Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik
That's great but it doesn't translate to us, or at least me. Im not patrolling and if I shoot outside my house it better be because the 2nd Panzer division just rolled up.
But even in Jim's case. What happened if he used his slugs inside? Or whichever opposite way?! This is why rifles are better
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
|
Where I live there's a big please hold while your call is directed...when you dial 911, so I am on sort of a different program than the normal individual. 20-30 minute response time if something comes up serious and the deputies are misaligned.
Rifle this and rifle that. I have one with a 100 round magazine standing by in case Billy Badass and his Panzers roll up. Shotguns introduce people to Jesus.
When Jim used his slugs inside people died. It's a shotgun at close range, did you think they got free tickets to Disneyland?
If you want to debate the virtues of which is better at close range between the shotgun or the rifle, I'll take a load of OO Buck over an AR at close range everytime. The basic wound channel is larger. I don't need the projectiles to do anything special. The energy transfer is more effective. It doesn't blow my ears inside out. Per function of the weapon, the damage unleashed is greater. I might only need to fire three times to incapacitate three threats with a shotgun. I need to fire nine times with the AR. Tell me, which has a greater likelihood of jamming? The one fired three times, or the one fired nine? You know what rifle bullets do at close range? Disintegrate. I have had Core Lokt bullets fired out of a .308 at ten yards come unlocked and leave the jackets hung in the far side flesh completely lead free. Can't remember being let down like that by my shotgun. It's a highly effective platform when used within its effective range.