That is an opinion based upon your personal feelings which are based on flawed knowledge. Why is it different when a police or an active Marine is in a house fighting for his life with a gun and when I am? It is the same senario, In a house with a gun, defending my life, which gun do I choose. They know more than you do, and they do not choose shotgun.
I'm skimming through this thread and interesting digression into what are the best firearms for home self-defense. I'm not nearly the expert on firearms that fmullegan is but it seems to me there is a basic flaw to his argument in citing Marines and SWAT teams. Marines and SWAT teams missions are more often offensive than they are defensive in nature. They aren't protecting their bedrooms but actively going into potentially hostile situations rather than waiting for something to come to them. The weaponry they use has to meet a variety of needs including going on the offensive and not just for stopping a home invasion. I'm sure the tools that a Marine or a SWAT officer uses is vastly superior to what I might pick up down at Fleet Farm to protect my home but then again I'm not going to need a back hoe to dig post holes for my backyard fence.
Its interesting that there the make rifle ammo that won't penetrate sheet rock but it still seems like that even with the benefit of not having to worry about stray bullets hitting your neighbor's house a shotgun would be better than a rifle for home self-defense as you wouldn't need as much skill to hit your target. I've never fired a shotgun nor anything like an AR-15 but having fired rifles and pistols it seems like you need more skill to hit a target even one only 25 feet away than using a shotgun.
Uhh, wow that seems scientific. What is the source for them being preferred. All of those pics I posted seem to be shotgun free. Thus: you = failure.
so you're saying WIKI is inaccurate unless you use it for your own argument? the pics of swat/police training on entering maximum hostility situations? are you in the military or law enforcement?
Not to sound like an internet tough guy but I actually have encountered an intruder in my home. When I was in college someone tried to climb into my bedroom and I punched them. I've had homes robbed 5 times and twice I was there. The other time I was there I thought it was my roommate. Thanks for posting the Atlanta study. It supports what I often teach is that the safest strategy is to not confront someone breaking into your home.
Even with a wide spread barrel (called a cylinder, or no choke) the spead at 25 feet will be 8 inches. And in practical terms that makes it harder because you need to get most if not all the shot on the target for it be close to effective. You see a shotgun is like 7-8 very crappy handgun rounds being fired at once. Low velocity, low weight and no expansion. 000 buckshot is only 72 grains with a diameter of 9mm. A 9mm bullet not only has a copper jacket and controlled expansion, but also 125-147gr of weight behind it and ~100 more FPS velocity. So it is easy to see a shotgun, even the biggest common shot size, has terrible penetration.
Where is the proof .mil uses it? this is the dumbest argument ever. If you have to use wiki to get your gun knowledge to argue with me you have lost. It is that simple.
Are you saying that the problem with a shotgun is that while it is easier to hit the target the stopping power due to spread is weaker? I can see that being a big problem at distance but it seems to me that most self-defense encounters in a house will be under 20 feet so even with an 8" spread it still seems like you are still likely to do some damage to your target. As I said though I have little firearm expertise but its an interesting debate.
I am saying the ability to hit a target at CQB distances even with a handgun is not an issue. A rifle is even less of an issue. But a shotgun has such inferior terminal ballistics profile that all other advantages and disadvantages do not matter. Some damage will be certain but it will be less effective damage than a good rifle ie the carbine. The carbine is also easiest to hit something with when compared to shotgun or handgun. Also offers less recoil for follow up shots.
I think if you get hit by a shot gun you are going to be pretty disabled. So unless the perp is wearing armour or there are 5-10 of them, maybe you don't need more than a shotgun. But why on earth would someone go into a home invasion with that many people and the need for armour? if they are swat teams or advanced military units - you don't stand a chance no matter what you have. You're screwed. Because even if you take a few down, the very fact you are firing at them will result in hundreds more appearing at the scene. I have been a victim of home invasion. I did not have a gun, neither did the invader. If I had a gun, I would not have been able to get it because the guy broke the door down while I was sleeping on the coach. I got beat pretty badly but made it out ok because I managed to grab an iron and hit him in the head with it. After that experience I took martial arts for many years and learned that in close combat situations you can disarm a knife or a gun. I wouldn't recommend it, but unless you are dealing with a professional, it really isn't that hard. You can act before someone's reflexes will let them pull the trigger. If you know your home, then you have the advantage. Now, I understand that people want to protect your property. But what could be mistaken as a home invader could be a son or a friend. You jump out with your shot gun ablazing, and you don't get a second chance. You have a penetrating bullet and you have even less of a second chance. But everyone has a right to defend their property. I simply am surprised that anyone would carry a loaded semi-automatic or some sort of high-powered rifle that is easily accessible in the middle of the night when you hear noises or your home alarm goes off. Assuming that the invader ignores the alarm - he knows you are now aware that you are in the hosue and that security is on the way. Why do you need anything in that situation? I don't know, but if you do, a shotgun seems like plenty enough to me. Ok, I can be open-minded, help me understand the precise scenario where having a certain type of weapon will make the difference of life or death?
And you are no expert on terminal ballistics by an measure. So your opinion is valid for only your decision. Having a weapon that STOPS the person who is trying to kill me the FASTEST will improve the chances of me living. I don't think it is very complicated.
This has been educational, in a scary way. If most right-wing extremists with hatred in their hearts are as knowledgeable of their firepower and armed to the teeth with the most lethal weapons needed to take a life, and itching to use them, then I hope they are under constant surveillance. Especially if they are roiled. If I am a skilled marksman, with nerves of steel, and been wishing for some slimeball to enter my home illegally so I could shoot them, fmullegan has convinced me to go with whatever gun he is recommending. If I am just an average joe who does not regularly fire 1000 rounds a week into silhouetted human targets, I'm going with the point and shoot shotgun that is much more forgiving on accuracy. And if I am in a neighborhood where break-ins are occurring with any frequency, I'm finding a new neighborhood. I'm talking to you, judoka
Really sorry to hear about that and I hope you weren't injured too badly. I always encourage people to study martial arts for self-defense. I'm not saying that guns aren't good for self-defense but martial arts is something that will always be with you, doesn't need to be unlocked, loaded and can't be taken from you and used against you. That said its not that easy to disarm someone and requires a lot of training. Almost anyone though can learn how to do it but I'm not going to breed a false sense of security that might lead people to putting themselves unnessarily in danger. The safest strategy is always to avoid confrontation.
