With body armor the norm for military of many nations and increasingly common for citizens both legal and blackmarket, would you be able to resist a home invasion from a couple of criminals using some?
Many home invaders are known to yell "police" to gain a tactical advantage in the immediate most important moment of breaking into a home when the decision of the home owner is most critical. Compound this with even the most basic body armor being capable of resisting most handgun and buckshot loads and I question the standard defensive weapon ideology. While low velocity rounds that expand the best and go through the fewest walls are trumpeted as ideal for defense there very lack of penetration makes them useless for defense against organized home invasions.
Pistol ammo designed for defeating body armor is illegal, so that leaves you to using headshots against well armed individuals in fast paced dim light scenarios, or utilizing a long arm..otherwise your already defeated and this argument does not pertain to you.
Rifle or shotgun? The shotgun being trumpeted as very decisive for defense is also a very poor penetrator of body armor using shot. However one could theoreticly use both shot and slugs allowing for safer home defense in most situations yet allowing for defense against armor with a few specific slugs. Harder is better for penetration, pointy or sharp tips make better use of the muzzle energy in penetrating but also expand minimaly or not at all. Most hunting ammo even slugs are specificly designed with large hollow point cavities or soft lead to maximize expansion. Short range use of materials harder than lead would also achieve better penetration: Tungsten sharp and pointed sabots anyone?
Rifles tend to be placed out of reach for quick aquisition in a defensive situation and don't seem to have the safer less penetration option for use against unarmored opponents but do allow for the most effective defense in a home invasions situation with body armor using suspects as it allows both penetration of body armor as well as extreme shot precision in say a hostage situation where you want to hit a suspect and not a family member.
Obviously none of the above is ideal for use all the time, but with body armor increasingly employed by many I would advocate including the potential of having to defeat it in a realistic defense situation and welcome any thoughts on this.
Many home invaders are known to yell "police" to gain a tactical advantage in the immediate most important moment of breaking into a home when the decision of the home owner is most critical. Compound this with even the most basic body armor being capable of resisting most handgun and buckshot loads and I question the standard defensive weapon ideology. While low velocity rounds that expand the best and go through the fewest walls are trumpeted as ideal for defense there very lack of penetration makes them useless for defense against organized home invasions.
Pistol ammo designed for defeating body armor is illegal, so that leaves you to using headshots against well armed individuals in fast paced dim light scenarios, or utilizing a long arm..otherwise your already defeated and this argument does not pertain to you.
Rifle or shotgun? The shotgun being trumpeted as very decisive for defense is also a very poor penetrator of body armor using shot. However one could theoreticly use both shot and slugs allowing for safer home defense in most situations yet allowing for defense against armor with a few specific slugs. Harder is better for penetration, pointy or sharp tips make better use of the muzzle energy in penetrating but also expand minimaly or not at all. Most hunting ammo even slugs are specificly designed with large hollow point cavities or soft lead to maximize expansion. Short range use of materials harder than lead would also achieve better penetration: Tungsten sharp and pointed sabots anyone?
Rifles tend to be placed out of reach for quick aquisition in a defensive situation and don't seem to have the safer less penetration option for use against unarmored opponents but do allow for the most effective defense in a home invasions situation with body armor using suspects as it allows both penetration of body armor as well as extreme shot precision in say a hostage situation where you want to hit a suspect and not a family member.
Obviously none of the above is ideal for use all the time, but with body armor increasingly employed by many I would advocate including the potential of having to defeat it in a realistic defense situation and welcome any thoughts on this.