Rifle vs Handgun: The Sufficient Power Argument

[cosermann]

Tools allow us to accomplish tasks. Firearms are highly-specialized tools. Different firearms accomplish some tasks better than others.

If this is all you have, since a rifle can accomplish some tasks better than a pistol, trading a rifle + a pistol for 3 pistols leaves you with a set of tools with diminished capabilities.

Whether or not that's acceptable, depends on what tasks you want to accomplish. But objectively, the a 5.56 rifle + a 9mm handgun, can accomplish a wider variety of tasks than 3 .40 cal pistols.

 

[MrSmitty]

I personally would never trade anything for a .40 cal handgun, YMMV......

 

[BigRed]

The sole purpose of a pistol is to give you cover while you get to your rifle.

Just about to say the same thing.

 

[Brad69]

I am lost?

Kill with the biggest thing you can.

1. Rifle

2. Shotgun

3. Handgun

4. Knife, Sword, Mace, Whatever

5. Hands on

Humans don’t die easy unless you hit a “off switch “!

 

[BigRed]

I am lost?

Kill with the biggest thing you can.

1. Rifle

2. Shotgun

3. Handgun

4. Knife, Sword, Mace, Whatever

5. Hands on

Humans don’t die easy unless you hit a “off switch “!

I panicked and missed a guy with a center mass shot at about 20 ft with a M4. If not for a female MP with a M249 I would not be hanging out with you dudes.

Get some ****wad hopped up on drugs and feeling no pain, no such thing as "too much gun".


PS. Glad your friend was there in your situation.

 

[Amishman44]

Back to the power thing.
How important is rifle power vs. handgun power in likely defensive situations? Obviously, rifle power is more, but is handgun power actually as impotent as the rifle crowd implies?
I am currently comparing .223 to .40 S&W but insert whatever caliber you prefer in a carry handgun.

I'm going to go with 'proximity' as a factor in a response, especially when it comes 'up-close-n-personal' and I believe it's what you can handle best in close quarters battle.
A rifle, in close quarters battle, can be slower to operate, swing-wise, as compared to a handgun, but you can also use it as a club so you can give it a +1 in that case.
However, it is easier to grab and control the muzzle, so you lose one (-1) in that category.
The pistol, while it may not wield as much firepower as a rifle (or provide as much power at distance, for that matter), is much easier to use in close quarters battle as one's ability to transition one's point-of-aim is faster, while giving up some of the power-factor with a handgun caliber round in the process.
Many are saying, nowadays, that the .40 s&w is a 'dead' round, which is not true. It's just not being utilized as much since a bunch of the 3-letter departments have decided to go back to the 9mm round, followed by many law enforcement agencies. Many, because their employees are able to shoot the 9mm round better, due to less felt recoil than the heavier, harder-hitting, .40 s&w round. So, the question becomes, is it the caliber, or is it the individual who can't handle shooting a heavier caliber as well?
And, if that's the case, then why not carry .357 SIG? It splits the difference felt-recoil wise, has a lighter bullet (125 grain is standard) yet has a power-factor that hits harder than either the 9mm or the .40 s&w calibers?
I'm not a huge 9mm fan (more of a revolver fan, personally) but maybe implementing something in a pistol caliber carbine setup, that give a slightly longer barrel for improved bullet performance, that might split the difference a bit?

 

[Bugzilla]

 

[flatlander]

If I ever "need" a weapon in a self defense situation, I want whatever I can get to stop the threat right ****ing now. That means the weapon that will deliver the most energy into the target in the shortest amount of time.

In a home defense situation it's probably going to be either a rifle or a shotgun as they will be coming to me. I don't need to clear my house so I will wait for them to enter the fatal funnel.

While walking about in society it will be my pistol as that is what I will have on me.

I may downsize in the future but will always have the 3 weapons covered of pistol, shotgun and rifle. If you WANT the .40's just get them and stop trying to justify it. It's what we do,

 

[Trapper Jim]

By all means if you will be neutralizing your offenders 2 to 300 yards out, by all means you will find the rifle handy. If they are within 20 to 30 yards out then the rifle may be cumbersome. Tough choice but skill set may have something to do with it.

 

[KLB]

I'm curious as to the scenarios where the handgun is only good to get me to my rifle people actually see doing that?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

...rifle handy. If they are within 20 to 30 yards out then the rifle may be cumbersome.

Has not been my experience.

 

[snapping turtle]

What are you most comfortable with and use the most. Extra credit if you have had it for a long time and have used it a lot.

Beware the man With one gun for he knows how to use it.

in 1979 I got a rem 870 for Xmas. I have used it for everything and in most self defense situations I would grab it with no regrets. I have two of course cause one is mine and one is for another or because 2 is one and one is none.

my 357 smith has been a near constant companion since I turned 21 except a few years I drank a lot. For a carry gun (not a Leo) it works for me. I have a Rossi copy also because 2 is one and one is none. (And the smith is expensive to replace) If I knew there would be trouble the the sig p229 40s&w will be carried. (I just have a 357 sig barrel but not two 229’s at least yet )

in 1986 I purchase an AK from a local gun shop. He said if I bought two he would make me a good deal. I called my cousin and we each bought one under folder each. 259 each with 990 rounds each. if I knew polytech rifles would be worth so much I would have bought several. If it is under 300 meters the AK good enough. Since I can’t afford a second poly I got a WASR with a red dot as a backup. he knew what he was doing because I don’t know how much ammo I have bought from him before he closed and retired. He said basically we got them at cost cause no one wanted Chinese guns. Then soldier of fortune magazine did a write on them.

I have a couple sniper type rifles but they are basically heavy hunting rifles. Under 800 yards I can hit it. One was my uncles I bought from him as a teen and the second one I got a deal on.

9 guns= 2 shotguns 2 aks 2 rem 700’s 2 model 66 shorties and a sig p229.
I have had the sig the least amount of time but that is a decade now or more. 4 decades with the 870 3 plus decades with the ak. 4 plus with the rem 700 and model 66.

GET SOMETHING YOU LIKE AND USE IT A-LOT FOR A FEW DECADES AND GET BACK WITH US. WE WILL WAIT.

 

[Trapper Jim]

Has not been my experience.

Said Not by the Greenwood Mall Active Shooter.

 

[thompal]

I'm curious as to the scenarios where the handgun is only good to get me to my rifle people actually see doing that?

I'm more curious about a situation where 3 identical pistols would be preferable to a pistol and a rifle.

 

[KLB]

I'm more curious about a situation where 3 identical pistols would be preferable to a pistol and a rifle.

Where did he say he was going to carry all three?

 

[tcecil88]

I would not trade off a rifle (especially an LWRC piston rifle) and another gun for 3 vintage USP .40's unless you just really want the USP .40 and still have rifles for home defense. There are other "bombproof" guns out there that are much more affordable that would might allow you to keep that nice rifle and arm the kids with quality handguns.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

View attachment 233673
Said Not by the Greenwood Mall Active Shooter.

I'm not sure the relevance, but ok.

I always use a long gun when possible. I have not found a long gun to be 'cumbersome within 20 to 30y' in training or in real world use, particularly now that WML are a thing. I would *never* not discourage anyone from using one whenever one is available unless they are physically incapable of handling one. There's a reason professional door kickers and urban fighters still carry long guns, and a reason that citizen defenders who employ long guns vs intruders win in such high percentages. They work and learning to use one in tighter quarters is not difficult nor time consuming, let alone 20-30y.

 

[MinuteManMike]

I have a AR15 as my primary home defense gun, but that's only because my pump KSG needs repair and I haven't pulled the trigger on a 930 Tactical semi-auto in 12 gauge. The distances for my hood would be well-served by my using 12 gauge w/ buckshot at any angle from which I'm being attacked.

I would really hope to not have to go to a pistol for defense in any event.

 

[Condition Red Response]

Average number of accurate rounds required for a physical stop (as opposed to a psychological stop or decision made by the violent criminal actor)
Handgun 5-7
Modern caliber carbine 3-5
12Gauge Buckshot 1

Each of course has pros and cons based on context. Whichever you choose make sure you put it through its paces in the context you plan to use it.

 

[Condition Red Response]

In terms of how to make the choice…. There are a number of factors that could (or should) affect your choice.
1. How good are you with a handgun? Whats the realistic likelihood you could take a hostage shot inside distances prescribed by your home? Long guns are innately more accurate.
2. How easy is it to navigate your home with a long gun? Is an SBR or AR pistol a better length?
3. How big of a deal would a pass through be in your context? Close neighbors? Kids rooms? Or live alone in the country? 12G Federal 8 pellet buckshot with flite control is my go to but over penetration is an issue if you miss. Where will your rounds go if you miss?

Personally, I prefer a beretta 1301 tactical shotgun with a pistol as back up. But those fit my context the best.