quote:

Originally posted by Tom Highway:

quote:

Originally posted by mas4363:

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
Warms the heart.

Back to the noise issue. You guys have grossly overplayed it. Many of our soldiers and Marines went to war. No, not one war, a whole host of them. I don't recall any of them having used hearing protection, nor did most use wimpy rounds until Vietnam. Those earlier boys used real guns, like .30-06, mostly. And they cleared a bunch of houses and buildings. They came home and most could hear. I'd bet auto racing was worse, but we all can still hear. While I don't want to down play the hearing loss thing, its been overplayed in recent years.

Most of us have hunted and used some pretty intense cartridges. We never considered putting on hearing protection. Those being charged by a grizzly or brown bear often relate the growling, but not the noise of the magnum rifle.

As far as allowing Lizzy to make her jailhouse interviews, I'd say its similar to giving her a shovel and pointing to a plot. Dig away, Bitch.

I was in the Marines. I wear hearing aids. Being behind a rifle or M60 is one thing, having one start firing beside you affects your hearing for days. A 3.5 rocket launcher takes it to another level.

If hearing protection was available when I was in I would have used it. My ears have been ringing for 40+ years. Today, without my hearing aids, I can not hear water running in the sink when I turn the water on.

Anyone that has been exposed to constant gunfire without hearing protection will lose some of their hearing.

Fire a rifle or pistol multiple times in an enclosed space without protection and let us know whether your hearing was affected.

I also have permanent loss from being next to crew served weapons and rockets without earpro, and wear it now whenever possible for any loud noise. For a one time and likely quick fight with limited reaction time like a home defense scenario, I choose not to mess with ear pro, but I don't fault someone who chooses to.

I agree with you in regards to self protection. React first and survive. My comments were directed towards hearing being affected by gunfire while being in the military.

deserve
VERB

Do something or have or show qualities worthy of (a reaction which rewards or punishes as appropriate)


Yep, deserved the hell out of the results. All three of the dead idiots and hopefully Ms. Braniac will get all the deserve that can be handed to her.

You invade anyone's home with malice, you earn and deserve a one way ticket on the fast train out of this life.

Bye, Felisha.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Handguns reign supreme for home defense. How are you going to point your rifle and hold a cell phone to your ear at the same time? You need that other hand free for phones, opening doors etc. A proper sling will aid in these respects, but the rifle is still at a disadvantage when compared to the handgun.

Also, the handgun is ready without any noisy preparation. I don't know of anyone who keeps an AR15 with a round chambered. Charging your rifle is not a quiet operation. The handgun, however, is ready to go. Just pick it up.

This is not to say that I don't keep an AR15 for home defense, but rifles have their drawbacks.
If your alarm is going off, it doesn't matter because the cat's out of the bag, but if stealth is called for at the moment, an AR15 is not going to cut it unless you leave a round chambered, and that is something I am just not going to do.

And then, there's maneuvering in confined spaces. The disadvantage of a rifle in confined spaces is apparent.

Also when going through doorways, it's easy for someone to grab an AR or shotgun by the barrel and wrestle it away from you or at least away from them. It's a heck of a lot harder for people to get a good grip on most handguns.

quote:

it's easy for someone to grab an AR

Possible? Sure.

Easy? Ok...

Thats why you have to mount your bayonet when clearing rooms, makes it harder to grab.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Perhaps he didn't deserve such an extreme penalty, but as a wise man once said, "deserves got nothing to do with it."

Maybe in a restrictive nanny state this ninja attack may have worked. Hide your identity, slip into a residence (what was with announcing their entry?), surprise and overpower any occupant, and steal Steal STEAL!

They can blame their "mastermind facilitator" (who got caught), an armed citizen (as is his right), and Hollywood, for making crime look so easy on TV and in movies. Lastly, their lack of common sense, barren values, remorseless intent, greed, and shiftless morality.

Who was that criminal who's famous last words were, "Hey, you're not supposed to be armed!" ??

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

"He could've shot them boys in the leg."

The court should tack five years onto your sentence for that remark alone.

This made me chuckle.

quote:

Originally posted by Patrick-SP2022:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

"He could've shot them boys in the leg."

The court should tack five years onto your sentence for that remark alone.

This made me chuckle.

Yuh...as if "them boys" were gonna just whack our marksman in the knee should he protest their presence in his house. What a waste of humanity breathing our O2. I can feel confident, though, that she probably didn't vote. Unfortunately (and sadly for the child involved) she procreated.

This is just another example of trash that knows not how to take responsibility for ANYTHING and has ZERO concept of personal accountability. The criminal mind just amazes me, in that they think they're doing absolutely nothing wrong. I honestly just don't get that.....

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:Unfortunately (and sadly for the child involved) she procreated.

It is reported that she has THREE children, not one.

tac

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
anyone see the uncle or dad or stepdad on tv, claiming that his dead son did not deserve the extreme penalty that the good guy dealt out?

So often in these situations the family exhibits the complete lack of moral sensability. Bullwhipping the elders, or decapitating the nihilist fucks, would be excellent.

Gramps says, 'an AR against brass knuckles? c'mon'

These yutes had armed themselves for a maiming or a murder and this old fossil implies that the victim should have called king's X and re-armed himself with a bread knife or a slinky to make it a fair fight.

I think the young man had a better handle on imminent consequences than the oldster.

This thread is rich, all the way around.

Jailhouse interviews are the shit, lol.

As far as the choice of home defense, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. I keep an 870 with 00, multiple pistols, and an AR all available, depending on where I am in the house, and if the kids are there. Body armor, as well.

Personally, I like the idea of something like the Keltec KSG bullpup shotgun for home defense. Don't have one...but 14 or whatever rounds of 00 should do the trick.

Somebody used to have a sig line that read: If all you have is a shotgun, every problem looks for the nearest exit

You may or may not have heard this, but, according to the female they caught, this was not the first time they've done this.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodman:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Perhaps he didn't deserve such an extreme penalty, but as a wise man once said, "deserves got nothing to do with it."

Maybe in a restrictive nanny state this ninja attack may have worked. Hide your identity, slip into a residence (what was with announcing their entry?), surprise and overpower any occupant, and steal Steal STEAL!

They can blame their "mastermind facilitator" (who got caught), an armed citizen (as is his right), and Hollywood, for making crime look so easy on TV and in movies. Lastly, their lack of common sense, barren values, remorseless intent, greed, and shiftless morality.

Who was that criminal who's famous last words were, "Hey, you're not supposed to be armed!" ??

quote:

As far as the choice of home defense, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. I keep an 870 with 00, multiple pistols, and an AR all available, depending on where I am in the house, and if the kids are there.

I couldn't agree more and I do basically the same. The shotgun or a pistol would be my first go-to choices, and I have both within reach of my bed. While I'll acknowledge the effectiveness of the AR, there's always the issue of over penetration, not just through exterior walls but also interior walls where there may be a loved one on the other side. You could say that this was evident in this Oklahoma shooting but without any real negative consequences. I would certainly be curious to see where the shots were fired and how the ballistics performed for this incident to get more specific details.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:

quote:

As far as the choice of home defense, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. I keep an 870 with 00, multiple pistols, and an AR all available, depending on where I am in the house, and if the kids are there.

I couldn't agree more and I do basically the same. The shotgun or a pistol would be my first go-to choices, and I have both within reach of my bed. While I'll acknowledge the effectiveness of the AR, there's always the issue of over penetration, not just through exterior walls but also interior walls where there may be a loved one on the other side. You could say that this was evident in this Oklahoma shooting but without any real negative consequences. I would certainly be curious to see where the shots were fired and how the ballistics performed for this incident to get more specific details.

Do some research, often shotguns / pistols with SD loads penetrate far more than a 55gr 5.56 round in typical home construction. Plenty of tests out there to see.

A pistol is handier when you don't know what's going on - there is no clear threat, you are searching the house, opening doors, moving kids, cellphone,what have you.

But I think everyone will agree that if you know you have to shoot or confront bad guys, you'd take a rifle any day of the week and twice on Sundays over a pistol.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:

quote:

As far as the choice of home defense, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. I keep an 870 with 00, multiple pistols, and an AR all available, depending on where I am in the house, and if the kids are there.

I couldn't agree more and I do basically the same. The shotgun or a pistol would be my first go-to choices, and I have both within reach of my bed. While I'll acknowledge the effectiveness of the AR, there's always the issue of over penetration, not just through exterior walls but also interior walls where there may be a loved one on the other side. You could say that this was evident in this Oklahoma shooting but without any real negative consequences. I would certainly be curious to see where the shots were fired and how the ballistics performed for this incident to get more specific details.

Somebody correct if I'm wrong, but everything I've read (on the internet, of course ) says that over penetration with the 5.56 is the least of your concern. You should be more concerned with over penetration of your 9 mm rounds.

9mm hard ball,
unless you are in an apt complex a mobile home or teepee, o.p. would be way down my list of concerns

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:

quote:

As far as the choice of home defense, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. I keep an 870 with 00, multiple pistols, and an AR all available, depending on where I am in the house, and if the kids are there.

I couldn't agree more and I do basically the same. The shotgun or a pistol would be my first go-to choices, and I have both within reach of my bed. While I'll acknowledge the effectiveness of the AR, there's always the issue of over penetration, not just through exterior walls but also interior walls where there may be a loved one on the other side. You could say that this was evident in this Oklahoma shooting but without any real negative consequences. I would certainly be curious to see where the shots were fired and how the ballistics performed for this incident to get more specific details.

Somebody correct if I'm wrong, but everything I've read (on the internet, of course ) says that over penetration with the 5.56 is the least of your concern. You should be more concerned with over penetration of your 9 mm rounds.

There are many materials in home construction. Have you ever shot 1/4 steel with both 9MM and .223 (solids in both cases)? The steel will stop the pistol rounds with no visible damage, yet the rifle round will leave a nice round hole through the steel with energy to spare. Don't rely on everything you read on the internet to be complete.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Do some research, often shotguns / pistols with SD loads penetrate far more than a 55gr 5.56 round in typical home construction. Plenty of tests out there to see.

That’s it. But different projectiles perform differently. If I were concerned about over-penetration, I would avoid the “barrier” or bonded bullet loads like the Speer Gold Dot in heavier weights. I’m no fan of the idea of using a long gun for close quarters home clearing, but the chance that someone will just laugh off being hit even once—much less multiple times—with a light varmint type bullet is pretty remote.

In addition, while we’re thinking about self-defense in the home, think about angles of fire if it becomes necessary to confront someone at different locations. Firing up at an angle (determining the way to do that is left as an exercise for the student) can greatly reduce the danger to anyone not in the vicinity, and firing so that the projectile enters a wall at a shallow angle can reduce the possibility of too much penetration.

And looking at how a bullet affects something like a single sheet of metal or even wall board neglects the factor of what then happens. Start a light 0.224 caliber bullet tumbling and breaking up after it hits one barrier, and it will not penetrate far after that. Sometimes the Internet posters do know what they’re talking about—especially if they have videos to prove it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

I have read all the posts and have a few comments...

1) Para makes some good arguments about a handgun over an AR for home defense. Hearing damage potential and having a hand free are very good arguments. However, the argument about the length of the AR being an issue I will disagree with. Simply take a good, two-handed grip of your pistol and see how far the muzzle is out in front of you. Now, shoulder your carbine and see how far that muzzle is. The difference is negligible. Not a sermon, just a thought.

2) the whole "what happens when involved in s self defense shooting..."

Almost three years ago, I was personally involved in a self-defense shooting in my home.

I will not go into details, however, it was a clear case of self defense. In my situation, I was handcuffed and taken in for questioning. Several hours later, I was released, with no charges filed. Furthermore, ALL of my firearms were confiscated until the conclusion of the investigation (about 60 days, or so). Some jurisdictions will look at what happened and make a determination on the spot and no further action will take place. Some places, you will be detained, arrested, and have to go through a legal proceeding before being exonerated. One size does not fit all when it comes to self-defense shootings. Everyone's situation will be different.

My only advice if you ever have to go through what I did this:

1) are you truly are justified in using lethal force? IE: Is it really a righteous shoot?

2) tell the truth when questioned

3) if you have any emotional issues afterward, get counseling

As for the emotional side, yes, you can suffer trauma from such an incident. Taking a life, even in defense of your own, is no small undertaking. Normally adjusted humans do NOT relish the prospect of killing another human being. For more on that, read Dave Grossman's "On Killing" for an in-depth read on that subject.

As far as hearing loss, I barely heard the shots, as I was experiencing 'auditory exclusion' during the incident. I am sure I probably did suffer some hearing damage, but, at the time, I did not notice any.