Reason with me - Page 2

Skadoosh · July 12, 2012, 08:01 AM

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?

July 12, 2012, 08:05 AM	#27
misnomerga Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 139	In terms I clearly understand LOL Thanks for that update -

July 12, 2012, 08:32 AM	#28
Skadoosh Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2010 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 2,016	I would get that generator before the AR. __________________ NRA Life Member USN Retired

July 12, 2012, 10:47 AM	#32
misnomerga Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 139	Not very concealable either 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.

July 12, 2012, 10:34 AM	#30
Striker1 Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2004 Location: TX Posts: 710	Do a little research and decide if the AR15 with proper ammunition is more effective than handgun calibers.

July 12, 2012, 10:44 AM	#31
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	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.