the perfect self defense rifle

[trigger happy13]

if u could only pick one rifle to defend your self what would it be

[WeedWacker]

M14 or G3 clone

[rgates]

AK in 7.62

[38splfan]

Used to be that a pistol-caliber lever gun was enough, or an SKS or maybe an M1 Carbine.
The way the world is going lately though, I'm leaning towards an underfolder AK with all the 30 round mags I can get my hands on.
Hearing their stories was great before, but seeing the AK perform in Iraq is enough to have me really sold on it. Truly built like a brick poop-house.
I say underfolder or some other folder so that I can keep it in the truck or bug out with it and I say full-capacity mags because the world, especially this little corner, just seems to be getting uglier and uglier. Not saying I would be spraying rounds out in desperation, just like to keep my options open.

[CraigC]

A slicked-up .357 carbine with ghost ring sights. The make and model can vary. Could be a Marlin 1894, Rossi/EMF/Cimarron 1892 replica or a recent-production Winchester 1892.

[BillCA]

Self defense from what?

Simple break-in or intruder in your house? M1 Carbine.

The above and possible "civil unrest" (riots) - AR-15

Urban chaos or rural protection? M1A-Scout/M1A

Wilderness predators? .45-70 Lever rifle

[DonR101395]

I don't think there is such a thing as "the" perfect rifle, so I would have to say the one closest to me when/if I need it usually an AR or AK, but occasionally a 14" Mossberg 500.

[Samuel2001]

I like the way BillCA thinks! BUT I would probably go with an AKM type insted of the AR. Oh hell I'd keep both of em arround! Why not?

[joshua]

Why does it have to be just one? BillCA hit the nail right on the head, but I will opt for a DPMS LR in 308 for the urban warrior part. :D josh

[Magnum88C]

the perfect self defence rifle:
- Shoots like a laser
- Hits like a 30 cal HEDP
- Recoils like a .22 short
- Weighs 1.5 pounds.

Until they hit the market, I'll stick to a Para FAL

[SR420]

My M14s are my perfect self defense rifles, I reserve my AK types as back up self defense rifles.

[billindenver]

Saiga 12

[RJM]

The perfect self defense rifle for me would be one that I own now, my Russian made SKS. Now, my future plans have me picking up a Marlin lever action chambered in .357mag, that would then turn into my perfect self defense rifle because I also carry a .357mag revolver. One round to chamber in both firearms seems about perfect for me.

[chris in va]

My saiga loaded with softpoints.

[CA357]

My FAL. If it's just one rifle, I want the most firepower downrange I can get as fast and as accurately as I can get it there. ;)

[Dirty_Harry]

My M14s are my perfect self defense rifles, I reserve my AK types as back up self defense rifles.

+1 then -1

I agree with the first part, but would have my AR-15 as the backup.

[Fremmer]

I like the .45-70 idea. From field mice to cape buffalo, you'd be ready for every self-defense situation! :D

[SR420]

Quote:
My M14s are my perfect self defense rifles, I reserve my AK types as back up self defense rifles.

+1 then -1

I agree with the first part, but would have my AR-15 as the backup.

I chose the AK because I have some, but I would be happy with an M4 :D

[Sturmgewehre]

M4. A close second would be a DSArms 16" FAL (folder).

[44 AMP]

If you are talking about self defense from humans, there is not a legal situation where a rifle is of any benefit to you. Legally you are only justified in using deadly force to prevent an attack, so in the majority of situations, shooting someone who is some distance away (the only thing a rifle has an advantage at) is really hard to justify. If course, warfare is a completely different situation.

In time of loss of civil authority (a Katrina or LA riots type situation), eventually civil order will be restored, and you might have a hard time explaining popping "looters" at 100 yards+. Some prosecutors just don't have a sense of priorities!

Now, for a TEOTWAWKI situation, then that's a whole different thing. Any good centerfire rifle will be useful. My personal preference is for .30 caliber, as it is useful as a hunting round as well. 5.56mm (.223) works fine for varmints, and has been sucessfully used by our military for quite some time now against two legged varmints. BUT, in a real SHTF situation, you will not have the rest of your squad/platoon/company to back you up with fire support, arty and airstrikes. So, each individual round you have should be the most effective possible. And, since you also won't have rapid ammo resupply, firefights and spray and pray tactics are contra-indicated.

So, you rifle should be accurate (to the range you can see, and hit), as powerful as practical, capable of being a passable big game rifle (with the proper ammo), and also have a rapid fire capability, for the hopefully avoided gravest extreme. Rapid reloading is a plus, but not an absolute priority, because we are not talking about a combat situation, only being able to provide cover fire in order to break contact, if necessary. If you want a rifle more optimised for combat, fine, but that is actually a different question.

Since I have one, my choice would be an M1A. But lots of rifles will do. SMLE British rifles, or any regular lever gun for deer hunting would also work.

Defense against animals is always a short range proposition. Defense against humans is nearly always the same. At least until the rule of law is no longer of any concern.

[CraigC]

If you are talking about self defense from humans, there is not a legal situation where a rifle is of any benefit to you.

I disagree. Unless you are at arm's length, a rifle will always give you the advantage. You're far more likely to accurate place your first shot under the stress of a gunfight. The target doesn't have to be 50 or 100yds away.

[KCB]

Perfect SD rifle. It's in my bedroom closet: ROM SAR2 AK74 w/Eotech and a whole lotta ammo. This is second to my AR's (When the S*** goes down)

[Widder]

If you're asking rifle as compared to shotgun, and self-defense as compared to all-around SHTF, I'd go with a AK style rifle in 7.62 X39. In an all-around SHTF scenario, I'd go with a G3 type rifle in 7.62 NATO.

[MTMilitiaman]

Right now it would depend on the ranges I expected to encounter. I would pick between an AK with a reflex sight, an M1A, or a scoped bolt gun in 7mm Rem Mag.

I am hoping to save enough up to get me a DS Arms Para Congo and eventually equip it with an 3.5x ACOG, as I consider that set up to be a nearly ideal all around compromise between the power and range of the M1A, and the handiness of the AK.

[jrfoxx]

AK in 7.62x39 would be my choice at the moment, but that may change once I egt to actually try out my new M4gery and see what it has to offer.I'll say just from holding it, its way lighter, shorter, and more comfortable than my WASR, so it's got a good chance at the top spot.....

[sundog]

Lever action carbine in ,357, .44 Mag, 45 Colt, 30-30, or .32 Win Spl.

Probably the .44 or .45 would be best for personal protection since it's usually understood the personal protection is more often short range than long range, and most of the carbine models will load as many as ten rounds. Besides, it's a very traditional design that might get better fair with a jury than one of the 'evil black rifles', you know -- 'assault weapons'. Your attacker will be just as neutralized. Also, over penetration might be less of a problem. I'm also thinking that cost would be a lot less.

Rather pragmatic approach, so to speak.

[FirstFreedom]

Like Bill said, defense from what:

Simple break-in or intruder in your house? M1 Carbine.

The above and possible "civil unrest" (riots) - AR-15

Urban chaos or rural protection? M1A-Scout/M1A

Wilderness predators? .45-70 Lever rifle

Can't argue with that. Slightly different tools for slightly different jobs.

[SR420]

I think trigger happy13 is in search of just one rifle that does everything well in the SD role.

For me, the M14 is the perfect GP/SD/SHTF rifle. An 18.0" barreled version with a 20 or 25 round CMI mag is ideal.

[Redneck with a 40]

I'd go with the M-1 30 carbine, short, handy carbine with 15 rounds in the magazine. The 30 carbine is a nasty little round with hollowpoints, 110 grain at 2000 fps, guaranteed expansion.:D

[Cowdude]

I'm not sure, hard choice.

[gak]

What BillCA (and others) said so well:

Self defense from what?

Simple break-in or intruder in your house? M1 Carbine.

The above and possible "civil unrest" (riots) - AR-15

Urban chaos or rural protection? M1A-Scout/M1A

Wilderness predators? .45-70 Lever rifle__________________

I generally like the M1 Carbine as an all around SD/HD choice, but agree that an all-out onslaught might recommend the AR format.

If you take comparative ammo availability away as a criteria (if that is one), I like the idea of the AR in the 6.8. In a more "PC" format, I like the Ruger Mini in the same 6.8 or even the x39 ...if Ruger or the aftermarket could ever get its act together on reliable hi-cap mags.

Also like the Win/Rossi 92 or Marlin .44/.357 lever suggestions, perhaps as back-up. If rapid fire and reload is not an issue, these are fine shooting and handling all-rounders. Also, the good ol' .30-30 hard to beat as a general all rounder - shy of a hi-cap/onlslaught/rapid reload requriement - that can also do #4 duty above if required.

If had to choose only one for ALL of BillCA's scenarios, above, I'd say his M1A suggestions. Though a bit much/heavy/overpenetrating for close in duty, it can do the .45-70 "wilderness" role better than any of the other choices - and can do a pretty good job in scenarios #2 through 4 from adequately to excellent. So now you know what my choices would be for a 2-gun scenario - from my first and last paragraphs!

[45Marlin carbine]

lots of different situations could apply, from urban area to wilderness. my 2c. is the more open the space you find yourself in the more powerful the round.
me around my place either my M9 or M45 Camp w/+P ammo. shooting buddy has a Marlin lever .357 (nice, and a Ruger .357 pistol) we joke about trading I say to him he won't give me enough boot!

[FirstFreedom]

I guess I should follow the spirit of the thread, and pick just ONE for all purposes:

It would be a DPMS AR10-style rifle in .260 remington.

2nd choice: DSA FAL Predator in .260 Rem. 3rd choice: DPMS in .308 win. 4th choice: DSA FAL in .308 win. 5th choice: Alex arms AR15 in 6.5 Grendel.

[RDak]

For me, AR-15. But you said I could choose only one!:p

[BillCA]

gak

You and I agree -- if I had to take "just one", it would likely be the M1A. In fact, for the proverbial SHTF scenario, I'd suggest that a .308 M1 Garand might be even better since it's 8-shot clip limits how fast you can waste ammo. :D

For me, it'd be the M1A-Scout as it balances better for me and is slightly shorter for indoor work.

2nd place would probably go to an AR platform in 5.56mm, 6.8mm or 7.62x39. I'll stick with 5.56 since I already own a Mini-14.

[homefires]

I'm stuck with what I have! I have a Ruger 10-22 with fold down and a Noricno Modle M with a 30 round mag? Hummmmm! OOOOKa! I choise the Norinco and 30 round mags, one in each pocket! = 4 right? :rolleyes:

[George Hill]

Marlin 336CS .30-30 with a 16 inch barrel and a red dot sight.

[Art Eatman]

To me, self defense with anything, rifle or pistol = fairly close range, around the house. So, I wouldn't really need long-range capability.

IMO, light and handy, medium power cartridge, night-sight capability. So, semi-auto, box magazine.

That leads to the AR/AK/Mini/M1 Carbine style of critter. Overall, I guess I'd go with the Mini-14 and the 10-round factory mag.

Art

[bigghoss]

I got yer self-defense rifle right here!:
http://a264.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/120/l_91e15e0b4f3a605a0cfc0a2d449150c7.jpg

[capt Ajax]

In a desaster / looter / riot type situation, I'm going to grab a harty chew of Red Man then reach for my M1A. The 7.62 (.308 Win) is a good multi-purpose reliable round. The out-of-the-box sighting system on the M1A is OUTSTANDING and almost anyone could affect kill shots at 100 yards. In the above mentioned situations there really would be no reason to shoot at anything greater than 100 yards...although the M1A SOCOM16 has an affective killing range of 600 yards. Here is a pic of my wife shooting mine!
(click for closer view)
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9530/dsc00165wi9.th.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00165wi9.jpg)

[MTMilitiaman]

Nice! I love the M1A.

Tell her the thing won't bite and show her how to lean into it. It's always nice to see the fairer sex enjoying firearms, and judging from the smile, she is mostly certainly enjoying it. They both look like keepers. You are a lucky man.

[TPAW]

if u could only pick one rifle to defend your self what would it be

Urban fighting, house to house, room to room, street to street, AK-47, 7.62x39, without question.

[Rifleman 173]

Urban fighting would be a 7.62 X 39 AK type rifle. The AK rifles were designed for that. Back it up with a good pistol and a sheath knife and you can handle just about anything that pops up in front of you.

[easyG]

I would choose an AK variant in 7.62 for self defense.

[VonFireball]

FN FAL for sure.....

ammo availability

rapid follow up shots

fairly accurate at range

good knock down power


Now, if we were talking an intruder in the middle of the night rifle, I would go with my enfield No. 4 mark II chambered in 444 marlin. That should have enough snort to deal with a home intruder. Equipped with a BSA 42mm red dot, I got rapid target acquisition. 2-7 round clips should fill em with enough holes.

[Moloch]

Perfect is not possible. However, I would tend to a M1 .30 carbine with foldable pistol stock loaded with 110 grain soft points.

[ronc0011]

For all the reasons stated already I would choose the M1A and I am very interested in this new stock system.

http://www.shortrifles.com/pictures.htm

I’m gonna have to keep an eye on them for maybe a year to see how they perform, but they look very promising.

[MTMilitiaman]

http://www.shortrifles.com/images/tan1.JPG

:eek:

:barf: ICK! :( Travesty! :mad:

[ronc0011]

Well I’m looking at this in terms of utility not aesthetics. The gun is an M1A but the stock is set up differently. As far as the M1A part of it goes… well… it’s an M1A 7.62 X 51 with a 20 rnd mag. But the weight is moved back close to the body making it easer to carry, easer to maneuver etc. etc.

My M1A is the “Loaded” version and I like it a lot but that is not to say I couldn’t like it better. I definitely think this setup has the potential to make the M1A a much more effective weapon. The part I’m waiting to see is how this setup effects accuracy.

http://www.adlinda.com/m1ascoped.jpg

I think if you look at the two setups side by side the difference in weight distribution should be obvious also the overall length is greatly reduced making the weapon much more maneuverable in close quarters.


http://www.adlinda.com/shortgun.jpg

From a purely aesthetic perspective though your right. Also I think it looks better in black.

[New_Pollution1086]

I got a kel-tec and a mod 10, and my roomie has the two long rifles, a .270 and a .22-250 as well as a couple of shottys id say between the two of us we are ok. individually i dont think either of us are in a great position, not too screwed but not great.
ive been looking into Saigas, any word on them?
thanks T.

[SR420]

For all the reasons stated already I would choose the M1A and I am very interested in this new stock system.

Interesting, but it looks like all the weight is to the rear - not well balanced.

Consider the SAGE CQB (http://www.athenswater.com/MK14_SEI_MOD_1.htm) or the TROY MCS in CQB trim (http://www.athenswater.com/images/FDE-MCS-01.jpg) if you are interested in a non-traditional stock.

[MTMilitiaman]

It is interesting from a functional perspective, but it just looks like it completely destroys the ergonomics and natural balance that I like so much about the M1A, and at the very least, it turns the M1A from one of the most ambidextrous designs available, to one of the least.

[ronc0011]

Well like I said, I want to see what they do for about a year first, see what kind of feedback I find on them, what other people have to say about them. I’m also a bit iffy on the idea of the bolt being right under my cheek. A slam fire right there wouldn’t be too good.

I have read some very good stuff on the Troy MCS. One thing I read on the guy said he was getting nickel sized groups at 100 yrds. That is very impressive for a rifle that isn’t bedded.

[MeekAndMild]

if u could only pick one rifle to defend your self what would it be What are u (you) defending against? There is a wide range of choices depending upon whether the threat is Ghengis Khan, squirrels in the attic, a golf cart full of angry grandmothers with three irons, Klingon invaders, or drunken telemarketers. :eek:

Best home defense gun is probably a shotgun with birdshot and best CCW is probably a pistol but the concept of a self defense rifle just doesn't compute. For community and homeland defense things are a little different. Probably community defense rifle would have standardized spare parts and ammo, and be something everyone is familiar with. So that would have to be a small pin AR-15. :rolleyes:

[foghead]

+1 to TPAW, Rifleman 173, and easyG.

Samuel L. Jackson said it best in the opening scene of the movie "Jackie Brown":

"AK-47... the very best there is... when you absolutely positively got to kill every mother f***er in the room... accept no substitutes..."

Didn't really need Hollywood to tell us that, now did we... :D I certainly didn't, as I've personally witnessed the devastating firepower of these guns. Also, they are VERY jam resistant; another strong (+) in my book. But if this firepower is required, my first choice is to be 10+ miles from the shooting... But if in the thick of it and in need of yet more, then an FAL will come out.

I dread either scenario... :eek: :(

[TPAW]

+1 to TPAW, Rifleman 173, and easyG.

Roger that! Your a smart man, even if I do say so myself........;)
Rifleman/Gunner-M-60, 4th Inf. Div., Vietnam, 67'-68'. I'm an old dude, but experience is the best teacher. Carry on!

[Fremmer]

What are u (you) defending against? There is a wide range of choices depending upon whether the threat is Ghengis Khan, squirrels in the attic, a golf cart full of angry grandmothers with three irons, Klingon invaders, or drunken telemarketers.

Which is why the .45-70 is perfect. You'll earn the Klingon-grandmother's respect, and right quick. ;)

[MTMilitiaman]

Best home defense gun is probably a shotgun with birdshot and best CCW is probably a pistol but the concept of a self defense rifle just doesn't compute.

The shotgun holds no advantages over the rifle, especially when the shotgun is loaded with birdshot. It isn't as terminally effective, doesn't have the accuracy, or the capacity, and has more recoil and slower follow up shots. A rifle has it all over the shotgun.

With proper ammunition selection, a rifle is no more likely to penetrate multiple walls than a shotgun, and the rifle can easily be loaded to far exceed the penetration offered by the shotgun as well, when and if more penetration is ever needed.

Likewise, if you ever need the range, the rifle can offer that too--the shotgun can't. The rifle is more effective, and more versatile. It is simply the better tool for the job.

A carbine length rifle is the ideal defensive tool. The shotgun by comparison is a specialty item that most collections could easily do without completely, and never miss. And the worst thing you can do to a shotgun from a defensive point of view, is load it with birdshot, which even at inside the house distances can be of questionable effectiveness on small rodents weighing less than a typical house cat.

Let's compare:

12 gauge 2 3/4 #4 birdshot from an 18" barreled IC bore shotgun @ 9 feet:
http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/content_nonsub/gelatin_testing/bird_4_rem_heavy_dove/bird_4_heavy_dove_rem_a.jpg
The permanent wound channel reaches only 6.5 inches. This is simply too shallow to reach the vital cardiovascular structures that need to be destroyed in order to reliably stop an attacker without destroying the CNS. Note that this is without clothes, and without hitting major bones, or even ribs.

It is a common misconception that at inside-the-house distances, a load of birdshot behaves like a slug. This is incorrect, and the notion isn't held by anyone who has any real experience with a shotgun, at any range. The individual pellets are of too little mass and quickly shed velocity, resulting in shallow penetration, and typically, superficial wounds that often prove to be unreliable stoppers--either dramatic successes, or dramatic failures. I've shot thousands of small critters with birdshot from a 26 inch barreled Wingmaster with a extra full turkey choke, and have witnessed how dismally it performs at ranges I have inside my house too many times to trust my life to it against anything weighing more than my dad's terrier.

12 gauge 2 3/4 #4 buckshot from an 18" barreled IC shotgun @ 9 feet:
http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/content_nonsub/gelatin_testing/buck_4_fed/buck_4_a.jpg
Permanent wound cavity reaches 14 inches, which is decent. Number 4 buckshot is the smallest those in the know typically recommend for defensive use. It provides the minimum amount of penetration needed to reliably reach vital organs, regardless of shot angle and despite encountering heavy clothing or bones.

This is Hornady's .308 Win 155 gr TAP FPD load from an 18.5 inch barreled M1A @ 15 feet:
http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/content_nonsub/gelatin_testing/308_155gr_hornady_tap_18in_barrel/308_155gr_hornady_tap_a_small_illustrated.jpg
Permanent wound cavity is 16.5 inches in length, easily enough penetration to destroy vital tissues deep within the body, while providing minimal risk of penetrating several walls.

Expanding ammunition in a 7.62mm rifle like a FAL or M1A carbine easily surpasses the terminal effect of birdshot, even at close range, and provides 3/4 of the terminal effect of even some 12 gauge buckshot loads, along with advantages in follow up shot times, magazine capacity, and accuracy at every range. Furthermore, the user could easily keep the rifle with a spare mag loaded with standard 150 gr FMJ to provide additional penetration, if needed, and either load would provide additional range, again if needed--though the advantages of a rifle can be appreciate at every range.

Really, I wonder why anyone would ever use a shotgun for home defense, when they could use a rifle.

[ostrobothnian]

Battle proven design. Used by over 90 countries military forces around the world. Gas piston driven before it was "cool". Is there an alternative? :D Quick! Here come the zombies!

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k152/finlandssvensk/flock001.jpg

[FirstFreedom]

A carbine length rifle is the ideal defensive tool.

I have to disagree somewhat, if you're talking about home defense / short range, against one or only a few aggressors.

Nothing, but nothing is more devastating, and will incapacitate the attacker more quickly, than a shotgun with buckshot. It's also easier to make a hit with. My 12 ga home defense shotgun with ten .32" balls of OOO buck is like hitting your aggressor with ten shots of .32 auto at the same moment. Tons of chances to hit CNS, vital organs, large blood vessels, etc. Greatly magnifies your chance of instantly taking the fight out of the attacker, relative to other weapons. The shock to the system is unparalleled, IINM. Nothing wrong with a rifle; it is devastating as well, but for home defense at least, I'll take a 12 ga with triple ot buck.

But agree that birdshot is no bueno.

[TPAW]

the perfect self defense rifle
if u could only pick one rifle to defend your self what would it be

Remember the question by it's original poster. It was a defense rifle, and no specific mention of home defense. In this senario, rifles only.

[billindenver]

A rifle is made for killing at a distance. A shotgun is made for killing at close quarters and doing so without having to aim very carefully. Pick the hammer that best suits the nail you are trying to hit. In my home, that is a shotgun. If the Iraqi's ever invade...that will be a different story. Seldom have I heard of a 'defensive' situation within the USA borders where a rifle would be a better choice than a buckshot loaded shotgun. Birdshot? I would not load for defense with any birdshot ever made....but buckshot is a beast of another color.

It was mentioned that a rifle gives faster follow up shots than a shotgun. I doubt that, but even assuming that to be true...how many 30 cal balls are coming from the end of the rifle barrel per shot? 1. How many from the end of the shotgun? Many more than that. Now, how many rifle shots is it going to take to put down that guy in the dark hiding behind the door jam of your bedroom and shooting back? If you miss by an inch you might as well be shooting out the window. Now, aim that semi auto 10 round clip saiga 12 over in his direction and see how much of that wall is standing after half a clip. Defense is not meant to be kind, or to wound or to scare away. If I am every forced to defend myself with a weapon (god forbid), I want the meanest weapon I can find in my hand. That is a shotgun.

[MTMilitiaman]

It was mentioned that a rifle gives faster follow up shots than a shotgun. I doubt that, but even assuming that to be true...how many 30 cal balls are coming from the end of the rifle barrel per shot? 1. How many from the end of the shotgun? Many more than that.

This is the quantity verses quality argument.

The round ball has been obsolete sense before the American Civil War. Packing large quantities into a single shot does little to overcome the inherent disadvantages the round ball possesses compared to the pointed projectile.

The shotgun, in a typical 00 buck defensive load, throws 8 to 12 .31 caliber lead balls at what, like 1100 to 1300 fps. Each ball weighs only 55 gr or so, and expands very little. Because it lacks velocity, it causes damage only by crushing and displacing tissue directly--the so-called permanent wound cavity, which is small and rather akin to LRN or FMJ ammunition from your typical mouse gun.

The rifle can't compete for overall mass of the projectile or total unexpanded frontal diameter, but shoots a projectile with often two or three times the mass of each individual buckshot projectile with over 1000 fps more velocity. The projectile is designed to expand, and by virtue of this expansion, and its velocity, is capable of creating enough shock to damage tissues several inches beyond the direct path of the bullet. For this reason, as demonstrated in the pictures, a single expanding projectile, such as the 155 gr Hornady TAP, can produce, with a single projectile, about 3/4 of the total wound volume of a load of buckshot.

Additionally, a .308 caliber carbine can be expected to have a magazine capacity of up to 20 rounds, and most people will be able to double tap targets at inside the house ranges, meaning that with expanding ammunition, a rifle can easily exceed the terminal performance of the shotgun while offering greater capacity--even double tapping assailants, the guy with the rifle can engage ten times without reloading. Very few shotguns on the market offer this capability.

Finally, I have shot tens of thousands of rounds of field loads through my Wingmaster, and gotten pretty good with it--to the point where I could have two or three hulls in the air at once tracking fleeing ground squirrels through heavy underbrush. But it takes a lot more practice to be able to do that, than it does to be able to match and exceed the fire rate with a semi-automatic rifle--even a .308. I know I can with my M1A, and it is conventionally stocked, without a vertical foregrip or pistol grip, and without a compensator. With these amenities, the shotgun just simply falls short in both immediate fire rate and sustainable fire rate. That is why I take quality over quantity every time.

[FirstFreedom]

Ya know, you make some excellent points there - you may be right - a rifle may be superior overall to a shotgun, even for close range, and may even excel in BOTH incapacitation ability and follow up shot quantity & placement, not just *overall*, for the reasons mentioned. However, I disagree that a round ball is obsolete, and strongly disagree that it doesn't expand much. A non-jacketed round chunk of lead is gonna expand well, even at low velocities. This is soft lead in a buckshot loads, and is pretty much the definition of a high expansion projectile, IMO. Ten .32" balls, each expanding well, is gonna be devastating, though I concede that an expanding .308 bullet *may* just be a bit even more devastating, in terms of stopping the attacker immediately - I just don't know for sure. When you factor in speed of follow up shots, the rifle may come out the clear winner. I may have to re-think my home defense rig; thanks a lot! :p


TPAW, I know, we're talking "best rifle", but... MT man kinda of expanded the discussion to also include rifle vs. shotgun with his statements, so I was following up on that.

[Para Bellum]

Steyr AUG-Z:

http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/typo3temp/pics/2cb51bd85f.jpg


- 20" barrel, yet short enough to aim and open doors.
- .223 caliber (MilSpec M193 or Federal LE223T3 ammo)

perfect IMHO.

Check this out for varous .223 ballistic tests:
http://www.le.atk.com/223data/223rifle.asp

[p99guy]

"If you are talking about self defense from humans, there is not a legal situation where a rifle is of any benefit to you. Legally you are only justified in using deadly force to prevent an attack, so in the majority of situations, shooting someone who is some distance away (the only thing a rifle has an advantage at) is really hard to justify. If course, warfare is a completely different situation.

In time of loss of civil authority (a Katrina or LA riots type situation), eventually civil order will be restored, and you might have a hard time explaining popping "looters" at 100 yards+. Some prosecutors just don't have a sense of priorities!" -44AMP


I couldnt disagree more....where I am you can legally shoot to protect property, other people and yourself. You can use as much force as is being attempted to use on you or another you are stepping in to protect.A rifle will allways have a power advantage over an average pistol...but if somebody is at 75 yards shooting at you with a .25acp pistol, you can shoot them with whatever you have at hand. If the wife walks down to the mailbox
at the farm and a pickup stops on the county road and bad people are trying to get her to get in that pickup at gunpoint and you are 250 yards away watching through your Leopold MKV atop your 700PSS
YES..you CAN blast that no account son of a female dog right where he stands.

In complete civil disorder, there are many instances of people protecting themselves and businesses with rifles..LA riots were a great example...I have yet to hear of anyone getting the book thrown at them for it.

I have 21 years as a LEO, and I you can be assured WILL use a rifle anytime the situation calls for one, or that is what I happen to have close when the poop starts.

[MTMilitiaman]

Yeah, you don't have to be 300 yards away from your target to appreciate the advantages of a rifle.

The difference is that the rifle is versatile and effective enough to cover long range engagements as well. The shotgun and the handgun are not. The rifle offers more firepower at every range, not just long distances.

In a social break-down, Katrina type situation, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to picture the worst of human nature coming out. If you are inside your house and someone 200 or 300 yards away starts taking random pot-shots at you and yours, and all you have is a shotgun and a handgun, you are defenseless and have no legitimate answer to that type of threat. All you can do is try to get lower and hope, or retreat from your house, more than likely requiring that you abandon much or all of your survival gear and lessening your chances of survival. With a rifle, you can easily neutralize the threat without even breaking a sweat. And you can use the same weapon to great effect on the hoodlums bashing down your door as well. So a handgun still offers advantages in concealability and ease of transport, but again, you really don't need a shotgun as a rifle can do everything a shotgun can do and then some. A shotgun is too specialized and limited in its utility to be practical, and should realistically be the last defensive weapon one considers.

[TPAW]

TPAW, I know, we're talking "best rifle", but... MT man kinda of expanded the discussion to also include rifle vs. shotgun with his statements, so I was following up on that.

Perhaps a compromise is in order. Shoot slugs!.............;)

[jhgreasemonkey]

I'm going to be a little different and say a marlin levergun in .44 mag with an 18" barrel. For a defensive situation its right on for me. 10 rounds of very hard hitting caliber for up close to medium ranges. Lever action for complete reliability and simplicity. Very manuverable because of weight and length. And fast handling. If you were forced to fend off up to several human threats I couldnt think of a better rifle. For a second pick (rifle) I would take a short barreled 12 guage slug gun say no more than 22".:D
Now if I was going to war and not just using it for defending that would be a different story.

[joshua]

I surprised no one has the personal self defense weapon idea such as the 5.7x28. The thread is "The perfect self defense rifle". :D josh

[Houndog]

A lot of good suggestions. AK, FAL, AR10 would all be at the top of my list. Of course if I'm really feeling cantancerous (sp?) I'd bring out my .458 socom. Don't know anyone who would enjoy being on the receiving end of a 300 grain projectile coming at them at nearly 2000 fps. :D

[MeekAndMild]

MTMilitiaman I used to work in a hospital in Chattanooga "back in the day", ie. before LEOs had tasers. So I had the opportunity of seeing lots of people who'd been shot by service pistols, birdshot, buckshot and rifles. Add to that a truly in-depth experience with the live goat shoot at the US Army sponsored combat casualty care course out in San Antonio plus lots varmint and deer hunting. The short summary of what I've seen in living bodies is you'd have a very hard time convincing me that your gel experiment means anything except in gel. But you enjoy gel shooting I'd humbly ask you to retry it at 3 and 6 feet and get back with me. I will admit I've heard of this super rifle ammo that kills bad guys but doesn't penetrate walls. Trouble is I've never seen it for sale at any of the local stores. Do you have any more information about it?

p99guy, how many folks live 250 yards from their mailboxes? And why aren't they carrying a pistol when they walk down to get the mail?

Back on topic, how does one carry a concealed personal defense rifle? I can think of a couple of ways but one is obscene and the other is ridiculous. ;)

I noticed that no one paid serious attention to my assertion that community/homeland defense rifles needed to be standardized such as the old standby AR-15s.

[IdahoG36]

A 75mm recoilless rifle!!!:D

http://toychestandcollectables.com/shop/media/eddie-rifle.jpg

[Gamisou]

7.62x.39 AK

[4V50 Gary]

SKS. Remember, shoot someone and the po-po seize your gun as evidence. Would you rather have a $700 rifle plus $300 optics seized or a $150 rifle with $50 optics?

However, SHTF and the lawlessness prevails as in a state of total anarchy, we're talking about raw survival and by all means use that $1,500 rifle plus $900 red dot and $350 magnifier. Along that line, I like IdahoG36's suggestion. That is certainly a one shot stop gun. Vespa made a motor-scooter that featured a 75 mm recoiless rifle. I wonder if there are any surplus ones around? :p

[Tom2]

I am torn-my M1 carbine with softpoint ammo, or my Marlin with 357 HP ammo. The Marlin will definitely hit harder, but slower firing, carbine less power more firepower. Would use the ball ammo as last resort. At close range I suspect sp or hp from it would be as effective as a light 357 bullet, but the Marlin can be topped off during a lull easily. I guess if you make the first shot count, like you should, neither has an advantage then. I would only consider the centerfire rifle carts and guns if I lived on a ranch or something, like it is overkill at very close range, but intimdation is one factor of something like an AK I guess.

[TPAW]

4v50 Gary asks:Vespa made a motor-scooter that featured a 75 mm recoiless rifle. I wonder if there are any surplus ones around?

Well Gary, as the old TV show used to say, "YOU ASKED FOR IT!"

http://www.longstoryshortpier.com/2007/01/08/mle-56

[MTMilitiaman]

I will admit I've heard of this super rifle ammo that kills bad guys but doesn't penetrate walls.

Any ammo that can reliably stop an attacker is going to penetrate at least one wall. Dry wall is just not a very good barrier. A child can easily punch a hole through drywall, and my first experience with tequila involved me passing out and putting my head through a wall. I didn't know about it until my friend showed it to me when I went back to his house a week later.

However, expanding ammunition can be found which minimizes barrier penetration and risk to bystanders. Hornady's TAP line was made specifically for this purpose.

I can't remember a time when I wasn't shooting things and watching things get shot. I've been a hunter and a shooter my whole life. I know what a rifle can do, and I know what a shotgun can do. I am as skeptical of geletin tests as the next guy, but done properly, it does accurately simulate the effect of muscle tissue on projectiles, and the results above closely match my experience on living animals.

For shotguns, buckshot is much more effective than birdshot. Like I said before, I've shot thousands of varmints with my Wingmaster and birdshot, and have remained unimpressed with its performance. In fact, I rarely carry a shotgun any more specifically because in my experience, as close as just 30 or 40 feet (with a 26 inch barreled shotgun equipped with an extra full turkey choke), a single .22 caliber HP to the chest is more effective at reliably anchoring a 2.5 pound ground squirrel than a centered pattern of #6 birdshot. Regardless of the range, I've shot enough stuff with birdshot at much closer and farther distances to know what it is capable of, and it is universally a dismal performer at all but direct, point blank engagement distances--and even then it sucks compared to buckshot or expanding rifle ammunition.

But you enjoy gel shooting I'd humbly ask you to retry it at 3 and 6 feet and get back with me.

This just shows how foolish you're being. You're betting the entire success or failure of your defensive plan on the assailant being within 3 to 6 feet of you, which is the maximum range your chosen ammunition can be relied upon to be effective. And you expect others to understand or agree with this?

Do you live in an outhouse or do you actually expect others to believe you can't conceive of a single scenario where you might want an effective range of greater than 6 feet?

If all you need is six feet, why not just keep an ax or a large knife by the bed, and forfeit the idea of a defensive firearm altogether?

How can you criticize or question the choices of others when your choices are so poor?

The very worst that can be said about the rifle is that it is effective at close range while offering a range and capacity advantage that won't be necessary in the majority of situations. For comparison, the very best you can say about the shotgun is that when properly loaded (not birdshot) it is effective at close range while not offering the range or capacity that may be necessary in a small percentage of engagements. The rifle is the smarter choice, and the logically driven will be wise enough to realize that it is better to have the range and capacity and not need it, than to need it and not have it, esp when it entails giving up little or nothing in terms of close range effectiveness.

[ursavus.elemensis]

For inside the house, that's easy: 9 mm Sig pistol. Training takes effort, and your potential assialants will count on you thinking that effort was not worth it.

For you rifle guys, I sincerely believe that I could enter your home, armed only with my 9 mm pistol, and you armed with your rifle, and I would take you out...end of story. Now, maybe YOU don't sincerely believe that, but hey, that's your problem. Can you hit me with your first shot from a rifle? When you are really in a situation where I am coming down the hall, firing at you? Can you hit me? You think so, or you know so? How do you know?

If I was to have anything else besides my 9 mm pistol, I'd have a shotgun.

Now, for law/order breakdown, I'd go with the 9 mm pistol and the shotgun. The guy shooting at me from 200 yards away who can actually hit me from 200 yards away wins the game, and I lose. Everyone else gets to come and post to this forum about what it's REALLY like to eat lead from a 9 mm pistol.

Anyone who is far enough away to make my AR-15 useful to me better have on the uniform of the U.N. or some OTHER foreign country, or better at least be a registered Democrat. Otherwise, I had no business shooting him.

Lever rifles. I like that idea. A lot. Probably more useful than many people think, and more accurate, too.

[MTMilitiaman]

Can you hit me with your first shot from a rifle? When you are really in a situation where I am coming down the hall, firing at you? Can you hit me? You think so, or you know so? How do you know?


Unequivocally and absolutely, "YES!" And the next two or three after that. In a hallway, or the doorway you have to get through, or the stairway I am guarding, you don't have a chance. Not a snowball's chance in hell. You'd be better off playing golf in a lightening storm or hop-scotch in a six lane interstate.

As sure as gravity and the earth you'll be buried in.

How do I know? Because I've been shooting rifles since I was four years old. It is beyond muscle memory. I don't have to think about it--it just happens. And because Uncle Sam trained me to be able to do just that, and to do so without hesitation.

Yes. Absolutely. Any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Not a doubt in my mind. You're leaving in a body bag--toe tagged and room temperature--and you can take that to the bank.

[ursavus.elemensis]

Well, that's wonderful tough talk for the Internet, but I don't believe you.

And you don't believe you, either. Though, for the purposes of the Internet, you'd never admit that.

Point is, most folks who read this forum can't shoot me with that rifle in the hallway and RELIABLY hit me and stop me, but many, many folks who read this forum can take you out with their 9 mm handguns becuase most of us practice a whole heck of a lot more with our handguns for interpersonal combat than we do with rifles.

[MTMilitiaman]

Well, that's wonderful tough talk for the Internet, but I don't believe you.

And you don't believe you, either. Though, for the purposes of the Internet, you'd never admit that.

Ditto for you.

My talk is no more mancho chest beating than yours.

So right back at you, bud--nice talk for the Internet--but I don't believe you...


Point is, most folks who read this forum can't shoot me with that rifle in the hallway and RELIABLY hit me and stop me, but many, many folks who read this forum can take you out with their 9 mm handguns becuase most of us practice a whole heck of a lot more with our handguns for interpersonal combat than we do with rifles.

I ain't most people. I probably shoot at least 100 rounds through a rifle for every one round I fire through any pistol. Any one of my rifles easily has more rounds through it than all the rounds I've put through any handgun put together...

Okay, so most of them do. My 7 Mag only has about 400 rounds through it.

Keep in mind, I practice with my rifles on targets much smaller than you. When you can reliably hit a ground squirrel on the move at 50 yards, it makes bigger targets at closer distances seem rather...simple. The only question then is dealing with the pressure and the adrenaline. That is mindset and training, and I have both, in part courtesy of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

[bobn]

for a more friendlier line of conversation> consider cowboy action shooting. here we shoot both pistols and rifles at same very close targets. i assure you the lever rifles(chambered in pistol cartridges) almost never miss and are faster. bobn

[p99guy]

p99guy, how many folks live 250 yards from their mailboxes? And why aren't they carrying a pistol when they walk down to get the mail?-MeekandMild


Thousands(you live in the city dont you) On a 300 acre farm like I lived on it was farther than 250 yds out to the mailbox. Not everyone carries a pistol with them everytime they go out of the house to get the mail when living on a farm...unless you live in the gaza strip or Beirut

on the 2000 acre ranch I grew up on...it was about a mile to the mailbox.

[ronc0011]

Yes inside of a house a rifle is much easer to point-n-shoot. Aiming is not really required at those distances. Also at those distances that .308 is going to make a really horrible mess of anything it hits. Follow up shots on my rifle are much faster

Here check out this video… ( this is sooo coool )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfNe1CC8fqs

Wonder how your focus and concentration are going to be when your looking into that.


As for the 9mm… just another handgun, all be it a rather anemic handgun. In all honesty though in a home defense situation I too would probably opt for the handgun ( though not a 9mm ) not because it has better stopping power but because it is less likely to kill neighbors on the next block. The .308 is just as likely to kill my truck out in the driveway after it has finished killing the BG in my living room.

[RJM]

For house defense (meaning inside the house)the handgun is simply the better choice because it allows you to have a free hand which will probably be used to dial a phone to 911. I can't see how inside the house a rifle is a better choice than a handgun or a shotgun, but to each their own. But, the OP's question was for a self-defense rifle, so I would still pick the lever carbine (18" barrel) chambered in .357 mag, but that is just me.

[CraigC]

The shotgun holds no advantages over the rifle, especially when the shotgun is loaded with birdshot. It isn't as terminally effective, doesn't have the accuracy, or the capacity, and has more recoil and slower follow up shots. A rifle has it all over the shotgun.

I have never heard such a crock! I believe that you are the first person I've ever heard, in print, in person or on the internet to deride the 12ga shotgun for defensive use. I understand that you like your rifles, are proficient with them and prefer them but to say that the 12ga is not devastating within its effective range is silly at best. At "house" ranges, say under 30ft, they are FAR easier to hit with, far more forgiving as to shot placement and has a brutal effect on soft targets. If they were not effective, they would not be the weapon of choice for those who must go into the bush after wounded leopards.

The round ball became obsolete because of its limited range and the coming of the metallic cartridge, not its effectiveness within its range.

[MTMilitiaman]

I understand that you like your rifles, are proficient with them and prefer them but to say that the 12ga is not devastating within its effective range is silly at best.

You don't retain much, do you? It sounds like you must miss most of what goes on around you in daily life, and are probably largely oblivious most of the time. The world just spins so much faster than you can comprehend, doesn't it?

I never said the shotgun wasn't effective within its effective range. First of all, that would make no sense, because if a shotgun wasn't effective within its effective range, then it wouldn't be an effective range.

My argument stems from the fact that a shotgun's effective range is so limited, even with slugs. Most rifles can easily double or triple the shotgun's effective slug range with little or no effort. This may be of little consequence for most situations, but having the range available certainly doesn't hurt the user, esp since a rifle with expanding ammunition is just as effective as the shotgun, or nearly so, at close range. This makes the rifle more versatile and overall more capable, which I feel makes it a better all-around choice.

Secondly, please spare me the "much easier to hit with" speal. I am not a moron. I have enough thousands of rounds through a shotgun to know what it does, and believe me, at the "inside the house" ranges you specify, if you miss with a rifle, a shotgun will at best yield you a peripheral strike. Furthermore, tracking front sights is about as easy on a shotgun as on a rifle, and most rifles make it easier for the operator to mount a reflex sight, which further improves target on close range moving targets. Lastly, if you do miss, the rifle yields faster follow up shots than a shotgun.

Sounds to me like a whole lotta reasons to pick a rifle...

[Art Eatman]

Looks like email or PM would work better...

Enuf wandering...