Quoted:


While a SBR AR would make a good home defense weapon, I personally wouldn't use a firearm that has any sentimental value or a firearm that costs thousands of dollars.



My reasoning behind this is that in the event that you have to use the weapon in self defense, would you rather be out a $250 shotgun or a NFA registered SBR that you have $1500+ into confiscated. If you have to use the firearm, chances are the LEOs are going to congiscate the weapon used for evidence and good luck getting it back in some areas.

Quoted:
While a SBR AR would make a good home defense weapon, I personally wouldn't use a firearm that has any sentimental value or a firearm that costs thousands of dollars.

My reasoning behind this is that in the event that you have to use the weapon in self defense, would you rather be out a $250 shotgun or a NFA registered SBR that you have $1500+ into confiscated. If you have to use the firearm, chances are the LEOs are going to congiscate the weapon used for evidence and good luck getting it back in some areas.

Quoted:

When dealing with life and death, I will usually choose the best option I can have, vice the cheapest.

You sound like a politician that buys shit for the mil

I guess you put shit brake pads on your car as well???

 

Quoted:


If I lose it protecting the lives of my family, it'll be the best $1500+ I've ever spent.

Quoted:
For home defense the best weapon is a shotgun... the second best would be an SBR... third best pistol.  Using bird shot at close proximity (home defense) is nasty... the only negative is that it is going to make a mess all up in your house.

Quoted:
I am making some assumptions so feel free to correct me if I am wrong. It seems that 16" and shorter barreled ARs are the most popular and from what I have read it is because people want to be able to use them in tight areas such as the case with home defense. My thinking is that for home defense you would be better off with a large caliber pistol or a shotgun. An AR seems like it is more for targets a little further away. Granted it gives you quite a few rounds compared to some pistols, but I feel that putting a short barrel on it is like putting a 12" barrel on a revolver and trying to snipe. I have a .454 that shoots 260 grain rounds at 2000fps which I feel would be more effective up close where someone might be able to push the barrel of a rifle away.

Just my thoughts which may be incorrect. Love to hear others opinions on the whole matter and purpose for the short barrels.

Originally Posted By camoman33935



My reasoning behind this is that in the event that you have to use the weapon in self defense, would you rather be out a $250 shotgun or a NFA registered SBR that you have $1500+ into confiscated.



Hmm reasoning based on money, and not much else



I never said that the OP should chose one weapon over another, I just gave my insight on the matter. Whether or not he makes a decision based on that is up to him.  



So you have a piss poor argument, then say "its up to him like" that absolves you with a poor recommendation. Well yes it is, but I still think your logic is skewed, and not just based on the money angle. I guess I can say DUI is fine, but "its up to you" and that wont be viewed as a dumb comment????



Anyways thanks for your helpful post...



You mean disagreeing that money shouldn't factor into a personal defense choice, you welcome.

Quoted:


Sorry, but that is bad advice.  The whole "shotgun loaded with birdshot=ultimate HD weapon" myth needs to die.   From an article by Doc GKR:

"Birdshot, because of its small size, does not have the mass and sectional density to penetrate deeply enough to reliably reach and damage critical blood distribution organs. Although birdshot can destroy a great volume of tissue at close range, the permanent crush cavity is usually less than 6 inches deep, and this is not deep enough to reliably include the heart or great blood vessels of the abdomen. A gruesome, shallow wound in the torso does not guarantee a quick stop, especially if the bad guy is chemically intoxicated or psychotic. If the tissue crushed by the pellets does not include a vital cardiovascular structure there's no reason for it to be an effective wound.
Many people load their shotguns with birdshot, usually #6 shot or smaller, to minimize interior wall penetration. Number 6 lead birdshot, when propelled at 1300 fps, has a maximum penetration depth potential of about 5 inches in standard ordnance gelatin. Not all of the pellets penetrate this deeply however; most of the shot will penetrate about 4 inches."

#1 buck is the smallest shot that consistently penetrates more than 12 inches of ballistic gelatin when fired at typical shotgun engagement distances. A standard 2 ¾-inch #1 buck shot 12 gauge shotshell contains 16 pellets. The total combined cross sectional area of the 16 pellets is 1.13 square inches. Compared to the total combined cross sectional area of the nine pellets in a standard #00 buck shotshell which is 0.77 square inches, the # 1 buck shotshell has the capacity to produce over 30 percent more potentially effective wound trauma.

In all shotshell loads, number 1 buckshot produces more potentially effective wound trauma than either #00 or #000 buck. In addition, number 1 buck is less likely to over-penetrate and exit an attacker's body.

My thinking is that for home defense you would be better off with a large caliber pistol or a shotgun.

but I feel that putting a short barrel on it is like putting a 12" barrel on a revolver and trying to snipe

I have a .454 that shoots 260 grain rounds at 2000fps which I feel would be more effective up close where someone might be able to push the barrel of a rifle away.

Quoted:
While a SBR AR would make a good home defense weapon, I personally wouldn't use a firearm that has any sentimental value or a firearm that costs thousands of dollars.

My reasoning behind this is that in the event that you have to use the weapon in self defense, would you rather be out a $250 shotgun or a NFA registered SBR that you have $1500+ into confiscated. If you have to use the firearm, chances are the LEOs are going to congiscate the weapon used for evidence and good luck getting it back in some areas.

Quoted:


couldn't have said it better myself

Quoted:


I just want something that works everytime. My life is valuable to me so losing the firearm isn't a big issue. Also I would rather use the platform I am most familiar with and have spent the most time on.

Quoted:



You are right that money shouldn't be a deciding factor in your choice of defensive firearm. My first post was not meant to say that the OP should buy a $250 shotgun for HD instead of a $1500 AR because it will just get confiscated and you will be out that money. What I should have said is, if you feel that you need an SBR'd AR for HD and you are proficient with that weapon system then by all means go ahead and use it. For me, I have no problem using a $250 shotgun and a $500 9mm. I personally do not feel the need to use an AR for HD. Would an AR be a better choice for HD? It really depends on the user. If the user is not comfortable using an AR they should use what they are comfortable with whether it be a shotgun, semi auto handgun, revolver, or even pointy stick. It is really all just personal preference. I bet you will never hear of a home invader saying that he was happy that the home owner shot him with a shotgun instead of an AR.

This will eventually turn into a SG vs. SBR argument.  Even if your sound decision wasn't based on money, it's still flawed. If you don't have a choice, yes the answer it to become as proficient as possible with what you have. If you have a choice, pick the tool that will make the most of what you have.

+1 to the bolded and I am definitely not trying to start an argument of SG vs. SBR. Both systems have their pluses and minuses in the end, it is the users choice as to which one suits their needs the best.

In this case a SBR > SG, and not just becuase of money. Same way a car decision can make faster laps, you could go with the reliable proven VW bug, or spend a little more and get a car that is mo betta. You can become good with either, but when your proficiency has peaked, the better platform will always win.

The better platform is not the same for every user though. Some people can't hit the broadside of a barn with an AR but can bust clays all day long with a shot gun. If proficiency was the same across all weapon systems, the choice would still be decided by personal choice and personal choice only

Quoted:
The handgun is the most difficult firearm to master. Not opinion, fact. Look to far more competent firearms instructors than me to dispute this- they will not. The rifle/carbine is the best defense weapon, namely for control. You typically have 4 points of contact with a carbine, whereas only 2 with a handgun. More contact means more control, which translates into more accurate shot placement. A shotgun also promotes the same control advantage as the carbine, albeit with much more recoil. Just because you are using shot, doesn't mean you don't have to aim. The spread of the shot at short distance is minimal, and you can still miss if you don't aim properly. So why would you shoot something than has more recoil without having any other distinct advantage? That being said, overpenetration is definitely a factor. Rifle caliber bullets will always penetrate more than the pistol caliber. Even shotgun pellets can overpenetrate into walls. Someone said that big, slow moving bullets have more tendency to overpenetrate. This is opposite of what is true. Faster, smaller bullets penetrate further than big, slow ones. A slow moving bullet does not have the energy to go through the target, through the wall and farther. However, a rifle caliber traveling twice the speed, can easily penetrate the target, and several walls, exiting the dwelling and possibly into a neighbors' house. It also depends on caliber for each though and bullet composition. A FMJ .45 will not penetrate as much as a HP 9mm. Same as .223 will not penetrate as much as a .50 BMG. It is all relative and research should be done on what bullet/caliber combination you decide to use. Most data can be found at the ammo manufacturers' website. Take for example a recent test of Hornady's Critical Defense ammo vs. Critical Duty. The FBI felt the need for an expandable bullet that would go through sheet metal, glass, drywall, wood, etc. and still have enough penetration to kill the target. Critical Defense ammo is NOT designed to go through those objects, so it would be a better choice for HD. So, in the end, it does matter what your environment looks like, your training, and the present situation as to what is BEST for HD. Which goes back to what you are comfortable with as there is no clearcut answer as to what is best for everyone in every situation.

Sorry for being longwinded.

Quoted:

Wrong.  Rifle bullets, especially small, lightly constructed ones like those used in carbines suitable for HD, tend to use a lot of that extra energy to destroy themselves when they hit stuff.  That is one reason they tend to be better stoppers than handguns.