Poll! Best firearm for home defense

[tbtrout 141]

Understood. However, there is a training/proficiency component to all firearms. With proper training, any and all firearms can be fair game. I think a lot of the objections in this thread stem from a simple lack of understanding the utility in FA weapons in a wide variety of scenarios ranging outside of HD. But we as a nation, and by an even greater extent as subjects in the Socialist State of New Jersey are brainwashed into thinking that semi-autos = ok, but full-auto = bad.

 

If we want to win the fight for our rights, we need to dispense with this mindset, and assume all things are fair game for use for whatever we desire. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the right of the people to keep and sometimes bear semi-autos. It protects the right to all arms, unless otherwise specified (within the Constitution).

 

Like I said: if folks could pick up an FA subgun like a P90 as easily as an 870, I'd be very surprised if no one here ran out to buy them by the bushel and justify their use like they would for all their other firearms.

Dude I don't care what you own. I do not think anything should be illegal. You could beat them down with a butter sock for all I care, just learn how to use it. And no, I do not think a full auto is the best all around, for everyone to use type of gun. You are with the wrong crowd trying to pick a fight and insinuating that becasue we do not agree with your choice we are socialist antis. I know there are a few of us that have trained with a variety of full auto firearms, not just shot a magazine through one once or twice.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Different strokes for different folks I guess. Some folks here love AKs and think they're the end all be all of HD weapons... or ARs... or wheelguns.

 

Frankly, the lack of imagination is just an extension of the typical Anti-Gun thinking... you really can't imagine a subgun for HD? What next? Can't imagine a possible need for an AR-15? Or a semi-auto shotgun? Or more than 10 rounds in a magazine? There are folks out there who don't understand why anyone one need a gun in the first place, and would rather have no one have them in the first place. Thank goodness for the 2A though right?

 

And let's be honest here Ray Ray, if a subgun were as easy and cheap to buy from a gun store as a Remington 870, I doubt very much your safe would be lacking one. Or your bedroom.

 

Your missing the point, totally. Use whatever you want, I've made my point.

[GRIZ 3,369]

GRIZ, no offense, but all your basically saying is that with training, you can overcome any firearms' potential drawbacks.

 

You can't overcome ballistics, retention, compactness, and use in close quarters with training they are what they are and you can't change that.

 

So in short: your justification for choosing whichever gun you feel is best is entirely dependent on ones' proficiency with a particular firearm. That aside (and one was proficient with any firearm equally), any of the potential drawbacks with a full-auto weapon can also be easily overcome.

 

Proficency is one factor. Reread my posts and look what I say about other factors that training can't overcome.

 

While the youtube isn't the most stellar example of Full-auto use, for a first timer, it really wasn't all that hard to hit what I was aiming at.

 

So why did you post it? What were you hitting? The dirt?

 

I may not have the "tacticool" experience you have

 

I was going to ignore your later responses until you said this.

 

I have no "tacticool" experience or training. The training I have had is because I had a genuine need for it. I started getting shot at at age 18 is SE Asia (history books seem to skim over that war) and have been shot by bad people in other places as well. The VA does not pay you disability because you were "tacticool". I'm not a Ranger, SEAL, or any kind of special operator and don't try to make believe I was one. I am not looking for accolades for what I did but did what I did because I enjoyed it first of all. If you really desire to obtain some experience I have you can join the Army or Marine go infantry and after being shot at, maybe even bleeding a little, you can be as "tacticool" as me.

 

I became a LEO as once again I liked doing that. I liked catching bad guys and helping people. No accolades sought. I didn't care too much about writing tickets but enjoyed writing them to idiots. Some of the disgression I exercised when I worked with the PD might get me in trobule today. I tolerated a lot of the BS I had to put up with so I could do what I liked doing.

 

I went to the Federal government as I could concentrate more on doing what I liked. BS sure but a bit more tolerable than working on the PD and some added bennies. I got to catch bad guys all over the country, all over the world for that matter.

 

You also need to be aware of police departments and Federal LE agencies don't put you out on workman's comp for injuries you sustained because you were "tacticool".

 

I realize you may think I'm a dinosaur but logic would prevail that I may have learned a little more than you in 45+ years of shooting, shooting things most people don't, and having been an instructor for over 30 years vs whatever experience you have.

 

I may be opinionated but I will change my mind if someone presents a reasonable and thought out proposal.

 

If someone has fun being tacticool I have no problem with that as long as no one is hurt.

 

However, I take calling my experience "tacticool' as a personal insult from someone who only has a very narrow focus on the issue and nothing to bring to the table.

 

My apologies to others for going OT.

 

Frankly, the lack of imagination is just an extension of the typical Anti-Gun thinking... you really can't imagine a subgun for HD? What next? Can't imagine a possible need for an AR-15? Or a semi-auto shotgun? Or more than 10 rounds in a magazine? There are folks out there who don't understand why anyone one need a gun in the first place, and would rather have no one have them in the first place. Thank goodness for the 2A though right?

 

No one has said any of what you're saying here. We are all 2A supporters and see no reason people shouldn't be able to own a subgun, surpressor, or SBR. I'll give you another bit of info and state law enforcement agencies really have little practical use for full auto or burst fire weapons. That doesn't mean no one should be able to own one There is no one that has been in total agreement with you regarding the HD weapon issue we've been discussing. You're right and everyone else is wrong? Does that tell you something?

 

You can join the whacko Libertarians that believe one should have nuclear weapons and nerve agent in their garage. There are people who have drank that Kool Aid. You will never get enough people to agree with you to change anything. There are plenty of websites where some define the 2A as meaning that. You can also work with people in a group like the NJ2AS (which I don't belong to by the way) which is working to get gun rights restored through education and reason and rule of law.

 

You can also move to Somalia where you can own anything you want but you probably don't want to give up the rest of the protections the Constitution gives you. The Constitution is a package deal not just the 2A.

[tbtrout 141]

After Griz I do not think I can post anything more. Well said.

[Sixtytwo327 14]

GRIZ FTW. Thread closed.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I still kinda find it funny that auto-loaders are beating out shotguns as the 1 gun to use. And revolvers gots no love!

[Shane45 807]

Well, a pistol has significant advantages as a HD weapon. This doesnt impeach the utility of other selections and in some individuals circumstances those advantages may not outweigh other factors.

In my opinion its not a question that lends its self well to a poll as it is a highly individual choice. It, like most things firearms related, is full of compromise that can be(should be) largely dictated by the individual situation. Its important to understand that what works for most may not be the best choice for someone trying to figure out whats best for them.

[usnmars 136]

NUMBER ONE---- Use what the shooter is proficient in and use a known reliable weapon. Use a weapon that no matter what you know it is going to work every time. Use a weapon you are familiar with and shoot all the time. This should be your GO TO GUN. Dont grab a gun because it is cool on tv or in video games. Use one that you use and shoot all the time and if something goes wrong you know how to correct it. It comes down to having faith in your equipment and maintaining your equipment. I know my 1911's will go bang every time I need them to, or my shotgun will always work for me. I want it to be so that any gun I have I can trust my life on, if I cant trust it.... it's not for me. There is a reason I don't keep plastic in the safe.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

There is a reason I don't keep plastic in the safe.

 

I was about to +1 you until that last sentence. What is the reason?

[gunforhire 826]

I am old school. S&W 8 shot night guard revolver with 4 Thunder Ranch 8 round speed loaders. I'm done!

[DevsAdvocate 112]

GRIZ, no offense, but all your basically saying is that with training, you can overcome any firearms' potential drawbacks.

 

You can't overcome ballistics, retention, compactness, and use in close quarters with training they are what they are and you can't change that.

 

So in short: your justification for choosing whichever gun you feel is best is entirely dependent on ones' proficiency with a particular firearm. That aside (and one was proficient with any firearm equally), any of the potential drawbacks with a full-auto weapon can also be easily overcome.

 

Proficency is one factor. Reread my posts and look what I say about other factors that training can't overcome.

 

While the youtube isn't the most stellar example of Full-auto use, for a first timer, it really wasn't all that hard to hit what I was aiming at.

 

So why did you post it? What were you hitting? The dirt?

 

I may not have the "tacticool" experience you have

 

I was going to ignore your later responses until you said this.

 

I have no "tacticool" experience or training. The training I have had is because I had a genuine need for it. I started getting shot at at age 18 is SE Asia (history books seem to skim over that war) and have been shot by bad people in other places as well. The VA does not pay you disability because you were "tacticool". I'm not a Ranger, SEAL, or any kind of special operator and don't try to make believe I was one. I am not looking for accolades for what I did but did what I did because I enjoyed it first of all. If you really desire to obtain some experience I have you can join the Army or Marine go infantry and after being shot at, maybe even bleeding a little, you can be as "tacticool" as me.

 

I became a LEO as once again I liked doing that. I liked catching bad guys and helping people. No accolades sought. I didn't care too much about writing tickets but enjoyed writing them to idiots. Some of the disgression I exercised when I worked with the PD might get me in trobule today. I tolerated a lot of the BS I had to put up with so I could do what I liked doing.

 

I went to the Federal government as I could concentrate more on doing what I liked. BS sure but a bit more tolerable than working on the PD and some added bennies. I got to catch bad guys all over the country, all over the world for that matter.

 

You also need to be aware of police departments and Federal LE agencies don't put you out on workman's comp for injuries you sustained because you were "tacticool".

 

I realize you may think I'm a dinosaur but logic would prevail that I may have learned a little more than you in 45+ years of shooting, shooting things most people don't, and having been an instructor for over 30 years vs whatever experience you have.

 

I may be opinionated but I will change my mind if someone presents a reasonable and thought out proposal.

 

If someone has fun being tacticool I have no problem with that as long as no one is hurt.

 

However, I take calling my experience "tacticool' as a personal insult from someone who only has a very narrow focus on the issue and nothing to bring to the table.

 

My apologies to others for going OT.

 

Frankly, the lack of imagination is just an extension of the typical Anti-Gun thinking... you really can't imagine a subgun for HD? What next? Can't imagine a possible need for an AR-15? Or a semi-auto shotgun? Or more than 10 rounds in a magazine? There are folks out there who don't understand why anyone one need a gun in the first place, and would rather have no one have them in the first place. Thank goodness for the 2A though right?

 

No one has said any of what you're saying here. We are all 2A supporters and see no reason people shouldn't be able to own a subgun, surpressor, or SBR. I'll give you another bit of info and state law enforcement agencies really have little practical use for full auto or burst fire weapons. That doesn't mean no one should be able to own one There is no one that has been in total agreement with you regarding the HD weapon issue we've been discussing. You're right and everyone else is wrong? Does that tell you something?

 

You can join the whacko Libertarians that believe one should have nuclear weapons and nerve agent in their garage. There are people who have drank that Kool Aid. You will never get enough people to agree with you to change anything. There are plenty of websites where some define the 2A as meaning that. You can also work with people in a group like the NJ2AS (which I don't belong to by the way) which is working to get gun rights restored through education and reason and rule of law.

 

You can also move to Somalia where you can own anything you want but you probably don't want to give up the rest of the protections the Constitution gives you. The Constitution is a package deal not just the 2A.

 

Apologies for insulting your experience GRIZ, I am thankful for your service to our nation and your experiences and I was completely out of line to call them "tacticool". Also: I tend to learn a lot more about stuff via disagreement than by simply taking things at face value. But your experiences aside, I had some major gripes with your reasoning here.

 

One thing that really gets me, is that your points on the drawbacks of a Full-Auto are simply not exclusive to that particular platform:

"You can't overcome ballistics, retention, compactness, and use in close quarters with training they are what they are and you can't change that."

 

What makes the ballistics of a full-auto 5.56 or 9mm any different than the ballistics of semi-auto 5.56 or 9mm? What makes retention of a FN P90 or an MP5 different from a CX-4 carbine or a pump-action shotgun, or any other 2-handed long-gun? Aside from a pistol, what else on this list is going to be more compact than a SBR subgun? It seems to me that the same reasoning that is used to bash full-auto suppressed subguns can simply boil down to an argument of long guns vs. hand guns, correct?

 

I mean, I get it: suppressed subguns have drawbacks, just like every other weapons system listed. But in comparison to other long(er) guns, the biggest difference is that they have can have a suppressor (which adds length/bulk to a firearm at the expense of protecting your vision/hearing), and that they have an extra spot on the FCG that let's you shoot multiple bullets with one trigger pull. I personally enjoy having my options. Even if I owned a full-auto weapon, does that mean I can only use it in full-auto? Nope. It's select-fire for a reason, and you can switch firing modes to fit whichever situation you're in.

 

I guess that is what really irks me about this thread... why are folks bashing a firearm because it has one or two additional features than the ones they traditionally own?

 

---------

 

As for the last tidbit, I agree some reasonable restrictions should exist to the 2A... but seeing as it's one of these fancy Constitutional Amendments, such restrictions should only exist in the form of additional Amendments to either repeal or modify the definition of what arms we're allowed to keep an bear. Sure... it sounds very archaic and makes me worthy of the typical "if you don't like it, goto Somalia routine", but the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to make it very difficult for the Federal Government to infringe our rights.

 

It's sad that this viewpoint is the minority view these days, but that may explain why things in this nation are the way they are.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Your missing the point, totally. Use whatever you want, I've made my point.

 

I'd like to, but obviously cannot. NFA 38', FOPA 86', and GCA 68' ruined a lot for us folks.

 

I get it, folks like to use whatever they feel comfortable with. What I don't get is why the reasons that an FA Subgun is a bad choice for HD, don't apply to other firearms? Like a shotgun? Or a rifle? Or even a pistol/revolver? Seems to me it's just an extension of the long gun v. hand gun debate, which makes a great deal of sense as both have their ups and downs.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

I get it, folks like to use whatever they feel comfortable with. What I don't get is why the reasons that an FA Subgun is a bad choice for HD, don't apply to other firearms? Like a shotgun? Or a rifle? Or even a pistol/revolver?

 

Probably just thinking the first thing that would pop into the mind.

 

1. The use of F/A might be over the top and may be construed as excessive force, even if you use the same number of rounds that would have been needed to stop a threat using a Handgun,Shotty, or Rifle

 

2. over penetration vs handgun or shotty is a probability

 

3. say it comes to a court case, this would more than likely right or wrong but I see it as more of the person using a F/A in a deeper hole trying to defend them selves.

 

Not saying it's right or wrong, but we know the law, and regardless if you are 100% in the right you know more than likely there would be an over zealous prosecutor, plus think of the attention that it would give and I'd bet the Anti's would jump all over a case like this in a heartbeat.

 

I am not saying it's not good or bad choice, I am a pro choice person, I said what I will use and not going to condone anyone for what they chose to do to protect themselves and there family but we should look at this as what the bigger picture is.

 

Just like when you chose to CCW, no matter what, you can be 10000% in the right and legally nothing happen to you but know your life will be forever changed. I know there are plenty of military folks here and while I can't speak for someone who has had to take a life in battle I do have to say, in battle and a home defense situation has to be different and the weight the person who had to take a life carry a different amount of weight..

 

Harry

[Shane45 807]

I will speak on the ballistics question and what makes the P90 different. I am not delving into any of the practicality or legality points which of course have validity in the real world. But since we are, in my opinion, in the theoretical world of best, I will speak to that. The difference in ballistics is quantity. IIRC the P90 fires around 800 rpm. So thats a 50 round mag in less than 2 seconds I believe. Because it runs like a sewing machine, keeping those bursts on target is easier to do than say a storm for example. So round to round they are the same. But when you compound the rounds on target giving a burst of say 12 rounds in half a second, well Im sure you get the picture. Erganomically they are different. In my opinion you wrap around a p90. I think it would be easier to take a pistol or non bullpup rifle from me compared to the P90. Your basically holding on to a pair of circles at the FRONT of the rifle. Thats a metric ton of control.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Probably just thinking the first thing that would pop into the mind.

 

1. The use of F/A might be over the top and may be construed as excessive force, even if you use the same number of rounds that would have been needed to stop a threat using a Handgun,Shotty, or Rifle

 

2. over penetration vs handgun or shotty is a probability

 

3. say it comes to a court case, this would more than likely right or wrong but I see it as more of the person using a F/A in a deeper hole trying to defend them selves.

 

Not saying it's right or wrong, but we know the law, and regardless if you are 100% in the right you know more than likely there would be an over zealous prosecutor, plus think of the attention that it would give and I'd bet the Anti's would jump all over a case like this in a heartbeat.

 

I am not saying it's not good or bad choice, I am a pro choice person, I said what I will use and not going to condone anyone for what they chose to do to protect themselves and there family but we should look at this as what the bigger picture is.

 

Just like when you chose to CCW, no matter what, you can be 10000% in the right and legally nothing happen to you but know your life will be forever changed. I know there are plenty of military folks here and while I can't speak for someone who has had to take a life in battle I do have to say, in battle and a home defense situation has to be different and the weight the person who had to take a life carry a different amount of weight..

 

Harry

 

1. Excessive force can be applied to any scenario where the DA can argue it. Nothing much can be done here outside of hiring a lawyer and pointing out the statutes and case laws to show why your situation is no different from any others. As they say: every bullet you shoot in self-defense has a lawyer attached to it...

 

2. Over-penetrations is dependent on the caliber, not the firing mode. This is a valid argument when comparing the pros/cons of a rifle round, pistol round, or shotgun shell. It has nothing to do with FA.

 

3. This has to due with the perception of full-auto. Most people don't even know they're legal in the USA (local laws apply though). But the same can be said if you used a mean looking tactical AR-15 or a pump-shotty with 100 shells and a bayonet strapped to it.

 

A good read on the matter is this article by Massad Ayoob: "F you and your high powered rifle"

 

Great example of defending ones' self with a full-auto, and the legal consequences associated with it.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I will speak on the ballistics question and what makes the P90 different. I am not delving into any of the practicality or legality points which of course have validity in the real world. But since we are, in my opinion, in the theoretical world of best, I will speak to that. The difference in ballistics is quantity. IIRC the P90 fires around 800 rpm. So thats a 50 round mag in less than 2 seconds I believe. Because it runs like a sewing machine, keeping those bursts on target is easier to do than say a storm for example. So round to round they are the same. But when you compound the rounds on target giving a burst of say 12 rounds in half a second, well Im sure you get the picture. Erganomically they are different. In my opinion you wrap around a p90. I think it would be easier to take a pistol or non bullpup rifle from me compared to the P90. Your basically holding on to a pair of circles at the FRONT of the rifle. Thats a metric ton of control.

 

Ummm, okay. You would defend your family with full auto 22? 2 seconds and your out of ammo and a magazine change that would be impossible under stress.

 

Keep it simple, dependable, reliable, and a proven fight stopper. 12 gauge pump action shotgun.

[Shane45 807]

As usual Ray, you speak without knowing what your talking aboutand the usual lack of reading comprehension thrown in. I would place a rather LARGE bet that I could reload a P90 before you could reload your shotgun. You dont run a subgun wide open like your movie fantasies. If 50 rounds isnt enough for you to get the job done, turn it around and push the trigger! I guess the SS should turn in their P90's since they are impossible to reload LOL.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Apologies for insulting your experience GRIZ, I am thankful for your service to our nation and your experiences and I was completely out of line to call them "tacticool".

 

Okay we can move on from there.

 

Also: I tend to learn a lot more about stuff via disagreement than by simply taking things at face value. But your experiences aside, I had some major gripes with your reasoning here.

 

I'll give you some free advice. If you said above a lot of questions instead of gripes it makes you more inquisitive than argumentative. You can get a lot further by asking questions rather than disagreeing with people. If you keep arguing you give people the impression you cannot comprehend what they are saying, they will become frustrated and walk away without you learning much. If you are inquisitive and ask questions instead of arguing or disagreeing with what they say you will learn a lot more. Most of us have learned what we have by listening not disagreeing. If you want to disagree you need to have some basis for your position on a topic. All the other respondents in this thread state their choice, maybe mention why they made this choice, and maybe state why they didn't choose something else. You said:

 

I don't see how any of the other options beats this...

 

semi-auto handgun: hard to aim, limited firepower

revolver: capacity blows chunks

shotgun: pretty awesome, limited capacity (typically 5 or 6 unless you really rice it up)

carbine/rifle: getting there...

 

You can kill an intruder in your living room without waking the kids or neighbors,

 

That last remark seems rather blase about killing someone and may haunt you later.

 

 

You also have to stop insulting people by telling them they are all wrong you are right and saying things like:

 

I hardly consider my suggestion a "video game" one. But if you lack the imagination to truly envision a great home defense weapon, than do tell: what would you consider the best? And why?

 

some folks here (who have never shot full-auto) have some Hollywood notions on the matter and sound just like the Brady Bunch folks who want to further diminish our rights.

 

Frankly, the lack of imagination is just an extension of the typical Anti-Gun thinking... you really can't imagine a subgun for HD? What next? Can't imagine a possible need for an AR-15? Or a semi-auto shotgun? Or more than 10 rounds in a magazine?

 

But we as a nation, and by an even greater extent as subjects in the Socialist State of New Jersey are brainwashed into thinking that semi-autos = ok, but full-auto = bad.

 

If we want to win the fight for our rights, we need to dispense with this mindset, and assume all things are fair game for use for whatever we desire.

 

See what I mean? You keep saying I'm right the rest of you are wrong. I can honestly say you are trying to pin things on the wrong crowd. You also have to read or listen to them. You're not doing that you have only been wanting to argue.

 

What makes the ballistics of a full-auto 5.56 or 9mm any different than the ballistics of semi-auto 5.56 or 9mm?

 

If you're talking about they same barrel length, none. Subguns have 9-12" barrels where they can gain more velocity. A 5.56 will penetrate less than a 9mm coming out of a subgun (read previous comment talking about FBI tests). The overpenetration issue is if you miss, which you still can do even if you know how to control it, you have 2,3, or more rounds overpentrating instead of one.

 

What makes retention of a FN P90 or an MP5 different from a CX-4 carbine or a pump-action shotgun, or any other 2-handed long-gun?

 

A MP5 is shorter than than any 16"+ pistol caliber carbine, M4, or any standard long gun. The longer barrel give your opponent the leverage advantage making it easier to take away from you. Simple physics, the lever being everything in front of your trigger hand and your trigger hand the fulcrum. Other than that the MP5 has no distinct retention advantage over any other subgun configured similarly. If you add a surpressor to the MP5 you get its length near that of a shotgun or carbine so retention

 

The P90 beats out all the subguns in rentention because of its bullpup configuration and short barrel. The length is only about 20". If your opponent tries to grab it he only has a couple of inches at the muzzle to grab it. All the leverage is to your advantage here. Shane also said:

 

I think it would be easier to take a pistol or non bullpup rifle from me compared to the P90. Your basically holding on to a pair of circles at the FRONT of the rifle. Thats a metric ton of control

 

I'd tend to agree with him.

 

What makes a P90 and MP5 better for fire control is they fire from a closed bolt. The P90 is a blowback firing from a closed bolt and a MP5 is a delayed roller locking bolt. You don't have a big heavy bolt slamming that bolt forward and firing the round as you do with most subguns like the MAC, Carl Gustaf, M1 Thompson. STEN, MP40, and others.

 

Aside from a pistol, what else on this list is going to be more compact than a SBR subgun? It seems to me that the same reasoning that is used to bash full-auto suppressed subguns can simply boil down to an argument of long guns vs. hand guns, correct?

 

You need to get terminology straight first. There is no such thing as a SBR subgun. A SBR is a short barrel rifle firing a rifle round. Subguns fire pistol rounds. The advantages of a 5.56 rifle is tremendous stopping power with limited penetration in building materials compared to subgun. A shotgun also has tremendous stopping power but limited penetration due to the ballistic inefficiency of the round ball. 00 buck penetrates about the same as a 9mm or 45 ACP from a pistol. You can see what penetrates what here:

 

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/theboxotruth.htm

 

Unfortunately there are no subguns used there.

 

I mean, I get it: suppressed subguns have drawbacks, just like every other weapons system listed. But in comparison to other long(er) guns, the biggest difference is that they have can have a suppressor (which adds length/bulk to a firearm at the expense of protecting your vision/hearing), and that they have an extra spot on the FCG that let's you shoot multiple bullets with one trigger pull.

 

Surpressors are made for everything except revolvers and make any gun less compact. You are not going to go instantly deaf and in a handgun or shotgun you can experiment and find lower flash ammo (9mm WW Silvertip only emits a tiny blue flame from a 4" barrel).

 

The multiple bullets with one trigger pull is the issue! You don't seem to get it. Accounting for every round you fire. You don't seem to think you would ever miss even if you are well trained with the subgun. If you can't use a proper stance with a subgun (stock in your chest between your shoulder and centerline, elbows tucked in, and shoulders hunched over the gun yours, mione or anyone's accuracy and control with that subgun is down the toilet.

 

Even if I owned a full-auto weapon, does that mean I can only use it in full-auto? Nope. It's select-fire for a reason, and you can switch firing modes to fit whichever situation you're in.

 

"Imagine" the scenario of you're right handed and trying to locate the intruder and he comes up on your left side, slightly behind you with your Louisville Slugger. No time to turn that subgun or long gun. Handguns win that. One issue that hasn't been addressed is using one handed if you have lost use of one arm. Say he swings that bat, you dodge it but get hit in the shoulder. You fall between the coffee table and the sofa. Handguns win again. If you have room you can get that shotgun or rifle on target. Use your subgun one handed and if you connect with your first round there are those others that will miss. Switch to semi you say? You really think that's going to be on your mind when someone is trying to kill or seriously injure you in your living room?

 

I guess that is what really irks me about this thread... why are folks bashing a firearm because it has one or two additional features than the ones they traditionally own?

 

You didn't read what I said before:

 

law enforcement agencies really have little practical use for full auto or burst fire weapons.

 

That doesn't mean I think the police or regular people shouldn't own them. The uses for full or burst fire weapons are:

 

1. Surpressive fire thsi includes spraying the interior of a room to clear it

2. Getting rounds into a fleeting target (shooting at an airplane or other vehicle)

3. Multiple rounds in a target at greater than shotgun ranges

 

Only the military does 1. The police may have use for 2 say at a roadblock. That leaves 3. How big is your house? Is your living room 100' long?

 

As for the last tidbit, I agree some reasonable restrictions should exist to the 2A... but seeing as it's one of these fancy Constitutional Amendments, such restrictions should only exist in the form of additional Amendments to either repeal or modify the definition of what arms we're allowed to keep an bear.

 

The Constitution is an entire package like I said. You don't write Amendments to interpret amendments. Any interpretation is left to the Supreme Court of the United States. Sometimes their decision opens up a whole bunch of other questions like what is reasonable but that's the way it is.

 

What I don't get is why the reasons that an FA Subgun is a bad choice for HD, don't apply to other firearms? Like a shotgun? Or a rifle? Or even a pistol/revolver?

 

I think all your questions are answered. If you have more go ahead.

 

1. Excessive force can be applied to any scenario where the DA can argue it.... every bullet you shoot in self-defense has a lawyer attached to it...

 

Which is why a FA is not a good idea, too bullets to account for.

 

2. Over-penetrations is dependent on the caliber, not the firing mode. This is a valid argument when comparing the pros/cons of a rifle round, pistol round, or shotgun shell. It has nothing to do with FA.

 

It also depends on the velocity generated by the longer barrel of the subgun. As I've said a 9mm out of a subgun penetrates more than a handgun (9mm or 45), buckshot, or 5.56 in building materials. A pistol caliber carbine has the same penetration issues but only one round per pull.

 

3. This has to due with the perception of full-auto. Most people don't even know they're legal in the USA (local laws apply though). But the same can be said if you used a mean looking tactical AR-15 or a pump-shotty with 100 shells and a bayonet strapped to it.

 

You aren't going to change that by bitching you change that by education and reasoning and people can still think what they want, we have no "Thought Police" like in "1984".

 

A good read on the matter is this article by Massad Ayoob: "F you and your high powered rifle"

 

This article really answers a lot of the arguments you put up for FA.

[GRIZ 3,369]

I will speak on the ballistics question and what makes the P90 different.

 

Shane I was talking about ballistics (interior, exteriors, and terminal) but being that you brought up cyclic rate it is worthy of note. The P90 fires a bit faster than a MP5 (900 vs 800 rpm IIRC). The higher rate of fire is easier to control because:

 

1. The lightweight bullet makes the P90 recoil about half of a MP5.

2. Like a MP5 the P90 fires from a closed bolt.

3. The hands forward bullpup design enhances control and retention.

 

When you get accustomed to the trigger you can easily shoot 2-3 rd bursts. You can control longer bursts due to the low recoil so a 12 rd burst isn't needed. You need to "pump" the trigger if you want to put a lot of rounds on target under control.

 

In training we would have the student shoot a 1, 2, or 3 rd burst on call with a full auto MP5. They had to hit a 3" circle at 7 yds. Really easy once you practice it. I used to put on a demonstration showing trigger control with a full auto MP5. I would dump a 30 rd mag by pumping the trigger shooting at a 5" circle at 7 yds. I would do this in under 3 seconds. I think my record was 2.6 sec. That puts it pretty close to the cyclic rate.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

As usual Ray, you speak without knowing what your talking aboutand the usual lack of reading comprehension thrown in. I would place a rather LARGE bet that I could reload a P90 before you could reload your shotgun. You dont run a subgun wide open like your movie fantasies. If 50 rounds isnt enough for you to get the job done, turn it around and push the trigger! I guess the SS should turn in their P90's since they are impossible to reload LOL.

 

Oh Shane, your so funny!

 

Were talking about home defense here right? Not defending the president in a motorcade. And I can throw a round in the chamber of a pump quick enough.

[Shane45 807]

Good info Griz, I was just trying to illustrate the #'s game contrast in response to DevAds question about ballistics.

"What makes the ballistics of a full-auto 5.56 or 9mm any different than the ballistics of semi-auto 5.56 or 9mm?" 'DA

 

 

 

Yes Ray we are LOOSELY talking about home defence but if you READ my post you would have seen I was miopically focused on "THEORETICAL" best with NO consideration to practicality, legality, or training. But I dont mind continuing the bench racing convo of shotty vs P90. So you suggest that pulling one big item out of a hole and stuffing 1 big item back into a hole and racking a slide is considerably harder, so much so you deem it impossible, compared to retrieving 6 or 7 small items in your hand and stuffing 1 into a side hole and 5 more up a shute! You have some funny ideas about human mechanics my friend.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

Don't be surprised to see the P90 replace the Hk MP5 .40's on the NJSP SWAT team fairly soon.

[Shane45 807]

The MP5's are being replaced everywhere. They have simply reached a point where they are economically unsustainable. When you are able to locate replacement parts they are in the stratosphere! That and certain departments that shall remain unnamed cant seem to keep the 9mm ammo out of their 40's! LOL.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

The MP5's are being replaced everywhere. They have simply reached a point where they are economically unsustainable. When you are able to locate replacement parts they are in the stratosphere! That and certain departments that shall remain unnamed cant seem to keep the 9mm ammo out of their 40's! LOL.

 

What are they being replaced with usually? UMP-9s/45s? Or a short barreled M4 platform?

[Shane45 807]

From what I have seen it seems that the M4 is getting the nod. The UMP's are pretty much in the same boat as the MP5's, parts are few and far in between.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Apologies for insulting your experience GRIZ, I am thankful for your service to our nation and your experiences and I was completely out of line to call them "tacticool".

 

Okay we can move on from there.

 

Also: I tend to learn a lot more about stuff via disagreement than by simply taking things at face value. But your experiences aside, I had some major gripes with your reasoning here.

 

I'll give you some free advice. If you said above a lot of questions instead of gripes it makes you more inquisitive than argumentative. You can get a lot further by asking questions rather than disagreeing with people. If you keep arguing you give people the impression you cannot comprehend what they are saying, they will become frustrated and walk away without you learning much. If you are inquisitive and ask questions instead of arguing or disagreeing with what they say you will learn a lot more. Most of us have learned what we have by listening not disagreeing. If you want to disagree you need to have some basis for your position on a topic. All the other respondents in this thread state their choice, maybe mention why they made this choice, and maybe state why they didn't choose something else. You said:

 

I don't see how any of the other options beats this...

 

semi-auto handgun: hard to aim, limited firepower

revolver: capacity blows chunks

shotgun: pretty awesome, limited capacity (typically 5 or 6 unless you really rice it up)

carbine/rifle: getting there...

 

You can kill an intruder in your living room without waking the kids or neighbors,

 

That last remark seems rather blase about killing someone and may haunt you later.

 

Possibly. But that just goes to show how quiet a firearm can be.

 

You also have to stop insulting people by telling them they are all wrong you are right and saying things like:

 

I hardly consider my suggestion a "video game" one. But if you lack the imagination to truly envision a great home defense weapon, than do tell: what would you consider the best? And why?

 

some folks here (who have never shot full-auto) have some Hollywood notions on the matter and sound just like the Brady Bunch folks who want to further diminish our rights.

 

Frankly, the lack of imagination is just an extension of the typical Anti-Gun thinking... you really can't imagine a subgun for HD? What next? Can't imagine a possible need for an AR-15? Or a semi-auto shotgun? Or more than 10 rounds in a magazine?

 

But we as a nation, and by an even greater extent as subjects in the Socialist State of New Jersey are brainwashed into thinking that semi-autos = ok, but full-auto = bad.

 

If we want to win the fight for our rights, we need to dispense with this mindset, and assume all things are fair game for use for whatever we desire.

 

See what I mean? You keep saying I'm right the rest of you are wrong. I can honestly say you are trying to pin things on the wrong crowd. You also have to read or listen to them. You're not doing that you have only been wanting to argue.

 

I'm simply pointing out fallacies in others' arguments and statements, and rightfully so in many instances. Apparently for some folks here, when something has select-fire and a suppressor, it goes from being a valid defensive firearm to some sort of death machine.

 

One even commented that they would rather not have someone be their neighbor if they owned an select-fire weapon and used it in the defense of their life. I've seen many similar arguments echoed in the past in regards to handguns, shotguns, and even EBRs.

 

What makes the ballistics of a full-auto 5.56 or 9mm any different than the ballistics of semi-auto 5.56 or 9mm?

 

If you're talking about they same barrel length, none. Subguns have 9-12" barrels where they can gain more velocity. A 5.56 will penetrate less than a 9mm coming out of a subgun (read previous comment talking about FBI tests). The overpenetration issue is if you miss, which you still can do even if you know how to control it, you have 2,3, or more rounds overpentrating instead of one.

 

What makes retention of a FN P90 or an MP5 different from a CX-4 carbine or a pump-action shotgun, or any other 2-handed long-gun?

 

A MP5 is shorter than than any 16"+ pistol caliber carbine, M4, or any standard long gun. The longer barrel give your opponent the leverage advantage making it easier to take away from you. Simple physics, the lever being everything in front of your trigger hand and your trigger hand the fulcrum. Other than that the MP5 has no distinct retention advantage over any other subgun configured similarly. If you add a surpressor to the MP5 you get its length near that of a shotgun or carbine so retention

 

The P90 beats out all the subguns in rentention because of its bullpup configuration and short barrel. The length is only about 20". If your opponent tries to grab it he only has a couple of inches at the muzzle to grab it. All the leverage is to your advantage here. Shane also said:

 

I think it would be easier to take a pistol or non bullpup rifle from me compared to the P90. Your basically holding on to a pair of circles at the FRONT of the rifle. Thats a metric ton of control

 

I'd tend to agree with him.

 

What makes a P90 and MP5 better for fire control is they fire from a closed bolt. The P90 is a blowback firing from a closed bolt and a MP5 is a delayed roller locking bolt. You don't have a big heavy bolt slamming that bolt forward and firing the round as you do with most subguns like the MAC, Carl Gustaf, M1 Thompson. STEN, MP40, and others.

 

Throw a suppressor on a P90 and you run into the same issues as throwing on onto an MP5.

 

Also, one should not discount advances in the field of subguns as well. KRISS SMGs, MP7s, etc. Imagine what other advances would be made if subguns can be tailored to HD or a market suddenly existed for them.

 

Aside from a pistol, what else on this list is going to be more compact than a SBR subgun? It seems to me that the same reasoning that is used to bash full-auto suppressed subguns can simply boil down to an argument of long guns vs. hand guns, correct?

 

You need to get terminology straight first. There is no such thing as a SBR subgun. A SBR is a short barrel rifle firing a rifle round. Subguns fire pistol rounds. The advantages of a 5.56 rifle is tremendous stopping power with limited penetration in building materials compared to subgun. A shotgun also has tremendous stopping power but limited penetration due to the ballistic inefficiency of the round ball. 00 buck penetrates about the same as a 9mm or 45 ACP from a pistol. You can see what penetrates what here:

 

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/theboxotruth.htm

 

Unfortunately there are no subguns used there.

 

Great, thanks. That was already quite apparent in my earlier posts. Basically a select-fire weapon isn't going to magically enhance the penetration abilities of the rounds they fire.

I mean, I get it: suppressed subguns have drawbacks, just like every other weapons system listed. But in comparison to other long(er) guns, the biggest difference is that they have can have a suppressor (which adds length/bulk to a firearm at the expense of protecting your vision/hearing), and that they have an extra spot on the FCG that let's you shoot multiple bullets with one trigger pull.

 

Surpressors are made for everything except revolvers and make any gun less compact. You are not going to go instantly deaf and in a handgun or shotgun you can experiment and find lower flash ammo (9mm WW Silvertip only emits a tiny blue flame from a 4" barrel).

 

But why risk the hearing loss if you don't have to? Especially if you're going to be using a suppressor on a rifle platform for HD? Seems to me it would be common sense to have one on any long-weapon regardless of it's cartridge sizing (shotguns excluded).

 

As for adding bulk, it wouldn't necessarily be the case with certain weapons platforms as you mentioned earlier (P90 for example).

 

The multiple bullets with one trigger pull is the issue! You don't seem to get it. Accounting for every round you fire. You don't seem to think you would ever miss even if you are well trained with the subgun. If you can't use a proper stance with a subgun (stock in your chest between your shoulder and centerline, elbows tucked in, and shoulders hunched over the gun yours, mione or anyone's accuracy and control with that subgun is down the toilet.

 

I do think I will miss. Semi-auto or even full-auto, you will probably need multiple shots to take down an opponent. Rarely does a guy simply go down with one shot, nor does that shot automatically hit the target.

 

As for proper stance and grip, that's merely a training/equipment issue and is applicable to any other firearms platform. This being an important point that applies to all firearms.

 

Even if I owned a full-auto weapon, does that mean I can only use it in full-auto? Nope. It's select-fire for a reason, and you can switch firing modes to fit whichever situation you're in.

 

"Imagine" the scenario of you're right handed and trying to locate the intruder and he comes up on your left side, slightly behind you with your Louisville Slugger. No time to turn that subgun or long gun. Handguns win that. One issue that hasn't been addressed is using one handed if you have lost use of one arm. Say he swings that bat, you dodge it but get hit in the shoulder. You fall between the coffee table and the sofa. Handguns win again. If you have room you can get that shotgun or rifle on target. Use your subgun one handed and if you connect with your first round there are those others that will miss. Switch to semi you say? You really think that's going to be on your mind when someone is trying to kill or seriously injure you in your living room?

 

Baseball bat scenario, nice... How does the handgun instantly win in either of those? What's stopping you from dropping your handgun, or getting hit in your other shoulder? What about using your "long-gun" to defend yourself against the bat? If the only option is to dodge, then blocking may be an alternative. Though then, you may actually have damage to your weapon and it may not even function. How about holding up at the top of your staircase/doorway with a suppressed sub-machine gun with a light/red-dot on it and let the intruder try to get through your own personal death funnel? Taking on someone who is waiting in ambush is already a bad deal regardless of what you carry.

 

As for which firing mode that it would be in, does it really matter if your on the ground being beaten? Nope. But in other scenarios, it may make the difference. But that's the nice thing about hypothetical situations... you can do whatever you want with them to prove a point.

 

I guess that is what really irks me about this thread... why are folks bashing a firearm because it has one or two additional features than the ones they traditionally own?

 

You didn't read what I said before:

 

law enforcement agencies really have little practical use for full auto or burst fire weapons.

 

That doesn't mean I think the police or regular people shouldn't own them. The uses for full or burst fire weapons are:

 

1. Surpressive fire thsi includes spraying the interior of a room to clear it

2. Getting rounds into a fleeting target (shooting at an airplane or other vehicle)

3. Multiple rounds in a target at greater than shotgun ranges

 

Only the military does 1. The police may have use for 2 say at a roadblock. That leaves 3. How big is your house? Is your living room 100' long?

 

I'm sorry, but 3 doesn't really pan out. Why is full-auto only limited to ranges beyond that of a shotgun? What's limiting you from using it at ranges you would normally use a shotgun? In that sense, it confers similar advantages to a shotgun, without the disadvantages at long range.

 

And what about 2? What about a charging opponent instead of a fleeing one? Wouldn't you want to put as many rounds into them as fast as possible?

 

As for the last tidbit, I agree some reasonable restrictions should exist to the 2A... but seeing as it's one of these fancy Constitutional Amendments, such restrictions should only exist in the form of additional Amendments to either repeal or modify the definition of what arms we're allowed to keep an bear.

 

The Constitution is an entire package like I said. You don't write Amendments to interpret amendments. Any interpretation is left to the Supreme Court of the United States. Sometimes their decision opens up a whole bunch of other questions like what is reasonable but that's the way it is.

 

Disagree. The amendment process exists to either repeal existing amendments, add new rights to be protected, or to modify existing rights. The right to vote, for example, was expanded upon via Constitutional Amendment. Not via SCOTUS.

 

If you want to ban all guns, fine. Repeal the 2nd Amendment. If you want to ban machine guns, nuclear, and biological weapons, repeal the 2nd and replace it, with one which narrows the definition of arms, or add an amendment which reserves the right to own a certain subset of arms while excluding others.

 

Leaving it to a bunch of un-elected judges is dangerous for our personal liberties, as their interpretation of the Constitution is dependent on the makeup of the court and who put them in power. As good as the courts have been to the 2A, they can easily be just as bad and set things back quite a bit.

 

What I don't get is why the reasons that an FA Subgun is a bad choice for HD, don't apply to other firearms? Like a shotgun? Or a rifle? Or even a pistol/revolver?

 

I think all your questions are answered. If you have more go ahead.

 

I don't think they've been answered quite clearly at all, and in many instances just boil down to a long gun vs. hand gun debate.

 

1. Excessive force can be applied to any scenario where the DA can argue it.... every bullet you shoot in self-defense has a lawyer attached to it...

 

Which is why a FA is not a good idea, too bullets to account for.

 

Again, it really depends on the DA and how much of a bone he has to pick with you. Apparently, lighting a guy up with 9 shot burst is a war crime, but a well placed head shot is not. As they say: "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

 

2. Over-penetrations is dependent on the caliber, not the firing mode. This is a valid argument when comparing the pros/cons of a rifle round, pistol round, or shotgun shell. It has nothing to do with FA.

 

It also depends on the velocity generated by the longer barrel of the subgun. As I've said a 9mm out of a subgun penetrates more than a handgun (9mm or 45), buckshot, or 5.56 in building materials. A pistol caliber carbine has the same penetration issues but only one round per pull.

 

Yep, that point has been made quite clear.

 

3. This has to due with the perception of full-auto. Most people don't even know they're legal in the USA (local laws apply though). But the same can be said if you used a mean looking tactical AR-15 or a pump-shotty with 100 shells and a bayonet strapped to it.

 

You aren't going to change that by bitching you change that by education and reasoning and people can still think what they want, we have no "Thought Police" like in "1984".

 

No, you change it by telling people it's a legal and viable means of defense. If the jury is properly instructed, it shouldn't matter if you used a Stoeger over-under to kill someone breaking in, or if you used an M-4 Carbine.

 

A good read on the matter is this article by Massad Ayoob: "F you and your high powered rifle"

 

This article really answers a lot of the arguments you put up for FA.

 

If anything, it goes to show the amount of grief a prosecutor with a political agenda can put someone through regardless of the weapon. As for using the FA, it seems to have done the job quite well when killing the one assailant.

 

It's not the weapon that was the problem, but the legal system and the dopes who work it who made all the trouble for the FA user. A kinder judge and a more rational prosecutor would've ensured such a case would have never reached a Grand Jury.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Good info Griz, I was just trying to illustrate the #'s game contrast in response to DevAds question about ballistics.

"What makes the ballistics of a full-auto 5.56 or 9mm any different than the ballistics of semi-auto 5.56 or 9mm?" 'DA

 

 

 

Yes Ray we are LOOSELY talking about home defence but if you READ my post you would have seen I was miopically focused on "THEORETICAL" best with NO consideration to practicality, legality, or training. But I dont mind continuing the bench racing convo of shotty vs P90. So you suggest that pulling one big item out of a hole and stuffing 1 big item back into a hole and racking a slide is considerably harder, so much so you deem it impossible, compared to retrieving 6 or 7 small items in your hand and stuffing 1 into a side hole and 5 more up a shute! You have some funny ideas about human mechanics my friend.

 

Wha?

 

If I had to go a full auto SBR rifle then it wouldn't be a 22. AK in 7.62 with a 75 round drum and SBR'ed. Since we gonna go big, mind as well get the greatest rifle of all time and be done with it.

[Shane45 807]

Thats what makes you Grand Poo Bah Mall Ninja extrordinaire Ray! Because all Mallinja's know heavy unwieldy weapons are great for CQB!

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Thats what makes you Grand Poo Bah Mall Ninja extrordinaire Ray! Because all Mallinja's know heavy unwieldy weapons are great for CQB!

 

Wait a minute, you want to use a machine gun for home defense and I use a pump shotgun and I'M the mall ninja? Think about that for a second Shane. And an SBR AK doesn't weigh all that much, even with that 75 round drum. And I'm not carrying around the battlefield, just in my house.

[heaterbob 53]

Wha?

 

AK in 7.62 with a 75 round drum and SBR'ed. Since we gonna go big, mind as well get the greatest rifle of all time and be done with it.

 

 

coroner might need a shop vac to pick that guy up. i would bet that the average number of shots fired in a hd situation would be 1 or 2