Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 catbarf wrote:
The above aside- hollowpoint loads in 9mm or .45 overpenetrate more than their 5.56 counterparts, and frangible ammunition in the latter is about as safe as it gets. Light, fast rounds destabilize immediately upon contact with a hard surface; heavier and slower calibers like pistol rounds or 7.62x39, especially FMJ loads, tend to icepick through drywall (or even concrete) instead. 00 buck, as popular as it is for home defense, can penetrate a couple of interior walls (6+ layers of drywall) and still remain lethal.

If you're looking specifically at home defense, a rifle loaded with appropriate ammunition is less likely to injure bystanders or miss the target under stress than a handgun.

It depends heavily on what you are dealing with. Paul Harrell has a bunch of videos on penetration of walls, beds, car doors, grocery shelves, etc. Can handguns exceed shoulder arm penetration? Yes. It all depends on what you are using and what's around you. But his videos show pretty conclusively that while 5.56 does deflect more, that's not necessary a good thing because it's still moving really fast.

Where 9mm had an edge was shooting people through a row of soup cans. But again, this was at extreme short range.

To put it another way, 50 yards bleeds a lot out of a handgun round, but nothing out of a rifle.

I agree with a lot of what has been said. On the other hand, a missed shot with a necked rifle round (shooting at people coming through your front door, for instance) might zip off 1000 yards into the neighborhood where a straight wall will drop after a couple hundred.

Some people advocate for #4 buck out of a shotgun to reduce penetration. I'm curious but haven't yet tried them. 8 pellet #00 Critical Defense is my current HD choice, primarily to negate the 9th pellet "flier" found in most #00 buck. I've also got some of the PDX-1 segmenting slugs which would probably be OK for home defense where I live, but the 3 huge fragments could hit innocent people upstairs and downstairs if fired in an apartment building.

Light and fast pistol rounds usually mean monolithic copper bullets. Some of those penetrate even better than FMJ (the Xtreme defender/penetrator bullets with the screwdriver tips). There are some high velocity frangible copper rounds from Liberty Defense but like many of these rounds (such as all copper "Controlled Chaos", and Russian 7N6 "poison bullet" rifle ammo, NOT the V-MAX style varmint rounds Catbarf is presumably talking about) the entire bullet does not fragment and there is a large piece behind the fragments that continues to penetrate. I'm curious how those would do against studs and drywall. I'd consider them an unproven gimmick until I can see more. Glaser bullets have been around a while but don't seem to have really caught on and there is likely a reason for that beyond the price.

I don't think a perfect HD round exists. You have to take your individual situation into account before making a choice. I think most anything is going to go through at least one interior wall if it doesn't hit a stud, even fragmenting rounds.

Buckshot of any size will still penetrate everything in a typical house except for something odd like a cinderblock/brick wall. For the first 10ish meters of travel the pellets are still all in one mass so they're going to punch through drywall and doors like its not there.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Buckshot of any size will still penetrate everything in a typical house except for something odd like a cinderblock/brick wall. For the first 10ish meters of travel the pellets are still all in one mass so they're going to punch through drywall and doors like its not there.

There's a case to be made for birdshot - at very close range it's a deadly dense mass, but it rapidly loses energy.

I think there's a clear contradiction in asserting that handguns are underpowered and inferior to should weapons and at the same time maintaining they that they have a higher risk of overpenetration.

There are videos out there showing how much cover household items provide vs various weapons, and the only time I've seen handguns have better penetration is at point blank range vs soup cans, or layers of 2-liter Shasta bottles.

The big takeaway in that respect is the old rule of knowing your target and what is behind it. Thus, homeowners should consider not just the sight lines, but what lies at the end of them.

I've been eyeing an AR with a 5.7 upper conversion that utilizes mags from a P90. Casings eject downward out the AR mag well. If you hollow out an old 5.56 magazine it will act as a brass catcher.

Cool, but hyper expensive to shoot, and very niche for any practical use.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've been eyeing an AR with a 5.7 upper conversion that utilizes mags from a P90. Casings eject downward out the AR mag well. If you hollow out an old 5.56 magazine it will act as a brass catcher.

Cool, but hyper expensive to shoot, and very niche for any practical use.

Sometimes the absurdity of the thing justifies it.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:I think there's a clear contradiction in asserting that handguns are underpowered and inferior to should weapons and at the same time maintaining they that they have a higher risk of overpenetration.

It's not contradictory, it's just counterintuitive. A round that is designed to disperse energy on contact can have very high kinetic energy but deposit it immediately into the first surface(s) it hits. A round with lower energy, but designed to maintain integrity and stability, will better penetrate obstacles while retaining that energy. So a 9mm hollowpoint will typically have more kinetic energy than a pellet of 00 buck, but that hollowpoint is designed to deform on impact with a solid surface and disperse its energy as rapidly as possible. The buck pellet is more likely to pierce through and still retain KE out the other side.

Raw energy isn't everything, and in particular intermediate SCHV calibers like 5.56 and 5.45 are inherently less stable than most pistol rounds. The other factor is just the difference in practical accuracy. Handgun hit rates under stress are abysmal even among trained professionals with combat experience, and if you're worried about overpenetration, every missed shot is a liability.

cuda1179 wrote:I've been eyeing an AR with a 5.7 upper conversion that utilizes mags from a P90.

Not sure if anything has changed but I remember the AR57 uppers being notoriously unsafe and poorly made. Unless that has changed significantly I'd steer clear; I'm all for novelties but OOB detonations are bad news.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Completely random poser! From an idiot with no frame of reference!

If every month, you had to spend $100 on ammo, and use it all within that month?

What and how would you buy, and of course, why.

The now is there to allow reuse of casings and that.

If I was made to spend that much every months, clearly I'd go to the closest gunsmith shop, grabe a box of 7,62x39 ammo for my ak, and have fun shooting like no tomorrow . For 100 euros I should get around 200 rounds.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hmmm...I might have a better agreement with your stance if it was based on .30 instead of. 32. 30-06, 30-30, 308,30 "carbine'. Very common. Very available. You seem to be obsessed with handgun calibers. And I'd remind you, that you're handgun is just a substitute for the rifle that you shouldn't have put down in the first place.

Great, so I assume you have a carbine in your passenger seat in case you get carjacked? You go to the grocery store with a lever rifle in hand?

I live in a leafy suburban community. The primary use for a firearm here is discrete self-defense. The houses are close enough together that firing a rifle might well go through my drywall and into the neighbor's so handguns are what's on the menu.

This also applies to hunting applications. My part of the state is below the "rifle line," so only shotguns and handgun calibers are legal to take large game.

If anything, you're the one who seems determined to force a rifle-length peg into a pistol-sized hole.

I will say that my next purchase is likely to be a PCC for deer, something in .44 magnum. My daughter is lobbying for a Type 38 Arisaka, so that's also on the list.

Very fair point. I'll fully admit to forgetting about the influence of environment to this question, and automatically assuming my own environment (rural Appalachia). I can fully imagine why those such as you would prefer pistol calibers, in retrospect. They are probably preferable in a suburban/urban setting.

And, yes, around here, we typically have rifles/carbines stowed in our vehicles. Again, it's a difference of environment, and I fully apologize for not considering the environments of others.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Very fair point. I'll fully admit to forgetting about the influence of environment to this question, and automatically assuming my own environment (rural Appalachia). I can fully imagine why those such as you would prefer pistol calibers, in retrospect. They are probably preferable in a suburban/urban setting.

And, yes, around here, we typically have rifles/carbines stowed in our vehicles. Again, it's a difference of environment, and I fully apologize for not considering the environments of others.

Appalachia? Well say no more. My wife is from there and it is a wildly different environment from where we are. Driving through the hollers, a handgun feels like a noisemaker. I can absolutely see throwing up a screen of suppressive fire whilst groping for the rifle.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
It's not contradictory, it's just counterintuitive. A round that is designed to disperse energy on contact can have very high kinetic energy but deposit it immediately into the first surface(s) it hits. A round with lower energy, but designed to maintain integrity and stability, will better penetrate obstacles while retaining that energy. So a 9mm hollowpoint will typically have more kinetic energy than a pellet of 00 buck, but that hollowpoint is designed to deform on impact with a solid surface and disperse its energy as rapidly as possible. The buck pellet is more likely to pierce through and still retain KE out the other side.

But the energy is still finite, and rifles have outputs many times that of handguns. Your 5.56 may well tumble, but it's still going to keep going for a while. Pistol calibers simply don't have enough energy to cover much distance after striking a few obstructions - especially if they flatten out.

Lots of youtube video show how quickly pistol rounds run out of energy while shoulder weapons can keep on going. The issue isn't just confined to misses, either. Paul Harrell has a video of 30-30 wreaking havoc on a meat target and then slicing through his new and improved high-tech bullet stop. No rounds could be recovered.

Obviously 5.56 isn't 30-30 (though maybe it should be?) but rifles in home defense is more of a rural thing.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
But the energy is still finite, and rifles have outputs many times that of handguns. Your 5.56 may well tumble, but it's still going to keep going for a while.

Well, if it's 55gr M193 pushing 3200fps out of a 1-in-12 twist, it doesn't tumble or keep going anywhere, it basically explodes on contact.

Rifle rounds by design are intended to maintain energy over distance and present more of a liability at 500+yds, I'll agree with that. But what they do on contact with a solid object- shatter, tumble, icepick right through- is a function of bullet design rather than raw muzzle energy. A round that has already expended some of its energy in flight can even become more stable on impact; as you can see with that M193 example above, there's a critical velocity below which 55gr ammunition stops fragmenting as designed.

.30-30 is a perfect example of a big, slow bullet that maintains structural integrity, inflicting damage through sheer mass and penetrating well enough to incapacitate large game. Some loads (eg jacketed 150gr spitzer) will tend to icepick more, depositing little energy into each object struck, allowing greater penetration. Whereas other loads (eg soft-point 170gr) are designed to flatten on impact and put all of that energy into the first thing they contact. Some balance of characteristics is desirable depending on the use case, particularly for hunting.

For overpenetration risk, what we're concerned about is not how much energy the round has at the muzzle, but how much energy remains after passing through some number of obstacles. A high-energy round that blows a grapefruit-sized hole in two layers of drywall and then disintegrates is less of a risk than a low-energy round that goes through three walls and hits your neighbor.

When I was a .gov I attended a training facility that had kill houses cleared for frangible 5.56. They made it clear that only their issued frangible rifle ammunition was to be used, as it was incapable of penetrating the outer walls of the facility. All was well and good until apparently some SEALs didn't get the memo and used their 9mm sidearms. Only a third as much energy as 5.56, but 9x19 FMJ isn't designed to splatter and so the facility got some new ventilation, and then they stopped offering access outside their agency.

 catbarf wrote:
When I was a .gov I attended a training facility that had kill houses cleared for frangible 5.56. They made it clear that only their issued frangible rifle ammunition was to be used, as it was incapable of penetrating the outer walls of the facility. All was well and good until apparently some SEALs didn't get the memo and used their 9mm sidearms. Only a third as much energy as 5.56, but 9x19 FMJ isn't designed to splatter and so the facility got some new ventilation, and then they stopped offering access outside their agency.

Right, and how much of this ammo is on the civilian market vs surplus ball?

I have some 7.62 NATO training ammo that fires plastic ten-grain bullets. They leave the barrel at close to 4,000 fps, but when I shot a water jug, the bullet failed to penetrate. It cracked the jug, sent up a spray, but flattened out and bounced off.

As with the long weapon/handgun discussion, we're dealing with what people actually have not an ideal circumstance. The tests I've seen on youtube are with what most people probably have, not something procured from a training facility.

Frangible is easily available, but you do have to consciously buy it.

Its actually one of the easier ammunition types to get for my P90, and its no more expensive than the normal stuff.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Right, and how much of this ammo is on the civilian market vs surplus ball?

Er, plenty. Frangibles aren't exactly .gov/.mil only, they're readily available as self-defense ammo from a variety of brands, including Federal and Lake City as contract overrun. Hollowpoints for rifle calibers are common too and typically disrupt more readily than comparable handgun loads. And even as far as surplus ball is concerned, look at the example I gave with M193. Lots of options here.

Sure, if someone loads up surplus M855 green-tip in their 1-in-7 for self-defense it's going to put nice neat clean holes in things and then whack the neighbor three houses down. But this is where the conversation started:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The houses are close enough together that firing a rifle might well go through my drywall and into the neighbor's so handguns are what's on the menu.

So I'm not sure I see the relevance of what most people probably have, as we're talking about what's available to an informed user making an educated decision for home defense. You're not limited to surplus ball, and with appropriate ammunition the risk of overpenetration with intermediate-caliber high-velocity rifles is typically less than that of common handgun calibers.

If you're, like, in a warzone and limited to ammunition kept in inventory by Hague Convention observers, then that's another matter entirely.

 catbarf wrote:
So I'm not sure I see the relevance of what most people probably have, as we're talking about what's available to an informed user making an educated decision for home defense. You're not limited to surplus ball, and with appropriate ammunition the risk of overpenetration with intermediate-caliber high-velocity rifles is typically less than that of common handgun calibers.

How do I verify which frangible loads are house-safe? Does it say it on the label? Do they all work equally well? No offense, but "I saw some guy on the internet say this can't go through drywall" would need some verification.

I think we've nit-picked this to death, but I'll concede the point that some handguns are worse than some rifles in terms of penetrating overpenetration. I think the advantages of handguns in home defense (particularly if one is mindful of handgun ammo selection), outweigh those of long arms. Handguns are easier to secure, yet conversely more accessible. Unless you're going to lug a rifle from room to room, there's a chance that you may be in the wrong place just when you need it. Handguns can be discretely placed to ensure one is always within reach (yes, my European friends, bathroom guns are a thing).

These sort of onion-peeling exercises are what makes the topic so enjoyable, no?

By the way, who has bathroom guns? For those with limitations, would you if you could?

The only advantage a handgun has over a rifle in home defense is, as you mention, hiding them somewhere sneaky. And nothing wrong with doing that if you choose to hide guns around the house like a belligerent squirrel, but in the event you have to grab the closest weapon fast the pistol only serves to enable you to get to a rifle. And if you are in a situation where its ok to just leave guns hidden around the house its not really that hard to hide a rifle.

The advantages of a (semi-auto)rifle however really outweigh pistols(and shotguns) by a hilarious amount. You put yourself at the greatest likelihood of having a firepower advantage over an intruder, you won't have to worry about reloading generally, you won't have to worry about fumbling the mechanism like a shotgun, and you have way more control over where your bullets go compared to a pistol.

When you mag dump a pistol those bullets could be spraying everywhere because you are going to be shaking from the adrenaline. A rifle will minimize this due to its greater weight and length of pull. And if you still have the mental capacity to think about it you can more easily be mindful of where your bullets are going. TL DR: the cone of dispersion from where you are aiming will be a lot tighter with a rifle vs a pistol. This will minimize the chance of collateral damage from over penning above and beyond ammunition choices.

Pistols only advantages are in areas that don't have relevance during an incident itself. They are lighter to carry and easier to conceal, but in an actual fight a rifle > pistol in every way. This is the only reason pistols still exist. The convenience of a small package, but with the downside that you sacrifice performance in every other way.

If the gang bangers can hide mini-dracos and AR pistols under their couch cushions, behind their fridges, and under their beds so can you. Heck, you can hide mini-dracos in a pretty small backpack if you choose.

As someone who is frankly never going to see a firearm outside of armed Police in right place right time?

This talk of home defence is challenging. In a diplomatic “I’ve not live your life” style.

So…equally diplomatically? What do the stats show, when it comes to burglars/home invaders meeting an armed occupant?

Because in my utter ignorance, I can’t imagine a scenario where anyone hangs around after a couple of shots, because nothing is worth your life and limb?

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

Yes, generally 90%+ will flee immediately upon armed resistance of any kind. According to the DOJ, there are roughly 3.7 million home invasions in the US per year. Roughly 1/3 had the resident being present when it happened. Of those, about 1/4 of the times when someone was home the invader took violent action. Of the invasions where violence did occur, the perpetrator is unarmed 61% of the time. The home invader is on average armed with a firearm 12% of the time.

To me this clearly shows the advantage of having any type of firearm. You'll put yourself in the best possible position to resist if violence does occur, and at worst be on an even footing.

As far as how often people actually use guns to defend themselves, not much research has been done. Though the CDC recently did do some, and then immediately deleted it because it wasn't aligning with their political views. I should try to find some screenshots, but it showed IIRC high hundreds of thousands of defensive uses per year with very high success rates.

 Grey Templar wrote:
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

Yes, generally 90%+ will flee immediately upon armed resistance of any kind. According to the DOJ, there are roughly 3.7 million home invasions in the US per year. Roughly 1/3 had the resident being present when it happened. Of those, about 1/4 of the times when someone was home the invader took violent action. Of the invasions where violence did occur, the perpetrator is unarmed 61% of the time. The home invader is on average armed with a firearm 12% of the time.

To me this clearly shows the advantage of having any type of firearm. You'll put yourself in the best possible position to resist if violence does occur, and at worst be on an even footing.

As far as how often people actually use guns to defend themselves, not much research has been done. Though the CDC recently did do some, and then immediately deleted it because it wasn't aligning with their political views. I should try to find some screenshots, but it showed IIRC high hundreds of thousands of defensive uses per year with very high success rates.

According to the US Census, there are about 144 million homes in the US. That means there is about a 2.6% chance of the average home being invaded in any given year, 1% chance of you being home while being invaded in any given year, and a 0.22% chance someone will try to attack you in your home in any given year. A 1/3200 chance someone will attack you in your home, with a gun, during a robbery, in any given year.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

Yes, generally 90%+ will flee immediately upon armed resistance of any kind. According to the DOJ, there are roughly 3.7 million home invasions in the US per year. Roughly 1/3 had the resident being present when it happened. Of those, about 1/4 of the times when someone was home the invader took violent action. Of the invasions where violence did occur, the perpetrator is unarmed 61% of the time. The home invader is on average armed with a firearm 12% of the time.

To me this clearly shows the advantage of having any type of firearm. You'll put yourself in the best possible position to resist if violence does occur, and at worst be on an even footing.

As far as how often people actually use guns to defend themselves, not much research has been done. Though the CDC recently did do some, and then immediately deleted it because it wasn't aligning with their political views. I should try to find some screenshots, but it showed IIRC high hundreds of thousands of defensive uses per year with very high success rates.

According to the US Census, there are about 144 million homes in the US. That means there is about a 2.6% chance of the average home being invaded in any given year, 1% chance of you being home while being invaded in any given year, and a 0.22% chance someone will try to attack you in your home in any given year. A 1/3200 chance someone will attack you in your home, with a gun, during a robbery, in any given year.

 cuda1179 wrote:
According to the US Census, there are about 144 million homes in the US. That means there is about a 2.6% chance of the average home being invaded in any given year, 1% chance of you being home while being invaded in any given year, and a 0.22% chance someone will try to attack you in your home in any given year. A 1/3200 chance someone will attack you in your home, with a gun, during a robbery, in any given year.

The problem with these numbers is that they are highly skewed by certain ultra-violent jurisdictions. There are communities where violent crime is virtually unknown, people lock their doors merely out of habit, etc. Then there are places like Chicago and Detroit, where it's endemic.

The only advantage a handgun has over a rifle in home defense is, as you mention, hiding them somewhere sneaky.

That's just not true. I don't know your house, but mine has furniture in it, including lamps and tables and hanging light fixtures. Maybe you have a nice open floor plan with all the tables and chairs lining the walls, so that's not an issue. A handgun is a lot easier to use in confined spaces. You can use your spare hand to hold a flashlight, or turn a knob, hold a cell phone.

Firearms are tools, and they are optimized for specific roles. All of them have advantages and disadvantages.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

How do I verify which frangible loads are house-safe? Does it say it on the label? Do they all work equally well? No offense, but "I saw some guy on the internet say this can't go through drywall" would need some verification.

We could probably discuss just 5.56mm ammo for a long time. M193 is probably one of the most common centerfire rifle rounds in the US. I and presumably many others use it as range ammo.

To get to that 3000 fps threshold for M193 to fragment you really want to use an AR with a 20" barrel (M16 style). 16 inch (and 14.5 with welded flash hider) are much more common nowadays and only achieve those velocities for short distances which definitely includes a home but probably not 100 yards. Short barrel AR pistols/SBR can't hit 3000 fps even at point blank.

Besides M193, there are a lot of frangible/fragmenting ammo types out there. Hornady V-MAX are popular and readily available in many stores in many hunting calibers, including rimfire and even 6.5 Creedmoor, and without a velocity threshold. Other types may have some local availability but you may have to order online. I've never actually seen the Mk311 military training ammo for sale. V-MAx is the one to get if you are buying retail.

As to what you should use, and how to get information, you can find at least some kind of actual test on Youtube for virtually any commercially available round. Identify your keywords and go looking. In this case, "V-MAX gel", "V-MAX barrier", "Frangible 5.56 .223", "Libery Civil Defense Gel", "Sinterfire", "Mk311" will work.




Switch to 8:30 if the timestamp doesn't work. I've been watching this guy a lot. He is kind of a yahoo and not the most knowledgeable , but he has a great personality and runs the same test for most of his videos. In this particular one, you can see that at 25 yards from a 16" AR, he gets one M193 round to "explode" and the second one just tumbles/deforms. Perhaps he is close enough to 3000 fps at that range that the M93 "works" or doesn't depending on the variance of individual rounds. He has a number of vids for the Liberty and Sinterfire ammo.

Another thing you can do is refer to this:

https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#.223

It is very Web 1.0 and a little out of date but there is a ton of good information here. Anything from the user MOLON I would consider to be very high quality. Don't say I never gave you anything!

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

The only advantage a handgun has over a rifle in home defense is, as you mention, hiding them somewhere sneaky.

That's just not true. I don't know your house, but mine has furniture in it, including lamps and tables and hanging light fixtures. Maybe you have a nice open floor plan with all the tables and chairs lining the walls, so that's not an issue. A handgun is a lot easier to use in confined spaces. You can use your spare hand to hold a flashlight, or turn a knob, hold a cell phone.

Firearms are tools, and they are optimized for specific roles. All of them have advantages and disadvantages.

Do an exercise for me.

Having someone measure the distance between your shoulder and the muzzle of you holding both a pistol and rifle in a typical shooting stance aiming down the sights. The rifle won't be sticking out nearly as far past the pistol as you might think. And unlike the pistol the rifle will be braced by your shoulder.

Anyone who has made a rifle for home defense will have a flashlight on the gun itself. Yes, you will have to use your offhand to open doors/use a cellphone, but if you are doing something else with your hand, the rifle will suffer far less penalty to using it one handed vs using a pistol one handed. Accurately shooting with a pistol one handed is exceedingly difficult even in ideal circumstances. One handed use of a rifle will be far less impeded due to the advantages of the weapon's extra weight and bracing it against your shoulder. Of course assuming by rifle were are talking about an AR or similar weapon and not something stupid like a bolt action.

Any of my ARs or AKs could be used one handed if I had to.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Do an exercise for me.

Having someone measure the distance between your shoulder and the muzzle of you holding both a pistol and rifle in a typical shooting stance aiming down the sights. The rifle won't be sticking out nearly as far past the pistol as you might think. And unlike the pistol the rifle will be braced by your shoulder.

Anyone who has made a rifle for home defense will have a flashlight on the gun itself. Yes, you will have to use your offhand to open doors/use a cellphone, but if you are doing something else with your hand, the rifle will suffer far less penalty to using it one handed vs using a pistol one handed. Accurately shooting with a pistol one handed is exceedingly difficult even in ideal circumstances. One handed use of a rifle will be far less impeded due to the advantages of the weapon's extra weight and bracing it against your shoulder. Of course assuming by rifle were are talking about an AR or similar weapon and not something stupid like a bolt action.

Any of my ARs or AKs could be used one handed if I had to.

I had a picture I made myself using my own G17, AK-103, AR-15 and SBS M88 shotgun.

Even my stock AK-103 was only as long or shorter than an "elbows locked Isosceles" stance. Sure there are more compact pistol stances, but overall pistols aren't *THAT* much more compact when being used.

Sure 98% of my HD and SD plan revolves around my pistol, because it's what I have. My rifle doesn't ride shotgun with my, nor do I have it accessible all the time. While you can't schedule an assault but if there's "something going on" you can rest assured I have my rifle and a chest rig ready.

I personally *HATE* the idea of a HD shotgun. Maybe a semi auto, but any pump gun? Far too many drawbacks for very little gain. As it is my shotgun is probably the last gun I'll ever grab, it would be down to my .454 Raging Bull or my shotgun. I'm not convinced I'll take my shotgun. But my shogun has a light. So do my AR, AK and Glocks. You get a light, you get a light, everyone gets a light.

For one handed use though, my Glock has the most ergonomic light, an X-300U with DG switch.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anyone who has made a rifle for home defense will have a flashlight on the gun itself.

The problem with this is that to use the flashlight function you must point a loaded firearm at someone, which is legally problematic.

Doubly so if it turns out to be a police officer responding to the call of a concerned neighbor.

I'm also going to say that firing a pistol one-handed is not at all difficult so long as you practice it. With certain ones, I'm actually better one-handed, my theory being that in anticipation of the recoil I tighten my grip more than usual, establishing a more stable hold.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anyone who has made a rifle for home defense will have a flashlight on the gun itself.

The problem with this is that to use the flashlight function you must point a loaded firearm at someone, which is legally problematic.

Doubly so if it turns out to be a police officer responding to the call of a concerned neighbor.

I'm also going to say that firing a pistol one-handed is not at all difficult so long as you practice it. With certain ones, I'm actually better one-handed, my theory being that in anticipation of the recoil I tighten my grip more than usual, establishing a more stable hold.

I would say the slim advantage of being able to point a flashlight in a different direction to the firearm is negligible compared to having the advantage of the rifle.

I would also not bank on one handed use of a pistol in a stressful situation. Last thing you want is to be limp wristing and causing an otherwise completely avoidable jam. Far too risky imo.

Pretty much anytime I see bodycam footage of police shootings, if the officer one handed fires their weapon they almost always get a jam from limp wristing.

Bit of a penetration adjacent question - in situations where you can fairly reliably prove your property suffered damage from another persons firearms (we all heard the shots - you can trace back through the bullet holes to his front door etc.) are you liable for the damage regardless of circumstance? So if you were using the firearm for self defence would you still be liable? I ask because US law is endlessly fascinating and often baffling to outsiders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

Yes, generally 90%+ will flee immediately upon armed resistance of any kind. According to the DOJ, there are roughly 3.7 million home invasions in the US per year. Roughly 1/3 had the resident being present when it happened. Of those, about 1/4 of the times when someone was home the invader took violent action. Of the invasions where violence did occur, the perpetrator is unarmed 61% of the time. The home invader is on average armed with a firearm 12% of the time.

I was thinking that sounded crazy... then checked the UK stats for robbery. Just under 1% of households as well. But 65% of times people are present (and unaware the majority of the time) and 45% of times the thief is known to the victim. For that 65%, half (so around 32% of robberies) involve the threat or use of violence. So from that limited comparison I would say that self defence weapons are potentially a difference in that encounter and violence used rate.

Yes, you would be potentially liable for civil damages irrespective of what happens on the criminal side of things. But that is more just in the general sense and not specifically involving self-defense. If you damage someone's stuff for any reason, they can sue you for damages. How much will they get? Depends on the jury really, but I suspect that if you put some holes in the neighbor's fridge you're going to be buying them a new one. And honestly I would say that is fair, as long as they claim damages within reasonable levels. Which is really where problem is with US civil courts, too much frivolity above and beyond what is reasonable.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would say the slim advantage of being able to point a flashlight in a different direction to the firearm is negligible compared to having the advantage of the rifle.

Slim? You really want to scan a room by tracking a loaded rifle around it? Or your yard? Seriously, this is huge violation of firearm safety and legally very risky. I'm assuming you live alone, because I can't imagine anyone else living there is fine with having a loaded gun possibly pointed at them while you determine if that's a burglar or a squirrel making noise in the middle of the night. I'm going assume that you're safety-conscious, but that still means that if you hear a sudden noise behind you, everyone there is going to dive out of the way as you bring the light (and gun) to bear.

With a handgun, I can keep the weapon in a safe posture while scanning freely and much more rapidly. I'll accept the potential loss of firepower and accuracy in exchange for vastly greater safety.

I would also not bank on one handed use of a pistol in a stressful situation. Last thing you want is to be limp wristing and causing an otherwise completely avoidable jam. Far too risky imo.

Well, revolvers don't have to worry about that and I haven't had an issue with autoloaders one-handed because I practice using them that way. I also practice using them with each hand, because my primary hand could be injured.

That's my point - the rifle is great, dominating even, but only for a specific scenario. In all other applications it is inflexible and unsafe. Self-defense should be practiced in situations where you're not at your best, where your primary hand is in a cast, or you're in the bathroom, the rifle's downstairs, and the break-in is in the room next to you.

Pretty much anytime I see bodycam footage of police shootings, if the officer one handed fires their weapon they almost always get a jam from limp wristing.

Police officers often do not get sufficient training or range time, and the videos prove this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Bit of a penetration adjacent question - in situations where you can fairly reliably prove your property suffered damage from another persons firearms (we all heard the shots - you can trace back through the bullet holes to his front door etc.) are you liable for the damage regardless of circumstance? So if you were using the firearm for self defence would you still be liable? I ask because US law is endlessly fascinating and often baffling to outsiders.

It would depend on the circumstances and the jurisdiction. Depending on what type of damage, you could face criminal charges for reckless use of a firearm. Self defense is primarily a shield against criminal liability, though some states have extended it into the civil arena, but if you have a local prosecutor with an agenda, nothing can be taken for granted.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
You really want to scan a room by tracking a loaded rifle around it?

This isn't a thing with modern lights. Point a PLHv2 or TLR1-HL wherever you're looking and you'll just spoil your own night vision with the blinding power of the sun. Point it at the ground and the reflected light illuminates your surroundings. You only need to bring the weapon up for direct illumination to verify or engage a threat.

Respectfully, you're behind the times on this. Handgun-mounted and rifle-mounted lights have been common practice for the better part of two decades now, to the point where holsters are commonly made for light-bearing handguns, and legally there don't seem to be any legitimate concerns.

You should be flipping switches to enable central lighting anyways.