Oh, I forgot to ask what better deterrent might be available under SHTF
conditions? SHTF conditions are no cops, no electricity, no
transportation, no nothing and roving bands of unafraid criminals are
coming. I'm not a gun nut so I'll truly listen.



Peter Wiley wrote:
My picks if I didn't care much about collateral damage:

1. flamethrower. Bit difficult to get hold of, tho.

2. pump action shotgun loaded with buckshot.


What about rocksalt?
The nice thing about a pump action is that you can stuff it
with a variety of loads.


3. Any decent semiauto .308 loaded with 150 gr JHP

4. Any decent semiauto .223 loaded with 50gr JHP.

The 308 loaded with FMJ is going to go thru the bad guy, his buddy
behind him, the house behind *him* and maybe a few other items in the
way. With JHP or a nice Nosler solid base boat tail soft nose, the bad
guy is basically going to lose a limb with a hit there, or his chest is
gonna dissolve.


Yep. Especially at the ranges home defense is likely to occur.

Long time ago, the story was that the U.S. military picked
..223 in preference to .308 so as to wound enemy soldiers
rather than kill. Not out of humanity but because that way 2
of the wounded guy's buddies carry him to the rear, so 3 bad
guys leave the fight. Another reason was so that wimpy U.S.
men could pack more bullets into the fight.

Neither reason applies to home defense, although the flatter
trajectory might help produce hits.

I like the idea of a sturdy rifle with a bayonet. Only a
real psycho would rush a man with a bayonet. It's a terror
weapon, especially after you see a live person gigged like
frog before your eyes. It would help deter bad guys from
trying to grab the gun away from you, too.

In this day & time, I'd give consideration to non-lethal
deterrents too. We discussed stun grenades a while ago. They
are more effective than most people would believe, don't
know if civilians can get them.

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...

What about rocksalt?
The nice thing about a pump action is that you can stuff it with a variety
of loads.

Do you really want to shoot someone and *not* kill him? And the point of
that would be . . .?


Max

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:51:00 -0400, DSK wrote:


snipped a bunch.

Long time ago, the story was that the U.S. military picked
.223 in preference to .308 so as to wound enemy soldiers
rather than kill. Not out of humanity but because that way 2
of the wounded guy's buddies carry him to the rear, so 3 bad
guys leave the fight. Another reason was so that wimpy U.S.
men could pack more bullets into the fight.



Regards
Doug King


Actually, the story was that the M-16 (and the army version AR15?) was
significantly lighter and easier to field strip than the M-14 that it
replaced and all other potential replacements. That was the goal. I
was an armorer at the time and can attest to the fact that they were
right. Both could kill effectively but the M-16 was a lot easier to
carry.

Only problem was the initial production did poorly in the mud. Jammed
regularly. And the initial OJT proving ground was a mud hole. Troops
initially hated it for that reason.

Frank