Suppressed SBR for home/property defense??

[d90king]

There is an easy way to handle this problem (which I hear a lot). You keep the loaded mag in a Gun Vault (or something that has a speed opening system). The AR is a rock without ammo in it and as long as all your other .223 ammo is secured, there are no issues.



C4

Great thoughts... I do have a bio safe that I open each night (I dont trust the function under stress) that I could easily fit a mag in. Thanks for the food for thought and a viable solution to my concerns ...

[C4IGrant]

Great thoughts... I do have a bio safe that I open each night (I dont trust the function under stress) that I could easily fit a mag in. Thanks for the food for thought and a viable solution to my concerns ...

I have two small boys in my home. Security of my weapons is PRIORITY 1.


C4

[cougar_guy04]

I have been pondering the same thing (NFA bugs have been buzzing around my head) but the only real "case studies" I could find about NFA items used in self-defense was the old Ayoob one about the Gary Fadden incident (chased down by a couple guys and when he was cornered, shot one of them with a Ruger AC556). That seems to be one of the sources cited in a few discussion for not using an NFA item for defending home or self.

I am most familiar with my Glock 19's because I carry them every single day. I shoot my Glock 19's the most - unsure if I can compare my pistol shooting to my carbine shooting (i.e. "shoot the best") but I am confident with my pistol skills. So using your criteria, my Glock 19's are my primary defensive tool.

Off topic, but that was the exact reason I went to a G19. I shoot a 34 in competition, but my carry pistol was a XD-45C. Nice enough gun, but 2 different animals and it didn't seem to make sense that I was shooting a whole lot with a 9mm Glock but carrying a .45 XD. Now I'm running the 19/34 with the exact same setups (except the 19 has Warren 2-dot Night Sights instead of the all black ones that the 34 wears).

[Irish]

Easier to maneuver inside, less flash, less bang... sounds like the best way to have it set up in my limited experience.

[Jay Cunningham]

Did Grossman cite the testing sample? and where was it done? and which medical journal cited? Are they testing people prior to a gunfight and then after?

Link to a study on recreational gunfire/ hearing loss using proper scientific methodology: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

Is this type of study following proper scientific methodology available for combat gunfire and hearing loss?

Some info on people that have very recently been exposed to stressful loud gunfire:

• Perhaps a fourth – and probably more – of troops who have served in Iraq since March 2003 have returned with hearing loss from gunfire, bomb blasts or other noise.

• Exact figures on how many troops have suffered hearing damage in Iraq or Afghanistan don't exist, in part because the Army failed until recently to give most troops hearing tests at both the beginning and end of their service, a 2005 study by the independent Institute of Medicine found. And as the American Journal of Audiology recently noted, Army Reserve and Guard members may be "underrepresented" in Army medical evaluations because "they are more likely to seek care through civilian providers."

• Despite the evidence of rapidly rising hearing damage, the Army plans to cut the number of uniformed audiologists in its ranks from 36 to a projected 19. The Army had 70 uniformed audiologists in 1991, before a post-Cold War reduction in the Army's overall size.

• The bill to taxpayers for disability payments for hearing damage to all veterans – already roughly $1 billion annually – is likely to soar in future years as increasing numbers of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan realize the extent of their hearing loss.

"As they're coming back, they're just starting to come into our system," said Lucille Beck, director of audiology and speech pathology for the Veterans Affairs Department.

Hearing loss, she said, is often "a gradual decline. You're the last one to know, because you don't know what you're missing. You think that everyone else is mumbling."

I think you are missing the point. Loud gunfire *will* damage your hearing. A parasympathetic nervous system response must be present for the physiological phenomenon of audio exclusion to manifest - i.e. you are in imminent danger for your life. Being on an artillery crew or laying down suppressive fire from behind cover at an enemy 200 yards away does not have the same effect as CQB.

[ToddG]

Audio exclusion is a physiological phenomenon.

Bingo. While obviously some hearing damage is possible (especially if for some reason you chose an unsuppressed SBR as a HD weapon) it would not be my primary concern.

Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with what weapon you use, btw. I'm not going to perpetuate the myth that the type of weapon is a major factor in the legal aftermath, but you are certainly pushing every possible button using a suppressed short-barreled "assault rifle."

I am most familiar with my Glock 19's because I carry them every single day.

Bingo, #2. My carry gun is my primary home defense gun. It's always with me, always works the same way, and it means I don't have to practice nearly as much as I would if I wanted to maintain this level of proficiency with multiple weapon systems.

Having said that, it doesn't take a lot of proficiency to hit a human torso and typical indoor distances with a dot-equipped carbine. And while it's probably more fantasy than realism, the carbine does give you certain advantages in terms of capacity, lethality, and soft armor penetration.

[C4IGrant]

Bingo. While obviously some hearing damage is possible (especially if for some reason you chose an unsuppressed SBR as a HD weapon) it would not be my primary concern.

Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with what weapon you use, btw. I'm not going to perpetuate the myth that the type of weapon is a major factor in the legal aftermath, but you are certainly pushing every possible button using a suppressed short-barreled "assault rifle."



Bingo, #2. My carry gun is my primary home defense gun. It's always with me, always works the same way, and it means I don't have to practice nearly as much as I would if I wanted to maintain this level of proficiency with multiple weapon systems.

Having said that, it doesn't take a lot of proficiency to hit a human torso and typical indoor distances with a dot-equipped carbine. And while it's probably more fantasy than realism, the carbine does give you certain advantages in terms of capacity, lethality, and soft armor penetration.

Totally agree on the CD and what weapon you are using (has nothing to do with it).
The best argument AGAINST using an AR (especially a suppressed one) is how it would look in court. I am not saying that I agree with it, but can see this POV.

I believe that since the bad guy came into my home, it should NOT be a fair fight. Meaning that the BG is most likely carrying a HG. So if he has a HG and I have a HG, that is a fair fight (weapon wise). I am not looking for a "fair fight." I should have the home field advantage. The AR gives me this advantage, especially if the BG is wearing body armor (which more and more BG's are wearing).

I wish that I was as good a shot with my pistol as I am with my AR, but the simple fact is that I can fly with an AR (not so with a pistol).


C4

[LOKNLOD]

On the topic of ARs firing indoors...
I've had a "surprise" 5.56 round fired from a 16" AR into the carpet directly between my feet and the feet of the guy holding the gun, in a small square living room with a relatively low ceiling.

It was loud, my ear that was closer to the rifle rang for the rest of the evening, and after that it was all fine. People in the same room had a similar experience, those in other rooms had no problems.

Did it damage my hearing? Definitely, but not noticeably, and so do many of the other activities we're around, like mowing, weedeating, standing near noisy equipment, etc. That shot wasn't a stand-alone, ear-destroying singular event, though. I wouldn't recommend doing it on purpose, and definitely not frequently, but a single shot (or several) isn't likely to permanently deafen you for life under most circumstances.

[khc3]

I think it's possible to divide HD scenarios into A) investigating the "bump in the night," whereby (in most places) the cause is not likely to be a home invader, and B) a situation where the homeowner knows for sure (or at least has solid evidence) that an intruder is in the house.

My house/neighborhood is such that it would be very difficult for someone to enter without me at least being pretty certain that someone is in there.

For investigating noises, I use my glock with x300, which allows me to open doors, use the phone, turn lights on and off, more easily.

If I know that someone is in the house I would grab my suppressed SBR to get my kids from their rooms into my bedroom and take up a static defensive position covering the top of the stairs, while I dial 911 and wait for the cops.

[C4IGrant]

On the topic of ARs firing indoors...
I've had a "surprise" 5.56 round fired from a 16" AR into the carpet directly between my feet and the feet of the guy holding the gun, in a small square living room with a relatively low ceiling.

It was loud, my ear that was closer to the rifle rang for the rest of the evening, and after that it was all fine. People in the same room had a similar experience, those in other rooms had no problems.

Did it damage my hearing? Definitely, but not noticeably, and so do many of the other activities we're around, like mowing, weedeating, standing near noisy equipment, etc. That shot wasn't a stand-alone, ear-destroying singular event, though. I wouldn't recommend doing it on purpose, and definitely not frequently, but a single shot (or several) isn't likely to permanently deafen you for life under most circumstances.

I can believe that out of a 16" AR. Not an SBR though. I get headaches from doing over/under drills when someone is running an SBR.


C4