![]() |
Another WSJ letter - AR15 vs. Shotgun
In responding to a dunderhead in the letters section.
Quote:
Sirs, In his letter published on February 20th, Mr. Fisher states that a person “would be better served in using a shotgun as opposed to indiscriminately spraying a large number of rounds which could endanger his family and neighbors”. Excuse me, but isn’t that precisely what a shotgun does? A standard 12 gauge double-aught “00” shotgun shell contains up to eighteen 50 grain pellets. The most common AR15 bullet is 55 grains. So firing a shotgun is about equal to shooting an AR15 15-18 times! The recoil of an AR15 type rifle is low and allows many precise shots, as opposed to “blasting” a 12 gauge shotgun. I thought you were opposed to indiscriminate shooting. Mr. Beard |
A basketball weight 650 grams, or 10031 grains. So, throwing a basketball at someone is the equivalent of shooting them 182 times with an AR 15, or blasting them 3611 times with 12 ga 00 buckshot. Clearly we should limit everyone to one basketball.
|
Now your just making too much sense.
|
Quote:
|
Patrick, if you can throw anything faster than 1000 feet per second, I think the Yankees would be interested in talking to you.
|
If intruders come in multiples or don't retreat after the first shot, you live in a ****ty place or had it coming, no?
|
I prefer my Remington 870 pump shotgun with 5 shots. If I were to shoot this gun at my barn from my house (175 ft away), no one would die today, but hopefully a few pellets would find their mark and convey the message i'm trying to send. Shooting towards my barn with an AR-15 would at the very least leave a series of holes in the siding and probably miss the robbers, and hit one of my horses, goats or chickens (none of which would be good).
Shooting a shotgun in my house as home protection would be a messy proposition from a construction point of view by leaving hunks of drywall/plasterboard/woodwork all over the place if I missed my target, but probably would be limited to inside damage only. Shooting an AR-15 in my home would leave less mess, but leave clean holes in the walls where the rounds exited and went searching for non-intended targets in my niegbors yard or the street. |
The point is that shooting a shotgun sends up to 18 separate projectiles out and many of those are NOT going to hit the target. By definition, it is not accurate, since it creates a pattern over a wide area. Shooting a single shotgun shell is equal to shooting half of a thirty round magazine.
Are you likey to hit a target with the shotgun? Yes. Are you also likely to send shot beyond the target? Definitely yes! |
Well hell I have both, I guess is someone breaks in here in the middle of the night it would all depend on my mood as to what I grab.
and here you had to add a basketball to the options list |
|
Not very often do all the pellets hit the target when firing a shotgun.....I see your point, but will stick with my home protection plan for the above stated reasons.
|
Quote:
|
The better angle would be pointing out that a rifle shooting frangible .223 rounds presents far less danger to joining rooms and homes than a shotgun with 00 buckshot. The rifle is also easily handled and operated by women and tends to be more accurate.
|
The real point the original letter writer is missing is that we are each entitled to our own choices, without the gubmint making those choices for us. The day we have to in any way "justify" which arms we own, to the very government we, the citizenry are armed as a means to help contain, we have lost the initiative. In other words, we are armed against the day we may have to unseat our government and take our country back - "a well regulated militia, being necessary for the keeping of a free state" - means just that. Our authority to arm ourselves originates with us, not our government, and ensures we will maintain authority over them. With that as a background, it's simply ludicrous to think the government can regulate the arms we own.
So, no, high capacity magazines are not for defending one's home. They are for defending one's country, against one's government. As such, we do not have to justify their ownership to that government. Pretty simple concept, once we sort out who is in charge of who, who has the real authority in this country. That would be us, not our government. |
Very well said Jeff
|
Quote:
As an aside, I'm surprised preppers aren't more into solar and alternative, "personal" energy. No one's doing anything without electricity, and the Government and Corporations are in lockstep. Having a lot of guns ain't going to do much in the future. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I like to use a big cardboard box as a "target stand", putting a big rock in the bottom to keep it in place. At very close range, neither of these loads exits the far side of the box. The bullets just vaporize and leave the inside of the far side peppered with metal fragments. Oh, sometimes the bigger pieces might make it through, but we are talking cardboard. I gotta think a plasterboard wall would stop them. I honestly never thought of these rounds in those terms, probably since I don't own a suitable home defense weapon in either. That is a very, very good point, David, and one I've never seen enter the discussion. Hmmm... |
Please review the following article on rounds and penetration
.223 Drywall Penetration: Ammunition http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1361498927.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1361498941.jpg Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website