The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Home defense longgun: Remington 11-87 (12ga) or Steyr AUG-Z (.223)?

leadcounsel · September 9, 2005, 03:06 PM

Many good points Mike and I'm glad you took the time to write them.

First, let me say that I agree if I were in Iraq in an urban environment and needed a gun that performs very very well in close and distant quarters, moving in and out of buildings, fighting unknown numbers of opponents, some armored and some not, I would hands down chose an assault rifle style carbine. In fact, as I said, I do own a .223 in the Bushmaster configuration, probably similar to yours. So, in a EOTWAWKI scenario, as I said, that .223 and I will be best friends.

Now, your home in the middle of the night isn't really Iraq, is it?

But, maybe you're right. I'm not dead set on the handgun anymore, and your numbers are compelling.

As for maneuverability, I completely disagree with your statements that a 24" carbine is as good as a pistol in close quarters. Sure, if you take a weaver stance the lengths may be the same, but that's not required of a pistol. I'm thinking of where you are rounding a corner, walking down a hallway with doors on either side, etc. If the perp closes inside your barrel and grabs the 24" rifle, you're in trouble regardless of whether you have a sling. If the perp closes on me with a handgun, I have free hand to hold him back while I fight. Your point is well taken that your gun couldn't necessarily be taken from you, whereas a pistol could be. Duly noted and IS A BIG advantage of the .223. I will rethink my position. Not sure about the original poster, but I think most average men could hold off another male attacker with a free arm long enough to squeeze off a disabling shot against the perp, which is my main point. A proper defensive maneuvering stance will shield the gun from being grabbed, unlike a rifle which is presented and opportune to being grabbed. Or, if you have to turn around quickly, I suspect it's quicker with a pistol.

Like your rifle, my Glock also has a flashlight accessory on the rail. Not sure about the wisdom of using it though (only point your gun at what you want to destroy, and it makes you an illuminated target...), but that's another debate. I already conceeded that a .223 has more ammo than a handgun.

As for GI's dragging wounded buddies, I'm not a GI and don't have that training. Nor do any of them carry pistols because, unlike the civilian world, pistols are all but useless in a combat zone. They don't have the 1. Range, 2. Penetration of a rifle.

As for overpenetration, you admit that a pistol or shotgun won't penetrate body armor but a .223 will. Then you said that a pistol and shotgun WILL overpenetrate walls more than a .223. Which is it? Either the .223 is better at penetrating or worse. It's not selective. Generally a level IIA vest will stop a .40, it takes a level III or IIIA or IV to stop a slug or rifle, depending on caliber. If barriers are anything like vests, I'd extrapolate that drywall, wood, etc. will stop bullets similarly to vests. The bullets hit and expand as they attempt to pass through. E.G. a .40 will stop much faster than a slug or a .223.

As for noise and indoor shooting. I have not shot indoors without hearing protection for the very reason that it is loud. I have shot outdoors with various guns and load and believe the shotgun and .223 to be about equally painful on the ears, with a handgun like a 9mm or .40 to be significantly less. Sorry if my ears disagree with the numbers you gave. Indoors I think it would be very tramatic on the ears to shoot a rifle, less so with a handgun.

As for cuffs, yes I am trained to use cuffs and have cuffed many people in a prior life... the plastic ones are the cheapest and best. Lie the subject face down with arms and legs outstretched, instruct him to place his hands behind his back, tie the cuffs with your free hand with HANDgun trained on him. Simple with a handgun. Not sure with a rifle.

Point taken about the 12 gauge being heavier, less ammo, and slower and less accurate. Maybe the .223 is better for home defense. I don't have any idea if thugs in armor are rare. Do you? I really don't know. I suspect they are rare. Regardless, per the Beltway snipers, a single .223 is deadly in 7 out of 9 shots (didn't 7 die and 2 live?). I suspect a shotgun is moreso. Either is fine and I think we're splitting hairs.

My main contention is maneuverabilty if you need to scout around inside the home. If I'm locking myself in a room, I'll take a rifle and make due with either the .223 or shotgun.

At any rate, I think we're really splitting hairs about all of this.

September 9, 2005, 03:06 PM	#59
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	Many good points Mike and I'm glad you took the time to write them. First, let me say that I agree if I were in Iraq in an urban environment and needed a gun that performs very very well in close and distant quarters, moving in and out of buildings, fighting unknown numbers of opponents, some armored and some not, I would hands down chose an assault rifle style carbine. In fact, as I said, I do own a .223 in the Bushmaster configuration, probably similar to yours. So, in a EOTWAWKI scenario, as I said, that .223 and I will be best friends. Now, your home in the middle of the night isn't really Iraq, is it? But, maybe you're right. I'm not dead set on the handgun anymore, and your numbers are compelling. As for maneuverability, I completely disagree with your statements that a 24" carbine is as good as a pistol in close quarters. Sure, if you take a weaver stance the lengths may be the same, but that's not required of a pistol. I'm thinking of where you are rounding a corner, walking down a hallway with doors on either side, etc. If the perp closes inside your barrel and grabs the 24" rifle, you're in trouble regardless of whether you have a sling. If the perp closes on me with a handgun, I have free hand to hold him back while I fight. Your point is well taken that your gun couldn't necessarily be taken from you, whereas a pistol could be. Duly noted and IS A BIG advantage of the .223. I will rethink my position. Not sure about the original poster, but I think most average men could hold off another male attacker with a free arm long enough to squeeze off a disabling shot against the perp, which is my main point. A proper defensive maneuvering stance will shield the gun from being grabbed, unlike a rifle which is presented and opportune to being grabbed. Or, if you have to turn around quickly, I suspect it's quicker with a pistol. Like your rifle, my Glock also has a flashlight accessory on the rail. Not sure about the wisdom of using it though (only point your gun at what you want to destroy, and it makes you an illuminated target...), but that's another debate. I already conceeded that a .223 has more ammo than a handgun. As for GI's dragging wounded buddies, I'm not a GI and don't have that training. Nor do any of them carry pistols because, unlike the civilian world, pistols are all but useless in a combat zone. They don't have the 1. Range, 2. Penetration of a rifle. As for overpenetration, you admit that a pistol or shotgun won't penetrate body armor but a .223 will. Then you said that a pistol and shotgun WILL overpenetrate walls more than a .223. Which is it? Either the .223 is better at penetrating or worse. It's not selective. Generally a level IIA vest will stop a .40, it takes a level III or IIIA or IV to stop a slug or rifle, depending on caliber. If barriers are anything like vests, I'd extrapolate that drywall, wood, etc. will stop bullets similarly to vests. The bullets hit and expand as they attempt to pass through. E.G. a .40 will stop much faster than a slug or a .223. As for noise and indoor shooting. I have not shot indoors without hearing protection for the very reason that it is loud. I have shot outdoors with various guns and load and believe the shotgun and .223 to be about equally painful on the ears, with a handgun like a 9mm or .40 to be significantly less. Sorry if my ears disagree with the numbers you gave. Indoors I think it would be very tramatic on the ears to shoot a rifle, less so with a handgun. As for cuffs, yes I am trained to use cuffs and have cuffed many people in a prior life... the plastic ones are the cheapest and best. Lie the subject face down with arms and legs outstretched, instruct him to place his hands behind his back, tie the cuffs with your free hand with HANDgun trained on him. Simple with a handgun. Not sure with a rifle. Point taken about the 12 gauge being heavier, less ammo, and slower and less accurate. Maybe the .223 is better for home defense. I don't have any idea if thugs in armor are rare. Do you? I really don't know. I suspect they are rare. Regardless, per the Beltway snipers, a single .223 is deadly in 7 out of 9 shots (didn't 7 die and 2 live?). I suspect a shotgun is moreso. Either is fine and I think we're splitting hairs. My main contention is maneuverabilty if you need to scout around inside the home. If I'm locking myself in a room, I'll take a rifle and make due with either the .223 or shotgun. At any rate, I think we're really splitting hairs about all of this.