Possibility of the BG wearing armor affect your HD firearm choice?

[Phaedrus/69]

A while back I started a post discussing the viability of pistol caliber carbines (PPCs) for home defense. Since then I've picked up two PPCs, an HK USC in .45 ACP and a Beretta Storm carbine in 9mm. I love both guns! They're accurate and very reliable. The Storm has 20 round and 30 round mags, too. Big thing is that I can take them to the local indoor range every week to practice. Granted, a pistol round even out of a carbine falls short of the power and lethality of a true rifle round but I've generally accepted this. Many people advocate a handgun for HD, and out of a carbine the same round will have a bit more pop.

But last week I read about a cop that died in a shootout with a couple of bank robbers. While he was engaged with one the other shot him from the rear quarter IIRC. Turns out the first perp took two shots from the LEO's service weapon squarely in the chest but had body armor; he was only bruised.

That of course has me pondering again the best choice for HD. Clearly there's no "death ray" that will get you out of any situation. And the BG could even be wearing plate capable of stopping '05 ball- I mean, such armor does exist.

I have no idea how many home invaders wear armor, nor do I even have a guess as to how I might find a valid number. But if you were ever gonna face an armored BG it would probably be in a home invasion or a bank robbery. After all, the time and place are set and both offer a good chance of armed resistance. Aside from the rare "novelty round" like the five-seven there are no common pistols capable of defeating good soft armor (that I aware of). A PPC won't do so either, nor will a 12 ga with buck or slugs.

So does the chance that the BG might armored enter into the equation when you, the members of THR, choose a gun for home defense? After all, while it's impractical to tote an M4 with all day (unless you live in Faluja) it's certainly possible to have one by the nightstand.

Pistol, shotgun or rifle- do you plan for the possibility of facing armor?

 

[Bobson]

Pistol, shotgun or rifle- do you plan for the possibility of facing armor?

Not in the sense of changing my weapon or ammunition. Rather, I plan for the possibility that a center-mass shot (or shots) may not stop a threat, regardless of the tool I might be using.

 

[Field Tester]

On the flip side you run into issues of over penetration if they're not wearing armor and that's what you've prepared for.

Several shots center mass is still going to hurt. If at that point you can't stop the threat, run. If you can't run, then start taking head shots.

While it's impossible to prepare for every scenario, prepare for the one that is most likely.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

My understanding is that, perhaps counter-intuitively, a 5.56 round will typically overpenetrate less than a 9mm. I suppose the type of bullet is important but I think that even something like the green-tip steel core penetrator will tumble after hitting a few obstacles. Point taken though. One always has to be thinking of the backstop.

I suspect that the use of armor among BGs isn't super common although there have been a few high profile instances of its use (eg the famous Hollywood bank shootout). I would be pretty confident in the ability of a PPC to do the job if the adversary wasn't wearing armor. But unless you're handing out invites and the BG rsvp's, you won't know for sure what party favors they'll bring.

 

[Sam1911]

Home invasions are pretty low-probability events for most of us. As in, most of us will live our whole lives without having someone break and enter our house while we're there. Having said that, we should and do prepare and practice to defend in that situation.

However, until and unless there is a documented increase in the numbers of such crimes where the intruders actually are kitting up in body armor, I don't think it is terribly important to change weapons just to meet that, seemingly very remote, possibility.

Especially as, as Bobson said, there is a common practice drill that seeks to answer that works with whatever weapon you might be using.

Now, if you discover that some month there are reports that a gang is working in your area whose M.O. involves invasions of occupied homes and armoring up, yeah I might consider changing my defensive gun just to meet that altered threat profile.

However, if notice came around that ANY group of violent actors was heavily working in my area I'd probably look to making a few other defensive improvements (hardening the house, removing incentives, etc.) to try and defray the risk of a gunfight, period.

 

[Tirod]

While it's impossible to prepare for every scenario, prepare for the one that is most likely.

The vast majority of home invasions fit into one of two situations: It's the cops banging down your door, they will be wearing armor. Second, it's your drug dealers thugs coming in to kill you for taking his merchandise and gf, too.

That leaves the very rare incident of somebody making a mistake. Otherwise, you aren't worth the risk unless there is a decent payout, which goes to how did they know? Somebody is showing off their good fortune to the wrong people. And that leads right back to the first two situations. A complete lack of "operational awareness" and some common sense tend to dominate the initial setup.

What does come into play with a home defense situation is that, while handguns are extremely portable and can be discreetly left around a house, their purpose is to get you to a rifle. And that rifle needs the capability to shoot thru walls or doors that are being demolished in order for the perps to attack you. The idea that bullets need to have no overpenetration is great for innocent bystanders near a police shootout, but I don't want to be limited by that special circumstance when the chips are down. A home invasion can and will quickly become a two way shooting event, being hampered by an inability to return effective fire is not a good thing.

There are concerns that you may hit other family members where they might be sleeping, or that a bullet to pass thru and hit a neighbor in the next house. If you walk thru your house and plan out your shooting lanes, you will know exactly which directions are largely safer, and also what the perps rounds may strike behind you. That can be even more important than where your bullets are going.

It then becomes incumbent on the homeowner to start deescalating the entire point of a invasion to begin with - how did you get the attention of the people who then chose to pick on you? It's not done randomly or without prior thought, in a lot of cases the individuals are especially targeted because of some social interaction they have had. Again, see the first two majority situations.

Point being, when a rifle is used, it turns the cover a perp thinks he has into bullet riddled concealment, and they reconsider if it's worth the risk. In most of the threads that ask questions about this scenario, the one thing I never hear discussed is planning out the lanes of fire and then thinking thru where the backstops are. Most of the time it's a consideration of what cartridge is the least effective for harming the neighbors at the risk of elevating the perps ability to overcome the situation. That isn't good tactics. Start with sufficient firepower to match the potential threat, and then exercise good planning to maximize the inherent three to one advantage the defense has.

Maybe the question is better in the reverse - do YOU have body armor readily at hand if and when they come busting thru the door? Analyze your risk first and judge the expense vs probability. No sense undergunning yourself against a threat and then deliberately having less protection than the home invader, too. While we may not agree with the VP about "just shoot thru the door," there's no guarantee they won't.

Also goes to, do you have video or a way to see who's banging on the door? In many cases the residents open it willingly as they are just being neighborly answering a knock.

 

[lemaymiami]

Here's the advice I gave my young guys if they encountered armored opponents.... If you suspect in any way that you're torso shots aren't being effective then go to the targets available that can't be armored - the feet, the head, the hands, etc.

Most that use and enjoy firearms are pretty much armchair commandos when it comes to this sort of stuff. On the street you'll only have micro seconds to shape the tactics that can/will save your life. Concentrating on tactics as opposed to hardware is the way to go as far as I'm concerned once you've learned the basics about weapons use. There are times when the most effective tactic is to go to cover or withdraw or to use some other means than firearms (if I can even suggest that here....) to end or win in an engagement. Lots more about this sort of stuff but it won't be on a public forum.

In short if two center of mass hits aren't effective immediately go to the targets that can't be armored. By the way, guys I've spoken to that were actually hit while wearing body armor (I wore mine darned nearly every day on duty for about 22 years - and learned to hate the stuff since it's hot, uncomfortable, etc.) had very similar experiences. Almost all said it was like getting hit by a fastball from a strong pitcher... In other words it pretty much knocked them down at first....

 

[HexHead]

Practice head and pelvic shots.

 

[sota]

Mosambique Drill.
It's not THE answer to all problems, but it's a decent starting point.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Tirod: The vast majority of home invasions fit into one of two situations: It's the cops banging down your door, they will be wearing armor. Second, it's your drug dealers thugs coming in to kill you for taking his merchandise and gf, too.

That leaves the very rare incident of somebody making a mistake.

Neither the incidents we have had in our suburban area in the last several years, nor the ones I experienced some years ago, meet any of those conditions.

What does come into play with a home defense situation is that, while handguns are extremely portable and can be discreetly left around a house, their purpose is to get you to a rifle.

Mine are not so intended.

And that rifle needs the capability to shoot thru walls or doors that are being demolished in order for the perps to attack you.

That is not my preferred strategy.

There are concerns that ... that a bullet to pass thru and hit a neighbor in the next house.

Yes.

Bookcases are a good idea.

If you walk thru your house and plan out your shooting lanes, you will know exactly which directions ...

I cannot imagine thinking that one would be able to "plan out" one's "shooting lanes".

One will have to shoot at the target when need arises, and not a moment later, and from wherever one might be at the time.

 

[Double_J]

A number of years ago I read an article about the pelvic shot being preferred by the Israeli sky marshals. I also saw that same article recommend the "belt buckle" shot for stopping an opponent if torso shots were not working. The idea being to break the pelvic girdle, which then leads to the bad guy falling down, and possibly damaging the femoral artery or other major blood source.

I wish I could remember who wrote that article, and where I read it but it has been over 10+ years ago. I also asked an LEO friend about it and got the advice it was a good tactic for up close in your face to about 10 feet away. I also see a lot of head shots being taken but the head is a very small target and can move independently of the body. Whatever you do make sure to practice it until it is stone cold muscle memory, and practice situational awareness.

 

[Sam1911]

What does come into play with a home defense situation is that, while handguns are extremely portable and can be discreetly left around a house, their purpose is to get you to a rifle. ... And that rifle needs the capability to shoot thru walls or doors that are being demolished in order for the perps to attack you.

I'd say that sounds more like a siege, and/or assassination attempt than a simple home invasion robbery. I find the idea that you'll be engaging in extended two-way gun battle, such that you'd fire on the intruders with your handgun and then retreat to your stored rifle and still have cause to shoot and targets to engage that are advancing on your position to be far-fetched for almost any of us who fall into the category of "regular guy."

(Not so, perhaps, if you're an important player in a criminal enterprise, a public official, a very wealthy person or family member of one, certain law enforcement/prosecution types, embassy/diplomatic personnel, or a secret agent/spy. Most of us are not.)

Probably even less likely than the average opportunistic home burglar/robber to be wearing body armor.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The vast majority of home invasions fit into one of two situations: It's the cops banging down your door, they will be wearing armor. Second, it's your drug dealers thugs coming in to kill you for taking his merchandise and gf, too.

That leaves the very rare incident of somebody making a mistake. Otherwise, you aren't worth the risk unless there is a decent payout, which goes to how did they know? Somebody is showing off their good fortune to the wrong people. And that leads right back to the first two situations. A complete lack of "operational awareness" and some common sense tend to dominate the initial setup.

This completely ignores the home invasions in which material/monetary gains are either not a motivating factor, or are secondary. Some people are just sick, and they break into homes to assault, rape and/or murder people. May not be that common, but it hits home hard when it happens to one of your family members. My father and stepmother died in their bed because a 17 year old delinquent had murder on the brain. That was his only motive.

Tends to make one rethink strategies. I live in a peaceful, rural area, but still plan for the worst. No, I don't have electrified 8' fences with barbed wire, but I do button up windows and doors, have dogs and cameras, a handgun on the night stand and, within one step of the bed, a 5.56mm AR and a level III vest.

 

[MedWheeler]

Not really. If they're thinking body armor for survival, they're planning to actually survive.

That means they know their best chances of that come with flight when fired upon.

Sometimes, premeditation on the part of a burglar can be a good thing; it means they understand the risks and wish to mitigate them.

Doped-up meth-heads and whacked-out nutjobs typically don't plan enough ahead to procure and don body armor.

 

[Apachedriver]

I cannot imagine thinking that one would be able to "plan out" one's "shooting lanes".

One will have to shoot at the target when need arises, and not a moment later, and from wherever one might be at the time.

I disagree with the first sentence and only partially agree with the second.

Over-penetration and backstops are always a concern while we are out and about in our daily lives away from home. Why would it be any different in a fixed setting with a familiar layout?

Determining and using fields of fire is a part any good defensive plan in a fixed setting. I'm not talking about setting up for the siege at Khe Sanh or the battle of Falluja, but it is for the same principle; to restrict further entry and repel the intruder(s) while reducing the danger of your defensive gunfire to your family members and neighbors.

At its most basic, stop in each room of your abode. Look at what would be flagged by your firearm if you had to defend yourself at that moment during a home invasion. What is the most likely location of your spouse and/or children during waking hours? During sleep? How about overnight guests? Set yourself right and left visual limits for firing and REHEARSE the basic scenario; not one with ninjas swinging down from the roof.

It's very doable, useful, and not overly time consuming. You might be surprised at what you find to be available as well as vulnerable.

 

[Jeff White]

If the attacker doesn't go down with hits to the torso, shoot for the head, legs, whatever you can see. Handguns are poor choices when it comes to quickly disabling someone to start with. Don't be surprised if you shoot someone not wearing body armor in the torso and he doesn't immediately fall over dead.

Learn and practice a failure drill. A hammer to the torso and a controlled pair to the head, or a hammer to the torso and a controlled pair to the groin, thigh or any other part of the assailant you can see.

I wouldn't get all wrapped up looking for AP loads or switching to a rifle as your primary home defense weapon over the slight possibility that your intruder may be armored up.

 

[Old Dog]

The greater Puget Sound region actually seems to be Home Invasion Central. Fortunately, especially in Pierce County, the score is well in favor of the homeowners.

We've had one case that I know of in the East Sound where the bad guys wore wearing what appeared to be body armor (may have simply been black "tac vests").

Pistol, shotgun or rifle- do you plan for the possibility of facing armor?

While at home, I can say that I am prepared for the possibility solely due to our tools at hand and training ... but if someone's trying to come in and they're wearing body armor, the odds are probably already not in my favor ...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Apachedriver: Determining and using fields of fire is a part any good defensive plan in a fixed setting.... to restrict further entry and repel the intruder(s) while reducing the danger of your defensive gunfire to your family members and neighbors.

Well, just about any setting is "fixed".

If one does detect and react to an unlawful entry at the point and time of ingress, one's objective can certainly be to restrict further entry and repel the intruder(s). And one can and should have a plan to do that.

However, not all home layouts and not all incursions lend themselves to that.

In our case, it is likely that a tumultuous entry would made rapidly, without warning, and with force. The situation could well require the defenders to react to rapidly moving attackers who had already entered and who might have to be engaged at any angle(s) from any point in the house. That is why I carry at home. It precludes the development of any but the most general plan.

Now, if it is possible to get to a "safe room", and while it just might be possible I think it would be unlikely unless the event happened after we had retired, the situation would be different.

At its most basic, stop in each room of your abode. Look at what would be flagged by your firearm if you had to defend yourself at that moment during a home invasion. What is the most likely location of your spouse and/or children during waking hours? During sleep? How about overnight guests? Set yourself right and left visual limits for firing and REHEARSE the basic scenario; not one with ninjas swinging down from the roof.

That sounds reasonable, but I think one has to be more flexible--one can think "backstop" and move accordingly. One can try to "set limits". But at least in our case, the number of variables is far too great to allow one to develop a specific defensive plan.

I almost always know where my spouse is. I know which rooms of the closest neighbors' houses are usually occupied, by time of day. I have scanned aerial photos and analyzed potential trajectories of bullets passing though window glass and unprotected walls into the neighborhood. I try to keep all that in mind. But I cannot predict the locations of pedestrian passers-by and motorists.

I stand by the statement that in most cases not involving a safe room, or at least some indication that an entry is in progress at a specific point of ingress, I cannot count on being able to "plan out" my "shooting lanes."

Now, if both the number of potential points of ingress, and the number of places from which they can be seen, are much lower than in our case, the task becomes a whole lot simpler.

 

[Onward Allusion]

If you CAN, go for the groin or neck. I know I know, pretty hard to do when in panic mode. Just something to consider. <ahem> A shot with a 22LR to the groin will STOP most guys. However, I will have to admit that I get some strange looks at the range when I paste Shoot-N-See targets down there (not so much at the neck).

Hell, this is what I tell my boys. If they ever get into a bad situation where its life or death, a pen is sometimes pretty mighty - in the neck or groin.

 

[lemaymiami]

Read all the posts and thought I'd add one more bit of info.... down here in paradise (south florida) we've had our share of police impersonators (out and out robbers wearing police gear). Most of that sort of stuff was years ago when cocaine cowboys were makiing this area a lot more interesting than it should have been. In recent years most of that sort of stuff (lemay's favorite dope deal... no one brings dope, no one brings money - everyone brings guns...) seems to have died down but the memory lingers...

The real problem for an armed citizen is that he or she will not have but a fraction of a second before things get ugly in a serious confrontation and you have be pretty cold-blooded to note whether your opponent is wearing armor before things get hot. As a result aiming for something that is vulnerable after centered shots are ineffective is really important (never mind whether it's body armor or just someone feeling no pain and still standing after a killing shot... you've got to act, period....). I never encountered this myself and hope I never do....

 

[HighExpert]

I am with Soto. I consider the first two (lung shots) to be distractions the third, head shot to get the job done. I practice at an outdoor range with a 1/2 size silhouette at 10 yds. Pick up gun, fire three and lay it down..repeat. Hits are about 95% with a 2 second time. Should get most folks attention.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

PER Federal a 12 gauge
2 3/4" with 1 oz sabot slug: (1859 foot pounds of energy )@ 25 yds, 1423 at 100.

Now that much energy will knock a man with a vest off his feet and should knock him out of the fight for a bit. So that why my 12 gauge have 00 and slugs in it.

 

[Shimitup]

I had heard years ago that something big as handguns go like .44 mag could be fatal from blunt trauma if taken near the heart. I do not know if this was true, or if so has body armor has evolved to such a point not to be the case.

 

[zerobarrier]

I have a storm in 9mm set up for home defense with a blinding bright surefire light and 30 or 32 round mag in the rifle. If BG is wearing body armor then a few shots to the chest will still hurt and you can do quick follow up shots with the storm. Its going to make it hard for him to shoot back while he keeps getting hit in the chest. In my opinion the storm would still be fine and I would not change to another HD gun. I also always have a side arm on me as well.

 

[Liberty1776]

does the chance that the BG might armored enter into the equation when you, the members of THR, choose a gun for home defense

no...he's going to get shot with whatever I have to hand...