AR as a home defense gun?

[Waywatcher]

These numbers are relatively meaningless as they don't account for velocity and energy.

Those numbers quantify exactly how much 'hole' each load makes. You can disregard if you like, but they are not meaningless. In fact, some would argue that how much 'hole' you make is more important than energy.

 

[Rastoff]

Not that bad; down 138 to Phelan, switch over to either 395 to the 15, or the backroads direct to the 15. Rancho Cucamonga. About 50 miles, and an easy drive if you head out early.

Well, that's true, but I generally avoid the most dangerous road in the US if possible. It makes more sense for me to head down the 395 from the 58. Still a long drive for me. A lot further than 50 miles.

 

[Vinney47]

Those numbers quantify exactly how much 'hole' each load makes. You can disregard if you like, but they are not meaningless. In fact, some would argue that how much 'hole' you make is more important than energy.

I've never really liked "the size of the hole" argument. This mostly stems from talking to my ER buddies (nurses) who consistently claim that you can't tell the difference in holes from handgun bullets with the naked eye. If you think about it, the difference between 9mm/.380 (.355"), and .38 special and .357 mag (.357" ) is hundredths of an inch and the difference is not perceptible as a hole in your skin; with .45 (.455") being only 1/10th of an inch in diameter larger and -again- indistinguishable from the other calibers listed. Yet, we all know that .357 magnum and 9mm are very different rounds yielding different results as far as stopping power.

I would argue that the size of the hole is the LEAST important thing to consider, and that what happens once inside the body cavity is exponentially more relevant. As a final example I submit .22lr (.223") and 5.56mm (.224") leaving identical holes. Do they produce even remotely similar results? The size of the hole, while not being completely irrelevant, is the least relevant of properties to consider IMO. IF hole size were that important, we'd all be shooting .50 cal...

 

[Waywatcher]

I've never really liked "the size of the hole" argument. This mostly stems from talking to my ER buddies (nurses) who consistently claim that you can't tell the difference in holes from handgun bullets with the naked eye. If you think about it, the difference between 9mm/.380 (.355"), and .38 special and .357 mag (.357" ) is hundredths of an inch and the difference is not perceptible as a hole in your skin; with .45 (.455") being only 1/10th of an inch in diameter larger and -again- indistinguishable from the other calibers listed. Yet, we all know that .357 magnum and 9mm are very different rounds yielding different results as far as stopping power.

I would argue that the size of the hole is the LEAST important thing to consider, and that what happens once inside the body cavity is exponentially more relevant. As a final example I submit .22lr (.223") and 5.56mm (.224") leaving identical holes. Do they produce even remotely similar results? The size of the hole, while not being completely irrelevant, is the least relevant of properties to consider IMO. IF hole size were that important, we'd all be shooting .50 cal...

Diameters of circles can be misleading, because as is well known, the area equals half the diameter squared, times pi.

What this means is that the seemingly small "1/10th of an inch" difference in diameters going from 9mm to .45 actually results in a whopping 60% bigger hole with a .45 (0.10 sq. in. versus 0.16 sq. in.).

.223 bullets that fail to yaw or fail to expand do produce wounds similar to .22lr. See above graphic posted by me.

Really though, this is all academic. More holes is better than less holes, and bigger holes are better than small holes.

 

[Vinney47]

Diameters of circles can be misleading, because as is well known, the area equals half the diameter squared, times pi.

What this means is that the seemingly small "1/10th of an inch" difference in diameters going from 9mm to .45 actually results in a whopping 60% bigger hole with a .45 (0.10 sq. in. versus 0.16 sq. in.).

Yes, but I believe that it is the % in this application that is misleading. Unless you think 6/100ths of a square inch is somehow significant (.10 sq. in. vs .16).

Really though, this is all academic. More holes is better than less holes, and bigger holes are better than small holes.

No. Just no. Placement is more important than number of holes, and bigger holes (in context) are not better (as a statement of fact). Entry hole does in no way reflect end result of the wound, or even wound channel/cavity.

 

[rwsmith]

Overpenetration is a very real issue

People fighting house to house in Afghanistan don't worry about over penetration. A guy let off a 9mm pistol in his apartment and it went through two walls in my Bro in law's apartment, with two kids inside.

Without some frangible type of bullet I would never use an AR by choice in a home defense situation. We don't live on ranches like Lucas McCain who can fire a rifle in any direction without even thinking about hitting somebody.

When I grew up a kid was arrested for sitting on his porch and shooting at the neighbors doors with a .22. He didn't think it was penetrating the doors.

 

[Waywatcher]

Yes, but I believe that it is the % in this application that is misleading. Unless you think 6/100ths of a square inch is somehow significant (.10 sq. in. vs .16).

No. Just no. Placement is more important than number of holes, and bigger holes (in context) are not better (as a statement of fact). Entry hole does in no way reflect end result of the wound, or even wound channel/cavity.

I'll take the hole puncher that makes 60% bigger holes; everything else being equal, thanks.

I never said placement wasn't important. Making holes is clearly the entire purpose of our handheld metal flingers. The end that this serves is up to the user. When making hits, additional holes, and making the holes bigger is so clearly superior, I'm not sure what we are really arguing about? Two hits to the chest are better than one, a single hit with a .50 is better than a single hit with a 9mm.

Of course it is vitally important that a person can make hits with their handheld metal flinger. I never said it wasn't. I think a person should try a bunch and choose the ones that work for them. I have.

 

[Badquaker]

All things being equal, I will take the one with the highest potential of energy transfer.

 

[bhayles]

All things being equal, I will take the one with the highest potential of energy transfer.

All things being equal, I'll take a single relatively low energy...22 LR say...between the eyes (figuratively. Don't talk about how hard the skull is) over a feww high energy hits to hands, feet, etc.

I'm more interested in where the hit is than in what the hit is with. That is why I bought an AR in the first place instead of that .50 y'all talk about.

That...and $7.00 every time I pull the trigger...
http://www.luckygunner.com/50-cal-bmg-750-gr-amax-match-hornady-10-rounds

 

[Vinney47]

I'll take the hole puncher that makes 60% bigger holes; everything else being equal, thanks.

I never said placement wasn't important. Making holes is clearly the entire purpose of our handheld metal flingers. The end that this serves is up to the user. When making hits, additional holes, and making the holes bigger is so clearly superior, I'm not sure what we are really arguing about? Two hits to the chest are better than one, a single hit with a .50 is better than a single hit with a 9mm.

Of course it is vitally important that a person can make hits with their handheld metal flinger. I never said it wasn't. I think a person should try a bunch and choose the ones that work for them. I have.

I'm simply representing the thought that bigger entry holes aren't inherently better. While a single .50 is going to be better than a single 9mm, a single .45 has no reliable chance of better stopping power than 9mm, particularly with similar self defense ammo.

Do you really want to take the line you've drawn that .223 and .22lr are so similar, but a .45 is vastly preferable to 9mm over clinging to the "bigger hole is better" theory?

 

[rojodiablo]

All things being equal, I'll take a single relatively low energy...22 LR say...between the eyes (figuratively. Don't talk about how hard the skull is) over a feww high energy hits to hands, feet, etc.

I'm more interested in where the hit is than in what the hit is with. That is why I bought an AR in the first place instead of that .50 y'all talk about.

That...and $7.00 every time I pull the trigger...
Match 50 Cal BMG Hornady Ammo For Sale - 750 grain AMAX Match Ammunition in Stock - 10 Rounds

Wow. Next time you get assaulted, let's hope it's completely dark, you are damn near completely asleep, the perp is moving quickly left and right, and down behind cover and shooting at you. Then explain to me about shot placement.

Because last time I was in a shooting situation, it was 2am, I was dead from a 15hr workday, had a baby to consider in the room right next to me, and was being shot at in total darkness, with multiple perps (Only 1 shooter though) and a whole lot of confusion. I really wish I had shown up with the shotgun, to make my part of the show more simplified. Instead, I was in the weird position of sending a full magazine at a moving person who shot back, and then into his vehicle as he shot and sped away. It was kinda toe to toe throwing ammo. Shot placement on MY part was much better than his, thankfully.

But I'd have rather never done it in the first place. Please; give up on the fantasy of pinpoint accuracy, and having the advantage of superior weaponry and training. It does not really work a lot like that when the director says "Action". Yes, your training does go onto motion, and you react to the ability you can and are trained. But a few critical steps are always missed.....

 

[harrym]

Speaking of holes, if you have ever looked into the threatening end of a .45 [or a 12 gauge], did you notice how that hole seemed to get bigger as you looked at it? I haven't faced a .22, but I don't think the effect would be the same.

 

[red dragon]

All things being equal,i'd grab whatever firearm is closest and try to make my shots count. If something ever does happen, just remember it rarely goes according to plan. Our hd weapons are something that everyone in my family is familiar, comfortable and proficient with. A S&W 500, just kidding, ar15s and full size 9mm handguns. A 12g or a ar15 will get the job done,can't really go but so wrong here.

 

[S&W Fan]

Speaking of holes, if you have ever looked into the threatening end of a .45 [or a 12 gauge], did you notice how that hole seemed to get bigger as you looked at it? I haven't faced a .22, but I don't think the effect would be the same.

I was too busy moving, shooting and looking at the bad guy to even notice the muzzle lol!

 

[bhayles]

I haven't faced a .22, but I don't think the effect would be the same.

I HAVE faced the business end of a 22. It makes the 16" guns on the Missouri (BB 63) look rather small.

 

[rojodiablo]

Speaking of holes, if you have ever looked into the threatening end of a .45 [or a 12 gauge], did you notice how that hole seemed to get bigger as you looked at it? I haven't faced a .22, but I don't think the effect would be the same.

First time I got shot was a 22 into my calf. I was about ??14 at the time, maybe 15. I was not yet driving, so figure from that.

I walked several miles back to the truck and we drove home afterwards. No bone hit, and FWIW, it's a very hot feeling, with a sting like a nasty hornet or a giant cactus spine driven into you. It kind of feels like a venom is released into the wound. But other than that, it was just a painful hike, and I don't really recommend it to anyone.
Unless....
The option is a 30-06 or some other nonsense being shot into you. If that is the case??? Opt for the 22 every time.

FWIW, a shotgun blast hurts in a different way. Again; highly recommend you A: Don't get shot with 7-1/2 shot at 20or so yards. B: Don't hunt with Tom. He thinks quail are 6' tall, and wear a tan colored vest and carry a Mossberg 500.

As I have said Soooo many times..... 'Thanks Tommy!'

 

[WR Moore]

And that is? Would it be an overriding factor for a homeowner and home defense?

Since no one has touched this, I'll have a go.

The AR is replacing the shotgun for mulitple reasons. One of which is lack of recoil. There are large manly men (not to mention many women) who cringe when it's time to qualify with a shotgun because of (perceived) recoil. As a result, they frequently leave the shotgun in the rack when they should have it in hand. There's also a general lack of skill in manipulating the shotgun and some severe flinching when using it.

There's the lack of effective range when using buckshot. Also the liability issues from the spread of the pattern. I have an enduring memory of a gray object on a sidwalk that turned out to be a hostages brain.. Seems a stray pellet evulsed it from the head of a hostage.

Then there's the cost of training and qualification. Plus, the always important HSLD tactickewl CDI factors.

 

[bhayles]

I have an enduring memory of a gray object on a sidwalk that turned out to be a hostages brain.. Seems a stray pellet evulsed it from the head of a hostage.

Evulsed? Really? What is this...Bill O'Reilly's Word of the Day? I consider my vocabulary to be pretty good, and not only did I not know the definition (though I could extrapolate it from the context) I had never even HEARD of the word!...

 

[WR Moore]

I've never really grasped the fine points of difference between avulsed and evulsed and may be using the wrong one. ME's are really fond of using big words or technical terms. Don't have my seminar notes in front of me to provide the exact medically correct term. The slides illustrating the presentation were definately in no longer living color.

I was hurried in ending the post and one (of those above) word was the quickest way to describe the result. A quick internet check seems to indicate I used the correct word.

 

[bhayles]

Yep...you used the right word, but I had to look it up...