Why you “need” and AR15 (or want) for self/home defense

[Absentglare]

I never heard the term used for wounding, I always thought is was for death. My bad on that.

Thank you, i appreciate that.

 

[Absentglare]

I never stated it was harmless, only that it was less lethal than most other rounds available to citizens. The idea that an AR-15 is a "high powered rifle" is a joke and only shows the level of ignorance of the person talking about it.

It depends on what you mean by "high powered"- the M16 wouldn't be widely used in military contexts unless it were an effective weapon against significant numbers of human combatants. Claiming that it's not an effective weapon for use on humans is simply inaccurate, IMO.

 

[Absentglare]

Eugene Stoner while working for the Armalite company, designed the M16 select fire machine gun for the military. The Armalite company later redesigned the M16 into the semi auto AR15 for the civilian market. The civilian market also includes hunting, competition, as well as self preservation. The notion that something has to be designed for other uses in order to be socially acceptable is hardly a rational argument.

That's good because i'm not making that argument.

 

[blackjack50]

That's good because i'm not making that argument.

That’s funny. You seem to have an issue if a weapon is designed with human targets in mind. Tell me. Why is that an issue? Are you saying it isn’t? Because then why bring it up at all? You know...other than making the standard anti gun under the breath muttering 1 liner troll comment that is meant to make you feel morally superior for not believing in self defense.

 

[Rucker61]

It depends on what you mean by "high powered"- the M16 wouldn't be widely used in military contexts unless it were an effective weapon against significant numbers of human combatants. Claiming that it's not an effective weapon for use on humans is simply inaccurate, IMO.

No one is saying that it can't be effective, but rather that previous service rifles in larger calibers were most effective shot per shot than the M16 in 5.56mm NATO. It's why the US military has brought back the M14 for some missions and why the US investigated the AR15 in 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC in under combat conditions.

Based on the number of dead, the .38 Special, a round developed for black powder, is effective against humans.

 

[Absentglare]

That’s funny. You seem to have an issue if a weapon is designed with human targets in mind. Tell me. Why is that an issue? Are you saying it isn’t? Because then why bring it up at all? You know...other than making the standard anti gun under the breath muttering 1 liner troll comment that is meant to make you feel morally superior for not believing in self defense.

The argument in the OP is that the AR-15 is an effective weapon for home defense.

Home defense is likely to require defense from human targets.

Ergo, the AR-15 would have to be effective against human targets for it to be effective for home defense.

Since the AR-15 design is essentially the same as the design of the M-16, which was designed for military use, it is essentially designed for human targets, which suggests that it is effective for home defense.

You can't have it both ways; you can't claim that it's safe for humans to get shot by the AR-15 while claiming that it's effective for home defense, that's incoherent.

 

[Absentglare]

No one is saying that it can't be effective, but rather that previous service rifles in larger calibers were most effective shot per shot than the M16 in 5.56mm NATO. It's why the US military has brought back the M14 for some missions and why the US investigated the AR15 in 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC in under combat conditions.

Based on the number of dead, the .38 Special, a round developed for black powder, is effective against humans.

Well that's an interesting metric, effectiveness per shot. Since the M-16 is automatic, it could have more overall effectiveness than the AR-15 on the basis that the effectiveness per shot is the same. However, usage in an automatic configuration will invariably reduce precision, so it's not exactly cut and dry.

 

[braindrain]

From a purely tactical point of view, and not to derail the topic or condone the actions of the FBI or BATF, BATF switched form M4s to the MP5 a couple of months before the Waco thing. We saw how good that worked for them.

Yeah there is just very few situations where a MP5 is a better fit then a M4. Like I said we have them and train with them for certain rare situations but that’s about it.

Ever since short barreled M4s with good reliability became prevalent the MP5s have become a non factor. Fun as hell to shoot though. Especially the SDs or the Ks.

 

[Rucker61]

Well that's an interesting metric, effectiveness per shot. Since the M-16 is automatic, it could have more overall effectiveness than the AR-15 on the basis that the effectiveness per shot is the same. However, usage in an automatic configuration will invariably reduce precision, so it's not exactly cut and dry.

I believe you may have misunderstood my point. It isn't about semi vs full auto, but rather that all things being equal larger calibers have better terminal ballistics. In a home defense situation, however, that can lead to increased risk of overpenetration.

 

[Rucker61]

The argument in the OP is that the AR-15 is an effective weapon for home defense.

Home defense is likely to require defense from human targets.

Ergo, the AR-15 would have to be effective against human targets for it to be effective for home defense.

Since the AR-15 design is essentially the same as the design of the M-16, which was designed for military use, it is essentially designed for human targets, which suggests that it is effective for home defense.

You can't have it both ways; you can't claim that it's safe for humans to get shot by the AR-15 while claiming that it's effective for home defense, that's incoherent.

No one but you is claiming that it is safe to get shot by an AR-15; that's a straw man that's been pointed out multiple times, yet you keep returning to it.

 

[blackjack50]

The argument in the OP is that the AR-15 is an effective weapon for home defense.

Home defense is likely to require defense from human targets.

Ergo, the AR-15 would have to be effective against human targets for it to be effective for home defense.

Since the AR-15 design is essentially the same as the design of the M-16, which was designed for military use, it is essentially designed for human targets, which suggests that it is effective for home defense.

You can't have it both ways; you can't claim that it's safe for humans to get shot by the AR-15 while claiming that it's effective for home defense, that's incoherent.

I don’t think recall saying that. I don’t think anyone here would claim it is safe to be shot. Doesn’t matter though. Like I said: some people need killing. So there really is no substance in a statement about “designed with humans in mind.”

 

[TurtleDude]

Based on your stupid argument, if i bought a car, and then put a snow plow on it, it would no longer be a car.

there are some issues some would be better off not arguing about. this topic is one of those for you.

 

[TurtleDude]

The argument in the OP is that the AR-15 is an effective weapon for home defense.

Home defense is likely to require defense from human targets.

Ergo, the AR-15 would have to be effective against human targets for it to be effective for home defense.

Since the AR-15 design is essentially the same as the design of the M-16, which was designed for military use, it is essentially designed for human targets, which suggests that it is effective for home defense.

You can't have it both ways; you can't claim that it's safe for humans to get shot by the AR-15 while claiming that it's effective for home defense, that's incoherent.

no pro gun poster made that statement. and you apparently don't understand there is a difference between a weapon that is idea for one shot stops/kills versus a weapon that is ideal for inflicting casualties on members of an opposing military force. You also don't seem to understand that the military is limited to ball ammo while citizens defending their homes can load 556 ammo into their rifles that has far better stopping power. Soldiers intentions are to inflict casualties on the opposition. Civilians defending their homes and persons goal is to STOP the criminal attack.

 

[Exactice]

The argument in the OP is that the AR-15 is an effective weapon for home defense.

Home defense is likely to require defense from human targets.

Ergo, the AR-15 would have to be effective against human targets for it to be effective for home defense.

Since the AR-15 design is essentially the same as the design of the M-16, which was designed for military use, it is essentially designed for human targets, which suggests that it is effective for home defense.

You can't have it both ways; you can't claim that it's safe for humans to get shot by the AR-15 while claiming that it's effective for home defense, that's incoherent.

Wait...... your argument is something that kills is the best for home defense? This logic is missing a lot of thought.


1) HOME Defense does not have to be threatening, Home defense can be something as simple as Flood light, automatic/motion sensors, Security Systems, Security Doors/Windows Etc.

2) For physical protection, a Bat, Club, Umbrella, etc can all be simple tools.

3) An AIRSOFT Gun that can barely penetrate skin but hurts like hell getting peppered but 25rps..... Heck a paint ball gun.

4) Here is the Kicker, JUST a show of force, you could have the AR empty and if someone came through the door and saw an AR pointing at your face that would not be enough to defend your home?


Defense in terms does NOT mean violence. But if violence is needed is the AR capable of de-escalating the threat? Absolutely.....

for you not to take that into account is "incoherent"

 

[VanceMack]

I wonder if folk realize just how broad the caliber spectrum is that the AR15 supports.

AR-15 calibers
Rimfire calibers

.17 Mach 2
.17 HMR[1]
.17 Winchester Super Magnum[1]
.22 Long Rifle[2]
.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire[1]

Centerfire calibers inch measurement

.17 Mach IV
.17 Remington Fireball
.17 Remington[1]
.204 Ruger[1]
.222 Remington
.223 Remington - Original AR-15 caliber: .223 cartridges may function in a 5.56×45mm rifle, however 5.56×45mm cartridges can produce excessive pressure in a .223 rifle. On the other hand, a .223 Wylde chamber is used on .223 caliber rifle barrels to allow them to safely fire either .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition.[3]
.22 PPC
.224 Valkyrie (necked down 6.8SPC) [4]
.223 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.25-45 Sharps
.277 Wolverine (6.8×39mm)
.30 Carbine[1]
.30 Remington AR[5]
300 OSSM[3]
300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm)[5]
.300 Whisper[5]
338 spectre
358 Yeti - Wildcat [6]
.375 Reaper
375 SOCOM
.40 S&W[7]
.410 Shotgun
.45 ACP[8]
.450 Bushmaster[1]
.458 SOCOM[9]
.50 Beowulf[10]

Centerfire calibers metric measurement

5.45×39mm[1]
5.56×45mm NATO - Original AR-15A2 caliber: can also safely fire .223 Remington[1]
FN 5.7×28mm
6mm BRX
6.5mm BRX
6.5mm Grendel[1]
6.8×39mm (.277 Wolverine)
6.8mm Remington SPC[5]
7mm Valkyrie
7.62×37mm Musang
7.62×39mm[5]
7.62×40mm Wilson Tactical[5]
7.92x33mm Kurz
9mm Parabellum[2]
10mm Auto[8]

Calibers which will not feed but which are used in rifles where the receiver functions only as a trigger group

.50 BMG
.408 CheyTac
.338 Lapua Magnum

AR-10 calibers
Center fire calibers

.220 Swift
.22-250 Remington
6mm-250
.243 Winchester - same bolt as 7.62×51 (worn-down barrels can be re-bored to take 6.5 Creedmoor or 7.62×51)[3]
6MM Remington
6MM Creedmoor
6×47mm Lapua
257 Roberts
6.5×47mm Lapua
6.5mm Creedmoor - same bolt as 7.62×51, and can be formed from 7.62×51 brass
.260 Remington - same bolt as 7.62×51, and can be formed from 7.62×51 brass
7mm-08 Remington
7.62×51mm NATO - Original AR-10 caliber
.308 Winchester - considered interchangeable with 7.62×51mm NATO according to SAAMI.
.338 Federal

.358 Winchester
.45 RAPTOR
.500 Auto Max

Other AR Pattern rifles

Some companies have created AR pattern rifles that depart from the standard AR-15 and AR-10 dimensions in order to accommodate other types of ammunition that would not fit into the those standards.

Examples include:

.300 Winchester Magnum [11][12][13]
.30-06 Springfield [14]
7mm Remington Magnum[15]
.270 Winchester[16]
.25-06 Remington[17]
.338 Lapua Magnum[18]

 

[Exactice]

I wonder if folk realize just how broad the caliber spectrum is that the AR15 supports.

AR-15 calibers
Rimfire calibers

.17 Mach 2
.17 HMR[1]
.17 Winchester Super Magnum[1]
.22 Long Rifle[2]
.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire[1]

Centerfire calibers inch measurement

.17 Mach IV
.17 Remington Fireball
.17 Remington[1]
.204 Ruger[1]
.222 Remington
.223 Remington - Original AR-15 caliber: .223 cartridges may function in a 5.56×45mm rifle, however 5.56×45mm cartridges can produce excessive pressure in a .223 rifle. On the other hand, a .223 Wylde chamber is used on .223 caliber rifle barrels to allow them to safely fire either .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition.[3]
.22 PPC
.224 Valkyrie (necked down 6.8SPC) [4]
.223 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.25-45 Sharps
.277 Wolverine (6.8×39mm)
.30 Carbine[1]
.30 Remington AR[5]
300 OSSM[3]
300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm)[5]
.300 Whisper[5]
338 spectre
358 Yeti - Wildcat [6]
.375 Reaper
375 SOCOM
.40 S&W[7]
.410 Shotgun
.45 ACP[8]
.450 Bushmaster[1]
.458 SOCOM[9]
.50 Beowulf[10]

Centerfire calibers metric measurement

5.45×39mm[1]
5.56×45mm NATO - Original AR-15A2 caliber: can also safely fire .223 Remington[1]
FN 5.7×28mm
6mm BRX
6.5mm BRX
6.5mm Grendel[1]
6.8×39mm (.277 Wolverine)
6.8mm Remington SPC[5]
7mm Valkyrie
7.62×37mm Musang
7.62×39mm[5]
7.62×40mm Wilson Tactical[5]
7.92x33mm Kurz
9mm Parabellum[2]
10mm Auto[8]

Calibers which will not feed but which are used in rifles where the receiver functions only as a trigger group

.50 BMG
.408 CheyTac
.338 Lapua Magnum

AR-10 calibers
Center fire calibers

.220 Swift
.22-250 Remington
6mm-250
.243 Winchester - same bolt as 7.62×51 (worn-down barrels can be re-bored to take 6.5 Creedmoor or 7.62×51)[3]
6MM Remington
6MM Creedmoor
6×47mm Lapua
257 Roberts
6.5×47mm Lapua
6.5mm Creedmoor - same bolt as 7.62×51, and can be formed from 7.62×51 brass
.260 Remington - same bolt as 7.62×51, and can be formed from 7.62×51 brass
7mm-08 Remington
7.62×51mm NATO - Original AR-10 caliber
.308 Winchester - considered interchangeable with 7.62×51mm NATO according to SAAMI.
.338 Federal

.358 Winchester
.45 RAPTOR
.500 Auto Max

Other AR Pattern rifles

Some companies have created AR pattern rifles that depart from the standard AR-15 and AR-10 dimensions in order to accommodate other types of ammunition that would not fit into the those standards.

Examples include:

.300 Winchester Magnum [11][12][13]
.30-06 Springfield [14]
7mm Remington Magnum[15]
.270 Winchester[16]
.25-06 Remington[17]
.338 Lapua Magnum[18]

Again.... to the people trying to quantify the round how does the round change the intent to defend your home? LOL.

I used penetration for collateral damage as my concern for the round itself, but it does not defeat the fact that it serves a defensive purpose.

the AR platform has changed, from just the basic M16 service rifle to a AR designed multi caliber firearm..... WHAT does the caliber have to do rather than effective deployment of the physical weapon. LOL gotta love the arguments from others that if they can show the basis of firearm as dangerous, they ague the caliber.... next it will be the grip and then the dust cover...... and then finally the laser engraved markings on the firearm that made it more or less lethal......

 

[6gunner]

LOL, no just remembering when owning a macho car would do the same for some who now need a macho weapon.

I really truly believe the threat of home invasion has been vastly overstated. And it is amusing that some people need to cite this almost none existent threat as a reason to harbor weapons. If you like your weapon, good for you. I have no desire to deprive you. Just stop the bs please about why you need it. Cause that dog don't hunt. LOL

And if ever faced with the home intruders, a scenario less likely than winning the lottery twice in a row, I'd give them the keys to my macho car. (not mentioning they were on camera of course.)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I've been present at homes where people had your attitude, and that "scenario less likely than winning the lottery" left carnage and dead bodies in its wake. I've also been there at a home where the dead bodies were the invaders and the residents of the home were shaken but unharmed.

I am well aware that it is not likely to be the victim of a home-invasion... but I've seen the aftermath. I hope every day I might win the lottery, AND I am prepared to defend my home just in case. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it... and I will NOT put myself at the tiniest risk of having to live with knowing someone I love died because I failed in my responsibilities to protect them.

 

[Lursa]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I've been present at homes where people had your attitude, and that "scenario less likely than winning the lottery" left carnage and dead bodies in its wake. I've also been there at a home where the dead bodies were the invaders and the residents of the home were shaken but unharmed.

I am well aware that it is not likely to be the victim of a home-invasion... but I've seen the aftermath. I hope every day I might win the lottery, AND I am prepared to defend my home just in case. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it... and I will NOT put myself at the tiniest risk of having to live with knowing someone I love died because I failed in my responsibilities to protect them.

I'm sorry for your experience, that must have been awful.

 

[VanceMack]

Again.... to the people trying to quantify the round how does the round change the intent to defend your home? LOL.

I used penetration for collateral damage as my concern for the round itself, but it does not defeat the fact that it serves a defensive purpose.

the AR platform has changed, from just the basic M16 service rifle to a AR designed multi caliber firearm..... WHAT does the caliber have to do rather than effective deployment of the physical weapon. LOL gotta love the arguments from others that if they can show the basis of firearm as dangerous, they ague the caliber.... next it will be the grip and then the dust cover...... and then finally the laser engraved markings on the firearm that made it more or less lethal......

Some people are discussing the ballistic capacity of the .223 round. If you dont find that topic interesting then that post shouldnt have much mattered to you.

As for the effective use of the AR platform for home defense, what weapon is most commonly used by tactical teams in home and building clearings....handguns, shotguns, or AR platforms?

 

[6gunner]

I'm sorry for your experience, that must have been awful.

I appreciate that! I spent some time in law-enforcement, and saw the worst (and the best) of humanity during that time. My grandfather was also a career officer, and he taught me the idea to live for the best case but plan for the worst case; a philosophy my own time in uniform proved to me was a valid one.

 

[Exactice]

Some people are discussing the ballistic capacity of the .223 round. If you dont find that topic interesting then that post shouldnt have much mattered to you.

As for the effective use of the AR platform for home defense, what weapon is most commonly used by tactical teams in home and building clearings....handguns, shotguns, or AR platforms?

Sorry Vance, I was highlighting your points... I was not disagreeing with you! Maybe it came out the wrong way, as the "Semantics" that the 223 round is not Lethal for humans, Is a joke, Any round that can effectively penetrate skin is "technically" lethal. To say that the 223/5.56 is not is being ignorant to what a projectile flying at a high rate of speed.


To say that a 223 round is not effective for home defense is being ignorant as well. Your example, is a good example how the platform has evolved. Meaning say you had a true 223 pistol as I think Demo Ranch did a video (looking) where he put a 223 round in a pistol and fired it. Caused the Same critical damage needed to effectively stop someone. While the setup was not optimal. the 223/5.56 was still effective.

So again sorry I did agree..... I think its silly for the other poster above using semantics to say the 223 is not lethal for home defense.

 

[Exactice]

Found it

https://youtu.be/lkJuu7rwNEc?t=5m11s


so when I used my example of AR not being useful for my personal need of home defense it was NOT because the round was incapable, the size of the rifle itself for me whas not optimal to deploy in a home defense situation. but again limited to everyone, situation dictates

 

[6gunner]

I have a 10Ga magnum automatic shotgun with #4 bird shot with a short barrel for defense - That's almost 400 little steel "bullets". No sense penetrating the neighbors house. Buck shot has too much range and mass.

Birdshot is NOT suitable for defense.

The brother of a friend of mine was seeing a woman who had just gotten through a divorce from her abusive ex-husband. A week after they started dating, the ex-husband ambushed my friend's brother in a parking lot and shot him at close range with a 12 gauge loaded with birdshot. The brother was knocked down, but then - like the Marine he was - he got back up and tackled his attacker and wrestled the shotgun away from him and beat him unconscious with it and held him for police. He described the sensation subsequently as to have suffered a "severe sunburn".

 

[zsu2357]

Because it sounds like you'll need a military combat weapon to reeturn faahr.

Not slitting hairs here(well maybe a little) but would you use your illustrious M-1 Carbine in a situation such as home defense. Kinda doubt it,just saying.

 

[ChezC3]

I'd move. Seriously. I wouldn't live myself in such a place, much less raise a family in those conditions.
Up to you, of course, but why wait for the **** to fall on you? Why not bail, go somewhere where you don't have to consider how you're gonna defend your family from violent intruders?

If the teen hacking to death the Uber driver with a machete she stole from Wal-Mart didn't send me packing....


I joke but, (the above didn't happen in my neighborhood, it was one up and over) it's Chicago. If you're going to live here, which I must for the time being, you just need to keep yourself aware of your surroundings, watch for suspicious behavior, and keep yourself out of harmful situations by not being stupid.