Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,299
Why would you need range for a home invasion?
That's not born out in the evidence though as best I'm aware. The vast majority of home defense encounters in the US are at short range with very few rounds fired. No one is taking on 10 assailants at 200 yards through walls and body armour. Apart from in their mass shootings....which is kind of the issue.
Why would you need range for a home invasion?
This target had took up position in a ditch 200ft away. Even in close quarters I would take a precision weapon over a shotgun any day.
I would not want to use something as imprecise as a shotgun in a home invasion as you risk collateral damage.
Which raises the question of whether killing someone in a ditch 200 feet away is defence. It might be in some circumstances, but it is a valid question.
You also risk collateral damage by using a weapon that can[ easily shoot through the internal walls of a building and kill people in other rooms. Or through windows, doors, some types of exterior wall or any other less sturdy parts of a building and kill people in other buildings. It happens relatively often in the USA. There is such a thing as too much penetration.
Problem with an AR is the round goes through the wall into your neighbours house.
That's not born out in the evidence though as best I'm aware. The vast majority of home defense encounters in the US are at short range with very few rounds fired. No one is taking on 10 assailants at 200 yards through walls and body armour. Apart from in their mass shootings....which is kind of the issue.
snip
You also risk collateral damage by using a weapon that can easily shoot through the internal walls of a building and kill people in other rooms. Or through windows, doors, some types of exterior wall or any other less sturdy parts of a building and kill people in other buildings. It happens relatively often in the USA. There is such a thing as too much penetration.
I'm not sure shooting someone as they are running away is a good reason to use a long range weapon for home protection.
Taking on people at 200 yards through walls and body armour? Are they using a .50 cal?
Running away and fleeing are two different things, in this case we don't know what the persons actual intentions were, but it's easy to imagine many other scenarios where the range would be useful.
But as Terminal Boy has mentioned there are more important reasons such as the recoil, you want a weapon that is as easy to use as possible, a glock would be perfect for home defence really, but an assault rifle is more effective than a shotgun.
I'd agree in general. I've played enough airsoft to know assault rifles are not a good option for close quarters though. Shotguns are much the same depending on length. Semi handgun in general would be my choice for the home. Thankfully it's something I dont have to contend with in the UK. Well I hope...Running away and fleeing are two different things, in this case we don't know what the persons actual intentions were, but it's easy to imagine many other scenarios where the range would be useful.
But as Terminal Boy has mentioned there are more important reasons such as the recoil, you want a weapon that is as easy to use as possible, a glock would be perfect for home defence really, but an assault rifle is more effective than a shotgun.
5.56 is good for that distance, will go through dry wall merrily and body armour (soft armour anyway). That's pretty much what it was designed for.
But its America so you can buy a .50 cal rifle too if you like, because why not?
9mm penetrates dry wall more than 5.56, not that perfect really if you like your neighbours.