Rethink your EDC?

[black2002ls]

Yale, We are talking apples and oranges here.
I agree with you on the versatility of a good AR and own several. My point is that I don't see the fascination of the 9mm AR pistol. Personally they are big and bulky for what they are. I would just rather have another full size pistol and spare ammo. Yes I have a 9mm carbine. It sits in the safe unless the grandkids are around. (They are getting "too old" for a .22 nowadays) While it's a fun gun, I simply would not choose it for a primary or secondary weapon.

Now on to my comments about shotguns. Most urban firefights happen in less than 75 ft. They are dynamic "run and gun" situations. In this scenario, I think a shotgun is a better weapon than an 9mm AR style pistol. Buckshot is very effective at this range and it is much easier to actually hit the target. Yes I know - less capacity. But capacity is not everything. Try hitting a running target with an AR - then try again with a 12 gauge. Which one gave you a better hit ratio?

Call it personal preference, but I think a shotgun make a better close range "get the fuck away from me" weapon.

I would agree on the shotgun based on your explanation, however, the thread came up based on the gunman/men type scenario. Personally, in a setting such as the Church shooting, or any other mass shooting type scenario, I would want to stay away from anything with a spread pattern such as a shot gun. You have a greater chance of incurring collateral damage and opening yourself up to civil suits.

[S_K]

I would agree on the shotgun based on your explanation, however, the thread came up based on the gunman/men type scenario. Personally, in a setting such as the Church shooting, or any other mass shooting type scenario, I would want to stay away from anything with a spread pattern such as a shot gun. You have a greater chance of incurring collateral damage and opening yourself up to civil suits.

And if you miss with an AR - Where are your bullets going? A .223 will travel a lot further and potentially cause even more damage.

[black2002ls]

And if you miss with an AR - Where are your bullets going? A .223 will travel a lot further and potentially cause even more damage.

Agreed, though in a Crowd type setting you have a much higher probability of hitting a bystander or causing other collateral damage with something like buck shot.

[svauto-erotic855]

Now on to my comments about shotguns. Most urban firefights happen in less than 75 ft. They are dynamic "run and gun" situations. In this scenario, I think a shotgun is a better weapon than an 9mm AR style pistol. Buckshot is very effective at this range and it is much easier to actually hit the target. Yes I know - less capacity. But capacity is not everything. Try hitting a running target with an AR - then try again with a 12 gauge. Which one gave you a better hit ratio?

There is a reason rifles are used more often in combat than a shotgun. You should try the moving target thing with both a 12ga and something chambered in 5.56mm. If you are a decent shot you will hit more with the rifle. You should also try patterning some premium 00 Buck loads with a cylinder bore or modified choke shotgun. The spread of the shot at the distances you are describing can almost be covered by your hand unless you have girl hands. Buck shot is also completely useless against any type of body armor but aiming at the pelvis will negate that disadvantage and a hit there with almost anything will end the fight very quickly especially a hit from a shotgun.

[YALE]

Yale, We are talking apples and oranges here.
I agree with you on the versatility of a good AR and own several. My point is that I don't see the fascination of the 9mm AR pistol. Personally they are big and bulky for what they are. I would just rather have another full size pistol and spare ammo. Yes I have a 9mm carbine. It sits in the safe unless the grandkids are around. (They are getting "too old" for a .22 nowadays) While it's a fun gun, I simply would not choose it for a primary or secondary weapon.

Now on to my comments about shotguns. Most urban firefights happen in less than 75 ft. They are dynamic "run and gun" situations. In this scenario, I think a shotgun is a better weapon than an 9mm AR style pistol. Buckshot is very effective at this range and it is much easier to actually hit the target. Yes I know - less capacity. But capacity is not everything. Try hitting a running target with an AR - then try again with a 12 gauge. Which one gave you a better hit ratio?

Call it personal preference, but I think a shotgun make a better close range "get the fuck away from me" weapon.

I hear you, and I agree about pistol caliber AR's. I would still recommend a good auto over a pump for that work.

[S_K]

There is a reason rifles are used more often in combat than a shotgun.

Rifles are used in combat more because the distances are greater. A shotgun is simply not the right tool for the job.

You should try the moving target thing with both a 12ga and something chambered in 5.56mm. If you are a decent shot you will hit more with the rifle.

No you won't. I challenge you to try. We'll trow clay pigeons at 50 yds. You'll miss 20 out 20 times with your AR and I'll hit 5 out five with my shotgun

You should also try patterning some premium 00 Buck loads with a cylinder bore or modified choke shotgun. The spread of the shot at the distances you are describing can almost be covered by your hand unless you have girl hands. Buck shot is also completely useless against any type of body armor but aiming at the pelvis will negate that disadvantage and a hit there with almost anything will end the fight very quickly especially a hit from a shotgun.

Screw the pelvis, if he has a vest - shoot him him in the head.

[svauto-erotic855]

Rifles are used in combat more because the distances are greater. A shotgun is simply not the right tool for the job.No you won't. I challenge you to try. We'll trow clay pigeons at 50 yds. You'll miss 20 out 20 times with your AR and I'll hit 5 out five with my shotgun Screw the pelvis, if he has a vest - shoot him him in the head.

Make the clay pigeons 18"x21" like a persons torso and see how well you do.

The pelvis is a larger target that doesn't move around as much and I have yet to see a helmet on someone's pelvis.

[YALE]

Rifles are used in combat more because the distances are greater. A shotgun is simply not the right tool for the job.No you won't. I challenge you to try. We'll trow clay pigeons at 50 yds. You'll miss 20 out 20 times with your AR and I'll hit 5 out five with my shotgun Screw the pelvis, if he has a vest - shoot him him in the head.

I can bust the fuck out of a B-27 target at 50yds on the move with an AR. Almost anyone can with practice. Don't pretend like the clays example is a realistic expectation of accuracy in a gunfight.

EDIT: You are attempting to shape your argument in a way that reinforfces your preference for a shotgun in a defensive scenario. You are allowed to prefer it for no good reason, just the same as it is allowed to be inferior to other choices. They aren't mutually exclusive. Just don't cherrypick scenarios to reinforce your bullshit, or move the goalpost.

[ram57ta]

All of this back and forth about whats the better weapon in the scenario or who can hit more accurately on the move really isn't solving the primary issue in the Texas shooting...which is NOBODY was armed...not saying a person in that church with a small handgun would have saved the day...but when someone is shooting back at you there's at least a moderate chance you might decide to stop the attack. We will never know...but we do know that someone with a gun started shooting back...and the attack ended abruptly. The law needs to change regarding concealed carry in places of religion...and for that matter...ALL gun free zones. They are targets.

[LANTIRN]

All of this back and forth about whats the better weapon in the scenario or who can hit more accurately on the move really isn't solving the primary issue in the Texas shooting...which is NOBODY was armed...not saying a person in that church with a small handgun would have saved the day...but when someone is shooting back at you there's at least a moderate chance you might decide to stop the attack. We will never know...but we do know that someone with a gun started shooting back...and the attack ended abruptly. The law needs to change regarding concealed carry in places of religion...and for that matter...ALL gun free zones. They are targets.

It is possible someone was carrying and got shot in the first few seconds. It isn't completely illegal to carry in church, but isn't like walking into walmart as far as legality goes. However, Texas has (or had) on the books a note about carrying unlawfully and stopping an attack was a defense to procecution. Even if we didn't have that I would bet no one would want to get caught dragging the hero thru the courts atfer he saved lives. I bet the guy who stopped this shooting probably gets his AR back fucking quick with zero charges and a big thank you. Probably wouldn't happen like that in NY or Illinois, but I don't see Texas dicking this man around.

[black2002ls]

It is possible someone was carrying and got shot in the first few seconds. It isn't completely illegal to carry in church, but isn't like walking into walmart as far as legality goes. However, Texas has (or had) on the books a note about carrying unlawfully and stopping an attack was a defense to procecution. Even if we didn't have that I would bet no one would want to get caught dragging the hero thru the courts atfer he saved lives. I bet the guy who stopped this shooting probably gets his AR back fucking quick with zero charges and a big thank you. Probably wouldn't happen like that in NY or Illinois, but I don't see Texas dicking this man around.

I think you seriously underestimate the democrats and their anti gun agenda! "LOOK, HE HAD A GUN IN A GUN FREE ZONE, AND HE KILLED SOMEONE WITH IT!"

[LS1Goat]

I think you seriously underestimate the democrats and their anti gun agenda! "LOOK, HE HAD A GUN IN A GUN FREE ZONE, AND HE KILLED SOMEONE WITH IT!"

And if liberals had a modicum of logic, then they would finally realize that criminals(psychopaths) don't recognize gun free zones. A maybe come to the conclusion that there is no real solution to this, other than focusing more on mental health issues.

[juiceweezl]

All of this back and forth about whats the better weapon in the scenario or who can hit more accurately on the move really isn't solving the primary issue in the Texas shooting...which is NOBODY was armed...not saying a person in that church with a small handgun would have saved the day...but when someone is shooting back at you there's at least a moderate chance you might decide to stop the attack. We will never know...but we do know that someone with a gun started shooting back...and the attack ended abruptly. The law needs to change regarding concealed carry in places of religion...and for that matter...ALL gun free zones. They are targets.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but church or any place of religion follows the same rules as anywhere else. If it's not 30.06 posted, LTC can carry legally. I know where we go to church it's only 30.07 posted.

[The King]

It is legal under Texas law to carry into a church unless otherwise posted with 30.06/30.07 signage.

[Silverback]

i've opted to add one of these in the truck in addition to my on person carry, loaded with 9 mini shells now thanks to Marty picking me up the adapter