It Worked-M1 Carbine for home defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
That right there is the ultimate point. Armed or unarmed, and inside or outside.

It seems obvious that the guy was attempting entry, and did present a threat, but in either a criminal trial against the homeowner or shooter, the jury is going to be the ulitmate arbiter for or against guy. I wouldn't want to be in his position for that one reason.

Without a solid legal basis for deadly force without entry, like your state law or the texas property invasion law, or even the stand your ground laws, his position is a little iffy.
 
many years ago, my dentist heard someone outside his home, and found a guy rummaging through his car. he grabbed his M1 carbine and confronted the burglar with it. He has never given me full details, but in the end, he was stabbed in the chest, and the guy got away.

as he waggishly puts it, he's the only person stupid enough to take a gun to a knife fight, and still lose.

Really bright guy. Got a lot of respect for him. I don't think, however, that he handled this well.
 
briandg said:
many years ago, my dentist heard someone outside his home, and found a guy rummaging through his car. he grabbed his M1 carbine and confronted the burglar with it. He has never given me full details, but in the end, he was stabbed in the chest, and the guy got away....
Click to expand...
Glad your dentist recovered. But unfortunately, his story helps illustrate that it's not necessarily enough to have a gun. One must also be able to use it effectively.
 
yes, I've been seeing him for over 30 years. an old friend of my family. I first heard the story from my mother in law; he spent 3 days or so in the hospital from the chest wound.

It utterly floored me that he would have taken a rifle outside to confront a thief, let the guy draw a weapon, and then NOT MANAGE TO FIRE for whatever reason.

Like I said, I never got the entire story from him. I just saw him a couple weeks ago, and it came up in conversation again, and he still ain't gonna tell the whole story. I kinda wonder if he went out with an unloaded gun. :confused:
 
This just shows that lawyers will spin anything to win their case. If the defender had shot & killed the intruder, the howl would have been, "Why didn't the defender just shoot him in the leg to stop him?":rolleyes:
Anyway, a leg shot is a poor stopper, unless you are able to break a major bone.
----
"One must also be able to use it effectively."--Frank Ettin
And be prepared to use it effectively. If that horrific 'crunch time' comes, can you pull the trigger? If you don't think you can, don't get a gun for HD.
 
Glad your dentist recovered. But unfortunately, his story helps illustrate that it's not necessarily enough to have a gun. One must also be able to use it effectively
Click to expand...

AND WILLING TO USE IT.

Lot of good people out there who are more then adequate in the use of a firearm but WON'T DO IT, when actually faced with the ideal of shooting another human being, regardless of what that person is doing.

Big difference is "knowing how" and actually "using" using a firearm.
 
Warning shots and "shooting to wound" are not best practice in a situation involving lethal force. From the available information about this anecdote, it seems like a very solidly justifiable use of force, but in other instances things may be less obvious, so in general, the best advice is to avoid using lethal force (i.e., ANY use of a firearm), except as a terrible last resort, but then, shoot with the intent of ending the threat...YMMV.

From the facts available in this case, it is clear the attacker was engaged actively in a felony, and the homeowner stayed inside his home which was tactically and legally wise. There are many factors that affect the outcome of the (inevitable) civil suit, that really have no impact on the actual decision to use lethal force (like if the attacker turns out to be a 17-year-old kid...). The lawyers will throw up a bunch of smoke, usually to try and get a settlement from someone with deep pockets (the gubmint, the insurance company), who doesn't want to risk a jury award and for whom it may cost less to settle than adjudicate...but I digress.

The M1 Carbine was, of course, designed as basically a self-defense weapon for soldiers whose duties precluded them from carrying a rifle. They are not considered assault weapons in Kalifornia, although you are limited to 10-round mags (which should be adequate for home defense), unless you have "grandfathered" hi-cap mags already in your possession.

IMHO, one weakness of the carbine is that the mags are not sturdy enough and the mounting not secure enough, for consistent reliability. Especially with commercial 10 round mags, it is important to make sure the ones you have are reliable. GI 15 rounders are reputed to be the best, the extended 30- or 40- rounders the worst, but I think it depends on the mag and the gun.

The other weakness of the carbine is the caliber. .30 Carbine is ballistically on a par with .357, but with the FMJ bullet has a reputation as a poor stopper. Fortunately, the aforementioned Corbon DPX rounds with the Barnes solid copper HP bullets seem to unlock the full potential of the caliber. They cost about a buck a piece, though...

I keep my CMP War Baby ready with an Ultimak hand guard mounted tac light. The light precludes the use of the sights, so I have an occluded-eye sight mounted in back. I also swapped out for new Wolf springs. Don't worry, though, I kept everything and can put it back to GI...

I worked rounds through the action (barrel pointed in a safe direction) until I found some mags that were reliable. I used mostly FMJ rounds, but also included some of the DPX rounds to ensure they would feed reliably. I inspected the rounds to ensure none were damaged, then fired them at the range. I ended up with three mags that I was confident would work.

Avoid the Universal Carbine. I had one years ago, but it was never reliable. I suppose if you have one that works for you, it would be OK, but I would never buy one again. Maybe you could fix one with Wolf springs (which is a good idea in any carbine), but you're better off laying out for a GI model.

Never run anything in your home-defense weapon not legal in your location. One good thing about the Universal for me is that because of it, I had several pre-ban 15- and 30- round mags that I could use when I got my GI carbine from the CMP a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
yep, a lawyer will tell any sort of lie, and spin anyway he can, because that is the only reason he has to live.

To gather a little perspective, take the example you just gave.

"why didn't he just shoot him in the leg and be done with it, so my client would have lived? A shot in the leg is nonlethal and would have ended the confrontation."

That is an absolute lie, because he is putting out as a fact that a leg shot would have changed the situation for the better, that the homeowner had a responsibility, and that the homeowner had information that only god had, and now, a lawyer with the files.

Stating a case in these terms is, in fact, a LIE. Nobody but the almighty god knows the future outcome of a decision as it is being made.

Any time facts are withheld, and only favorable information is presented, a person is lying, because the presented "facts" are incomplete and distorted.

The caliber/firearm war threads here are full of low level lies, usually known as "BS."

You know,

"12 gauge slug is the best bear round on the planet because (blah blah blah blah)" and everything that could possibly be better is dismissed with all the other stuff out there, and anything that may have other attributes that are equally or even more important are pushed aside as irrelevant.

TRUTH IS A MOVING TARGET. that's the simplest, truest thing you could ever learn, and it is the most important thing to know in your lifetime.

What was true there, in that home, at that very second, was changing with every passing second. The guy used his weapon based on history, even if only 5 seconds of actual history, and his lifetime of experience.

The lawyer is going to do everything in his power to rewrite the truth of that moment by adding unavailable information to that decision process, and prove that the decision was totally wrong.

That's what we all have to remember as situations like this unfold.

There will be LIES told. We have to minimize personal risk not only in the moment, but in the future, by using our brains and making the best possible decisions, ones that will be defensible in court.

Not all juries are gullible, but everyone who walks into a courtroom takes the risk of being put in the hands of morons.
 
another bit to add is that the fact that there are "good" and "bad" lawyers, ones who can strongly affect the outcome of a trial is almost a good proof that the jury system isn't working properly.

A strong willed and persuasive lawyer who can pull out all the stops and sway a jury to a decision that a "lesser qualified" lawyer could not get has managed to present the same case facts as any other lawyer would have had, and convince the jury that the facts that he presented were the most relevant and accurate.

Guilt being determined by manipulation of the presentation of facts by lawyers, and the understanding of facts by juries is something that we should all be afraid of. we have plenty of well pulblicized cases of convictions being overturned upon appeal, or even decades later, because information was not presented correctly, and the "proof of guilt" was completely false.

there are also many, many cases where the guilty have walked free because "proof of guilt" could not be established strongly enough to overcome "reasonable doubt."

I fear the courts, and so should everyone else on this planet, whatever country you live in, because even the best system cannot be perfect.
 
I think a jury in San Francisco will come up with a different decision than one in Dallas when considering the same presentation of 'The facts'. I think the same is true in Miami, Columbus, Minneapolis, .... That said I personally prefer the jury system to a trial a single individual, or tribunal. Yes sometimes the guilty go free, and the innocent suffer loss, but overall I have found the personal prejudices of one, or a close knit few, to be more a detriment. I can support this feeling simply by considering my experiences on gun boards like this one. I notice a significant bias on many issues that I find appalling, and scary. Personally I prefer a blend of biased opinions in dealing with matters involving guilt, or innocence, and a good lawyer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top