DevsAdvocate

I know some folks who were caught in the early parts of the storm where there was flash flooding. When it's night time and your driving on a poorly lit road, you may not see the water quick enough to stop before entering it. However, if you woke up at home on Sunday when it was obvious that there was flooding and road closures, AND still went out for a drive... well that's just dumb and dangerous.

Yeah, this storm was definitely not over-hyped... just the effects were seen more in areas where they weren't expected. It appears that the storm surge didn't harm much in NJ along the coasts (not to say there wasn't damage though), but the flooding is sure as hell becoming a problem for inland communities and some rivers are still rising as the waters drain into them.

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.

Morristown is all jacked up. The JCP&L substation down the street from me (Ridgedale Ave/Abbet Ave) was completely flooded. The water receded pretty quickly, but they gotta dry all the stuff before checking it out and flipping the switch. No power until then.

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.

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.

This year alone, I bought the following: -Glock 21SF -RIA 1911 -S&W 22A -BCM AR-15 (traditional) -BCM AR-15 (tacticool) -WASR-10 -WASR-10 -Ruger 10/22 Sold: -AR-15 (Stag-Arms/AGP lower) Damn... I think I have a gun buying problem...

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.

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.

GRIZ, no offense, but all your basically saying is that with training, you can overcome any firearms' potential drawbacks. Whether it's a wheelgun shooter overcoming the obvious limitations in capacity and trigger pull, or the limitations in using a suppressed NFA SMG. 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. 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. Bursts are easy to control, and bringing the firearm to bear was quite trivial (it's already so short combined with a red-dot). I may not have the "tacticool" experience you have, but if I were given one and only one option for HD, I would take the best one in all scenarios. A full-auto SMG, suppressed gives the defender the greatest benefit with the least amount of drawback.

But the thread isn't about home defense itself, it's about the best firearm. So if we're looking purely at that, then one must consider the best firearm overall. Despite what GRIZ says, I still feel that the solution I put forward is probably the best all round one in terms of ease of use and a complete package.

Again, I stipulated in an ideal world where the unconstitutional legal barriers to owning an NFA weapon were simply not there. In terms of parts alone, a brand new select-fire M-16 is not much more expensive than your run of the mill semi-auto. What drives the cost up are the regulations, tax stamps, and oh yeah: limited supply thanks to the Hughe's Amendment to the 1986 FOPA. That NFA wouldn't cost you $15k if the law were on the right side of the US Constitution.

Glocks are made in Smyrna, GA no? And FN pistols are made in Colombia, SC right?

Again, the difference between FA/SA aside, does it really matter if 12ga buckshot tears through your walls? 9mm/.45acp from a handgun? A 5.56 or 7.62 round? Or a .357/.44magnum? Using any gun, you have the potential to miss your target and hit something you didn't intend. FA or SA. So what's the big difference then? Full-Auto is actually quite controllable with the right setup, but 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. "Why do you need an AR-15???" "Why do you need more than 10 bullets???" "Why do you need semi-autos???"

As the video I posted shows, the lack of control is simply not true. As for shooting up your entire house, the same is true with a shotgun, and more so with a rifle. A pistol caliber in .45acp shooting subsonics however...

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?

But for real Ray Ray, what's wrong with my suggestion for "best Home defense"? Outside of the obvious legal and financial disadvantages... but my assumption is that in an ideal firearms world, such items wouldn't be as restricted as they are.

Not if you practice. Worse comes to worse, it's a select-fire weapon, and you can always go semi-auto. 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... Oh yeah: shoot any one of those indoors and prepare to be deaf and blind. An NFA sub-machine gun with a suppressor and the other important accouterments has all of the advantages for a wide variety of home invasion scenarios. It's quiet, it's dark, it can sling some heavy lead a short distance, and the recoil is pretty light.

The thread is: "best firearm for personal defense" Your home is close quarters environment where your potential invader can easily be within breathing distance of you in a few foot steps. It's also gonna be dark. You're also gonna be tired (if it's a 'bump in the night scenario'), and you're gonna want all your gun stuff in one place where you can reach it. You also won't be wearing hearing protection either. Dunno about you, but if I had a choice, I would suppress all my guns that are intended for HD for that last reason alone. Shooting without hearing protection in an enclosed environment pretty much guarantees deafness. Also... guns tend to have a nice little muzzle flash which may ruin your night vision (aka your eyes adjusted to the dark). Full auto/burst fire is an awesome feature for a subgun... it kinda gives you some advantages of a shotgun, without the whole "shotgun" part as it lets you put rounds down range into a target at will. Like I said: "in an ideal world"... you know, one where the 2nd Amendment is respected, and folks can easily pick up an MP5 Navy suppressed.

Niiiiiiceeee!!!!

I'm moving away from using 15/30s and would like to have build a lightweight chest rig to hold a couple of 15/20 style AR-15 magazines. My current rig, a Maxpedition chest rig, seems to be more suited for 15/30 type magazines than anything smaller. Does anyone make a good MOLLE pouch for 20-rd AR-15 mags?

Ideally, the best firearm for HD is an NFA fully-automatic or burst fire 9mm/45acp sub-machine gun fitted with a suppressor, lightweight stock, red-dot, weapon light, sling, and 30 rounds of sub-sonic hollow point ammunition. You can kill an intruder in your living room without waking the kids or neighbors, and without going deaf/blind shooting indoors without eye/ear protection.

Carbines have my vote. They're easy to use, easy to aim, and (in all places except NJ) they have a greater capacity (30 rounds in most instances). The only disadvantage is that you need two hands to operate them. But given the variety of light mounts and other options, it's a minor issue.

They allow 2 now... $25 each. However, you all must use the same bench and target stand.

1. Agreed. But for HD, why make things harder on yourself? 2. This is true... but the vast majority of revolvers are either 5,6, or 7 shooters. You're average full-sized 9mm holds 15-17 rounds. You can even find .45acp that holds 13 rounds (Glock 21 and others). Either way, the capacity advantage is definitely with the semi-auto if you choose the right one. When you're running around the house at night, you're not gonna be wearing a pistol belt with mag holders either. 3. True, but the reload with a semi-auto is more efficient, and gives you more rounds to shoot. Going back to capacity, a revolver would have to reload twice to keep up with a 13-15 round semi-auto magazine. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws in using a revolver for HD. You have all these disadvantages with 0 real upside. I love wheel-guns, but they have been fully displaced by modern, reliable, semi-autos in almost every role outside of cowboy action shooting.