Well Krag I would agree with you almost 100%........almost.
(I find in reading your posts that I nearly always do)
What counter points I would make in this subject are these:
As you say a handgun is far faster to get that 1st shot off with. I agree.
And as you say, if you are playing cops and robbers, and you are clearing a room the handgun is far easier to use. I agree!
But in the situation that you are standing your ground inside your own home, the phone and "9-11" is going to put the bad guy in the defensive position as soon as the cops show up, and in such situations I see little reason to clear the room. Let the cops do that.
I favor the ambush (as I am 100% sure you would too, knowing your military background) If you control the battle ground would you want to walk point if you could ambush?
Unless we sleep wearing the handgun we still have to pic it up.
So picking up a rifle or shot gun is going to take about the same amount of time as picking up a handgun. And there is no reason you can't do both, first the handgun, and if you need to fire before you pick up your shotgun or rifle, you can.
But even at 10 feet, if I could choose to shoot an enemy with a 45ACP or 357 mag, or my 270, I will use my 270. I have shot deer a few times jumping up within 10-15 feet and hit them every time. I have yet to miss one. I am sure I can do it with a man too.
In my case it would be an AK or an FAL not the 270.
Now I don't live in town and my closest neighbor is over 600 yards from me, and my next closest neighbor is over 1.5 miles from me so I have to say my situation is not common. I understand that and I am considering it.
I would not recommend someone go out and buy a full power 308 Military rifle for a "home-gun." There are probably better options.
But I would tell them I would choose a 308 auto over any handgun, even if they lived in town if those 2 guns were the only 2 to choose from.
With the correct ammo, the 308 is going to be a better option then a handgun (I believe) because the chances of a hit on target are far better with the rifle then a handgun so the number of rounds fired is likely to be far less. First from the aspect of practical accuracy, and next from the aspect of the severity of the wound inflicted.
With light HP bullet the penetration factor of "collateral damage" is not much different than many handgun rounds either. Especially if the rifle round hit the enemy which is about 10 times more likely then if he's shot at with a handgun. An expert handgunner will do much better, but I have not seen one yet that is better at it then he is with a rifle.
I have done drills with students many times to show this point. I'd bet you have too.
Place a small tire with a cardboard inside and hang it between 2 trees on a rope and let students fire at it with a rifle and any handgun they choose from a distance of 10 feet, 10 round per student. Swing the target hard and as fast as you can. Faster than a man can run. Let them fire from different angles too.
I am 100% sure you will see the same results I have seen.
This is a drill I have set up and used for about 30 years, and at no time in those 30 years has a group of students done as well with handguns let alone better. No group of civilians, no group of cops and no group of military personal, including USMC Force Recon and US Navy SEALS. One group of SEALS in 1985 came close to a tie, but even in that drill the rifles beat the handguns. And there is no question about the wounds produced by center rifle rifles in comparison to handguns. 357 mags, 41 mags and 44 mags are far better than most people think, but still as a class they don't beat rifle rounds. At best they can come close to matching them.
One member here asked what infantry issue of rifles has what to do with Home Deference. Not a bad question. I would answer "everything".
But a better question would be "what difference does it make if you are fighting from within a home you own or one you don't own"? The answer is "nothing". Combat is combat. A life and death fight is just that, and the battlefield is the battlefield. If a rifle can work against massed enemies in organized formations it is not less effective against single enemies who are not trained or organized.
The thing about Home Defense is that the one that lives in that home has advantages of knowledge. You can lock doors, call for help, set up an ambush and use concealment that the intruder doesn't know about. But the home owner has to have that mindset. The fighter is the weapon. The gun is the tool.
It's FAR less about the gun and far more about the tactics used, and how well they are used.
2or3 sniper teams armed with bolt actions against 100 enemy troops armed with full auto AKs seems like a very off-set fight, but if the snipers can set the place and choose the battlefield, and command the access and egress of the enemy, I could almost feel sorry for the 100.
The 100 will probably loose that fight. Because of the control of the engagement.
Fighting in your own home should be the same.
If you do that any gun is probably OK, just some may be easier to use and their rounds more effective.
Would you not agree?
