gyvel, I hope the best for you, please consider that some may not allow you the luxury to get the hell out of there. As our society continues to deteriorate the chance of being forced to defend yourself/others or be killed/injured is increasing.
I completely understand your viewpoint, but, again, if I am at "rifle range," which is a fair distance, I'm leaving. If an attack is imminent at close range, I fully intend to dispatch as many as I can with a shotgun.
Getting out of Dodge when the SHTF is always a good plan, BUT, "rifle range" is not necessarily long distance shooting anymore. The way the patrol rifle has been pushing riot guns or "tactical shotguns" out of LE use over the last decade is a perfect example. Modern projectiles have dramatically reduced over penetration concerns and shotguns can't match the rifle or carbine's accuracy and capacity making them, more and more often, the long gun of choice even for across the room and hallway distance encounters. And, of course, once distances get beyond 15 or 20yds most shooters handgun accuracy decreases dramatically, another 15 or 20yds beyond that and, depending on the load and barrel, the shotgun starts to lose it's effectiveness. Within those limits, it's easy to make an argument for any of the three weapons, all can be accurate and effective, each having a range within which it stands out but it doesn't take much distance for a rifle or carbine to go from being interchangeable with a handgun or shotgun to the weapon of choice.
So many schools, malls, stores, hospitals, factories, government buildings, repair shops, warehouses, etc, etc, have rooms and hallways that have clear lines of sight 25, 50, 100yds or further. It's very easy to suddenly find yourself at "rifle range" within the confines of a building. In fact, I'd say that any time your target is outside
your effective range with the handgun or even the shotgun that you're carrying, you are at rifle range.
The obvious point is that there really isn't any substitute for accurate, effective fire. The argument for a rifle/carbine is that it extends our ability to accurately engage a target far beyond what most of us are capable of with a handgun (effectiveness generally limited by ability before the weapon) or shotgun (effectiveness generally limited by ammunition before ability). I kept a shotgun and later a patrol rifle in my cruiser for the duration of my LE career, but I've never made a habit of keeping a long gun in my POV. I've felt that I'm adequately armed with my 1911 and I can easily hit torso sized targets at 50-75 yards. However, the current socio-political "environment", a surge in hard drug trafficking activity here in Maine, the fact that the small hospital I work at has zero security, the scarcity of law enforcement in the rural area where we live, and the distances we're often traveling just for our regular shopping trips have caused me to reconsider. Just the other day I received a 5.11 Covrt M4 Shorty sling pack that fits my FN PS-90 like it was made for it, with space for spare mags and other necessities. No, it's not a battle rifle or AR variant, but it's convenient, light and compact, and the 50rd mags are a nice bonus. But the deciding factor wasn't the capacity or the size, it was the difference between being able to make torso shots at 50yds and head shots at 150yds. That accuracy is the difference between punching the bad guy's clock down the 250 feet of hallway from maternity and to the ER with one shot as opposed to hoping to make body shots at that distance with my pistol or having to close the distance to engage him at a range that I'm confident I'll make solid hits. 250 feet isn't all that far but it's an example of how a rifle could be a game changer at something far less than what has conventionally been considered rifle range.
