He tried, but every time he opened the door, his crew ran off. They thought a shotgun was being racked.

I know.
 

Poll is useless since most people use M&M's.

FIFY.

Second verse of "Little Bit" by Dan Baird ( Formerly of Georgia Sattelites)

She said "You ought to treat me better"
I said, "The door's open and you're free to go."
Well I'll be damned that screen door slammed
And it was bombs away over Tokyo.

It popped in my head yesterday for some reason.  I'll see if I can find a Youtube video.
ETA: Second verse not first. Haven't found anything of quality. Its all bootleg shot live with a phone.

If it has an actual screen door, don't post it, bro. Arfcom will just end up shitting itself.

You loose points for low capacity and slow as fuck follow up since most shootings have a horrible hit percentage. Like i said earlier when I asked if you studied shootings.. So you think those few shots will hit while trying not to get shot?
Jesus Christ.

Keep in mind that poster cited the producers of the TV show SWAT as not wanting shotguns shown because they were too scary and intimidating.



I think it's pretty reasonable to suppose he's somewhat mistaken about many things.

I got escorted out of Lowe's today. I was looking at shutters and somebody slammed a screen door the next aisle over. I shit my britches, bladed at 45, yanked my CCW and proceeded to lay down covering fire while Mrs. Fugitive started dialing 911.

No charges filed. The SWAT guys understood. They said they had all done it in training and quit carrying shotguns because it scared people.

No retards were harmed in the making of this satirical post.

He doesn't look it, but this is a steely eyed, ice in his veins mother fucker.

What is "far off"?  Not to argue - to seek truth.  The question gets complicated.  One shot for one shot - the shotgun wins at inside-domicile distances - yes?



1.  No one is saying that 5.56 or .223 is not a proven man-stopper.
2.  No one, certainly not me, anyway, is saying that a carbine is a poor choice for home defense if you have one.
3.  The part in bold?  I agree - but look at what you are claiming is the selling point for the carbine - if we limit the shotgun to 6 rounds (not a dedicated, extended tube "combat" shotgun"), you have SIX shots going into the bad guy or elsewhere - the multiple pellets are going to go roughly the same place, yes?  With the carbine, we are talking 30 shots going somewhere.  If you need more than 6, for most home invasions - isn't it because you missed or failed to stop?  Here we hit one of the shortcomings of the carbine - it makes up for slightly less stopping ability by putting more rounds out - inside your house in this case. (Of course, ARFCOMers never miss ...)




No one is planning for, or counting on a "one shot stop"  Figuring the chance of a single shot stopping is a necessary intermediate step in calculating what the chance of stopping in 2 shots, 3 shots, etc. is.  Looking at the expected number of attackers, and the expected number of shots from either system to handle that number of attackers reliably, most of the time, is a necessary step to evaluate how effective either system is, especially compared to each other.  As to whether the home invader is Pee Wee Herman of Chuck Norris - we cannot tell.  We cannot plan for being attacked by studs or duds, so all we can do is figure out what happens on average, and add a safety factor to make us reasonably confident that we are reasonably prepared.

It all boils down to money, actually.  This may come as a shock to GD, but not everyone can go buy a carbine and ammo and sights, etc. right now.  I know *I* can't.  So to me, it's an interesting issue to discuss - what are the odds of having a home invasion?  If I do, how many, on average are involved?  How many shots with which calibers, on average, does it take to make them stop?  How much, if any, am I giving up relying on my Mossberg 500 and judicious ammo selection, verses the carbine.  More later, because replying inside a post is a pain.

 


 

With as much as he's missed the mark in this thread, it's not surprising that his weapons choices are geared around much the same.

1.  They make semi shotguns nowadays.



I consider "economic effectiveness" part of being best.  Perhaps I shouldn't.  Basically, I am trying to get a mathematical perspective on the threats I am most likely to face, and how effective the particular options are.   If, when dealing with 3 or less attackers, the shotgun is as effective, or only slightly less effective, I have better places to put a grand right now.  If not, I want to see the math.  That's all.




In a war, the people entering the house have to be aware of ambushes.  They have to be aware of booby traps.  They have to be aware that someone may forewarned the inhabitants.  Their ammunition stocks may have been limited by international treaty, (were we using hollow points in the middle east?  I don't know - can anyone elaborate?)

The reason they *MAY* have been using carbines is:

1.  They *HAVE* carbines.  Millions of them, far more than they have shotguns.  This is the opposite of the average homeowner.
2.  Ammunition compatibility with Saws and such.  Not a concern for homeowners.



I don't think I made that claim.  Please quote me if I did.  I lined out the parameters to consider it, and everyone jumped my shit.

That is a valid complaint.  Sometimes stuff comes across different in type than in person.  How about no more intelligence or other e-penis measuring and we just talk about shotguns and carbines?



As I've said, calculating the probability of a one shop stop is a necessary intermediate step in calculating how many shots are necessary to be confident that 95% of the time, you can stop the other guy in X number of shots.

Your reading comprehension is off.

Semi auto shotguns cost just as much and more in most cases than a basic AR-15(See M&P Sport series), so given a semi-auto shotgun or AR choice, you don't even have your "economic effectiveness" argument working in your favor.

As is your grasp on reality.

You've already been all knockdown power so I guess one-shot stops isn't all that surprising.

You know, with all this mental jerking off you've been drooling onto your keyboard you are overlooking one important fact. Experience has already answered all the questions you are flailing about trying to determine. We have a wealth of civilian, police and military experience to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the shotgun. We have a wealth of civilian, police and military experience to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the AR pattern weapon.

Guess what, AR wins. Shotguns, while potent, come in 2nd place.

1.  Were they using government issue ammo in Afghanistan, compliant with the Hague Convention, or were they using hollow points?
2.  Were they the "home invaders", or were they defending the house?  Offense is different than defense - yes?
  A.  How concerned, when U.S. troops conducted house clearing operations, were they with collateral damage to home contents and other people.  Was it more, or less, than a homeowner awakened in the middle of the night?
  B.  Did the U.S. troops clearing houses have burst fire capability, and back-up from fully automatic weapons like SAWs, M-60s, vehicle-based weapons, etc.  Is this not different than a home owner defending his house - such a person is unlikely to have a team, backup, etc.
3.  How many of them, on average, participated in this endeavor, verses how many people typically carry out a home invasion in the U.S.
4.  Were shotguns even available in quantity?  Were they ever used other than for specialty purposes.  What was the ratio of shotguns available verses M-16 based carbines available.
5.  Weren't the majority of these house clearings opposed, when they were opposed, by people armed with carbines of the AK variety?  If so, then didn't carbines fail at home defense, despite their capacity and rapidity of fire?

What did the SWAT team carry?  It's an easy question - I even put a picture up.  ARCOM seems to like pictures ...

Why would you need full auto when you can have a pump shotgun?

Kindly note that I did not assert either system was worse for over-penetration.  You lose points for it with either one.  I guess claiming that is "stupid".

I'll admit it - I chuckled at that ....

Against other carbines. <Tin Man> If I only had a brain. <Tin Man>

Dude, Straw Man.

No, because they suck in comparison to the AR.

Even the Army, which can fuck up a wet dream, has already figured out the riddle that so stubbornly mystifies you.

Define a "one stop shot". I have physically removed the heart from things that were still trying to kill me 10 minutes later.



 

What are the odds a second shot is needed?  What is the average number of shots for gun related incidents occurring during home invasions?  What is the average duration of shooting during home invasions?  How much, if any, is the carbine more likely to hit with that first shot?  How much faster, if any, is the carbine to execute that first shot?  How much more likely, if any, is the carbine to require a 2nd, 3rd, etc. shot, verses the shotgun.

Or, we could ignore such things, and just trust consensus or opinion.  Like the climate researchers do.

if anyone tops toe loading vids, lemme know- you can be vice president. RA will be CIC.

As opposed to claiming the carbine is better, because you can miss more often, faster?  I'm not sure "spray and pray" is a good strategy for home defense - or anything else.

Having seen the effects of both 5.56 and 12 gauge, I am saying "not far off," because modern 5.56, hat one would be using to defend their homes, is a brutal round. It isn't just going to drill through, it shreds flesh and bone just as effectively as 12 gauge. I don't agree with the premise that there is a great difference in power between the two. What I'm saying is the 12 gauge may make a larger wound channel, but I don't believe it is significantly more. (See 9mm vs .45, the .45 'performs' better on paper, but it isn't enough to make a difference in real world applications.)

I disagree. Having more rounds on tap does not make you more or less likely to miss. It does, however, give you the opportunity to make follow up shots when you do miss. I still fail so see how you are better off missing three out of six shots from a twelve gauge than missing three out of six shots from a rifle. (Other than the obvious difference in more projectiles leaving the barrel, if you use buckshot.) The capacity, while an advantage, to me isn't even the biggest on the list. The carbine's biggest advantage is the speed in which you can operate it, and the ease of during so under duress.

I'm seeing your point now with bringing up the one shot stop thing, it was coming off as if you were attempting to claim that as a means of showing the superiority of the 12 gauge. I still have a hard time envisioning how it could be adequately and truthfully measured, however, for the reasons I brought up earlier.

You are correct regarding money, and one of the advantages I see to a shotgun. That being said,  we're debating the best means, not merely the cheapest means.




Like I said, I'm guilty of being a prick, too, heh.

I addressed, earlier my skepticism on the subject. If you can think of an adequate means to do so, I'll assist you, should you feel the need.

I haven't made an assertion of which is better.  I am outlining what one should weigh when deciding, and attempting to quantify, the difference.  Apparently I should have done so in comic-book form ....

Unless, of course, like my father - YOU ALREADY OWN ONE.  In which case your additional cost is $0.00.

Which is more likely to be found in a home, even at this late date?  A semi-auto shotgun, or an AR platform?

Perhaps.  I remain unconvinced that is so when facing 1 to 3 attackers while defending your house, but it could be so.   The question I would ask is, how much is the difference?  Is it trivial, or significant?

As has been said before, a reliable semi-automatic shotgun is going to cost you what a perfectly adequate AR costs, and you still run into the heavier recoil, which makes quicker shots more difficult.

You've got a point I can't argue with, there, as I said, the shotgun is definitely a cheaper weapon that is adequate for most situations.

You're entering a dark room with a known threat, and employing what isn't even the most effective carbine they can have. (Using FMJ ammunition, as you have said.)
Shotguns are available over seas, fairly easily, but you still rarely, if ever, see them employed as a primary weapon. It's not that they don't have access to the tool, it's that they recognize a rifle is a better tool for the job. (Though I did know a guy who carried a pistol grip shotgun around the COP, it was because he was too lazy to carry a M4, heh.)

Got an answer to the question you quoted?  

Running out of ammo is fucking better?

One can look at the history of such encounters, and indeed calculate such numbers.

In fact, pretty much everything done with computerized modeling, from weather forecasting, to nuclear warhead design, to aerodynamics, to even military planning and training, does just that.

Stop aggressive behavior.  That is what we want in a home invasion.  Killing is secondary.  We want the invader or invaders to STOP - right?

I agree.  However, if you already own it, your additional cost is $0.00.  Deciding to invest in an AR can only intelligently be done if you have a notion of how much extra juice you are going to get for the extra squeeze.

What are the odds that you are going to run out of ammo with 6 rounds?  With 10?  With 30?  Wouldn't that be interesting information to have, when deciding the relative merits of the systems we are discussing, and deciding whether to spend additional money on another system?

Which to anybody with an intellect above a potato knows has less than jack and/or shit to do with which is more effective.

The fact that ive told you 3 times in this thread. In shootings there is a fucking tiny percentage of shots that hit their target than not....

Yes, and they determined that the AR (or in their case the M4) is the more effective weapons system when it comes to making bad people stop doing bad things.

And that's with less effective ammo that what civilians can use.

Some of us call that "a clue". Perhaps you should explore obtaining one.