Home Defense Gun 2.0

[moda0306]

Hey folks,

I couldn't find the original thread, so I thought I'd have you guys sound off on a theory a buddy of mine and me were bantering about the other night.

Our theory was that $ for $, a .22 calibur handgun and .22 calibur rifle are great, great guns to have.  A few things we loved.

1) If we are hunting, either casually or in a SHTF scenario, for birds or even deer, our shotguns will be best (birds) or suffice (deer).

2) They have SUPER cheap ammo, which lends itself to stocking up, and a lot of fun practice shooting, compared to having to pay for .44 ammo or AR-15 ammo.

3) They usually have very large "magazines."  I've seen a .22 revolver. I own a .22 pump Remington.  I have a "mag" (or whatever the chamber is called) that holds 14 rounds.  I think I saw a revolver with 12 rounds.  In a scenario where you're doing a lot of missing for each hit... what's more important?  Hitting someone with a big round, or having a twice as many small rounds to hit him with before you have to reload?

4) While they aren't powerful, my friend was saying they're particularly deadly since the bullet "ricochets" within your body.  Sounded weird but I've heard this from others as well.

5) Quieter, for whatever it's worth.


I realize an AR-15 or a .44 mag are probably better in some respects, but I think there are some distinct advantages to having a .22 in the real world, or at the very least aren't nearly the pansy option that they may seem.  I'm no gun expert, though.

Sound off on your opinions...

[MWKXJ]

I wouldn't trust my life with a .22; a home-invader might not even know they're being fired at and "press on".

A lever action in .357/.38 has the power, practicality, and frugality needed for a home defence gun.  Indestructible, cheap to shoot thus easy to gain familiarity with, can be topped-off at any time, nondescript, and their carbine-length feels great in the hand, hence practical in a low-light or dark situations.  Try a Marlin 336 or Winchester Model 94 used from Gunbroker. 



Comparison of models

A shotgun is effective and guaranteed lethal with certain shot.  The mere sound of racking can cause intruders to fly in terror.  Shotguns do tend to be long and unwieldy though, and sawing-off shotguns for easier indoor handling is both illegal and likely to be damning in the ensuing murder trial.  Reconsider a lever action carbine.

Forget pistols; they take skill to shoot in the daylight let alone when stirred out of bed the middle of the night.  A .44 is just too much; you'll probably kill the neighbor's neighbors.  AR-15's will likewise send their .223 sailing through sheetrock, but more importantly, whether rightly or wrongly, possess looks which incriminate their owner.

[Mountaineer]

Home defense:  Remington 870 pump, 12 gauge, 00 buckshot by far first choice if you are minimally skilled; second choice if you need a handgun and are minimally skilled, a high quality 357 magnum revolver but shooting 38 special +P defense loads.  45 ACP Colt Government model or equivalent (no target types, go for the looser fitting Government model) pistol if you are willing to practice with a box of ammo at least monthly; use self-defense type ammo such as Federal HydroShok.  Ammo cost is insignificant for your stated purpose.

... Mountaineer

Edit:  If you are really serious about the topic, get a copy of "The Truth About Self Protection" by Massad Ayoob.  It is a bit dated but still the best book on the subject in my opinion.  It goes into more depth on a wide variety of self protection topics than you would have ever thought existed. 

i am still a big fan of the carbine/pistol combo (i believe i/we discussed it in the original thread) the advantage of a short barreled. easy to use, accurate, rifle loaded with a pistol caliber round (i like 45 ACP but others are available) with the added benefit of being able to have mag's that are interchangeable with your hand gun.. not to mention there is less chance of shooting through multiple walls, a problem that all rifle calibers above 22 have.

[Pointedstick]

I feel like a .22 would have to be full auto. I wouldn't want to rely on that. My opinion is that it's hard to beat a .223 AR carbine for home defense, for quite a few reasons:

1. A few .223s will put down anyone
2. The gun is lightweight and compact; anyone can use it effectively
3. The recoil is extremely low so your fire rate can be extremely high if necessary
4. With a standard capacity magazine, you're almost completely assured of not running out of ammunition during the engagement, and reloading is fast
5. .223 loses energy very quickly, so after passing through a few sheets of drywall, it's no longer lethal (still injurious, of course), and brick will probably stop it from leaving the house
6. .223 is the cheapest full-power rifle round, so practice is still pretty cheap

[Pointedstick]

Hey folks,

4) While they aren't powerful, my friend was saying they're particularly deadly since the bullet "ricochets" within your body. Sounded weird but I've heard this from others as well.

not sure that the "in your body" part is true or would provide "stopping power" even if it was, i suspect the ricochet idea comes from mob hit men and slaughterhouses, both of which use (or have used at one time) a 22 to the skull from close range for quick kills... at close range and with a skull to confine a 22 that has enough power to punch its way in but not enough to exit so the ricochet effect can work..

An important myth to explode is the idea that there is any safe round that will not overpenetrate typical residential construction. All bullets that will take someone down will go through multiple sheets of drywall. .22, 9mm, .45, .38 special, .357 magnum, .223, .308, etc. They all will. The reason why I prefer .223 is because it loses energy and momentum faster than all the other ones because it has a very high speed to weight ratio. Weight is what allows bullets in flight to keep their momentum when passing through barriers; heavy bullets traveling slowly will maintain more of their energy when passing through barriers than light bullets traveling fast. This is why the military wants to use .308 or something bigger than .223 for shooting through cover; the small bullets lose too much power when they blast through obstructions to reliably kill whoever's on the other side. But that's exactly what you want in a home defense situation! You want any rounds that go too far to have a better chance of injuring than killing anyone unfortunate enough to get hit by an overpenetrating bullet.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-t ... and-walls/

And many more! Browse this site. It's fascinating.

[coinstar]

Few misc points for you Moda:

-If you don't hunt now, you won't be hunting if TSHTF. The equivalent would be someone saying "I've never taken any medical classes or anatomy/physiology, but if TSHTF, I have a first aid kit and I will become a doctor because people will need doctors." It won't be any easier when TSHTF and you're hunting for real. If you want to learn, learn now.

-FBI does testing on ammo and has minimum penetration standards. If ammo of a certain brand/caliber doesn't penetrate deeply enough through ballistic gel, then it's not an effective round against people. Simply shooting someone with any bullet won't stop them. Hell, even shooting them with a great bullet doesn't always work. It's not like TV and movies. Bare minimum caliber is 9mm for handgun and 5.56 (AR15) for carbines. .22lr isn't adequate.

-Handgun rounds penetrate drywall. 5.56 from an AR has less penetration through drywall and is safer to use as a home defense round.

-AR15 has very little recoil. 100 pound women shoot them all the time with no problems.

-AR15 can be under $1k with ammo, mags, accessories. If you have no other guns (or just a .22lr), then this is the best $1k you can spend on a basis of adding additional marginal value to your survival tool box.

-Don't worry about the cost of ammo for self defense. I challenge anyone to realistically shoot more than $100 worth in a real-life situation that they can survive. More likely, you shoot $20 or less worth of ammo before you kill the bad guy or he kills you.

-Can get a .22lr conversion kit or a whole AR15 in .22lr (S&W M&P 15-22 is great for $400) - then you have a training gun that mimics your real-life 5.56 gun but is cheap to train with and you can use it to hunt squirrels or anything else that .22lr can hunt

-Seek competent training

-Practice training on your own regularly. Dry fire a lot (but don't dry fire a .22lr because it's rimfire and will damage the receiver).

-Buy extra mags. Start with at least 10. You never know when democrats will take over again and institute new laws. Mags are cheap and the gun doesn't work without them. 10 sounds like a lot but you want to keep a few dedicated for training use only (compressing/decompressing the mag spring is what wears them out, and feed lips wear on numerous insertion/removal events). Imagine a law is passed in a few years that makes magazines go up in price 10x (it happened in 1994). You'll be happy that you have 10 of them lying in the drawer even if you think you only need a few. They are $10 to $15 each. Get Magpul PMAGs Gen 2 or 3 in 30 round.

-Gun advice is like financial advice. There's lots of shit out there to wade through.

[moda0306]

http://graywolfsurvival.com/1869/why-22 ... se-weapon/


Not disagreeing with you folks... I really am out of my league here.  But for whoever's interested, here's a guy arguing that a .22 is a pretty sweet gun.

[Pointedstick]

Keep in mind we are hyper-optimizing here. Any gun is better than no gun in a home invasion situation, and much of the time you won't even need to shoot it so it may not even matter what it fires. And if you do, shooting the bad guy with anything is probably going to make him strongly reconsider his choices unless he's like hopped up on meth or PCP or something and isn't feeling any pain.

This fellow doesn't seem to be arguing that a .22 is perfect; only that given the right set of circumstances, it can be adequate. Maybe this is just me but when I'm imagining grabbing my choice of weapon to defend my home, I don't want adequate, I want devastating!

One of his biggest points is that only hits count, which is absolutely true. That's why I wouldn't recommend a .45 or a 12 gauge shotgun. They kick like mules and are more difficult to get follow-up shots with if you miss or the first hit isn't effective. But my AR-15 has almost no recoil at all. Barely more than my 10/22. It is not even remotely difficult to put a lot of shots on target very quickly with an AR-15. The author makes a lot of strawman arguments that a .22 is a better choice than a monster .50 cal desert eagle or something. Duh! This is a stupid argument.

One thing I feel he misses is reliability. Rimfire weapons are less reliable than centerfire weapons. I love my 10/22, but I had to do some home gunsmithing to make it reliable. The stock extractor it came with simply didn't work very well and I had a lot of failures to extract or eject properly. I had to replace it with an aftermarket one, which has gotten the reliability much higher. But it's not as nigh as my AR-15, which I assembled from a collection of parts and has never yet experienced a single malfunction even when shooting Russian steel-cased ammunition.

My basic point would be that an AR-15 in .223 has almost all of the advantages of a semi-auto .22 with a big magazine, but also has much greater stopping power and reliability. There's simply no reason to limit yourself to a .22 when an AR-15 in .223 can do the same job better in every way.

Finally, you said you have a pump .22. Forget about it. You won't be able to fire it fast enough under pressure. To really make this work, You'd need a semi-auto .22 where you could pump out a dozen rounds in a second or two in an emergency.

One of his biggest points is that only hits count, which is absolutely true. That's why I wouldn't recommend a .45 or a 12 gauge shotgun. They kick like mules and are more difficult to get follow-up shots with if you miss or the first hit isn't effective. But my AR-15 has almost no recoil at all. Barely more than my 10/22. It is not even remotely difficult to put a lot of shots on target very quickly with an AR-15.

the same is true of pretty much any rifle (carbine) that shoots a pistol round, my wife who isn't a shooter can put a full mag into a ten inch target at 100 feet using a 45 caliber marlin camp rifle, shooting a 45 1911 (pistol) is a bit tougher more kick requires more proficient grip mechanics but they are easily acquired with a bit of training (that you should get anyway) and not being afraid of kick is near the top of any pistol course right after safety.. for a non enthusiast choosing a glock style pistol, possibly with a smaller caliber might be a better pistol choice, i haven had the pleasure of shooting one but there are carbines that use a glock lower and take a glock mag. (assuming the pistol/carbine shared mag idea is appealing to you, if not there are some pluses to revolvers when considering pistol needs)

[hoost]

For me, the trouble with the AR for home defense is the stigma non gun owners associate with a rifle of that type.  If you ever have to use a gun for home defense, there will be legal repercussions.  It may be better to rely on an old shotgun, maybe a 20 gauge to reduce recoil, whose primary purpose is for hunting, in case that should come to pass.  Is there a rifle with "traditional" styling that has similar features of an AR...223 cartridge, adequate capacity, semi-auto, shorter barrel?

[Mountaineer]

Keep in mind we are hyper-optimizing here. Any gun is better than no gun in a home invasion situation, and much of the time you won't even need to shoot it so it may not even matter what it fires. And if you do, shooting the bad guy with anything is probably going to make him strongly reconsider his choices unless he's like hopped up on meth or PCP or something and isn't feeling any pain.

This fellow doesn't seem to be arguing that a .22 is perfect; only that given the right set of circumstances, it can be adequate. Maybe this is just me but when I'm imagining grabbing my choice of weapon to defend my home, I don't want adequate, I want devastating!

One of his biggest points is that only hits count, which is absolutely true. That's why I wouldn't recommend a .45 or a 12 gauge shotgun. They kick like mules and are more difficult to get follow-up shots with if you miss or the first hit isn't effective. But my AR-15 has almost no recoil at all. Barely more than my 10/22. It is not even remotely difficult to put a lot of shots on target very quickly with an AR-15. The author makes a lot of strawman arguments that a .22 is a better choice than a monster .50 cal desert eagle or something. Duh! This is a stupid argument.

One thing I feel he misses is reliability. Rimfire weapons are less reliable than centerfire weapons. I love my 10/22, but I had to do some home gunsmithing to make it reliable. The stock extractor it came with simply didn't work very well and I had a lot of failures to extract or eject properly. I had to replace it with an aftermarket one, which has gotten the reliability much higher. But it's not as nigh as my AR-15, which I assembled from a collection of parts and has never yet experienced a single malfunction even when shooting Russian steel-cased ammunition.

My basic point would be that an AR-15 in .223 has almost all of the advantages of a semi-auto .22 with a big magazine, but also has much greater stopping power and reliability. There's simply no reason to limit yourself to a .22 when an AR-15 in .223 can do the same job better in every way.

Finally, you said you have a pump .22. Forget about it. You won't be able to fire it fast enough under pressure. To really make this work, You'd need a semi-auto .22 where you could pump out a dozen rounds in a second or two in an emergency.

I agree with most everything you say.  I would just add:  Only one shot per intruder is necessary if you practice sufficiently or grew up in rural WV.  Double and triple taps are for Hollywood.    And, maybe it is just me, but I do not think that a 12 gauge or a 45 ACP kicks much; especially not like a 460 Weatherby or a 458 Winchester rifle.  For example, I can keep 7 shots from a Govt 45 in a 6 inch circle at 7 yards when firing as rapidly as the pistol will cycle and just pointing, not using the sights; most home defense situations are within half that distance (unless you live in a McMansion).  I seem to remember the concealed carry instructor saying that if you shoot someone, the only reasonable defense in this state is that you were in extreme fear of your life and you better shoot to kill, not disable or warn, thus, no long distance takedowns and no kneecap wounds and no defending property unless you wish to spend jail time.  Your experience may differ.

... Mountaineer

[I Shrugged]

Are we talking inside the home, or outside?  Outside I'd want a rifle.  Inside a handgun.  Both in something larger than .22.  But if I only had a .22, I'd not worry about it.  It would do.  If we are talking a "one gun fits all" solution, I can see very good reasons for .22 rifle or shotgun.  Really there is never an answer to this, but it makes for interesting discussions. 

I find the SHTF hunting idea to be well-intentioned but misguided.  If we get to that point, there soon wouldn't be even a sparrow left to shoot, IMO.

I just went and read that graywolf article, and then another he linked to.  He made a good point.  If you are trained, and can function under extreme duress, those are way more important than the choice of gun.

[Ad Orientem]

The wrong gun can be WORSE than no gun.
http://youtu.be/THAS5NTZHak

I am not going to get into the best weapons or calibers for home defense since there are a gigazillion different factors that are going to vary from person to person in making that kind of decision and I don't feel like playing 20 questions or hypothesizing on a score of different scenarios. So I will confine myself to a few broad observations while conceding that I am painting with a broad brush and there may be exceptions to almost any rule.

In general I am not a fan of guns with long barrels for home defense. They can be challenging at best, and high risk at worst, trying to go around corners with out exposing yourself to a dangerous degree. In a close quarters situation long guns are also among the easiest to take away. And rifles are poorly suited for close quarters work which is what you are most likely going to be dealing with in your home.

For hand guns I would avoid anemic calibers and cartridges. If you make a decision to own a weapon for personal protection it should be one you feel reasonably confident can an end a gunfight with a single hit. That means a one shot stop percentage of at least 60%. IMHO that excludes certain calibers from serious consideration as a dedicated self defense weapon. Those being .22, .25 ACP, .32 and .380 auto.

Just my $.02 that with an extra $3.00 will get you a very small cup of coffee at Starbucks. In other words your mileage may vary.

[Kriegsspiel]

I'd tend to agree with Ad Orientem here. If you are planning on keeping your long gun in your bedroom, where you can hunker down and keep it aimed at the door, that sounds reasonable. But clearing the house with it? It's a lot easier to clear rooms with short weapons like pistols than it is with an AR or shotgun. So if your plan is to be able to clear rooms if there's a home invasion, I'd say stick to a Glock.

Defending against a Rawlesian murdersquad on a remote farmhouse would require a gun that can reach out and touch somebody, of course. But in that case, you'd probably want a small arsenal. I think it's smart to wargame how you are going to be utilizing the weapon.

[Pointedstick]

That would be EBR--Evil Black Rifle. SBR is Short-Barreled Rifle, which is the legal term for a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16", which is restricted by that pesky federal government.

[Coffee]

.22 is a varmint round.  You can't even reliably and consistently kill animals bigger than a rabbit with one.  Why would you want to try to take down two or three 280 lb. attackers on meth-- if you had a choice?

Little bullets = little holes.
Big bullets = big holes. 

Big holes put 'em down and keep 'em down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_APnhoIYeD0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NSLxxDWpOI 

[Ad Orientem]

.22 is a varmint round.  You can't even reliably and consistently kill animals bigger than a rabbit with one.  Why would you want to try to take down two or three 280 lb. attackers on meth-- if you had a choice?

Little bullets = little holes.
Big bullets = big holes. 

Big holes put 'em down and keep 'em down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_APnhoIYeD0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NSLxxDWpOI

You sound like you are channeling the ghost of the late great Jeff Cooper. Before the phrase became popular with the young crowd he was the original champion of "go big... or go home." I am not necessarily a believer that bigger is inherently better. But I will agree, strongly, that .22 is not a good choice for a dedicated self defense weapon.

[Coffee]

My feeling is that I may only get an opportunity to hit the attacker once. I want to make sure it counts: Put him down and keep him out of the fight.

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkMYoOLAhk

[Coffee]

Keep in mind we are hyper-optimizing here. Any gun is better than no gun in a home invasion situation, and much of the time you won't even need to shoot it so it may not even matter what it fires. And if you do, shooting the bad guy with anything is probably going to make him strongly reconsider his choices unless he's like hopped up on meth or PCP or something and isn't feeling any pain.

This fellow doesn't seem to be arguing that a .22 is perfect; only that given the right set of circumstances, it can be adequate. Maybe this is just me but when I'm imagining grabbing my choice of weapon to defend my home, I don't want adequate, I want devastating!

One of his biggest points is that only hits count, which is absolutely true. That's why I wouldn't recommend a .45 or a 12 gauge shotgun. They kick like mules and are more difficult to get follow-up shots with if you miss or the first hit isn't effective. But my AR-15 has almost no recoil at all. Barely more than my 10/22. It is not even remotely difficult to put a lot of shots on target very quickly with an AR-15. The author makes a lot of strawman arguments that a .22 is a better choice than a monster .50 cal desert eagle or something. Duh! This is a stupid argument.

One thing I feel he misses is reliability. Rimfire weapons are less reliable than centerfire weapons. I love my 10/22, but I had to do some home gunsmithing to make it reliable. The stock extractor it came with simply didn't work very well and I had a lot of failures to extract or eject properly. I had to replace it with an aftermarket one, which has gotten the reliability much higher. But it's not as nigh as my AR-15, which I assembled from a collection of parts and has never yet experienced a single malfunction even when shooting Russian steel-cased ammunition.

My basic point would be that an AR-15 in .223 has almost all of the advantages of a semi-auto .22 with a big magazine, but also has much greater stopping power and reliability. There's simply no reason to limit yourself to a .22 when an AR-15 in .223 can do the same job better in every way.

Finally, you said you have a pump .22. Forget about it. You won't be able to fire it fast enough under pressure. To really make this work, You'd need a semi-auto .22 where you could pump out a dozen rounds in a second or two in an emergency.

I agree with most everything you say.  I would just add:  Only one shot per intruder is necessary if you practice sufficiently or grew up in rural WV.  Double and triple taps are for Hollywood.    And, maybe it is just me, but I do not think that a 12 gauge or a 45 ACP kicks much; especially not like a 460 Weatherby or a 458 Winchester rifle.  For example, I can keep 7 shots from a Govt 45 in a 6 inch circle at 7 yards when firing as rapidly as the pistol will cycle and just pointing, not using the sights; most home defense situations are within half that distance (unless you live in a McMansion).  I seem to remember the concealed carry instructor saying that if you shoot someone, the only reasonable defense in this state is that you were in extreme fear of your life and you better shoot to kill, not disable or warn, thus, no long distance takedowns and no kneecap wounds and no defending property unless you wish to spend jail time.  Your experience may differ.

... Mountaineer

I disagree with this.  Google the "Mozambique" drill and why it's important.

[Mountaineer]

Keep in mind we are hyper-optimizing here. Any gun is better than no gun in a home invasion situation, and much of the time you won't even need to shoot it so it may not even matter what it fires. And if you do, shooting the bad guy with anything is probably going to make him strongly reconsider his choices unless he's like hopped up on meth or PCP or something and isn't feeling any pain.

This fellow doesn't seem to be arguing that a .22 is perfect; only that given the right set of circumstances, it can be adequate. Maybe this is just me but when I'm imagining grabbing my choice of weapon to defend my home, I don't want adequate, I want devastating!

One of his biggest points is that only hits count, which is absolutely true. That's why I wouldn't recommend a .45 or a 12 gauge shotgun. They kick like mules and are more difficult to get follow-up shots with if you miss or the first hit isn't effective. But my AR-15 has almost no recoil at all. Barely more than my 10/22. It is not even remotely difficult to put a lot of shots on target very quickly with an AR-15. The author makes a lot of strawman arguments that a .22 is a better choice than a monster .50 cal desert eagle or something. Duh! This is a stupid argument.

One thing I feel he misses is reliability. Rimfire weapons are less reliable than centerfire weapons. I love my 10/22, but I had to do some home gunsmithing to make it reliable. The stock extractor it came with simply didn't work very well and I had a lot of failures to extract or eject properly. I had to replace it with an aftermarket one, which has gotten the reliability much higher. But it's not as nigh as my AR-15, which I assembled from a collection of parts and has never yet experienced a single malfunction even when shooting Russian steel-cased ammunition.

My basic point would be that an AR-15 in .223 has almost all of the advantages of a semi-auto .22 with a big magazine, but also has much greater stopping power and reliability. There's simply no reason to limit yourself to a .22 when an AR-15 in .223 can do the same job better in every way.

Finally, you said you have a pump .22. Forget about it. You won't be able to fire it fast enough under pressure. To really make this work, You'd need a semi-auto .22 where you could pump out a dozen rounds in a second or two in an emergency.

I agree with most everything you say.  I would just add:  Only one shot per intruder is necessary if you practice sufficiently or grew up in rural WV.  Double and triple taps are for Hollywood.    And, maybe it is just me, but I do not think that a 12 gauge or a 45 ACP kicks much; especially not like a 460 Weatherby or a 458 Winchester rifle.  For example, I can keep 7 shots from a Govt 45 in a 6 inch circle at 7 yards when firing as rapidly as the pistol will cycle and just pointing, not using the sights; most home defense situations are within half that distance (unless you live in a McMansion).  I seem to remember the concealed carry instructor saying that if you shoot someone, the only reasonable defense in this state is that you were in extreme fear of your life and you better shoot to kill, not disable or warn, thus, no long distance takedowns and no kneecap wounds and no defending property unless you wish to spend jail time.  Your experience may differ.

... Mountaineer

I disagree with this.  Google the "Mozambique" drill and why it's important.

Coffee, I actually agree with you that more than one shot may be necessary and is certainly more sure of stopping someone hyped up on meth.  My first sentence about "if you grew up in rural WV" was just hyperbole, as was the Hollywood comment.  Note the grin  after that.  Sorry for misleading anyone.  I am a fan of Jeff Cooper too; his reasoning for larger calibers has influenced me - thus my preference of a 45 ACP.  I believe the Army gave up on 38 caliber for handguns after the poor experience with it in the Phillipines.  And, as I stated in a previous post, if one is really serious about the topic of self defense, get a copy of "The Truth About Self Protection" by Massad Ayoob.  It is a bit dated but still the best book on the subject in my opinion.  It goes into more depth on a wide variety of self protection options than you would have ever thought existed.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Coffee, I actually agree with you that more than one shot may be necessary and is certainly more sure of stopping someone hyped up on meth.  My first sentence about "if you grew up in rural WV" was just hyperbole, as was the Hollywood comment.  Note the grin  after that.  Sorry for misleading anyone.  I am a fan of Jeff Cooper too; his reasoning for larger calibers has influenced me - thus my preference of a 45 ACP.  I believe the Army gave up on 38 caliber for handguns after the poor experience with it in the Phillipines.  And, as I stated in a previous post, if one is really serious about the topic of self defense, get a copy of "The Truth About Self Protection" by Massad Ayoob.  It is a bit dated but still the best book on the subject in my opinion.  It goes into more depth on a wide variety of self protection options than you would have ever thought existed.

... Mountaineer

A lot has changed since the days of the U.S. invasion of the Philippines and even since the days of Jeff Cooper. Powder has gotten hotter and bullet design has undergone dramatic improvements. I recommend reading the following:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_D ... /index.htm

And looking at the following graphics:







The caliber wars ended, and none of the contestants won. The winners are all fired from rifles and shotguns.


And finally, the reason why you want .223 when there's the possibility of shooting through walls. Look at the penetration of the rounds after going through drywall:



.223 barely penetrates 7". The pistol rounds keep going. I suspect the reason why they penetrate ballistics gelatin deeper after passing through drywall is because the hollow point cavity is plugged up with gypsum, resulting in no expansion when the bullet hits the soft body. That's not at all what you want when there may be innocents separated by a fe sheets of drywall.


But again, this is all hyper-optimization and any gun is certainly better than no gun in a home invasion situation! The gun you're best with is a far superior choice to a theoretically better one that you don't have available or aren't as comfortable using.

[hoost]

For me, the trouble with the AR for home defense is the stigma non gun owners associate with a rifle of that type.  If you ever have to use a gun for home defense, there will be legal repercussions.  It may be better to rely on an old shotgun, maybe a 20 gauge to reduce recoil, whose primary purpose is for hunting, in case that should come to pass.  Is there a rifle with "traditional" styling that has similar features of an AR...223 cartridge, adequate capacity, semi-auto, shorter barrel?

The Ruger Mini 14 gives you the more traditional styling with the .223 cartridge.  I'd much rather have an AR though, for many reasons including relative ease of mounting optics, lights, tripods, etc. 

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14Ran ... odels.html

Thanks.

[Pointedstick]

Personally, I think the Mini-14 is ugly and overpriced, and it takes proprietary magazines and has a reputation for wild inaccuracy after a few shots at medium to long range due to a bad barrel design. But for home defense I guess none of those things matter.