this is what i prefer
You're simply wrong about pointing and shooting. At in-house distances, a shotgun needs to be aimed almost as carefully as a rifle, since the pattern doesn't open much at close range.
Probably because shotguns are traditional in the HD role. But as rifles like .223s become more common among police, they will trickle into the HD market. .223 rifles are pretty rapidly displacing shotguns in many police roles.i noticed no one voted for rifle.
Anyway, either will serve. It's the Indian, not the arrow. I didn't vote.
thats only your opinion i think most of the time that you are simply wrong.go look at your simply wrong post about the RIA 1911s
first gun), I'll stick with them, thanks. Anyway, opinions on gun quality - like RIA, the quality of which is known in my industry to be uneven - are very different from objective facts about shot patterns and recoil forces, both of which are easily measurable.
Objective, non-opinion fact #1: A 20 gauge has about 21 foot pounds of recoil energy. A .223 has about 3.2 foot pounds of recoil energy.
Objective, non-opinion fact #2: Industry standard for buckshot spread is roughly 1" per yard, and many guns and loads will pattern much more tightly than that. This means that at typical home defense distances, the pattern might be 3-5" wide. This is hardly a cone of fire that can simply be pointed down a hall. Rather, it must be aimed in order to hit the target.
like i said i just got back into guns about a year ago,but i used them for a looong time before that.way longer than you, but thank you anyway,
mr, wise old owl.
also maybe you would have to aim a 12g shotgun to hit someone in a house or down a hallway,but i wouldn't.i could point it at them and hit them and i bet just about every other member on this forum could too.
I hope so for your family's sake. However, it is generally accepted that life-threatening stress causes a degradation in skill level of somewhere between 50% and 80%. So just because one can "point shoot" on a calm, manicured square range in broad daylight does not mean one can do it under deadly stress, from perhaps an awkward firing position, in potentially low light. And even if you can, many people cannot, and they may be better off with a light rifle, which is much easier to use under stress (as we prove with regularity here in Afghanistan).also maybe you would have to aim a 12g shotgun to hit someone in a house or down a hallway,but i wouldn't.i could point it at them and hit them and i bet just about every other member on this forum could too.
This is the way I feel:
- The biggest benefit of shotguns is their ability to shoot pellets (and just about anything else). Pellets (or "shot" as it is better known) allows a larger area to be hit with each trigger pull reducing the requirement for precision shooting.
- Shotguns also have the ability to shoot bullet-type projectiles (known as "slugs"). This allows them to have the characteristics of a rifles, but also the option to use shot depending on the specific use and situation.
- Shotgun analogy would be: would you rather get hit by hundreds of small rocks, 10 boulders, or one semi-truck?
- Shotguns are also very customizable and very versatile. Most modern shotguns can be outfitted with different length barrels, different stocks, different fore ends, different sights, and an mass of other accessories to fit your every need.
- Another benefit or problem of shooting shot from a shotgun, is the inherent lack of penetration. For home protection it is a welcome idea as the shot will likely become less than lethal once it goes through a couple layers of drywall.
Now if carbine was added that's what I would pick. I love my CX 4. It's light and short enough to clear a house. I used a shotgun in training clearing a building. The only problem I felt was it was to long. Another guy using a M16A1 no m4's back then had an instructor grab his weapon by the barrel. I don't know what the best one is but I can tell you the one best for you. That's the one you have trained with and mastered. Right now my CX 4 would be a bad choice for me because I have the wrong rounds in it. I'll stick with whatever I put on the night stand. I don't have to worry about kids and I don't have any houses next to mine.
- Rifles still require a good deal of precision, but the dexterity of the use of a pistol is not necessary, and stopping power is much improved.
- To continue the analogy: would you rather be hit by a golf cart at 340MPH (5.56mm NATO), a pick-up truck at 260MPH (7.62mm NATO), or a bus at 300MPH (.50 BMG)?
- As with any long gun, maneuverability it greatly reduced due to the overall length of the weapon. Some home defense situation may require you to place the stock below your shoulder which will reduce your accuracy, but also reduce the chance of someone being able to grab the rifle.
- A rifle is not a common choice for home defense because while a shotgun has some of the problems inherent with any long gun, it has many benefits that the rifle does not have.
- Rifles are also known (rightly so) for "over penetration". This is where the bullet hits an object and continues through and past it. It is easily argued that anything more powerful than a 7.62mm NATO (AKA .308 Winchester), is overkill. Lighter, less powerful rounds are less likely to over penetrate while still carrying much of the killing power.
- 5.56mm NATO and .223 Remington rounds (all the same dimensions, but different pressure specifications) have a bullet which is weighted heavily at the rear. This causes problems when a round is fired through an object as it tends to tumble after it exits and make the round much less deadly. But in a residential setting this may be desired.
- Semi-automatic, carbine (shorter), magazine-fed rifles would be the optimal choice, as it allows many shots, and retain some maneuverability.
Mike for someone who is fighting a war over there you sure are on the internet a lot. Do you guy have laptops with you all the time or a tent with a bunch of PC's? When someone yells incoming do you grab your PC or rifle??
Hey Agent 47 please when you post pics make size them at 600. It make reading the post a pain in BOZO's ass
For home defense my trusty Mossberg 500 is good enough. In the highly unlikely event of a LA riot or post Katrina situation I rest soundly knowing I have 2 quality AR-15's and a selection of other center fire rifles at my disposal. Realistically though, a hand gun will be most likely the weapon at the ready if a sudden home invasion/burglary were to happen.
Who's quote is this?
"A pistol is what you use to fight your way back to your gun."
Far as aiming and shooting shotguns vs an AR I'd have this to say, it is true that a shotgun is not a point and shoot weapon. However I believe the simplicity of a bead sight in a HD situation is a plus. The longest possible distance in my home is only about 40'. That is across two rooms down a hallway. I can't imagine missing at such a short range with any long gun. I can imagine what a disadvantage a peep sight or fumbling to turn on a red dot would be late at night.
The last thing that I really see as an advantage in the pump shotgun is the ability to work the action in the ready position. I personally will not store a long gun or a semi-auto pistol with a round chambered (I do carry a .45 locked and cocked). So picking up a 12 ga and racking the slide in the ready position is far quicker than operating a charging handle as in the AR series.
Far as stopping power/penetration. The shotgun wins hands down. But I'd have no problem with the .223 if that is what I had available.
There are two other things that I believe really seal the deal on the shotgun as the go to HD weapon.
For a little over 200 bucks you can get a decent shotgun just about any where. The ammo is a bit pricier, but realistically you just don't need a 1000 rounds for basic home defense. 15 or 20 rounds are plenty.
The other is the shotgun is far more accepted socially than the AR series of rifles. We here sometimes forget that there are middle of the road people who just won't ever see an AR as a practical firearm. I'd rather those become shotgun owners than remain defenseless sheep. Every time a non gun owner becomes a gun owner my 2A right gets a little more secure.
Mike Barnam did bring up one extremely valid Counter point. Recoil is a significant factor. If the recoil is to great for the shooter then that weapon should be reconsidered. Recoil is the only negative I can see to recommending a shotgun for HD.
I am pretty much in agreement with Spacedoggy's post. I will note that civilian .223 users are not confined to ball ammo, however, and lightweight JHPs penetrate a lot less wallboard than ball. But you're right, smaller shot (#1 Buck and lesser) will only go through three interior walls instead of five.
As far as incoming fire, quite honestly, the Taliban use indirect fire more as harassment than anything. They are technologically inept for the most part and can't hit a damn thing. If we get rocketed or mortared, I just put on my armor, grab my rifle, get accountability of anyone I am responsible for, and go to a bunker. My computer is as useful as my rifle when we take indirect fire, though!
That's a paraphrase of Clint Smith's famous quote. But of course a pistol suffices in the huge majority of fights involving armed citizens. Mr. Smith's background is as a Marine infantry officer."A pistol is what you use to fight your way back to your gun."
I do agree about the social acceptability factor of the shotgun, though rifles like Mini-14s look pretty inoffensive with wood stocks.
Shotguns are cheap to buy, but fairly expensive to feed. It's a non-issue only if you don't plan to practice much. And the shotgun, which in its inexpensive pump guise is somewhat complex to operate and kicks hard, demands training to use skillfully - especially when compared to the light-kicking semiauto .223 rifle.
Good points are made on both side of the issue. Either weapon will do fine in the hands of a good shooter. I won't argue anyone's personal choice, but I do protest flat statements that one is vastly superior to the other, or "the only choice." Hell, I sold my M4gery, and when I get home it will be replaced by a boring, wood-stocked, unmodified, totally "untactical" 18" 870.
Mikes not coming home as long as they give him free high speed internet and I wonder how he is shipping those guns he was shopping for in his picture.
I know this is off topic and stormbringerr you asked me the other day how my son is doing and I'm sorry I didn't get back to you. We got 4 letters today and guess what. He love basic, everything they do he love, even PT. I cna't be happier and again stormbringerr thanks for asking. I remember you telling me about those day a while ago and thanks for your advise on that other matter, it cleared it right up for the wife and even helped me.
Again all sorry for going off topic time for me to go to bed.
We can ship home the "antique" guns if we want, just not war trophies used by the enemy, or things like AKs that would be illegal in the States. The customs paperwork is a bear, though. I have no real interest in the old rifles, so I won't bother with them. Just thought it made a neat picture.
Be glad you live in a gun friendly state.
In the case of the illegal disarmament, I would not lie to LEO's, but I sure wouldn't advertise my armed status. If it ever went down here like it did in NOLA as soon as the LEO's and National Guard showed up I'd lock my weapons up in the safe and refuse to allow entry. If they arrest me in a time of natural disaster, I'm probably safer in custody than not. Plus as bad as NOLA was I don't believe they were arresting people with no resources to secure them.
After all is said and done I'd hope someone like the NRA or GOA would take up my cause. But if not I know some fairly decent attorneys (who are pro gun).
God forbid we suffer another disaster like that again. But if we do I believe my city and state have a far better response plan. In addition I have enough food and supplies in my disaster kit to make it easily 2 weeks, 3 if I stretch it. And probably 5-6 if I can stock up prior to as in a huricane.