includes most AR pattern rifles and AK-74 rifles) have the lowest barrier penetration of any firearm suitable for defense of self or home. This makes such rifles and carbines ideal for defense urban terrain. They work equally well in defending suburban structures. The relatively flat trajectories also lend such rifles to the dual roles of defending a rural home and defending live stock from predators.
I have explained that with minuscule training and minimal practice one can easily maneuver a carbine or shotgun in tight quarters. I further explained that the low recoil of an intermediate cartridge carbine allows for faster follow up shots than with a shotgun.
What is not clear is why you continue to argue against the use of an AR or similar rifle for home defense despite the factual evidence that has been presented.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
The Soviet 5.45x39 round came into being as an answer to the 5.56 NATO round. The 5.45x39 has virtually the same terminal ballistics as 5.56 NATO when both are loaded with JHP or polymer tip bullets of similar weight and construction.
As long as you've made a proper ammo selection I like your choice, and I wouldn't worry a bit about over penetration either.
Persuader12
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 50
I just took another look at the Colt at Walmart by me today. I've heard they used to cost $900 before the panic, then went way up, then back down to $990 here. Last I saw it cost $1137. Today, I checked it out again and it costs $1497. This is the Colt LE6920. So much for the burst of the AR bubble.
Last edited:
Persuader12
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 50
It's a single family house in close proximity to other houses. I originally used a handgun, but switched over to shotgun for "normal" times defense because I thought a shotgun wouldn't penetrate walls and endanger neighbors. Then I learned otherwise from reading discussions online. I still use the SG for HD, but I've been thinking of something even more capable if TSHTF, such as a total collapse of society (or just law and order). My reasoning is that so many other people are going to have them as they go out rioting and looting. Just as the police now have them because they don't want to be outgunned by the criminals, neither do I.
I guess I've just seen enough cases where a prosecutor will use emotions to sway a jury into believing whatever he wants them to. I think it would be a prosecutor's dream to have someone defend their actions of killing someone while an evil looking AR, that looks just like the one used by people who have walked into schools and movie theaters and murdered people, sits on the table in front of the jury. I know it shouldn't matter, but image seems to mean everything to some people. Shoot someone with a revolver or single barrel shotgun, or something made for other purposes, such as a 28" barrel shotgun, or maybe a deer rifle, and the image is of someone who just used what they already had and defended themselves with it. OTOH, if you use something made for combat, and you can easily be painted as someone who was just looking for the opportunity to use that gun for it's intended purpose.
Surviving a confrontation is only the beginning. If it can be done with something that will also help you survive the aftermath, then great! So that's my reason for only wanting to use an AR when TSHTF. The likelyhood of ending up in court drops considerably in that case, so you can focus more on having a superior tool for defense.
Last edited:
C-grunt
Member
That's weird. Maybe it wasn't a standard 6920? I've seen them here locally recently for 1050 for the normal and 1150 for the Magpul edition. I know the SOCOM model is like 1400. I doubt Walmart would have that big of a difference in price at different locations.
- Status
Similar threads
