.30-30 lever action's for home defense.
- Thread starter Doug 29
- Start date
Legionnaire
New member
In lever actions, I'd prefer a Marlin 1894P (.44) or CS (.357) loaded with .44 or .38 specials, respectively. Less likely to over-penetrate.
Other options would be .223 semiauto (AR, Mini 14, etc.) loaded light and/or with frangible bullets . . .
But the rifle you have "beats" the one you don't!
Other options would be .223 semiauto (AR, Mini 14, etc.) loaded light and/or with frangible bullets . . .
But the rifle you have "beats" the one you don't!
I feel totally secure with my Win. Trapper 30/30 ...
Certainly beats any .223, IMHO.
But then, I favor power over capacity (living in the country makes over-penetration less important). I figure if I haven't stopped the threat with a few rifle shots, I need to be evacuting the premisis. And I'm simply not going to beat the brush searching for high-cap magazines, either.
I'm not a combat instructor or ballistics expert, so this is just my opinion, but I don't think any rifle caliber (.223) that is incapable of taking deer should be relied upon for self-defense.
That said, around here magnum pistol-caliber carbines like the .44 mag and even the .30 Carbine with softpoints have a deer-taking reputation, so 30/30 as well should be excellent.
I know, somebody is bound to say, "But DEER aren't PEOPLE, so your comparison is invalid."
Well, maybe, but to my mind they are way more like people than gelatin is. It's also hard for me to bet my life on some magazine article on One Shot Stops.
My theory is "I knows killin' power when I sees it."
That aside, so long as you practice with your lever action, what could go wrong?
Hope this helps.
Certainly beats any .223, IMHO.
But then, I favor power over capacity (living in the country makes over-penetration less important). I figure if I haven't stopped the threat with a few rifle shots, I need to be evacuting the premisis. And I'm simply not going to beat the brush searching for high-cap magazines, either.
I'm not a combat instructor or ballistics expert, so this is just my opinion, but I don't think any rifle caliber (.223) that is incapable of taking deer should be relied upon for self-defense.
That said, around here magnum pistol-caliber carbines like the .44 mag and even the .30 Carbine with softpoints have a deer-taking reputation, so 30/30 as well should be excellent.
I know, somebody is bound to say, "But DEER aren't PEOPLE, so your comparison is invalid."
Well, maybe, but to my mind they are way more like people than gelatin is. It's also hard for me to bet my life on some magazine article on One Shot Stops.
My theory is "I knows killin' power when I sees it."
That aside, so long as you practice with your lever action, what could go wrong?
Hope this helps.
Blue Duck357
New member
I think your best off with whatever rifle (within reason) you like the best. The reason being you'll get out and practice with it and be familiar with it if its needed. You sound like you like it, it's certainly reasonable, good pick.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Grapeshot, don't confuse self-defense with killing or "killing power". The ONLY lawful purpose of self-defense is to cause hostile activities to stop.
If just the threat of "I have a gun." causes a Bad Guy to quit, to leave--you've succeeded.
If the mere sound of a missed shot causes a BG to quit, to leave--you've succeeded.
If a slight wound from a minor cartridge causes the same result--you've succeeded.
Once you've succeeded, the law says that you are through; it's time for YOU to stop. Don't make the same mistake as the anti-gun doctor at the Center for Disease Control, that the only successful defense of one's home involves the death of the Bad Guy.
Regards, Art
If just the threat of "I have a gun." causes a Bad Guy to quit, to leave--you've succeeded.
If the mere sound of a missed shot causes a BG to quit, to leave--you've succeeded.
If a slight wound from a minor cartridge causes the same result--you've succeeded.
Once you've succeeded, the law says that you are through; it's time for YOU to stop. Don't make the same mistake as the anti-gun doctor at the Center for Disease Control, that the only successful defense of one's home involves the death of the Bad Guy.
Regards, Art
Byron Adams
New member
30-30 home defense
Grapeshot, Please do not consider .223 as designed for capacity. It is VERY effective in stopping. My 1968-69 use of the .223(5.56) left no doubt as to this.
Grapeshot, Please do not consider .223 as designed for capacity. It is VERY effective in stopping. My 1968-69 use of the .223(5.56) left no doubt as to this.
I use a Winchester '94 in .45 Colt for HD. I've even rigged up a tactical light to it. It gives me absolute control of a fifty yard radius, even in the middle of the night when I'm groggy. With that control, I'm not tempted to shoot out of fear and maybe get myself in real trouble.
As far as the goal of "stopping," this is not technically part of the law of self defense, but is rather an easy way for lay people to understand the limits of self defense. DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES choose a firearm because you hope it won't actually kill the intruder! Every firearm is a deadly weapon, and claiming you thought your bullets would only wound is NOT going to cut the mustard. If you need to use non-deadly force to counter non-deadly force, smack the gremlin down with your Winchester's barrel. It doubles as a fearsome close-combat weapon. The Duke brought a few BG's to justice that way, as I recall.
As far as the goal of "stopping," this is not technically part of the law of self defense, but is rather an easy way for lay people to understand the limits of self defense. DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES choose a firearm because you hope it won't actually kill the intruder! Every firearm is a deadly weapon, and claiming you thought your bullets would only wound is NOT going to cut the mustard. If you need to use non-deadly force to counter non-deadly force, smack the gremlin down with your Winchester's barrel. It doubles as a fearsome close-combat weapon. The Duke brought a few BG's to justice that way, as I recall.
Even if a .223 doesn't just wound, maim and overpenetrate, it's g*d-damned un-American! The Army started going wrong when it moved away from the .45/70, though .30'06 is acceptable. We should leave these little bitty bullets to the French. This country started going down hill when we adopted it.
Legionnaire
New member
Another thought: Ruger PC9 or PC4 converted to accept Glock magazines. To this day I regret letting my PC4 go . . .
Blue Duck357
New member
Legionair, is the conversion you mention something that is regularly done and/or fairly simple for a smith to accomplish or were you just thinking out loud.
Thanks, Blue Duck
Thanks, Blue Duck
it's like my chl instructor said, you are trying to stop the fight/intrusion, never trying to kill someone, that's why you shoot at the torso, never the head, in texas head shots are considered kill shots, torso shots are stopping shots that are considered survivable. i know ems would probally have to catch you as you fell and be on the steps of a trauma center for most people to live through being shot in the heart, but that's the current take on the matter. they also consider, wrongly i think, that no shot to the head area survivable. both situations get into 'intent' when you get to court.
Blue Duck357
New member
I can't remember the source( some news show) so take it what it's worth, but I remember reading an emrgency room technicion saying over 30% of people shot through the heart survive. It was in some big city hospital so I'm assuming a lot of those were .22's and .25 pistols wounds.
Blue Duck
Blue Duck
Blue Duck357
New member
By the way, we were going through a quaterly qualifications which your allowed two runs through (best one counts) me and a friend both shot 60 of 60 the first time and decided to have some fun with the second run (only head shots counted). Instructor was very displeased when he finally noticed what we were doing, gave us the same lecture as blooch, but not as nicely.
Legionnaire
New member
Blue Duck,
There have been a couple of threads re: converting Ruger carbines to take Glock mags. My PC4 was stock, though. Sold it before I found out that the conversion could be done. If I can find another good deal on a PC4, I'll have the conversion done.
Here's one of the earlier threads, although I didn't follow up on it: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=15942
There have been a couple of threads re: converting Ruger carbines to take Glock mags. My PC4 was stock, though. Sold it before I found out that the conversion could be done. If I can find another good deal on a PC4, I'll have the conversion done.
Here's one of the earlier threads, although I didn't follow up on it: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=15942
Be careful here. There are some SERIOUS problems relying on a firearms instructor for legal advice! Many seem to base their advice on articles in Guns & Ammo, not case law or code. Whatever you do, don't get carried away with this "shoot to stop" business. It's only a useful rule of thumb up to a point. If you shoot a person, and claim as your excuse that you did not intend to kill them but only to "stop" them, you've got major problems. It DOES NOT MATTER where you shot them. What matters is whether the BG was threatening you with DEADLY force. For example, if you shoot a man in the leg because he threatens to punch you and you just wanted to "stop" him, you've used deadly force to counter non-deadly force, and you're going to have a VERY hard time claiming self defense. If you hit an artery and kill him, the prosecutor may decide to have some fun with you. At the very least, you'll be looking at a nasty civil suit. Bottom line--ONLY SHOOT IF YOU ARE CLEARLY THREATENED WITH IMMINENT DEADLY FORCE AND CANNOT ESCAPE IT. Otherwise, back away if possible or use non-deadly force if necessary. The only safe assumption is that deadly force will kill (not just "stop"), so be *extremely* cautious about using it. The best plan is to make like Brave Sir Robin and boldy run away.
Blue Duck357
New member
Thank's for the links Legionnaire.
Nothing to disagree with what you say GRH, Loved the Sir Robin reference. The holy Grail is one of my favorites.
Regards, Blue Duck
Nothing to disagree with what you say GRH, Loved the Sir Robin reference. The holy Grail is one of my favorites.
Regards, Blue Duck
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
I guess I didn't make myself clear on "shoot to stop". I'm not at all meaning that one should shoot with any intent to only wound or scare a BG.
If you are legally justified in shooting, you are justified in killing, as near as I understand Texas law. The law specifically allows "deadly force" in self-defense, so I figure that means "dead". A dead BG is "stopped".
If you wound somebody such that he's down ("stopped") and (for argument) has lost his weapon or is incapacitated, don't shoot again! You will have gone from self-defense to murder. No matter *why* the BG stops, at that point your legal right to shoot in defense of yourself is pretty much ended. (Yes, Texas law allows shooting of a fleeing BG if a rational and prudent person perceives a "continuing threat to the community". If the burden of proof is on me, I'll probably opt out of community defense.)
I hope this is a little more clear.
FWIW, Art
If you are legally justified in shooting, you are justified in killing, as near as I understand Texas law. The law specifically allows "deadly force" in self-defense, so I figure that means "dead". A dead BG is "stopped".
If you wound somebody such that he's down ("stopped") and (for argument) has lost his weapon or is incapacitated, don't shoot again! You will have gone from self-defense to murder. No matter *why* the BG stops, at that point your legal right to shoot in defense of yourself is pretty much ended. (Yes, Texas law allows shooting of a fleeing BG if a rational and prudent person perceives a "continuing threat to the community". If the burden of proof is on me, I'll probably opt out of community defense.)
I hope this is a little more clear.
FWIW, Art
You guys gotta be kidding! To my knowledge Texas is the only state in the union that allows for some one to use deadly force to stop Property crimes! (Heck I gotta' move there!)
And your shooting "instructor" says aim only for the torso! Tar and feather the dip! Better yet just ignore him, and look up the laws on your own, talk to a few L.E.O.'s as well just to get a feel about the additude in your particular area ( but don't rely on them either!).
Art is 100% correct. Shoot to kill or don't shoot at all.
And your shooting "instructor" says aim only for the torso! Tar and feather the dip! Better yet just ignore him, and look up the laws on your own, talk to a few L.E.O.'s as well just to get a feel about the additude in your particular area ( but don't rely on them either!).
Art is 100% correct. Shoot to kill or don't shoot at all.
OK ...
um, Art, I can't figure out how you construed my post to be an advocation of killing home invaders. I want to be VERY CLEAR that I was not advocated killing anyone, for any reason.
I was simply saying that I wanted an appropriately powerful fighting cartridge for dealing with humans, which I think are pretty hard to stop in general. I tried to explain my thinking behind my personal choice for self defense, since I was sure many would disagree with it.
I never advocated shooting anyone in the head.
I never advocated shooting anyone once they're "stopped" and lying there wounded.
Most of all, I never confused self-defense with killing, YOU did. I only said that hunting calibers and the wounds they create are my idea of appropriate tools for self defense, and I was also trying to explain what AREN'T ideal tools and why I thought so.
Frankly, I don't want to have to shoot someone, ever. But in the unfortunate event that an armed person will seek me out and leave me no other option but to defend myself with deadly force, I'd prefer that one shot would put an end to the hostilities.
um, Art, I can't figure out how you construed my post to be an advocation of killing home invaders. I want to be VERY CLEAR that I was not advocated killing anyone, for any reason.
I was simply saying that I wanted an appropriately powerful fighting cartridge for dealing with humans, which I think are pretty hard to stop in general. I tried to explain my thinking behind my personal choice for self defense, since I was sure many would disagree with it.
I never advocated shooting anyone in the head.
I never advocated shooting anyone once they're "stopped" and lying there wounded.
Most of all, I never confused self-defense with killing, YOU did. I only said that hunting calibers and the wounds they create are my idea of appropriate tools for self defense, and I was also trying to explain what AREN'T ideal tools and why I thought so.
Frankly, I don't want to have to shoot someone, ever. But in the unfortunate event that an armed person will seek me out and leave me no other option but to defend myself with deadly force, I'd prefer that one shot would put an end to the hostilities.
tubeshooter
New member
I think the 30-30 would handle well and is easy to operate if you want to use it thusly. Power to spare; backstop considerations to spare, too.
Fairly cheap and fun to shoot, so you might practice...
Probably a lot more than you need in your average urban situation for regular HD, but it would make a pretty good 'hold down the fort' gun if it came to that. Seems more appropriate for country settings.
-tubeshooter
Fairly cheap and fun to shoot, so you might practice...
Probably a lot more than you need in your average urban situation for regular HD, but it would make a pretty good 'hold down the fort' gun if it came to that. Seems more appropriate for country settings.
-tubeshooter