[O-cha]

Originally Posted by sjk9671

Tried that all i came up with were states that ban rifles for hunting. Nothing mentioned about semi auto shotguns or .22 cal semi auto rifles.

Not being sarcastic. I’m genuinely interested.

You may be, but I'm not going to go look up every hunting preserve that bans semi autos, and each regional statute that does the same, you're talking about thousands of different areas.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by O-cha

You may be, but I'm not going to go look up every hunting preserve that bans semi autos, and each regional statute that does the same, you're talking about thousands of different areas.

I'm STILL waiting for the explanation as to why the AR is NOT a good home defense option.

A 10.5 inch barrel SBR is EASIER to maneuver indoors/around corners than a full-size shotgun. If the weapon is suppressed, it will be FAR easier on the ears than a full-size shotgun.

Worried about collateral damage with the 5.56 round?

A pistol round, or OO buck shot from a shotgun has a MUCH higher chance of going through a wall and killing somone on the other side than a proper (fragmenting) 5.56 projectile.

Most people erroneously load up their home defense shotgun with slugs or OO buck shot instead of BIRD SHOT, which is what you SHOULD use for an HD shotgun.

I'm getting a little tired of your popping off at the mouth with no explanation/discussion behind your opinions that you claim as facts.

[ghosthi32]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

I'm getting a little tired of your popping off at the mouth with no explanation/discussion behind your opinions that you claim as facts.

it's O-cha. He has been like this for awhile

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by ghosthi32

it's O-cha. He has been like this for awhile

Haha. I think I remember this type of behavior from him back in the Tuner Wars days. Years ago. Shame on me for even attempting to try to have a reasoned discussion with him. He's pretty much failed to address every point I've made thus far. I'll be moving on. Thanks for reminding me of my need to do so, sir.

[ghosthi32]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Haha. I think I remember this type of behavior from him back in the Tuner Wars days. Years ago. Shame on me for even attempting to try to have a reasoned discussion with him. He's pretty much failed to address every point I've made thus far. I'll be moving on. Thanks for reminding me of my need to do so, sir.

Your welcome just don't ban or shoot me lol

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by ghosthi32

Your welcome just don't ban or shoot me lol

Your name is now on the protected scrolls. You will come to no harm.

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

I'm STILL waiting for the explanation as to why the AR is NOT a good home defense option.

A 10.5 inch barrel SBR is EASIER to maneuver indoors/around corners than a full-size shotgun. If the weapon is suppressed, it will be FAR easier on the ears than a full-size shotgun.

Worried about collateral damage with the 5.56 round?

A pistol round, or OO buck shot from a shotgun has a MUCH higher chance of going through a wall and killing somone on the other side than a proper (fragmenting) 5.56 projectile.

Most people erroneously load up their home defense shotgun with slugs or OO buck shot instead of BIRD SHOT, which is what you SHOULD use for an HD shotgun.

I'm getting a little tired of your popping off at the mouth with no explanation/discussion behind your opinions that you claim as facts.

Show me where I said a shotgun. Only reason a shotguns good is because you don't really have to aim.

Remember something like >99% of SD encounters are inside of 10 feet. A pistol is your best weapon at that range, retention and usefulness at point blank are best. A rifle would be a hindrance at that range, not to mention getting an SBR and suppressor requiring 2 sets of class 3 permits many months and 500$ in fees. And that is you can get a LEO to sign off and not have to go through the whole corporation/trust thing.



I touted no opinions as fact, that is you my friend, I even stated that it was an opinion that an M1 is more fun to shoot then an AK or ar.

[ideliver]

Originally Posted by O-cha

. They are just semi auto rifles with small bullets.

the 7.62 x 39 round is not what I would consider a "small bullet" very similar performance wise to the 30-.30 and easily shoots 1" groups at a 100 yrs...

and when the bullet tumbles...the damage is significant

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by ideliver

the 7.62 x 39 round is not what I would consider a "small bullet" very similar performance wise to the 30-.30 and easily shoots 1" groups at a 100 yrs...

and when the bullet tumbles...the damage is significant

Yea I was more talking about the AR15.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by O-cha

Remember something like >99% of SD encounters are inside of 10 feet. A pistol is your best weapon at that range, retention and usefulness at point blank are best. A rifle would be a hindrance at that range, not to mention getting an SBR and suppressor requiring 2 sets of class 3 permits many months and 500$ in fees. And that is you can get a LEO to sign off and not have to go through the whole corporation/trust thing.



I touted no opinions as fact, that is you my friend, I even stated that it was an opinion that an M1 is more fun to shoot then an AK or ar.

A handgun is a great HD option if you train with it properly. Never said it wasn't. Never said an AR was a better option. I merely stated that an AR can effectively serve as a HD weapon. YMMV.

Originally Posted by O-cha

Yea I was more talking about the AR15.

The size of the 5.56/.223 round is pretty irrelevant. That thing absolutely screams out of the rifle barrel.

See this video (particularly starting at 3:30). Let me know if you'd like to volunteer to stand in front of one of those "small" bullets.

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

A handgun is a great HD option if you train with it properly. Never said it wasn't. Never said an AR was a better option. I merely stated that an AR can effectively serve as a HD weapon. YMMV.

You were trying to argue that an ar15 was a good SD weapon as a rebuttal to "semi autos are just for use at the range for fun" then bitched when I called it ridiculous without explaining, so I explained. It should never be recommended over a handgun and it's use as a SD weapon is ridiculous for the aforementioned reasons.

So back to the point, buying a rifle for fun, my opinion is an m1 or other similar unique rifle is way more fun to shoot then an ak or ar15.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by O-cha

You were trying to argue that an ar15 was a good SD weapon as a rebuttal to "semi autos are just for use at the range for fun" then bitched when I called it ridiculous without explaining, so I explained. It should never be recommended over a handgun and it's use as a SD weapon is ridiculous for the aforementioned reasons.

So back to the point, buying a rifle for fun, my opinion is an m1 or other similar unique rifle is way more fun to shoot then an ak or ar15.

The majority of your reasoning in explaining why an AR is ridiculous for HD was that it was just too darn expensive to pay the two $200 stamps for the SBR upper and the can. If I can afford to pay for the $1,000 upper and $1,000 can, I don't care much about the stamps.

I think a top tier AR is way more fun to shoot than an M1. We'll never agree, and I've discovered I really don't care.

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

The majority of your reasoning in explaining why an AR is ridiculous for HD was that it was just too darn expensive to pay the two $200 stamps for the SBR upper and the can. If I can afford to pay for the $1,000 upper and $1,000 can, I don't care much about the stamps.

I think a top tier AR is way more fun to shoot than an M1. We'll never agree, and I've discovered I really don't care.

No, the fact that it is not suitable for close quarters and the fact that nearly all self defense encounters are close quarters is the majority of the argument as to why it's not appropriate for self defense. The extra cost was just an extra mark against it.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by O-cha

No, the fact that it is not suitable for close quarters and the fact that nearly all self defense encounters are close quarters is the majority of the argument as to why it's not appropriate for self defense. The extra cost was just an extra mark against it.

Why do various special forces units use SBR rifles chambered in 5.56 in close quarters/room clearing scenarios over pistols and pistol-caliber sub-machine guns (MP5 is going the way of the Dodo)? Surely magazine capacity is an advantage. But still, that is close quarters engagement. (Navy SEALs and the HK416, as one example).

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Why do various special forces units use SBR rifles chambered in 5.56 in close quarters/room clearing scenarios over pistols and pistol-caliber sub-machine guns (MP5 is going the way of the Dodo)? Surely magazine capacity is an advantage. But still, that is close quarters engagement. (Navy SEALs and the HK416, as one example).

Comparing a navy seal with extreme training and someone defending their home is an idiotic example/question, you're just arguing to argue.

But to answer the question, because a pistol doesn't have the killing power of the rifle/capacity, and a seal with their training is less at risk of having someone get to point blank. But if someone did get to point blank range, beyond their muzzle or wrestling them, guess what they are pulling out?

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by O-cha

Comparing a navy seal with extreme training and someone defending their home is an idiotic example/question, you're just arguing to argue.

But to answer the question, because a pistol doesn't have the killing power of the rifle/capacity, and a seal with their training is less at risk of having someone get to point blank. But if someone did get to point blank range, beyond their muzzle or wrestling them, guess what they are pulling out?

No, I'm not arguing just to argue. I successfully got you to admit that the 5.56 round (which you intitially said was small, weak, etc.) is powerful. Can we change the phrase under your name to "Flip-Flopper?"

ULTIMATE VICTORY.

Also, the comparison is a bit of a stretch, but not idiotic. I was merely demonstrating that in trained hands (whether it be the hands of a responsible, well-trained civilian, SEAL, LEO, etc.) a SBR can be successfully wielded in a close quarters scenario.

Furthermore, if someone ever got "point blank" you better be hoping you are A) trained for pistol retention; B) have a back-up plan after you lose the pistol for mistakenly letting someone get that close in the first place.

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

No, I'm not arguing just to argue. I successfully got you to admit that the 5.56 round (which you intitially said was small, weak, etc.) is powerful. Can we change the phrase under your name to "Flip-Flopper?"

ULTIMATE VICTORY.

Again, a stupid point by someone with no comprehension. A 556 shot out of a rifle is far deadlier then a pistol round, no one would ever dispute that, including me. But compared to a 30-06 it is a a small cartridge.

ULTIMATE READING COMPREHENSION FAIL.

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Also, the comparison is a bit of a stretch, but not idiotic. I was merely demonstrating that in trained hands (whether it be the hands of a responsible, well-trained civilian, SEAL, LEO, etc.) a SBR can be successfully wielded in a close quarters scenario.

Furthermore, if someone ever got "point blank" you better be hoping you are A) trained for pistol retention; B) have a back-up plan after you lose the pistol for mistakenly letting someone get that close in the first place.

Even a trained navy seal would have no need for the rifle in a civilian defense scenario. Training or no training, close quarters you have more chance of being overtaken holding a rifle then you do a pistol.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by O-cha

Again, a stupid point by someone with no comprehension. A 556 shot out of a rifle is far deadlier then a pistol round, no one would ever dispute that, including me. But compared to a 30-06 it is a a small cartridge.

ULTIMATE READING COMPREHENSION FAIL.



Even a trained navy seal would have no need for the rifle in a civilian defense scenario. Training or no training, close quarters you have more chance of being overtaken holding a rifle then you do a pistol.

All you said at first was that the 5.56 was a "baby round." I'm not a mind reader bro. How can I assume that you were comparing the rifle round to just rifle rounds?

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

All you said at first was that the 5.56 was a "baby round." I'm not a mind reader bro. How can I assume that you were comparing the rifle round to just rifle rounds?

Because only a moron would compare a rifle round to a pistol round?

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by O-cha

Because only a moron would compare a rifle round to a pistol round?

[NYC6]

contrary to what ocha says, I find the AR to be a quite fun weapon to shoot. The M1 is also. I first fired the M14(M1 successor) in boot camp years ago. Given the choices to own one, I chose the Colt AR-15 HBAR. Being able to empty a 30 rd magazine in seconds(while keeping very close on target) and popping another 30 rounder in there in seconds is more fun to me then slowly shooting 8(losing sight of target) and then fumbling with stripper clips. Fun but antiquated.
Military requirement demands that the 5.56 can punch through a steel helmet at 500yds. Plenty powerful enough! Accuracy is exceptional.
Also, currently carried by the best Military on the planet.

___________________________________
"I fail to see the draw of AKs and ar15s without full auto. They are just semi auto rifles with small bullets. If you want a semi auto rifle, buy something cool, like an M1. "


his motivation and bias is obvious. "cool" is a subjective word.
http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=640752

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

My pleasure sir. It's truly amazing how fast 30 rounds can disappear with a single prolonged squeeze of the trigger.

What do you have access to in terms of a duty weapon?

I carry a Springfield Armory TRP Operator as a sidearm, and I have equipped all of our cars with Remington 870s worked on by Wilson Combat and Rock River Arms AR 15s. 870s have slug and the ARs have 55 grain soft points for people and FMJ for hard targets.

Originally Posted by O-cha

You seem to think I said full auto was anything other then a neat thing for fun. I did not. My point was guns like an ak or ar15 are boring without full auto, all you have is a semi auto rifle with small cartridges that you can waste your money blinging out with "tactical" hand guards and tactical lights you'll never use. No civilians use ar15s for home defense, that's ridiculous.

If you are going for the pinnacle of accuracy, neither is appropriate, you would get a bench rest bolt action. So what you have is a semi auto rifle you take to the range to have some fun with. I believe an M1 with iron sights and some history behind it is way more fun and interesting to shoot.

The conversation was what rifle to buy I shared my opinion, disagreeing with it is pointless, it's an opinion.

Bold #1. There are many well qualified people who use an AR for home defense. Clint Smith is one of them. You may have heard of him. Maybe not. Either way, a handgun is an inferior weapon compared even to a .22 rifle. I'd rather dominate a situation with an AR. To your point about range and weapon retention: If you are going to have a weapon in the home, you have a responsibility to be able to run the gun. That means understanding proper distances for engagement. If you are sleeping in your bed when accosted, a pistol under a pillow or night stand is your best friend. If you are in separate room from an intruder, I'll take the rifle all day long.

Clearly a bold action bench is more accurate, but we aren't talking about target shooting, we're talking about home defense. Ideally, you'd have remote turrets on all four corners of your house and be done with it. But since that's not a reality, a rifle or a pistol is what your left with.

Bold #2 You said a semi auto AR is boring. I agree with you that an iron sight M1 is more fun to shoot, but that hardly makes an AR boring. It sounds like all you do is punch holes in paper which is ALWAYS boring if you are stationary or static.

Bold #3.The whole point of the internet forum is to be able to post opinions, but sometimes there are differences of opinion that must be discussed if only for the integrity of the learning process for those without your experience. I know people who are exhilarated by shooting anything and to them the AR is the pinnacle.

Originally Posted by O-cha

No, the fact that it is not suitable for close quarters and the fact that nearly all self defense encounters are close quarters is the majority of the argument as to why it's not appropriate for self defense. The extra cost was just an extra mark against it.

I agree that many encounters are at close range, but to use your logic, a shotgun would fall in the same category as an AR. I think you said in this thread that a shotgun would be more suitable. I'm not sure if you did so I apologize if you didn't. Either way, a long gun requires a different type of engagement distance than a pistol, and I disagree that it's easier to disarm a long gun than a pistol. Two hands farther apart give greater leverage for retention, not to mention the bludgeon capability of a long gun. As for cost, a Remington 870 can be had for $300 bucks, will function flawlessly and will easily dominate a room.

The most basic pistol that is reliable enough for self defense will easily cost 300+, not to mention that shooting a long gun accurately is far easier than shooting a pistol accurately, so the training to become proficient must also be factored into your cost criteria. As you said, its all opinion, but if yours is challenged, at least have the decency to provide a well thought out, lucid response instead of just saying its your opinion. You don't have to of course, but for the newb, I think accurate information or at least opinion supported with some sort of fact or experience is incredibly helpful.