re: #509 Shiplord Kirel, live from behind wingnut lines

M-1 Garands would have stopped those two dead in their tracks. I mention the M-1 because we had a stash of them when I was a deputy sheriff in California in the late 70s. Our normal issue weapons were a Colt Python revolver and a Winchester shotgun. The M-1s were for special conditions where range and penetration might be needed. I usually had one in the trunk when I worked in the desert.
Rifles like the AR-15, or the M-1 for that matter, are actually a poor choice for home defense since the high velocity bullets can easily go through walls and kill people in the next room or even the next house. Shotguns are ideal for this, not because they make up for poor accuracy (since shot spread is actually so small across a room as to make no difference) but because the right selection of shot can provide great stopping power with little risk of over-penetration. Conversely, if penetration is needed (suspects behind a car, for example) slug loads can do the job.

The M-1, I grant you, is a poor choice for home defense, unless you’re defending your home from Grizzly Bears. But the AR15 is increasingly touted as a great choice for home defense, precisely because (the argument goes)it DOESN’T overpenetrate. Bullets fragment upon hitting a first layer of wallboard and don’t make it through a second. Indeed (the argument continues) the .223 has less of an overpenetration problem than either 00 buckshot or any pistol round.

Mind you, I’m not by any means knowledgeable enough about guns to determine whether the argument is bullshit, but it’s a very, very popular claim. Just google “AR15 Home Defense”.