[countrygun]

Originally Posted by cowboy1964

Uh no, the main advantage of a rifle over a pistol is stopping power.

I hate to disagree, but I will anyway. Since we all know that placement is an important part of the equation there isn't much difference between a well placed round from any of several handgun/load combinations, and a rifle round at indoor ranges and there is also very little difference between a badly placed round with either. a rifle indoors will not turn a bad shot into a good one nor will it make the bad guy any "deader" with a good shot. A rifle or appropriately, a carbine just makes the placement more precise, in the right hands.

The long gun extends the range at which you can effectively apply the energy over a handgun.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by countrygun

I hate to disagree, but I will anyway. Since we all know that placement is an important part of the equation there isn't much difference between a well placed round from any of several handgun/load combinations, and a rifle round at indoor ranges and there is also very little difference between a badly placed round with either. a rifle indoors will not turn a bad shot into a good one nor will it make the bad guy any "deader" with a good shot. A rifle or appropriately, a carbine just makes the placement more precise, in the right hands.

The long gun extends the range at which you can effectively apply the energy over a handgun.

Ohhh yes there is.

[Travclem]

Originally Posted by countrygun

I hate to disagree, but I will anyway. Since we all know that placement is an important part of the equation there isn't much difference between a well placed round from any of several handgun/load combinations, and a rifle round at indoor ranges and there is also very little difference between a badly placed round with either. a rifle indoors will not turn a bad shot into a good one nor will it make the bad guy any "deader" with a good shot. A rifle or appropriately, a carbine just makes the placement more precise, in the right hands.

The long gun extends the range at which you can effectively apply the energy over a handgun.

If this is the case, why does every SWAT team/military unit use rifles to clear buildings instead of pistols? A rifle round to the chest is more devastating than a pistol round to the chest to to the greater hydrostatic shock. I will agree that a CNS shot is a CNS shot regardless of round used but a rifle does a better job everywhere else. Even in the case of a poor shot, a rifle round to the leg is more devastating than a pistol round to the leg.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Travclem

If this is the case, why does every SWAT team/military unit use rifles to clear buildings instead of pistols? A rifle round to the chest is more devastating than a pistol round to the chest to to the greater hydrostatic shock. I will agree that a CNS shot is a CNS shot regardless of round used but a rifle does a better job everywhere else. Even in the case of a poor shot, a rifle round to the leg is more devastating than a pistol round to the leg.

Because, AS I SAID,

" A rifle or appropriately, a carbine just makes the placement more precise, in the right hands."

It is easier to shoot a shoulder arm well, but there are a number of handgun rounds that will yeild the desired result at close quarters with identical placement.

[Travclem]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Because, AS I SAID,

" A rifle or appropriately, a carbine just makes the placement more precise, in the right hands."

It is easier to shoot a shoulder arm well, but there are a number of handgun rounds that will yeild the desired result at close quarters with identical placement.

So let me get this straight, according to you, a 9mm to the chest does just as much damage as a 5.56 to the chest in CQB/HD distances. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, you are completely wrong.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Because, AS I SAID,

" A rifle or appropriately, a carbine just makes the placement more precise, in the right hands."

It is easier to shoot a shoulder arm well, but there are a number of handgun rounds that will yeild the desired result at close quarters with identical placement.

Except that many teams have traded MP5s for ARs. No change to accuracy or portability, but a significant step up in power from the 9/40 to the 5.56.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Travclem

So let me get this straight, according to you, a 9mm to the chest does just as much damage as a 5.56 to the chest in CQB/HD distances. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, you are completely wrong.

No, you don't have it "straight" where did I mention the 9mm? C'mon, show me. YOU are bringing the 9mm into the conversation not me. Why are you trying to stick me with the 9mm?

Oh, and to the other poster who mentioned the swith from MP-5s to ,223s, I do believe that has to do with the penetration/over penetration characteristics as much as anything, or don't you read the threads about how the 9mm over penetrates more than the .223?

The charge was put forth that the purpose of the rifle was "more stopping power than a handgun at interior distances"

I simply disagree with that statement.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by countrygun

No, you don't have it "straight" where did I mention the 9mm? C'mon, show me. YOU are bringing the 9mm into the conversation not me. Why are you trying to stick me with the 9mm?

Then perhaps you need to specify exactly what you are referring to with this statement:

Originally Posted by countrygun

I hate to disagree, but I will anyway. Since we all know that placement is an important part of the equation there isn't much difference between a well placed round from any of several handgun/load combinations, and a rifle round at indoor ranges and there is also very little difference between a badly placed round with either. a rifle indoors will not turn a bad shot into a good one nor will it make the bad guy any "deader" with a good shot. A rifle or appropriately, a carbine just makes the placement more precise, in the right hands.

The long gun extends the range at which you can effectively apply the energy over a handgun.

I am quite interested in seeing what handgun/load combinations you believe are as effective as a rifle.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Warp

Then perhaps you need to specify exactly what you are referring to with this statement:



I am quite interested in seeing what handgun/load combinations you believe are as effective as a rifle.

Well since I am dealing with a blanket statement, I will even give the benefit of the doubt to the rifle side and use the .223 as a "rifle baseline."

I have seen the effects of a .223 from a rifle and a .44 mag from a pistol on 100+# deer @ under 50 yds. from that I would say the .44 is swifter on the traditional heart/lung shot.

I will however invite you to open your minds, ad look at the statement I was responding to,

"Uh no, the main advantage of a rifle over a pistol is stopping power."

Now tell me how, my statement,

"I hate to disagree, but I will anyway. Since we all know that placement is an important part of the equation there isn't much difference between a well placed round from any of several handgun/load combinations, and a rifle round at indoor ranges and there is also very little difference between a badly placed round with either. a rifle indoors will not turn a bad shot into a good one nor will it make the bad guy any "deader" with a good shot. A rifle or appropriately, a carbine just makes the placement more precise, in the right hands."



is incorrect?

Remember look at both statements without bringing your own assumptions in to it.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Well since I am dealing with a blanket statement, I will even give the benefit of the doubt to the rifle side and use the .223 as a "rifle baseline."

I have seen the effects of a .223 from a rifle and a .44 mag from a pistol on 100+# deer @ under 50 yds. from that I would say the .44 is swifter on the traditional heart/lung shot.

I will however invite you to open your minds, ad look at the statement I was responding to,

"Uh no, the main advantage of a rifle over a pistol is stopping power."

Now tell me how, my statement,

"I hate to disagree, but I will anyway. Since we all know that placement is an important part of the equation there isn't much difference between a well placed round from any of several handgun/load combinations, and a rifle round at indoor ranges and there is also very little difference between a badly placed round with either. a rifle indoors will not turn a bad shot into a good one nor will it make the bad guy any "deader" with a good shot. A rifle or appropriately, a carbine just makes the placement more precise, in the right hands."



is incorrect?

Remember look at both statements without bringing your own assumptions in to it.

Because the part in bold is fundamental to the entirety of what you are saying and is incorrect.

PS: You have a comment about the bad buy being any "deader". Death/killing has absolutely nothing to do with this. The idea is to make the threat cease being a threat as quickly as possible. The fact that you seem to be making judgments based upon killing, alone, indicates that you are going about this the wrong way.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Warp

Because the part in bold is fundamental to the entirety of what you are saying and is incorrect.

PS: You have a comment about the bad buy being any "deader". Death/killing has absolutely nothing to do with this. The idea is to make the threat cease being a threat as quickly as possible. The fact that you seem to be making judgments based upon killing, alone, indicates that you are going about this the wrong way.

Well again, my hunting experiences have shown my that a .223 doesn't stop movement any faster than a .44 magnum. Of course my experiences are of the "terminal" variety.

If it makes you feel better though I could sustitute Incapacitate for dead.


I can make the case that , the .41 mag has a record of one shot stops on the street that rivals the .223.

While I don't use the load, it would be very hard to prove that a COM hit with a .223 would have any greater effect than some of the light bullet high velocity 10mm or similar .41 mag load.



And, in as much as the debates is subjective I can still make the claim that the greatest benefit is increased accuracy in placement. How do you objectively prove that is wrong?

[Sam Spade]

Geez....

If nothing else, the latest drift is a perfect example of why technical choices shouldn't be made by non-technicians.

[Travclem]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Well again, my hunting experiences have shown my that a .223 doesn't stop movement any faster than a .44 magnum. Of course my experiences are of the "terminal" variety.

If it makes you feel better though I could sustitute Incapacitate for dead.


I can make the case that , the .41 mag has a record of one shot stops on the street that rivals the .223.

While I don't use the load, it would be very hard to prove that a COM hit with a .223 would have any greater effect than some of the light bullet high velocity 10mm or similar .41 mag load.



And, in as much as the debates is subjective I can still make the claim that the greatest benefit is increased accuracy in placement. How do you objectively prove that is wrong?

I don't think your idea of an HD handgun(.44/.41 mag) is the same as most people's(9,40,45,38,357,10mm).

[cowboy1964]

Deleted

[Ballisticism]

Originally Posted by APERS

This thread really makes me stop and think. I could see where 5.56 could be a good thing(bad guy shooting at me from around a doorway for example).. we have a newer house and 55gr FMJ would penetrate one wall like it wasnt there. And still have enough energy to deal with the bag guy on the other side. And would the home invader(s) take any cover they may find; fridge, freezer or whatever? As for the OP, my go to gun is my 870, 21"bbl full choke. 100% reliable always. May be time to save up for a .357 or .44magnum lever action.

On what evidence do you base this assumption? I have seen empirical evidence that a .223 55gr FMJ would fragment after passing through a single layer of drywall, and .223 V-max bullets fragment violently when they hit drywall. The .223 bullet has a lot of speed but not a lot of momentum, so it will be significantly slowed and/or deflected by the first object it hits. Pistol rounds go straight through interior walls like the walls aren't even there, while retaining enough momentum to be effective on the other side of the wall, as has been mentioned before. The same cannot be said for a .223 round, even though (because) it is going 3 times as fast.

[glock_collector]

the 50 bmg covers the 1000 yrd perimeter around my house, the Ar with opposing mags will do the 100 yrd and less work, shotgun down the stairway as they enter and the handguns finish at room length distances. Quit yer squabbling and get some range time!!

[JuneyBooney]

If you are being invaded and kill them with a machine gun it is their own darned fault. In your own home is different than on the street.

[GermanyBound]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Well since I am dealing with a blanket statement, I will even give the benefit of the doubt to the rifle side and use the .223 as a "rifle baseline."

I have seen the effects of a .223 from a rifle and a .44 mag from a pistol on 100+# deer @ under 50 yds. from that I would say the .44 is swifter on the traditional heart/lung shot.

I will however invite you to open your minds, ad look at the statement I was responding to,

"Uh no, the main advantage of a rifle over a pistol is stopping power."

Now tell me how, my statement,

"I hate to disagree, but I will anyway. Since we all know that placement is an important part of the equation there isn't much difference between a well placed round from any of several handgun/load combinations, and a rifle round at indoor ranges and there is also very little difference between a badly placed round with either. a rifle indoors will not turn a bad shot into a good one nor will it make the bad guy any "deader" with a good shot. A rifle or appropriately, a carbine just makes the placement more precise, in the right hands."



is incorrect?

Remember look at both statements without bringing your own assumptions in to it.

People aren't deer. Have you ever shot someone at room distance with a carbine? Trust me, the carbine does a hell of a lot more damage than a pistol at close range.

[GlockMonk]

Use what you're most comfortable, and proficient with. In my case, it would be a handgun, as that's what I'm most proficient with.

GlockMonk

[mick travis]

I would suggest you fire many rounds of those softpoints through your M-1 Carbine with the mags you intend to use before trusting it.

Many M-1 Carbines are not reliable with anything other than FMJ.

Originally Posted by RedHaze

I think the M1 you have right now is perfectly suited to home defense. Just opt for one of the JSP loads rather than the standard FMJ of course.


I'm all for shooting more with something you have that will get the job done just as well as a new gun, over buying a new gun. Besides, it's cheaper. And I'm poor.
There are a number of manufactures that carry JSP ammo for the .30 Carbine.

[roberev]

.300 blackout AR pistol with 10" barrel, equipped with EOTech, light, laser, and using Hornady 300 Whisper SAAMI-spec ammo with 110gr VMax bullet for in-house defense.

[mj9mm]

Originally Posted by roberev

.300 blackout AR pistol with 10" barrel, equipped with EOTech, light, laser, and using Hornady 300 Whisper SAAMI-spec ammo with 110gr VMax bullet for in-house defense.

that not only stops an intruder, but thread arguments too

[Dogbite]

I go with a 12 ga shotgun indoors, it is truly devastating. 00 buck, #4 buck, whatever.
I have one thing to add to the 5.56 talk indoors. I have personally seen 5.56 ball go through 3 walls in a structure, one had heavy hardwood board on it. I am not saying I would never use a rifle indoors, just saying it does penetrate.

[Travclem]

Originally Posted by dogbite

i go with a 12 ga shotgun indoors, it is truly devastating. 00 buck, #4 buck, whatever.
I have one thing to add to the 5.56 talk indoors. I have personally seen 5.56 ball go through 3 walls in a structure, one had heavy hardwood board on it. I am not saying i would never use a rifle indoors, just saying it does penetrate.

m855?

[JuneyBooney]

I would recommend the FN 5.7 with some darn good ear plugs. If it is an invasion shoot them all. A SSAR 15 AR would be good too but the house will be quite messy. I alos recommend some dogs for alarm purposes...