Rifle for Self-Defense?

[RP88]

I'll take a rifle or shotgun over a handgun, that is for sure.

From there, I'd prefer my AR, because it is much more handier and lighter, and because the 55 gr bullet won't go too far, even in my suburban landscape. There are too many walls for it to go through before anyone could get hit. Sure, I will probably ruin my house, but there is a very unlikely chance of ruining anyone else's, let alone hitting someone who I wasn't aiming for.

 

[junyo]

A .45 acp,.38 sp.+P,.357mag,.44sp/.44mag.w/any bullet will kill a human as quickly and effectively at sd/hd ranges (from point blank to 15')as any rifle or shotgun when striking the head/heart of the BG. To say that handguns won't stop an intruder when hit center mass is just silly.

Not if the intruder is wearing body armor.

Are handguns effective? Sure. Are they as effectively as a centerfire rifle round? Not even close. Under ideal conditions both will get the job done, but conditions are rarely ideal. If you get a clean center mass shot, great. OTOH if your life depends on it and you only get one shot that has to plow through a moving forearm and a rib before it hits anything vital is 9x19 really just as good as 7.62x39 or 00 buck?

 

[1911 guy]

Personally, I use an AR with 16" barrel and 45gr JHP for HD. The velocity and HP make it far less likely to escape the confines of my lathe and plaster walls and knock a hole in my neighbors house than a .45ACP slug.

As far as retention, that's a learned skill, not some magic imparted by which weapon your pick up.

Depending on the situation, based on location of rooms and occupants as well as outside considerations like neighbors and other non-shootable things, either a handgun, shotgun or rifle may make sense for you.

 

[JShirley]

I imagine the rifle slug going through about 3 houses.

This is where a little research could come in handy.

If Chuck Hawks really wrote that, I think I'm no longer going to pay any attention to anything he has to say, because he has it exactly wrong. Light-for-caliber, high-speed projectiles usually penetrate less than slower, heavy-for-caliber ones.

There are two easy ways to check this assertion of mine (and checking what members post here is highly recommended): do a few minutes of research. Only accept reputable tests, not hearsay. The second way is to go get some form of test media, and shoot stuff. I personally use water-filled milk jugs. Take a handgun with known performance characteristics, such as a 124-grain 9x19mm Gold Dot. Fire this into your medium as your control. Then try a decent expanding rifle cartridge. You will find the difference between handgun and rifle rounds incredible.

I would not necessarily say the "most powerful" weapon should be the one selected. If I'm defending my home, I probably would not choose to grab a .35 Whelen. The Whelen's a very powerful round, but it's more of an elk and moose caliber than a HD caliber. Its heavy bullets will tend to give more penetration than I'd really like from a weapon I plan on using in my house. Sure, if I loaded a 180-grain .357 JHP at 2900 fps into my Whelen, it might be perfectly suitable for HD, but most Whelen ammunition is designed for heavier game, and will therefore penetrate more than useful.

John

 

[C-grunt]

A .45 acp,.38 sp.+P,.357mag,.44sp/.44mag.w/any bullet will kill a human as quickly and effectively at sd/hd ranges (from point blank to 15')as any rifle or shotgun when striking the head/heart of the BG. To say that handguns won't stop an intruder when hit center mass is just silly.

Many times a handgun wont stop an intruder with good COM or head shots. My frind has been in two shootings and both times his 230 grain Federal HST .45s ricochetted off of his attackers skull. One of our recent officer involved shootings had the attacker take a .45 ACP HST straight through COM from the side (ribcage entrance, opposite armpit exit) and he still had to be chased down and fought to arrest. They then walked him to the ambulance. He nearly died later.

A handgun is still a viable weapon, I carry one everywhere I go. But I dont carry it because of its superior stopping power. I carry it because its convenient and much easier than a long gun. A rifle (of proper fighting caliber) is way way way more effective than a handgun. Go compare some wounds to see what I mean.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

I'm thinking the M-1 30 carbine would be an excellent choice, or the Ruger 40 cal carbine, which uses their pistol mag's.

 

[Ignition Override]

A lady co-worker lives on land not far from New Albany (northeast) MS.
She told me that she heard some guys on horseback shooting at deer on her land and ignoring her "no trespassing" signs.

Jane approached them on foot with her M-1 Carbine and its high-capacity magazine, ordered them to comply with her trespassing signs.
She's from Texas and was very serious about this topic.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Good thing she wasn't carrying a handgun. They would have just laughed at her.

 

[duckman007]

mljdeckard,
I understand your point. Yes, I agree 100% that a 10/22 is more powerful than a .22 pistol, but that's not what I asked. I asked if you were saying that a 10/22 was more effective than a .44 Magnum pistol. We both know the answer to that.

The last thing I'm trying to do is to convince anyone that a handgun, any handgun, is more powerful than any rifle. And yes, a rifle is a excellent choice for home defense. However, so is a handgun. A term that has been used a lot in this thread is effective. I've found handguns to be quite effective, so are rifles. I also define effective as simply more than power. To me, the term effective, in this context, encompasses the USER'S ability to subdue the threat under the greatest variety of situations as quickly as possible with the fewest negative aspects. Some people are quite effective with a rifle, any rifle. Some are effective with a handgun. Why should a person who is more effective with a handgun lessen their odds of success by going to a rifle? Just because it's more powerful? This makes about as much sense a me telling someone who has never used a pistol, and has extensively trained with a rifle for close quarter combat to use a handgun for self defense.

If you haven't learned to maneuver inside a house with a carbine, you need to learn how

Telling someone to learn how to use a rifle for home defense is a great idea. Another good idea is to learn to be effective with a pistol and a shotgun, in addition to a rifle. If you feel that a rifle is your best option, then use it. You need to protect yourself as best you can, but why limit yourself? I'm comfortable with a long gun for self defense. I have trained in using a long gun. I have trained in close quarter combat. I have two handguns and two carbines close by when I sleep.

However, I originally chimed into this thread in response to another post that insinuated that a handgun wasn't a real weapon. While yes, I am proficient with a carbine and have easy access, I grab the handgun. It has nothing to do with John Wayne movies, it has nothing to do with political correctness, it's about MY comfort level and MY effectiveness in my home. It's a real weapon, and an effective weapon. Outside my home, I'll grab my carbine, inside my home, I grab my Glock. When you've actually trained with both handgun and long gun, you know the strengths and weaknesses of both. I simply chose to have greater maneuverability over greater power. While yes, the handgun does have less power, it's not anemic and will stop an aggressor.

You do what you want. When it comes to protecting my family, I will not hesitate for one second to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.

Nothing wrong with that, assuming you can hit a fly with a sledgehammer. Me, I'll use a flyswatter. Just as effective, and easier to use.

 

[ESBragg]

It's worth noting that no rifle (even if you were insane enough to try using a 20mm anti-materiel one) can guarantee a one shot stop on a man sized target by firepower alone.

Physiologically the only way to get an instant stop with a firearm is to sever the upper spine or brain stem, and that is something that is entirely dependent on shot placement. A .22 is as good as 20 mm provided you hit.

Heart/lung shots are reliably lethal in a short period with pretty much any modern firearm bigger than a .22 with suitable ammunition. Depending on shot placement and timing the short period ranges from several seconds to several minutes. I should explain the timing comment; a strong impact on the heart at the right point in the beat cycle can cause instant cardiac arrest and is the mechanic resposible for 'instant' drops in chest shots in combat or hunting situations, it cannot be relied upon to happen though.

The truth is that no matter what firearm you use for personal defense under practical circumstances a determined attacker armed with a firearm should be assumed to be able to survive long enough to target you and fire one or more shots even after you have hit them. The thing to count on is not your firepower but the probability that the average attacker is likely to find, "hit the wall you are facing," to be a fairly challenging feat of marksmanship.

Personally I wouldn't recommend a firearm for home defense in most situations in first world countries. A can of mace, a tazer or two, a high intensity flashlight, a cell phone, and some zip ties or handcuffs are probably a better toolkit if you take the time to learn how to use them. Designed for short range, rapid incapacitation, non-lethal if used against you, and you're not in legal trouble if you use them and they work. Also if the silhoutte of the presumed evil dangerous intruder turns out to belong to someone you know and like it's a heck of a lot easier to turn off the tazer and rinse their face off than it is to do a bit of on the spot trauma surgery.

If you're really worried about a worst case scenario of mutliple, armed, determined agressors a short semi-auto carbine that's set up so that you find it easy to control for rapid short range fire is as good a choice as anything else.

If you actually want to be safer though, any firearm sufficiently accessable for personal defense is a bad choice if you come at it from a safety engineering/public health point of view. The probable cost of a lethal accidental discharge is far greater than the probable benefit of saving a life by shooting an attacker.

If you know someone is likely to come after you that's a very different case and a gun might be a real asset. It won't be enough though, you'd need a comprehensive security plan.

If you want to BE safer it's critical to understand the difference between things that are merely scary ( sharks, rattlesnakes, international terroists) and things that are genuinely dangerous ( the teenager down the street learning how to drive, going boating after a few beers, reroofing the house without fall protection).

If you just want to FEEL safer do whatever floats your boat but remember to try to keep an eye out for collateral damage.

 

[batjka]

If you want to be safe, don't put a swimming pool in your backyard. Extremely dangerous especially if you have small kids.

Now, if you want to defend your family, get a firearm, get familiar with it and hope you never have to use it. As Clint Smith says - you don't need a $1000 gun, you need to know how to run a gun you have.

 

[mljdeckard]

A .44 mag really isn't a defensive cartridge at all. Neither is a .22. A rifle in .44 mag is more effective than a pistol in .44 mag.

If someone knows how to use a pistol better than a rifle, they learned backwards. A rifle has a longer sight radius, making it easier to aim.

If you're not trying to convince anyone that a pistol is more powerful than a rifle, then how useful is it to tell them they are better off with a pistol? They should LEARN. Being more proficient with one kind of gun doesn't make it more effective than another kind of gun. There's a difference between effectiveness and your personal level of knowledge. That's the individual's shortcoming, NOT THE WEAPON'S shortcoming.

When did I ever say anyone shouldn't be proficient with rifle, pistol, and shotgun? I have all three ready right now.

You can't say a handgun WILL stop an aggressor. No weapon is guaranteed to stop anything. A rifle has a much higher likelihood. Most people who are hit with one shot from a handgun will RUN AWAY. That isn't good enough to stop their actions. Being unwilling to move a rifle to the front of the plan doesn't magically make a pistol more effective.

Under no circumstances is any .22 hit as good as a 20mm hit.

I am prepared to use deadly force in my home because it is safer than trying to detain an intruder in my home.

ESBragg, since you're obviously new in here, I'll let you in on our basic philosophy. It's better to be alive and broke than dead with no pending litigation. You are suggesting we haven't considered these things before.

If you KNOW someone is coming after you, you don't pick the right gun, you avoid them entirely.

I am not in a position to comment on the actual danger of sharks. I am however in a position to definitively and unequivocally state that I try as hard as I can to kill every single rattlesnake and terrorist I come across. (And there's more than one way to do both.)

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Oh good grief.

"Most people who are hit with one shot from a handgun will RUN AWAY."

 

[ArmedBear]

Under no circumstances is any .22 hit as good as a 20mm hit.

But a 9mm hit is as good as a .45 hit (see many threads for proof)...

A .45 that can be grabbed from a nightstand and deployed beats the hell out of an M1A that can't (or has to be stored, loaded, where little kids can get to it, in order to keep it accessible).

In an open field, with no other concerns, I'd rather defend myself with a .308 carbine than a .38 snubbie. The thing is, you're NOT in an open field, and you HAVE other concerns.

If you can use a rifle where you are, considering everything that goes into it, yes, it will be a very powerful defensive weapon. But it's not the only defensive weapon that ever makes sense.

 

[MP-44]

"Most people who are hit with one shot from a handgun will RUN AWAY."

You do hear that a lot in reportings of shootings that involve handguns. The bad guy gets shot by a home owner or business owner, and the police either find the BG outside in the yard, down the street or at the hospital.

 

[duckman007]

mljdeckard,

You sort of skated around the question regarding a .44 Magnum, but that's alright.

I think we're in agreement on several things, such as a person definitely has the right to defend his home, family, and life with whatever means necessary. If you can avoid a conflict, do so, but if it's brought into your home, fight back and defend yourself. Also, that no weapon, at least not one someone would use for home defense, is guaranteed to provide one shot, one kill in every scenario.

However, there are some things we will just have to disagree on, like the following:

If someone knows how to use a pistol better than a rifle, they learned backwards. A rifle has a longer sight radius, making it easier to aim.

Absolutely wrong! I can use both, but in the confines of a house, the handgun suits me better. Preference has nothing to do with the manner in which I learned. I actually learned to shoot a rifle first. I'm just more comfortable at close range with a pistol than a rifle. I have the training, the skill, and the confidence that I know that I can hit a man sized target, stationary or moving, up to 25 yards with ease. Beyond 25 yards, the advantage switches to the rifle for me.

I read this statement to say that if you prefer a pistol over a rifle, you're wrong. It's a matter of individual tastes and skills, not what you, or anyone else, would try to thrust upon them.

If you're not trying to convince anyone that a pistol is more powerful than a rifle, then how useful is it to tell them they are better off with a pistol?

I never stated that a pistol was better than a rifle. Read my posts! I said that a rifle is great for home defense. Some people, however, are better suited for a pistol than a rifle. Some are better with a shotgun. Shoot what best protects you. I did say that an untrained person is, based upon what I've seen, more likely to lose a rifle to a bad guy than a pistol. Not a guarantee, just more likely. Again, that's due to the length of the weapon and lack of training, not a design flaw with the rifle.

If the OP wants to become proficient with a rifle, great. I think he should. Just don't tell him that if he selects a pistol that he is doomed to a certain death at the hands of a bad guy as a pistol offers no protection as it's not a real weapon.

My original post, again, was in response to another post that insinuated handguns were not real weapons. Whether you prefer it or not, whether you chose to admit it or not, homes and lives are successfully defended and protected everyday with handguns. It's OK if you prefer a rifle. No one holds that against you, we're on the same team. But no one should try to tell a person who prefers a handgun in a certain situation that they are somehow ignorant or inferior.

Being more proficient with one kind of gun doesn't make it more effective than another kind of gun. There's a difference between effectiveness and your personal level of knowledge. That's the individual's shortcoming, NOT THE WEAPON'S shortcoming./QUOTE]

Again, Wrong! Being proficient means that YOU have a greater likelihood of actually hitting the target, therefore making that gun effective. I have seen people become afraid of a weapon because of recoil. They begin to flinch when they pull the trigger, and therefore miss. How effective is that person going to be with a gun they're afraid of in a home defense situation? Yes, that's a issue with the person and not the weapon, but again, effectiveness is not simply a measure of the weapon's power or range, there's more to it than that. Isn't it better that the person use a weapon that they're comfortable with and can actually hit the target with than to just say they need a rifle because it's more powerful?

Again, I simply want the OP, or whoever, to understand that they need to select the weapon that best fits them. I use a pistol, but that's not right for everyone. Same applies to a rifle, it's not right for everyone. I would rather they survive to fight another day than to perish because they made the wrong choice. I'm not trying to discount your choices, do what's best for you. I do ask that you accept the fact that handguns are a viable alternative, as is a shotgun.

 

[mljdeckard]

No, I said that just because you know how to use it better doesn't make it a better choice. If you are a caveman who has never seen a gun before, but knows how to use a knife, you would pick up the knife first. That doesn't make it better than the gun. If you say that you are sticking with a pistol because you know it better, what I HEAR is, "I don't have the time, means, or inclination to learn."

I won't tell him he's doomed to death for picking up a pistol instead of a rifle. (IF I BELIEVED THAT, I WOULDN'T CARRY ONE, WHICH I DO.) I DID say that a rifle is much more likely to stop the fight quickly. Which it IS.

 

[TCB in TN]

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.

Every time I hear that I just cringe! It is simple, IF you grab the end of my barrel and I pull back you are going to end up right in front of my barrel! I will bet you a pretty penny I can then get you to let go VERY quickly!

 

[sarduy]

home defence... ummm.... i live in an apartment and a 1911 .45acp is in my bed stand followed by a Glock-17 as a backup in case 8 rounds of .45acp dont cut it, i'm sure 17 or 32 rounds of 9mm will do just fine.

now...i keep my AR ready "full mag inserted in an empty chamber" in case my 2 handguns aren't enough (very very unlikely).

in a home defense scenario you don't just start shooting anything that moves, you need to make sure what you're shooting at, and a 45acp HP or 9mm +P HP don't penetrate that much compared to some centerfire rifles, but are very effective stopping a BG who come inside your house to harm you or your familly.

handguns are easy to handle, i want to see anyone trying to fight a BG with both hands holding the rifle inside a closet or a bathroom...

 

[benEzra]

It's worth noting that no rifle (even if you were insane enough to try using a 20mm anti-materiel one) can guarantee a one shot stop on a man sized target by firepower alone.

Physiologically the only way to get an instant stop with a firearm is to sever the upper spine or brain stem, and that is something that is entirely dependent on shot placement. A .22 is as good as 20 mm provided you hit.

True. However, for non-CNS hits, rifles do offer more incapacitation potential than handguns. One may quibble about whether pressure wave and cavitation effects are significant contributors to incapacitation with handgun calibers, but with rifle calibers using expanding ammunition, there is no question.

Heart/lung shots are reliably lethal in a short period with pretty much any modern firearm bigger than a .22 with suitable ammunition. Depending on shot placement and timing the short period ranges from several seconds to several minutes. I should explain the timing comment; a strong impact on the heart at the right point in the beat cycle can cause instant cardiac arrest and is the mechanic resposible for 'instant' drops in chest shots in combat or hunting situations, it cannot be relied upon to happen though.

Again, quite true. However, if you compare a .22LR bullet that makes a quarter-inch hole in the ventricles, and a high-energy rifle bullet that produces a temporary cavity larger than the heart as it passes through the ventricles, there is no comparison. They may both be comparably lethal, but the latter will incapacitate more quickly.

The truth is that no matter what firearm you use for personal defense under practical circumstances a determined attacker armed with a firearm should be assumed to be able to survive long enough to target you and fire one or more shots even after you have hit them. The thing to count on is not your firepower but the probability that the average attacker is likely to find, "hit the wall you are facing," to be a fairly challenging feat of marksmanship.

Which is why, if you are facing an armed attacker, it would be foolish to fire once or twice, stop shooting, and hope the attacker drops before he decides to shoot back. Such a situation, while rare, would be precisely the type of situation in which one would not want to be limited to a paramecium-sized 5-round magazine.

Personally I wouldn't recommend a firearm for home defense in most situations in first world countries. A can of mace, a tazer or two, a high intensity flashlight, a cell phone, and some zip ties or handcuffs are probably a better toolkit if you take the time to learn how to use them. Designed for short range, rapid incapacitation, non-lethal if used against you, and you're not in legal trouble if you use them and they work.

It is extremely inadvisable to use any defensive spray indoors as it will incapacitate you as well. Also, mace is of very questionable efficacy. Also, it is possible for an enraged attacker to fight after being sprayed with OC, even if he is blinded, and an enraged blinded man in close quarters with a knife would still be a fearsome opponent.

A Taser functions like a one- or two-shot handgun with rudimentary sights, a 21-foot range, and little reload capability. If you are questioning the ability of the average person under stress to effectively hit an attacker with a 15-round handgun, the Taser would be harder still. You also can't afford to shoot a Taser regularly for proficiency.

IMO, the Taser's niche is as a bridge weapon in nonlethal altercations that do not rise to the level of "imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm", or in law enforcement use when backed up by another officer with a real gun.

Also if the silhoutte of the presumed evil dangerous intruder turns out to belong to someone you know and like it's a heck of a lot easier to turn off the tazer and rinse their face off than it is to do a bit of on the spot trauma surgery.

That is why I have a light on my primary defensive firearm. Shooting at unidentified things in the dark, whether with a firearm or a Taser, is exceedingly unwise.

If you actually want to be safer though, any firearm sufficiently accessable for personal defense is a bad choice if you come at it from a safety engineering/public health point of view. The probable cost of a lethal accidental discharge is far greater than the probable benefit of saving a life by shooting an attacker.

Lethal accidental discharges are FAR less common than successful defensive uses, by two to four orders of magnitude depending on the population under study and how defensive uses are quantified. I would also point out that the vast majority of successful defensive uses do not involve shots fired, and the majority of successful defenses involving shots fired do not result in the death of the attacker.

My own father had a "save" with a lawfully carried pistol at a remote river access point in the Croatan National Forest, many years ago. His would-be attackers saw the gun, backed off, and left.

If you are not at high risk of suicide, and do not belong to a criminal household (as an inordinate percentage of accidental shootings involve criminals and their families), firearms do have a very favorable risk-benefit ratio, even more so if you take the time to become fully competent with them.

If you want to BE safer it's critical to understand the difference between things that are merely scary ( sharks, rattlesnakes, international terroists) and things that are genuinely dangerous ( the teenager down the street learning how to drive, going boating after a few beers, reroofing the house without fall protection).

Quite so. And a competent adult thoughtfully keeping a loaded firearm accessible for defensive purposes, but secured from unauthorized access, is not in the "dangerous" category by any rational measure.

 

[TCB in TN]

i want to see anyone trying to fight a BG with both hands holding the rifle inside a closet or a bathroom...

A rifle or shotty makes a pretty decent club under the right circumstances! Jab the barrel to the face/stomach etc, then whack them would seem to work just fine! Of course I don't believe in fighting hand to hand unless I have NO other choice.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

easier to use.

A handgun is probably the least easy to shoot accurately.

A .22 is as good as 20 mm provided you hit.

No it's not. Caliber does matter

 

[TCB in TN]

Personally I wouldn't recommend a firearm for home defense in most situations in first world countries. A can of mace, a tazer or two, a high intensity flashlight, a cell phone, and some zip ties or handcuffs are probably a better toolkit if you take the time to learn how to use them. Designed for short range, rapid incapacitation, non-lethal if used against you, and you're not in legal trouble if you use them and they work. Also if the silhoutte of the presumed evil dangerous intruder turns out to belong to someone you know and like it's a heck of a lot easier to turn off the tazer and rinse their face off than it is to do a bit of on the spot trauma surgery.

Tazing and physically restraining an intruder as a primary plan would have to rank very high up on the ladder of the WORST advice I have ever seen! Few people have ANY business going hand to hand unless it is their ONLY choice. BTW even police have a gun to fall back on in case the tazer doesn't work. They also usually have backup as well!

 

[duckman007]

mljdeckard,
You posts have convinced me of three things:

1) You didn't read my earlier posts. Your comments like:

If you say that you are sticking with a pistol because you know it better, what I HEAR is, "I don't have the time, means, or inclination to learn."

I have learned. I've qualified as expert in whatever I've shot, without fail. I've taken the time, had the means, and was seriously inclined to learn, and excel in firearm usage.

I doubt anyone is equally good with the rifle, handgun, and shotgun. Everyone who has shot all three extensively has their favorite, just like I'm sure you have your favorite rifle. I'm better at close range with the pistol. The fact that I have chosen a different approach or that I'm more effective with a handgun means that I'm clearly wrong in your eyes. You've made it clear that you're better with the rifle. Does that mean that you have no time, means, or inclination to learn usage of the handgun. That's what I'm hearing.

2) You have let your passion for rifles cloud your common sense. You seem to believe that the rifle is the king in every situation. My training and experience has shown me first hand that this simply isn't true. Another quote:

If you are a caveman who has never seen a gun before, but knows how to use a knife, you would pick up the knife first. That doesn't make it better than the gun.

What good does a gun do a caveman if he can't use it? If I were a caveman, I would pick the weapon that affords me the greatest chance of survival, be it a knife, a rock, or a gun. Your logic dictates that you would rather someone, the caveman in your scenario, die than select a weapon that contradicts your etched in stone, erroneous notions. The most effective weapon is the one that gets the job done. A knife for the caveman IS the more effective weapon in his hands. Does that mean that the caveman will win a fight against someone with a gun? Well, if the person with the gun is another caveman who is ignorant as to it's operation, then, yes, he probably will.

3) You've clearly never had professional training with any firearms. If you had, you would appreciate the diversities and uses of all three types of weapons (handguns, rifles, and shotguns) and understand that each has it's place and each is equally useful and effective in it's on right.

So, with that said, enjoy your bliss.

 

[C-grunt]

Anyone who suggests a Taser is a good defensive weapon hasnt used a Taser much. They break all the time. Even if it does work you have to get a good spread with both probes for it to work. If the guy pulls one out, or spins and breaks the wires, the Taser is now useless.

I have used my Taser many times at work as a police officer. Ive never shot anyone with it. I use it as a threat because people are really scared of it. Any time I would have actually had to use it my hands worked better.