I’ve seen debates about not using certain firearms for home defense because of how they might be perceived in court. Things like NFA items or tricked-out ARs might make you look like a militant to a jury, even if you acted in self-defense.
So, would the same apply to an AK? It’s often portrayed in media as the weapon of terrorists or extremists. Does that stigma make it a bad choice for home defense from a legal perspective?
Also, if you were choosing between an AR and an AK for home defense (or just in general), which would you pick? Budget is a factor, and I’d love to hear your reasoning.
Edit: Some commenters pointed out practical concerns like over-penetration with certain rounds and maneuverability. Totally valid points—let’s focus on the legal and public perception side for this discussion.
For 5.45 or 5.56, I’d use it, but 7.62x39 has more penetration, which is less ideal in a home defense situation. Legally, an AK might look worse to a jury because of its reputation, but most people find ARs and AKs equally intimidating.
Cai said:
If the shoot is justified, the type of firearm doesn’t matter. I keep a 12-gauge for home defense but wouldn’t hesitate to grab my AK if needed.
A 12-gauge is great, but make sure it’s loaded and ready. Racking it for intimidation wastes time and could put you at a disadvantage if the intruder is armed.
Ammo selection matters more than the firearm. My AR is loaded with Hornady VMAX varmint rounds. They’re designed for minimal penetration through walls while delivering maximum energy transfer to a target.
If it’s a valid self-defense case, the firearm type usually doesn’t matter. ARs might be more budget-friendly, though. You can build a decent one for the price of a lower-grade AK.
Consider using a shotgun for home defense if you’re worried about public perception. Pump shotguns, in particular, tend to look less ‘scary’ to juries compared to ARs or AKs.