AR-15 for Home defense in Philly

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by rwilson452

I for one will not choose to use my AR for home defence. Not because of any legal reasoning but because of my concern for unintended injury to innocent bystanders.

If you do use your AR or any other firearm and hurt someone you didn't intend your not only going to face a DA but a civil case as well. Ayoob spoke to this.

I don't know where you guys are getting your information but the 5.56 cartridge does not over-penetrate.

Two good articles on the subject are: R.K. Taubert, ".223 for CQB", Florida SWAT Association News, Fall 1997 (also presented in Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement, Jan 1997)., and Gunsite Training Center Staff, "The Call-Out Bag: A Comparison of .223 Penetration Versus Handgun Calibers", The Tactical Edge, pp. 63-64, Summer 1994.

[27hand]

I believe I am with TonyF on this one.

The firearm closest to me at night is my AR. It has an affixed light

I can't tell you the number of times I have heard trainers say that you will grab what you have and go.

I have also heard from knowledgeable sources that the 5.56 will not penetrate as much or as far as 9mm or 00buck in building materials.

Get through the ordeal. Your lawyer (you must choose one wisely)will handle the why,which weapon,which bullet,why no warning shots and why you had to clean yourself before you dialed 911. You will pay him to have expert witnesses(probably some of your trainers) testify as to why you did what you did and what means you used to not be the victim of a violent crime.

I think a good lawyer can refute any prosecution portrayal of your using what he thinks is a politically incorrect firearm to save your life.

While you have him on retainer, you might as well sue the perps family for raising him in such a manner as to cause you this anxiety and mental strain for having to dispatch their beloved for attempting to murder you.

There are no guarantees on how a jury will find but hopefully you will have saved yourself and family members.

Somewhere I read that the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to a longgun. Seems to make sense.

My op

27hand

[TravisBickle]

The best weapon for home defense is an AR15. Short barreled AR's are the best choice, but if you're in Philly you'll never get the local LEO to sign off on it. The second best choice is an AR with a 14.5" barrel and a permanently attached phantom/vortex flash hider.



This is just my opinion, but it's also pretty much a fact. I would rather have a semi-auto rifle with a 20-30 round mag than any handgun or any pump shotgun.

[DPB]

Let me jump in here and attempt to shed some light on the overpenetration issue.

The primary reason that 5.56mm penetrates less than most handgun/submachine gun rounds is precisly because it travels so fast. The combination of velocity and rotational velocity has a tendency to make the bullet come apart fairly quickly. So the bullet that started out at 55 grains (the most common 5.56 rounds) rapidly becomes several lighter projectiles, which will not have much penetrating power.

A handgun round has a much lower velocity, and a much lower rotational velocity. Also, it starts out as a much heavier projectile (typically 115-230 grains). The lesser velocity means that there is less fragmentation. The higher initial weight will result in heavier projectiles if it does fragment, which individually have more potential to do damage.

I tend to agree with TonyF on the subject of the "legitmacy" of the AR as a defensive weapon. However, reference MorganB's statement about short barrelled ARs, I think you are entering an entirely new level of potential legal quagmire if you defend yourself with an NFA weapon.

[rad]

If I found myself back in Philly I would strongly consider some kind of semi-auto rifle like an AR for home defense, but not as the primary home defense weapon.

The primary for dealing with the customary unannounced and unwelcome guests of ill intent would be a handgun, locked in a speed vault, and next to the bed most likely. When such guests arrive the tactic would be to take up a defensible position with the handgun and call the police. Forget clearing the house and the room-to-room stuff. If you're not trained for that then doing so is stupid unless there is absolutely no other choice.

Where the AR would come into better play would be for those other unlikely, but potential, unfortunately realities of urban living. Events of mass unrest like riots and whatnot.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by rad

Forget clearing the house and the room-to-room stuff. If you're not trained for that then doing so is stupid unless there is absolutely no other choice.

The salient point is that those who ARE trained for it think it's stupid to clear a house alone.

When you venture out to clear a house, you are a tremendous disadvantage.

[rwilson452]

On further reflection I wonder how much penetration you would get from a bullet like the Hornaday V-Max or Sierra BlitzKing bullets. These are designed to expand rather quickly, Would it be too quickly? Should someone decide to do some drywall penetration tests the results might be interesting. How far in gel?

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by 27hand

Get through the ordeal. Your lawyer (you must choose one wisely)will handle the why,which weapon,which bullet,why no warning shots and why you had to clean yourself before you dialed 911. You will pay him to have expert witnesses(probably some of your trainers) testify as to why you did what you did and what means you used to not be the victim of a violent crime.

I think a good lawyer can refute any prosecution portrayal of your using what he thinks is a politically incorrect firearm to save your life.

While you have him on retainer, you might as well sue the perps family for raising him in such a manner as to cause you this anxiety and mental strain for having to dispatch their beloved for attempting to murder you.


Somewhere I read that the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to a longgun. Seems to make sense.


27hand

I'm quoting some relevant sentences above, with some deleted sentences in between that I didn't need to address.

Even the best lawyer can't turn crap into caviar. Rich people with excellent teams of lawyers go to jail, despite the OJ Simpson and Robert Blake acquittals. Really skilled lawyers can get some evidence against you excluded, sometimes. They can get irrelevant but usefully confusing testimoby in to help you, sometimes. But if you did something that the law prohibits, you're screwed, most of the time. If your criminal case gets assigned to an anti-gun judge, your chances go down. If you get a jury of people who believe what they've been told about evil guns for the last few decades, you should put your car into storage because you won't be going anywhere for a while.

Before you bet your freedom on what a good lawyer could do for you, it might be wise to talk to the best lawyer you can afford. I'll bet that he'd like you to help him up front, by avoiding unnecessarily problematic choices.

A handgun is just as effective for self defense as a rifle, in any situation where self defense is justified, with the minor exception of an attacker who's wearing body armor. A 30-round magazine of 5.56 won't help you if 18-rounds of 9mm or 14 rounds of .45 can't. Most gunfights involve an exchange of fewer than 10 rounds from all parties involved. Can you really imagine needing 30 rounds to stop a home intruder? Where will all of those misses end up? If you shoot an intruder 30 times, you're going to jail, no matter what lawyer you get.

Self defense almost always involves distances within a room, maybe across 2 rooms of your house. So that's what, 30-40 feet? If you can't hit a head or torso at 40 feet with a handgun, then you should stick to a club. A rifle won't help you.

There are also excellent tactical reasons to use a handgun in self-defense distances, primarily retention issues. It's much more likely that an attacker can grab part of a yard-long rifle and fight you for control, than he could wrestle you for a pistol that's 2/3rds covered by your hand.

If you need a rifle to hit your opponent, then odds are that the enemy is too far away for you to justify self defense. The military uses rifles because the military needs to kill people at 100 yards or more, and because soldiers don't need to justify the killing of the enemy. Sitting in your home, you are not free to kill people, you need to show that they were an imminent lethal threat (or at least that they were about to cripple you.)

I think that Americans should be free to choose their own weapons for self defense, since nobody has a legal duty to protect you. What I'm sharing with you is the fact that you will be held to answer for any shooting of another person, and a variety of factors will determine whether you are indicted and maybe convicted of a crime.

It's false to think that using an AR-15 is a neutral choice. Jurors will bring their own prejudices to the jury box.

It's false to think that using military ball ammo will be understood by jurors to be a reasonable choice. Yes, we know that it's more humane than soft nose or hollowpoints. We aren't on the jury.

It's false to believe that after the first shot, the rest are free; the truth is that each shot is a separate use of force that will be evaluated in terms of the moment that it's used. The cops who beat Rodney King were required to hit him the first 20 or so times, they went to jail for the last few hits that were scrutinized on video in slow motion by jurors. There's a guy from Montgomery County who shot a raving naked guy who was trying to force his way into the house; the first shot was maybe justified, but the last few were fired into the intruder as he lay wounded on the ground, so the homeowner is now in jail. In other words, most of your 30-round mag is just a legal liability to you.

You guys have to make your own choices, just be sure to make them with an understanding of the consequences in the real world, with the judges and juries we actually have, not the legal system that we SHOULD have but don't.

[27hand]

Gunlawyer,

Some very valid points.

#1, Training with your weapon of choice is first.

I'm not going to be cool and collected if this type of situation finds me but I do feel I have enough training (although I guess we never really have enough ,do we) to make a decision to the point that it will probably be a "good" or warranted shoot.

If I or anyone empties a mag into someone, as you posted they will park the car for a bit. Would this be necessary? Absolutely not. I cannot say for certain what I would do. I hope that I have the tools to shoot once or twice, be able to assess what's happening and either do it again or look around to see if anyone else would be a threat. My guess is if anyone else was there, they may opt to leave.

I disagree that a pistol and rifle can be compared as equal in a home defense situation. A Doctor taught me that ALL pistols are puny,that hits on people with a pistol will give them adequate time to still do me bodily damage(3 seconds-10 seconds is a lot of time).

A long gun can be removed from an untrained person readily as you suggested.
Learn how to move in your house with it. You don't lead into blind spots with your muzzle.

You have pretty good reasoning for most of your post and we appreciate your input. I just happen to disagree with you on some points.

Rereading the initial post , I missed the Philly reference which could additionally go against a home defender. I choose not to live there.

A shooting, good or bad will change your life forever,not even addressing the financial impact. That's why we all pretty much agree and hope we are never involved in one.

A good Lawyer can't polish a turd, but a good lawyer can probably take a bad situation and minimize the negative impact if the shooter doesn't do stupid stuff.

27hand

[TonyF]

Let me be unqequivocally clear, I am *not* trying to adivse people to use a carbine for self defense. The OP asked if it was legal and I answered in the affirmative. My contribution to the discussion focused on certain facts that involve using a carbine in that role because quite frankly there has been quite a bit of hearsay and misinformation posted.

Gunlawyer, you've taken some liberties with certain facts in this reply.

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

A handgun is just as effective for self defense as a rifle, in any situation where self defense is justified, with the minor exception of an attacker who's wearing body armor.

The issue of body armor notwithstanding, to state that a handgun is just as effective as a rifle in any justifiable self defense situation is patently false on the grounds of terminal performance alone which has been my position throughout this thread. If you would care to further qualify your statement I'm all ears.

A 30-round magazine of 5.56 won't help you if 18-rounds of 9mm or 14 rounds of .45 can't. Most gunfights involve an exchange of fewer than 10 rounds from all parties involved. Can you really imagine needing 30 rounds to stop a home intruder? Where will all of those misses end up? If you shoot an intruder 30 times, you're going to jail, no matter what lawyer you get.

While I agree with this point in principle, none of the proponents of the use of the carbine in this thread ever mentioned needing 20 or 30 rounds of ammunition. Our advocacy of the carbine is based solely on the terminal performance of the 5.56 cartrtidge. And in that context, it will by default take less shots fired to achieve the same result.

Self defense almost always involves distances within a room, maybe across 2 rooms of your house. So that's what, 30-40 feet? If you can't hit a head or torso at 40 feet with a handgun, then you should stick to a club. A rifle won't help you.

This again is an issue of terminal performance. I can't emphasize that enough. Any cartridge (pistol or rifle) with a POI into the ocular window will produce a satisafactory result but that is the only instance where a handgun equals a rifle. However, what if an ocular window shot isn't presented? The odds go way down that the handgun cartridge will be as effective as a rifle cartridge.

There are also excellent tactical reasons to use a handgun in self-defense distances, primarily retention issues. It's much more likely that an attacker can grab part of a yard-long rifle and fight you for control, than he could wrestle you for a pistol that's 2/3rds covered by your hand.

This is certainly a possibility but we're not talking about conducting a search and destroy mission or a room clearing. We're talking about home defense where in all but the rarest circumstances the prudent course of action is to get to the safe room, call 911 and position oneself to maximize a defensive posture.

Sitting in your home, you are not free to kill people, you need to show that they were an imminent lethal threat (or at least that they were about to cripple you.)

This is the same criteria we all must abide by, the weapon is irrelevant.

It's false to think that using an AR-15 is a neutral choice. Jurors will bring their own prejudices to the jury box.

And jurors are also allot smarter than most people think. We all have a B.S. detector and most of us know when someone is trying to lead us to a preconceived conclusion.

It's false to think that using military ball ammo will be understood by jurors to be a reasonable choice. Yes, we know that it's more humane than soft nose or hollowpoints. We aren't on the jury.

Any mention of M193 FMJ was for comparative purposes re: penetration. It's not a poor choice from a purely academic PoV but if I were to advise someone on ammo choices it would be a premium HP round.

But getting back to the point, I'll bet the farm that a whole bunch of people reading this thread were easily educated on the facts regarding terminal performance and exterior ballistics from both my posts and that of DPB's. And this was just via a few quick replies on a gun board. I reject as false *your presumption* that a jury can't be made to understand those issue(s).

It's false to believe that after the first shot, the rest are free; the truth is that each shot is a separate use of force that will be evaluated in terms of the moment that it's used.

Nobody made a claim to the contrary.

There's a guy from Montgomery County who shot a raving naked guy who was trying to force his way into the house; the first shot was maybe justified, but the last few were fired into the intruder as he lay wounded on the ground, so the homeowner is now in jail. In other words, most of your 30-round mag is just a legal liability to you.

This is a poor argument counselor. It wouldn't have mattered if the shooter had a G17 with 17 + 1 in the chamber or an AR with a 30 round magazine. His mistake was shooting AGAIN when it wasn't justified. This could well have occured with a 7 +1 1911 or a six shot revolver. And again, we aren't advocating the carbine because of magazine capacity, it's about terminal performance.

I appreciate and respect that your opinions are based on your legal background and experiences, I just don't happen to agree with them.