Using my handgun to get to my rifle

[Cousin Pat]

We're often advised to choose a rifle for SD over a handgun in circumstances where we have a choice. (Let's leave the shotguns out of the discussion for now). So let's put an attacker far enough away to shoulder a rifle but close enough for a pistol to be accurate -- let's say 15 yards. Two choices:

1 -- .223 SA rifle: 55 gr JHP @ 3200 fps = 1,250 ft. lbs energy at muzzle

2 -- .357 mag revolver: 125 gr JHP @ 1450 fps = 580 ft. lbs energy at muzzle

So even "just a varmint" rifle has over 2X the energy of one of the classic "one-stop" handgun cartridges.

So we all holster the handgun and shoulder the rifle, right?

But what about this idea of "stopping power"? There is a Taylor index that tries to capture this by working in the bullet diameter to the comparison. I calculate the Taylor index for the .223 at 6, while the .357 comes in at 9, a 50% advantage to the revolver. (By the way, .45 ACP comes in at a 13).

It seems to me that the "get your rifle" idea works ONLY when you have some warning and some distance, say 50 yards +.

At distances less than 50 yards, only a repeating shotgun, not a rifle, seems to offer benefits over the handgun: Even a 20 gauge slug (say 325 gr@1600 fps =) has 1850 ft-lbs muzzle energy, Taylor = 47. (Buckshot might put less mass on target but offer wider coverage). By either the muzzle-energy measure or the Taylor index measure, the 20g far surpasses even a .44 Mag (1200 ft-lbs, index 22).

Am I thinking about this corrrectly?

 

[Hamour]

Cousin Pat, rifles are magnitudes of leathality higher than handguns.

A minimal powered deer rifle, the 30-30 in a carbine, makes a good short defensive rifle. It would take a behemouth of a handgun to touch it in killing power. 30 cal rifle bullets @ 2100 + FPS are definate fight stoppers.

Have you ever shot an animal like a deer or hog with a handgun and rifle? The difference in damage to the animal is stark. The handgun will put a hole through. The rifle will blow a hole through along with bones, hide, internal organs etc.

A 30-06 or 300 mag is several levels more leathal than the 30-30!

Rifles are fight stoppers from the muzzle on out to the limit of your ability to hit the target.

The portability and concealability are the advantages of the handgun. If you know trouble is coming, meet it with a rifle.

Dont over analize this, any rifle from the .223 on up will do the job if you can shoot it.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The rifle has two and a half times the muzzle energy, coupled with speed WAY in excess of 200 fps, which is roughly the area where hydrostatic shock begins to take effect, and you think a HANDGUN is better?

No sir. If I had the option I sooner use my 204ruger than my 357sig for defense. It just doesn't fit in my pants.

At distances less than 50 yards, only a repeating shotgun, not a rifle, seems to offer benefits over the handgun

Try shooting something that's alive with both and see if you still believe that. You won't.

 

[armsmaster270]

All dependent on the situation. Within a house a handgun or shotgun works fine. Out in the open at range and where you don't have to worry about collateral damage from overpenetration a rifle. You shoot someone in self defense thats fine. You kill someone innocent due to overpenetration it will be doom on you.

 

[spamanon]

As others have said, there is simply no comparison. Any rifle chambered in deer cartridge or larger is going to have WAY more effect on a living target than even the largest handgun chambered in a handgun round.

It's apples and oranges.

Handguns are better than nothing. No-one who has hunted with both would say there is any comparison in tissue damage/shock.

 

[SwampYankee]

This is another argument I find ridiculous. Just shoot an attacker once with a handgun and he'll stop. He will die or run away. And if he is a meth-head and won't do either, hit him 2-3 times with anything bigger than a .38 and he'll definitely be dead. Unless you plan on hanging out in Afghanistan, 6 rounds is enough to handle at least 2 attackers sufficiently. But feel free to carry a 9mm with 15 rounds. It will be more than enough.

The next time you doubt the ability of a handgun to do the job, put it to your foot and see how it feels. I guarantee you'll be a believer.

Handguns are better than nothing.

Yeah well, you can only get so dead.

 

[Tom2]

If you want to consider handgun versus rifle tactics, maybe study up on military and police(swat) usage of these. Remember they took out Bonnie and Clyde with rifles, but they were going hunting, not setting back waiting to be suprised by them. I suppose you need rifles that are small and handy in SD situations, unless you are in the war zone. Thus the popularity of the short AR platforms, and maybe even the Mini 14 in civilian circles. I don't have any rifles setting around loaded or having full mags here. I am not in a high threat area. And therefore will not do so, till the threat level justifies it. But I don't know where you are or what you envision happening.

 

[sandbag]

SKS

I have a Norinco SKS that never gives me any problems-it's stripped down-bayonet has been removed,but it is a very handy weapon to pick up quick for HD or SD and hits a lot harder than any pistol.

 

[spamanon]

Yeah well, you can only get so dead.

Big deal.:barf:

The question is not whether a handgun can't kill and a rifle can, the question is which is a superior stopper. We have all heard stories of some guy taking X number of rounds of 9mm, .40 S&W, etc and still putting up a fight. Seems I remember one of these posts where there was some footage of a guy who took 2 rounds of .40 in the chest and was able to walk to the hospital with quite an arrogant strut to his step.
These stories are often the starting point of many caliber war threads.

Point me to ONE verified story of any human being taking 2 rounds of .30-06 in the chest then strutting to the hospital.

 

[Bear 45/70]

A rifle for SD is asking for an innocent bystander or neighbor to get shot. Way to much velocity and penetration. If you insist on a long gun, a shotgun with a 18" to 20" cylinder bore barrel with #4 buck loads makes better sense besides upping your chances of a 1 shot stop and no excess penetration. My wifes home defense is a Mossberg 500 with 20" barrel and 8 round mag. tube. My choice is a Norinco Model 99, 1877 Coachgun in 12 ga.

 

[45_Shooter]

This is another argument I find ridiculous. Just shoot an attacker once with a handgun and he'll stop. He will die or run away. And if he is a meth-head and won't do either, hit him 2-3 times with anything bigger than a .38 and he'll definitely be dead. Unless you plan on hanging out in Afghanistan, 6 rounds is enough to handle at least 2 attackers sufficiently. But feel free to carry a 9mm with 15 rounds. It will be more than enough.

There's a well documented case of a highway trooper shooting a felon 5 times center of mass with his issued .357 magnum, only to die from a .22 LR to the heart (fired through a small opening in his body armor) from a mini-revolver by the felon. The felon survived.

George "Baby face" Nelson was observed to take multiple close range hits from a Remington Model 11 12 Ga, including multiple .45 hits from Thompson submachine guns, and still was able to murder the officers after their guns ran out or jammed. He died shortly thereafter from the inflicted wounds however.

The North Hollywood shootout showed the results when pistols are brought to a rifle fight.

No, I'll take a rifle any day over a pistol thank you very much, for the reasons already mentioned.

A rifle for SD is asking for an innocent bystander or neighbor to get shot. Way to much velocity and penetration.

This is not the case when speaking of many 5.56x45 loadings. The old M193 load has proven to have less penetration through common structural objects than even a 9mm, due to the way a 5.56 round breaks up on high velocity impact.

Now, a steel core .308 is a different story!

 

[SwampYankee]

And recently, a woman was walking in her yard and got hit on the shoulder by and meteorite an LIVED!

The odds of her being hit by a meteorite are pretty high in the first place, being hit and actually not dying from something falling into the atmosphere at thousands of miles per hour is probably unheard of.

I agree that a rifle is more lethal than a handgun, but handguns work. Just ask the thousands of dead people across the planet who have been shot only once by a handgun. Oh wait, they are dead!

Yes, handguns many not "always" work, but usually they do. And they always come with more than one chance to be effective (more bullets). Just because one bad guy didn't drop dead doesn't mean we should toss them or stop using them.

Do you realize that the M16 is a pretty poor rifle, as far as stopping power goes? The .223 is just barely a rifle round! So why does the military use them? Why doesn't every soldier use M1's or M14's? I won't spend 5 paragraphs detailing the pros and the cons here or military tactics, but I think you get the point.

The North Hollywood shootout showed the results when pistols are brought to a rifle fight.

And just how often are bad guys doing that? I am sure it has happened, but most home invaders don't carry rifles. Many of them aren't even armed.

We have all heard stories of some guy

I've also heard stories told of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Big whoop. I don't believe in "stories" much anymore.

 

[Tom2]

OK, then, to the guy who mentions the ganster taking shotgun hits and keeps on coming. Too tough for buck shot? I have never heard of a guy taking buck at close range and keeping it up, but might be! How about this-load your pump gun or SXS with deer slugs. Big fat heavy deer slugs. Tell me a story from somewhere that a guy soaked up deer slugs and still attacked someone. There you have it. Use a .45 auto to get to your shotgun full of slugs! Lot cheaper than the rifles options too.

 

[Creature]

I have never heard of a guy taking buck at close range and keeping it up, but might be!

Depends on your definition of 'close range'.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Strange things said...

So even "just a varmint" rifle has over 2X the energy of one of the classic "one-stop" handgun cartridges.

Inequitable comparison - gun type to cartridge.

You kill someone innocent due to overpenetration it will be doom on you.

This happens only very rarely. Usually when bystanders are hit, it is due to shots that have missed the intended target. With that said, I would like to read more on the instances where this has happened. It seems to be a great fear that folks have, overpenetration hitting a bystander, but for the life of me the only examples I can find are police shootings where the suspect is holding the bystander as a hostage.

A rifle for SD is asking for an innocent bystander or neighbor to get shot. Way to much velocity and penetration.

Once again, overpenetration isn't really a problem in most cases, but missing is. Also, it isn't the firearm that does the penetrating and traveling at velocity, but the bullet. There are several rifle loads that can be made to penetrate more poorly than many pistol rounds. Our local SWAT team uses 40 gr .223 for that very purpose.

The North Hollywood shootout showed the results when pistols are brought to a rifle fight.

No, the North Hollywood shootout shows what happens when folks wear the wrong body armor in a gun battle at non-typical urban defense distances. There are numerous instances of people with pistols defeating people with rifles. With that said and relative to the OP, pistols can be quite effective when the shooters are at ranges where they can hit what they need to hit, such as 15 yards and not the long distances of the North Hollywood incident.

If you are going against somebody with body armor, you probably do want to use a rifle. If you are going aginst somebody with hard armor body armor, you probably want to be shooting AP ammo from your rifle, lest it not penetrate the hard armor.

There's a well documented case of a highway trooper shooting a felon 5 times center of mass with his issued .357 magnum, only to die from a .22 LR to the heart (fired through a small opening in his body armor) from a mini-revolver by the felon. The felon survived.

This is often used as a silly example. At the time the officer was shot, the felon was down and the officer mistakenly thought the battle was over. Yes, the felon lived, but only because of medical help arriving as a result of the officer's radio call before he died. All firearms are potentially lethal. Had the officer secured the downed bad guy first, before making his radio call, this would be a different story. Shot placement really is key, even if by luck.

And if he is a meth-head and won't do either, hit him 2-3 times with anything bigger than a .38 and he'll definitely be dead

As with the cop/felon .357/.22 lr example above, it isn't the number of hits and caliber that necessarily matter, but shot placement. Believing that X number of hits will necessarily produce death would be extremely naive. Especially if you shoot the person in the feet...as implied in the next comment.

The next time you doubt the ability of a handgun to do the job, put it to your foot and see how it feels. I guarantee you'll be a believer.

Always a stupid argument...asking folks to volunteer to be shot by some gun or caliber as if their refusal to do so justifies the claims of effectiveness. It doesn't. However, I did as the post suggested and put a gun to my foot. It feels okay. I didn't like the balance, but it feels okay. (see pic)

 

[David Armstrong]

Tell me a story from somewhere that a guy soaked up deer slugs and still attacked someone.

Well, I was in on a case years back where one BG shot the other BG twice with slugs, 1 round stomach, one round chest, and the shot BG was able to split the shooters head open with a ball peen hammer before he went down.

 

[nate45]

Do you realize that the M16 is a pretty poor rifle, as far as stopping power goes? The .223 is just barely a rifle round!

The .223 Rem is quite effective with soft point ammunition. The Speer 55 grain TBBC and 70 grain Semi-Spitzer are two that come to mind. A COM hit from either one of them would be devastating. There are also several others that come to mind Hornaday 75 grain TAP and 64 grain Winchester Power Point. In fact just a standard 55 grain SP starting out at 3000+ fps would make a very severe wound, they are just not optimal penetrators, but most of the time they would be more than sufficient.

The 55 grain FMJ itself is not that bad of a performer, when the velocity is high enough so that they tumble and break in half at the cannelure on impact. It is the shorter barrels and reduced velocity they create that has somewhat reduced the 5.56's effectiveness. However getting shot by one out of an M4 length barrel is still no picnic.

 

[SwampYankee]

Yes, putting a handgun on your foot is very clever and very cute. I am very proud of you for your ability to interpret a sentence in its most literal sense. Har har har. Let us hope it isn't loaded. Oh wait, either way, you broke one of the 4 rules of gun safety by playing with a handgun and being foolish with a firearm. I guess the joke is on you...

But you are right, it is a silly argument. It is just as silly as saying that a "handgun is better than nothing". Or, perhaps, as silly as putting a handgun on your foot and taking a photograph of it.

The .223 Rem is quite effective with soft point ammunition.

You mean the same kind of soft point ammunition used by the military? THAT softpoint ammunition? The .357 magnum is also pretty effective with softpoint ammo.

I like the .223. I like it a lot. But it's not much of a rifle round. Do you think it's good for deer? I don't. It's a good combat round. And it's a good varmint round. But it's not a 30-06 or a .308. But the military is convinced that despite some of the weaknesses of .223, it serves the regular soldier pretty well. Much like 9mm and .40's serve the general civilian population looking for a SD round.

In short, I think it is silly when people start saying they need a M1 Garand for self defense. It is simply not true. As mentioned, shot placement is critical. If you can't hit someone with a Garand (and I don't me over the head-wiseguy), it doesn't matter how much energy the round packs. You can easily stop an attacker with a high velocity .22 if you hit him in the head (once again, I don't mean bludgeoning him) at under 15 feet. If you hit an attacker in the chest with 2-3 medium caliber handgun hollowpoints, you are going to stop him 99% of the time.

 

[Dwight55]

My 1911 is my first line of defense.

My M1A is my second line, . . . and I could not care less about over penetration. My nearest neighbor is almost 1000 feet away, . . . and would be at a 90 degree angle to my most anticipated fire lane.

It's got 20 rounds (vs 7 in my shotgun) and another 20 just itching to get into the fight if needs be.

My Beretta shotty is the third line of defense, . . . if I need this, . . . y'all gonna have to give me a time out to get my tin foil hat on, . . . and get my patented Zombie sticker/stabber.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[warnerwh]

If I'm within 50ft I would prefer my .357 because it can be utilized faster than a rifle. Getting a rifle on target takes longer. I've spent too much time shooting handguns to consider a rifle in that situation. My 30-06 is a more reliable stopper but moving it quickly isn't easy. It also forces you to stay in the open longer.