Girl-Friendly Home Defense

So last night some shit went down at my apartment. We met our neighbors for the first time, and they subsequently slipped a roofie in my girlfriends friends drink. She went home, had a seizure, her boyfriend came over, knocked the douchebag out, and the cops come. Yadda yadda yadda, now my girlfriend is freaked out and thinks we need to move because shes afraid the assholes are going to come over here when we're gone and steal our shit or come over when the boys are gone and fuck with them, etc.

Personally, I find this to be a great reason to buy a new gun!

What do you guys recommend for a nice subcompact with decent stopping power (we don't need to maim anyone, just something to get them out in case SHTF) thats still easy to handle for a girl whos never fired a gun in her life. Yes, she will be trained to use it safely. I was thinking probably a Glock 27. They very small and would fit into her hands nicely, plus its .40 so its a happy medium. What do you guys suggest?

Absolutely not on that G27. The last thing you want to give to a girl who has never fired a gun before is a compact polymer-frame .40. Because of the light weight and small backstrap area together with the fairly powerful cartridge, recoil is going to be way too snappy for a first-time shooter, especially since girls tend to have slimmer wrists, and it's going to be hard for her to learn good marksmanship skills on a gun like that. Also there is just no point in getting a subcompact for home defense; even experienced shooters will shoot better on something with a properly sized grip and a longer barrel. A Glock 17/19 might be a good choice, if it fits her hand well. If not, just shop around for a reputable 9mm automatic that does (P99 is always a possibility, though a bit pricey).

When it comes to recommending a self-defense pistol for a lady who's never fired one, I follow two guidelines:

1) That the gun is appealing to her. If it is "cute" it might get carried or at least raise her interest in learning how to operate it.

2) That she is able to operate the pistol. By this I mean that she is not only physically able to operate it, but that she can do so effectively.

Years ago I wanted to get my wife a pistol. She thought the Beretta Tomcat was cute. On a more practical note I found that she was unable to rack the slide even on my Beretta 92, making the tip-up barrel and DA/SA action appealing. Slip a round in the barrel and, if the double action pull is too stiff, simply cock it and place it on safe.

Then there is the first concealed carry course I went to. After the classroom instruction we had to fire fifty rounds on the range. There was a couple next to me and the female was firing her Beretta Bobcat .22 quite well. The husband kept bugging her to shoot the Glock 23 he wanted her to carry and when she finally did she shot very poorly. Too much gun for her. Remember that the smaller the handgun, the more felt recoil there will be. If she is able to handle it, the Glock 27 is a fine choice; but don't discount 9mm or even a "mouse gun" caliber such as .380 or .32. I'd rather have my wife get seven rounds of .32 on a target than ten rounds of .45 off one. Also take into consideration whether it will truly be for home defense only or if she will be getting a concealed carry permit. Some compact pistols offer interchangeable backstraps to custom fit her hand and, while bulkier than a subcompact, they offer better accuracy and more versatility for home defense while still being small enough to conceal.

Your best bet may be to take her to a range and let her test a few different designs and calibers. Whatever you do, let her play a part in the selection process. Also, don't buy the gun for her. Either let her buy it or buy it for yourself. Telling the dealer you are looking for a gun for the girlfriend will likely result in him refusing the sale as it might constitute a straw purchase.



EDIT: Syme beat me to the "submit" button. He has a great point which I had not read prior to posting this. Where's that "Live Topic" bs when you need it?

Syme: You make a great point. I didn't even think of that. Since CCW is doubtful, a compact probably isn't in our best interest.

FM: I can dig what you're saying, but as I mentioned above, CCW is doubtful. Proper and effective operation will definitely be practiced thoroughly of course. As far as a straw sale goes, I'm not actually buying her a pistol, I'm just using this as an excuse to buy myself one that she can use :D. That said, "cuteness" is still a standing factor because this has to be something she's not overwhelmed by when she does have to use it. I can't be expecting her to be comfortable with trying to use a huge unwieldy pistol while I'm away.

She's got no issues with using my AR, and is a good shooter in general, but she has no expperience with pistols. Only what I will be teaching her.

Honestly, why use a pistol for self defense when you can use a rifle?

But if it were me, Id get something in 9mm and dpuble action so the trigger pull isnt so hard. Like a Beretta or something. I have a Taurus PT100 (Beretta clone) in .40 and it kicks about as mich as a polymer framed 9MM.

.22 revolver.

It fires like a BB gun, but still has enough of a "Oh shit I got shot" to make some gtfo in a heartbeat

A Lady Smith J frame .357 magnum 5 shot revolver or a 4" K or L frame 6 or 7 shot .38 Special or .357 firing the time tested FBI load of 158 grain SWCHP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vengeful Scars

.22 revolver.

It fires like a BB gun, but still has enough of a "Oh shit I got shot" to make some gtfo in a heartbeat

---

This is not good advice. Your HD weapon's effectiveness should not rely on people deciding to run when they get shot. It should rely on wounding power and thus the ability to incapacitate rapidly. Anything else is irresponsible.

Why not a non lethal weapon like those stun guns that shoot the contacts into the intruder? They have the ability to incapacitate the person very quickly. Not sure if these can be bought for personal defense however.

someone entering your home shouldnt get the opportunity to live and wreak potential havoc imo

symes right, anything less than complete stopping power is dumb. although i dont like guns in the house in the first place if you're going to have one it has to do the job as effectively as possible as fast as possible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SneeBeezums

Why not a non lethal weapon like those stun guns that shoot the contacts into the intruder? They have the ability to incapacitate the person very quickly. Not sure if these can be bought for personal defense however.

---

Nope, not a good idea. They aren't reliably capable of incapacitating someone; they generally only have one shot and if you miss you can't fire again; they can easily be defeated by thick clothing; and if you do manage to hit someone, they are only effective for as long as they deliver electricity... what are you going to do, stand there holding the trigger and continually zapping the guy for 15 minutes while you wait for the police to show up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

This is not good advice. Your HD weapon's effectiveness should not rely on people deciding to run when they get shot. It should rely on wounding power and thus the ability to incapacitate rapidly. Anything else is irresponsible.

---

So in order to defend my home I need to be able to kill with the weapon by hitting someone in an easily targeted area(body).

I've only have the experience of shooting a .357, some sort of 9mm, a .22 and I don't remember the name of the other pistol.

If a .22 is not enough to stop an intruder(because unless the person is hopped up on PCP or a ridiculous amount of Adrenaline I think a single .22 shot would be enough to stop someone, and if one isn't that's what the remaining bullets are for), then I'd say a .357 with hollow tipped rounds would be more than enough. But then I do not know if a woman with no experience would be able to fire that accurately, that is why I suggested the .22

Granted I know little about firearms, other than what I've personally used. So my input should be taken with a grain of salt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vengeful Scars

So in order to defend my home I need to be able to kill with the weapon by hitting someone in an easily targeted area(body).

I've only have the experience of shooting a .357, some sort of 9mm, a .22 and I don't remember the name of the other pistol.

If a .22 is not enough to stop an intruder(because unless the person is hopped up on PCP or a ridiculous amount of Adrenaline I think a single .22 shot would be enough to stop someone, and if one isn't that's what the remaining bullets are for), then I'd say a .357 with hollow tipped rounds would be more than enough. But then I do not know if a woman with no experience would be able to fire that accurately, that is why I suggested the .22

Granted I know little about firearms, other than what I've personally used. So my input should be taken with a grain of salt

---

If someone has no experience, the solution is not to get them a .22; it's to get them experience. Whatever pistol they get for home defense, she needs to learn to use it, which means practice and training. I agree than a .357 might be too much gun for her, but any of a number of 9mm automatics should be perfectly reasonable.

Any bullet is capable of killing people, including a .22; remember that the security guard who just recently got killed at the Holocaust Museum was killed by a single bullet from a .22. However, there is a minimum threshold of wounding ability that a gun should meet in order to be able to reliably incapacitate someone, and a .22 falls below that threshold even against people who aren't hopped up on PCP or something. It can certainly kill someone, but it can't be relied on to rapidly incapacitate them, because it doesn't inflict much of a wound channel. Peppering someone with tiny, weak bullets in the hopes that multiple hits will incapacitate them is not the right way to approach the home-defense issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Nope, not a good idea. They aren't reliably capable of incapacitating someone; they generally only have one shot and if you miss you can't fire again; they can easily be defeated by thick clothing; and if you do manage to hit someone, they are only effective for as long as they deliver electricity... what are you going to do, stand there holding the trigger and continually zapping the guy for 15 minutes while you wait for the police to show up?

---

I only suggested it because it might be easier for a person to stun the person and make an escape for safety rather than pulling a trigger of a firearm and taking a person's life. I can't see whipping a gun out and shooting a person for the first time, life or death situation, is an easy thing to do. I mean hell every girl I know doesn't want to go hunting to kill animals and cries if they hit one with their car. It might be easier emotionally for the person to have one of those stun guns, incapacitate the robber, and run until the cops show. If you take out a firearm and hesitate even the slightest, whose to say the robber isn't armed and will likely retaliate.

As for the debate in the caliber, a .22 would not be a bad choice. A .22 round is strong enough to penetrate the human skull. Or even a 9mm. If might not have enough oomf, but again, a well placed round will kill a person. If you shot a robber in the lungs, heart, or the head he isn't going to be getting away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SneeBeezums

As for the debate in the caliber, a .22 would not be a bad choice. A .22 round is strong enough to penetrate the human skull. Or even a 9mm. If might not have enough oomf, but again, a well placed round will kill a person. If you shot a robber in the lungs, heart, or the head he isn't going to be getting away.

---

Uhh, no, this is totally wrong. Again, it's not about whether the bullet can kill someone, it's about whether it can reliably and rapidly incapacitate them. This depends on penetration and wound channel diameter. All bullets are capable of killing someone, but not all bullets are capable of reliably and rapidly incapacitating them. .22 LR is not capable of the latter. End of story. .22 is therefore a terrible choice for defensive use. There is a reason that virtually every single self-defense instructor, firearms expert, etc. will tell you that .22 is an inadequate round for self-defense.

Guys a .22 is a HORRIBLE self defense round. Period.

at least consider the alternative of shooting poisonous darts made of shoelace through a mcdonalds sweet tea straw before jumping to an all conclusive opinion

What if its a really strong poison? lol

The smallest Id ever go for self defense is a 9MM. I MIGHT... MIGHT go with a .380 if I was looking for something that was super small.

I do agree that the .22 is a poor man stopper, however at a simple distance of generally less than 25 feet the .223 ar-15 isn't going to do much more damage. This isn't me attempting to bash the ar-15 the good quality models are decent battle rifles for longer range shooting, but I wouldn't want to use one up close unless I had to.

If it must be a handgun I would never pick a .22 in anything but a revolver simply due to seeing more dud .22 rounds than anything else. I consider the .380 a little underpowered but it will do much better than a .22 If you decide on a revolver I would recommend a full size .357 mag, if its to powerful for her shoot some lighter .38 specials until she gets used to it. I also say the full sized model because it will be heavier and have a longer barrel leading to less felt recoil and more accuracy.

I don't see why there are so many claims that girls can't operate the slide on semi auto pistols. I see girls shooting there hubby's or boyfriends handguns at work every day with no problem.

Oh and OP I don't suppose I can talk ya into a 12 or maybe a 20 gauge pump shotgun can I? Nothing says GTFO like a face full of 00 buckshot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

I do agree that the .22 is a poor man stopper, however at a simple distance of generally less than 25 feet the .223 ar-15 isn't going to do much more damage. This isn't me attempting to bash the ar-15 the good quality models are decent battle rifles for longer range shooting, but I wouldn't want to use one up close unless I had to.

---

Are you serious? lol

Do you think it gains speed once it leaves the bbl or something? Its going its fastest when it leaves. And a .223 is devastating, they tumble and fragment as soon as they hit flesh.

EDIT: With that being said, I wouldnt want my sister or my mom or any one not experienced with guns to use my AR in the house. over penetration is a big issue with rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

I do agree that the .22 is a poor man stopper, however at a simple distance of generally less than 25 feet the .223 ar-15 isn't going to do much more damage. This isn't me attempting to bash the ar-15 the good quality models are decent battle rifles for longer range shooting, but I wouldn't want to use one up close unless I had to.

---

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about. The common .223 ball ammo (M193 and M855) is particularly effective at close range, because as long as it's velocity is above ~2700 fps, it will fragment very effectively and inflict a brutal wound cavity. It's at longer range, once the velocity has dropped below ~2700 fps (which happens around 150-200 yds. from a 20" barrel, 50-100 yds. for a 14.5" M4 barrel), that the .223 round loses terminal effect and could maybe begin to be compared to a .22 LR in terms of wound cavity profile. Within effective fragmentation range, a .223 round is not only vastly more effective than a .22 LR round, it's more effective than most ball/FMJ .30-caliber rifle rounds (because most of them don't fragment effectively).

Please don't try to give firearms advice if you have no idea what you're talking about. There is absolutely nothing about the .223 round or the AR-15 that causes poor terminal performance within 25 feet or whatever. You just completely made that up.

Rule of thumb:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5633/...ting20trip.jpg

Anything smaller than this is a lady's pistol.

A buddy of mine just got one of the new SW Sigmas. It's light, easy to use 9mm and the trigger has a safety built right in. Apparently no fumbling with a switch or button, just squeeze hard and it'll fire. I haven't shot it yet but for someone who has never fired a gun before that might be great.

Also, I gotta say that a big ass dog will keep most tweakers out. Seriously, some people might see a chick with a gun and be like "she's a lousy shot" but if they see a Rottweiler or Pitbull, they think "Fuck, I can't outrun that."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Also, I gotta say that a big ass dog will keep most tweakers out. Seriously, some people might see a chick with a gun and be like "she's a lousy shot" but if they see a Rottweiler or Pitbull, they think "Fuck, I can't outrun that."

---

While I agree that even the sound of a large dog's bark is enough to send the petty thug away, I dont think a dog will work in this situation. Considering they live in apartment, a lot of landlords will not allow dogs over certain sizes, or none at all, into the apartment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

A buddy of mine just got one of the new SW Sigmas. It's light, easy to use 9mm and the trigger has a safety built right in. Apparently no fumbling with a switch or button, just squeeze hard and it'll fire. I haven't shot it yet but for someone who has never fired a gun before that might be great.

Also, I gotta say that a big ass dog will keep most tweakers out. Seriously, some people might see a chick with a gun and be like "she's a lousy shot" but if they see a Rottweiler or Pitbull, they think "Fuck, I can't outrun that."

---

My buddy has a Sigma in .40 and although I hear all kinds of bad stuff online about them, his has never messed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SneeBeezums

While I agree that even the sound of a large dog's bark is enough to send the petty thug away, I dont think a dog will work in this situation. Considering they live in apartment, a lot of landlords will not allow dogs over certain sizes, or none at all, into the apartment.

---

I didn't even think about that. I read an article a few years about about pet store owners claiming that the majority of customers looking for a large dog (100lbs +) are single college girls who want home defense. I wouldn't suggest a single female to own a dog that rivals them in weight, but since they are a couple I figured it might be a good move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

I didn't even think about that. I read an article a few years about about pet store owners claiming that the majority of customers looking for a large dog (100lbs +) are single college girls who want home defense. I wouldn't suggest a single female to own a dog that rivals them in weight, but since they are a couple I figured it might be a good move.

---

Oh yeah don't get me wrong I like the idea and plan on having a large breed dog of my own as well. I have a 1yr old 110lb Great Dane/Lab mix at home. When somebody is at the door or she hears something she don't like she barks and goes ballistic. I could see this making some people nervous of walking through the door. Although from what I understand some insurance companies will raise your home owner's insurance if they know that you have a dog like a Rottweiler or Pitbull because of their reputation.

Also, a gun is easier to maintain than a dog. Even if she is an animal lover and maintaining a dog isn't a big deal, you also don't have to train the gun or constantly worry about it attacking innocent people or house guests.

Finally, you can actually take a gun out of the house, leave it at home when you're away, get rid of it easily if you don't feel like you want it anymore, etc. Buying a dog that's trained to maim attackers requires far, far greater commitment than getting a gun. I don't see how anyone could even seriously suggest it for home defense to be honest, unless you have people dedicated to the dog's care or you're an insane militant moutaineer who thinks the government is constantly out to get you.

that was by and far the worst comparison i've ever witnessed

apples and fucking oranges bro they're two completely different forms of defense that shouldn't be put side by side

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

that was by and far the worst comparison i've ever witnessed

apples and fucking oranges bro they're two completely different forms of defense that shouldn't be put side by side

---

err well other people in this thread are directly comparing them, though you're right in that they are quite different. that was part of my point.

who else is directly comparing them besides you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

who else is directly comparing them besides you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Also, I gotta say that a big ass dog will keep most tweakers out. Seriously, some people might see a chick with a gun and be like "she's a lousy shot" but if they see a Rottweiler or Pitbull, they think "Fuck, I can't outrun that."

---

...and then others followed suit.

Look, they're both self-defense systems of a sort, and both would protect this girl if they workedl. However, a dog is highly impractical.

he was making a specific comparison in the situation involving a woman defending a house. it was a retarded thing to say, but all he was expressing was that for this particular individual, a dog would be a good idea and a gun would be a bad idea. note he didn't say one is better than the other or even has any bearing on the other choice.

compare this to how you made an all conclusive opinion. let me ask you a question, how can one of the most popular and effective home invasion deterrents of modern time be "impractical"? does that sound logical to you?

i remember talking with syme about a similar issue regarding using firearms to defend your home versus fortifying your house with the proper outfitting required to deter invaders. what was concluded was that utilizing both is the best you can do for your safety, however they have no reason to be compared because they can both be performed independently or in unison.

Okay faesce, whatever you say, even though I thought you'd be intelligent enough to realize that I'm referring to the same situation and not anyone living in any setting anywhere.

Quote:

---

compare this to how you made an all conclusive opinion. let me ask you a question, how can one of the most popular and effective home invasion deterrents of modern time be "impractical"? does that sound logical to you?

---

Show me statistics that say more people have guard dogs than home security systems or guns, especially considering that increasingly more and more local governments are explicitly banning breeds of "dangerous" dogs, especially bulldogs.

I have no interest in having this stupid argument with you. Do you have Now if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go and build a fence topped with barbed wire around my house's perimeter as a practical home defense solution.

Faesce, I think you are misunderstanding scyld's comparison. He isn't comparing guns and dogs in terms of which is "better", he is comparing them in terms of practicality and ease of maintenance, which is perfectly valid. He is right about guns/dogs insofar as keeping a dog really is more expensive and more troublesome than keeping a gun. Obviously dogs and guns are two different things, but money is money, and hassle is hassle, and those things CAN be directly compared, and the gun requires less of each. It's their effectiveness, not their cost, that can't be realistically compared. Gun ownership definitely does require more of a commitment than gun ownership, that comparison isn't "apples and oranges".

Just for the record, I have a dog as well as guns in my home. I didn't buy the dog for home defense--I bought it because me and the guys I live with love dogs--but he does have a good, deep, big-dog bark that he unleashes when people come to the door, which I suppose isn't a bad thing if a burglar is snooping around trying to decide which house on the block to hit up. He definitely couldn't be relied on to actually attack an intruder though. Anyhow, there's no question that my guns are cheaper and easier to maintain than my dog, just as sycld said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Okay faesce, whatever you say, even though I thought you'd be intelligent enough to realize that I'm referring to the same situation and not anyone living in any setting anywhere.

---

The first part was clearly in reference to her situation, however the second part of your post was not and shows no indication that it was. You should attempt to think about what you say if you don't want it misinterpreted (which it wasn't--because I'm pretty sure you actually think dogs are a bad home security measure) Here's the second part of your reply, feel free to point out where you specified that you weren't making a generalization about dog ownership.

"Finally, you can actually take a gun out of the house, leave it at home when you're away, get rid of it easily if you don't feel like you want it anymore, etc. Buying a dog that's trained to maim attackers requires far, far greater commitment than getting a gun. I don't see how anyone could even seriously suggest it for home defense to be honest, unless you have people dedicated to the dog's care or you're an insane militant moutaineer who thinks the government is constantly out to get you."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Show me statistics that say that a lot of young single people living in urban or sub-urban settings have guard dogs, especially considering that increasingly more and more local governments are explicitly banning breeds of "dangerous" dogs, especially bulldogs.

---

Almost any breed capable of becoming large can be trained and utilized as a guard dog, and if you don't already know that dogs are widely used as defense, no amount of statistics will sway your fabricated vision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

I have no interest in having this stupid argument with you. Do you have Now if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go and build a fence topped with barbed wire around my house's perimeter as a practical home defense solution.

---

You're the one creating an absurd notion that goes against common sense. Also, home fortification goes a lot farther than fencing in your yard, but I'm sure you already knew how big of a deterrent a camera/lights/secured doors/windows/etc can be before you decided to make a sarcastic remark regarding fortifcation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Faesce, I think you are misunderstanding scyld's comparison. He isn't comparing guns and dogs in terms of which is "better", he is comparing them in terms of practicality and ease of maintenance, which is perfectly valid.

---

this is the sentence that got me:

"I don't see how anyone could even seriously suggest it for home defense to be honest"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

this is the sentence that got me:

"I don't see how anyone could even seriously suggest it for home defense to be honest"

---

Ahh, okay, yeah, that is maybe a bit over-the-top. I would say that I would suggest guns and home-security systems first, though, and only suggest the dog if those things were already present and the person still wanted even more security. Guns and security systems are just defensive gear, but a dog is obviously more than another piece of defensive gear, it's a pet that has to be cared for, which means it takes far more effort and expense than the other options.

This thread reminds me:

I haven't made up the range cards for the windows yet...

Later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

err well other people in this thread are directly comparing them, though you're right in that they are quite different. that was part of my point.

---

Other people in this thread dont know shit about self defense.

Dogs are good to let you know someone is around the house by barking, but after that, if the perp has a gun. a dog will not stop him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Dogs are good to let you know someone is around the house by barking, but after that, if the perp has a gun. a dog will not stop him.

---

Obviously a dog can't stop a bullet, why would you even point that out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faesce

Obviously a dog can't stop a bullet, why would you even point that out?

---

Because people are recommending it for a defensive purpose when in reality, it isnt that great.

reread the thread and my replies

and the last post syme wrote

Okay, please someone clarify this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Also, I gotta say that a big ass dog will keep most tweakers out. Seriously, some people might see a chick with a gun and be like "she's a lousy shot" but if they see a Rottweiler or Pitbull, they think "Fuck, I can't outrun that."

---

So are we talking about Pitbulls and Rottweilers trained to attack and maim humans and having these dogs living in our houses with us as guardians, or are we talking about dogs whose bark alerts us to the presence of intruders and whose size appears intimidating?

If it's the former, how do you, like, have guests come over to your house?

This is probably the most retarded argument in history

Here's my input: dogs are cute



IT'S OK FAESCE I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE CUTER THAN GUNS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

A buddy of mine just got one of the new SW Sigmas. It's light, easy to use 9mm and the trigger has a safety built right in. Apparently no fumbling with a switch or button, just squeeze hard and it'll fire. I haven't shot it yet but for someone who has never fired a gun before that might be great.

Also, I gotta say that a big ass dog will keep most tweakers out. Seriously, some people might see a chick with a gun and be like "she's a lousy shot" but if they see a Rottweiler or Pitbull, they think "Fuck, I can't outrun that."

---

My buddy just bought one of those against my advice, and it is a solid pistol, but it has a long, feels-like-20 lb trigger.

I would not recommend that to a girl with no pistol experience as she is going to be jerking shots everywhere.

Sigmas have the worst trigger Ive ever handled. It is seriously like 20 lbs. Something like 5.5-6 lbs is ideal for a defensive handgun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about. The common .223 ball ammo (M193 and M855) is particularly effective at close range, because as long as it's velocity is above ~2700 fps, it will fragment very effectively and inflict a brutal wound cavity. It's at longer range, once the velocity has dropped below ~2700 fps (which happens around 150-200 yds. from a 20" barrel, 50-100 yds. for a 14.5" M4 barrel), that the .223 round loses terminal effect and could maybe begin to be compared to a .22 LR in terms of wound cavity profile. Within effective fragmentation range, a .223 round is not only vastly more effective than a .22 LR round, it's more effective than most ball/FMJ .30-caliber rifle rounds (because most of them don't fragment effectively).

Please don't try to give firearms advice if you have no idea what you're talking about. There is absolutely nothing about the .223 round or the AR-15 that causes poor terminal performance within 25 feet or whatever. You just completely made that up.

---

I'll choose the bigger hole puncher over something that is suppose to tumble or fragment, thank you very much. The performance of such ammunition will vary greatly by barrel length twist rate and other factors. I will also choose something that is specifically designed to expand while staying together (core lock style hollow points) spreading the energy of the projectile over an even wider area while retaining mass inflicting more injury. Generally keeping all the mass together by controlling fragmentation and spreading it over a wide area is the focus of defensive ammunition. If you want to leave someone full of pieces of material why not just use a shotgun?

If dogs are allowed then that might make a decent alarm system, but dogs are unpredictable in a sense of whether or not they will defend you.

Id use my SBR AR-15 with my Hornady TAP 77gr 5.56 (NOT .223) for self defence over an AK any day.

Ive used both MANY MANY times. And the AR is just a better weapons system overall IMO.

I like AKs, and I will be picking up a Romanian underfolder after I get my Garand, but Ive just seen them fail too many times. Which makes me laugh because people always say how reliable they are. Cheap guns = cheaply built with cheap parts = unreliable.
I could make an entire thread on this, but Ill keep it short.

As for the hunting bullets in a SD weapon, there is a reason companies make HD ammo, and hunting ammo, and they are different.

Here's the real answer to girl-friendly home defense...

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/157...rtless4000.jpg

He knows kung-fu.

Of course, that might be too friendly if she's your girlfriend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

I'll choose the bigger hole puncher over something that is suppose to tumble or fragment, thank you very much. The performance of such ammunition will vary greatly by barrel length twist rate and other factors. I will also choose something that is specifically designed to expand while staying together (core lock style hollow points) spreading the energy of the projectile over an even wider area while retaining mass inflicting more injury. Generally keeping all the mass together by controlling fragmentation and spreading it over a wide area is the focus of defensive ammunition. If you want to leave someone full of pieces of material why not just use a shotgun?

---

Hmm, this seems to be totally unrelated to your earlier post, which is what I was responding to: The post where you claimed that "at a simple distance of generally less than 25 feet the .223 ar-15 isn't going to do much more damage" than a .22 LR. That's utterly wrong, and again, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, so I hope no-one in this thread listens to you.

Your post here also has some problems. Firstly, none of the standard AR twist rates will adversely affect muzzle or fragmentation velocity for M193/M855 bullets, so that's a non-issue (again, seems like you don't know what you're talking about). Buy your defensive AR with a 1-in-9 twist or a 1-in-7 twist; it won't make a difference in fragmentation with M193/M855.

Secondly, while barrel length obviously does affect muzzle velocity and thus effective fragmentation range with those bullets, the relationship there is well known and thus the buyer can take it into account. E.g., it's well known that 10.5" barrels may fail to give fragmentation velocity even at the muzzle, so don't buy a defensive AR carbine with a 10.5" barrel. Easy. Stick with 16-18" and you are guaranteed reliable fragmentation velocity at defensive ranges.

Thirdly, M193/M855 bullets, when they fragment, actually inflict larger wound cavities than .223 hollowpoints; so that nonsense about "spreading the energy of the projectile over an even wider area while retaining mass inflicting more injury" is apparently something you just made up. Within their reliable fragmentation range, M193/M855 are more destructive in tissue than hollowpoints. http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_fbispec.html. There's a reason frangible ammunition has been developed for antipersonnel use in the military.

I got a 10.5 for self defence, but like you said, I knew what I was getting into. I know that the effective range is probably somewhere around 75-100 yards. And its all about ammo selection with this thing. I am still on the hunt for this ammo, but once I find it Ill stock up. Its the Hornady 5.56 77 gr I was talking about. The fact that its a 5.56 and not a .223 adds a little to the effective range. And the 10.5 in gun is made for a home defense gun. I doubt Ill ever have to take a shot over 100 yards in my house, and if I do, well then I have a huge ass house. I have my 16 in AR for longer distances.

Also, I think this pic says about all that needs to be said.

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/am...ePics/m193.jpg

And thats just 55gr. The 62 gr is even worse. Id love to see what the 77 gr TAP stuff can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

I got a 10.5 for self defence, but like you said, I knew what I was getting into. I know that the effective range is probably somewhere around 75-100 yards. And its all about ammo selection with this thing. I am still on the hunt for this ammo, but once I find it Ill stock up. Its the Hornady 5.56 77 gr I was talking about. The fact that its a 5.56 and not a .223 adds a little to the effective range. And the 10.5 in gun is made for a home defense gun. I doubt Ill ever have to take a shot over 100 yards in my house, and if I do, well then I have a huge ass house. I have my 16 in AR for longer distances.

---

I was actually talking about fragmentation range; what I meant is that with a 10.5" barrel, M193/M855 rounds won't even have enough velocity to reliably fragment at the muzzle. So by that standard of "effectiveness", with those rounds, the 10.5" barreled AR has an "effective" range of zero yards. But if you are using hollowpoints then it's a non-issue. Just be sure that your hollowpoint of choice expands reliably at whatever muzzle velocity it gets from that barrel (should be around 2300 fps for Mk.262-style 77 grainers from a 10.5").

Ive always heard that out of a 10.5 most ammo will have an effective range of about 75 yards.

And I do have some TAP 55 gr HP bullets that Im using now.

I was just checking and that 75 gr TAP is HP. So Ill be fine with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Ive always heard that out of a 10.5 certain ammo will have an effective range of about 75 yards.

---

I'm sure that's true in some sense for some ammo. "Effective range" is a pretty vague term which can mean many different things. You could say that M193 from a 10.5" barrel has an effective range of zero (because it can't be relied on to fragment even at the muzzle) or you could say it has an effective range of a couple hundred yards (because that's the range at which a decent marksman could hit a human-sized target), and neither statement would be wrong, since they use totally different meanings of "effective range".

Fragmentation range is a much more concrete measurement than "effective range". Fragmentation range is the range at which the round drops below 2700 fps and thus will no longer fragment reliably in tissue (again, obviously this is only meaningful if you're using ammo that fragments in the first place, i.e. M193 or M855). Fragmentation range is around 150-250 meters for a 20" M16 barrel; around 50-100 meters for a 14.5" M4 barrel, and 0-50 meters for a 10.5" barrel (meaning it will sometimes, but not always, have a muzzle velocity above ~2700 fps). For even shorter barrels, like those silly 7.5" ones, it is unequivocally zero, meaning the round will NEVER have enough velocity to fragment even at the muzzle.

Yea, when I said effective I was talking about fragmentation? Are you sure those numbers are right? I could have sworn that a 20 in bbl will fragment at like 250-300 yards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Yea, when I said effective I was talking about fragmentation? Are you sure those numbers are right? I could have sworn that a 20 in bbl will fragment at like 250-300 yards.

---

Yeah, they're right. Bear in mind that they are the ranges at which the bullets will reliably fragment. That doesn't mean it's impossible for bullets to fragment at ranges longer than that; it just means that fragmentation shouldn't be relied upon at those ranges. It's not impossible for the bullet to fragment at 250 yards from a 20" barrel, or at 75 yards from a 10.5" barrel. But it's far from guaranteed and shouldn't be relied upon.

The variation is due in part to manufacturing variations in bullet construction, powder charge, etc. (the M855 bullet is particularly complicated in it's construction, which leads to a lot of performance variation), and in part to the certain degree of randomness that exists in uncontrollable external and terminal-ballistic factors. I gave the M4's frag range as 50-100 yards but in fact even from a 14.5" barrel, M855 rounds can drop below fragmentation velocity as little as 10 yards downrange.

Also it's not entirely impossible for M193/M855 rounds to fragment when hitting at less that 2700 fps. They can sometimes fragment (albeit less destructively) in the 2600-2700 fps range. If you include this, the "fragmentation ranges" for a given barrel length will increase accordingly. You still won't get reliable fragmentation from <14.5" barrels even at close range, though.


EDIT: You probably won't like hearing this, but here's what Ammo Oracle says about sub-14.5" AR barrels:

"Question. My department is considering using 10" or 11.5" barrels for our ARs. They are so cool, and everyone knows that all the real go-fast, high-speed, low-drag operators use SBRs. Plus, Robert DeNiro uses one in "Heat." What's the best ammo to use to poke big holes in the bad guys with these?"

"We dislike this question. We dislike it because of its premise. The premise is that 10" or 11.5" barrels are good choices for law enforcement or defensive use. We strongly disagree with this premise. Some of us actually dislike even 14.5" barrels, in fact.

The primary wounding mechanism for .223 and 5.56 ammunition is fragmentation. The primary factor in fragmentation is velocity. The primary velocity booster is barrel length. 11.5" barrels barely bring milspec (NATO) 55 grain FMJ to 2700 fps (the critical fragmentation threshold for many FMJ .223 rounds). Accordingly, any distance at all drops the rounds below fragmentation velocity. 10" barrels are unlikely to ever get rounds above fragmentation velocity at all.

If you are saddled with a department mandated SBR we recommend the following:

1. A marathon letter writing campaign citing the Ammo Oracle often persuading the powers that be to see reason and potentially save lives by giving you REAL weapons, not toys.

2. Use heavier rounds known to fragment at lower velocities and do more tissue damage such as:

68 grain Hornady Match OTM
69 grain SMK OTM
75 grain Hornady TAP
77 grain Nosler OTM

Obviously, you should probably have a 1:7" twist.

Under no circumstances should you take comfort in the assurances your armorer gives you that the latest soft point or hollow point law enforcement specialty round will solve the problem. Most likely it will not. Soft point and hollow point rounds lack penetration even at high velocity. Because they are not prone to yawing or fragmentation lower velocities will not increase penetration as with many fragmenting rounds."

They have the ammo I plan on using in that list at the end. I wonder what the muzzle velocity is on the 75 gr TAP from a 10.5. I need to find someone with a chronograph. And make some ballistics gel. lol.

I would like to see what kind of damage these heavier rounds do from a shorter bbl.

Someone needs to invent a faster burning powder. lol. If that would happen, I could easily get the 2700+ from the bbl, and further depending on how fast it burned.

EDIT: And I like hearing anything that makes me learn more about my guns. :)

Hrmm, as far as faster-burning powders go, they definitely exist--for one thing, pretty much all pistol powders are going to burn much faster than rifle powders, since they are much finer-grained in order to get full combustion in a 4-5" barrel--but I'm not sure why such powders haven't been used in 5.56mm loads tailored for SBRs. Could be worth looking into.

As for how open-tipped/hollow-point rounds perform from a 10.5" barrel, better than M193/M855 would but still not as well as they would from a longer barrel.

Yea, I know it will always perform better in a longer barrel, to a certain extent.

Im going to go on my AR15 forum and ask some questions about the faster burning powders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Hmm, this seems to be totally unrelated to your earlier post, which is what I was responding to: The post where you claimed that "at a simple distance of generally less than 25 feet the .223 ar-15 isn't going to do much more damage" than a .22 LR. That's utterly wrong, and again, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, so I hope no-one in this thread listens to you.

---

I think you already pointed that out in your reply after that post, and guess what this one wasn't related to the earlier one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Your post here also has some problems. Firstly, none of the standard AR twist rates will adversely affect muzzle or fragmentation velocity for M193/M855 bullets, so that's a non-issue (again, seems like you don't know what you're talking about). Buy your defensive AR with a 1-in-9 twist or a 1-in-7 twist; it won't make a difference in fragmentation with M193/M855.

Secondly, while barrel length obviously does affect muzzle velocity and thus effective fragmentation range with those bullets, the relationship there is well known and thus the buyer can take it into account. E.g., it's well known that 10.5" barrels may fail to give fragmentation velocity even at the muzzle, so don't buy a defensive AR carbine with a 10.5" barrel. Easy. Stick with 16-18" and you are guaranteed reliable fragmentation velocity at defensive ranges.

---

I wasn't saying just the twist or just the length would automatically make the ammo ultimate FAIL. I was saying a combination of the things could affect its performance, which you pretty much agree with in saying they may fail to fragment out of a 10.5 inch barrel. Later on in the thread you and Annony agree that the hollow point rounds would be a better choice out of his 10.5 inch barrel than the standard fragmenting ammo. Is it that wrong of me to want to use hollow points out of any defensive weapon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Thirdly, M193/M855 bullets, when they fragment, actually inflict larger wound cavities than .223 hollowpoints; so that nonsense about "spreading the energy of the projectile over an even wider area while retaining mass inflicting more injury" is apparently something you just made up. Within their reliable fragmentation range, M193/M855 are more destructive in tissue than hollowpoints. http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_fbispec.html. There's a reason frangible ammunition has been developed for antipersonnel use in the military.

---

When they fragment is what I was getting at. While the barrel length would affect velocity and expansion of a hollow point causing it to behave differently, it will still somewhat function. Is it wrong for me to want something that will function at least to some extent whether it is fired out of a pistol AR or a 20 inch barrel?
As for me making stuff up that is in fact the very way hollow points function, whether I made it up or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet Everyone should also read the legality section and you will see that hollow points are prohibited for military use, thus the necessity of fragmenting rounds. It also talks about bonding of the jacket to the core to prevent fragmentation and control expansion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

I wasn't saying just the twist or just the length would automatically make the ammo ultimate FAIL. I was saying a combination of the things could affect its performance, which you pretty much agree with in saying they may fail to fragment out of a 10.5 inch barrel.

---

Right, but all that means is that you shouldn't use M193/855 out of that barrel length. Again: The behavior of these rounds, and the factors that influence them, are well-understood. There's no mystery here, there's no unpredictability. If you do your research, you will know how your frangible rounds will perform. So it's disingenuous of you to suggest that the performance of such rounds is chancy and less reliable than the performance of hollowpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

Later on in the thread you and Annony agree that the hollow point rounds would be a better choice out of his 10.5 inch barrel than the standard fragmenting ammo. Is it that wrong of me to want to use hollow points out of any defensive weapon?

---

No, not at all. I'm certainly not telling you not to use hollowpoints out of your defensive weapon. Go for it, use whatever you want. What I'm telling you is that you are wrong to make inaccurate claims about the effectiveness/reliability of frangible rounds, and that you are wrong to erroneously claim that their wounding effect is unreliable or less reliable than that of hollowpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

When they fragment is what I was getting at. While the barrel length would affect velocity and expansion of a hollow point causing it to behave differently, it will still somewhat function. Is it wrong for me to want something that will function at least to some extent whether it is fired out of a pistol AR or a 20 inch barrel?

---

Again, no, that's not at all wrong of you. What's wrong of you is to suggest that because frangible rounds perform differently out of different barrel lengths, they are therefore unreliable in their effects and that hollowpoints can be more readily depended upon. It's not like your self-defense weapon is going to have a different barrel length every time you pick it up. It's always going to have whatever barrel length you put on it. So you can know how frangible ammo will perform out of it. Again, there's no element of unpredictability here. Yeah, IF you didn't know whether your weapon will have a 7.5" barrel or a 20" barrel, then the hollowpoint is a better choice because it will still expand even from the short barrel... but I should hope that you know long a barrel your AR has.

Basically the issue is this: Yes, you are correct that factors such as barrel length and other things can affect whether or not a frangible bullet fragments properly. But those are all factors that YOU have control over, so the fact that they affect whether the bullet fragments doesn't in any way mean that there's a risk of the bullet not fragmenting when you expect it to. So, if you aren't a total idiot, frangible bullets are just as reliable--and more destructive--than hollowpoints. But again, I'm not telling you want to use in your self-defense gun. Hollowpoints work fine if that's what you want. I'm just refuting misinformation about how frangibles work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

As for me making stuff up that is in fact the very way hollow points function, whether I made it up or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet

---

When you said that the expansion of hollowpoints results in their "inflicting even more injury", I thought you meant even more injury than that caused by a fragmenting bullet of the same caliber (as I made clear in my response). If you meant more injury than a non-fragmenting ball round, then yeah, I have no problem with that statement. I wasn't saying you were making up stuff about how hollowpoints work; I was saying you were making up stuff if you thought a 5.56mm hollowpoint does more tissue damage than a fragmenting M193/885.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

Everyone should also read the legality section and you will see that hollow points are prohibited for military use, thus the necessity of fragmenting rounds.

---

Actually, this is totally untrue, and you should be careful about accepting hearsay as fact. Many people think that hollowpoints are simply "illegal for the military" but the truth is a bit more complex. As the page you link to says, the use of hollowpoint bullets (along with all other bullets designed to expand or flatten inside the target's body) is regulated by the 1899 Hague Convention. However, if you had followed up on that and found out what the Hague Convention actually says about them, you would have learned that it's ban on these bullets only applies in the case of a state of war between two countries which have both signed Declaration III of the Convention. It is also waived if either belligerent is joined in hostilities by a non-signatory cobelligerent. So the United States military is perfectly free to use hollowpoint bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in fact is free to use them against almost anyone we want--the only time we can't use them is when we are shooting at soldiers in the army of another Hague Convention signatory, and no non-signatory states are participating on either side of the conflict.

Here is the actual text of Declaration III: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

So, long story short, the US military uses fragmenting bullets because it CHOOSES to, not because it's prohibited from using hollowpoints. The US military could be using hollowpoints if it wanted to. It could have used them against the Viet Cong and NVA when the 5.56mm round was first adopted, and it could have used them against pretty much every enemy we have fought since them.

God damn syme

Syme posts alot of walls of text. But there is alot of useful info in them. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Syme posts alot of walls of text. But there is alot of useful info in them. lol

---

Yeah, I know.

LOL, if I wanted his useful info, I'd just play COD4 and watch CNN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD

LOL, if I wanted his useful info, I'd just play COD4 and watch CNN

---

You jokester, you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD

Yeah, I know.

LOL, if I wanted his useful info, I'd just play COD4 and watch CNN

---

I had someone tell me that the heartbeat sensors were real technology the other day. Then I asked them how something could pick a heartbeat out over tons if explosions and gunshots, and they were stupefied. lol

Everything I know about international laws of war and the provisions of the Hague Convention, I learned from xbox.

haahah, maybe if they could somehow pick up the depolarization between the nodes or something, but then the radios would be 1000000000x more potent