Suppressed subgun for HD use?

[Robinson]

I appreciate the cautions re: use of a suppressed weapon for home defense -- it is something I've considered and I read Mr. Meyer's article.

There are many things to consider, which is why I'm not rushing into a purchase. Based on LL's info regarding 41P I may get that ball rolling soon though, so I can be prepared in case I do purchase any NFA items.

[BehindBlueI's]

It is worth revisiting Glenn Meyer's study on the effect of weapon choice on mock juror's opinions in mock trials...which has been discussed in at least one thread on this forum.

The takeaway: weapon choice has an effect on people's reaction to factual scenarios. This is something to consider when selecting a defensive weapon.

Is that the one where people were given a scenario and then shown pictures of a gun? If so, I have some serious concerns about the validity of the results. Whereas a real jury will see the person in the flesh, observe body language, see crime scene photos, hear witnesses, etc. the people in that scenario are only told to imagine they've seen those things and then ACTUALLY see a picture of the weapon. I think that gives the weapon more weight in the pretend decision making then it ever would as one item in a host of items in a real trial.

Know your own locale, but we've had people defend their homes with single shot shotguns and with AR-15s and the type of weapon has not once been used as a decision point on if it was a good shoot or not. I have not had a screening prosecutor ask me what type of gun was used, what type of ammo, factory or reload, capacity of the weapon, etc. once.

Civil trials, I don't know, not my area of expertise, but criminally? Irrelevant. At least in my jurisdiction.

[Gadfly]

I have not had a screening prosecutor ask me what type of gun was used, what type of ammo, factory or reload, capacity of the weapon, etc. once.

Civil trials, I don't know, not my area of expertise, but criminally? Irrelevant. At least in my jurisdiction.

As far as the prosecutor is concerned, dead is dead. The DA is far more concerned with the WHY someone is dead, and WHO did it, more than HOW someone got dead. Shot-stabbed-poisoned-bludgeoned-strangled the person is still just as dead... The prosecution will hinge on the INTENT more than any other factor. Of course, I am in Texas, so guns are not considered as a bad thing by a jury. In a strong anti gun jurisdiction, that may be different.

I did enjoy the study of jury reaction to firearms. I think it has merit. But I don't think it is a huge factor in my jurisdiction. I still err on the side of caution and don't want my HD guns to look like they were dragged through a tacticool catalog, and I only use the same ammo issued by Major Agencies. Just in case I get the one overzealous anti gun prosecutor.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We've seen in lots of trials that the DA makes a show of presenting the weapons and commenting on their characteristics. It's basically an appearance to the jury issue. Let's look at an LEO testifying. There was a case where an officer shot a developmentally delayed man who was threatening with a rake. The officer was charged. In his ID picture and pictures of his appearance at the time of the incident, he had a scowling picture with a white sidewalls haircut. When testifying, he wore a three piece suit, his hair was grown out and when he looked at photos he wore nice cute little intellectual half glasses. Probably the first time, he looked like that.

The appearance factors work especially in ambiguous cases. There's enough research and cases out there so that we can't discard appearance issues. In Texas, you could get an Austin jury that will think you are a bad person with some Punisher outfitted gun.

The current jury decision model that is most popular is the story model. The presentation that tells the best and coherent initial story usually carries the day. If you do use something that might seem out there, then your lawyer has to explain why and perhaps diffuse the DA deliberately or subtlety implying the gun is nuts. As far as do lawyers think this is a real effect - the texts of jury decision have many examples of appearance effects. Also, the 150ish TX lawyers that heard me present this to the TX CLE class on defensive shooting thought it was worthwhile and it made their book on the issues.

I think it is just cautionary to have a lawyer cognizant of such issues to get your story out there first in a manner to diffuse such.

Oh, back to TX - you might think we are all gun friendly. Oh, Dear - I'm a hunter, I'm a Zumbo effect. There are studies indicating that hunters (not all) have negative views of the EBRs as they made to kill. We heard that from some of the gun press. Also, if you screw up the shoot (it wasn't necessary as claimed by the DA), a progun person might use their knowledge to think you are jackass. We denounce untrained, pseudo-commandos here. A knowledgeable gun person might think that of you.

There are no sureties in this. The best answer is reduce the risk profile if the instrumentation is not defensible and explainable. A suppressor might be with the right presentation.

[TR675]

Civil trials, I don't know, not my area of expertise, but criminally? Irrelevant. At least in my jurisdiction.

I dare say you've seen more criminal trials than I have, but as a baby prosecutor in rural Texas I watched more than one trial where the felony prosecutor argued that the type of gun used shed light on the defendants evil intent. One of those cases involved a claim of self defense where the prosecutor tried to use the defendant's use of a "high powered" rifle against him. That high powered rifle, BTW, was a Marlin .22. Defendant was acquitted, also BTW, but the point is that once the decision to prosecute is made the DA will use any legally permissible argument against the defendant.

Take from that what you will and act accordingly. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for the reactions of the police, prosecutors, and jurors to be colored by the type of firearm used in a defensive shooting, ESPECIALLY when the facts are less than crystal clear or are open to subjective interpretation (I.e., not involving an ISIS home invasion).

[BehindBlueI's]

I dare say you've seen more criminal trials than I have, but as a baby prosecutor in rural Texas I watched more than one trial where the felony prosecutor argued that the type of gun used shed light on the defendants evil intent. One of those cases involved a claim of self defense where the prosecutor tried to use the defendant's use of a "high powered" rifle against him. That high powered rifle, BTW, was a Marlin .22. Defendant was acquitted, also BTW, but the point is that once the decision to prosecute is made the DA will use any legally permissible argument against the defendant.

Take from that what you will and act accordingly. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for the reactions of the police, prosecutors, and jurors to be colored by the type of firearm used in a defensive shooting, ESPECIALLY when the facts are less than crystal clear or are open to subjective interpretation (I.e., not involving an ISIS home invasion).

I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of "If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table." Lawyers are going to lawyer, especially when they don't have a case. However, let me as you personally. Do you feel you were more swayed by the appearance of the PEOPLE involved then the weapon? If you were only told about the people, but got to see the weapon, would it be weighted the same? My hunch is, no. Once you see the person you get more of a read from them, their body language, appearance, etc. Then the weapon, even if waved in your face, becomes less relevant then it is in those studies. I'd also note the weapon "pounded" would have been "pounded' that way regardless from the sounds of it.

However, as I said, check local listings. How things are done here are only relevant to here. If your prosecutors try to hang people based on the gun, then calculate that in.

[UNK]

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....load-yesterday You might find this thread interesting as pertains to SBR ammo

I am considering options for a suppressed weapon for home defense and would like some feedback.

Based on research so far, there is really not a good hearing-safe option for a rifle caliber since subsonic .223/5.56 is a no-go and subsonic .300 BLK ammunition that expands is pretty much non-existant(?).

Sig's new 9mm subgun may hold some promise, with subsonic 9mm ammunition widely available. I realize 9mm projectiles may be less safe for use in a home than 5.56, but really any effective weapon poses a risk with missed shots.

A shotgun loaded with #1 buckshot holds some advantages, but is still very loud especially indoors.

So I ask, is there merit to the idea of a supressed pistol-caliber carbine for HD use? I have no experience with suppressed pistols, so I wonder if the handling characteristics are greatly affected by the weight of the can up front -- would a suppressed carbine handle better than a suppressed pistol? It would not be terribly difficult or expensive to set up one of my current handguns for suppressor use.

Thanks for any input.

[Jeep]

There are no sureties in this. The best answer is reduce the risk profile if the instrumentation is not defensible and explainable. A suppressor might be with the right presentation.

Glenn: You are spot on with this analysis. Civil or criminal a defendant should want to be answering as few questions as possible. "Strange/Dangerous" gun adds a complicating factor, and complicating factors--as a statistical matter--reduce your chances of winning. Maybe not with the jury you get, or maybe not in your jurisdiction, but you really don't want to have to convince the jury of anything more than the basic facts of the shooting.

[Robinson]

How messed up is it that instead of basing decisions on what is the most effective tool for the job we instead must base them on avoidance of legal trouble?

This has just about put me off the whole idea of a suppressed weapon or even any type of semi-automatic rifle/carbine for HD use, even though my locale is probably more accepting than many others. I can only assume many people buy/build these weapons for other uses including the enjoyment -- and I have absolutely no problem with those other uses.

[Cool Breeze]

I think there are pros and cons of either a handgun/subgun/rifle. That being said, I don't think anyone has yet added the benefits of a subgun. I agree that having a handgun might be more maneuverable than long guns but I am not sure that outweighs the benefit of long guns in this type of environment where you can have anything you want because you don't have to worry about concealment. I much rather have a long gun than a handgun in almost any situation if concealment wasn't a worry. They are much easier to shoot than a handgun with 3 points of contact because of the stock and you can easily mount a red dot and flashlight to them for night shooting.

With a subgun over a rifle - I think you get the benefits of it being more hearing safe than a rifle with subsonic loads, less penetration through walls if you miss(!!!), and less muzzle flash because the longer barrel allows for powder to burn more completely . This is at the expense of a more lethal caliber, of course, but it should be pointed out that a longer barrel (even if sbr'd) will allow for higher muzzle velocity of handgun ammo than a traditional handgun. If laws and money weren't an issue, I would also chose to have a suppressor as it also lowers muzzle flash which will help maintain night vision as well as keeping you more discreet and less of a target if more than one bad guy.

Whether you chose rifle over subgun or vice versa is your call based on your situation - I think either are better than a handgun if money wasn't an issue.

To answer you other question - I've shot an FN45 with a osprey suppressor and I honestly don't remember any significant handling characteristics that would make it more difficult to shoot with the can on it. If anything, it made it easier to shoot.