Centerfire Rifles For HD?

S

Single Six

New member
Periodically I will come across an article in the gun mags that touts a centerfire rifle as a good pick for home defense. I've seen various gun writers recommend rifles chambered in 7.62x39, .308, .223, and even the 6.8 SPC for this particular function. Now granted, I've flirted with the concept before, but never really committed. My questions: How many of you guys use such rifles for HD, what make and model, and how do you address what would seem to be the obvious problems, namely over-penetration and excessive muzzle blast? Thanks as always for any and all responses.
 
Last edited:
I don't use a rifle for HD.

Home defense distances are going to be relatively short distances. Most rooms and hallways in homes are 15' to 20' long. Some homes have longer sections, maybe a dinning room that is 25' or perhaps 40' for a through hallway or something. Many rooms or spaces in an average house may be 10' to 12'. If you are going to use a weapon as large as a rifle, a shotgun which has relatively the same dimensions, is a better weapon.

A semi-auto shotgun can be fired as quickly or almost as quickly as a rifle of the calibers you mentioned. Instead of putting one .223 or 30 caliber hole in the atttacker with each pull of the trigger from a rifle, you could be putting eight to sixteen .30 to .33 caliber holes in the attacker.
 
CountZero: Notice that I didn't say that I use a rifle for HD, I merely asked for responses from those who do. Meanwhile, your arguments for the shotgun will get no arguments from me! It's just that the idea of using such rifles for HD is intriguing to me, as far as overcoming the aforementioned difficulties involved.
 
Here are my thoughts. I have a Mini-14 with 62 grain HP for HD.

1. Any gun that will penetrate a BG sufficiently is going to penetrate several walls at minimum. Debating about over penetration is thus a red herring. Looking for a gun that doesn't overpenitrate is like looking for a car that can't go fast enough to kill a pedestrian. Anything that meets that requirement will not be effective at its intended purpose. Be aware of where a round might go and do the best you can.

2. I am more concerned about the excessive recoil vs excessive muzzle blast. (Not that shotguns are quiet anyway.) When I get up in the middle of the night I am groggy and unsteady. I would say that most people are as well. The recoil of a shotgun is far more of a problem than the muzzle blast than a rifle IMHO.

Have to get to work, I can write more about this later if I feel like it.
 
Guess it depends on what u mean by HD. Indoors only? Pistol is probably best. In and around the house -- maybe that shotgun. But the rifles are good and effective though really made for delivering longer range energy.

HD could also mean the area, neighborhood, county, state and country, right?
 
Were I to use a rifle for home defense, I'd choose most any carbine-length semi-auto in .223 or 7.62x39. Group size at the benchrest is irrelevant, and none of them seem to have any problem with reliability. Short, handy, low recoil so it's controllable in rapid shooting.

The primary problem seems to be that of penetrating into "innocents' territory", and that's strictly a case-by-case deal. From the standpoint of potential harm to a neighbor, I would have zero problem with a Barrett .50. My own hearing would be a different matter. :D

As usual, planned-out tactics generally outweigh the equipment...
 
I use a shotgun the wife uses a rifle. I use slugs as they provide devastating stopping wounds when properly placed, more so then buckshot. Buckshot provides more wounds but slugs are more of an immediate fight stopping kind of round. When someone is in your house you want the fight over as quickly as possible.

If I were to use a rifle it would be an AR in 5.56. The stopping power of 5.56 at household ranges and the capacity of the AR (in full capacity states) make it ideal for dealing with multiple attackers. As good as it is, it still does not stop as fast or effectively as a 12GA slug at close range.

Muzzle blast on a 5.56 is minimal. Over penetration is not an issue at my house but with the 5.56 you can get rounds that will fragment on contact with hard materials, hardly a perfect solution but better than nothing.
 
The problem with HD discussions is that too much speculation and entertainment gets thrown in the mix.

Nobody ever discusses why a perp would want into your home, and how they did it. A frank discussion of who your friends are, why openly display high theft items, a complete lack of home physical security, and being apparently too insensitive to prowlers banging around in the house until the last second are completely ignored.

Aside from complete neglect to secure a home and choose the right people to know ( most home invasions are a) drug related, b) a GF who's in your "protection" this week until she moves on to another sucker,) the home needs to be viewed just the same as the Army views the battlefield. There are short, medium, and long range requirements, choose the best response for each.

Handguns are best for indoors. You need a short weapon you can control at CQB grappling ranges, working down narrow residential hallways, and something difficult to wrest away. Add a flashlight to ID a teen coming home after curfew, or Muffy chugging up a rabbit that disagrees.

Medium range is addressed with long guns, and implies you are already awake and have a field of view and knowledge there is an external threat. It's very common on rural properties, the dog is barking, the shed lights are on when you suddenly changed plans and your thieving in law thought you were gone (goes back to: most home intrusions are someone you know.)

A case can be made for any gun, at that point, any gun will do. Speculative conditions are too often imposed on the discussion, What If? reigns supreme, and the real point is usually an posters agenda to prove themself right.

That's why most knowledgeable shooters avoid the whole thing. It's largely pointless because all the more important issues have to be cluelessly tossed to create the scenario to begin with.

Most reasonable Americans assess their risk intelligently, and first pick a neighborhood they trust as reasonably low crime - the Long Range solution. They don't flaunt their wealth to strangers, if Joe Scruffy doesn't know you have it, they don't know to steal it. Most gun thefts - Police statistics - show the perp got into the house because YOU let them in, a friend of a friend, and showed them all your cool guns. Usually about 2 to 6 weeks before. They basically had you help them case your house. Major collectors of militaria and firearms can rattle off case histories each other suffered before learning that lesson.

Last but certainly not least, how did they get in? Locked doors keep the honest out, when it comes down to determination ( or an EF5 tornado - I live 6 miles from Joplin, MO.,) if your possessions are just lying around, I have to ask why you don't deserve it? Of course, that's like asking the young women why she dresses like that when she didn't want to be raped, no, it shouldn't happen ever. But, it does, and being innocently clueless is no defense, either. Hence, Mom and Dad suggesting more modesty, and mine to get guns and valuables in safes, locked tool chests, secured in closets - or use that FEMA rated tornado room for something more than two folding chairs and a flashlight. Considering the amount of debris many had jammed against the doorway, a large prybar, saw, and you're valuables secured in there with a least one durable change of clothes, water, and some food wouldn't hurt one bit.

THERE'S your Home Defense scenario, not some internet speculation on what bullet just might be more dangerous to a baby sleeping one wall over. That doesn't happen nearly as much as some make it to be - the whole point, it's not grounded in real facts about the issue. Discussions about what gun or ammo are all about it being too little too late.
 
I remember reading the NRA collected stories of people who used firearms for SD/HD. And there were a few stories of people who used rifles for HD.

This is a thought provoking post...

I think the choice of firearm for HD might be related to wealth. My relatives in West Virginia are not wealthy people, but they almost all have at least a .22 and a deer rifle of some sort. The rifle traditionally has been an indespensible tool, and a lot of the rifles they have were handed down from their grandfathers. Many of them don't have the disposable income to go out and buy a pistol, and they probably would ask themselves why they need a pistol when they've got a .308.... (their thinking not mine)

It seems to me that "pure" SD/HD firearms have limited utility. If someone gets a Rohrbaugh for a pocket pistol - it may be perfect for their carry situation, but it's a horrible choice for taking as a sidearm on a hunt or taking camping, and from what I've heard - they're not pure joy to take to the range for target shooting. A HD tac shotgun might be good for manuvering around corners of a home, but how good are they for hunting or skeet shooting? - certainly not optimal.

I think rifles probably are used for HD quite a bit - but probably not by many members of this forum because most of the people on this forum are "firearms enthusiasts", so a lot of us do spend our disposable income on getting different firearms - some guns for the range, a few carry guns, maybe an additional gun or two for a "nightstand gun".
 
My preference would be an AR15 or 12GA shotgun if having it secure but accessible wasn't so hard to achieve. I think that is the main reason for me to have a handgun as my first line of defense at home.
 
I used a .308 deer rifle for HD because that's what I had. Now that I have a shotgun, the rifle is gone.

I also have many handguns, but I think that a long gun is better in almost all scenarios- certainly in my big old country house. I've seen too many videos and read too many stories of nervous people missing at 8-10 feet with handguns not to want the additional assurance that the rifle or shotgun gives over the sidearm.
 
My house isn't so big that I need a rifle to defend myself/family in. I mean the longest distance I could possibly engage a bandit is less then 50 feet. If I can't hit something within 50 feet with my 642 pocket revolver, the problem is not enough range time, not a need for a bigger gun.

Not to mention, a revolver/pistol is a lot more handier to handle in confined spaces of a home.

The exception is that I live in a rural area. Not concerned with two legged bandits but I do have problems with varmints, stray dogs, etc. getting my live stock/chickens, etc. For that I do keep a loaded Remington 700 223 bolt gun handy.
 
Consider the fact that most HD situations happen at 2ft or less an center fire rifle is a bad choice. Not to mention the fact that these bullets out of high powered rifles will go through plywood/sheet rock like a hot knife through butter.

Stick with a pistol.
 
Not for me.

I live in a housing development, in multi-unit building. But if I had some property, where I might have to take care of raccoons or coyotes outside during the night, I'd consider my 44 Magnum lever action. (probably loaded with Specials)

I guess even then, a scoped 22 rifle by the door and a shotgun or handgun in the home would be a better choice.
 
My questions: How many of you guys use such rifles for HD, what make and model, and how do you address what would seem to be the obvious problems, namely over-penetration and excessive muzzle blast? Thanks as always for any and all responses.
Click to expand...

I keep a couple of AR15s set up for home defense. I prefer it to the shotgun because I have a lot more familiarity and training with it and I prefer it to the handgun because it hits much harder and is more accurate, though the handgun is probably still my primary home defense firearm because it is convenient.

From a doctrinal perspective, the rifle isn't convenient to carry everywhere during the normal household business - so it stays in a single location, preferably the safe or the room I will be forting up in if I know I have an intruder or other serious threat.

This means I can control penetration two ways: one is by knowing where and how I intend to use the rilfe, I can evaluate lanes of fire and background in advance and know what kind of backstop I have. Second, there is a lot of ammunition in .223 (and even some in .308 and other larger calibers) that will penetrate less than pistol bullets in common household materials. Some of the lighter rounds will actually penetrate so shallow that they may not be effective against people except at certain angles. Currently I am using the Hornady 55gr TAP; but there is no shortage of .223 rounds that can do that job.

On muzzle blast, I actually have a suppressor; but probably wouldn't use it do to length and the fact it is usually in the safe. Frankly, I want whoever I am shooting at to feel as if the world is exploding around him. I'm familiar with using .223 in enclosed spaces and it isn't fun; but it beats the alternative in that situation and it is doable.
 
I have a Mossberg 930 SPX, which comes with the LPA Ghost Ring Sights which I consider awesome, I also have a spare Aimpoint Micro R-1 I occasionally have mounted on the factory rail, and have installed a LimbSaver pad on it. I absolutely love my M930SPX, I train pretty well with it at the range, and I consider it not only *my* ideal HD weapon but *the* ideal HD weapon, of course IMHO.

Now I also have a Bushmaster AR very customized and made into my perfect CQB rifle. I am of the opinion .223 and whatever other rifle caliber aren't good for HD, be it your 7.62x39 AK, your .223 AR or Saiga, your .30-06 Garand or deer rifle, even your .308 M1A/SOCOM II. Having said all that, if a bad guy is up in my house in the middle of the night and I have to engage, and I grab my AR, I'm gonna use it, and not say "oh no can't use this it potentially could overpenetrate and there is considerable internet forum debate over the usage of centerfire catridges, rifles, specifically .223 ARs etc. and this considerable internet forum debate is highly against using them for HD" -- F for Forget That, I'm gonna pop a cap in that suckas ace. Blast that fool all up in his dome piece with the AR, no doubt.

I just would FIRST and FOREMOST go for the shotgun with 00 Buck, but you gotta do what you gotta do, and you use what you have. If all you got or what you got is an AK, do what you got to man.
 
"Handguns are best indoors..."

"Shotguns work best for HD..."

"Rifles are great for HD because..."

We are missing one thing: the operator. No firearms is going to defend my home, but I will. While I own a pistol and a shotgun, I use an AR. In terms of general proficiency, I'm ok with the shotgun, weak with the pistol and good with the AR. After eight years as an Army infantryman, I'm quite capable with it. I can clear my home with a 16" barrel, I can aim and fire quickly and accurately at any HD distance. Do I keep overpenetration in mind? Yes, but not enough to defend myself and my home with a firearms I'm not proficient with (yet).
 
I think those 5.56 "shorties" would be fairly effective at HD, but they''re not really a rifle.

OA-93
6.5" barrel
OA length 17"

attachment.php


RRA LAR-PDS
8" barrel
OA length 17.5"

attachment.php
 
The 5.56 pistols exacerbate the two points the OP asked about - more blast and more penetration of household material due to the bullet staying together better at lower velocities. They also reduce the main benefits of a rifle (more accurate with a stock and hit harder than a pistol).

They are short though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top