40mm for Home Defense?

It seems like it would be rather big, somewhat unwieldy, and something you wouldn't be practicing with a lot, and even not able to practice with at action shooting matches, for example. I'd also be concerned about availability and cost of ammo. So, it's kind of unattractive with these assumptions in mind.

Anyway, the scenario I envision as most likely for me is:

-- at least 2 intruders
-- already inside my home before I know it
-- at night, and
-- very close by the time I see them.

I don't see having both a) the ability to determine the offensive level of the threat, AND b) the ability to then choose the weapon. So, I have to already have the right weapon for worst case.

I don't believe any of us has as our objective to kill anyone--the objective is to stop the threat. Inside my home, I believe the law has sided with the citizen in saying I don't have any obligation to determine first if it's a lethal force situation, I'm okay to assume that it is (Colorado). I think the only smart thing to do is to assume the threat is a deadly one.

I need something that stops the threat--and keeps it stopped--to the degree practical. I feel the need to have the first intruder stop and stay that way while I look for other threats. There's no guarantee of course with any weapon, but what would be very appealing to me would be a short-barrelled shotgun capable of reliably handling the short 12 ga ammo, such as the 1 1/2" shotshells from Aquila.

So, for something bigger than a handgun, the long-proposed KelTec KSG, designed to fire the 1 1/2" shotshells, seems close to perfect. It could potentially be used in some action shooting (3-gun maybe) sports, but at least in IDPA-style side matches, and it would fire readily-available and relatively inexpensive ammo to help ensure adequate familiarity.

I know none of these ideas helps for the market you're looking at--those who want/need something other than a firearm. I just don't see a weapon that's designed to be nonlethal as a good option for home intrusion...the lethal ones are uncertain enough as it is.

The BATFE considers 40mm impact rounds to be destructive devices subject to NFA rules.

the test is with someone in a tee shirt; what if he was wearing a leather jacket? Sorry I want something that is going to put the assailant down without question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metadyne

It also would be an option for those who do not feel comfortable having a loaded weapon around the house.

---

For this forum, I think it's predictible that since most people are comfortable with firearms, this would probably not be the best optiion or most popular on this site. What is the advantage of using this item versus other less lethal. I would say range, versus taser and pepper sprays, but you also have accuracy issues and only 1 shot to get it right. Finally if your intruder is armed would you want less lethal and possibly be killed or would you rather the threat neutralized.

I guess ultimatelt who is the segment you are targeting to market this less lethal weapon to.

Sounds like a solution in search of a problem...

If you have to whip it out, only Lethal Foce is authorized! Not shooting someone is always the better choice, but when it is game time...................

I'm not seeing the why. If I wanted a less than lethal option, then there's shotgun bean bag rounds already available and a whole lot cheaper I would imagine. If it's a home defense situation, the BG is not there to sell Girl Scout cookies. I don't know what he/she has or doesn't have on them nor do I know what he/she is or is not capable of doing. At that point, I would fear for my life and the life of my family, and the goal is to end the threat as quickly as possible.

If you made a 40mm that would allow for a lead projectile I might gain interest.

It is not smart to stand in front of an M203. That thing is no picnic. It will not have an application for civilians.

I remember they had buckshot loads for these grenade launchers. They were supposed to be able to engage several targets near each other. I was never issued any and the HE rounds demanded more respect from the guys downrange.

Also, the M203 is single shot and you can not shower bad guys with rounds.

I'm not sure that you can develope a 40mm for civilians,I know that they have a 37mm that fires smoke and flares for civilians,but a 40mm tube would allow you to fire military HE/WP/MP rounds that the ATF would frown on If I'm right.I think it may be possible to own a 40mm grenade launcher,but your gonna be paying for it as a class 3 weapon.
HOTGUNS will know any and all peculiars on the subject
To be perfectly honest if anybody wants a less than lethal option they can get 12 gauge shotgun bean bag rounds,but I prefer 00 buck,you break in my house and you just chose the lethal option

Someone getting killed with a "non Lethal" weapon sounds like a lawsuite in the making.

It is my understanding that 40mm sized weapons falls under the NFA.

The Difference between Flare and Grenade Launchers

http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/LegalFlareLaunchers

http://shop.umlautarms.com/Sentinel-...A.qscstrfrnt02
Another interesting thread

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=413516

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottieG59

It is not smart to stand in front of an M203. That thing is no picnic. It will not have an application for civilians.

I remember they had buckshot loads for these grenade launchers. They were supposed to be able to engage several targets near each other. I was never issued any and the HE rounds demanded more respect from the guys downrange.

Also, the M203 is single shot and you can not shower bad guys with rounds.

---

Actually shot a couple of dozen of those Riot Rounds one day - training.

Fun!

Sorry but a less lethal round for civilian use is an idea that is destine to fail. Home owners are not normally trained on the force continuum as it relates to levels of lethality and nor should most of them be worried about "Less" lethal. If they are justified in using lethal force a homeowner need the very best chance to stop the threat the first time instead of trying to judge where to start with lethal force.

I can see where this could be easily misinterpreted as "Non lethal" and then wait for the homeowner to shoot and kill someone (even a family member or friend) when lethal force is not required because of that misconception.