I've read a couple of posts here about the self-defense features of a rifle. I'm confused by the assertion, unless you live in a rural area. Otherwise, wouldn't a rifle be a little much if we're talking about defense in a suburban home? I imagine the rifle slug going through about 3 houses.
Rifle for Self-Defense?
- Thread starter Nick_007
- Start date
- Status
Sav .250
Member
For my money it`s a semi-auto (cal of your choice). Fast to point. Multi rounds available, just point and pull. Wife/partner/ girl-friend friendly. Easy to conceal.
Try hiding a rifle/shotgun under your pillow. Some folks just like the idea of having a long gun for protection. Different strokes for different folks.
Try hiding a rifle/shotgun under your pillow. Some folks just like the idea of having a long gun for protection. Different strokes for different folks.
Depends on the cartridge and bullet used in the rifle. Pretty much any ammunition that is suitable for
self defense will go through walls if you miss and sometimes even when you don't. (Buckshot included)
A .223 Rem. Hollow Point is less likely then a .30-06 FMJ to go through your target.
A .357 Mag. 125 Grain JHP out of a carbine is less likely then a 158 Grain Soft Point in the same.
These aren't rules or laws they are probabilities. One is less likely then the other but there
are no guarantees.
self defense will go through walls if you miss and sometimes even when you don't. (Buckshot included)
A .223 Rem. Hollow Point is less likely then a .30-06 FMJ to go through your target.
A .357 Mag. 125 Grain JHP out of a carbine is less likely then a 158 Grain Soft Point in the same.
These aren't rules or laws they are probabilities. One is less likely then the other but there
are no guarantees.
earlthegoat2
Member
I think a Winchester 30-30 would be great for home defense.....but not in an apartment.
Must be rural.
Must be rural.
jimmyraythomason
Member
Inside my home, I want my Ruger P90,.45acp. If I feel I need a rifle(outside my home) I would opt for the wife's M1 .30cal carbine. This is a matter of choice because I also could choose from Ar15, SKS, Mossy 500 12ga and a dozen or so big game rifles.
Inside (and outside) my home, I carry a hand gun. If I am not near a long gun (and can't escape safely), I will defend myself with what I am carrying.
My "plan" is that if and when I have locked myself in my bedroom I will be holding my AR (kept in my bedroom along with a 12 gauge) and have my carry weapon in its holster.
My "plan" is that if and when I have locked myself in my bedroom I will be holding my AR (kept in my bedroom along with a 12 gauge) and have my carry weapon in its holster.
Here's one Chuck Hawk's take on the matter........
Entire article can be found at http://www.chuckhawks.com/guns_home_defense.htm
Entire article can be found at http://www.chuckhawks.com/guns_home_defense.htm
Last edited:
Arbor
Member
Bullet construction has more to do with overpenetration than caliber, and some rifle bullets penetrate a lot more than others. That said, a .223 hollowpoint is less likely to go through walls than a shotgun slug or any viable pistol round, so it is actually one of the safest things to use in an urban area, provided you use light, frangible bullets.
Imagination is good, but knowledge is better.
Depending upon the rifle and ammunition you will get anywhere between 3 and 6 wall thicknesses of penetration. That's 2x4 with drywall on each side construction. This is also about what you'd get with a handgun.
Careful selection of .223 frangible ammunition penetrated 1.5 wall thicknesses in tests we did (one full wall and the next layer of drywall, but not exiting the 4th drywall sheet). 55gr .223 penetrated 3 wall thicknesses. 9mm, 40cal and 45cal pistol penetrated 5 wall thicknesses.
So what doesn't penetrate? Nothing. Nothing doesn't penetrate interior walls. Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun all penetrate more than 1 wall thickness.
The least penetrating was frang .223 and 2 3/4 birdshot for about 1.5 wall thicknesses.
YMMV
Z-Michigan
Member
I think hso has nailed it. Also, a lot of us do live in rural areas. In a dense urban or suburban area you need to think about overpenetration and consider using a frangible bullet load or a shotgun with smaller than ideal (for effect) pellets, either way to limit overpenetration and minimize the chance of hurting someone unintended.
CoRoMo
Member
Exactly. Ammo is designed to penetrate, and it will.
CLICK HERE to read through the Box-o-Truth Wall Test FWIW.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Keep in mind that firearms are simply bullet delivery mechanisms.
What KIND of bullet is in use determines penetration or overpenetration, not what machine was used to launch it.
Well if you live in a place that restricts handgun ownership a long gun might be all you can have. Beats a sharp stick and harsh language.
MTMilitiaman
Member
There is absolutely no reason not to use a rifle carbine for self-defense, and a good deal of reasons to use a rifle carbine for self-defense.
Among these:
-A rifle carbine with appropriate expanding ammunition will provide adequate but not excessive penetration for defensive purposes. In some cases, expanding ammunition may provide too little penetration (such as 55 gr and lighter varmint bullets), and a great deal of evidence exists to suggest the 5.56 actually poses less of a risk of over penetration than most defensive handgun and shotgun rounds.
-A rifle carbine boast terminal effects vastly superior to all pistols. If a .45 is "good enough" for you, then so be it. Many of us recognize the advantage posed and the increase in survivability afforded by increased terminal effect. Since this terminal effect is accomplished while maintaining 12 to 16 inches of penetration in tissue, there is no reason not to take advantage of it.
-Most people hit faster and more accurately with a carbine than with a handgun. This effect is magnified when shooting under duress, such as in low light against moving targets under threat of imminent death. The fact that most modern semi-automatic carbines can easily attach a high quality red dot or reflex sight further increases speed and accuracy at in house distances.
-Most rifle carbines have magazine capacities that are several times that of most handguns. While the average fun fight may only be a few rounds, planning for the average may find you in need of more, and at any rate, no one ever lost a gunfight because they had a few extra rounds in the magazine.
-Recoil/controllability. Even a full power 7.62x51mm battle rifle such as an M1A Scout or Para FAL loaded with appropriate ammunition, such as Hornady's 155 or 168 gr TAP, is going to have much less recoil than most 12 gauge shotguns, regardless of their operating mechanisms. With this ammunition, they not only provide much better control, but still boast 70% of the terminal ballistics of a typical 00 buck load is just a bonus. The intermediate powered carbines like the ARs and AKs are more controllable but slightly less potent. You can operate in double taps with a rifle carbine and still engage at least as many times as most handguns and on the order of twice that of some shotguns. There's that magazine capacity going to work for ya. And if you can shoot a 9mm or .45 automatic to the same level of speed and accuracy as a rifle carbine, you just need more practice with the carbine, and that is all there is to it...
Everyone knows not to bring a knife to a gunfight. Some people have to learn not to bring a handgun to a longgun fight, or a shotgun to a rifle fight.
Rifles are king. You are in a rifleman's kingdom.
Among these:
-A rifle carbine with appropriate expanding ammunition will provide adequate but not excessive penetration for defensive purposes. In some cases, expanding ammunition may provide too little penetration (such as 55 gr and lighter varmint bullets), and a great deal of evidence exists to suggest the 5.56 actually poses less of a risk of over penetration than most defensive handgun and shotgun rounds.
-A rifle carbine boast terminal effects vastly superior to all pistols. If a .45 is "good enough" for you, then so be it. Many of us recognize the advantage posed and the increase in survivability afforded by increased terminal effect. Since this terminal effect is accomplished while maintaining 12 to 16 inches of penetration in tissue, there is no reason not to take advantage of it.
-Most people hit faster and more accurately with a carbine than with a handgun. This effect is magnified when shooting under duress, such as in low light against moving targets under threat of imminent death. The fact that most modern semi-automatic carbines can easily attach a high quality red dot or reflex sight further increases speed and accuracy at in house distances.
-Most rifle carbines have magazine capacities that are several times that of most handguns. While the average fun fight may only be a few rounds, planning for the average may find you in need of more, and at any rate, no one ever lost a gunfight because they had a few extra rounds in the magazine.
-Recoil/controllability. Even a full power 7.62x51mm battle rifle such as an M1A Scout or Para FAL loaded with appropriate ammunition, such as Hornady's 155 or 168 gr TAP, is going to have much less recoil than most 12 gauge shotguns, regardless of their operating mechanisms. With this ammunition, they not only provide much better control, but still boast 70% of the terminal ballistics of a typical 00 buck load is just a bonus. The intermediate powered carbines like the ARs and AKs are more controllable but slightly less potent. You can operate in double taps with a rifle carbine and still engage at least as many times as most handguns and on the order of twice that of some shotguns. There's that magazine capacity going to work for ya. And if you can shoot a 9mm or .45 automatic to the same level of speed and accuracy as a rifle carbine, you just need more practice with the carbine, and that is all there is to it...
Everyone knows not to bring a knife to a gunfight. Some people have to learn not to bring a handgun to a longgun fight, or a shotgun to a rifle fight.
Rifles are king. You are in a rifleman's kingdom.
MTMilitiaman
Member
I normally enjoy Chuck's stuff, but he couldn't be more wrong. Either the original article was written before a time of carbines and expanding ammo, or he's chosen to ignore these options. Either way, he's wrong. Flat out. No ifs, ands. or buts about it. Wrong. Dead wrong.
Negative. A single point sling is quick and easy to use. Basic weapon retention is relatively easy to teach, and if all else fails, all you do is hold on tight and drop to the floor. This will force the aggressor to support your entire weight with his arms and will bring the bore inline with his torso, at which point, you give him something to worry about more than you. It couldn't be simpler. Gravity does all the work.
This in addition to the fact that searching even your own house by yourself is foolish and tactically unsound. And if you're not trying to sweep and clear like Steven Segal, no one should have the opportunity to grab your muzzle. Again, simple. Post up in a hallway or staircase and wait it out. The only time you should ever search a house by yourself is if absolutely necessary, such as when retrieving children.
And again, the same old tired over penetration dribble is so uneducated and wrong, I almost refuse to believe Chuck uttered such nonsense. It's really out of character.
Well if rifles suck because they are hard to control indoors, then a shotgun that is longer and possibly heavier sucks more. A handgun? Nope. Not even close.
Sorry Chuck. Wrong again. Little use debating it. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass 'go.' Do not collect $200.
Negative. A single point sling is quick and easy to use. Basic weapon retention is relatively easy to teach, and if all else fails, all you do is hold on tight and drop to the floor. This will force the aggressor to support your entire weight with his arms and will bring the bore inline with his torso, at which point, you give him something to worry about more than you. It couldn't be simpler. Gravity does all the work.
This in addition to the fact that searching even your own house by yourself is foolish and tactically unsound. And if you're not trying to sweep and clear like Steven Segal, no one should have the opportunity to grab your muzzle. Again, simple. Post up in a hallway or staircase and wait it out. The only time you should ever search a house by yourself is if absolutely necessary, such as when retrieving children.
And again, the same old tired over penetration dribble is so uneducated and wrong, I almost refuse to believe Chuck uttered such nonsense. It's really out of character.
Well if rifles suck because they are hard to control indoors, then a shotgun that is longer and possibly heavier sucks more. A handgun? Nope. Not even close.
Sorry Chuck. Wrong again. Little use debating it. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass 'go.' Do not collect $200.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
Rifles are real weapons with some real power. Pistols are carried for convenience and when one is not anticipating a firefight. Rifles are what people take when they know there is trouble.
Plus, according to FBI studies, .223 will penetrate less than most handgun calibers anyways.
Plus, according to FBI studies, .223 will penetrate less than most handgun calibers anyways.
Deltaboy1984
Member
Work hard on learning to hit your target and that will take care of the problem.
Tamlin
Member
I agree that there are better choices for SD in the home than a rifle, but I'd take a lever action pistol caliber in a carbine any day. I have a 16" .357 lever that I wouldn't hesitate to use. Effective round, and just like the pump shotgun, the "kchk-kchk" of the lever cycling a round can be enough to make the BG drop a load in his shorts. BTW, the lever carbine is not one of my top three go-to weapons; I would grab my revolver, pistol and/or shotgun first, if given the opportunity.
Oh, he could be. And he sometimes is.
Not really...
Here, you're clearly wrong.
Handguns are much shorter and lighter than rifles or shotguns.
But back to the original question...
Why choose a rifle for a primary home defense gun?
Because the Cool Kids say it's the thing to do!
Seriously, while penetration isn't the real problem, there are other reasons to make various choices. I haven't been to your house, and you haven't been to mine. I won't tell you what your best choice is, nor do I think you know what my best choice is.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
There is a lot of good information on this subject in any one of the previous 100 discussions of it (several of which are in the Rifle Forum Reading Library at the top of this forum).
People need to understand that anything that will not penetrate drywall is probably not going to be very effective in self-defense. Anything that is effective in self-defense will penetrate multiple interior walls and still pose a potentially lethal threat. The idea is to:
A) Hit the target. If you do this, concerns of overpenetration with all firearms drop dramatically. What weapon do you hit best with under stress and in less than peak condition?
B) Stop the target quickly with as few shots as possible. Every shot you have to take is a ticket on the "Oops where did that go?" lottery. Every shot your opponent gets to take that doesn't hit you is in the same category, except he probably isn't worried as much about his background. Stopping the fight as fast as possible reduces the number of rounds fired on both sides. Which of your firearms best does this?
C) Choose your ammunition wisely. A 240gr semi-wad cutter .44 special out of a 3" revolver barrel will way outpenetrate a 5.56mm 55gr Nosler Ballistic Tip out of a 16" rifle barrel. However, if you load up the 5.56mm with a bonded FMJ, it is going to penetrate a lot of stuff. A child can put his hand through drywall with a little effort - choosing your home defense load based on not penetrating drywall is probably not a good idea.
What is a more likely danger? An attacker in your house doing something serious enough to justify the use of lethal force or a misplaced round from you? If your answer is that you are more dangerous, maybe you should reconsider using a firearm for self-defense. If the attacker is the primary risk, then getting enough penetration to reliably cause a physiological stop (as opposed to a psychological one) is a greater concern than how much drywall it will go through if it misses.
People need to understand that anything that will not penetrate drywall is probably not going to be very effective in self-defense. Anything that is effective in self-defense will penetrate multiple interior walls and still pose a potentially lethal threat. The idea is to:
A) Hit the target. If you do this, concerns of overpenetration with all firearms drop dramatically. What weapon do you hit best with under stress and in less than peak condition?
B) Stop the target quickly with as few shots as possible. Every shot you have to take is a ticket on the "Oops where did that go?" lottery. Every shot your opponent gets to take that doesn't hit you is in the same category, except he probably isn't worried as much about his background. Stopping the fight as fast as possible reduces the number of rounds fired on both sides. Which of your firearms best does this?
C) Choose your ammunition wisely. A 240gr semi-wad cutter .44 special out of a 3" revolver barrel will way outpenetrate a 5.56mm 55gr Nosler Ballistic Tip out of a 16" rifle barrel. However, if you load up the 5.56mm with a bonded FMJ, it is going to penetrate a lot of stuff. A child can put his hand through drywall with a little effort - choosing your home defense load based on not penetrating drywall is probably not a good idea.
What is a more likely danger? An attacker in your house doing something serious enough to justify the use of lethal force or a misplaced round from you? If your answer is that you are more dangerous, maybe you should reconsider using a firearm for self-defense. If the attacker is the primary risk, then getting enough penetration to reliably cause a physiological stop (as opposed to a psychological one) is a greater concern than how much drywall it will go through if it misses.
Last edited:
USSR
Member
Small, light, low recoiling, high capacity, and relatively quiet.
Don
Don
I use a pistol because my safe is downstairs. I don't want to have to carry my carbine up and downstairs to the safe twice a day. I'm also concerned that if I used my AR or AK, a prosecutor would make that an issue when I go to court for using force to defend my home. It's amazing and sad that so many people think these guns should only be used by police and military. That is definitely something to think about.
duckman007
Member
While this may be true on the battlefield, it makes absolutely no sense in the civilian world. Are you seriously suggesting that handguns are not real weapons? While no one is suggesting that a .380 has the same power or range as a 30-06, I truly hope that you wouldn't simply dismiss one as a toy if someone pulled one on you. Also, I've personally never found carrying a handgun to be convenient. Necessary at times, but never convenient.
Look, I'm not trying to flame you, but I think you need to proof your posts and not make such irresponsible statements. The OP is asking a legitimate question regarding the feasibility of a rifle for home defense. A rifle is a fine choice for home defense, as is a shotgun or a handgun. Neither pistols or shotguns are toys, and both will kill a bad guy just as dead as rifle.
I've trained with a lot of people using both long guns and handguns. Some people never really did well with the handgun, but did OK with the long gun. Others did great with the handgun, but couldn't hit squat with the long gun. Some did well with both. While I don't know about the OP, it's a sad fact that most people either under train or don't train at all when it comes to the weapon they select for home defense. To me, a rifle is only a viable choice for home defense if, and only if, the user is proficient with close quarter combat using a rifle. If the user is proficient, then a rifle is an excellent choice. If not, the first thing that's going to happen is the bad guy will grab the barrel from around a corner and take the rifle away.
One last thing, I don't worry too much about over penetration. I live in the suburbs and have houses near me. It's not that I don't care about the civil liability or that I have no concern for my neighbor's well being, I'm concerned with both. But I'm more concerned with my family surviving an intruder, I'll deal with everything else after my family is safe. Also, the fact is that my house, and my neighbor's houses as well, all have windows. I can shoot a BB gun through my window and have it go through my neighbor's window and hit them, so even a .22 short will over penetrate and be deadly. I can't position the bad guy in the safest, most advantageous location so as to provide the maximum safety to me and the minimum danger to my neighbors in the event I miss. I have to understand that the bad guy is going to be where he is, and will probably be moving once he's aware of my presence. It's up to me to be prepared and properly trained so as to deal with the bad guy on his terms and not miss. I can do this with a handgun, a shotgun, or a rifle. I'm better with a handgun, so that's what I use. And I assure you that it doesn't have an orange tip.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Are you seriously suggesting that if you knew you were going to get into a gun fight, even in the civilian world, that you'd chose a handgun over a rifle to fight with?
There is nothing about a handgun that makes this any less likely to happen. There's nothing magical about a handgun that makes retention 100% guaranteed.
Skillset, mindset, THEN worry about the toolset.
- Status
