• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Don't need those high capacity magazines for defense, huh?

Tom396

.30-06
Am I just mistaken, or was there a thread around here about citing examples of multiple attackers? Take care. Tom Worthington
 
Personally, when it comes to Home Defense, I'd rather have fewer rounds with tremendous stopping power than a lot of rounds with lesser stopping power.

That's why my choices for Home Defense are big bore revolvers or a 12 Gauge pump shotgun.

If you feel more confident with say an AR/AK with 25-30 rounds in the magazine, then that's your prerogative, and I have no doubt that it will get the job done so long as you do your part, but no amount of outlandish reports of several highly trained home invaders breaking into homes in which 5-6 rounds of large caliber bullets or buckshot simply weren't enough will convince me to change my mind, much like how I doubt you would be swayed by any outlandish reports I could dig up of 25-30 rounds of small-mid caliber rifle bullets being insufficient.

Folks honestly need to learn to respect the choices of others, abandon demonstrably false concepts such as the ultimate one-size-fits-all self-defense platform, stop using headline reports of freak occurrences in attempt to prove/disprove the effectiveness of firearms/cartridges, and that bullets in general tend to be deadly so long as they are aimed at a vital organ.
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
If I'm going up against a bad guy, I want as much ammo on hand as I can. Screw those 10 round limits to hell and back.

And hopefully, I'll be able to pull through. And even then I know there are no guarantees but don't reach down and grab my gun by the barrel if I don't, 'cause it's going to be hot.
 

Tom396

.30-06
Personally, when it comes to Home Defense, I'd rather have fewer rounds with tremendous stopping power than a lot of rounds with lesser stopping power.

That's why my choices for Home Defense are big bore revolvers or a 12 Gauge pump shotgun.

If you feel more confident with say an AR/AK with 25-30 rounds in the magazine, then that's your prerogative, and I have no doubt that it will get the job done so long as you do your part, but no amount of outlandish reports of several highly trained home invaders breaking into homes in which 5-6 rounds of large caliber bullets or buckshot simply weren't enough will convince me to change my mind, much like how I doubt you would be swayed by any outlandish reports I could dig up of 25-30 rounds of small-mid caliber rifle bullets being insufficient.

Folks honestly need to learn to respect the choices of others, abandon demonstrably false concepts such as the ultimate one-size-fits-all self-defense platform, stop using headline reports of freak occurrences in attempt to prove/disprove the effectiveness of firearms/cartridges, and that bullets in general tend to be deadly so long as they are aimed at a vital organ.

I am a fan of the 12 gauge, as well. However, I would much rather have 7 in the magazine than 5. And I'm gonna have more ammo hanging on the outside, as well. I have no idea how many attackers there will be and I definitely have no idea how many times I am going to miss. Take care. Tom Worthington
 
I still laugh when I think of the time Joe Biden made the statement that shotguns are far easier to use effectively and more deadly than an assault rifle, then later followed that statement with an anecdote in which he told his wife that if anyone should try to break into their house she should grab his double-barrel shotgun and fire both shots off the balcony because that would send them running for the hills.

Sadly, Joe Biden did not explain why assault rifles needed to either have restrictions placed on their magazine's capacity or otherwise be banned outright if they're outright inferior to shotguns, because the question was strangely never raised. It would have been fun to watch him struggle to come up with an answer to that question on the spot, not to mention if anyone countered his anecdote about his wife and the double-barrel shotgun by pointing out that his wife is obviously protected by secret service 24/7 ergo the likelihood of her ever having to defend herself are extremely slim, or how irresponsible/ineffectual blindly firing both shots off into the air would be should she actually need to defend herself from home invaders.

I am a fan of the 12 gauge, as well. However, I would much rather have 7 in the magazine than 5. And I'm gonna have more ammo hanging on the outside, as well. I have no idea how many attackers there will be and I definitely have no idea how many times I am going to miss. Take care. Tom Worthington

Personally, I'm not a fan of box magazines on shotguns due to the amount of bulk they add. I'd sooner opt for a Mossberg 590 Special Purpose with a 20" barrel and 8 round magazine tube than a 590M with a box magazine. If magazine capacity is a concern, then I'll take a bit of extra length out front along with the fringe benefit of having a longer sight radius than have a bulky box magazine hanging beneath the receiver.
Sure, they're more quick to reload, but I'd rather be more careful with my shots in order to mitigate the risk of needing to reload, and realistically speaking, if I have a moment to slap in a fresh magazine then I have enough time to load at least one more round into a conventional magazine tube.

That being said, I don't see myself likely ever having to load additional rounds into my HD shotgun, much less facing foes so determined to continue advancing after one or more of their partners gets blasted with 00 buck. I'm not a wealthy man, I don't live in a fancy house, nor have I made a lot of serious enemies, so hopefully my odds of getting attacked in such a manor is at a bare minimum, too low to consider or make decisions based around the concept of.
 
Last edited:

MikeD

I'm Your Huckleberry
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
Love Clint, no BS and tells it like it is.

Stats show that people shoot a lot more rounds than they get on target. Its about survival, i want to have enough rounds to survive. It may not be about putting down the attacker(s), but just having enough firepower to convince him that the adds are not in his favor.

I don't buy into headlines either but I look at stats and what those actually involved attacks have to say.
 
Love Clint, no BS and tells it like it is.

Stats show that people shoot a lot more rounds than they get on target. Its about survival, i want to have enough rounds to survive. It may not be about putting down the attacker(s), but just having enough firepower to convince him that the adds are not in his favor.

I don't buy into headlines either but I look at stats and what those actually involved attacks have to say.

You honestly shouldn't place too much stock in statistics because statistics are typically gathered according to information which is immediately available and easily accessible, ergo statistical figures are largely impacted by trends/popularity of the time and by nature mainly reflect the capabilities of the lowest common denominator.

Statistics have their use, but they're a far cry from being 100% accurate, nor are they gathered in controlled, equal, or otherwise scientific manner. Scientifically speaking, the results of a statistical analysis may provide a sufficient basis with which to form a hypothesis, but not a theory, and most certainly not a law.
 

oli700

12g
Supporter
"Philanthropist"
standard capacity.....the mag in that rifle was standard oem ........I think a hi cap for that rifle is a 75rd drum . should cut the hands of the survivors
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
You're right. Statistics are only one part of the equation. In the same breath, most break-ins now are from multiple attackers, which already stack the odds in their favor. Even 1 versus 2 or especially 1 versus 4 or 5 seldom work out in your favor. Doesn't even matter what gun you choose to defend yourself with. And as Tom396 wisely pointed out, doesn't even take into account how many of those 5 or 6 shells you have in that shotgun that you missed with.

I'm not saying shotguns are bad choices. They surely aren't. But having extra shots is never a bad idea because there WILL be misses.

Out of curiousity, anyone see all the little yellow markers showing how many times the bad guys shot at the homeowner while he had them pinned trying to get into their getaway car? This is why I want as many as I can get too.

Reporter says 70 evidence markers, that means there were at least 70 shots fired by the bad guys at the homeowner. Are you really telling me that you're content with 5 or 6 shots in your shotgun? That's not a statistic. That's right there on the ground in the video:

https://abc13.com/5-shot-and-3-dead-after-home-invasion-in-east-houston/5097015/
 

Pawpaw

.30-06
Supporter
Statistics don't mean squat. Statistically, none of us are likely to ever suffer a home invasion.

The only "statistic" that matters is if it does happen to you. At that moment, that "statistic" goes up to 100%.

Giving yourself options is always a good idea.

In the event of a sudden home invasion during the day, I'll likely only have my pistol to fight with because that's what I have on my person. At night, inside my house, I'll have my 12 gauge with a light. Outside, such as in the video, my AR-15 is loaded with two PMags for a total of 60 rounds of "reach out and smack someone".
 
Due to the layout of my home, any confrontation will be either too close or otherwise too cramped for me to miss unless I blatantly fail to point the firearm in their direction.

Besides, I have been in enough dangerous/threatening situations to know that I'm not the sort to panic and start taking shots haphazardly. I'm most likely to hide somewhere, call the cops on my cellphone, then hold position until they arrive, only firing as a last resort should they find me or otherwise get too close, at which point it would be awfully hard to miss.
 

Tom396

.30-06
Not to belabor the point...well, maybe. :nofibn:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/mike-mcdaniel/leave-police-theyre-professionals/

More data from the same report for the NYPD during 1994-2000 when the NYPD was far more semiautomatic heavy, are interesting, if frightening. At 0-2 yards, the officer hit rate was 69%, but from 3-7 yards, only 19%. The hit rate dropped precipitously from there, with only 2% from 16-25 yards and 1% at 25 yards and greater distance.

Take care. Tom Worthington
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
I just don't like the odds of limiting myself. Even with a shotgun, one can miss.

And at those distances you're referring to, sure isn't going to spread out and will likely still be in the wad.

My experience, it takes about 12-15 yards for the pellets and the wad to separate judging by how far away that I often find the wad laying on the ground in front of where I stand.

My sincere wish, you better hope that you do get to aim and don't miss. Otherwise, shit creek will be as big as the mighty Mississippi.
 

fellmann

Esoteric
Supporter
More data from the same report for the NYPD during 1994-2000 when the NYPD was far more semiautomatic heavy, are interesting, if frightening. At 0-2 yards, the officer hit rate was 69%, but from 3-7 yards, only 19%. The hit rate dropped precipitously from there, with only 2% from 16-25 yards and 1% at 25 yards and greater distance.
:omg:
 
Top