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.

Using a high powered rifle in a home defense scenario defies all common sense. You are likely to injure someone else in the home or a neighbor.

Good grief buy a shotgun, then you (likely not trained for combat shooting) have a chance of hitting what you are aiming at and not killing the baby asleep across the hall.

Or you could just have a sturdy lock on your door. Unless you are living in a very high crime neighborhood if you carry a gun for self defense you are more likely to injure yourself or a loved one than you are to need it to defend yourself.

We've been over this countless times. I know saying that isn't going to stop anyone from wanting to do it again, but just thought I'd throw it out there.

General self-defense philosophy from instructors, people with combat experience, people with self-defense experience, etc. is that you'd rather have more than you need than less, and that one or two hits rarely does the job.

General self-defense philosophy from people in favor of "sensible" restrictions who've never shot a pistol at a moving target in their lives is that anyone who needs more than two rounds is incompetent.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Or for hunting for that matter. What's the phrase, "if you can't do it with seven then you're sure as hell won't be able to do it with ten"? If its really so much of an issue about defense then upgrade to a larger caliber or get a revolver.

Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover? They could wait till you run dry with your seven round magazine then rush you, it's not that hard. What if winging the assailant isn't good enough to stop the threat? There are cases where it's taken multiple HEAD SHOTS to incapacitate an aggressor. I blame Hollywood for this silliness really I do.

Here's another good question if seven round mags are so great, why don't cops use them?

If you're in a gun fight against multiple assailants shooting at you from cover, I'm pretty sure gun laws would be the last of your concern, no matter how you look at them.

JWhex wrote:
Using a high powered rifle in a home defense scenario defies all common sense. You are likely to injure someone else in the home or a neighbor.

Good grief buy a shotgun, then you (likely not trained for combat shooting) have a chance of hitting what you are aiming at and not killing the baby asleep across the hall.

Or you could just have a sturdy lock on your door. Unless you are living in a very high crime neighborhood if you carry a gun for self defense you are more likely to injure yourself or a loved one than you are to need it to defend yourself.

There are many arguments that rifles are better then shotguns (and pistols) for purpose of personal and home defense. Penetration being one of them. Unless your shooting #4 or less shot with a shotgun, which MAY slow your target down, your still going to punch through that wall with a shotgun.




http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/ryan-finn/sheetrock-penetration-testing-take-1/

http://230grain.com/showthread.php?65428-Ammunition-Drywall-Penetration-Analysis-Test-(Adpat)

 Seaward wrote:
We've been over this countless times. I know saying that isn't going to stop anyone from wanting to do it again, but just thought I'd throw it out there.

General self-defense philosophy from instructors, people with combat experience, people with self-defense experience, etc. is that you'd rather have more than you need than less, and that one or two hits rarely does the job.

General self-defense philosophy from people in favor of "sensible" restrictions who've never shot a pistol at a moving target in their lives is that anyone who needs more than two rounds is incompetent.

General self-defense philosophy from instructors or self-defense experience is that simply having a gun is usually enough deterrence in most home invasion/self-defense scenarios.

People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.

AR15/M4 is considered high powered? Getting hit with a 5.56mm...or .223 round you stand more a chance being wounded....reason being it takes two to remove a wounded from the Area of Engagement. I'm more comfortable with what I know. I know what I'm capable of using a AR15/M4 or a 9mm. What's the issue here is people throwing in their opinion like they know/familiar with the weapons in question. As for 7 rds in a mag...that's limiting amateurs and me, a professional, in being conservative or going for straight kill shots.

...Because the average American regularly gets into drawn out gunfights with multiple assailants? Run !

Yes that was a deliberately ignorant statement there.

Is there a statistic on how many of the average Americans have gotten into gun fights against a posse? At home I would believe you'd be carrying something larger anyhow, so the mag size is a little moot right?

One of my Dad's friends was shot in the abdomen whilst serving (yes it was a .303, but again if it really matters carry a Taurus or something...). ...He went down pretty fast. Apparently the average criminal in America's is some Hulk like figure that can take a few mags in their stride .

Also; People use assault rifles for home defense. Uh... Do they like blowing holes out of their walls and furniture? A shotgun'd presumably be a much more efficient/safer weapon to use in the environment. 0.o

Jihadin wrote:I always use a rifle in self defense...mainly M4 .....used my 9mm once....it was a big freaking camel spider

Was it enough gun?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...Because the average American regularly gets into drawn out gunfights with multiple assailants? Run !

Ofcourse they do, I cant even to go the the 7/11 across the street without getting into a fight with ninjas.

Ever wonder why the US Military dropped down to a 5.56mm and 9mm rounds....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hit the spider once in its rear abwhatever.....suckers can move

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...Because the average American regularly gets into drawn out gunfights with multiple assailants? Run !

Yes that was a deliberately ignorant statement there.

Is there a statistic on how many of the average Americans have gotten into gun fights against a posse? At home I would believe you'd be carrying something larger anyhow, so the mag size is a little moot right?

One of my Dad's friends was shot in the abdomen whilst serving (yes it was a .303, but again if it really matters carry a Taurus or something...). ...He went down pretty fast. Apparently the average criminal in America's is some Hulk like figure that can take a few mags in their stride .

Also; People use assault rifles for home defense. Uh... Do they like blowing holes out of their walls and furniture? A shotgun'd presumably be a much more efficient/safer weapon to use in the environment. 0.o

All bullets are going to punch through standard dry wall homes. AR rounds with the right powder will fragment when they hit the wall and shed velocity. They'll still penetrate, but will pose almost no risk once through.

 Kanluwen wrote:
General self-defense philosophy from instructors or self-defense experience is that simply having a gun is usually enough deterrence in most home invasion/self-defense scenarios.

What about the times when it's not?

People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.

I'm not sure why I even bother. You're more than welcome to believe that you will always shoot well in the midst of an adrenaline dump and that one hit is all you will ever need. You're also perfectly free to ignore the research done into terminal ballistics, the average number of shots even "high caliber" weapons take to incapacitate, and so forth.

As for referencing "combat experience", I believe the numbers that came out of Iraq was 250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent.

 Ouze wrote:

Also, TIL we went to Iraq to fight for the second amendment in the US. Who knew?

American military personnel stand to defend the Constitution and the rights it protects no matter where they happen to be deployed at the moment, including Iraq.

I agree with those who say we shouldn't give his words some kind of special credence just because he is a veteran, but rather that we should judge his words based on their own merit. I for one find his words to be dripping with merit. His words have a hell of a lot more merit than the trash that those NY politicians filled the "SAFE" act full of before they passed it as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
General self-defense philosophy from instructors or self-defense experience is that simply having a gun is usually enough deterrence in most home invasion/self-defense scenarios.

What about the times when it's not?

Then fire away?

People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.

I'm not sure why I even bother. You're more than welcome to believe that you will always shoot well in the midst of an adrenaline dump and that one hit is all you will ever need. You're also perfectly free to ignore the research done into terminal ballistics, the average number of shots even "high caliber" weapons take to incapacitate, and so forth.

You are talking past the point I was making which was referencing the idea that for whatever reason you need to be able to have enough ammunition capacity for prolonged firefights against multiple assailants using cover.

Police officers and military both would back your statement of the adrenaline effect during exchanges of gunfire and djones520's statement of "250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent" is probably fairly accurate given the concept of suppressive fire and the tactics used for combat in urban terrain.

But again: how many times is your average citizen who is buying a handgun or shotgun for home protection going to need to that many rounds for self-defense?
How often are YOU going to be involved in a situation that a SWAT team would be underequipped and trained to handle?

 Fafnir wrote:
The law itself seems pretty reasonable from the link Ouze gave.

I'm amazed how people manage to get incredibly riled up about some sensible gun-control legislation, but are completely passive about the freaking NSA.

The SAFE act is far from reasonable. NY already had some of the strictest gun legislation in the nation before they passed it. And there are plenty of people riled up about this crap legislation that are not at all passive about the NSA.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You are talking past the point I was making which was referencing the idea that for whatever reason you need to be able to have enough ammunition capacity for prolonged firefights against multiple assailants using cover.

I don't believe you need that. If I did, I'd encourage everyone to wander around with a lot more than Glock 19s.

My point is that the assumption that you will only ever need four or five rounds in a self-defense scenario is not born out by evidence. Sometimes you will need only one. Sometimes you will need ten. And I'm talking simply about single assailants.

Police officers and military both would back your statement of the adrenaline effect during exchanges of gunfire and djones520's statement of "250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent" is probably fairly accurate given the concept of suppressive fire and the tactics used for combat in urban terrain.

But again: how many times is your average citizen who is buying a handgun or shotgun for home protection going to need to that many rounds for self-defense?
How often are YOU going to be involved in a situation that a SWAT team would be underequipped and trained to handle?

You're arguing against a strawman. The notion that carrying fifteen rounds is equipping on par with your local SWAT team is a little goofy.

 Kanluwen wrote:

People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.

I'm not sure why I even bother. You're more than welcome to believe that you will always shoot well in the midst of an adrenaline dump and that one hit is all you will ever need. You're also perfectly free to ignore the research done into terminal ballistics, the average number of shots even "high caliber" weapons take to incapacitate, and so forth.

You are talking past the point I was making which was referencing the idea that for whatever reason you need to be able to have enough ammunition capacity for prolonged firefights against multiple assailants using cover.

Police officers and military both would back your statement of the adrenaline effect during exchanges of gunfire and djones520's statement of "250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent" is probably fairly accurate given the concept of suppressive fire and the tactics used for combat in urban terrain.

But again: how many times is your average citizen who is buying a handgun or shotgun for home protection going to need to that many rounds for self-defense?
How often are YOU going to be involved in a situation that a SWAT team would be underequipped and trained to handle?

Except none of that is what I said. I was asked what POSSIBLE use any one could have for multiple rounds and I listed a number of scenarios that do come up in real life. (Multiple assailants, bad guys not going down from a single bullet, etc) you decided to wave your hands in the air and start screaming about SWAT teams. Do you do this every where you go? If someone suggests getting a couple beers at the pub do you start talking about how hard it is to carry a keg? You realize over extending to the point of being ludicrous (which is your modus operandi) just makes you look like a poltroon right?

Edit: Also I'd like to verify that none of what I said requires going out armed like "John McClane" or your action movie of choice. Ooooh a normal hand gun, a standard capacity magazine (oh noes 15 rounds! He's a one man killing machine carrying enough bullets for an army!) and maybe a spare mag. Shocking I know. Then on home defense, Sea and I explained all that crap in detail above, though I did not take the time to mock the laughable notion that an AR-15 in 5.56 is a high powered rifle.

You want to know what's Hollywood Kan? That a single bullet stops a threat, that reloading is something that happens to other people, that stress doesn't affect aim, and a whole HOST of other horse gak that's been spread across this thread. (You don't have to aim shotguns/barely have to aim shotguns is a classic example)

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.

I'm not sure why I even bother. You're more than welcome to believe that you will always shoot well in the midst of an adrenaline dump and that one hit is all you will ever need. You're also perfectly free to ignore the research done into terminal ballistics, the average number of shots even "high caliber" weapons take to incapacitate, and so forth.

You are talking past the point I was making which was referencing the idea that for whatever reason you need to be able to have enough ammunition capacity for prolonged firefights against multiple assailants using cover.

Police officers and military both would back your statement of the adrenaline effect during exchanges of gunfire and djones520's statement of "250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent" is probably fairly accurate given the concept of suppressive fire and the tactics used for combat in urban terrain.

But again: how many times is your average citizen who is buying a handgun or shotgun for home protection going to need to that many rounds for self-defense?
How often are YOU going to be involved in a situation that a SWAT team would be underequipped and trained to handle?

Except none of that is what I said. I was asked what POSSIBLE use any one could have for multiple rounds and I listed a number of scenarios that do come up in real life. (Multiple assailants, bad guys not going down from a single bullet, etc) you decided to wave your hands in the air and start screaming about SWAT teams. Do you do this every where you go? If someone suggests getting a couple beers at the pub do you start talking about how hard it is to carry a keg? You realize over extending to the point of being ludicrous (which is your modus operandi) just makes you look like a poltroon right?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover? They could wait till you run dry with your seven round magazine then rush you, it's not that hard. What if winging the assailant isn't good enough to stop the threat? There are cases where it's taken multiple HEAD SHOTS to incapacitate an aggressor. I blame Hollywood for this silliness really I do.

Here's another good question if seven round mags are so great, why don't cops use them?

So that is not your statement?

And I am the one being ludicrous. I forgot how common it is for those massive 7am firefights on the way to the grocery store...

I do not want to be mean or overexaggerating here, but if you cannot see why I responded with the statement I did?
You have no business accusing me of "overextending to the point of being ludicrous".

I have no 'modus operandi' here. I just simply do not see why you needed to bring up the idea of training for a gunfight, being in a gunfight, or Hollywood styled shootouts into a thread about the SAFE Act.

So American citizens never get attacked or have their home invaded by more then one guy? Bad guys only run straight at you without concern for their own lives after being engaged like some lead seeking lemming? One magic bullet can kill any one? And some how all of that extends to massive firefights.

Right on Kan. You can go sit down now, you're done here.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So American citizens never get attacked or have their home invaded by more then one guy? Bad guys only run straight at you without concern for their own lives after being engaged like some lead seeking lemming? One magic bullet can kill any one? And some how all of that extends to massive firefights.

Right on Kan. You can go sit down now, you're done here.

I am not the one who started talking about gunfights with multiple assailants firing from cover and the idea that "Hollywood physics" are misleading.

Home invasions with multiple assailants do happen, certainly. But they do not necessarily result in huge firefights and cover utilizing criminals.

Kan...the best time to assault a FoB is early morning.....transition between night to day....most everyone sleeping or in the process of waking up....guards are resisting the urge to power nap being that they been on guard mount pass 24 hrs....best time to go undetected in assaulting an objective...insurgents were quite good on that in 07-08....so your "7am" firefight are quite.....huge involves the grunts and personnel in the FoB....Apaches...A10's...105mm artillery...60mm mortars....50 cals....Mark19's...240's....249's...thrown frags....40mm grenade launchers...you name it. Versus their Ak47/74....RPG's...Russian mortars...thrown frags....typical day overthere on "Kill an American" Day year round

Nor am I saying they do, I am saying you'll probably need more then seven shots in such a scenario. Also seriously? You wouldn't get some wall between you and the angry home owner putting lead towards your squishy bits? Cover is not exactly a tactical skill so much as common sense if rounds are being exchanged. Unless you desire your own free lead piercings.

In other news here is an example of an item you probably will never need in any situation, but you should be free to purchase any way.



Yeah apparently ballistic shields are a thing now. http://www.ballisticshield.com/

For when YOU truly need to be tacticool.

I'm planning on buying an AR-15 carbine when I return to the states in half a decade, maybe I'll pick one of those up with it.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Nor am I saying they do, I am saying you'll probably need more then seven shots in such a scenario. Also seriously? You wouldn't get some wall between you and the angry home owner putting lead towards your squishy bits? Cover is not exactly a tactical skill so much as common sense if rounds are being exchanged. Unless you desire your own free lead piercings.

You are giving a bit too much credit to most individuals who get involved in home invasions.

In other news here is an example of an item you probably will never need in any situation, but you should be free to purchase any way.



Yeah apparently ballistic shields are a thing now. http://www.ballisticshield.com/

For when YOU truly need to be tacticool.

Well of course they are. Every gun is better with a shield!

Bestest Ballistic Shield was that plexiglass thingy in the James Bond movie.



"You've had your eight, now have my eighty!"

Used by an American too.

Also Living Daylights had two of the best pieces of Bond music, the Hercules Takes Off and Necros Attacks.

No freaking way......sorry...I'm not Tacticool...that's aimed at civilians that doesn't know better....having that on a rifle is creating a blind spot (possible)....weapon leaning to the left due to weight...just the idea of the possible blind spot just unnerves me....that has the potential to make the shooter go "God mode" and totally expose him/herself

 AngryMarine wrote:
I guess I'll take the criticism for this one, so fire away.

High capacity magazines are for self defense from others with 30 round + magazines. The second amendment to our Constitution is in place for the citizens to defend themselves from a corrupt and unjust government. It has nothing to do with hunting, or burglers. The founders, who had just rebelled against a tyrant, understood the need for the tools to be in place if another should come to power. The federal government is telling us, "You have no right to defend yourselves from us."

There you have it. Call me a conspiracy theorist, or a bigot or whatever the hell else you want. I've heard it before, and I'm sure I'll hear it until the day I die, or am proven right.

hard to call you a conspiracy theorist when you speak the truth...a lot of nonsense gets thrown around in the gun debate but the second amendment is as you say there so we can protect ourselves from the government

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


For when YOU truly need to be tacticool.

If the safe act thread is any indication you are not fully protected until you have a the firepower to fight off a hundred gang members and everything within a mile of your home rigged to explode if it is breached.

 Jihadin wrote:
No freaking way......sorry...I'm not Tacticool...that's aimed at civilians that doesn't know better....having that on a rifle is creating a blind spot (possible)....weapon leaning to the left due to weight...just the idea of the possible blind spot just unnerves me....that has the potential to make the shooter go "God mode" and totally expose him/herself

My understanding is that as long as I am the protagonist, I will only ever receive grazing shoulder wounds, anyway, and my shotgun will send people flying through the air. I see no reason not to use a shield!