AR rifles as a "home defense" guns?

[gringojosh]

I see posts about using AR-type rifles as "home defense" guns and can't help wonder how that would hold up in court. I can see a handgun or a shotgun, but a rifle accurate to hundreds of yards makes me wonder.

[Sefner]

Handguns can be accurate to a hundred yards. I know guys that can put shotgun slugs 200 yards and have only one hole.

What does the accuracy of a home defense firearm have anything to do with it anyways? Wouldn't you want the most accurate firearm you could get? I don't follow this line of reasoning.

People have successfully defended their homes with AR 15s many times.

Here is one from Massad Ayoob: http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

Here is another where a kid uses his dad's AR to defend the home: http://gunssavelives.net/self-defens...o-defend-home/.

Sure it might result in more a legal hassle because of it's "scary black rifle" reputation, but I know of no case in which that was the main thrust of the prosecution's argument. It would probably only come up if there were other factors that made the shoot a little murky. In most cases a clean shoot is a clean shoot regardless of the firearm used (assuming it's a legal firearm of course).

[maestro pistolero]

With the right round, over-penetration is less of a factor than with handgun rounds. A 55 grain .223 projectile will penetrate typical wall, but afterward, due to it's low mass, will not be as dangerous as a heavier handgun round.

I realize this is counter-intuitive, but a little research will show I know what I am talking about. It's so true, in fact, that the FBI trains agents to transition to handgun when digging a suspect out from behind typical drywall construction.

Two downsides, tactically speaking, are:

1. An AR15 rifle is rather unwieldy in tight quarters compared to a handgun. Like a shotgun, it serves the average homeowner better when used taking up a defensive position. It's probably inadvisable for the average person without special training and backup to attempt to 'clear' their own house. Clear a path to escape if necessary? Sure.

2. The Db (volume) generated indoors can do permanent hearing damage with a single round fired. The undeveloped ears of young children are especially vulnerable to permanent damage from such intense sound pressures.

[HarrySchell]

Over-penetration can be lessened with bullet choice. A polymer-tip varmint round a buddy and I are handloading should mushroom very aggressively and dump its energy quickly.

[C0untZer0]

^ +1

With the right ammo a .308 / 7.62x51 penetrates in the range of various handgun rounds - 10" - 15"

.308 Hornady 110gr TAP rounds penetrate to around 10" and create huge temporary stretch cavites. The round travels at 3075 fps, if there is such thing as Hydrostatic Shock - I think this round would create it.

.308 Hornady 155gr TAP rounds penetrate to 15" and also creates significant temporary stretch cavities.

On the other hand, a 44 magnum using FMJ is probably going to penetrate an assailant and keep right on going...

A lot of it depends on different factors.

[C0untZer0]

When you are talking about "holding up in court" in what way do you mean? And where?

We really still are a republic despite some complaints that we're not...

In Oklahoma, South Carolina and other states that have what would be considered "strong" castle doctrine law... you aren't going to be going to any court where anything has to "hold up" - no criminal charges, no civil suit. (Assuming this is a legitimate HD situation)

If you are in Washington DC, or Vermont... then it's another matter.

[Spats McGee]

Sefner has hit two points that line up pretty well with my thinking on the matter.

Originally Posted by Sefner

. . . .What does the accuracy of a home defense firearm have anything to do with it anyways? Wouldn't you want the most accurate firearm you could get? I don't follow this line of reasoning.

Originally Posted by Sefner

. . . .Sure it might result in more a legal hassle because of it's "scary black rifle" reputation, but I know of no case in which that was the main thrust of the prosecution's argument. It would probably only come up if there were other factors that made the shoot a little murky. In most cases a clean shoot is a clean shoot regardless of the firearm used (assuming it's a legal firearm of course).

The problems associated with overpenetration are not specific to the AR, and I'll leave those discussions to those who know more about the ballistics than I.

As for those potential legal problems related specifically to ARs (or other Scary Black Rifles), provided that we're talking about a legal (in your state) and (basically) stock rifle, the only real issue I see is that using one for HD might result in image problems for the shooter, in terms of jury perception. Those can be minimized on the front end by avoiding things like "Punisher" or "Death's Head" emblems. (I would avoid things like that on any HD or SD weapon, be it AR, Glock, or what have you, and for that very reason.) Other than that, there's nothing about the AR platform that puts the shooter at any greater legal risk than any other semi-automatic rifle.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ahem - I know something about this. Here's the bottom line with firearms issues - if the shoot is ambiguous (which it is if you are going to trial), jury simulation data is clear that weapons issues can influence potential jurors.

Folks will say - if it is a good shoot, weapons issues don't make a difference.

If you are in court, it isn't a good shoot.

DAs will emphasize the evil nature of things in some cases: gun appearance, training - for example. We have simulations and cases to support this.

The answer - if you are in court - have an attorney who is very aware of the firearms issues and the data regarding such.

No one gets convicted because of the weapons issues, but if you look at the net set of influences on a jury - such factors contribute to your shoot being viewed as good or bad.

Also, the DA doesn't have to bring it directly up as a rant. Simple appearance or mention can prime negative attributions to you.

If you don't believe it (the usual rant response) - you are the one that might go to jail - not me.

Now go on google scholar and search the real lit as compared to MY OPINION. Hint.

[thallub]

If you are in court, it isn't a good shoot.

+1

If you're being tried in court you have failed three tests:
1. The police did not believe your story.
2. The prosecutor did not believe your story.
3. The grand jury did not believe your story.

There is a very good chance the jury will not believe your story.

Now back to the subject: An AR-15 is not my idea of a good self defense gun. A shotgun is much better, especially in an apartment or townhouse setting.

[Sefner]

GEM makes a good distinction that I failed to make.

If it's a good shoot and the police know it you very well might not even spend the night in jail. The police might not even take your gun. What I meant to say is that a good shoot will, in most cases, never get as far as a trial and so the type of gun used (as long as its legal) will not matter.

If it's a questionable shoot then yeah, the type of gun used is probably going to be played on by the prosecutor if it fits their argument.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Big debate about that one.

Might look at the link I posted in http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...=475482&page=5

Post 103.

BTW - I've taken Defensive Shotgun from Tom Givens at Karl's. Wrote that up

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...ght=tom+givens

I love my shotgun but to each his own and I go AR first.

Back to the initial question. We did find the that shotguns didn't make simulated juries upset - so that's a point for them.

Shoot one from each hand - Arnold could!

[C0untZer0]

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=351491

Shotgun alone beat out rifle alone or handgun alone combined, and beat each by a better than 2 to 1 margin. Shotgun alone or in combo with another firearm garnered 75% of the vote.

[BitterTait]

There is some evidience that Evil Black Rifles negatively influence jury's perceptions on lawful shootings. Note that this is in comparison to a gun with the same capacity firing the same round, just with wood furniture and a non pistol grip stock. So if you're in an area where a lawful self defense shooting tends to end up in court, it may be worth your while to get a less ugly gun. That said, if your AR-15 is the gun you know the best, the path of "carried by 6 vs judged by 12" is one worth considering.

[Ralgha]

Shotgun alone beat out rifle alone or handgun alone combined, and beat each by a better than 2 to 1 margin. Shotgun alone or in combo with another firearm garnered 75% of the vote.

You also have to consider what you will be most familiar with and what you will practice with. Myself, I have no desire to own a shotgun. If I were to get one for HD, I would probably not shoot it much, if at all, whereas I would probably tend to go shoot an AR fairly often.

Of course right now I don't have an AR either and must rely on my trusty HK.

AFAIK, I need to add more acronyms, LOL. IANAL, YMMV. GTG, BBL.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Polls - not conclusive evidence, now are they? Look at who we elect.

Also, who wrote that Jury article - probably some professor. What to they know? Do they even own an AR? You know what they say about professors!

Geez whiz, folks.

[Hiker 1]

If you are in a home-defense shooting, which is what the OP is about, and you live in a state with good Castle Doctrine laws, then it doesn't matter what weapon you use. If the shooting is ruled a Castle Doctrine shooting, then you are protected from criminial prosecution and civil suit.

There was a recent incident here in Colorado where a person defended himself with a broken bottle and killed the home invader. It was ruled a CD defense case. No further legal or civil action was or could be taken against him.

If you are outside the home or live in a state w/o Castle Doctrine laws that favor the home-owner, the weapon you use may be an issue.

[kraigwy]

can't help wonder how that would hold up in court. I can see a handgun or a shotgun

That is a very good question and one I think people should consider.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent a lot of time in court either as a witness or complainant (never as a defendant ).

I've seen a lot of juries and know they are funny creatures.

Regardless of the strict wording of the law, Mindset does come into play.

About this time of year (every year) we have pictures showing up about the SHOT SHOW. This year more then ever we see firearms that would scare off an Alien Invasion, just by looks alone.

Gone are the Blued Rifles with Wood Stocks. Gone are the fine over/under shotguns, gone are the bolt action 22 small game rifles. Good or bad is based on opinion but look at it this way.

You have a jury, made of of moderate citizens, not all gun nuts, not all anti gun people.

Now think: You have Mr Jones who protects his home from a home invader. He uses his "tacticool AR, with enough gadgets to strain an Infantry Company's Supply Trains. Two 30 round magazines taped together.

Now look at Mr Smith, same situation, only he has a old Smith and Wesson, passed down from his grandfather, or maybe his Remington 870 Duck Gun.

MIND SET:

That's the key, what is the jury gonna think about the mind set of Mr Jones and Mr. Smith.

Mindset does come into play when you are trying to show your state of mind at the time of the person who is claiming Self Defense.

Also they look at the person. A 250 lb line backer is going to have more difficulty claiming SD then a 100 lb 60 year old grandmother.

If it's a legit shooting, you may not have to worry about this criminally, but in states that allow civil suits it will come into play.

Even if you prevail, (which you probably will if its really a justifiable shooting) the more muddied the water, the more its going to cost you to defend your actions.

Right or wrong, perception matters.

As a side note, I think it would pay anyone who carries a gun for SD should look into the ideal of carrying insurance to cover you in such court cases. Even if you win, the insurance just might save your house of your kids college fund.

[chack]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

If you are in court, it isn't a good shoot.

Not really. Many people end up in court to witness against the guy they shot, not to defend themselves.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Obviously, we mean that YOU are on trial or being sued.

[C0untZer0]

I do think a tactic that is sometimes used is "muddy the water".

Just as an example, my mom was hit by a driver who was insured by a company whose business model calls for litigating every claim.

My mom has All State insurance, she and the All State lawyer had to go to court over the claim. The opposing lawyer introduced all sorts of irrelevant information, and the All State lawyer was constantly objecting.

One of the objections that were over-ruled was this long drawn out description of nearby rail road tracks. The rail road track had nothing to do with the accident what so ever.

But the guy had the jury's attention and they were concentrating on taking in the info on the railroad tracks. In the end, the jury was confused, I could see that just sitting in the gallery, and I think since they were confused they decided to split the difference between what All State was asking and what the other insurance company was asking. So the opposing lawyer's tactic was succesful in saving his company money (about $7,000).

My ex wife served on a jury that was deciding a drug case. The opposing attorney muddied the waters over possible entrapment - again just sitting in the court room I could see that it wasn't entrapment, but the arguments were enough to confuse some jurors, and they were deadlocked. Around 9:30 pm, the jury cut a sort of compromise deal among themselves, they would find the accused guilty on one charge and innocent on the other. Logically it made no sense. If it was entrapment he should have been found innocent on all counts. If it was not entrapment - he should have been found guilty. But it just goes to show you that you don't know what's going to transpire with a jury.

[ripnbst]

With Hornady TAP ammo or a varmint bullet I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[C0untZer0]

The reason I asked the OP which "court" he was talking about is that some states do not have laws to preclude a civil wrongful death suit even if it was determined to be justifible homocide (or similar), or there is no underlying criminal charge or even if you were proven innocent.

I was thinking about the Mossberg 930 Field and the 930 SPX 8-shot. The Field model has a longer barrel and shorter feed tube but other than that - they are basically identical guns. I'm pretty sure the stock and forend are interchangeable. I have no problem with having a walnut stock and forend on my HD shotgun - I'm not going to hang stuff off of there anyway.

I do think people make cosmetic changes to their weapons - like death's head/ skull & cross bones / Punisher logo, that have no effect on the weapons functioning. The other can be true - if it doesn't affect the functioning of the weapon why not make it look "friendlier".

[Smok3y]

I know you guys aren't on the topic of drywall penetration any longer, but a helpful link regardless. Hopefully you guys get some use out of it, and take it for what it is.

Drywall vs. Common Handgun & Rifle Cartridges

[44 AMP]

Sadly, in a lot of cases, perception trumps reality. And using a rifle, particularly a military look alike rifle, by choice, can give the otherside the opportunity to try and convince the jury of something that isn't really so.

They can try to make it look like you were eager and looking forward to shooting someone. They try to do this with handloads, or a gun that has been customised, or anything that they can use to imply that the shooting wasn't a last resort action.

Use of a military style rifle, particularly when it wasn't the only gun available will be pointed out as "proof" you were anticipating a confrontation (at best) or that you were actively looking for the chance of shooting someone (at worst).

Something like "a regular handgun wasn't deadly enough for you, you chose to use an assault weapon!" etc. Anything and everything is grist for their propaganda mill to paint you as irresponsible, and therefore, in the wrong.

Leaving aside the fact that for most home defense situations any rifle is overpowered, over ranged, too long for best use inside the house etc., etc., etc.....the fact that you chose to use an "assault weapon" (and they can get away with calling it that, because, under several laws, it is defined that way), iis going to be used to play on the emotions and sensibilities of the jury.

Even though I live in a rural location, where a rifle is actually somewhat useful for "home defense" (and that includes predator and varmint control), for self defense against human attackers its a very very unusual situation where you would be justified shooting them at rifle ranges.

At close ranges, particularly inside the home, the rifle (even a carbine) has distinct disadvantages over a handgun, or a shotgun.

But, if its the only gun you have, or its the only one you can get to in time, that's what you use. Just be prepared to have to counter the "evil" image the other side is going to make it out to be in court.

A tricked out AR, with a 30rnd stick in the well creates the image of "offense" more than "defense" in the minds of the non enthusiast, and tis quite likely there will be more of them on a jury than people who actually understand firearms and their use has nothing to do with appearance.

[chack]

I know of a couple different attackers who were able to get acquitted after their crime and the defender's gun's appearance came into play.

The first was an army buddy who stopped a home invasion and domestic assault with his SKS when his girlfriend's ex boyfriend showed up at their apartment with a samarai sword, mace, and what he thought was homemade chloroform. The ex boyfriend's attorney claimed that my buddy's "military Assault rifle" (it had a bayonet) was proof of a militant vigilante mindset and the ex just took prudent precautions to protect himself from a violent extremist. He said the ex just innocently stopped by to check the well being of his friend (the girlfriend) who he was concerned about since she was living with such a dangerous man. They then said that my buddy was obviously derangeed since he had come back from Iraq just a few months earlier and it was well known how most Iraqi vets are unstable and suffer from PTSD.

We live in a very liberal college town and the jury (all democrats) bought the BS and acquitted the ex for everything but a misdemeanor trespassing charge. It took him 8 months to get his SKS back.

The other time it was a little more complicated, but the fact that the victim defended himself with a Glock that had a 30 rd magazine in it was used by the defense as proof that the victim was a vigilante looking for a fight and wanted to get car jacked. The disadvantaged youths who got shot in the commission of the crime were just "asking for directions"