In a outdoors situation, I would prefer the Winchester 64gr PPP or M193. However, the walls in my apartment make overpenetration a serious concern. While I believe the 62 or 64gr HPs would be more effective, I see many SWAT teams using 40-45gr ammo in their 10.5-14.5" entry guns. How effective would the 45gr HPs be at very close distances from a 16" gun?

It lacks the penetration (in flesh) to insure the job gets done.

Those SWAT teams buy those light rounds based on fast talking salesmen, not scientific research.

Thanks Forest. Do you know what load HRT and  regional FBI SWAT uses in their 5.56 entry guns? The FBI seems to put more research into their ammo selection than anyone else.

Sorry I don't know what the FBI is using.  It would be interesting to find out though.

I do know some units in the Military are using the Mk262 with is a 77gr Open Tipped Match (OTM) round.

A approximation of this round can be bought from Black Hills Ammo. Its a little slower than what M262 is loaded for (loaded only to SAAMI pressure) but for your purposes it should work as well.

The 45gr bullets are used because out of really short barrels the act like soft or hollow points and just expand. With the added velocity of a longer barrel they blow up in the firstfew inches of flesh. Go with 55-77gr.

At last check, the FBI used Federal Gold Medal 69 gr OTM Match in their 16" AR carbines.

-Charging Handle

FBI does indeed use 69 grain OTM rounds in .223.

Thanks Austrian & Charging Handle!

If you cannot deem the heavier match rounds acceptable for your use (they penetrate sheet rock MORE than M193 due to greater retained mass) then consider the 60 grain ballistic tips.  They wont be penetrating 12-14" but it is better than the 45 grain HP and 55 grain ballistic tips.

If I did this I would also only load my first few rounds with the ballistic tip as your situation may be resolved on the first shot or two but after that I would just use rounds that would give me the best chance to survive, neighbors be damned.

From a practical standpoint you would have to be out of your mind to shoot some one with an AR.  That prosecutor will be holding up that evil black rifle in front of the jury practically frothing at the mouth and you would probably be convicted no matter how rightous the shoot was.  Even if you were aquited (by somehow pulling off the miracle of getting a reasonable jury) you would probably be in debt the rest of your life paying off your lawyer and you would probably never see your AR again.

This is complete and utter bullshit.  A legal shoot is a legal shoot.  I have been involved in a legal shoot and was even intoxicated at the time.  Noone cared.  I have been pulled over while speeding at a high rate of speed with multiple guns in the car including a loaded assault rilfe with a round in the chamber and the barrle was still hot.  8 squad cars rolled up to the scene and I had to wait a bit but all I got was a ticket and my weapons were returned and I loaded the assault rifle right in front of the officer and put it back in my trunk.  Noone cared.  Legal is legal and unless you have a personal experience to let us know this is not the case please dont post your conjecture as fact.

I would rather be a sued, poor, living man than a wealthy dead corpse!

If a there is a threat significant enough to justify the use of force, then it doesn't matter what weapon you use to defend yourself...so long as it's legal. A Derringer, a snubby J-frame, a 1911 .45, a 12 gauge or an AR-15. All are firearms and all are capable of killing. Again, if a situation requires lethal force, then what difference does it make what gun is used?

I hear this argument all the time but I am unaware of many, if any such cases that ever resulted in a successful civil suit. It may be possible in a few spots around the nation, but it would never happen where I am. No jury here would convict a person for legally defending themselves, either in criminal or civil court. And in all honesty, no grand jury has ever even indicted anyone around here for doing so. Why? Because people value life and have enough sense to realize in some cases you have to defend yourself from predators. And these civil suits are called "wrongful death" suits and there is nothing "wrong" with defending one's life and most people just think it's BS and that the criminal got what they deserved. Again, you may have to watch out for this in some parts of the country where common sense thinking isn't so common. But regardless of where I am, should I need to defend my life or the lives of loved ones, then I will use the best tool I have. In many cases that would be an AR carbine. I'll worry about the legal implications later.

-Charging Handle

The above post is correct.  If you are justified in using deadly force to defend your self or your family, it doesn't matter if you use an AR15 or a 9-iron.  

Depending on the laws in your state, you may still be the victim of a civil suit, though.  Some states prohibit civil suits to be filed against you if you killed someone while they were committing a crime.

Yeah, that's the only place I could see arguing for a more politically correct looking firearm.

But I'm not about to use a shotgun or handgun in my home when the longest shot I could expect to take is on the order of 25+ yards.    Handgun marksmanship under stress is questionable at best at those longer distances.   I don't much like the idea of using a shotgun either considering the spread at those potential distances, nor the limited capacity.

I'd rather just have my carbine which I am confident with, having shot it in tactical matches and know full well what I'm capable of, and have that light recoiling fast to aim precision instrument.     I'd rather have something that is good for all ranges inside my home without having to worry much about losing accuracy at longer ranges.

Arguing from that standpoint while including other arguments, I would say that it is possible for a person to show that they are being more responsible if they decided to select a light handy carbine for home defense.     There's enough data out there now to show that the firearm is quite capable with careful load selection while having benefits that outweigh handguns or shotguns in some situations.

Is it perfect for all situations, nope certaintly not.    But man, wouldn't it be funny in a court case to go all Matlock on somebody and tell them just what the score is and edumucate some of those dill holes.     Hmmmm, shoot a handgun where you might be lucky to land all your shots within a 10 inch circle, or a shotgun that would be lucky to land all of it's pattern inside of 24 inches, or the little carbine which could easily put all it's shots inside of 5 inches.

Does anyone know if this will work well in a 1/9, or is it pushing it?

Also, how do these rounds compare with the TAP line?

TIA

69 works fine in a 1/9 but the 68 grain Hornady is cheaper than the 69 grain Sierra bullet and has a shorter neck before yawing.  The 68/69 is the next best thing to 75/77 grain ammo.  Its not as dramatic asnd does not fragment at as low of a velocity but its better than M193 or M855.

I don't really care what you think.  There is legal and there is smart.  Ignore it at your peril.  Good Luck!

Before you go and get a case of diarrhea mouth on someone, please educate yourself enough to know that these laws vary from state to state. N

Read Calvet's post.

OK dumbass tell me the state where its legal to shoot someone with a legally owned pistol but illegal with a legally owned assault rifle.

You cant.  Because there is no such law.  If you were going to be sued in civil court you could get sued no matter what weapon or ammo was used.  The type of weapon used has no bearing on whether someone has JUST CAUSE to file a civil suit or not in ANY state so go educate YOURSELF and quit trying to spread misinformation!  If you are not a no nothing twit then QUOTE me the statute that says either...

A.  Using a legal AR15 is grounds for murder/manslaughter in a justifiable shooting.

OR

B.  Using an assult rifle is, in and of itself, a justifiable reason to file a civil suit for wrongful death where using a handgun or shotgun would not allow the civil suit to be filed.

Guess what, you cant do it because no such law exists.  If it does, quote it.  If it does not just shut your trap and let the thread end.

Oh yeah I read Calvets post and it agrees with me.  I fail to see where I have a "case of diarrhea mouth" as I am doing nothing but setting the record straight while you continue to try to spread misinformation.

Do I get really pissed when someone posts legal opinion as legal fact when it weakens the mind and resolve of those whou would listen?  You bet your ass I do.  If you have a problem with that I really could care less.

Boy, "diarrhea mouth" is an apt discription!

You are pissing all over yourself just because several people told you the facts, and you can't acknowledge your ignorance in an ADULT fashion. Sounds like you have of lot growing up to do, little boy.

Please enlighten me.  Where am I wrong? I dont see it.  I am ignorant of nothing.  I just REALLY hate it when people start trying to use scare tactics to dissuade someone from exercising their God given rights which no law prevents.  It is a personal affront and I dont take kindly to people who do that.  All I did was set the record straight.  You dont like the fact I get emotional over it?  Oh well...

Jtw2 lives in Colorado, you in Tx. Each state has its own laws re the justified use of deadly force. Calvet tried to tell you this in his post.
Civil suits may be appropriate in some states. As jtw2 pointed out, a lawyer waving an assault rifle in front of a jury would inflame them to no end, and any award for damages would certainly be influenced by his actions, as you are with things you perceive as being incorrect.

Isn't Colorado the state with the ever impressive "Make my day" law?   One that gives a home owner relative immunity from criminal prosecution if they use lethal force against an intruder in their home?


Yes, the civil court issue is still at issue.   But it's up to the person to decide just what is truely "smart".    Will your smarts dictate that you worry about a civil suit after the fact or will your smarts tell you that a handgun or shotgun isn't appropriate and that there is something better?     And is your area a relative liberal shit hole where it's likely that the family of the "victim" will sue for some form of compensation?


In the end, for my current situation I favor the rifle over the handgun or shotgun.   Big whoop.   It's likely I'll need fewer shots in a stressful situation, I'd rather fire 1 or two shots from the AR15 than risk having to fire 3-4 or more shots from one of my handguns or one big mess of spray with a shot or two from a shotgun.


Seems there's all sorts of "smarts" here that one could find themselves needing when deciding what firearm to use for home protection.   It's just that some of us take insult when others lecture to us what they deem appropriate based upon their situation.    Hmmmmm, what's that, "nobody needs an AK47 for home defense" okay Mrs. Dole.


I'm not about to tell anyone what they should and shouldn't use but hopefully they'll put enough effort into researching things to decide what is a wise choice for their given situation.   I figure that's what these forums are for, give your opinion as to why you made your decision but don't call me or others a dumb ass for our decision.

No what he said was the prosecutor would file murder charges on you in the event of a justifiable shooting because its an AR15.  At that point the NRA is going to jump onboard and pay for your defense as that is the most assinine thing ever concocted and no prosecutor in his right mind would use that as a reason to prosecute.  It would not even get to a jury as it would be thrown out as soon as there was no law being broken by the judge.

The use of an AR15 to defend ones self is NOT against the law.  No law has been broken.  No charges can be filed.

If you used a handgun and it took 4 or 5 shots to stop the intruder you think you are less likely to be found liable in civil court than if 1 shot from an AR15 was used?  Thats just moronic.  What I said was:

There is no case in which you can file a civil suit if an AR15 was used but you could not file a civil suit if a pistol or shotgun was used.  And thats a fact Jack.  The family will sue you no matter what weapon was used if they can.

I am continually being told I am wrong but none of you can come up with the statute that reads:

"You may not file a civil suit if the person shot was a rapist/murderer/armed robber unless the rapist/murderer/armed robber was shot with a weapon that has a detatchable magazine and was based on military design.  In this case a civil suit will be allowed."

DevL, I'm totally with you.   I wasn't arguing against you.

I'm just taking issue with those who would call my using an AR15 for home defense "stupid" because they are expressing an opinion based upon what they feel would be appropriate for their situation.


Anyhow, this thread is kinda just a clone of the many ARs for home defense threads that have been done to death.   Those were atleast more helpful and filled with useful information rather than opinionated people who think using an AR15 for home defense is "stupid".

Devl you misunderstand my position on this.  I'm all for using the correct tactically superior weapon when dealing with the dregs of society out to do you harm.  All's I'm saying is that you need to read Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme".  You need to be cognizant of the fact that your actions will be judged by the "reasonable person" rule.  Would a reasonable person do what you did under the same circumstances.  Like it or not your jury will not be manned by knowledgable gun folks.  In fact every effort will be expended gettin "soccer moms" on the jury.  You can argue with me all you want, but like I said:  Just cause it's legal doesn't make it smart.  In Colorado it's legal to wear sidearms open carry.  Are you gonna do that in Denver?  Lets take a pole as to how many ways they can bust you starting with disturbing the peace.  

You can rail all you want about "dammnit, it's legal" but at the end of the day how much did it cost you?  Like I said, there's legal and there's smart.

Look guys I am sorry I went off so dramatically and acted like an ass but to me there is no greater disservice you can do for our cause than to suggest that using a more PC weapon would be a better choice.  If everyone used ARs to defend them selves it would no longer be viewed as such an odd choice for defense.  Using a non "assault weapon" just removes it further from the general publics view and thus makes it more unusual when they do encounter it.

I actually take it upon myself to carry my rifles in public.  My ex GF lives in a high crime apartment complex.  I carry an assualt rifle to and from my car every time I go there or leave to go anywhere.  I often pass her neighbors with an AR or AK in my hand pointed muzzle down or slung on my shoulder.  I just smile real big and say "Hi how are you doing today?"

The people actually seem a bit shocked at first glance but once I say hi they will speak back smile and just walk on their way.  Sometimes they stop and talk to me about my rifle.  The next time I pass them and they see me they say hi first and smile whether I have a rifle or not.

If they ask questions I dont say "I am carrying this to shoot any bad guys I see" or "I need this to overthrow an oppressive government"  I ususally say I was going to take it to the range or I was bringing it to show a friend in the complex.  Once people get past the shock of seeing the thing they actually dont mind it being in their presence.  I am sure this type of thing would not go over as well in CA as it does in TX but you should make every effort to get the rifle in the eyes of those who hate it and then be really nice to them.

When I see a guy who loves his 30-30 lever action which he uses as a gun in his rifle rack of his truck and he asks why I need "one of those" I just tell him I always wanted one since I was a kid but my dad would not let me own one and then I found out how accurate it was after I got it just to spite my dad.  Then I ask "Here, want to try it?"  They are impressed by the accuracy every time and then I usually get em to just pop off a few rounds fast just for fun "because my dad never let me do that and I think its fun, try it."  After that they always smile, have something positive to say about the rifle and thank me for shooting it.  I leave knowing I just converted another anti assualt weapon person.

My point is if we are too afraid to bring our guns into the public eye for what they might think of us then we will never be considered anything but deviants in the eyes of the masses.

PS: Sorry for hijacking the thread.  I would use a bullet larger than the 45 grains if my life relied on it. [:)]

Extremely well said DevL. I agree with you 100%. People in general who fear 'assault weapons' do so for the same reason people fear anything....the unknown. Many people, especially non-gun owners, find guns like the AR-15 and AK-47 mysterious. Because they lack the knowledge of such weapons they often believe the myths and outright lies of the mainstream news media. We have all heard them refer to these rifles as if they were full auto machine guns! Geez, no wonder people are scared of them.

I had a friend who came out to my place one day while I was shooting my first ever AR, a 16" Colt carbine. The first thing he said was "where did you get that M-16 and aren't those things illegal?" So I took the time to explain to him the difference in function and let him fire a mag full of rounds at some soda cans. When he left he had an education on what an AR really is and he knew that it was no more menacing than his Browning .30-06 semi-auto deer rifle. I wish more people would take the time to enlighten and educate those who know little about guns. If this happened, there would be fewer uninformed people out there working against our gun rights.

I still see no problems with using an AR type weapon for home defense. In fact, the recent move by police departments (including SWAT teams) toward the AR and away from pistol caliber carbines speaks volumes. They actually found out that AR's actually penetrate less than pistol rounds and 00 buckshot and are more appropriate for entry teams. Choosing a round that is less likely to overpenetrate and injure innocent parties would look good during a defense, would it not? And a .223 round with far superior ballistics to pistol rounds would be more likely to end the fight in one or two shots....as opposed to having to turn some robber into hamburger with buckshot or shoot him multiple times with a handgun. Which case looks more brutal to you?

I agree that we, as owners of guns, should not resort to stereotyping the very guns we own like the media and those who don't understand them. Use them, explain them to others and help un-do the myths that been created over the years. And, if you think your AR is best gun you have for a defensive situation, then by all means, use it.

Just like DevL and several others here have stated, 99% of lawyers would not even seek a case in such a matter, so long as the shooting is justified. It's just a case that can't be won. They won't waste their time. But should a case ever be brought to bare, fight it! I am sure the ar15.com army will raise enough money to pay your legal fees! In fact, I will give my share to anyone ever caught in a wrongful death suit for using a legal firearm in the act of self-defense. But the chance of ever having to go to court is highly unlikely. I would definately say the risk of being the victim of a violent crime is much more likely. So as I said before, I will defend myself first and worry about the legal problems later. But around here there will be no legal problems involved in defending yourself against some criminal scumbag with a record longer than George Carlin's scroll of dirty words! LOL. I hope most of the country has the same mentality.

-Charging Handle

If when refering to 45gr JHP .223, we are referring to the Wichester white box Varment load they sell at Wall Mart. That cartridge has me torn. I have read the tests, and they show that the round doesn't have the penetration required for all situations.

BUT, on the other hand. It is soo CHEAP. And it is a suprisingly accurate cartridge. Ask newarguy to show you his 1MOA 300yard groop he shot with it with a 14.5" M4 barrel. And it breaks up good in sheet rock and furnature for indoor use. And penetration should actually increase if you were to fire it from a 11.5 instead of a 14.5 in barrel from being a bit slower.

Its a borderline cartridge. If you were good at head shots and failure drills...but then you probably wouldn't be worrying about missing and wouldn't need to worry about wall penetrations.

The point should be that no Prosecutor will (or should ) prosecute because of the kind of  gun you used in a good shoot.  (Your local laws determine what is a good shoot, guessing and bloviating based on your locals laws as being the same applicables ones used in another area isn't the way to go.  Don't assume a good shoot in one location is a good shoot in others.)  The kind of gun (if legal) doesn't matter.

Now change to any civil suit after the fact.  Any land shark worth his/her salt is going to try to portray you as a bloodthirsty maniac executing his client's innocent baby.  Live with that.  That is their job.  Remember OJ, not guilty in the criminal trials, guilty in the Civil trial.  Will a black rifle be used to inflame the jury, YEP, will it work??who knows.  If you spend a lot of time and can be shown to have used a more damagin round, will that inflame the jury?  Yep, now can you show that the there is no significant difference between a varmint load from a FMJ.  You are going to get raked over the coals on your choice, either is a no-win, both can be used to paint you the bad guy. Now can you answer that the 45 grain is the least likely to penetrate the perp, walls, etc and be a danger to your kids, neighbors, well that's going to be a plus.

 Now if you did in fact use an illegal gun, your chances are immeasurably hurt.  Suddenly the Nutcase scenario becomes a lot more reasonable for a lot of folks.  

For example a non-registered AR in CA, or what happens if they search your house and find an illegal weapon,  You may win on a fruits of illegal search.  Why search other areas of the house??  But you will still lose the gun.

The smart thing is to learn and be in compliance with YOUR laws, not what somebody says here.

Let them prosecute me if i use my AR in defense... i can see them asking why one needs this weapon.

Maybe my 6 years in the military in primarially infantry role as a rifleman makes me far more used to using an AR-15 syle weapon.  Maybe the fact that the police and SWAT teams nationwide discovered its use.  What about the possibility of killing someone with shotgun spray or the decreased accuracy of my Glock pistol?

The AR-15 in the hands of a well-trained person ceases to be a tool of death and destruction but instead becomes a tool of self defense and removal of collateral injury.

The gun is only prosecuted in the eyes of people who see "Military" written all over it.  Everytime i see a law written (like the ban on .50cal rifles in cali) i see "Military style" written on it. Its there to instill fear and remove knowledge.

I'd rather be sued in civil court than buried in the ground.  I assure everyone on this board that if i hear Joe-burglar breaking into my home at 3am, he will be met with the sight of my M4A2 and not my Glock.  The sight alone may make him lay down and apologize...