If You Could Own 1 Gun and 1 Rifle

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]dhickey wrote:

.243 would be cool. Not sure why they would add teh 7mm-08 as well. If they are going to do the .243 they should go a bit further up the food chain like .270wsm or even .300wsm. Maybe because of longer barrel requirements?
[/quote]

Probably for the same reason that the Steyr-Mannlicher Scout is offered in 7mm-08 as well. In some jurisdictions, civilians aren’t allowed to use “military calibers,” which 7.62x51 obviously is.

As far as the short magnum calibers, that’s probably a good guess. Not much point of a 3000-plus fps round if you’re going to shoot it out of a barrel that would give it the ballistics of a .308.

Once again, my preference is for fewer, rather than more calibers.

If you can’t do it with a .308 or a .30-06, you probably can’t do it with a 6.5 Grendel, a 6.8 SPC, a .300 Winchester Short Magnum, or even a .300 Win Mag, either.

Similarly, whatever you can do with a .408 Chey-Tac, you can probably do with a .50 BMG, for a hell of a lot less money.

So yes, if I were restricted to only two calibers, it would probably be the .45 (either Colt or Auto) and the .308.

Although I would be even happier with those two plus the .22 LR and perhaps the .50 BMG.

With one weapon in each of these calibers, using appropriate ammunition, a man could take out jackrabbits, whitetail deer, enemy soldiers, grizzly bears, armored vehicles, and absolutely everything in between.

102

[quote]jawara wrote:
Check out this scope. Hi-Lux Precision Rifle Scopes and Optics
[/quote]

Leatherwood make good scopes.

Unfortunately, like practically everything else in the world, Leatherwood ATR Camputer scopes are now stamped “Made in China.”

If this small detail doesn’t bother you, go for it. And hey, if the scope ever aids you in blowing away a member of the Chinese People’s Army, you can relish the delicious irony.

Me, I’ll stick with a good old Leupold Mark IV, or nothing at all.

103

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
dhickey wrote:

.243 would be cool. Not sure why they would add teh 7mm-08 as well. If they are going to do the .243 they should go a bit further up the food chain like .270wsm or even .300wsm. Maybe because of longer barrel requirements?

Probably for the same reason that the Steyr-Mannlicher Scout is offered in 7mm-08 as well. In some jurisdictions, civilians aren’t allowed to use “military calibers,” which 7.62x51 obviously is.

As far as the short magnum calibers, that’s probably a good guess. Not much point of a 3000-plus fps round if you’re going to shoot it out of a barrel that would give it the ballistics of a .308.

Once again, my preference is for fewer, rather than more calibers.

If you can’t do it with a .308 or a .30-06, you probably can’t do it with a 6.5 Grendel, a 6.8 SPC, a .300 Winchester Short Magnum, or even a .300 Win Mag, either.

Similarly, whatever you can do with a .408 Chey-Tac, you can probably do with a .50 BMG, for a hell of a lot less money.

So yes, if I were restricted to only two calibers, it would probably be the .45 (either Colt or Auto) and the .308.

Although I would be even happier with those two plus the .22 LR and perhaps the .50 BMG.

With one weapon in each of these calibers, using appropriate ammunition, a man could take out jackrabbits, whitetail deer, enemy soldiers, grizzly bears, armored vehicles, and absolutely everything in between.
[/quote]

I think along those lines mostly. Sometimes I still get something because it’s cool to get something. but you are absolutely right, you need to ask yourself, what problem am I solving with this purchase.

Yesterday i bought a 22 conversion for the AR15.this allows me to take the kids shooting and teach them how to shoot that rifle on the cheap. Can’t use it for hunting in Pa, no semis, but one brick of 500 rounds for app 22$ beats 200$ for 223 ammo.

104

[quote]pushharder wrote:
lucasa wrote:
tom63 wrote:
lucasa wrote:
pushharder wrote:
GVkid wrote:
Lol planning on hunting Bigfoot or something???

With the Chey Tac or the .50 BMG for that matter, Bigfoot could easily be taken out at a mile and a half.

That is, if you know have a reasonable idea where bigfoot will be ahead of time…

and he’s reasonably visible…

and he’s relatively still and or moving predictably…

on terrain you’re familiar with…

in favorable weather conditions…

Then yeah, all you have to do is line it up and pull the trigger.

Easy.

With that Cheytac 408 it does make it simpler. The have a computer driven scope that inputs a whole lot of stuff into it such as temperature, wind, humidity, rotation of the earth and the winning lottery numbers. Just kidding on the last one.

I’m familiar with the optics, amateur astronomy has had similar technology for decades and computers were originally invented to calculate ballistics tables.

Are you familiar with the real world? Better technology does put more things within your grasp, but to say ‘I could shoot bigfoot at a mile and a half’, shows that you don’t do very much real world shooting. All those military trained shooters with .50 cal. out there and how many do you think make score hits on non-material targets at 1.5+ mi. every year? Maybe 1-2 handfuls? Saying ‘Oh yeah, I could shoot bigfoot at 1.5 mi.’ is more like saying ‘Oh yeah, I could climb K2.’ than 'Oh yeah, I can hit an NBA 3 pointer."

The idea of being able to shoot anything you see impresses and/or motiviates the uninitiated, but people spending $12K on a rifle should know that being able to shoot absolutely anything you see means you either have a (ballistic) weapon that defies the laws of physics or very bad eyesight.

Unless we’re talking about Bigfoot the monster truck, then I apologize, my Mom could hit Bigfoot from 1.5 mi.

Even on a benign thread like this an asshole always has to show up wagging his tongue. Why does this have to be so? Relax, buddy and enjoy the conversation.

Somebody made a joke about taking Bigfoot at a long distance. I replied that the ballistics of this cartridge make something like that a distinct possibility. Nobody diminished the idea that a skilled shooter would still be a key component of a successful circumstance.

So shut up. Good grief.[/quote]

Exactly. According to the people at cheytac, with their system regular shooters can easily hit shots at a mile with a little training. Regular shooters, not total novices. It’s not uncommon for the regular folk ro make first round hits at 2000 yards.

So lighten up Frances, this is just fun gun store BS talk with guys that like guns.

105

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
dhickey wrote:

.243 would be cool. Not sure why they would add teh 7mm-08 as well. If they are going to do the .243 they should go a bit further up the food chain like .270wsm or even .300wsm. Maybe because of longer barrel requirements?

Probably for the same reason that the Steyr-Mannlicher Scout is offered in 7mm-08 as well. In some jurisdictions, civilians aren’t allowed to use “military calibers,” which 7.62x51 obviously is.

As far as the short magnum calibers, that’s probably a good guess. Not much point of a 3000-plus fps round if you’re going to shoot it out of a barrel that would give it the ballistics of a .308.

Once again, my preference is for fewer, rather than more calibers.

If you can’t do it with a .308 or a .30-06, you probably can’t do it with a 6.5 Grendel, a 6.8 SPC, a .300 Winchester Short Magnum, or even a .300 Win Mag, either.

Similarly, whatever you can do with a .408 Chey-Tac, you can probably do with a .50 BMG, for a hell of a lot less money.

So yes, if I were restricted to only two calibers, it would probably be the .45 (either Colt or Auto) and the .308.

Although I would be even happier with those two plus the .22 LR and perhaps the .50 BMG.

With one weapon in each of these calibers, using appropriate ammunition, a man could take out jackrabbits, whitetail deer, enemy soldiers, grizzly bears, armored vehicles, and absolutely everything in between.
[/quote]

I would keep the short light barrell for the .308. Good light woods gun. Where I hunt deer, shots are no more than 100 yards and probably through a few sticks. .308 exiting a little slower through a short barrel is about perfect. This would also make it a handy combat gun.

If I were to go out west for Antelope, I would want a .243 in a 20" heavy barrel. Could smoke varmint with it too.

The .270wsm or .300wsm would be for goats, elk, and moose. Heavy barrel but probably have to be 24" for the .270 and 26" for .300. Again, you could bring the .243 for some varmint shooting.

I just think it would be cool to have one gun that did everything I needed it to rather than having multiple guns with their own optics and being less familiar with all of them.

They other option would be to just buy a bull barrel for .308. But what fun is that?

106

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
dhickey wrote:

.243 would be cool. Not sure why they would add teh 7mm-08 as well. If they are going to do the .243 they should go a bit further up the food chain like .270wsm or even .300wsm. Maybe because of longer barrel requirements?

Probably for the same reason that the Steyr-Mannlicher Scout is offered in 7mm-08 as well. In some jurisdictions, civilians aren’t allowed to use “military calibers,” which 7.62x51 obviously is.

As far as the short magnum calibers, that’s probably a good guess. Not much point of a 3000-plus fps round if you’re going to shoot it out of a barrel that would give it the ballistics of a .308.

Once again, my preference is for fewer, rather than more calibers.

If you can’t do it with a .308 or a .30-06, you probably can’t do it with a 6.5 Grendel, a 6.8 SPC, a .300 Winchester Short Magnum, or even a .300 Win Mag, either.

Similarly, whatever you can do with a .408 Chey-Tac, you can probably do with a .50 BMG, for a hell of a lot less money.

So yes, if I were restricted to only two calibers, it would probably be the .45 (either Colt or Auto) and the .308.

Although I would be even happier with those two plus the .22 LR and perhaps the .50 BMG.

With one weapon in each of these calibers, using appropriate ammunition, a man could take out jackrabbits, whitetail deer, enemy soldiers, grizzly bears, armored vehicles, and absolutely everything in between.

I would keep the short light barrell for the .308. Good light woods gun. Where I hunt deer, shots are no more than 100 yards and probably through a few sticks. .308 exiting a little slower through a short barrel is about perfect. This would also make it a handy combat gun.

If I were to go out west for Antelope, I would want a .243 in a 20" heavy barrel. Could smoke varmint with it too.

The .270wsm or .300wsm would be for goats, elk, and moose. Heavy barrel but probably have to be 24" for the .270 and 26" for .300. Again, you could bring the .243 for some varmint shooting.

I just think it would be cool to have one gun that did everything I needed it to rather than having multiple guns with their own optics and being less familiar with all of them.

They other option would be to just buy a bull barrel for .308. But what fun is that?
[/quote]

There are lighter loads fort eh 308 down to 125 gr at least. Remington makes these managed recoil loads. I’m sure you can work up some handloads also for varmint sized critters.

Edit, there are 100 gr loads that people make for varmint hunting. So you have 110 gr varmint to 180 gr big game loads.

107

[quote]jawara wrote:
JD430 wrote:
jawara wrote:

BTW, you know anything about scopes???

There are far greater authorities on optics than me but I’ll try. What do you want the scope to do and how much are you willing to pay?

I’m looking for somthing in the 1x4 range with a red dot the Millett DMS seems cool but I’d like to see whats out there before I throw down money. $400 is my limit.[/quote]

I don’t have personal experience with them but I have heard some negative things about Millet.

The ACOG sounds like it would probably fit the bill but it is more than double what you want to pay. If you wanted to possibly buy a used one, check the equipment exchange on AR15.com. That is the safest place to buy used optics on line. Won’t find one for $400 though.

One thing you might want to consider is buying an aimpoint or an EOtech now and then adding a magnifier down the road when you have a little more money. That solution really covers all of the bases. I am a big fan of the EOtech as a reflex sight but the aimpoint is probably a better option when paired with the magnifier.

Here is another option…

http://www.jprifles.com/1.6.1.php

I have ordered a number of parts from JP and they are top notch. I will buy one of their rifles one day. John Paul knows his stuff. Pairing the Jpoint with a magnified scope, like a $300 SWFA super sniper(the best economy scope in the world) really gives you tremendous options and that is the setup favored by many top level 3 gun competitors. However, I can’t vouch for the ruggedness of it and I am sure that matters to you just in case that XCR becomes a “survival tool”.

108


Generally speaking, one tends to shoot better when one’s rifle is equipped with sights.

“Two weeks after the balloon goes up, iron sights will rule the world.” --Clint Smith

Reminds me of a hilarious and potentially catastrophic occurrence I witnessed a few months ago. One of the places I shoot is a public indoor range, maximum distance 50 meters, which is useful for battle sight zeroing and offhand snap-shooting, but not much else.

Anyway, I had just finished for the day, and was just packing up when these two kids in their twenties came in with a DPMS Panther wannabe AR-15 “tacticool” carbine.

One of the kids set up an NRA slow-fire target about 20 yards off, locked and loaded, got into what could, I suppose, charitably be described as a “jackass standing” position, and proceeded to blaze away.

If three rounds out of fifteen hit the paper, I would be surprised. Sparks flew from where bullets hit the steel target frame and the overhead rail, and soundproofing insulation fell like gray snow from where the bullets had torn through the ceiling of the range.

I just knew that either they were going to kill someone with a ricochet, or else they were going to cause thousands of dollars of damage, so I stepped over to tell them to cease fire.

As it happened, I needn’t have bothered. The weapon had jammed, and neither the shooter nor his buddy had any idea how to clear it. They stood there stupidly, finger on trigger (of course), muzzle pointing every which way, masturbating the charging handle and whacking the forward assist. I quickly stepped in, relieved them of the rifle, cleared the malfunction and unloaded the weapon, and gave it a quick inspection.

I had assumed that his poor shooting was a result of the weapon not having been zeroed. As it turned out, the problem was that the kid had failed to equip it with sights of any kind. There was a Picatinny rail for mounting optics, but nothing mounted at all fore or aft.

I couldn’t decide whether their stupidity merited fury and castigation, or simple hilarity, so I settled for sarcasm.

“You do realize,” I said, “that you shoot better when you put sights on these things.”

“Yeah,” the kid mumbled, “well, I just bought this gun yesterday, and I didn’t have the money for sights.”

I told him that until he somehow found the money, the rifle posed very little danger to whatever he was shooting at, but was a danger to himself, the people around him, and to the range equipment.

Hopefully the kid took my advice. I beat feet out of there and told the range owner to keep an eye on him in case he started shooting again.

Guns and stupid are never a good combination.

109

[quote]tom63 wrote:
There are lighter loads fort eh 308 down to 125 gr at least. Remington makes these managed recoil loads. I’m sure you can work up some handloads also for varmint sized critters.

Edit, there are 100 gr loads that people make for varmint hunting. So you have 110 gr varmint to 180 gr big game loads.
[/quote]

Problem would be finding a barrel and twist that would stabilize that range of bullet. You could probably do 110 to 165 with something like 1:12. You would probably want it a little faster with 180gr load. Probably not optimal for ether the small end or big end but that’s getting a bit beyond my knowledge.

110

Thanks, JD430

I’m gonna stay away from the ACOG because I don’t think they are worth what they cost. It’s a fixed 4x scope that cost like $800+. There are some pretty cool scopes out there that 1-4x with a red dot or reticle that can do the same job for less. There are people that use the Millett DMS in place of that eotech red dot and 4x magnifier and it only costs $250. Here’s a link http://www.millettsights.com/controller.php/cat09/dms_reddot

111

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Generally speaking, one tends to shoot better when one’s rifle is equipped with sights.

“Two weeks after the balloon goes up, iron sights will rule the world.” --Clint Smith

Reminds me of a hilarious and potentially catastrophic occurrence I witnessed a few months ago. One of the places I shoot is a public indoor range, maximum distance 50 meters, which is useful for battle sight zeroing and offhand snap-shooting, but not much else.

Anyway, I had just finished for the day, and was just packing up when these two kids in their twenties came in with a DPMS Panther wannabe AR-15 “tacticool” carbine.

One of the kids set up an NRA slow-fire target about 20 yards off, locked and loaded, got into what could, I suppose, charitably be described as a “jackass standing” position, and proceeded to blaze away.

If three rounds out of fifteen hit the paper, I would be surprised. Sparks flew from where bullets hit the steel target frame and the overhead rail, and soundproofing insulation fell like gray snow from where the bullets had torn through the ceiling of the range.

I just knew that either they were going to kill someone with a ricochet, or else they were going to cause thousands of dollars of damage, so I stepped over to tell them to cease fire.

As it happened, I needn’t have bothered. The weapon had jammed, and neither the shooter nor his buddy had any idea how to clear it. They stood there stupidly, finger on trigger (of course), muzzle pointing every which way, masturbating the charging handle and whacking the forward assist. I quickly stepped in, relieved them of the rifle, cleared the malfunction and unloaded the weapon, and gave it a quick inspection.

I had assumed that his poor shooting was a result of the weapon not having been zeroed. As it turned out, the problem was that the kid had failed to equip it with sights of any kind. There was a Picatinny rail for mounting optics, but nothing mounted at all fore or aft.

I couldn’t decide whether their stupidity merited fury and castigation, or simple hilarity, so I settled for sarcasm.

“You do realize,” I said, “that you shoot better when you put sights on these things.”

“Yeah,” the kid mumbled, “well, I just bought this gun yesterday, and I didn’t have the money for sights.”

I told him that until he somehow found the money, the rifle posed very little danger to whatever he was shooting at, but was a danger to himself, the people around him, and to the range equipment.

Hopefully the kid took my advice. I beat feet out of there and told the range owner to keep an eye on him in case he started shooting again.

Guns and stupid are never a good combination.
[/quote]

Hilarious!

112

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:

http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/Categories.bok?category=Optic+Mounts

Aimpoint FTW. Get one with a LaRue mount and call it a day.

http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/Categories.bok?category=Optic+and+Mount+Combos%3AAimpoint

Then you can save up some cash and get the 3x magnifier to go with it. [/quote]

What would be even cooler would be the Millet Zoom Dot or Mueller Multi-Dot. Then when you add the EOTech, Burris, or Mako magnifier, your 4MOA dot doesn’t cover the whole target.

113

(1) Sticky This Thread.

(2) Would a 12 gauge be the best weapon for home defense?
Best weapon to keep loaded and under the bed?

(3) Is a .357 the best choice for close quarters, such as
in a bedroom/closet/kitchen, and so forth?

114

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(1) Sticky This Thread.

(2) Would a 12 gauge be the best weapon for home defense?
Best weapon to keep loaded and under the bed?

(3) Is a .357 the best choice for close quarters, such as
in a bedroom/closet/kitchen, and so forth?[/quote]

(1) The fact that this thread has been on the page one, top five, of the PWI index, for nearly a week, with nary a peep from the “nobody should be armed but the government” crowd is both astounding and encouraging. I don’t know if it rates a sticky, but it’s an important topic, nonetheless.

(2) Defending your home from what? From a burglar breaking in through the window? From a rapist in your daughter’s room? From a determined band of paramilitary bandits? Inside the house, a 12-gauge round, whether firing a slug, buckshot, or birdshot, will not spread appreciably, essentially sending a solid mass of lead at the target.

This means that it is not, as many people believe, “impossible to miss” with a shotgun at close range, and a home-defense shotgun should thus be thought of as a .73 caliber smoothbore carbine.

The advantage a shotgun has over a rifle is that whereas a .308 FMJ bullet will go through the bad guy, keep going through the wall behind him, and still have enough kinetic energy to seriously injure or kill one of your family in the other room, a round of birdshot will expend its energy on the bad guy, posing very little threat to noncombatants.

(This is why I love the Hornady 110-grain TAP .308 round, which is a highly expansive and frangible police round designed specifically to not over-penetrate. But I digress.)

The disadvantage, of course, is that, just like a rifle, the shotgun’s length and weight makes it relatively difficult to maneuver in cramped quarters. And a loaded shotgun (or rifle) under the bed is great if you’re in the bedroom at the time, not so handy when you’re not.

So I would say that inside the house, the best weapon is the one that you have on your person, or within a few seconds reach at the time you become aware of an imminent assault. Ideally, this means the most powerful handgun you can use effectively, firing highly expanding, low-penetrating ammunition.

My vote is for a heavy .45 caliber jacketed hollow-point bullet (180-230 grains) at low to medium velocity (800-950 fps). Fast enough to expand correctly, slow, heavy and wide enough to do a lot of damage, dispose a lot of energy, and stay in the bad guy.

Shooting at people outside your house, from inside your house, is a tricky proposition from both a legal and tactical standpoint. If you are absolutely, positively justified in firing at assailants in your backyard (i.e. you live in Texas or similar “castle doctrine” state), a handgun is not going to be as useful as a long gun.

Again, though, over-penetration is a primary consideration, particularly if you have neighbors within about a mile of your house. Here is where a 12-gauge shotgun firing buckshot or (if you have decent iron sights or optics on your shotgun) rifled slugs comes into its own. The Remington 1187 pictured above would be just the thing.

I’d still be happier with my own rifle and a magazine of Hornady TAP 110s, though (with a few 168-grain rounds standing by in the butt cuff for the bastards taking cover behind trees, cars, and brick walls). But that’s just me.

(3) I think I answered that question above. The .357 is a high-velocity, medium caliber, highly penetrative round. It’s much louder than a .45, with considerably stronger recoil. This may be a consideration if you expect your wife or daughter to use the weapon.

While with the proper load a balance can be reached between power, penetration, and recoil, I just think that this balance is easier to achieve with the .45.

Big, heavy, and slow wins this race.

115

Varqanir,

Thank you again, as always.

My home is in a neighborhood populated by people not very popular with the poor. My neighbor, for ex, has 600 employees. It is time to adopt a new mindset.

116

Very welcome.

You (and your wife) need to read two books by Jeff Cooper.

The first is “Principles of Personal Defense”

This will explain what kind of mind-set to adopt.

The second is “To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth.”

This will explain what to do once you’ve adopted it.

Pay special attention to the article entitled “Notes on Tactical Residential Architecture.”

Here are a few highlights.

Point One:
When you are asleep you are helpless. There must be a strong barrier between the sleeping quarters and the rest of the house. A bolted door will do (dead bolt, not a pickable latch), but an iron grill is better because you can see through it–and shoot through it.

Point Two:
You must be able to see who is at the door without exposing yourself. All doors (front, back, and side) should be recessed in such a way that anyone seeking entrance may be viewed in full, from the side or preferably from behind.

Point Three:
Any house which is properly designed for the Age of Aquarius must permit its perimeter to be visible from inside it. Even if stuck with a blind rectangle, a single added bastion on one corner will give you coverage of two of four walls, and two diagonally placed bastions will cover all but their own backsides.

Point Four:
Roman patricians, when in town, dwelt in houses designed for an urban jungle no less savage than our own. Outside walls, right on the property line and generally rectangular in plan, were proof against anything but a ram and pierced by very narrow doors. The open living space was inside. This plan was exported to the New World as the patio. This design has much to offer today. With one side of the quadrangle serving as a garage, and bastions at the four corners, it offers a hard carapace to the outside while providing as large an interior garden as space permits.

Point Five:
No inanimate structure or device can provide physical security in and of itself. Furthermore, no fortress nor sconce can withstand intelligent attack by determined besiegers. It should be unnecessary to point out that the shield is useless without the sword, and that neither is of value without the brain.

117

I’m not familiar with the exact wording of the castle doctrine, but I’ve been learning that it is completely illegal to be firing at anyone that is outside your house (unless they are firing in) especially if you are outside your home as well because then you have a place to retreat to.

I would agree with Varq with the 12 gauge, but I would recommend the Taurus judge a .45 long colt 5 shot revolver that chambers a 410 shell.

118

[quote]GVkid wrote:

I would agree with Varq with the 12 gauge, but I would recommend the Taurus judge a .45 long colt 5 shot revolver that chambers a 410 shell.[/quote]

I like the Taurus Judge. I just like the Ruger Redhawk more. :stuck_out_tongue: [quote]

I’m not familiar with the exact wording of the castle doctrine, but I’ve been learning that it is completely illegal to be firing at anyone that is outside your house (unless they are firing in) especially if you are outside your home as well because then you have a place to retreat to. [/quote]

Well, obviously interpretation of the Castle Doctrine (a man’s home is his castle, and he is justified in using deadly force in defending it). This is why I said it’s a sticky legal issue.

Here’s what the Texas law says:

Deadly Force in Defense of Person

“A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery.”

Defense of Another Person

“A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death.”

Deadly Force to Protect Property

“A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means.”

“A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)”

Protection of the Property of Others

“A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief.”

“Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child.”

Reasonable Belief

“It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time.”

“In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary.”

Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost

“Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable.”

“A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person’s standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time.”

Self Defense Definitions

“Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.”

“Aggravated assault is committed if a person commits Assault (qv.) and causes serious bodily injury to another, or causes bodily injury to a peace officer, or uses a deadly weapon.”

“Burglary is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Enters a building, or any portion of a bulding, not open to the public with intent to commit a felony or theft, or 2) Remains concealed in a building with the intent to commit a felony or theft.”

“Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person.”

Nothing here on where you can shoot from, and where you can’t. I don’t live in Texas, so killing a man in defense of property might not go down so well, but I don’t believe that the law requires that, when confronted with armed assailants whom I believe have come with intent to do harm to me and my family, I must either step outside, or else allow these assailants into my house, before I can start shooting at them.

Do you?

119

[quote]GVkid wrote:
I’m not familiar with the exact wording of the castle doctrine, but I’ve been learning that it is completely illegal to be firing at anyone that is outside your house (unless they are firing in) especially if you are outside your home as well because then you have a place to retreat to.

I would agree with Varq with the 12 gauge, but I would recommend the Taurus judge a .45 long colt 5 shot revolver that chambers a 410 shell.[/quote]

The judge looks cool, but it must be a handfull with a reasonable 410 load. The interesting part is that is rifled. Not too effective for anything but very short range as you will get quite a spread. I think it was originally designed as a gun for protection in your car.

Something you can point (not aim) out the window and send shot into every pour in the attacker’s face.

I think this would be an interesting concept for a home defense shotgun. With a heavier 12 gauge round and rifled barrel or choke, your aim wouldn’t have to be all that great. You would get quite a spread.

You could also load a slug after a couple of 00 loads. If the attacker is on PCP or wearing light BA the slug will take car of him if the shot loads don’t.

This would also allow you to put a pistol grip on your 12g for easier storage and manuverability, without fear of accuracy loss. Could do a ported barrel or choke to take some of the recoil out.

If I were going to do up a SG for home defense, I would do the following:

Remington 11-87
Pistol Grip
20" Rem Choke barrel
Ported rifled choke
Mag extension for total of 8 rounds.
Additional 6 shots on receiver saddle
2-00 then 1 slug, 2-00 then 1 slug, etc.

The semi-auto and ported choke would make it reasonable to handle with a pistol grip. I actually have most of this but the 11-87 is currently sporting a 26" barrel with 10 shot extended mag and a Choate pistol grip full stock.

20 gauge would be a good choice for this as well. Wife might even be able to handle it and it would probably be a bit quieter.

120

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(1) Sticky This Thread.

(2) Would a 12 gauge be the best weapon for home defense?
Best weapon to keep loaded and under the bed?

(3) Is a .357 the best choice for close quarters, such as
in a bedroom/closet/kitchen, and so forth?[/quote]

Varqanir gave good advice.

Here are a few things for consideration from my point of view.

It is very important for you to consider your living situation when determining what types of weapons would be preferred in defending it. Do you live alone? If so, I would say that a shotgun would be perfect.

I say this because you really wouldn’t have a need to be moving through your home to reach any other loved ones. You could hunker down in a bedroom and use the shotgun’s close range killing power to fend off the attack.

If you had any reason to be moving through your home to reach loved ones, I would recommend against a long gun generally. The skill needed to clear structures with a long gun, particularly a long shotgun, does not come easy. I have experience in this and have gone hunting for armed men in buildings while employing rifles and shotguns.

Long arms are much easier to rip out of your hands and are significantly more difficult to maneuver around corners and such. Searching closets and pantries and other cluttered areas is always a hairy proposition. It takes a lot of time and dedication to get even halfway good at it.

Few outside of the armed professions(and many even in them) get good at it, so the armed citizen should take heed.

Handguns are obviously much easier to manipulate in close confines and are much more difficult to take away from you should you be surprised and forced into a deadly wrestling match(it happens more often than you would believe). I have relied on the .45 caliber semi automatic pistol my entire career and wholeheartedly endorse that round.

However, it is somewhat erroneous to believe that .40 caliber and even 9mm rounds are not going to do the job, especially when they are loaded with quality modern defensive ammunition(I would not volunteer to take a hit with 9mm hyrda shocks). Consider magazine capacity when making your selection.

Another thing I have experience in is force on force training with simmunitions and airsoft weapons. That old gun magazine thing about “if you can’t win the fight with x(usually some very low number) number of rounds, you shouldn’t be there” is bullshit. I have seen and engaged in many force simulations, and let me tell you, the rounds fly like crazy. It lead me to stop carrying a revolver as an off-duty gun.

This is for two reasons 1.You WILL miss and 2.Handgun rounds don’t magically bring people to a halt. Watch video of shootings. If the guy gets hit in the body, they will double over, run, keep coming after you etc. They don’t just keel over and die…at least not until exsanguination(bleeding out) takes place.

That can take minutes, if it happens at all. I would rather have quite a few rounds ready to go in reserve. If you can keep blasting the guy, or at least are sending lead his way, his motivation to quit or leave will certainly go up.

If you decide to go with a semi automatic handgun(my recommendation under most circumstances), get quality training and test the weapon, magazines and ammunition thoroughly as your life may depend on it. While the simplicity of revolvers is advantageous to some degree, the magazine capacity and difficulty in reloading are big disadvantages.

Quality automatic handguns from top manufacturers, when coupled with good magazines and good ammo, are as reliable as a revolver and can hold upwards of 3 times the ammunition before needing to reload. That is very important.

As far as shooting someone who is outside your home, there is no hard and fast rule for that. Use of force standards have generally been evolving toward a reasonable man test.

That simply means that the judging parties(grand jury, jury, prosecutor) should put themselves in that situation and determine if your actions were reasonable given the threat you were facing under the conditions and knowledge that you had at the time the event was going down.

Dogmatic rules like “you can’t shoot at someone outside your house” or “you can’t shoot at someone driving a car” are often being seen as worthless generalizations…every situation demands its own unique examination. That said, there are probably many less scenarios that I can come up with where you would need to engage someone outside your home than engage them inside so be careful.

Lastly, there are three things you should keep by your bedside if you want to be safe. A firearm, a flashlight and a cell phone. As soon as is practical, call 9-1-1, or have a family member do so and provide dispatch with as much information about the situation that you can. If you or another loved one are armed, make that one of the first things you tell the dispatcher and include a thorough physical description.

This will help you to not get shot by the already excited responding authorities. Follow the dispatchers directions and stay on the line until you have physical contact with the police. If the dispatcher is telling you something really stupid or is not helping the situation and you or a loved one are going to do something different than what they are telling you(such as leave the house…they will generally tell you to stay in your bedroom), at least let them know so you don’t get shot because of confusion.

These things are at least as important as which gun you choose, probably much more so, especially since the vast majority of intruder calls are actually false alarms. I have seen a few of these false alarms nearly go bad because of miscommunication, so it is something to be very aware of.