Howdy once again, INGOers!
Got a bit of a dilemma.
Have an opportunity (once my kids gave me the blessing, of course) to trade an LWRC piston rifle in .223/5.56 and another handgun for three HK USPs in .40 S&W. These three USPs I have owned before (twice before to be exact) and they are 1990s vintage guns. My dilemma is as follows:
I realize that the rifle calibers have substantially more power than handguns. One need only see what the .223 did to that guy's arm in the Kyle Rittenhouse incident to recognize the devastating power of the .223 compared with a handgun.
However, most service-caliber handguns seem to offer plenty of "stopping power" in incidents one sees on "the YouTubes" where police or citizens engage threats. They certainly lack the range of rifles, but I wonder if I would ever need such range in a traditional encounter, and I often wonder if the scenarios one plays out in one's head where we, the citizenry, are engaging enemies at protracted distances, which are the types of potential/ improbable incidents many use to justify purchasing these rifles in the first place, are either probably or possible?
Bottom line is whether or not the excess power of a rifle is NEEDED compared to the power of a handgun in most real-life situations? Do rifles do THAT much more for you compared with handguns in real defensive situations (taking "SHTF/Civil War/WROL" scenarios out of the equation)? Seems like most shootings involving handguns I have seen indicates service-caliber handguns do a pretty good job of neutralizing threats quickly.
I loved the USPs when I owned them but decided at the time that I NEEDED a rifle since, you know, the world was spiraling out of control. However, I also recognize that handguns are much easier to apply to real world self-defense since I can actually carry the handgun with me and don't often have my rifles with me outside the house? Being in law enforcement, my primary has always been my handgun with long guns receiving substantially less training time.
So, what say you? Are handguns enough, or does every good gun owner need the extra power and versatility offered by a good rifle?
Thanks for your responses in advance!
Got a bit of a dilemma.
Have an opportunity (once my kids gave me the blessing, of course) to trade an LWRC piston rifle in .223/5.56 and another handgun for three HK USPs in .40 S&W. These three USPs I have owned before (twice before to be exact) and they are 1990s vintage guns. My dilemma is as follows:
I realize that the rifle calibers have substantially more power than handguns. One need only see what the .223 did to that guy's arm in the Kyle Rittenhouse incident to recognize the devastating power of the .223 compared with a handgun.
However, most service-caliber handguns seem to offer plenty of "stopping power" in incidents one sees on "the YouTubes" where police or citizens engage threats. They certainly lack the range of rifles, but I wonder if I would ever need such range in a traditional encounter, and I often wonder if the scenarios one plays out in one's head where we, the citizenry, are engaging enemies at protracted distances, which are the types of potential/ improbable incidents many use to justify purchasing these rifles in the first place, are either probably or possible?
Bottom line is whether or not the excess power of a rifle is NEEDED compared to the power of a handgun in most real-life situations? Do rifles do THAT much more for you compared with handguns in real defensive situations (taking "SHTF/Civil War/WROL" scenarios out of the equation)? Seems like most shootings involving handguns I have seen indicates service-caliber handguns do a pretty good job of neutralizing threats quickly.
I loved the USPs when I owned them but decided at the time that I NEEDED a rifle since, you know, the world was spiraling out of control. However, I also recognize that handguns are much easier to apply to real world self-defense since I can actually carry the handgun with me and don't often have my rifles with me outside the house? Being in law enforcement, my primary has always been my handgun with long guns receiving substantially less training time.
So, what say you? Are handguns enough, or does every good gun owner need the extra power and versatility offered by a good rifle?
Thanks for your responses in advance!
Last edited:
