3 ms·

Because a rifle isn't practical for close targets. A handgun is much better suited for that.

jboggan 10y ago
I could refer you to an endless list of professional doorkickers who would strongly disagree. At most the lead man in an entry team would have a pistol solely because it is impossible to hold a ballistic shield and aim a rifle at the same time; but every other man in the stack would have a carbine or shotgun.
hga 10y ago
That's very debatable. Under stress, people are much more accurate with long guns. On the other hand, they have terrible weapons retention properties, as I've e.g. demonstrated to my taller and fitter nephew about the time he graduated from high school, quickly ripping my shotgun out of his grasp by gaining a longer lever arm by grasping it outside his grasp. And without injuring him, but an adversary wouldn't be as gentle, especially after gaining the weapon. This is what the all too common recommendation of a shotgun for home defense hinges on. And in more than a few states that highly restrict handgun ownership, a shotgun is much more practical, which is what I did when I lived in Massachusetts, the first gun I ever purchased.
Pinckney 10y ago
A rifle, particularly a short carbine like a Sub 2000, is eminently practical for close range. They're faster to aim accurately and are more likely to incapacitate a target with the first shot. The only exception is perhaps at ranges of < 1m where you're grappling with an assailant, in which case a snub-nosed revolver is probably the ideal choice. But that's not really a typical scenario, and I'd wager sight lines in your home are generally > 1m. Consider that soldiers use carbines, or occasionally shotguns, when clearing rooms, not handguns.
- hga 10y ago
  The only exception is perhaps at ranges of < 1m where you're grappling with an assailant In which case you should strongly consider transitioning to using it as a club, which has been a point in at least one (Clint Eastwood) movie. Especially since your retaining the weapon is much harder than if it was a handgun (see my comment elsewhere about my demonstrating this to a nephew).
rdl 10y ago
I have a 16" .308 M1A by the bed -- I wouldn't go to the door at night anyway unless it were an exceptional situation, but for barricaded defense, something which is armor and barrier blind is a better choice than a handgun. A handgun is great for moving around your house, concealing, etc., but handguns and handgun rounds suck otherwise. And a .223 rifle (or pistol caliber carbine or a light 12ga or 20ga semiauto shotgun) is easier for less-trained less-strong people to shoot than most handguns.) (I also wouldn't put my life behind a Kel-Tec if I could avoid it, which is a better argument against the 2000. That's the firearm equivalent of running your website on a secondhand overclocked pentium 4 box. I own some of them and am fine with them on the range but can afford better and do.)
angersock 10y ago
"A handgun is much better suited for that." I'll take "What is a carbine chambered in a pistol round for $200, Alex." The SUB-2000 uses the 9x19 round, so it's basically a pistol with better ergonomics. Defending a home with a full rifle round in close quarters, say a .30-06 or 8mm Mauser, would be kinda silly--but that carbine is fine.
- hga 10y ago
  "16.25in" barrel so it's not a SBR (Short Barreled Rifle, register with the BATFE and pay $200 etc.), so you'll get more energy out of the rounds, and presumably better hollow point performance, but I wouldn't be confident about that without testing with calibrated gelatin. Me, 1911 for retention, and maybe a long gun if I'm bunkering waiting for the police to arrive (slow to access in the main gun safe).
RUG3Y 10y ago
I know from personal experience that an AR style rifle is completely practical for close range combat.

I could refer you to an endless list of professional doorkickers who would strongly disagree. At most the lead man in an entry team would have a pistol solely because it is impossible to hold a ballistic shield and aim a rifle at the same time; but every other man in the stack would have a carbine or shotgun.

hga 10y ago

That's very debatable. Under stress, people are much more accurate with long guns. On the other hand, they have terrible weapons retention properties, as I've e.g. demonstrated to my taller and fitter nephew about the time he graduated from high school, quickly ripping my shotgun out of his grasp by gaining a longer lever arm by grasping it outside his grasp. And without injuring him, but an adversary wouldn't be as gentle, especially after gaining the weapon. This is what the all too common recommendation of a shotgun for home defense hinges on. And in more than a few states that highly restrict handgun ownership, a shotgun is much more practical, which is what I did when I lived in Massachusetts, the first gun I ever purchased.

Pinckney 10y ago

A rifle, particularly a short carbine like a Sub 2000, is eminently practical for close range. They're faster to aim accurately and are more likely to incapacitate a target with the first shot. The only exception is perhaps at ranges of < 1m where you're grappling with an assailant, in which case a snub-nosed revolver is probably the ideal choice. But that's not really a typical scenario, and I'd wager sight lines in your home are generally > 1m. Consider that soldiers use carbines, or occasionally shotguns, when clearing rooms, not handguns.

hga 10y ago
The only exception is perhaps at ranges of < 1m where you're grappling with an assailant In which case you should strongly consider transitioning to using it as a club, which has been a point in at least one (Clint Eastwood) movie. Especially since your retaining the weapon is much harder than if it was a handgun (see my comment elsewhere about my demonstrating this to a nephew).

rdl 10y ago

I have a 16" .308 M1A by the bed -- I wouldn't go to the door at night anyway unless it were an exceptional situation, but for barricaded defense, something which is armor and barrier blind is a better choice than a handgun. A handgun is great for moving around your house, concealing, etc., but handguns and handgun rounds suck otherwise. And a .223 rifle (or pistol caliber carbine or a light 12ga or 20ga semiauto shotgun) is easier for less-trained less-strong people to shoot than most handguns.) (I also wouldn't put my life behind a Kel-Tec if I could avoid it, which is a better argument against the 2000. That's the firearm equivalent of running your website on a secondhand overclocked pentium 4 box. I own some of them and am fine with them on the range but can afford better and do.)

angersock 10y ago

"A handgun is much better suited for that." I'll take "What is a carbine chambered in a pistol round for $200, Alex." The SUB-2000 uses the 9x19 round, so it's basically a pistol with better ergonomics. Defending a home with a full rifle round in close quarters, say a .30-06 or 8mm Mauser, would be kinda silly--but that carbine is fine.

hga 10y ago
"16.25in" barrel so it's not a SBR (Short Barreled Rifle, register with the BATFE and pay $200 etc.), so you'll get more energy out of the rounds, and presumably better hollow point performance, but I wouldn't be confident about that without testing with calibrated gelatin. Me, 1911 for retention, and maybe a long gun if I'm bunkering waiting for the police to arrive (slow to access in the main gun safe).

RUG3Y 10y ago

I know from personal experience that an AR style rifle is completely practical for close range combat.