There is a thread going on over in Training forum about use of a suppressor and it’s legal aspects in home defense. But I am wondering about the AR platform from a penetration standpoint.
I recently saw a “Best Defense” TV segment that demonstrated a .223 AR, a 9mm pistol and a shotgun with 00 buck and birdshot. All but the birdshot gun penetrated several layers of house frame wall. I sit here with my properly set up AR looking at my house and neighborhood. I live in the typical suburban neighborhood with frame houses on all sides. The aluminum siding barely keeps out hail balls in a thunderstorm. Drywall and siding will be like tissue paper to a 55gr 2600fps AR round. Also true of a 9mm Glock round.
Also I hold no illusions about my, or anyone’s, accuracy of aim in the dark, in a desperate, do or die shootout.
It appears that after spending a fair amount of cash for a good AR, I am back to using my Grandfather’s double barrel shotgun filled with birdshot. This gun has provided security for a variety of my families for nearly a hundred years.
Yes, your thinking here is wrong. You have opted to revert to an inferior weapon and ammunition combination simply on the basis of internet lore. The FACTS are that a 10.3" to 16" AR carbine with the proper ammunition has a much better chance of quickly incapacitating a threat and a much lower chance of sailing through structure walls as compared to most pistol rounds and buckshot.
Birdshot is not an effective way to stop a threat. And before the guys who post “it’s better than nothing” - of course it is. But a rubber mallet is also better than nothing.
I think the real issue is that you need to get comfortable with your AR - that means working on your manipulations and marksmanship. You should consider a class from a professional trainer.
The reason to use a gun for home defense is to get the bad guy to stop being a threat as quickly and decisively as possible. Bird shot does not reliably do this. Anything that will penetrate a bad guy reliably enough to stop him from trying to kill you will also penetrate walls - this illustrates the importance of training. You also mention the potential lack of accuracy during a high stress encounter (implying the need for more shots) and then limit yourself to a gun that only holds two rounds.
I believe tests have shown that .223 is less dangerous after going through walls than is buckshot.
Once my AR is completed and has been satisfactorily tested it will be my goto home defense gun rather than the 12 gauge that currently holds that assignment.
If that birdshot won’t even go through drywall, what makes you think it’s going to penetrate deeply enough to stop the drunken mad man kicking down your door?
Also I hold no illusions about my, or anyone’s, accuracy of aim in the dark, in a desperate, do or die shootout.
If it’s dark and you can’t see what you are shooting at, should you be shooting at all? Wouldn’t an AR with a surefire light solve this problem and be a better choice than a double barrel firing blindly into the darkness?
Nothing wrong with using the AR platform for home defense, and more damage is done by the bullet when it gets further downrange. If you’re truly worried about it, though, check into using frangible bullets instead. theyre designed to penetrate and fragment internally instead of punching holes in someone and blowing out the backside. Not saying you wont get penetration with it, but it will definitely slow it down quite a bit
I saw that segment on “Best Defense” that you’re talking about. The first thing I noticed was that their several “test” walls were strictly sheetrock and framing. There was no insulation- much less copper and PVC plumbing, electrical wiring, etc.
I would’ve really liked to see those variables included in the demonstration. I’m sure their effect would have been marginal in terms of stopping a rifle round. But I think it really shorted the whole experiment.
I have little doubt that those guys probably know what they’re talking about. And I’m all for erring on the side of caution. But when it’s me and my family’s life in question- I’m always going to reach for the most overwhelming force I can get to.
I have a good S&W M&P15 AR with Surefire G2 light mounted and an Aimpoint ML3sight that has seen several thousand rounds through it. Additionally I have had the good US Army BCT training in combat shooting albeit oriented toward jungle warfare not CQB. We didn’t need CQB in those days. Yes it’s been a while. Perhaps a CQB course is called for. I’m not talking about training here but penetration and background.
My AR is great shooting gun but a miss in my neighborhood will go through not only my walls but at least two other homes as well. Safety Rule #4 be sure of your target and it’s background. 360deg from where I sleep there is no suitable background.
Yes, birdshot does not have as good a terminal ballistics. I accept that premise. But I don’t see any other alternative.
This discussion is not relevant to folks out in the country with lots of land around.
I’m actually glad they did it the way that they did. What they presented was the worst-case scenario. Almost no interior residential walls will have insulation, few will have anything electrical, and even fewer will have plumbing pipes in them.
If your concern is for those OUTSIDE the home and not inside then things like brick, insulation, siding, etc. may come into play.
To the OP…
somewhere I recall seeing some ballistic gellatin that had been shot with birdshot of various types, from low-brass skeet loads to high-brass turkey loads. I was less than impressed.
What I would like to see a video of, just to see if it reinforces what I think already, is some testing of shotgun ammo where they first shoot the wall, then shoot the gellatin. Show me what it does to the wall then show me what it does to “flesh”. Start with low brass and run all the way up to buckshot and slugs.
Hell, if I could do gellatin I’d do the test myself.
Oh, I so lothe these types of discussions especially when “birdshot” is thrown in the mix. But, let’s look at this for a second shall we?
A double-barrel shotgun which is loaded with an inferior round, no way to illuminate or identify a target unless you go ghetto-Fudd style with a flashlight and some tape and then only two rounds. Now insert 2-3 attackers into the situation and you are essentially screwed. One need only watch the news and see the trend of multiple douche-nozzles entering by force, sometimes wearing body armor and then killing or robbing the occupants.
Why on earth would you set yourself up for such a failure? I could care less if they take my supressed SBR or whatever and beat off with it for two years while it sits in evidence. I will at least be alive and at some point I am either going to get my property back or I am going to sue someone. If my family and I are dead because I opted for the double-barrel shotgun what’s the point?
When considering weapons and ammunition for home defense, consider what your local police and the more well funded federal agencies use.
How many of them would use birdshot if making an arrest in your neighbourhood?
How many of them use a handgun with a round from 9mm to .45, perhaps a subgun in a similar caliber or a 5.56 carbine?
If the LE types have decided not to use birdshot when making a felony stop or serving a warrant in my neighbourhood I think I will follow their example.
Actually, this new debate has convinced me to quit using my coach gun for HD starting tonight.
Seriously though…
I’ll never understand the logic of those who build their ultimate AR carbean… then turn around and lock it up at night and bust out the bird gun for protection.
As far as the 2 rounds thing goes, do you know what a “goose hunters reload” is?
I know where you are coming from. I’ve been a bird hunter all my life. You will find that most people on the internet that discount bird shot for home defense, they usually lack much experience in actually using bird shot. They think that it’s all like the low base #8 dove and quail loads. I’ve seen some actually use ballistic data from such loads(to argue their point). Truth is there is large bird shot that is not much smaller than #4 buckshot. If I were going to use bird shot, I would use atleast lead BB shot and probably a 3" magnum. Do not use steel shot. Also don’t discount the AR carbine, it maybe a better choice than a shotgun.
I apologize to all if this has been discussed already. This has bothered me for a while and I did do a search. The best I came up with was Grant’s thread on SBR’s and silencers. I agree that a double barrel with birdshot is not optimal but neither is my AR that overpenetrates.
On an AR forum I figured things to be biased toward AR’s but I was hoping for some ideas to help me with this dilemma. What should I grab the 100 year old scatter gun or the newer AR ??
If you every have to defend your home from an armed home invasion and your choice’s are an AR-15 or grandpa’s double barrel 12ga. Do you really think you will choose the double barrel? With that being said I do own a HD shotgun but its not grandpa’s double barrel its a Mossberg 590 a1 loaded with seven shell’s of Hornady TAP 00 buck.
