What do YOU use for home defense?

imported post



no big deal...

imported post

If you are in a situation where you can stack the deck way in advance (such as your own house) ahandgun is only used to buy you time to get to a long gun. No rifles, even if the construction is concrete block or brick. Pump shotgun with #4 buck.

imported post

Anyone have some links to tests they've done on penetration with different rounds? I'm not interested in a test with construction material. I'd like something more realistic, like they actually go into an abandoned house and fire off rounds and see where they end up, if they continue along their initial path, and if they still have enough energy to kill anything.

I'm sure even a FMJ from a pistol would go out the side of a house if it only had drywall and insulation in the way. Buckshot would probably at least go through a wall or two.

Preference is for something I can easily operate at 2 in the morning, just woken up, with adrenaline pumping.

imported post

r6-rider wrote:

no big deal...

Click to expand...

You better hope they only coming in from that angle.

imported post

My nightstand piece is a Taurus Judge loaded with 000 buckshot. I also have a modified mossberg 500 12 ga. in the gun cabinet loaded with 00 buckshot. It also has 5 more rounds of 00 in a holder on the stock and another holder on the receiver with 6 shells of rifled slugs.

imported post

Glock 36 (Condition 1)is within reach of my side of the bed. Mossberg 500A with XX full choke in the closet. The mossberg is usually unloaded with a cable lock thru the action to keep the kids(14, 2 & 2)from getting us on the evening news. The glock is on my belt when I'm not at work or asleep.

Been thinking lately of how to keep the mossberg more readily available for home defense while still safe from the kids.

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

Anyone have some links to tests they've done on penetration with different rounds? I'm not interested in a test with construction material. I'd like something more realistic, like they actually go into an abandoned house and fire off rounds and see where they end up, if they continue along their initial path, and if they still have enough energy to kill anything.

I'm sure even a FMJ from a pistol would go out the side of a house if it only had drywall and insulation in the way. Buckshot would probably at least go through a wall or two.

Preference is for something I can easily operate at 2 in the morning, just woken up, with adrenaline pumping.

Click to expand...

If you're interested in not having to be too accurate but not shooting the kids in the next room, #6 with no choke would be good. Some use #4 but I'd use #6 'cause Iuse it for turkey season already.

Just my 2 cents.

imported post

I have 3 80lb+ dogs and good locks as a primary deterrent as I would prefer the BG just go to someone else's house. If not, my wife has a 9mm and I have a .45 that are near the bed and we keep a Mossberg 500 loaded with 8 rds of 00 buck in the bedroom as well. During waking hours I typically have my carry sidearm on me or near me. There are a few other sidearms we can reach in short order quickly.

imported post

rugerdon wrote:

I had the same idea once...I carried a revolver whereby the first round would be one of those "snake-shot" rounds. My idea was that a perpetrator would be "stung" by the pellets and if he decided not to retreat, the next five would be hollowpoints.

A friend of mine who was an FBI agent was looking at my gun and said: "What the 'F' is this?" I explained my theory and he said: "Are you crazy? You want the first round to end the confrontation. You are leaving yourself open to all sorts of lawsuits."

Click to expand...

a 12GA blast at close range (anywhere in a house unless you live at neverland ranch) with rubber pellets is way more powerful than 'Snake-Shot" in a handgun, it is like comparing apples& oranges.
the "00" sized pelletsare just asnasty as a slug anywhere out to 40 yards, but at the same time a missed shot will do less collateral damage.
that is why rubber projectiles are properly referred to as "less Lethal"
If I can stop an attack without needing tokillthe perp, I will. if that shot does not stop him, there is always lead loaded behind it.

imported post

I agree that you do not want to use more force than is necessary to eliminate a threat. That concept is codified in Civil Law and Moral Truth. If your intention is to eliminate a threat, and the force you use is reasonable but happens to result in the death of the perpetrator, then you are OK with the law and God.Your intention was not to KILL the perpetrator, but to protect your life and limb.

So, do what ever you think is right to defend yourself and your loved ones. But I do not use the "snake-shot" anymore.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

rugerdon wrote:

I had the same idea once...I carried a revolver whereby the first round would be one of those "snake-shot" rounds. My idea was that a perpetrator would be "stung" by the pellets and if he decided not to retreat, the next five would be hollowpoints.

A friend of mine who was an FBI agent was looking at my gun and said: "What the 'F' is this?" I explained my theory and he said: "Are you crazy? You want the first round to end the confrontation. You are leaving yourself open to all sorts of lawsuits."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You really gotta love that argument. I hear it all the time. Oh noes! Lawsuits!! Yea, as opposed to what, a captialmurder trial?

imported post

The liability issue of "less lethal" loads is just one side of the issue. The other side is it's effectiveness. For example if you haveone 5' tall skinnyteenage intruder armed with a baseball bat in your house and you happen to be a 6'-5" 250 lbs dude and blast him with a 12 Gauge 00 buckshot, you might have a problem. Sure, in this case rubber pallets would be a good beginning and then you can always resort to a more deadly load.

But what if you have 2 attackers your size high on meth and armed with knives? All you might have is 1 shot per person and you wouldwant the deadliest option you have at that point. But in order to get to your "real" shot, you need to first discharge your 2-3 rounds of rubber pellets that will just piss him off and by the time you get to your lead shot you might very well be dead.

If you want to have a "less lethal" option, then have it as a separate tool. Then you can choose which tool to deploy once you assesed the situation. But if you have only one effective defensive tool and you put in a condition where it's first deploys the less lethal options and then the more lethal one, you put yourself in a very dangerous situation.

You don't see cops loading "less lethal" ammo into their guns. If they think that situation requires use of force but doesn't call for deadly force, they have pepper spray, tazer and batoon for that. If they go for their gun, then they are going for deadly forcce.

My basic feel is that if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, don't try to confront him. Secure yourself and family members away from theintruder(s) (if your house layout allows you), make sure intruder(s) are aware that house is occupiedand call the cops while pointing a loaded gun at the path where intruders can come from. If they still do come toward you, they are coming for you, so use deadly force. No DA, Judge or Jury in a right mind will convict you. At that point you did everything to avoid the confrontation and it's a 200% self defense.

imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:

My basic feel is that if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, don't try to confront him. Secure yourself and family members away from theintruder(s) (if your house layout allows you), make sure intruder(s) are aware that house is occupiedand call the cops while pointing a loaded gun at the path where intruders can come from. If they still do come toward you, they are coming for you, so use deadly force. No DA, Judge or Jury in a right mind will convict you. At that point you did everything to avoid the confrontation and it's a 200% self defense.

Click to expand...

This.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

You really gotta love that argument. I hear it all the time. Oh noes! Lawsuits!! Yea, as opposed to what, a captialmurder trial?

----------------------------------------------------
Capital Murder Trial over a dead guy in MY HOUSE?

I sure am glad I don't live in a silly@$$ state that would even CONSIDER prosecuting someone for self defense in their own home.

Virginia is nice, but not nearly as good as Texas where "He needed killin" is a defense to prosecution and you can legally shoot someone in your yard for "criminal mischief at night".

I miss living in Texas. too bad they don't allow OC. I had a CHL when I lived there, but OC would have been nice. I've noticed it certainly does improve the manners of those around you wherever you go.

While living in Houston, someone tried to carjack me in my (then brand-new) F-150. I "talked him out of it" without having to fire a shot. Short explaination: Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

imported post

I use what I carry my .45 with what Mesa PD uses Federal Hydroshock and buy them from a friend who is a Mesa detective. If you use excessive force you may win the fight but lose the war in court. I have seen shotgun, assault weapons for home defense, must be really bad shots. It is not the ammo as much as if it was a good shoot. (ex. Like you were in fear of your life or a family members)
Read the law!
S/F Vic

imported post

nothing would make a statement to a criminal invading your home like this....

imported post

reconvic wrote:

I have seen shotgun, assault weapons for home defense, must be really bad shots. It is not the ammo as much as if it was a good shoot. (ex. Like you were in fear of your life or a family members)
Read the law!
S/F Vic

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault weapon"....only true "assault weapons" are the the select fire and fully automatic firearms used by law enforcement and the military...all of those single shot long guns owned by the people are exactly that--semi-auto rifles, nothing more or less--the identifying of semi-autos as "assault weapons" are political propaganda used by the anti-gun liberals and 2A haters in an effort to make the people afraid--and every time you or anyone else call a semi-auto an "assault weapon"--you are only aiding them in that effort.

second, there is nothing in the law where I live that limits me to the use of a handgun for close defense--if I am in my home I could pull out an AK clone or an AR or any other long gun if I chose to do so and had one handy at the time, and nothing in the laws here restricts it. NOW, would an AK look a like be the best choice in an urban or highly populated area where you had wall to wall neighbors...probably not, because the AK has a habit of penetrating walls...BUT, in a rural environment where not that many people live, or where your nearest neighbor is out of range--yeah I can see where the AK or an AR or similar long gun has its merits....

Maybe it isn't whether or not a person is a bad shot--I can see how a home invader might serioulsy consider a career change after having an AK clone pulled on them...

imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:

My basic feel is that if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, don't try to confront him. Secure yourself and family members away from theintruder(s) (if your house layout allows you), make sure intruder(s) are aware that house is occupiedand call the cops while pointing a loaded gun at the path where intruders can come from. If they still do come toward you, they are coming for you, so use deadly force. No DA, Judge or Jury in a right mind will convict you. At that point you did everything to avoid the confrontation and it's a 200% self defense.

Click to expand...

there are issues with your argument:

1. If you intentionally let criminals know the house they just broke into is occupied when they might otherwise have reason to doubt--you have just told the criminals that there are witnesses....

2. You speak of fortifying yourself in a room--fixed fortifications are just coffins by another name. fortifications are good to a point--they will slow down an enemy, but someone who is smart is going to simply go around the obstacle--or if there is enough of them to sacrifice--simply go through it, or simply run you out of ammunition in which case you lose anyway.

3. A defense has to be mobile and if possible--having a family someone else in the house who can assist with cover fire/suppressive fire as you retreat as needed to gain additional time or to gain access to other firearms as needed.

4. Calling the police is good--agree there--but only IF you have time before a fight develops, but if the fight is already ongoing--no way should anyone risk losing their life just to call the police--the police can be called after the fight is over---assuming of course a fight develops at all.

imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:

My basic feel is that if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, don't try to confront him. Secure yourself and family members away from theintruder(s) (if your house layout allows you), make sure intruder(s) are aware that house is occupiedand call the cops while pointing a loaded gun at the path where intruders can come from. If they still do come toward you, they are coming for you, so use deadly force. No DA, Judge or Jury in a right mind will convict you. At that point you did everything to avoid the confrontation and it's a 200% self defense.

Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment, and if possible this is what I will do. However, there may be other unarmed people in the house and I do not want to leave them to be victims. It would really depend on the situation, but the safety of others may necessitate more than just hiding with a good line of fire :?

I have an 870 with 00bk as well as my carry gun for "HD". I consider the probability of my having to use either to be minimal.

As relates to over penetration, my house is structural brick construction...at the base I believe it is 6 bricks thick and tapers to fewer towards the top. I have confidence that except for windows and doors, no round I have is likely to leave the house. From tests I have seen it appears even 5.56 FMJ would be likely to be stopped by this.

imported post

suntzu wrote:

reconvic wrote:

I have seen shotgun, assault weapons for home defense, must be really bad shots. It is not the ammo as much as if it was a good shoot. (ex. Like you were in fear of your life or a family members)
Read the law!
S/F Vic

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a civilian "assault weapon"....only true "assault weapons" are the the select fire and fully automatic firearms used by law enforcement and the military...all of those single shot long guns owned by the people are exactly that--semi-auto rifles, nothing more or less--the identifying of semi-autos as "assault weapons" are political propaganda used by the anti-gun liberals and 2A haters in an effort to make the people afraid--and every time you or anyone else call a semi-auto an "assault weapon"--you are only aiding them in that effort.

second, there is nothing in the law where I live that limits me to the use of a handgun for close defense--if I am in my home I could pull out an AK clone or an AR or any other long gun if I chose to do so and had one handy at the time, and nothing in the laws here restricts it. NOW, would an AK look a like be the best choice in an urban or highly populated area where you had wall to wall neighbors...probably not, because the AK has a habit of penetrating walls...BUT, in a rural environment where not that many people live, or where your nearest neighbor is out of range--yeah I can see where the AK or an AR or similar long gun has its merits....

Maybe it isn't whether or not a person is a bad shot--I can see how a home invader might serioulsy consider a career change after having an AK clone pulled on them...

Click to expand...

I agree with your definition of assault weapon. I'm pretty sure everyone here would. But chances are none of us would be in the Jury at your trial - chances are that your Jury would be filled with sheeple who follow media definition of AW.

In this case a sheer view of pimped out AK or AR shown as an evidence will automatically work against you. I know there is nothing in the law that tells you you can't use those for denfense, and if your case looks 200% crystal clear, that likely wouldn't be a problem. But most real SD scenarios are not 200% crystal clear and if there is ANY room for doubt, using an AK or AR clone would work against you.

I know it's not fair and simply not right, but that's the reality. Using a moreconventional weapon suchas common caliber handgun or shotgunwhich average sheeple wouldn't be too biased against, will just make your case a loteasier...