From: cramer@optilink.com (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Rifle in Defense ( was Re: Why are there no reliable semi-auto shotguns? )
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:41:43 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <By03rD.51z@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, callison@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu (James P. Callison) writes:
# In article <13263@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.com (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #In article <199211171713.AA28975@cherokee.advtech.uswest.com>, kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes:
# ## When I took an AR15 shooting class from a cop, he told me the regular
# ## stuff: I wish you would never have to use it for self-defense purpose.....
# ## I'm wondering if you guys can give me a scenario in which I might want to
# ## use a rifle instead of other weapons. Thanks.
# #
# #1. You are being fired upon by a guy at a distance of more than about
# #10 yards.  At this distance, either he has a long gun, and you will
# #want more accuracy than a handgun can give you.  If he is firing at
# #you from a distance of more than 50 yards, the rifle is more likely
# #to reliably hit your attacker.  (Yes, I will admit that this is a
# #very rare situation).
# 
# Lemme guess...you've never fired a pistol, right? Or a rifle at short
# range...
# A pistol at 10 yards will be every bit as accurate as a rifle, but

A pistol will NOT be every bit as accurate as a rifle at 10 yards.
It is certainly true that the mechanical accuracy of the rifle and
pistol are both quite adequate for 10 yards -- the person firing
the gun, may be a different matter.  It is certainly true that most
skilled people, firing at attackers at 10 yards, can regularly
hit their target.  But with a rifle, even unskilled, untrained
people can regularly hit their target, and specify where that bullet
will hit.

# the difference is that the pistol is going to put the bullets where
# you aim, while the rifle is going to put the bullets where they
# would be at one tenth of the way to their target (i.e. they'll be
# hitting high), because the rifle is sighted in for a much longer
# distance. Besides, most combat autos will put the bullets in a

At 10 yards, the bullets may be as much 1-3 inches high.  Big deal.
You are supposed to be aiming at center of mass.

# fist-sized target at 10 yards--is that accurate enough for you?
# (SIG P226s are sighted in at the factory with groups of around 
# one inch at 15m...)

That's the mechanical accuracy of the pistol.  How many people,
under stress, can do that?  I can reliably deliver a whole
magazine from my Browning Hi-Power at 25 yards into a torso
sized target, in about 10-12 seconds.  There is a real possibility,
under stress, that one or two of those shots will go astray.
I can deliver the same number of 9mm rounds at 25 yards with 
a Marlin Camp Carbine, and have complete confidence that every shot 
will not only hit the torso, but nearly all will be in a circle
about two inches across.  Which is a better choice?

# At 50+ yards, you're right, the rifle's a better choice. But if
# you're shooting at someone from 50+ yards and you're not a cop
# or soldier, you'd better have a good lawyer, 'cause you're more
# likely to hit an innocent bystander than your opponent at that
# distance...

In downtown Manhattan, sure.  My experience is that I can hand
a rifle to nearly anyone, regardless of prior shooting experience,
and have them regularly hitting human torso sized targets on the
second to fourth shot.

Innocent bystanders are pretty much safe.

As I pointed out, the circumstances under which there is a
sensible reason to be firing at someone more 50+ yards away are
rare.

# #2. You are dealing with a riotous mob, working its way down the
# #street, burning out businesses or homes, and you lack a 40 round
# #shotgun.  (This, unfortunately, is NOT a very rare situation 
# #anymore).  The rifle also gives the opportunity to identify anyone
# #that appears to be ringleader or instigator of the mob.  It 
# #MAY, under some conditions, allow one to engage in more selective
# #actions than a handgun or shotgun, with respect to the sort of
# #wound inflicted.  With a handgun or shotgun, confronting such a
# #mob, the odds are high that you will have no choice but to 
# #risk giving a lethal injury.  With a rifle, you are still risking
# #lethal injury to the rioters, but with some care, you may be able
# #to inflict an injury on a limb.  This also has the potential to
# #kill, and the potential to maim, but may be an effective way of
# #discouraging the mob from continuing their actions at your home,
# #while minimizing loss of life.
# 
# But a rifle bullet is _much_ more likely to overpenetrate, and,
# due to its higher energy, still be dangerous coming out. Especially

Depends on the rifle.  The Marlin Camp Carbine in 9mm doesn't
have this problem, but does have the ability to enable you to 
pick your target with greater skill.

# if you're dumb enough to go for a limb in a riot scene. Perhaps
# that balances out the higher capacity of hi-cap 9mm... :-) If you
# can get three people with one .30-'06, and you have a 5-shot clip,
# that oughtta equal your 15+1 SIG, right? :-)
# 
# And I fail to see how using a rifle makes the odds higher that
# you will be able to inflict a non-fatal wound (which, of course,
# is a Very Bad Idea (TM); you shoot to stop, not to wound, IMHO)

Which would you rather explain to a jury?  "I made an attempt to
deliver a temporarily incapacitating wound with reduced risk
of killing the rioters," or, "I knew that it was likely to kill
anyway."

# with a rifle. Rifles are designed explicitly for killing things,
# and the rifle most people have are designed for killing things
# much more sturdy than human beings. I personally think that the
# rifle would increase the lethality, rather than reducing it.

There are a number of pistol caliber rifles out there now.

# James P. Callison       Microcomputer Coordinator        OU Law Library 
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.