There is a discussion on another forum regarding how wise it is to use a short-barreled AR (less than 16" over-all length of barrel, requiring the NFA tax stamp) for home defense.

The disagreement revolves around those who believe that "a good shoot is a good shoot", and those who believe that in any shooting you are ultimately in the hands of the detective who runs the case, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury, any of whom could be turned-off / offended / upset enough by the use of any SBR that the shooter could risk jail time simply for having chosen to use an "evil black rifle" over a more "acceptable" handgun or shotgun.

The consensus seems to be that, in fact, both arguments are true to a certain extent, and that the local attitudes of the police/prosecutor/judge & the potential jury pool are likely to determine which end of the argument you end up on.

My question is this - if I were to use an SBR (with a suppressor!) inside my home in what any of us on this board would consider to be a clear case of home / self-defense, what do you believe the reaction of the local PD / legal system / jury pool would be? I don't know yet if I'll be in St. Paul or some nearby city, so I can't be very accurate regarding the exact jurisdiction I would fall under.

And now that I think about it, if you all came to the consensus that some particular jurisdiction(s) would definitely be OK with it, while others definitely would not, that might help me to narrow down where to look for a place to live...

I am definitely of the opinion that "a good shoot is a good shoot", and I want the SBR w/suppressor in order to be as maneuverable as possible without damaging my hearing should I have to fire. But, a (hopefully!) temporary loss of hearing is I suppose preferred to a protracted, expensive legal battle that could have been avoided simply by choosing a different weapon to use to shoot at the idiot felon who picked my home to invade at 3am...

Thanks all for any opinions you can offer, educated or not!

Suppressors are a No-No in Minnesota.

Hmmm, disappointing... Anyone know what the rationale behind this is? I can guess that it is ignorant lawmakers trying to "protect the public", but if there is something more than that, I'd love to know what it is. Just curious.

OK, take the suppressor out of the equation. Say I am involved in what we here would call a "good shoot" with my legally-owned SBR. Same questions as above...

Thanks.

You likely won't hear the shot(s) anyways.

In the event of a 'good shoot' - I would be concerned about the secondary cases involving shooting up the neighborhood if you live in a populated area (Over Penatration). Out in the sticks where there is some room for the round to slow down after exiting you house this shouldn't be as big of an issue.

I'm not a big fan of EBR's for home defense (unless you are defending from the inside against folks on the outside of your house) I lean more towards pistols or shotguns. But hey - to each their own and I'm not an instructor of any sort, so net specific weight... approaching zero - but something to think about - all the same.

Mostly-

I would be more afraid of shooting the neighbors with a pistol than I would with an AR-15.

Similar to why a lot of LE departments are using SBR AR-15's as well

It's not even worth trying to explain over penetration. Just go look at the pictures.

I was going to say pretty much the same thing. However, the ballistics info I've seen for different rounds typically used in HD situations - 9mm, .40 & .45 cal, 5.56N/.223, & 00 Buck - show that all of these rounds will go through at least two to four interior walls, and possibly an exterior wall if it isn't brick, with enough velocity to injure someone on the other side.

Having said that, it does seem that the 5.56N/.223 & the shotgun (preferably in #1 Buck according to the FBI and others...) are both superior in not only stopping power over any handgun round, but are also less likely to over-penetrate a typical interior wall. For those who adamantly disagree, I'll let you do the research yourselves - its all easy to find using Google...

For myself, since I've now discovered that a suppressor isn't an option, I think a shotgun is back to being the primary home defense weapon, with the AR (5.56N) as the secondary. But getting an AR with a 10.5" - 11.5" barrel is still a possibility, so keep giving your opinions regarding your feelings about how SBRs are viewed in the Twin Cities area.

Thanks!

My opinion is that the SBR is a non-issue as long as you have your ATF paperwork. Are you planning on going the Trust route for the SBR?

Look at it this way; you can buy a .223 SBR or a .223 pistol - Not much of a delta except one has a stock and the other doesnt.

I'm still deciding whether or not to build / buy an SBR, so I haven't yet gotten to the point of deciding between a trust or not...

Building is probable the way to go. Still need to do the AFT paperwork but you avoid having to find a title ii/class 3 for a transfer - basically buy an AR pistol, do your paperwork, engrave the lower receiver and replace the buffer tube with a stock. I think thats all there is to it.

Would I use a short barreled rifle for HD... If one was available but only toward the front or back of the house (sides have houses near by).

Would it be my first choice... NO. My Mossy 500 in the master bedroom would be my choice. Second, my 40S&W handgun with a light on it.

ya really want to shoot the neighbors huh.

or anything else for quite some time.

Wouldn't building an SBR constitute a "new manufacture" and wouldn't that be ilegal under FOPA 86?

IANAL but the way I understood it, is ilegal to have any Class III weapons
manufacured after 1986

Here's a SBR FAQ.

FOPA 86 banned full auto manufactured after May 19, 1986.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info