Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by DXP55, Nov 4, 2019.
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.
Well if you read the article you would see that the target was a significant distance away when they were hit, possibly taking up a firing position.
I would not want to use something as imprecise as a shotgun in a home invasion as you risk collateral damage.
Problem with an AR is the round goes through the wall into your neighbours house.
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.
I agree, but given the circumstances, it seems pretty valid.
Yeah, but I think a shotgun on balance seems like the riskier option.
M193 won’t, M855 could well do.
Taking on people at 200 yards through walls and body armour? Are they using a .50 cal?
I'm not sure shooting someone as they are running away is a good reason to use a long range weapon for home protection.
Pump action shotgun loaded with birdshot is probably the lowest risk lethal weapon for Yank homes/apartments which feature plasterboard internal walls and thin external cladding.
The downsides to a 12 gauge pump action are that you have a very limited effective range and the considerable recoil makes it difficult and unpleasant to use for people with lighter frames and lower upper body strength. That’s real problem as you need plenty of practice to become proficient and safe with any firearm.
AR 15s (other small calibre military style semi-automatic carbines are available) are a lot easier to shoot in terms of low recoil and near-instant follow up shots. Depending on the ammunition used, they can seriously over-penetrate, going through walls, cars and other people that you didn’t want shot.
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.
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...
Rather oddly, there are no calibre limits in the UK. It's possible to have a licence in the UK for a fully functional main battle tank gun which will shoot through a lot more than body armour a couple of miles away.
Well it's a balance between cost, rate of fire, penetration, recoil, capacity and reload speed. In general American and UK homes are not separated by plasterboard...
Separate names with a comma.