PDA

View Full Version : Reason with me


misnomerga
July 10, 2012, 07:33 AM
Is it "overkill" from a Home Defense standpoint to add a AR15 to my inventory if I already have a M1 carbine handy. Effective range is 100+ yards. AR15 effective range is 500+ yards. I can't see a scenario where I would have to reach out and touch someone at that range other than our country devolves into totally anarchy. Don't get me wrong I love the fit and feel of the ARs and would love to have one just to have one but if I am weighing usefulness and allocation of funds, it might be more useful to get a portable generator instead, especially if I have a "tool" that can do the job already. What do you folks think?

UtopiaTexasG19
July 10, 2012, 07:40 AM
If it was just for home defense and I already had the M1 carbine I would spend the money on a nice 12 gauge shotgun. Good for close up and also small to medium game hunting. The newer 3/4 and 1 ounce slugs made for smooth barrel shotguns have made them even more handy/versital around the property for me.

Skans
July 10, 2012, 07:45 AM
Yes, it's overkill even if all you have is a Glock 17 handy; or a Hi-Point handy.

If you want to have fun building yourself a tacticool semi-auto all-American rifle as a hobby, the AR-15 is the way to go. But, for home defense, IMHO, handguns are more convenient; and for hunting there are far better options than the AR.

misnomerga
July 10, 2012, 08:22 AM
Utopia, Mossberg Persuader is already in the inventory :) So in your humble opinion would it be wiser to spend the bucks bulking up on ammo for the M1 and the Mossie and forego the AR.

Panfisher
July 10, 2012, 08:27 AM
I would rather have overkill than unkerkill. Too much ability to defend you home (within reason) is better than almost enough.

Skans
July 10, 2012, 08:54 AM
Too much ability to defend you home (within reason) is better than almost enough.

Not really - the truth is that you will have to do a lot more explaining, to the cops and possibly to a judge/jury in the aftermath.

Me, with my basic, 20-year old Glock 17...............you with your 30 round machinegun blazing with lasers and lights that you custom built for hunting down homeless people who wonder into your shelter. (ridiculous over-dramatization duly noted:D)

In all seriousness, there are a lot of handguns that will do the same thing a 5.56 rifle will do at distances of 10 yards or less inside of a home, without anyone questioning: "why'd you have to use THAT???" While an AR-15 seems like a fairly standard, not-so-high-powerd, run-of-the-mill rifle to all of us here, it's still what the DC sniper used to snipe his victims from a hidden compartment in his car to the non-gun world.

Panfisher
July 10, 2012, 09:08 AM
If that is the rationale then I hope I never have to defend my home since I have considerably more capability than just a pistol. Just because you have an AR doesn't mean you are going to answer the door with it in you hand late at night. (doesn't mean you can't though:D) I guess living out in the country things seem different to me.

Wyosmith
July 10, 2012, 09:14 AM
Too much time is spent worrying about the tool, and too little on how to use it.
Any gun will do if you will do the job correctly with that gun.

Some guns have advantages over other guns. That is very true.
But it's always 98% the man and 2% what he's using.

I taught individual and small team tactics for several years in the Marines, and later I taught to various state and local agencies. I am just like every other man and woman on this forum in my appreciation of guns and shooting. It's a hobby and a passion for me. I never would try to say someone has "enough guns". If you like a new gun, buy it!

But I write this blurb here for the reason that I see a focus on the wrong thing when it comes to fighting. It's not near as much about what gun you use as it is about how you use it.

If I had to give one piece of advice to any new students it is this;
Gun fighting is 99.5% movement, cover and concealment, and 0.5% shooting

gun nut
July 10, 2012, 09:19 AM
+1. ^^^^

Chuckusaret
July 10, 2012, 09:26 AM
I am not a lawyer, but I think it would be rather hard to defend ones self in the courts for shooting a prep that is not on your property much less at more than 100 yds. IMO, if the SHTF, the problem will be the gang bangers, looters and groups of demonstrators roaming the streets looking for trouble. I have the resources to ward them off for an extended time period. I do believe a generator and fuel is a must along with drinking water, food, medical supplies and tons of ammo.:D

youngunz4life
July 10, 2012, 09:26 AM
Some guns have advantages over other guns. That is very true.
But it's always 98% the man and 2% what he's using.

I don't know about the statistics, I just know if multiple robbers, thugs, "choose word here" are in my home at night I am at more of a disadvantage if I have my handgun then if I have my shotgun with seven in the tube and one in the chamber. The same goes for panfisher if he is lucky enough to have his AR on him. If he owns the gun and happens to use that for HD all the power to him and he should be ok. Now if he decided to carry that in the truck or under his coat that is a different story(if that is even legal).

I think about the shotgun more and more....it seems prudent to have that more readily available, but we still go with the two handguns at the ready with a small gunsafe nearby and the rifle and shotgun in the closet locked up.

when seconds count....basically it will be the handguns at least at this point....

Panfisher
July 10, 2012, 10:51 AM
Wyosmith, well said. It will always be the man behind the gun that is the most important, and thank you sir for you service in the USMC.

Just because someone has a particular weapon capable of shooting someone several hundred yards away doesn't mean that they are going to be in trouble. If so then every deer hunter I know needs a good lawyer if they ever have to defend themselves.

If I ever have to explain why I used a particular weapon in my or my families defense (I hope not), the basic reason will be because that is what i had at the time. I didn't take the time to go get a more appropriate weapon so I used a Ruger 10/22 or my old .22 Mag or the old .30-30 or the .45 ACP, or a bat, or a (insert whatever here) because it was what I had at the time.

Rifles are tools and like many tools they can be used for different jobs, might not be perfect but the job gets done.

Youngshooter
July 10, 2012, 11:07 AM
Mossberg 500/Remington 870 in the shortened home defense models are both extremely viable options. I have also heard, although in much debate, is that birdshot is just as, if not more optimal of a load than 00 buckshot when in a home defense "face to face" confrontation. With that being said, none of what I said before is worth a grain of salt without proper practicing on the gun along with other family members in the household knowing how to handle it properly. I've read plenty of articles where little Jimmy stopped an intruder because he was practiced and knew what to do.

Skadoosh
July 10, 2012, 11:13 AM
Too much time is spent worrying about the tool, and too little on how to use it.

Considering that this is a firearms-centric web forum, I would expect there to be a LOT of time spent on discussing "tools"...

misnomerga
July 10, 2012, 11:35 AM
Wyosmtih has some valid points. The right tool in the hands of the right person is what I am deriving. The mob hit man does not opt for a .44 mag to do his job but a little .22 applied precisely and accurately to the head is efficient and does the job fine! That is what I am tracking from Wyosmith. I confess that seeing other folks I know with ARs generates envy in me just to have it. Justifying it to myself is another thing in light of the fact I already can defend my abode with what I currently have, but like some junkie I sure would like to have it LOL

youngunz4life
July 10, 2012, 01:11 PM
The mob hit man does not opt for a .44 mag to do his job but a little .22 applied precisely and accurately to the head is efficient and does the job fine!

that's sort of a dark example to use:cool:, but obviously the above statement is true: that is an execution shot. I know my mother-in-law has a better chance of waking up to bumps in the night with a shotgun though rather than a handgun. I mean you can use a .22 for HD but you don't opt for that choice, right?

youngunz4life
July 10, 2012, 01:15 PM
Mossberg 500/Remington 870 in the shortened home defense models are both extremely viable options. I have also heard, although in much debate, is that birdshot is just as, if not more optimal of a load than 00 buckshot when in a home defense "face to face" confrontation. With that being said, none of what I said before is worth a grain of salt without proper practicing on the gun along with other family members in the household knowing how to handle it properly. I've read plenty of articles where little Jimmy stopped an intruder because he was practiced and knew what to do.

You're right I have seen this debate too and heard it as well on this forum. My thing is I have never considered birdshot by coincidence and other factors have led me away from that option: it is considered a use of lethal force no matter what you shoot, there is a better chance of a longer gunfight where you & your family remain in jeopardy longer, and so-on.

PS - all good points; it is just I wouldn't be able to get my mom-in-law to practice with a firearm as one of many examples. I can open a can of food with a steak knife too(I have done it). It is easier with a can opener on a swiss army knife, and it is even easier + more effective with a can opener.

Wyosmith
July 10, 2012, 01:24 PM
If you like ARs get one. I have!
I love good ARs. In fact, if you get one in 6.8 SPC you have an extremely good White Tail rifle and Hog rifle too.

In the scenarios of thugs attacking your home you must think 1st about WHY they are attacking you, and for what scenario you are trying to prepare.

#1. You are "there", and they just happen to pick you.

Random crime is a fact of life and some folks have to deal with it.
In this case most criminals will flee if met with deadly force because they have nothing to gain from "winning the field". If you were facing about 5 thugs and you kill or wound a few of them, it's very likely the rest will flee because the cat's out of the bag, the cops are coming and any gains they were after are no longer available to them.
By keeping your mind in “Condition Yellow” and not being taken completely by surprise, you have the advantage of knowing the ground and the “battle field” much better than the attacker. Use that knowledge to place yourself in a safer place than the enemy is in, and use that knowledge to anticipate how the enemy may try to move on your position and lure them into making mistakes (in ways they can’t repeat.) A shot with anything form a quail gun loaded with #6 shot to a MAG machine gun is still a shot that wins--- if the enemy can’t see it coming until it’s too late.

#2 You are facing some enemies with an agenda.

Race war, political agendas, mob of “have nots” who want what you have…..and so on.
Very bad scenario.


These kinds of people have to be beaten so badly (or killed to the last man) that they don’t have a motivation or an ability to come back later. Again tactics will win or loose the battle. Tactics should dictate your weapon, but sometime in a fight the weapon has to dictate some of the tactics.
If, for example you are fighting with a deer rifle, suppressing fire is not something to rely on much, but accurate fast fire from cover is. It would be with an AR too (or any semi-auto rifle) but you can “hide behind your bullets” at times if you find the need, long enough to break contact momentarily with an auto with 8 round or more capacity. No so with a bolt action or lever action. If if you are defending, and you find yourself hiding behind your bullets you have already done something wrong but it may not be hopeless with an AR, AK, FN-FAL, M14 and so on.
Even a 10-22 with a 25 round mag is a real weapon if you know how to use it, and if you win, you will probably then have a new weapon. The one that used to belong to the enemy.
In this kind of fight I think the likelihood of having to deal with the courts later is slim. The society has already broken down beyond the point that such courts and lawyers are even considered at that point.

#3 You are attacked by a trained police or military unit.

The very worst scenario.
Here you have only one option if they start the fight, and that’s to break contact and come back to the fight another day when you are on the attack, not them.
Again tactics are what keeps you alive, not the kind of weapon you have. Weapons can help with tactics, but without good tactics the weapon will soon belong to the enemy.

In this kind of fight it's probably that the enemy IS the courts and you are the political target

Skans
July 10, 2012, 01:37 PM
All the guy asked is whether the AR is overkill for home defense. Will it work? Yes. Is it overkill. Yes.

Home defense does not imply race wars, being attacked by military or trained police, or even being confronted by 5 thugs. One, maybe two stupid thugs is what you will be dealing with in a home defense scenario at distances less than 10 yards. Is an AR really going to be that much more accurate than a good .45, 9mm, .40, or 10mm handgun at less than 10 yards? Regardless of whatever gun you are using - AR, 10mm handgun, etc., you still cannot fire more than 1 shot per trigger pull.

I can't be the only one who sees that the obvious answer to the question asked is "YES"?

youngunz4life
July 10, 2012, 01:54 PM
All the guy asked is whether the AR is overkill for home defense. Will it work? Yes. Is it overkill. Yes.

There is a grey area though, Skans. If the OP owns an AR and that is the easiest thing to grab, he should not be timid about using any weapon to defend his family, himself, and/or his home. If the weapon is legal to own in his state of residence, I don't think it is overkill to use an AR in a home defense and/or home invasion scenario. I get your point, but nobody knows exactly what they will feel or the specific situation they will be in until it happens(hopefully it never will happen to any of us).

Young.Gun.612
July 10, 2012, 07:47 PM
From a purely home defense standpoint, I would venture that it is indeed overkill. If you have a 12 gauge and an M1 carbine there's no need (IMVHO) to add an AR.


BUT, if you're looking for an excuse to purchase one, my old standby reasoning is "Well I don't have one of those..."

10-96
July 10, 2012, 08:19 PM
You've got something with a trigger on it. Get the generator! As much as I like shooting and the whole firearms sport- a person still has to look at their total package.... get a generator and think about AR's and such things later on when $$ isn't in such a crunch.

Quentin2
July 11, 2012, 03:47 PM
A quality lightweight AR is good to have handy. It and the 5.56 round are flexible, portable and a good solution for many rifle applications. I think a quality handgun is better for HD but like having a couple good ARs around too.

Justice06RR
July 11, 2012, 08:11 PM
All the guy asked is whether the AR is overkill for home defense. Will it work? Yes. Is it overkill. Yes.

Home defense does not imply race wars, being attacked by military or trained police, or even being confronted by 5 thugs. One, maybe two stupid thugs is what you will be dealing with in a home defense scenario at distances less than 10 yards. Is an AR really going to be that much more accurate than a good .45, 9mm, .40, or 10mm handgun at less than 10 yards? Regardless of whatever gun you are using - AR, 10mm handgun, etc., you still cannot fire more than 1 shot per trigger pull.

I can't be the only one who sees that the obvious answer to the question asked is "YES"?

Apparently you are one of the only ones who thinks its overkill.

The OP specifically asked 100yr range, to which a pistol or shotgun will not be very effective. He already has a shotgun so that is covered (for close-range).

If you really have a valid reason to defend yourself, any weapon is fine weather its a rifle, a shotgun, pistol, or a knife. Its more a matter of using what you have available and using which works best in every situation.

Case in point, I have 2 AR15's for HD. Unfortunately I don't have a pistol or shotgun at the moment; my roomate does but I cant really count on him for my own safety. That and I carry knives. My bedroom is next to the front door and if I hear doorbell or a knock I can see who's outside the door via my window.

So to the OP, I would say yes go for the AR if the funds allow. Otherwise I the M1 is sufficient without a doubt. You could invest in more ammo or a generator as the alternative.

misnomerga
July 12, 2012, 07:34 AM
that we, as a nation, and as citizens are being confronted with the issue of concern for our own personal safety. I always get a chill of pride when I read or hear the phrase "Land of the Free, home of the Brave". Now I get a different kind of chill, faced with the prospect of having to think about defending myself and my family with the possibility of having to do that to the tune of 500+ yards and out. My fallback options are already in place in the 100 yard and in sector. I don't want to believe that I might have to face the reality of taking out scumbags at long range under the heading of HD.

Skadoosh
July 12, 2012, 08:01 AM
Is it "overkill" from a Home Defense standpoint to add a AR15 to my inventory if I already have a M1 carbine handy. Effective range is zero to 100+ yards. AR15 effective range is zero to 500+ yards. There...I fixed it for you.

An AR is indeed an effective HD weapon. The effective range of an AR is anywhere between ZERO and 550 meters.

The term "overkill" implies excessive collateral damage to achieve the desired effect. The 5.56 has been shown by Dr. Gary Roberts of Stanford University Medical Center to be far safer in terms of excessive penatration of barriers such as interior walls than a 9mm or 45ACP JHP...and even 00buck. Dr. Roberts has published much research into this matter and is well-respected in this field.


http://i83.servimg.com/u/f83/12/63/91/01/penetr10.jpg

misnomerga
July 12, 2012, 08:05 AM
Thanks for that update -

Skadoosh
July 12, 2012, 08:32 AM
I would get that generator before the AR.

Skans
July 12, 2012, 10:07 AM
The term "overkill" implies excessive collateral damage to achieve the desired effect.

No it doesn't! Overkill, in terms of Home Defense, means using something bigger, bulkier, harder to store in a readily accessible location, and more powerful than is needed to stop a couple of thugs who broke into your house for nefarious reasons.

If you want an AR toy, then by one and enjoy. But, don't buy one using "home defense" as the rationalization. FWIW, I have an AR. It's just one of many 5.56 guns I have that sit in the safe getting little to no use.

Striker1
July 12, 2012, 10:34 AM
Do a little research and decide if the AR15 with proper ammunition is more effective than handgun calibers.

Webleymkv
July 12, 2012, 10:44 AM
While the OP's M1 Carbine, a handgun, or a shotgun are all perfectly capable HD weapons that will, more than likely, serve him well, there is a pretty good argument that can be made for an AR-15 or other semi-auto 5.56/.223. As Skadoosh pointed out, the 5.56/.223 cartridge actually represents less danger of overpenetration than most common shotgun and handgun loadings do. This is because the light, fast bullet becomes destabilized and fragments much easier than heavier, slower bullets do.

Likewise, a 5.56/.223 can be had in a short, light, easily handled weapon that, at close range, delivers impressive terminal performance with very moderate recoil. I have yet to meet any man, woman, or child that found the recoil of a .223 to be harsh, uncontrollable, or unpleasant.

5.56/.223 also offers moderately priced ammmunition that closely mimics the recoil, report, and point of impact of premium self-defense loadings. While a shotgun is a very effective weapon, the loadings that are best for self defense (buckshot and slugs) are quite expensive (usually at least $3 for five rounds) and have substantially different recoil characteristics than the #7 low-brass upland/trap loads that can be bought inexpensively. A .223 loaded with 55gr FMJ, on the other hand, will have comparable recoil, report, and point-of-impact to a 55gr JHP or JSP and honestly, the 55gr FMJ isn't a terrible self-defense loading in its own right.

As to the legal concerns, yes an AR-15 may look worse than a different type of firearm if fitted with a tag that reads "exibit A" but that doesn't mean that it's completely indefensible. I'd be willing to guess that the person that the prosecutor and/or plaintiff's lawyer is trying to paint as an over-zealous Rambo wannabe would sound like a much more reasonable person if he says that he chose the weapon he did in order to minimize the risk to his children in the next room or because the light recoil made the gun useable to both himself and his petite wife. Also, guns like the AR-15 are much more socially acceptable than they used to be. The whole stigma of "evil black assault weapons" or other such nonsense simply doesn't carry the weight that it used to. AR's are rapidly gaining in popularity with hunters (this is unsurprising as the AR was designed as a sporting rifle in the first place) and companies such as Remington are now producing AR-style rifles geared towards the hunting market. Likewise, AR's have become more and more popular with police and saying that you chose a particular weapon because that is what your local police department uses makes the gun seem like much less a "cruel and unusual" choice.

Finally, if an AR is just too scary looking for your taste, there are other more pedestrian looking weapons like the Ruger Mini-14 that would probably be just as effective. Remember, however, that nearly any combination of gun and ammunition could be construed to make you look like a bloodthirsty monster by a lawyer with a vivid enough imagination. In my mind, while the legal implications of your gun and ammunition should be considered, the effectiveness and practicality of your wepon should be the first priority.

misnomerga
July 12, 2012, 10:47 AM
Unlike my 9mm that is hidden in my DIY built-in shelf, under the nightstand that's by my bed, the AR would be a little long to fit in there. As far fetched as it may seem I envision the AR being utilized in much the same manner as the Korean shop owners did during the aftermath of the Rodney King race riots in L.A. The out-manned police department was overwhelmed and the ordinary citizen was left to fend for themselves. Many properties succumbed to the match but I remember seeing the shop owners standing fast with their long weapons prominently displayed successfully projecting deterrence. Not so sure a handgun would have produced the same result.

Skadoosh
July 12, 2012, 11:19 AM
The term "overkill" implies excessive collateral damage to achieve the desired effect.
No it doesn't! Overkill, in terms of Home Defense, means using something bigger, bulkier, harder to store in a readily accessible location, and more powerful than is needed to stop a couple of thugs who broke into your house for nefarious reasons.

Surely you meant this in jest...how is an M1 Carbine any easier to store than an AR15?