>16 barrels are considered (too) long now

But anon, how will he look to all the other larpers who will talk about his shoot on PrepHole if all he had was a basic bitch M&P 15 with a rear BUIS and an A2 FSB?

>no operator camo gear
>no guntuber beard
step your larp game up you normalfag

i was kidding you dumb moron

>he even bought a LARP badge
not bad. fine, i'll take it back.
this guy LARPs.

im just goofing around my moron. i could tell from your first pic you are not a lowlife larper 🙂 they look different

sounds based and yes, you dun goofed. i'd try to get your old job back

Did you build or buy your 11.5? I'm looking to get one myself for HD

That's fair anon

Long guns absolutely shit on handguns in every way except concealability. That’s not a factor in HD. Will a pistol work? Of course. Is a rifle or a shotgun better? Yes. You can shoot them faster, more accurately, and are far more likely to put the guy down with one shot.

>but I hate how handguns are considered a toy at this point
When did I or anyone else say that?
>and a pistol is agile as fuck
What? How do you define agile? Time to first shot? Because that’s quicker with a long gun

>Well except for how handguns are easier to keep on or near your person at all times.
Well now we’re vastly expanding from
>I want x for home defense
To
>you need a layered and multifaceted defense plan
Which you do. And I agree with you. I have pistols all over my house because it’s easier to hide them and have them accessible. However the original question was asking for 1 gun, which typically means the bedside gun (or whatever), and I stand by what I said about long guns. They are better

NTA. I carry a pistol, and I go so far as to agree that it is the primary civilian defensive implement, but there are good reasons for a rifle to be go-to home defense implement. Is it always on you? No, and when that's the case you have your pistol. But if you have to shoot someone, you should be shooting at them as you're moving towards your rifle. Because that's the weapon you are verifiably more accurate, more lethal, and more reactive with. Is it a weapon every encounter requires? No. But there's no reason to be satisfied with an inferior alternative that happens to be convenient.

>unnecessary danger clearing rooms
You "clear" rooms of danger. If I am sitting in my living room, my rifle is in my bedroom, and someone attacks me from my front door or largest window, moving back to my bedroom only requires I move away from the attacker to the next doorway I can control the attacker from. This is not a unique arrangement- you'll find that many houses put the bedrooms further away from points of entrance than common areas. Your characterization is irresponsible and inaccurate.

If the bedroom is not an effective place to stow a firearm in your house, then stow your long gun in a position that works according to your layout. It is still the more lethal, more accurate, more effective tool that you are better off using. If you get truly cut off from it, shame, you better still have a pistol to fight with then, but it's ridiculous to come up with these ancillary considerations like they justify not typically having a superior option at hand.

>Post a real world case where that would actually make a difference
My argument isn't couched in a rifle being better for some situations and some threats (multiple attackers, body armor, whatever). If it were, substantiating that those threats are reasonable threats would be important. But that's not my argument. I'm saying rifles are more accurate, lethal, and effective. Let's look at data based on real world defensive shootings where rifles and pistols were employed and see which were more effective, because that's the more accurate piece of substantiating evidence for my argument.
>https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/an-alternate-look-at-handgun-stopping-power
Nearly eighteen hundred shootings over a decade? Sounds like enough data to be compelling to me. According to it, 58% of all centerfire rifle shots are immediate stops, with 1.4rds per incapacitation on average. For 9mm those numbers are 34% and 2.45rds. For .357 they were 44% and 1.7rds. For .45 they were 39% and 2.08. Looks like if you take many, many defensive situations into account you'd probably be significantly better off with a rifle than a pistol.

>So you don't actually have an argument and are just arguing for the sake of arguing?
No. When I say that a chainsaw is better at cutting down trees than an axe, I don't have to base that argument on a specific kind of tree chainsaws can cut that axes can't and then prove that tree's prevalence to justify myself. I can bring up the relevant statistics from people using each over time which shows one consistently does the job better, and that would justify my position. In the same way, when I say a rifle is better than a pistol, I don't have to base that argument on a certain type of threat pistols can't handle but rifles can and then prove that threat's prevalence to justify myself. I can just bring up the relevant statistics from people using each over time which shows one consistently does the job better.
>And sports cars are faster, have better acceleration, and have better handling. That doesn't change how none of that makes a difference for getting to work or the grocery store.
The data proves it does, though. What I showed you isn't the equivalent of sports car specs- in this case it would be muzzle energy instead of 0-60, capacity standing in for horsepower, whatever. What you saw was data showing how all those metrics translate to real-world use, and how those uses compare. In the analogy, it's a report showing that people in sports cars with more horsepower do actually get to work and to the grocery store faster than everyone else, so maybe there's something to all that acceleration and handling.
>yeah
Accusing me of not having an argument and then dismissing the source with a "yeah" is hypocritical. If you have a specific issue with the methodology I'd love to hear it, otherwise it looks like you don't actually have an argument and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

>but if I just strip away all context in a scenario, despite that context making the scenario
That's not what I did. If you disagree, you can tell me why a rifle has to be justified on the basis of countering a specific threat, and can't just be justified on the basis of verifiably using fewer bullets to greater effect. Or you could engage with my argument and try to prove rifles aren't more lethal than pistols, that's also an option. Or you can call me a retard some more because trying to justify either of those positions is way harder.
>Look at the .32 ACP numbers for percent one shot stops that you conveniently glossed over
The ones the author specifically calls out as unreliable due to a small sample size in that caliber?
>or how .22lr from a handgun averages less rounds to incapacitation than anything other than a shotgun and outperforms most handgun ammo for one shot stops
Thankfully for us the researcher collected multiple types of data alongside one shot stop percentage, and even directly addresses your concern on how .22lr's data may be misleading by offering up the complexities offered by the rest of the data.

In all I'm willing to concede that the study is not empirically authoritative, which is no surprise because very few surveys are. But the breadth of the data points collected lends the whole thing some veracity, and most of the conclusions we can draw align with what we see in every other realm this decision has been made. If you're going to kill a human-sized animal, a long gun is going to be your choice to do that. Shooting deer? Pistol works, but preferably long gun. Shooting soldiers? Pistol works, but preferably long gun. Shooting home intruder? Turns out, pistol works, but preferably long gun.

>And sports cars are faster, have better acceleration, and have better handling. That doesn't change how none of that makes a difference for getting to work or the grocery store.
That’s not an equivalent example smoothbrain. Getting groceries is going to the range, not using them on living targets. If you want to use cars, you need to say them being raced on the clock.

How exactly did they get past you to be in rooms further into your house? Are ninjas breaking in?

>10.3
comfy size especially when paired with a suppressor. have you considered the 300blackout cartridge at that barrel length?

just tell them you identify as a girl now. might work wonders

Post guns, suppressor, nods, drone, thermals, ghille suit, level 4+ plates, helmet, and boots then gay. Put your money where your mouth is.

>guns, suppressor, level IV plates
Those are literally the only ones that help in HD. Thermals indoor are retarded. You don’t need NODS inside your own home. You know where things are already. Also light switches exist bro.

Do you really think people don’t own suppressors and plates? They aren’t even that expensive. You can even argue suppressors don’t give you an advantage in winning the gunfight. They only protect your hearing during it

>So yes you're correct but these vidyeah fags just don't get it. A pro of a suppressor though is quickly being able to grab a gun that won't permanently give you tinnitus which I admit is a good reason to have one.
Exactly. I keep electronic ear pro next to my bed because I’ll have an extra second to throw it on and I don’t want hearing damage.

I’m not even the guy you first responded to dipshit. You know I’m right. Here, I just got this thermal recently. Your turn

They seem very sturdy. Haven’t used it yet so I can’t say for certain but I like them. Price to value seems quite good to me

Anon how do you feel about 556 AKs?

It doesn't feel right to me either. But with the price of 7.62, 556 or even 308 make more sense in almost every conceivable way financially speaking. Also, live in the US, and it's also logistically superior. Personally, I have an AK in 762. However, that was before Ukraine. Now, with my 306 AK, I feel like I have far more options in regards to ammo and what I can do with the platform. I'm excited to see a more modern AR VS AK discussion

Who said it needed to be? And what does that have to do with you retards worshipping the obese Cheeto who took your guns away and tried to give morons 65 billion in a bribe?

>cuckime
>how do you do, fellow gun racists
>vote for DemoKKKrats to defeat grabbers and Blackids 🙂

>But you specifically said to not have a gun for defense
No, I said that a sturdy door is more important than an "optimal" home defense gun.

Long guns absolutely shit on handguns in every way except concealability. That’s not a factor in HD. Will a pistol work? Of course. Is a rifle or a shotgun better? Yes. You can shoot them faster, more accurately, and are far more likely to put the guy down with one shot.

>handguns have no advantage in cqb
>uh but you need a tiny carbine or you'll get hung up on walls like a retard
uh huh

I do think that for just about anybody who actually takes "home defense" seriously, a "home defense" gun would be unnecessary. That doesn't mean I think you shouldn't have a gun in your home that you could theoretically use to defend it, it means I think that it is superfluous. If they even get inside in the first place, there is almost certainly something you could have done to prevent it.

>I'm gunna take on the gubermint with my 20 inch 5.56
yeah you're totally not a fantasist

>Good luck with trading bullets in a conventional firefight
You aren’t fighting them directly. You fight all the people doing what you listed. They
aren’t protected
>with the modern paramilitary force that is the police or the national guard.
Lol. The police are cowards and on average laughably trained. You see this every time someone actually fights back. They fall back and panic. They don’t know what to do when they don’t have overwhelming numbers and firepower.
>national guard
If they pull out all the fun toys than yeah, you’re losing. If it’s just trucks and rifles like you normally see they aren’t invulnerable. Also see what I first said.

>b-but the boog is going to happen and I'm going to run around with a rifle like my favorite video games!
>gets detected by a force that vastly outnumbers him before he even sees them
Your reminder that the average infantryman's equipment is worth more than the median yearly income in the US, and their toys only get fancier once you get into all the stuff that doesn't get issued to the average infantryman because the military works as a team. Pic related is now being carried at the squad level.

>the US pulls out after 20 years of curb stomping the Taliban because people don't see the point of having Afghanistan as a permanent colony
It seems like you've fallen for an extremely romanticized idea of insurgencies and are severely underestimating your enemy. Wasting your life with this fantasy is unhealthy.

>cope
So did the US win or lose though?

Pretty much this. Precision rifles (aka snaypah raiflus) handguns and bombs is how you fight the corrupt tyranical government.

Yes and a bunch of goatfuckers in Afghanistan still managed to defeat us. You fags seem to think that an insurgency is going to be a militia formed up like a conventional force engaging in force on force actions rather than guerillas popping up, taking some shots and then disappearing. And guess what, they'll still need rifles to do so.rn8yr

can you buy grenades because if not I wouldn't try to go up against an army

Lol, imagine actually believing this shit.

>$500 if you want thermals like the $20,000 FLIR branded on does.
>t thermalet
I bet you think those $50 night vision goggles are actually night vision too

Nice.

That was 183 yards, so shorter than the sniper shot that anon mentioned.

I actually do have a short and stocky neck that sweats a lot ngl, but I look at it as a combat neck. Seems a lot harder to snap around than a long lanky one.

Take another shot bitch

Are you hitting on me?