Home Defense Opinions

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, October 24, 2025 16:55
VIEWED: 6226
PAGE 1 of 1

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 16, 2007 12:26 AM (P)

Hello everyone,

I was surprised this Valentines day when my sweetie bought me an Interstate Model 99 Double Barrel 12 ga shotgun with exposed hammers. A classic coach gun.

In addition to taking the thing on shooting trips to the desert, I've been thinking of using it as a home-defense tool. I've never owned a shotgun, but it seems like a forgiving weapon. Forgiveness might be important when waken at night, with hands shaking and uncertain aim.

What do you all think of a coach gun as a home defense instrument?

Does anyone out there use one?

If not, what's your preferred defense tool?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 16, 2007 1:24 AM (P)

I think it would work fine, but if there are more than two intruders you might be in a little trouble.

I don't have any guns now but someday I'll get around to getting one of more. My preferred home defense tool would be a Barrett light fifty (I think its the A3 that's bullpup), but those are expensive and tend to punch holes in houses (cars, people, neighbors house, neighbor on the other side of the neighbor and their car too) so that probably wuldn't be the best idea. Other than that I'd say a .50 Desert Eagle, giant gun (intimidation), huge bullet (can use a low velocity bullet and still get great stopping power), but more maneuverable than a longarm and magazine loaded.

RUE

Friday, February 16, 2007 1:28 AM (P)

Shotgun with shortest legal barrel.

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 16, 2007 1:47 AM (P)

Rue, you and I are of a like mind.

Fred, LOL! I love the looks of the Desert Eagle .50, but just looking at the price tag on the gun and its ammo gives me the vapors.

I thought about the 'more than two intruders' possibility. But gee, if you blow away two guys with a shotgun and any remainders don't take off, they are some pretty determined hombres, eh? Braver than I am, at any rate.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 16, 2007 2:14 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I thought about the 'more than two intruders' possibility. But gee, if you blow away two guys with a shotgun and any remainders don't take off, they are some pretty determined hombres, eh? Braver than I am, at any rate.

Or they know you only have 2 shots and are pissed that you shot their friends. Other than a a Desert Eagle I'd say the biggest .44 or .50 pistol you can afford, biggest because if you intimidate them enough you won't have to shoot, .44 or .50 because they are big bullets so you can get cold loads that will still put someone down but won't have as much recoil or penetrating power, pistol because revolvers take too long to reload.

EDIT: I think that the shotgun is fine so I'm not suggesting you ditch it, just I'd prefer a larger magazine.

GEEZER

Friday, February 16, 2007 3:33 AM (P)

Lots to consider.

1. Are you willing to take a person's life? You must make this decision, and be sure of it, before the time comes. If not, invest in better locks, and possibly make an interior room as secure as possible and fall back and call the cops. Have a cell phone handy in case the phone lines are cut.

2. What is on the other side of every wall in your house? Anything that's adequate for stopping an assailant will go through drywall like it isn't there. Especially important if you live in an apartment building. If your neighbor next door catches a stray buckshot, it won't matter if you were shooting at a burglar.

3. Are you willing to practice until you are able to fire your weapon accurately in low-light situations? Regardless of what you see in movies, a shotgun at close range is not a streetsweeper. At typical inside ranges, the pattern isn't much bigger than a closed fist. Practice reloading. You can buy dummy shells, called snap-caps, which allow you to do this without having to handle and load live ammo. A course in safe gun handling is also a good idea.

4. Do you have a tactical plan of retreat? In many jurisdictions, if you can avoid confrontation by getting out yet shoot instead, you can be prosecuted.

5. Be aware that no matter what, you may be prosecuted or sued in civil court if you shoot someone, even if you felt threatened. Do you know a good lawyer? You should.

6. Oh, yeah. Do you ever have children or folks you wouldn't want finding a loaded gun over to your place? If so, you need secure storage for your guns.

Really not trying to scare you off, but this is just some of the stuff you have to consider when you own a deadly weapon. That being said, if you follow a few common sense rules, you'll be OK. I've been around firearms for close to 50 years, and haven't shot anything I didn't mean to yet.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, February 16, 2007 3:53 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I think it would work fine, but if there are more than two intruders you might be in a little trouble.

I don't have any guns now but someday I'll get around to getting one of more. My preferred home defense tool would be a Barrett light fifty (I think its the A3 that's bullpup), but those are expensive and tend to punch holes in houses (cars, people, neighbors house, neighbor on the other side of the neighbor and their car too) so that probably wuldn't be the best idea. Other than that I'd say a .50 Desert Eagle, giant gun (intimidation), huge bullet (can use a low velocity bullet and still get great stopping power), but more maneuverable than a longarm and magazine loaded.

Barrett model 95 (the bullpup version) weighs around 23 lbs and kicks like a mule. If you fired one in-doors you'd be flashblinded and deaf for a week. It's also bolt-action, which can be problematic in stressful situations. Desert Eagle also kicks like a mule, and isn't a pistol for a rookie.

Handguns are OK if you're willing to dedicate a good bit of time to practice, since they're a lot harder to shoot than folks think. I was at the local pistol range recently watching guys from some Federal agency trying to qualify. They were having a hard time making effective shots on a humanoid target at 7 yards.

For most folk, I think the shotgun is really the best home defense weapon. It's pretty easy to aim, has great stopping power, even with reduced loads, and the sound of a pump-action slide is surely intimidating. You still need to practice, and still need to observe safe gun handling, but it's probably a lot easier than anything else.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, February 16, 2007 4:19 AM (P)

My Favorite option allows for safe weapons storage,
safe around kids, kinda hard to carry, but doable, is always loaded and safe when I'm loaded...

Its a DOG

I call mine Kaylee

Bearspray can be handy too

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 16, 2007 4:26 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Barrett model 95 (the bullpup version) weighs around 23 lbs and kicks like a mule. If you fired one in-doors you'd be flashblinded and deaf for a week. It's also bolt-action, which can be problematic in stressful situations.

Actually I was thinking of the M82A2 which is semi-auto, and I was kidding (sort of

)

Quote:
Desert Eagle also kicks like a mule, and isn't a pistol for a rookie.

Hence the suggestion for cold loads, less recoil, though probably less reliability as well since they are gas operated.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, February 16, 2007 4:47 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If not, what's your preferred defense tool?

Glock 22

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 16, 2007 5:34 AM (P)

Live in a crappy house with a crappy car in a good neighborhood and then all you have to worry about protecting yourself from is the FEDs. Only an idiot will try to rob the poorest looking house on the block.

As far as guns go, you all probably know I'm an advocate for guns rights, but I don't own one personally, so I can't say. I've been meaning to get around to getting one, but I've got a lot of research to do and then I gotta get out to the range too. I've actually never fired anything short of a pellet gun before.

Nice thread though. I like to read Browncoat's opinions on this.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Friday, February 16, 2007 7:26 AM (P)

I hafta agree with a lot of whatGeezer wrote.
I remmeber hearing about a gun group ( not the NRA, but somebody similar.) counseling home owners here in Los Angeles county on this subject. Their main point was, " No matter what happens, if you shoot a burglar, even inside your own house, expect to have your weapon permanently confiscated, and expect to go to jail that night. If you kill him, expect to be charged with homicide. This is how the LA County DA's office handles it. "

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 16, 2007 8:44 AM (P)

Yeah... that's a load of crap and an infringement of our Constitutional rights. Not to mention one of the leading reasons that the crime rate is so high in this country, which in turn lends to the willingness of the taxpayers to pay even more of their salaries to subsidize a larger police force, who most of the time are busy doing nothing but harassing the very citizens paying their salaries by pulling them over for misc trivial bullshit so they can meet their quotas to justify their own jobs and pay. It's a sad, sad circle.

If you are in my house and you don't belong there, I have every right to shoot your ass dead if it means the welfare of myself or my family as opposed to your own. Period. If I ever go to jail for that, then go ahead and make me a martyr.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

GEEZER

Friday, February 16, 2007 12:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If not, what's your preferred defense tool?

Forgot this before.

Browning Hi-Power in 9MM. I've had this pistol for over 30 years, put tens of thousands of rounds through it, and it's never failed to fire - not once.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Friday, February 16, 2007 5:35 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If not, what's your preferred defense tool?

Forgot this before.

Browning Hi-Power in 9MM. I've had this pistol for over 30 years,

OH, my, the dinosaur of the nines. Classic weapon.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:19 AM (P)

Heh.

I like dinosaurs, myself.

All the weapons I own... I think all of them have a design that is over 50 years old.

My most modern weapon is a Makarov semiauto from (if I recall) Bulgaria.

Tied is my SKS rifle from (if I recall) Yugoslavia.

Then my Gaucho single-action revolver from Taurus, who manufactures in Brazil if I recall.

Then my new double-barreled side-by-side external hammer shotgun from Interstate Arms, who imports it from China.

Dinosaur designs have character.

And now that I look at the list... I see I don't have a single firearm made in the USA. Does that make me a
communist? ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:22 AM (P)

Oh! How could I forget! My one American weapon!

First handgun I ever bought... for 100 bucks.

A single-action .22 caliber revolver from Heritage Manufacturing! They are based in Opa Locka, Florida. (again, if I recall correctly.)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
And now that I look at the list... I see I don't have a single firearm made in the USA. Does that make me a communist? ;-)

Yes. Yes, it does.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ANTHONYT

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:31 AM (P)

Since I got them all not only because they were 'classic' designs, but also because they were cheap as dirt, can I also be capitalist?

Capitalist Communist?

Is there a such thing? ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:48 AM (P)

Well judging by American military standard issue it may make you someone who wants quality merchandise...

M16, Worst. Assualt Rifle. Ever.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:57 AM (P)

Yeah,

I've got no love for the M-16. I prefer a weapon designed for barely-trained troops with half-arsed maintenance skills. A weapon that will eat almost anything and spit the required measures of death. A weapon that is highly malfunction resistant.

Give me an AK. (I might get one next year.)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:08 AM (P)

As I understand it the M16 was only developed as a weapon to be used for base security on USAF bases, but a certain amount of under the counter dealing got it on to the regular issue.

The M16 reminds me of the orginal SA80 variants. I've been told by collegues that it was like being back in the 1800's:
Fire
Use barrel cleaner to clear jam
Fire
Use barrel cleaner to clear jam
Fire...

Though they were so accurate the British Army had to redesign the range tests, because the ones used for the SLR weren't accurate enough.

The difference is the SA80 has improved, it works now.

The problem with the AK47 is that it's inaccurate, a symptom of it's wide manufacturing tolerances that are also the reasons why it doesn't take a monkey to maintain. A weapon you can bury and leave in the ground for six months, scoop out the crap and it'll still fire first time.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:20 AM (P)

I have to agree that the AK is less accurate than either the British or American Assault rifles.

On the other hand, how accurate does an assault rifle need (or even want) to be? Most particularly in urban conflicts, 400 meters accuracy is more than enough. I have to believe that most firefights are taking place at 100 meters or less.

I have always said that if presented with a choice between accuracy and reliability, I'll choose reliability every time.

A weapon would have to be darned inaccurate for me to ditch it in favor of something that is unreliable.

Though, I have heard that the latest issue of the M16 (the A2, is it?) is a much improved weapon over what was initially issued in Vietnam. Perhaps the stigma of that era carries its stink upon the new models, which are better?

Still, I'm hoping the US military will adopt an H&K design. I think those people have a handle on good weapons design and manufacture.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:39 AM (P)

M16 has been improved also. And it is far from the worst assault rifle; in fact I would say that it is one of the best, but you choose an assault rifle that fits the missile parameters. There are situations in which the M-16 would not be preferable, but as a modern infantry rifle it is pretty good.

The AK-47 is a hard weapon to shoot. You’re lucky to hit anything and only fanatics can stand to shoot it because it’s like trying to hold onto a kicking pig. But it’s also an older weapon. There are more modern versions such as the AK-101 which is a much superior weapon, if for no other reason then that it shoots a 5.56 NATO which is ballistically far superior to the 7.62s

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ANTHONYT

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:42 AM (P)

How do you feel about the AK-74?

I hear it is lighter and has low recoil, but keeps its reliability edge.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:50 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I have to agree that the AK is less accurate than either the British or American Assault rifles.

On the other hand, how accurate does an assault rifle need (or even want) to be?

Depends on what it's being used for. As long as the reliabillity of the weapon isn't ridiculous accuracy for a general issue weapon is very important. British SAS tend to be issued with H&K MP5's for engagements in confined areas like aircraft or buildings because it's compact and hugely accurate at close range. Carbines of the various standard issue Assualt rifles are used for the same reason.

A standard issue rifle has to be used in lots of circumstances and enviroments, and most often accuracy is very important.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:53 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
How do you feel about the AK-74?

I hear it is lighter and has low recoil, but keeps its reliability edge.

I’ve never shot it, but I would think that it is comparable to the AK-101.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

PIRATECAT

Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:30 AM (P)

First I would marry that little woman. Very thoughtful. Can she fry chicken? Second a dog is good for first alert. Getten ya up at night. Second is the stage coach shot gun perfect. Keep it close. Practice with it. Always keep a backup like a snub nose Rossi .38 its not how big the caliber but how good you shoot with it. I have alot of rifles, carbines, pistols, revolvers, baseball bats and knives. Loaded and layin around waiting for some poor soul to steal my Nascar collectables. Of course it never happens. Just like my unlocked 88 Chevy S-10 never gets stolen. But yeh that is a hell of a good home defense gift. Bless her little heart. 911 doesn't work its a joke. Worthless cops come out late and say its your word against his. Make sure you kill em inside your home. If ya got dog problems give him ground beef and then while he is eaten paint him pink. So the neighbor can keep his poopen mutt in his yard. I love the thought of a woman buying a gun for someone she cares for.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As I understand it the M16 was only developed as a weapon to be used for base security on USAF bases, but a certain amount of under the counter dealing got it on to the regular issue.

The M16 reminds me of the orginal SA80 variants. I've been told by collegues that it was like being back in the 1800's:
Fire
Use barrel cleaner to clear jam
Fire
Use barrel cleaner to clear jam
Fire...

Though they were so accurate the British Army had to redesign the range tests, because the ones used for the SLR weren't accurate enough.

The difference is the SA80 has improved, it works now.

The reliability issues of the M16 are blown out of proportion. When it was first developed it was intended for the Army, but they weren't interested in the lighter bullets. An Air Force General saw it demonstrated at a party and thought that the lighter gun with less recoil would be perfect for the Air Force guards. The Army was forced to evaluate it by the big-wigs in charge at the time, they still didn't like it so they sabotaged the test by telling the soldiers that it was such an advanced gun that it didn't need to be cleaned. This naturally resulted in severe reliability issues. After the Army adopted it and the soldiers were properly trained to use it (clean it whenever ou get a spare moment), it turned out to have decent reliability, high accuracy and sufficient stopping power.

PIRATECAT

Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:35 AM (P)

I totally agree with ya Freddy Gibb. Alot of it in the begining was Matel making some weak parts. Also the Army in that jungle war was not fully trained on how to keep it in firing condition along with bad cleaning techniques which led to jamming in the begining. But it has become for a long time an excellent carbine and rifle. The AK 47 design is topps but its for people who can't shoot. The US goverment has got their money out of weapons. Alot of 1911s where very old and refurbished when they got the knock that is was not accurate. Nobody beats the 1911. The Germans and Cong were doped up and you needed a combat knock down gun. This was discovered in the Spanish American war when facing the muslim philipino indians who were also doped up in battle. The 1873 45lc single action had been replaced with the colt .38 revolver which the US soldiers had problems dropping the indians. Then Mr Browning made the legendary Colt 1911 .45 automatic. Cool history.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:57 PM (P)

Untrue - in vietnam many of the incidents in the original issue were caused by using a heavier powder than the test versions, and the issue weapons not having the chromed bore, which was to some degree rectified in the M16A1, but a bit too late for our boys who depended on it.

Really though, apologies to Mr. Stoner, but the M-16/M4 platform is pure junk.

The problem stems from the fact that instead of the expelled gases striking a piston rod to charge the next round, they are blown straight into the chamber itself - along with powder residue, carbon fouling and what have you, over and over.

And the tolerances are such that a mere 3 grains of sand in the wrong place will cause a jam.

Essentially the weapon craps on it's own dinner plate, and eventually it *will* jam due to this, even the most spotless weapon might get one mag off, but that fouling builds up quick in a protracted engagement and then you're stuck with a plastic club.

Somehow I don't think the enemy is going to be kind enough to stop and let you break out the cleaning kit every 2 or 3 mags.

Front line units get the M-4 and supposedly it's been improved somewhat, but the shorter barrel would make the terribly anemic .223 it already fires even less effective and less accurate besides.

Supply units usually get decades-old M16 relics on their way to the scrap heap, often with mechanical defects or shot out bores besides - and this was one VERY significant factor in the ambush of the 507th Maintanence company and related casualties.

Excerpts from official report.

"While under fire, PVT Nace, SPC Johnson, and SGT Petrik successfully maneuvered their respective vehicles around and through obstacles and continued all the way through the city. Soldiers in this group returned fire while moving. Most of the Soldiers in this group report that they experienced weapons malfunctions."

"Corporal Luten, in the tractor-trailer driven by PFC Dubois, attempted to return fire with the 507th’s only .50 cal. machinegun, but the weapon failed. Luten was wounded in the leg while reaching for his M16."

"SPC Grubb returned fire with his M16 until wounded in both arms, despite reported jamming of his weapon, while PFC Elliot maneuvered their fuel truck through the ambush."

"SGT Riley attempted to secure 1SG Dowdy’s M16, since his own rifle had malfunctioned, but was unsuccessful. SGT Riley then directed SPC Johnson and SPC Hernandez to take cover. Riley also attempted to fire Johnson’s and Hernandez’s M16s, but both jammed. Johnson and Hernandez were both wounded."

"In the HEMTT wrecker towing a 5-ton tractor-trailer, SPC Hudson attempted to fire his M249 SAW while driving, but it malfunctioned."

End Result.
"Of the 33 Soldiers who entered An Nasiriyah in 18 vehicles (including two that were being towed) on 23 March, 11 Soldiers were killed, seven were captured and nine were wounded (including some of those captured). Sixteen Soldiers in eight vehicles emerged from the attack. The number of Iraqi casualties inflicted by Soldiers of the 507th and 3d FSB could not be determined. From start to finish, the attack on the 507th lasted an estimated 60 to 90 minutes."

This was a more or less wipeout of a US Armed Forces Convoy caused in part due to reliance on junk weapon platforms that are unreliable in the extreme.
Go on and look up the relevant details - many of the 'captured' were so because they were unable to fight due to jammed weapons.

After experiencing the 'reliability' of the M16 in training, when I got placed with my unit I opted for the only other option we had in the armory, an M60 with what seemed to be an AA barrel on it, yet another scrapheap relic with a long history of problems, not the least of which was getting parts for it, since at any one time *something* on it would be broken.

My loader carried an M79 and an officers M1911, and I carried a non-issue Colt .380 Mustang, cause when it came right down to it, neither one of us was going to stake our lives on stuff we couldn't trus

PIRATECAT

Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:32 PM (P)

Its not untrue. Still their is people who can't shoot a gun or keep it maintained. Give me a M16 anyday never had a problem with when I was in.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

ANTHONYT

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:00 AM (P)

My only direct experience with the M-16 is actually a civillian variant that a friend of mine brings shooting sometimes. I believe it is called a Bushmaster.

I have never seen his AK jam, but there have been occasional problems with the Bushmaster.

Now, a Bushmaster is not a proper military version, so the comparison may be moot.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:15 AM (P)

There is no question or debate about the AK being more reliable than the M-16. The question is is the increase in reliability worth the drop in accuracy.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:25 AM (P)

Well, an AK can hit something reliably out to 300-400 meters... and since our own military has established that most firefights happen at 300 meters or less... I'm still of the mind that reliability trumps accuracy here. The AK isn't a Saturday Night Special by any means. It's still accurate enough.

What is the benefit of having a rifle (the M16) accurate to 500-600 meters when it is seldom used at such ranges? Meanwhile, this more accurate rifle suffers increased maintenance and reliability issues.

I'll throw my vote in with the guy above who says that the #1 criteria of a firearm is that it must go boom when you pull the trigger.

Every Time.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:57 AM (P)

Accurate out to 400 Meters, alright, but how accurate is accurate? Accurate enough to hit a person? Accurate enought to hit a moving person? Accurate enough to hit one person out of a group? The ability to hit EXACTLY what you are shooting at is frequently critical especially in urban warfare where civilians are all around.

P.S. my preference runs to the M82 area personally

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 7:01 AM (P)

Boys ! It's late. Way past time to put your toys away and go to bed. Do you hear me ??

Nag nag NAG nag nag nag

GEEZER

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:24 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Corporal Luten, in the tractor-trailer driven by PFC Dubois, attempted to return fire with the 507th’s only .50 cal. machinegun, but the weapon failed. Luten was wounded in the leg while reaching for his M16."

If these guys had a Ma Deuce fail on them, I have to suspect that they weren't doing very effective weapons maintenance. The M2 hasn't been been in service for almost 90 years for nothing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KANEMAN

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:41 PM (P)

Concerning the M16: Lets go ask all the corpses around the world what they think of the M16's accuracy.

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:21 PM (P)

All right, lets try a different question, what would be the third choice, and why wouldn't it be the first? I don't have enough experience with guns to actually pick one but I'll toss a few names out, FN FAL, Steyr Aug, H&K G11, H&K G36, FAMAS. Any comments?

DHAERUVUSRAVENSHADOW

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:22 PM (P)

I have a Heritage as well. A Rough Rider with bird-head grip. From checking around and reading reviews of it, apparently it was marketed to Western recreationists and trick-shooters. That would seem to imply they are accurate. The one I have also has interchangeable cylinders for .22 or .22 Magnum rounds. The .22 Magnum Hollow-Point gives more bang for the buck than expected from such a small gun. Overall, I rather like it.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

If not, what's your preferred defense tool?

Danish Long Axe, but you need a bit of room to swing it (figure of Eight style).

ANTHONYT

Monday, February 19, 2007 2:20 PM (P)

Hey there Raven's Shadow,

I hardly ever meet another Heritage owner. Huzzah! I love it because it's an inexpensive (and fairly accurate) plinker.

Good for evil empty water bottles and pepsi cans at up to twenty paces. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Monday, February 19, 2007 3:00 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Lots to consider.

1. Are you willing to take a person's life? You must make this decision, and be sure of it,

This is the number one thing to consider in my opinion. I think Geezer gives some very good advise on this topic. I would take what he has to say to heart.

A deputy sheriff friend once told me that if you pull a gun on another person you'd better have a damn good reason and you'd better be willing to shoot to kill. Often people who have a gun in the home for defense, end up being shot or killed by their own gun.

I live in a rural area where crime is not as rampant as some urban settings. I do own a home defense shotgun - a simple Mossberg model 500, 6-shot, 18 inch barrel - good for nothing but close range. Recently I added Crimson Trace laser sighting to my Sig-Sauer P229 .40 cal. S&W - which aids in night sighting.

Take a gun safety course or at least learn to use your firearm from an experienced gun owner. And lastly, pray you never have to use it.

MALBADINLATIN

Monday, February 19, 2007 11:16 PM (P)

I hope all you guys are sure you have the guts and quick thinking to keep those guns from being used on yourselves.

Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Lu?

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
I hope all you guys are sure you have the guts and quick thinking to keep those guns from being used on yourselves.

Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Lu?

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

It's a good caution, but one that can't be tested except under fire. Hopefully it will never be tested.

You can train. You can practice and imagine and think about it in your head. That's the most anyone can do. The rest is the moment and your will.

However, the alternative does not appeal to me. Anyone who would break into my home and take my gun and use it on me... would be the same sort who would take advantage of me if there was no gun.

Your money or your life was the old cliche.

Modern times replaces 'or' with 'and.'

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:26 AM (P)

Quote:
Often people who have a gun in the home for defense, end up being shot or killed by their own gun.

Common myth perpetuated by anti-gun folk.
Rate of occurance is statistically insignificant.

If it's so damned easy to take a gun from someone, then just take it back and shoot them with it.

My only advice is thus - should you have to draw on a home intruder, make sure there's only one story.

Yours

Anything less, in todays culture and society, and you might as well have put the barrel in your mouth when you pulled the trigger.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:39 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
My only advice is thus - should you have to draw on a home intruder, make sure there's only one story.

Yours

And if all you leave of them is a pink mist you don't even need that

(M82 man, M82).

MEDFORDTIM

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:25 AM (P)

Can't help but notice how many replies revolve (yes, I am a punster. I would say, "so shoot me," but in this particular thread...) around a firearm.

I've never owned one. Got nothin' against 'em, don't much care one way or the other unless it's pointed at me - which has happened...the little opening seems sooo much bigger...

But I have been on the receiving end of an intruder in my house, and I'm here to tell ya that standing naked in a darkened doorway holding an unplugged 2 ft portable flourescent shoplight and screaming like a Banshee does have the effect of making an intruder change their mind and leave. Quickly.

A tip: Remember to put on a bathrobe if you decide to give chase...

Anyway, that's what I think...

MT

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Common myth perpetuated by anti-gun folk.
Rate of occurance is statistically insignificant.

I am not anti-gun folk, but when you start talking about a single life as statistically insignificant - you do us a disservice....

CAUSAL

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:02 PM (P)

I don't have time to read all the replies, so apologies if this has already been said. For home defense, there are two keys: size and ammo capacity. Coach guns tend to be small, so you're good there, but if there are more than two targets, your coach gun is going to become a very expensive club.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Common myth perpetuated by anti-gun folk.
Rate of occurance is statistically insignificant.

I am not anti-gun folk, but when you start talking about a single life as statistically insignificant - you do us a disservice....

You mighta skipped the point there. All lives are significant. What he said (or at least meant to say) is that the percentage of guns taken and used against their owners versus the percentage of guns used successfully by owners to deter crime is statistically small.

In other words, having one handy did more good than harm.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FLETCH2

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:41 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

You mighta skipped the point there. All lives are significant. What he said (or at least meant to say) is that the percentage of guns taken and used against their owners versus the percentage of guns used successfully by owners to deter crime is statistically small.

In other words, having one handy did more good than harm.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Errr actually no. I got into this argument with a "gun nut" about 5 years ago and researched it about as well as I could. At that time only one New England state (Rhode Island??) kept records on the causes of gun deaths. From what I remember the number of folks that died by a legaly held weapon, either having it turned on themselves, accidents or 3rd party accidents (like a kid accidentaly shooting another kid)was significantly larger than self defence shootings of perps.

The gun nut pointed out that a lot of the "accidents" reported are in fact suicides with the gun just being the weapon of choice because it was available.

Still, even he had to admit that the number of successfull self defence shootings per year is far smaller than the number of gun related accidental deaths from legal weapons. That's why the NRA is so keen to use the word "deter" when discussing self defence use for firearms, actual usage figures would be too discouraging.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:42 PM (P)

Not gonna debate it.
It's just a tool.

I'm sure as many folk hit their thumb with a hammer as they do nails.
Is that the hammers fault, or the operators ?

If you're going to pack a piece, a certain responsibility to self-educate is there, and the extra cost of the training is miniscule compared to it's benefit.

Obey the four rules, and exercise good sense, and that problem goes away.

Just remember that you are going to open a can of worms with a lotta folk for choosing self-defense, because it leads to the realization that you can be self-reliant, which leads one eventually down the "path to madness" of realizing governments, and police especially, are just useless parasites on your livelyhood, offering no real benefit, and a great deal of miseries.

Anyhows, it's just a tool.
"Just an object, it doesn't mean what you think." - River.

Two reccommended sites.

http://www.a-human-right.com/
Oleg's a great guy personally, as well, and right handy with a camera.

http://www.corneredcat.com/
Kathy's also a sweetheart.

I tend to avoid "gun nuts" because they're, well.... nuts - but I can vouch for either of the above folk personally as decent respectable folk, and the advice they offer is quite sound.

My personal is the same as it ever was, a puny little Colt chambered in the unlikely and unloved caliber of .380Auto, and it's been a friend in many a tight place, and can put entire mags into a tea saucer at 35-50m, which is more accuracy that I will ever need.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:04 PM (P)

There are two or more sides on this issue, and we can create a new thread to discuss it.

I hope this one will stay friendly with observations and advice on the topic. It has so far.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It's just a tool.

It is indeed, but when we say tool it doesn't half provoke the idea that it's just a hammer, which is a bit misleading. A hammer can kill someone, but it's not designed too, it's designed for a wholly altruistic purpose, where as a gun has only one purpose, design and practical use and that is too kill.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:57 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It's just a tool.
It is indeed, but when we say tool it doesn't half provoke the idea that it's just a hammer, which is a bit misleading. A hammer can kill someone, but it's not designed too, it's designed for a wholly altruistic purpose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer

Quote:
where as a gun has only one purpose, design and practical use and that is too kill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plinking

CITIZEN

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:01 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer

I guess we can equate a nailgun as the samething as an assualt rifle because it has 'gun' in the title. Please.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plinking

You're attempting to disprove my point that guns are a weapon by pointing to their use as practice to make the wielder a more effective marksman? Please.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plinking
You're attempting to disprove my point that guns are a weapon by pointing to their use as practice to make the wielder a more effective marksman? Please.

I was attempting to disprove your assertion that the ONLY use for guns was killing. Plinking is (usually) done for fun with the side effect of improving marksmanship.

CITIZEN

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:08 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I was attempting to disprove your assertion that the ONLY use for guns was killing. Plinking is (usually) done for fun with the side effect of improving marksmanship.

Hunting is usually done for fun with the side effect of killing. Guns are a tool designed for killing, their ownly practicable uses are towards that end or the training towards that end.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:14 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Hunting is usually done for fun with the side effect of killing

Which is why I didn't mention hunting

Quote:
Guns are a tool designed for killing

As are swords, bows and WW2 fighters, yet all of those are used (now) primarily for recreational purposes that do not result in death.

Quote:
their ownly practicable uses are towards that end or the training towards that end.

I just showed you that wasn't true, guns are very practical for having fun via target shooting. While target shooting improves marksmanship, the primary purpose for target shooting is to have fun.

CITIZEN

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
As are swords, bows and WW2 fighters, yet all of those are used (now) primarily for recreational purposes that do not result in death.

Yeah because comparing a plane too a gun is a valid example. Swords and Bows have been superceeded by guns, but all their uses save aesthetics lead directly to their primary function.

Quote:
I just showed you that wasn't true, guns are very practical for having fun via target shooting. While target shooting improves marksmanship, the primary purpose for target shooting is to have fun.

No You didn't and no it isn't

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:20 AM (P)

A bow is a killing machine, whose primary design revolves around the taking of life. A bow is as deadly or deadlier now as it was when it was first used to hunt a four legged animal. It is as deadly or deadlier now as it was when it was used in the field of battle to mow down infantry at a range of 75-150 yards.

A bow is still used to kill. It is used to take down game during a special hunting season devoted to such.

A bow is primarily used in target shooting and sports competitions.

A bow has a lot in common with a gun. But a gun is a better, more efficient killing machine than a bow. A gun is smaller, faster, and in some versions, longer ranged.

Anyone who uses a bow is practicing a skill that makes them a better killer.

Anyone who uses a gun is practicing a skill that makes them a better killer.

Criminals frequently find occasion to practice skills that make them better criminals.

Some of the skills criminals practice make them better killers.

Criminals frequently obtain or build tools designed to kill.

I have no problem with non-criminals learning skills that make them better killers.

I have no problem with non-criminals obtaining tools designed to kill.

I would like all of my friends and family to be expert killers.

I would like the sheep to have teeth.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:53 AM (P)

Not at all a popular sentiment, possibly even a dangerous one.

If the sheep had teeth, they might start wondering what they really needed that fat, lazy bully of a sheepdog for - and that leads to all manner of unpleasantness and politically incorrect thoughts.

We have firefighters, so why do you need a fire extinguisher ?

For the same durned reason that most folk pack a firearm.

Think.

-F

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:26 AM (P)

I was wondering how long it would take the know it alls to turn this into a pro/anti gun debate. Had to admit it took much longer than I thought it would in RWED.

Anybody that doesn't have a gun better hope their respective government doesn't ever crumble or bite off more than it can chew. End of story.

I'll give that it is a weapon and it was designed as a weapon.... so what? It's good at what it does and I'd rather see them in more sane individuals hands than lunatics who would do anything for their next fix and officers of a criminal and oppressive police force alike.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:28 AM (P)

I'm enjoying the discussion but I had to chime in about the whole assault rifle argument. Are you all still talking about home defense? Or are we just at loggerheads with urban versus rural? I can walk out my front door and not see more than one hundred yards in any direction. There is no way in hell that I would need something that was accurate to 400 meters to defend my home (* edited to add: unless someone had detonated a bomb under a bunch of my neighbors. And, at that point, what good am I going to do with an assault rifle? I might as well start mixing chemicals in the basement *). Matter of fact, the sawed off shotgun sounds about right for any place I've lived in (house, apartment, duplex, whatever).

Am I missing something here, or did the conversation go off track somewhat?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:38 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Am I missing something here, or did the conversation go off track somewhat?

You didn't, and it did. Thanks for seconding that motion.

Let's get this thread back on its topic and anybody who has an opinion on wheather or not somebody else should own a firearm can feel more than free to start their own anti/pro gun thread.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:45 PM (P)

Lemme re-iterate.

It's just a tool.

A match has only one purpose - to start a fire.

Does that make anyone carrying matches an pyromaniac or arsonist?

It's a thing, an object.

Yes it is designed for the express purpose of killing something.

So what ?

Whiskey is designed for the express purpose of intoxication.

Does that make the whiskey, itself.. evil ?

Why do people get so worked up about a mere chunk of metal ?

Answer: They don't, it's a sham.
They get worked up about the thoughts that such self-reliance tend to inspire.

And that tells you all you need to know, doesn't it.

Some people carry tools, and some people ARE tools.

Not really simpler than that.

-Frem

PS... strangely enough, it's a valentines day tradition amongst my fellows to gift weapons, so in that respect, welcome to the club.. pun intended.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:26 PM (P)

I have some friends who have told me that they like double-action revolvers for home defense.

Compact, easy to use, and can sit loaded all year ready to be used, then picked up and fired without malfunction or worry.

Of course, there are likely some folks who would object to the revolver's 5-7 shot capacity versus a semiautomatic's potential 15 shot capacity or a rifle's 10-30 shot capacity.

Makes my double barrel seem rather measly by comparison to any of them, with only 2 shots.

But they are QUITE the shots. :-)

Currently I have the shotgun loaded in the computer room, and my Makarov loaded in the bedroom. I do worry about the magazine springs for the Makarov, though. If I forget to rotate the magazine, am I going to pick up the weapon one day and have a feed failure?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, January 15, 2025 10:47 PM (P)

and now you must worry about wall of flame and smoke, the spread of fires...but 'arson' rumors...no no! there is nothing, move along, nothing to see there!

Palisades fire shoots up to 17,200 acres — 1,000 structures destroyed
https://www.dailynews.com/2025/01/08/palisades-fire-doesnt-grow-much-o
vernight-firefighters-focused-on-structure-defense/

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, October 24, 2025 4:55 PM (P)

stay off the weed?

Justices to hear pot, guns argument
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2025/oct/21/justices-to-hear-pot-g
uns-argument/