User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:03:21 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course, in that instance, it's going to be cheaper. But if you are buying from the outset, then there's plenty convincing information out there from the last 12 years that the modern incarnation of the AR15 has become the most efficient weapon for the job. The shotgun probably isn't going to get you killed, but the AR is going to give you more flexibility, and an advantage in handling and ease of use. When you're in a life or death situation, even a minor advantage can make a difference. Shotguns have some advantages. The smaller sight offset is one, for close range (the AR's large sight offset combined with the flat trajectory of 5.56 makes for easy hits on small targets out to 200 yards or more, but within 10 yards the shotguns sight offset is better). Also, for weapon retention the shotgun with conventional stock beats out the ARs pistol grip design. Also, 5.56 depends upon fragmentation to be effective. 5.56 doesn't always tumble and fragment. For expected ranges of your typical home and assuming no body armor, I think I would feel at least as well armed with 12 gage buck as with any 5.56. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:19:20 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the average ranges the M4 is used is what, 50 yards? That right there disqualifies the shotgun. For HD it is a different matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. And the average ranges the M4 is used is what, 50 yards? That right there disqualifies the shotgun. For HD it is a different matter. Does the M4/AR suddenly stop being effective at closer ranges? How does that work...magnets? I understand the military is looking at all sorts of different scenarios for a weapon but some of those scenarios include up close and personal. You know.....like inside a house or something crazy like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:20:13 AM EDT
[#3]
Well that settles it. I'm reverting back to the Hlaberd for HD.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:22:51 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well that settles it. I'm reverting back to the Hlaberd for HD. http://i.imgur.com/WxZ6imu.jpg The White Knight frowns upon your shenanigans. Better be careful that halberd will remove meat from bone and shit from colons...Oh wait, that's a screen door slamming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:28:48 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the M4/AR suddenly stop being effective at closer ranges? How does that work...magnets? I understand the military is looking at all sorts of different scenarios for a weapon but some of those scenarios include up close and personal. You know.....like inside a house or something crazy like that. No, M4 doesn't "suddenly stop being effective", but the shotgun is essentially a specialized short range weapon, while the AR is effective over a very wide range of distances. Hence, the fact that ARs are much better for use in places like A'stan and Iraq where average range of engagement is 50 yards or more doesn't tell us which is better for HD ranges. It is a matter of simple logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:30:37 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The White Knight frowns upon your shenanigans. Better be careful that halberd will remove meat from bone and shit from colons...Oh wait, that's a screen door slamming. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well that settles it. I'm reverting back to the Hlaberd for HD. http://i.imgur.com/WxZ6imu.jpg The White Knight frowns upon your shenanigans. Better be careful that halberd will remove meat from bone and shit from colons...Oh wait, that's a screen door slamming. TV producers in the '70s were considering a new private detective character for a pilot. His name was to have been Dirk "scattergun" Halberd. After focus groups and intensive research the project was canned after determining that the halberd was far too menacing and disturbing to viewers. When the pilot episode was screened in an executive board room in Sana Barbra a secretary actually passed out when the title character was shown running through a screen door and slamming it. Additional complaints from various advocacy groups about the overuse of bears, birdshot and Red Moons further doomed the project. Science fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:31:50 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, M4 doesn't "suddenly stop being effective", but the shotgun is essentially a specialized short range weapon, while the AR is effective over a very wide range of distances. Hence, the fact that ARs are much better for use in places like A'stan and Iraq where average range of engagement is 50 yards or more doesn't tell us which is better for HD ranges. It is a matter of simple logic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does the M4/AR suddenly stop being effective at closer ranges? How does that work...magnets? I understand the military is looking at all sorts of different scenarios for a weapon but some of those scenarios include up close and personal. You know.....like inside a house or something crazy like that. No, M4 doesn't "suddenly stop being effective", but the shotgun is essentially a specialized short range weapon, while the AR is effective over a very wide range of distances. Hence, the fact that ARs are much better for use in places like A'stan and Iraq where average range of engagement is 50 yards or more doesn't tell us which is better for HD ranges. It is a matter of simple logic. So your contention, because I want to be clear, is at no time in the last 12 years of sustained combat operations, was an M4 fired at either (a) short ranges (b) inside dwellings or (c) both ? And further, because this event never took place, we don't have 12 years of experience on which to draw inferences that the M4 (and by extension) the AR platform does, in fact, have advantages in a HD setting? Again, I want to be clear I understand your nuanced position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:34:22 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your contention, because I want to be clear, is that at no time in the last 12 years of sustained combat operations, was an M4 fired at either (a) short ranges (b) inside dwellings or (c) both ? No. My contention is that what is better for combat use is not necessarly better for HD, because the requirements are different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:36:17 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. My contention is that what is better for combat use is not necessarly better for HD, because the requirements are different. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So your contention, because I want to be clear, is that at no time in the last 12 years of sustained combat operations, was an M4 fired at either (a) short ranges (b) inside dwellings or (c) both ? No. My contention is that what is better for combat use is not necessarly better for HD, because the requirements are different. Killing is killing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:39:16 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. My contention is that what is better for combat use is not necessarly better for HD, because the requirements are different. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So your contention, because I want to be clear, is that at no time in the last 12 years of sustained combat operations, was an M4 fired at either (a) short ranges (b) inside dwellings or (c) both ? No. My contention is that what is better for combat use is not necessarly better for HD, because the requirements are different. Sigh.... Exactly how is shooting someone inside a house/hut in Afghanastan or Iraq different than shooting a meth-head inside my home in Mississippi? Because last I checked, all the basic fundamentals of both scenarios are nearly identical. Physiology doesn't change. The laws of physics don't change. Ballistics don't change. The need for rapid, accurately placed shots doesn't change. The need to potentially engage more than one bad person doesn't change. The measurement of rooms doesn't change. Day and night doesn't change. The need to potentially deal with malfunctions doesn't change. The potential need to quickly reload doesn't change. The benefit of a weapon mounted light doesn't change. Please, enlighten us. Is it the Afghani Red moon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:39:46 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And further, because this event never took place, we don't have 12 years of experience on which to draw inferences that the M4 (and by extension) the AR platform does, in fact, have advantages in a HD setting? The problem is that you are confusing requriements. The M4 is certainly better when the requirement includes shooting at over 50 yards. The result of such logic does not extend to situations restricted to HD ranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:41:30 AM EDT
[#12]
I'll take the third option. Select-fire 9x19mm, preferably a MP5A3 or MP5K.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:41:40 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Killing is killing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So your contention, because I want to be clear, is that at no time in the last 12 years of sustained combat operations, was an M4 fired at either (a) short ranges (b) inside dwellings or (c) both ? No. My contention is that what is better for combat use is not necessarly better for HD, because the requirements are different. Killing is killing. Incoming derp. Prepare yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:43:45 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sigh.... Exactly how is shooting someone inside a house/hut in Afghanastan or Iraq different than shooting a meth-head inside my home in Mississippi? Because last I checked, all the basic fundamentals of both scenarios are nearly identical. Physiology doesn't change. The laws of physics don't change. Ballistics don't change. The need for rapid, accurately placed shots doesn't change. The need to potentially engage more than one bad person doesn't change. The measurement of rooms doesn't change. Day and night doesn't change. The need to potentially deal with malfunctions doesn't change. The potential need to quickly reload doesn't change. The benefit of a weapon mounted light doesn't change. Please, enlighten us. Is it the Afghani Red moon? You are a master of the strawman argument. The argument I responded to--posted by you--was that the M4 proved superior to shotguns in Iraq/Afganistan, and that means it is better for HD. The problem with that logic is that the involved ranges preclude the shotgun as a good choice for typical engagements. Those ranges are far beyond HD range or typical civilian self defense ranges. Hence you logic was flawed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:46:20 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Killing is killing. Exactly why the military only uses exactly one type of firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:46:44 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The result of such logic does not extend to situations restricted to HD ranges. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And further, because this event never took place, we don't have 12 years of experience on which to draw inferences that the M4 (and by extension) the AR platform does, in fact, have advantages in a HD setting? The result of such logic does not extend to situations restricted to HD ranges. No, but plenty of other logic does. AR > shotgun for stopping human threats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:49:05 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are a master of the strawman argument. The argument I responded to--posted by you--was that the M4 proved superior to shotguns in Iraq/Afganistan. The problem with that logic is that the involved ranges preclude the shotgun as a good choice for typical engagements. Those ranges are far beyond HD range or typical civilian self defense ranges. Hence you logic was flawed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sigh.... Exactly how is shooting someone inside a house/hut in Afghanastan or Iraq different than shooting a meth-head inside my home in Mississippi? Because last I checked, all the basic fundamentals of both scenarios are nearly identical. Physiology doesn't change. The laws of physics don't change. Ballistics don't change. The need for rapid, accurately placed shots doesn't change. The need to potentially engage more than one bad person doesn't change. The measurement of rooms doesn't change. Day and night doesn't change. The need to potentially deal with malfunctions doesn't change. The potential need to quickly reload doesn't change. The benefit of a weapon mounted light doesn't change. Please, enlighten us. Is it the Afghani Red moon? You are a master of the strawman argument. The argument I responded to--posted by you--was that the M4 proved superior to shotguns in Iraq/Afganistan. The problem with that logic is that the involved ranges preclude the shotgun as a good choice for typical engagements. Those ranges are far beyond HD range or typical civilian self defense ranges. Hence you logic was flawed. First off, you cherry picked a quote and are trying to mangle that into whatever it is you are gibbering about. And again, does the entire spectrum of ranges the M4 could potentially effectively be used in somehow, magically, preclude HD ranges? Other than one lone, wistful soul, nobody in this conversation is talking about the M4 being effective at 400 yards and trying to shoehorn that into the discussion. Part of the effective envelope of M4/AR FOW includes so-called "home defense ranges". The military has both figured this out and demonstrated it over the past 12 years. You are really the only one struggling with this dizzying concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:51:53 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but plenty of other logic does. AR > shotgun for stopping human threats. For HD I doubt it much matters. Shotguns have some advantages. Less sight offset and better for retention (if it doesn't have a pistol grip). For short range I think 12 Ga buck likely has an advantage vs 5.56 that doesn't always tumble and fragment. FWIW, my HD gun is an M&P9. If I went to a long arm it likely would be an AR. But I would feel fine with a shotgun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:54:09 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Incoming derp. Prepare yourself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So your contention, because I want to be clear, is that at no time in the last 12 years of sustained combat operations, was an M4 fired at either (a) short ranges (b) inside dwellings or (c) both ? No. My contention is that what is better for combat use is not necessarly better for HD, because the requirements are different. Killing is killing. Incoming derp. Prepare yourself. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:54:43 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For HD I doubt it much matters. Shotguns have some advantages. Less sight offset and better for retention (if it doesn't have a pistol grip). For short range I think 12 Ga buck likely has an advantage vs 5.56 that doesn't always tumble and fragment. FWIW, my HD gun is an M&P9. If I went to a long arm it likely would be an AR. But I would feel fine with a shotgun. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, but plenty of other logic does. AR > shotgun for stopping human threats. For HD I doubt it much matters. Shotguns have some advantages. Less sight offset and better for retention (if it doesn't have a pistol grip). For short range I think 12 Ga buck likely has an advantage vs 5.56 that doesn't always tumble and fragment. FWIW, my HD gun is an M&P9. If I went to a long arm it likely would be an AR. But I would feel fine with a shotgun. Why not a revolver? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:55:12 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First off, you cherry picked a quote and are trying to mangle that into whatever it is you are gibbering about. And again, does the entire spectrum of ranges the M4 could potentially effectively be used in somehow, magically, preclude HD ranges? Other than one lone, wistful soul, nobody in this conversation is talking about the M4 being effective at 400 yards and trying to shoehorn that into the discussion. Part of the effective envelope of M4/AR FOW includes so-called "home defense ranges". The military has both figured this out and demonstrated it over the past 12 years. You are really the only one struggling with this dizzying concept. The claim that the military experience in A'stan and Iraq prove the HD superiority of the shotgun is nonsense. Of course M4 is better when a typical range of engagement is 50 yards. I'm not claiming M4 doesn't work at HD ranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:57:39 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not a revolver? My Highway Patrolman doesn't fit in the pistol lock box in my bedroom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 11:58:28 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The claim that the military experience in A'stan and Iraq prove the HD superiority of the shotgun is nonsense. Yes, because thousands of engagements inside various structures is totally irrelevant to a discussion about engagements inside structures. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:02:39 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, because thousands of engagements inside various structures is totally irreverent to a discussion about engagements inside structures. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The claim that the military experience in A'stan and Iraq prove the HD superiority of the shotgun is nonsense. Yes, because thousands of engagements inside various structures is totally irreverent to a discussion about engagements inside structures. Because the weapons used inside those structures also had to work well outside those structures at much greater distances. Hence weapons that may work as well or better inside the structures were effectively rulled out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:04:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shotguns have some advantages. Less sight offset and better for retention (if it doesn't have a pistol grip). If you don't want to learn how to use the gun, no gun is going to help you. For short range I think 12 Ga buck likely has an advantage vs 5.56 that doesn't always tumble and fragment. If viewed singly, a round of #1-000 buckshot has an advantage in threat-stopping ability over a round of 5.56. When viewed as a weapon system, the AR has a massive advantage in threat-stopping ability. Since we tend to fight with guns instead of throwing ammo at threats, the AR wins easily. FWIW, my HD gun is an M&P9. If I went to a long arm it likely would be an AR. But I would feel fine with a shotgun. More than likely you will be fine with a shotgun, provided you do your part. But the AR would make it easier for you to do that part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:05:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the weapons used inside those structures also had to work well outside those structures at much greater distances. Hence weapons that may work as well or better inside the structures were effectively rulled out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The claim that the military experience in A'stan and Iraq prove the HD superiority of the shotgun is nonsense. Yes, because thousands of engagements inside various structures is totally irreverent to a discussion about engagements inside structures. Because the weapons used inside those structures also had to work well outside those structures at much greater distances. Hence weapons that may work as well or better inside the structures were effectively rulled out. You think thats why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:08:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the weapons used inside those structures also had to work well outside those structures at much greater distances. Hence weapons that may work as well or better inside the structures were effectively rulled out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The claim that the military experience in A'stan and Iraq prove the HD superiority of the shotgun is nonsense. Yes, because thousands of engagements inside various structures is totally irreverent to a discussion about engagements inside structures. Because the weapons used inside those structures also had to work well outside those structures at much greater distances. Hence weapons that may work as well or better inside the structures were effectively rulled out. You are, quite literately, the only one who gives a shit. This entire thread is about ARs for home defense. You've latched onto one post (which isn't even part of the main conversation), mangled it out of context, and are beating the ever loving pedantic shit out of it. You are about as clever as a trapdoor in a canoe. Thanks for playing and I hope the consolation prize gives you the piles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:11:37 PM EDT
[#28]
if someone can prove to me that pass through is not going to happen with a AR at less that 10 yards, i would consider using an AR for home defense. When you have children pass through becomes the most important factor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:23:01 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: if someone can prove to me that pass through is not going to happen with a AR at less that 10 yards, i would consider using an AR for home defense. When you have children pass through becomes the most important factor. I'm going to guess you read the thread title and answered? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:26:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if someone can prove to me that pass through is not going to happen with a AR at less that 10 yards, i would consider using an AR for home defense. When you have children pass through becomes the most important factor. Use the right ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:29:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if someone can prove to me that pass through is not going to happen with a AR at less that 10 yards, i would consider using an AR for home defense. When you have children pass through becomes the most important factor. Any round that is guaranteed not to pass all the way through a human target cannot be relied on to incapacitate said target. I move that be canonized as Old Painless's Law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:32:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For HD I doubt it much matters. Shotguns have some advantages. Less sight offset and better for retention (if it doesn't have a pistol grip). For short range I think 12 Ga buck likely has an advantage vs 5.56 that doesn't always tumble and fragment. FWIW, my HD gun is an M&P9. If I went to a long arm it likely would be an AR. But I would feel fine with a shotgun. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, but plenty of other logic does. AR > shotgun for stopping human threats. For HD I doubt it much matters. Shotguns have some advantages. Less sight offset and better for retention (if it doesn't have a pistol grip). For short range I think 12 Ga buck likely has an advantage vs 5.56 that doesn't always tumble and fragment. FWIW, my HD gun is an M&P9. If I went to a long arm it likely would be an AR. But I would feel fine with a shotgun. These remove meat from bone. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:35:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These remove meat from bone. http://rs1118.pbsrc.com/albums/k607/fugitive13/3EBCCD6A-CA41-4ABD-ADBC-4307727D99DA_zpsl9iwiwlw.jpg~320x480 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, but plenty of other logic does. AR > shotgun for stopping human threats. For HD I doubt it much matters. Shotguns have some advantages. Less sight offset and better for retention (if it doesn't have a pistol grip). For short range I think 12 Ga buck likely has an advantage vs 5.56 that doesn't always tumble and fragment. FWIW, my HD gun is an M&P9. If I went to a long arm it likely would be an AR. But I would feel fine with a shotgun. These remove meat from bone. http://rs1118.pbsrc.com/albums/k607/fugitive13/3EBCCD6A-CA41-4ABD-ADBC-4307727D99DA_zpsl9iwiwlw.jpg~320x480 As does this.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:41:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, but plenty of other logic does. AR > shotgun for stopping human threats. For HD I doubt it much matters. Shotguns have some advantages. Less sight offset and better for retention (if it doesn't have a pistol grip). For short range I think 12 Ga buck likely has an advantage vs 5.56 that doesn't always tumble and fragment. FWIW, my HD gun is an M&P9. If I went to a long arm it likely would be an AR. But I would feel fine with a shotgun. These remove meat from bone. http://rs1118.pbsrc.com/albums/k607/fugitive13/3EBCCD6A-CA41-4ABD-ADBC-4307727D99DA_zpsl9iwiwlw.jpg~320x480 As does this.... http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=66702 Dammit! I sharted and proned myself out. BRB. Gotta change and bandage my forehead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:48:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The military has both figured this out and demonstrated it over the past 12 years. You are really the only one struggling with this dizzying concept. Well, I highly doubt that is true... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:01:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Shotgun and revolver is all i need.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:05:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Ban those screen doors... For the children.
Oh, the humanity... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 7:09:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, but plenty of other logic does. AR > shotgun for stopping human threats. For HD I doubt it much matters. Shotguns have some advantages. Less sight offset and better for retention (if it doesn't have a pistol grip). For short range I think 12 Ga buck likely has an advantage vs 5.56 that doesn't always tumble and fragment. FWIW, my HD gun is an M&P9. If I went to a long arm it likely would be an AR. But I would feel fine with a shotgun. These remove meat from bone. http://rs1118.pbsrc.com/albums/k607/fugitive13/3EBCCD6A-CA41-4ABD-ADBC-4307727D99DA_zpsl9iwiwlw.jpg~320x480 As does this.... http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=66702 Little known fact: In the early '60s, submarines were deployed with screen doors as the ultimate deterrent. Because a screen door is such a horrible, final threat, nobody honestly believed we would ever actually use it, so it had essentially no real-world deterrent effect. We had to scale back to just carrying nuclear missiles, and the expression "useless as a screen door on a submarine" was born.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 2:36:28 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Little known fact: In the early '60s, submarines were deployed with screen doors as the ultimate deterrent. Because a screen door is such a horrible, final threat, nobody honestly believed we would ever actually use it, so it had essentially no real-world deterrent effect. We had to scale back to just carrying nuclear missiles, and the expression "useless as a screen door on a submarine" was born. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, but plenty of other logic does. AR > shotgun for stopping human threats. For HD I doubt it much matters. Shotguns have some advantages. Less sight offset and better for retention (if it doesn't have a pistol grip). For short range I think 12 Ga buck likely has an advantage vs 5.56 that doesn't always tumble and fragment. FWIW, my HD gun is an M&P9. If I went to a long arm it likely would be an AR. But I would feel fine with a shotgun. These remove meat from bone. http://rs1118.pbsrc.com/albums/k607/fugitive13/3EBCCD6A-CA41-4ABD-ADBC-4307727D99DA_zpsl9iwiwlw.jpg~320x480 As does this.... http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=66702 Little known fact: In the early '60s, submarines were deployed with screen doors as the ultimate deterrent. Because a screen door is such a horrible, final threat, nobody honestly believed we would ever actually use it, so it had essentially no real-world deterrent effect. We had to scale back to just carrying nuclear missiles, and the expression "useless as a screen door on a submarine" was born. <slow clap gif> |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 5:37:08 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Little known fact: In the early '60s, submarines were deployed with screen doors as the ultimate deterrent. Because a screen door is such a horrible, final threat, nobody honestly believed we would ever actually use it, so it had essentially no real-world deterrent effect. We had to scale back to just carrying nuclear missiles, and the expression "useless as a screen door on a submarine" was born. Well done sir, well done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 5:37:42 AM EDT
[#41]
Standing by for the next round of shotgun derpage......
[cracks knuckles] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 9:01:49 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No doubt. Pretty sure that infantry doesn't take down hadji with a shotgun room to room either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 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? So now we've determined the shotgun is the superior choice because your father made a derpy choice of picking a shotgun over a rifle design that has been around since the late 50s?  Pretty sure fish & game wouldn't let him shoot geese with an AR. No doubt. Pretty sure that infantry doesn't take down hadji with a shotgun room to room either. Pretty sure infantry isn't issued shotguns due to international treaties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 9:02:29 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crom laughs at you, he laughs at you from his mountain. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
every single hole digging absurd stated. Perhaps Crom could learn to speak English? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 9:03:20 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty sure infantry isn't issued shotguns due to international treaties.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 9:03:54 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://] What kind of shootings? Data from LAPD metro (IIRC on department) showed a 50% hit rate with typically 3 - 4 shots fired for single officer involved shootings. Rounds fired (and % misses) went up for two officers, and went way up for more then two. In 'nam the hit rate was something like 200k rounds per hit. A HD shooting would be closer to the LAPD data above. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.... [url=http:// What kind of shootings? Data from LAPD metro (IIRC on department) showed a 50% hit rate with typically 3 - 4 shots fired for single officer involved shootings. Rounds fired (and % misses) went up for two officers, and went way up for more then two. In 'nam the hit rate was something like 200k rounds per hit. A HD shooting would be closer to the LAPD data above. Not to mention hand gun verses long gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 9:05:17 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Pretty sure infantry isn't issued shotguns due to international treaties. Holy shit. derp |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 9:05:34 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the M4/AR suddenly stop being effective at closer ranges? How does that work...magnets? I understand the military is looking at all sorts of different scenarios for a weapon but some of those scenarios include up close and personal. You know.....like inside a house or something crazy like that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. And the average ranges the M4 is used is what, 50 yards? That right there disqualifies the shotgun. For HD it is a different matter. Does the M4/AR suddenly stop being effective at closer ranges? How does that work...magnets? I understand the military is looking at all sorts of different scenarios for a weapon but some of those scenarios include up close and personal. You know.....like inside a house or something crazy like that. The military is rather more contrained by international treaty and existing inventory and weapons system commonality thatn the average home owner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 9:05:49 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty sure infantry isn't issued shotguns due to international treaties. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 9:07:45 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your contention, because I want to be clear, is at no time in the last 12 years of sustained combat operations, was an M4 fired at either (a) short ranges (b) inside dwellings or (c) both ? And further, because this event never took place, we don't have 12 years of experience on which to draw inferences that the M4 (and by extension) the AR platform does, in fact, have advantages in a HD setting? Again, I want to be clear I understand your nuanced position. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does the M4/AR suddenly stop being effective at closer ranges? How does that work...magnets? I understand the military is looking at all sorts of different scenarios for a weapon but some of those scenarios include up close and personal. You know.....like inside a house or something crazy like that. No, M4 doesn't "suddenly stop being effective", but the shotgun is essentially a specialized short range weapon, while the AR is effective over a very wide range of distances. Hence, the fact that ARs are much better for use in places like A'stan and Iraq where average range of engagement is 50 yards or more doesn't tell us which is better for HD ranges. It is a matter of simple logic. So your contention, because I want to be clear, is at no time in the last 12 years of sustained combat operations, was an M4 fired at either (a) short ranges (b) inside dwellings or (c) both ? And further, because this event never took place, we don't have 12 years of experience on which to draw inferences that the M4 (and by extension) the AR platform does, in fact, have advantages in a HD setting? Again, I want to be clear I understand your nuanced position. How many M4s were used by home owners in defense of their homes. Were they burst capable? Was the homeowner backed up with crew-served weapons, air power, artillery? Did said home owners use identical ammo to the U.S. Army? You want to act like two very different things are the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 9:10:20 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many M4s were used by home owners in defense of their homes. Were they burst capable? Was the homeowner backed up with crew-served weapons, air power, artillery? Did said home owners use identical ammo to the U.S. Army? You want to act like two very different things are the same. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does the M4/AR suddenly stop being effective at closer ranges? How does that work...magnets? I understand the military is looking at all sorts of different scenarios for a weapon but some of those scenarios include up close and personal. You know.....like inside a house or something crazy like that. No, M4 doesn't "suddenly stop being effective", but the shotgun is essentially a specialized short range weapon, while the AR is effective over a very wide range of distances. Hence, the fact that ARs are much better for use in places like A'stan and Iraq where average range of engagement is 50 yards or more doesn't tell us which is better for HD ranges. It is a matter of simple logic. So your contention, because I want to be clear, is at no time in the last 12 years of sustained combat operations, was an M4 fired at either (a) short ranges (b) inside dwellings or (c) both ? And further, because this event never took place, we don't have 12 years of experience on which to draw inferences that the M4 (and by extension) the AR platform does, in fact, have advantages in a HD setting? Again, I want to be clear I understand your nuanced position. How many M4s were used by home owners in defense of their homes. Were they burst capable? Was the homeowner backed up with crew-served weapons, air power, artillery? Did said home owners use identical ammo to the U.S. Army? You want to act like two very different things are the same. Are bears considered armor and geesemen air support? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
