PDA

View Full Version : Home defense: Would you rely on rubber buckshot as your first shot?


Para Bellum
April 16, 2005, 02:02 AM
Hi there,

I am still arguing with myself on the optimum home-defense load for my double-barrel 12ga TOZ 34 EP.

- Would you rely on rubber buckshot like e.g:

Fioccis Rubber Buckshot: 12LERBK, 12, 2 3/4", 790 fp/s, 15 pell., .33"

I'd suggest the first barrel to be loaded with rubber buckshot and the second one with #1 or 00 lead or steel buckshot. If I need more than two blasts, my Glock19s will do the rest...

Being an attorney myself I see a great advantage with the rubber buckshot in the legal aftermath. The only question is, whether it does also mean a risk in the "foreplay" to the legal aftermath, i.e. the fight. Penetration, neighbours and familiy might me more reasons for the first shot to be rubber. What do you think or know about it?

mtnboomer
April 16, 2005, 04:38 AM
Even rubber buckshot, at close range, is lethal. My pump 12 ga. is loaded with S&B 00 Buck (12 pellets). We have the "Make My Day" law in Oklahoma and if someone breaks into your home you have the legal right to use deadly force. Statistics show that the majority of forced entries, especially those when the perp knows the owners are home, are commited by drug-users while they are high. This situation is only resolved, in most cases, when the intruder is killed or severely wounded/incapacitated. This is not the time to question your load or it's affect on the criminal, it is the time to STOP the intruder while defending life and limb. If you are not willing to do this, then you don't need to be using a firearm.

Ruger4570
April 16, 2005, 06:33 AM
I guess I sort of agree with mtnbomer. The second last thing I want in life is to be involved in a shoot out,, the first last thing I want is to be dead from a shootout. I will give someone one chance to hit the floor, willingly or dead,, but he WILL hit the floor one way or the other. It is sad we have to consider these options in the 21st century but thank God we STILL have the right and means for now.

novus collectus
April 16, 2005, 07:36 AM
[QUOTE]This is not the time to question your load or it's affect on the criminal, it is the time to STOP the intruder while defending life and limb. If you are not willing to do this, then you don't need to be using a firearm.[/QUO
TE]
I disagree on one point. It depends on the state you live in. For instance, Md indicts (more often than not) people who use a firearm in their home against intruders. The rubber shot would add to the information a Grand Jury would look at.

We do not have methamphetamine addicts who break into homes here (yet) and so most druggies here are affected by rubber shot. (PCP users are usually too loopy to break into houses).

Rubber buckshot is lethal at close range but it would be less lethal at moderate distance (IMO), so a child that is accidentally shot would be more likely to survive.

Maybe you can tell me this Parrabellum, since you are a lawyer, but this came up somewhere else on TFL and no one answered a question I have. If (in Md) I was allowed to perform a citizen's arrest, then why can't I defend myslef from a burglar if he refuses the arrest? In Md the DA's say that if you have an avenue of escape from your home, you must take it and only use force if you have no escape. But what if I am detaining the burglar? Don't I have a right to arrest (by citizen arrest) someone who is stealing my personal property in my own home the same as I can arrest someone who is stealing outside of my home.


As far as having not reason to own a firearm mentioned in the quote- If I did not have a gun at all (in your state) would I not use a baseball bat that has a less than lethal force? How different is the rubber buckshot compared to using a kitchen knife or a baseball bat? (not a flame. A serious question for purposes of learning)

kudu
April 16, 2005, 07:42 AM
The last thing I want is an intruder surviving a home invasion so he can come back later and sue me. If you shoot him twice, the first time with rubber shot, and he still survives, then he would be sure to sue for unreasonable force. Just my opinion.

Edward429451
April 16, 2005, 10:49 AM
The rubber shot would add to the information a Grand Jury would look at.

They sure could/would. The issue would be brought up that maybe you were not in fear for youre life at all so shouldn't have used a firearm.

I'm against using anything but real bullets for defense for this reason. They would strive to use it against you. lethal or not it is generally viewed as non lethal.

novus collectus
April 16, 2005, 11:27 AM
I'm against using anything but real bullets for defense for this reason. They would strive to use it against you. lethal or not it is generally viewed as non lethal.
In regards to the law it may make no difference, but to the people in the Grand Jury it may. Whether they are unfamiliar with guns, or they are familiar with guns and understood the intent, then it may be taken by them into consideration. They may feel that the person was taking some measure to not take a life while protecting himself (remember, I am using what I think to be Md citizen's mindset). Now, an exuberant District Attorney may use the rubber bullets against the home-owner in some bizzare, rarely seen (if at all) cases, but it may not even get past a Grand Jury first. (IMHO)

Kudu,
The surviving family of a dead intruder would get more sympathy in a wrongful death suit than a wounded burglar would. (IMO)

Japle
April 16, 2005, 11:41 AM
You never want to be accused of using deadly force when you knew it wasn't needed. Using a gun - deadly weapon - with ammo that a jury might consider non-lethal is a bad idea. You don't want to send mixed messages to a jury.
If I were using a 12 ga as a home defense gun, I'd load it with #4 buck to reduce that chances of wall penetration and danger to my neighbors. At house distances, it'll hit like a huge Glaser round.

John
Cape Canaveral

BillCA
April 16, 2005, 11:43 AM
Para Bellum,

The key word here is "rely". Answer: NO.

If I need to deploy and use a firearm it is because there is a danger to my safety and those with me. If I have to use it, I want that threat stopped as quickly as possible.

Rubber buckshot is fine for riot contol, warding off "pest" animals on one's property and other non-lethal type tasks.

If penetration is a problem (and we've discussed this before) then I'd suggest using a birshot load - anywhere from #4 down to #8. Inside the home the smaller shot is more likely to be stopped by obstacles and walls.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but from other questions you've asked, it seems that you have a shotgun but are seeking some kind of "downsized" loading (or "wounding" load) for it. Pretty silly to take an effective and deadly weapon and try to castrate it. Since yours is a double-barrel, take a look at the "mini-shotshells" from Aguila Ammuniton (http://www.aguilaammo.com/).

GunsnRovers
April 16, 2005, 01:21 PM
Rubber rounds/bean bags/etc. were developed as less then lethal alternatives for law enforcement.

Using one implies that the situation is a less then lethal encounter. Why are you, as a private citizen defending your home, weilding a fire arm in a less then lethal situation?

Your logic will be easily twisted against you.

Mannlicher
April 16, 2005, 01:45 PM
Questions like this always set me back. If you are justified in shooting someone, then rubber buckshot is not a prudent loading. If you are NOT justified, then its use is just as lame.
Leave the rubber bullets for cops, but keep your shottie loaded with real lead.
Worrying what a prosecutor might or might not do, in a court case that might, or might not happen is not something you should be focusing on during a life or death encounter. If you are not focused on doing everything you can, and using every advantage you have, in an effort to stay alive, then you are very likely to wind up dead.

Dfariswheel
April 16, 2005, 01:53 PM
The "Less Lethal" ammo was developed EXCLUSIVELY for use by the police in those rare situations where they believe they can take a chance with a dangerous person.

It's for use ONLY where the user is backed up and fully covered by other officers who are armed with LETHAL ammo.

This is not something you want to try on your own. If it fails, and it often does, you're wide open to return fire, and they WON'T be shooting less-lethal.

Second, NEVER, EVER, EVER plan on getting more then ONE shot in a life-or-death situation.
You'll be very lucky if you get one shot, much less two or more. If you do, fine, but don't COUNT on it.

Fire your one less-lethal shot, and it just might be the only shot you get, due to return fire, a firearms failure, or other circumstances.

That one shot better be an effective one.

Next, if the situation isn't serious enough to warrant a load of buck shot, it isn't legally serious enough to fire a gun at someone at all.

The late, great Border Patrolman Bill Jordan once said:
"Like being pregnant, there's no such thing as shooting someone "just a little". If you have to shoot someone, shoot him GOOD".

Para Bellum
April 16, 2005, 02:45 PM
Maybe you can tell me this Parrabellum, since you are a lawyer, but this came up somewhere else on TFL and no one answered a question I have. If (in Md) I was allowed to perform a citizen's arrest, then why can't I defend myslef from a burglar if he refuses the arrest? In Md the DA's say that if you have an avenue of escape from your home, you must take it and only use force if you have no escape. But what if I am detaining the burglar? Don't I have a right to arrest (by citizen arrest) someone who is stealing my personal property in my own home the same as I can arrest someone who is stealing outside of my home.
I am an Austrian business lawyer. I also have a master's degree from New York Universiy School of Law, but I am anything else but an expert in Maryland criminal law. Still, judging only from my fundamental understandig of law and logic, this legal situation you describe sounds like heavy nonsense. Unfortunately this is exactly what some court's produce.

If penetration is a problem (and we've discussed this before) then I'd suggest using a birshot load - anywhere from #4 down to #8. Inside the home the smaller shot is more likely to be stopped by obstacles and walls.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but from other questions you've asked, it seems that you have a shotgun but are seeking some kind of "downsized" loading (or "wounding" load) for it. Pretty silly to take an effective and deadly weapon and try to castrate it. Since yours is a double-barrel, take a look at the "mini-shotshells" from Aguila Ammuniton.
thank you for your continued advice. You surely realized that I am not settled with my home-defense strategy yet. I do have a 12ga with two 28" barrels and 00 Buckshot ready as well as a reliable handgun. But I am still not sure how to best employ the shotgun if it comes to the need. And, honestly, I fear it would be too long anyway, so I also think about getting a coach gun for defending my home in the way of holding a position (to shield my wife and kids) while waiting for the police to answer the call. I also think about getting a Steyr-AUG A2 semi-auto in .223 (http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/index.php?id=435) or a Remington 7600P pump action rifle in .308 (http://www.remingtonle.com/rifles/7600.htm), and even a .45/70 or 30/30 lever action rifle still an option :confused: .
All I am sure of is the given threat since my business partner was stabbed in the head repeatedly in November by a turned-down wannabe-client until the perp's folding knive broke.
My problem is that I have no hunting, law-enforcement or combat experience regarding real-life terminal or stopping ballistics and want to get as right as possible in theory before I go to practice (the shotgun was a present).
All I have is basic military training, 20years of martial arts (no-nonsense), good pistol skills and a general shooting talent. What I would want to get is a pum-action-shotgun. But because these were very popular among criminals in Austria, they were banned. Nevertheless it is still legal here to buy semi-auto assault rifles, lever action rifles and pump-rifles :confused: . So much for nonsense-laws.
Anyway, I was sidetracking. Regarding my handguns I believe in using the most effective load regardless of lethal or not. I just don't (didn't) know, whether rubber buckshot weren't a really reliable stopper anyway so that it would be enough at close quarters. If not so, I wouldn't even think about using it.
Thanks for you advice and stay safe.

novus collectus
April 16, 2005, 03:15 PM
Still, judging only from my fundamental understandig of law and logic, this legal situation you describe sounds like heavy nonsense.
I guess that explains why no one else answered my question. :o

Para Bellum
April 16, 2005, 03:24 PM
At least in my country every citizen has the opportunity to go to your local distric court and have legal questions answered for free by a judge or clerk. Call your local court. Maybe they can or even must explain it to you. If the don't, write a letter to your distric attorney or even secretary of state or justice. You pay them, let them work for you!

My interimistic plan for the moment is:
1. saw my Toz-34EP shotgun's 28" barrels off to the minimum legal barrel length of 18" (45cm). [Or just buy a coach-gun]
2. get a cheap laser-pointer and attach it to the barrels with ducktape or lacing-cord.
3. load it with #1 buckshot (?) and keep this package ready for close quarter defense and the Glock 19s for backup.
4. get a Steyr AUG A2 semi-auto for longer ranges.

novus collectus
April 16, 2005, 03:46 PM
In my state it is the lawyers who are obligated to provide free initial consultation. But I never wanted to take their time if I didn't plan to retain them.

Why would you use a laser pointer? Maybe a "tactical" (not sure of the real name) flashlight that straps on to shotguns would be better. That way you can see where the spread of your shot will go (although it will be minimal spread at 4 meters from a shotgun) and you can see if you are shooting at a family member if it is dark.

Para Bellum
April 16, 2005, 03:57 PM
with the laser I could shoot the beast from the hip while not blocking most of my sight with the gun. I don't want to rely on the light, it shows too intensly where I am.

Fred Hansen
April 16, 2005, 04:28 PM
Home defense: Would you rely on rubber buckshot as your first shot? No. I would not rely on it for anything that I can think of. And I can't say why any better than this:The second last thing I want in life is to be involved in a shoot out,, the first last thing I want is to be dead from a shootout. I will give someone one chance to hit the floor, willingly or dead,, but he WILL hit the floor one way or the other.

The rubber shot would add to the information a Grand Jury would look at.Is that assuming that you live through the encounter, or is that for the Grand Jury to be able to take pity on the home invader (for having been the real victim) after he has ventilated your carcass with a knife/gun/etc?

The whole point behind the lunatic Maryland law isn't about what one uses to defend oneself, but rather that one should never have developed the temerity to defend oneself in the first place. Sheeple are easier to shear when they believe in their hearts and minds that Big Daddy Gummint is the truth, the light, and the way. Sheeple who develop a sense of self-defense often become unruly. Not good. Next thing you know they will want to become self-reliant. How is that going to help the collective?

From the perspective of the law makers themselves your death means less than nothing. You Novus are replaceable. Human predators on the other hand aren't all that easy to come by. And without wolves, what need for the shepherd? Maryland politicians know that the more wolves that prey on the flock (within reason) the better their job security prospects become.

Novus you sound like a really good and reasonable person. At some point you should do yourself a huge favor and try living (for at least a year) in a state where your fellow citizens actually think that a good person's life is more valueable than the life of a murdering dirtbag. I promise you that it will change your life forever.

novus collectus
April 16, 2005, 04:54 PM
Fred Hansen,





No argument here.





:)

I actually agree.

bubbygator
April 16, 2005, 08:26 PM
I use a slicked-up Stoeger double-barrel for HD & use the Aguila shells mentioned above. I can get 2 Aguilas in each loop of a 5 loop butt-cuff. The recoil is very modest, and the pattern at 15 yards is great.

Double Naught Spy
April 16, 2005, 11:21 PM
This is the sort of classic shortcoming I have been talking about when it comes to Ayoob's post-shooting warnings about what the grand jury, DA, or regular jury "MIGHT" think about you after you have successfully defended your life. As noted, you have to survive to go to court.

Now, however, Para Bellum is a lawyer himself and he has fallen into this horrible misconception that his first shot should be less lethal ammo (yes, they are lethal at short range, which he noted, but he will be shooting at short range and so why not use regular 00 buck? Duh!) because somehow the juries will take that into consideration.

So explain it to me. First you use lethal force with less lethal rubber ammo that you know that can kill at short range (which you will be firing at an intruder), but then for the second shot, you go with ammo more likely to over penetrate. What legality has changed between shots 1 and 2 where you think you will be in better legal territory to justify your actions of using steel shot instead of rubber? In the 1-4 seconds lapse between shots, are your neighbors and family going to magically transport to behind ballistic protection? I think not.

What is really funny on an illogical level is that your most powerful gun is the shotgun, but you hamstring your first shot, and then claim how you are going to finish off things, if needed, with a pissant pistol.

Let's play lawyer from the another angle. Let's say you do use rubber your first shot and then you need to use the steel second shot because the rubber failed to neutralize the intruder. Here, let's say, the first shot is well aimed, but the threat simply does not stop. In that short period of time between your first and second shot, as you recover from recoil, the intruder manages to move far enough to upset your second sight picture or maybe has engage you with his own weapon and now your second shot is wild, flying through the wall, killing your kid, out the window where it then strikes your neighbor walking his down on the street.

What has happened? Simple. Because you used a less lethal round, as by your plan, you had a failure to stop and then had to fire your overpenetrating steel shot and your aim was not as good. The result is that you then killed your kid and injured your neighbor. This plan of firing was by design because you somehow felt that you would screw up your first shot and not the second when in reality you screwed up the second shot after your first shot failed to stop the intruder. In other words, your poor decision that was based on some absurd future legal problems meant that you put the extremely critical first shot own with less lethal ammo, forcing your need for the second shot that you messed up. How will that help your legal standing?

Why do you think you will get to shoot more than once? If you do, it is a bonus. If you check threads here and on other forums, you will find several incidents of folks who never got a second shot. They had guns break, ammo go bad somehow, malfunctions, or their guns got taken out of action by some sort of loss such as hit by an incoming round (rendered useless as a gun) or by being lost (dropped, taken away, etc.).

Of course the worst way folks manage to not get a second shot is because the ineffective first shot meant the opposition took advantage of the brief extra life he found himself with and took you out, slowed you down enough such that you don't shoot again and then the opposition kills you if you aren't already dead. The opposition then proceeds to sodomize your child, eviscerate your wife, and you will go to where lawyers go when they and and rest happy in knowing that you and your family suffered horribly because you were worried about some hokey legal aftermath that turns out to not even be relevant because you are dead.

Am I being overly dramatic and a little rude? Sure, but only because I think you are putting a legal matter ahead of actually protecting yourself and your family. Even though you are a lawyer, I feel that you are still a human, hopefully one of the good guys, and I want you to put serious reconsideration into your priorities. I really don't care if you believe my scenario is nonsense or not in terms of worrying about legalities. No doubt I think your scenario is, but not because of the legalities, but because you are discounting your life and those of your family members on the off chance there will be a legal proceeding to evaluate what you have done.

I don't now MD law and I don't know if you can wholesale shoot intruders or not, if you have to retreat, or whatever, but one thing I do know is that an intruder is pose an eminent serious threat to your life and the lives of your family members. Deal with the potential situation as you see fit, but think of it this way. Of two potential outcomes, would you rather spend good money hiring a lawyer to defend you in a criminal proceeding or pay a good mortician to repair your wife's body well enough for an open casket ceremony? What is the better investment?

Then again, I see you are truly a lawyer at heart, worried about legal outcomes, but duct taping a laser pointer to your gun because you are too cheap to invest in proper gear with which to protect you and your family. I think you will not only need to invest in a good lawyer after the fact, but the mortician as well.

How can you not see there being potential liability problems if you have a duct-taped laser pointer as your sighting mechanism and you manage to harm a neighbor. Are you really a lawyer?

BillCA
April 17, 2005, 12:06 AM
My interimistic plan for the moment is:
1. saw my Toz-34EP shotgun's 28" barrels off to the minimum legal barrel length of 18" (45cm). [Or just buy a coach-gun]
2. get a cheap laser-pointer and attach it to the barrels with ducktape or lacing-cord.
3. load it with #1 buckshot (?) and keep this package ready for close quarter defense and the Glock 19s for backup.
4. get a Steyr AUG A2 semi-auto for longer ranges.

Given that the pump-shotguns are prohibited, what about semi-autos?

A 12ga shotgun loaded with 6 rounds of #00-Buckshot will put more lead downrange than your Steyr-Aug with a 30 round magazine. (6 x 9 pellets = 54 projectiles). What makes the shotgun such a fearsome weapon is that at close ranges the shot produces numerous deep wound channels that cause serious bleeding and shock.

Someone posted a recent article showing that #1 buck was probably better for short-range shotgun encounters than 00-buck simply because there's a better chance of a hit with more pellets and the performance difference between the two sizes is minimal. (Would you rather be hit by a bus or a lorry?) :D

When one of my roommates had a coach gun, it was loaded with #4 birdshot in the right barrel as primary home defense. Seeing what that load did to a silhoutte target backed by 3/4" plywood at 10 yards (9 meters?) convinced us that it would do the job. The 2nd barrel held a charge of #4 buckshot and on the stock was a 4-shell elastic carrier with 3 rounds of 00-buck and one slug.

If you're using a shotgun, a Xenon flashlight with a remote momentary switch is a superb tool. Mounted under & between the barrels forward of the forestock the ultra-bright Xenon light not only allows you to identify your target but also blind them in night/low-light conditions. With the momentary switch your can blind them and shut off, leaving them "flash blind" in the darkness. My personal favorite is the Sure-Fire (http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/pgrfnbr/16/sesent/00) light but there are other brands too. With a little practice you'll probably find that at most ranges under 20 meters that the flashlight beam will be slightly larger than your shot pattern.

You mentioned lever guns -- the .30-30 is ballistically fairly close to the 7.62x39 cartridge -- in fact looking at Federal 125gr 30-30 vs 123gr 7.62x39 the older 30-30 has more energy at close range. In a "carbine" rifle with a 16" barrel this could be a decent choice. Though if you have the availability of a good semi-auto 7.62x39 rifle loaded with soft-points that feed reliably, I'd probably opt for that as it's faster to load & re-load.

Then there's the spouse. Regardless of how she feels about firearms consider selecting one that she can handle and/or operate. If an SKS or lever gun is too complicated, I'd go with a coach gun and some mild target loads for familarity. In fact, I would not feel seriously under-gunned with a 20ga coach gun loaded with buckshot.

Para Bellum
April 17, 2005, 02:21 AM
What has happened? Simple. Because you used a less lethal round, as by your plan, you had a failure to stop and then had to fire your overpenetrating steel shot and your aim was not as good.
good point.
Para Bellum is a lawyer himself and he has fallen into this horrible misconception that his first shot should be less lethal ammo (yes, they are lethal at short range, which he noted, but he will be shooting at short range and so why not use regular 00 buck? Duh!) because somehow the juries will take that into consideration.
just for the protocoll: I haven't, I am thinking about it. My job makes me a little top-heavy, you know ;)
Given that the pump-shotguns are prohibited, what about semi-autos?
would be ok, I just think they are too long for home-defense. I come from a pistol- and hand-to-hand-combat mindset and constatnly move in my defense-practice. Therfore a long big heavy gun for close distances makes me sceptical. Just imagine clearing one room and moving to another either with a Pistol, a coach-gun, a Steyr AUG (overall length 27-31")...

arcticap
April 17, 2005, 04:56 AM
I live in a state that has a law that requires one to retreat as well as a law
justifying deadly force if one believes their life is in imminent danger. I've never really agreed with the concept of a shotgun loaded with buckshot for home defense. I've read alot of stories about professional hunters in Africa who back up their clients when guiding them for dangerous and wounded game, particularly in thick brush where the quarry is hidden and needs to be finished off. Their weapon of choice is a double rifle with the .375 H&H being the minimum required. I would think the shotgun slug would be the most similiar mostly because it would destroy bone and hopefully devastate any threat before it's upon you. I wouldn't stalk with a shotgun, but would keep it in the room that I would eventually retreat to behind a closed door with my family. If you wanted to put a certain stop to a charging animal to save your life what would you chose? There have been two notable shootings around my area, in both cases an AR was used effectively. One by a police officer, and the other used to kill a police officer. Any caliber of rapid firing carbine without the recoil of a shotgun and with a larger magazine would be more preferable to me, especially one of a pistol type rather than a pure rifle caliber. Many times threats are unknowingly right at one's door or around a corner. Thus, my first choice for a defensive weapon would be a pistol with a magazine of the highest capacity, that would allow me the best opportunity to retreat to my planned stronghold position.

Para Bellum
April 17, 2005, 05:30 AM
Any caliber of rapid firing carbine without the recoil of a shotgun and with a larger magazine would be more preferable to me, especially one of a pistol type rather than a pure rifle caliber. Many times threats are unknowingly right at one's door or around a corner. Thus, my first choice for a defensive weapon would be a pistol with a magazine of the highest capacity, that would allow me the best opportunity to retreat to my planned stronghold position.
sounds very reasonable to me and would mean:
1. a 33 rounds magazine for my Glock 19
2. light- and laser for my glock 19
3. a Steyr AUG A2 semi-auto (http://www.steyr-mannlicher.at/index.php?id=427) with 43 round Magazines in my "Stronghold"

I also have doubts about buckshot for defense in an urban neighborhood. I am too concened about collateral damage - an unacceptable thing for a civillian like myself.

gburner
April 17, 2005, 08:03 AM
Load as if your life depended on it.

Novus...if you think that there are no cranked out crazies in Md. and that dusters are too impaired to be a violent, home invasion threat, think again. Prepare for the worst; hope for the best.

novus collectus
April 17, 2005, 08:29 AM
Novus...if you think that there are no cranked out crazies in Md. and that dusters are too impaired to be a violent, home invasion threat, think again. Prepare for the worst; hope for the best.
I was speaking in general and that is why they have not changed the laws here to what it should be. Out West there is a methamphetamine epidemic, but here there are very few. The meth addicts (from what I hear) go into a schizophrenic paranoid frame of mind when they are on it nonstop for days at a time. Yes we have crank in Md and maybe even ice, but there is too much cheap crack for it to catch on here right now.
PCP (from what I !know!) causes the user to go into a schizophrenic frame of mind too but while they are on it they are usually not intelligent enough to figure out how to break into a house. Yes, a few hours later they can think well enough after using PCP, but by then they will feel the rubber buckshot.

I personally would not use rubber buckshot (especially not after reading previous posts) but I can understand why people consider this in states that have laws like my state. I would defend my property and if I was "attacked" ;) I would have to defend myself with my gun (revolver or semi, whichever is closest).

Fred Hansen
April 17, 2005, 11:19 AM
I was speaking in general and that is why they have not changed the laws here to what it should be.You have it exactly backwards. Before liberalism took hold on the east coast the law allowed people to defend themselves no matter where they were, no matter what weapon they employed to do so. Crankheads, dusters, crackheads and junkies of every stripe live and thrive in every state on the east coast, and all are capable of home invasion mayhem. Democrat and Socialist politicians count on them every day to reinforce the laughable idea - in the heads of true nitwits - that gummint will save the day; just hand in your guns.

A chemical freak that is junking out will attack you, your home, your family, your friends, people you don't even know, because that is what they do... the effect any particular drug has on the loser taking it isn't the point. It's when the junky is junking for more that they become the most dangerous. Politicians count on that. Sheeple who aren't regulary preyed upon are harder to manage. Without a constant threat sheeple might find time to think about their quality of life. They might ask themselves "What the hell am I thinking? *** should I care about preserving the life of a murdering drug addict dirtbag ABOVE that of me and mine???"

If you really think that the "flavor" of murdering drug addict dirtbag that haunts your neck of the woods is what determines the establishment of laws that hobble one's inalienable right to self-defense you've got a lot of thinking to do. My advice would be to start ASAP.

gordo b.
April 17, 2005, 11:29 AM
Sure , I carry four buckshot loads in tube, chamber empty , that way I can "select slug" if necessary (headshot ect.). :D

Para Bellum
April 18, 2005, 02:04 PM
that way I can "select slug" if necessary (headshot ect.)
Ouuch :D

novus collectus
April 18, 2005, 03:59 PM
Fred Hansen,
Once again we are not in total disagreement. But there are a few things. I wasn't defending the mentality that has led to the thought process of defending the criminals life is more important than defending one's own. On the contrary, I was being critical of it. I was just describing the way it is here and why I think it to be so. And, I was applying it to the reason for my !initial! response to this thread.

The drugged out criminals that you have mentioned doing what you say is a possibility, of course, but it is not common enough for the politicians here to change their wrong views. The vast number of meth addicts are violent and dangerous, the PCP users are just plain dangerous but not very intelligent for the reason I mentioned above, ON AVGERAGE. I was pointing out that it is not "seen" as a problem by the same politicians and policy makers (like district attorneys) that have made this legal situation.

If you think that Md district attorneys are socialists or liberals then you are mistaken. They are some of the most conservative members of our state. As far as the democrats being responsible for the current situation then I agree if you say "the 'current' democrats and the way they think". Please don't lump all of us Democrats and liberals into the hate pile when we can work together for a common good. Using liberal and Democrat as a derogatory term just gets people ignored by people that would normally agree with a particular idea.

Quote from Fred Hansen-"*** should I care about preserving the life of a murdering drug addict dirtbag ABOVE that of me and mine???" End Quote

Fred, you should know me by now and you should know that I feel the same when it comes to my family. :)

Although I would feel remorse for having killed someone that someday, because they may have gotten their life straight and invented a cure for cancer that might save thousand of lives in the future (far fetched I know, but I hope you see what I meant), I would not let them hurt my family no matter what the law is at the time.

Fred Hansen
April 18, 2005, 08:39 PM
Novus,

I certainly understand that you don't agree that people should not be able to defend themselves. My criticism was not of you, but rather what you believed about the reasons why one is not allowed to defend oneself without the duty to flee.

For instance:The drugged out criminals that you have mentioned doing what you say is a possibility, of course, but it is not common enough for the politicians here to change their wrong views.The point I was trying to make is that the politicians in question couldn't care less about people being attacked. For people like me even one unprovoked attack would mean that attacks were all too common. The fruitcakes that run your state wouldn't think that the attacks were "common enough" to act unless the sheeple they represent were about to revolt.If you think that Md district attorneys are socialists or liberals then you are mistaken.Relative to what I find conservative they are flaming Marxists. It's a relativity thing. I'm sure you understand. Fred, you should know me by now and you should know that I feel the same when it comes to my family. Again my criticism wasn't aimed at you, but rather the situation as you described it, and (as an east coast emigre') as I know it to be.Although I would feel remorse for having killed someone that someday, because they may have gotten their life straight and invented a cure for cancer that might save thousand of lives in the future (far fetched I know, but I hope you see what I meant), I would not let them hurt my family no matter what the law is at the time.Again we agree. It would be a terrible thing to have to kill someone, but in the final analysis if it came to it I would have to deal with the situation at hand rather than take time to express regret over the person in questions poor life decisions. Again it's a relativity thing.

Tacoma
April 19, 2005, 12:57 PM
I won't comment on the rubber buckshot but would argue that 00 Buck is overkill ( no pun intended) for HD. In tests conducted in some gun rag several years back, 00 buck went through something like 4 walls before stopping. #4 went through 1+if memory serves. I'd limit my liability and get some #4 or 6 Bird shot/hunting loads. It'll be better for overpenetration and the use of common off the shelf wally world ammo will not call notice to your "premeditated" ammo selection decision process.

Anyway you look at it, and ounce of lead is an ounce of lead regardless of shot size. Get it spitting along t a "target grade" 1200 fps and even # 9 skeet loads are carring 1400+ ft-lbs of ME. That's enough to stop ANYBODY within ' I feel my life is threatened "distance.

just my 2 cents.

Hal
April 20, 2005, 12:35 AM
No.

When I use a shotgun for Home D it's either an 870 Rem (4 shots) or a Stoeger Coach gun (2 shots).

Why give up 25% to 50% to the enemy?

Poor odds there.

panzer426
April 20, 2005, 05:00 PM
no I wouldnt. if someone breaks into my home and I am threatened enough to pull the trigger, then they are enough of a threat to justify me killing them.
if someone breaks into my home my wife and I will be in our bedroom with our door closed, I will be aiming my 12 gauge at the door, if the door is opened by the intruder they will get hit by a blast from the gauge and if that doesnt drop them they'll get hit by the highly trained 95 pound german shepherd that was being held back by my wife untill after the blast. things are replaceable, of course I'll call 911 but I wont go looking for trouble. if it comes for me I will be ready and waiting patiently. and my german shepherd is a very reliable security system. and he has repeatedly taken down 200 pound men on the training field. rubber buckshot is fine for prison and other riot control, not for home defense when your life is on the line and you are your only present backup.

Death from Afar
April 20, 2005, 07:59 PM
If you read Ayoob's articles he favors OO buckshot. Except in the case where you need to worry about overpenetration buckshot is the way to go. the 28 pellet #4 is also favored. To quote Ayoob: " If you simply want the best defense load go out and buy 12 gauge 2 3/4 shell 00 buckshot."

I have to say slugs are a VERY bad idea for HD work. They will go through a lot, and you loose the greatest advantage of a shotgun, the spread of shot. To quote agins:" Slug use looses the one big advantage of a shotgun- high hit probability".

hummelsander
April 21, 2005, 10:43 AM
Never counted but I'll bet my Remington 870 can hold at leat 5 feasome rounds. And no one wants to get hit with a shot gun, period. No rubber bullets for me. If they bad guy has a gun with lead, then so will I. Shot gun first then pistol as a backup gun.

ethernectar
April 21, 2005, 06:30 PM
Sheeple are easier to shear when they believe in their hearts and minds that Big Daddy Gummint is the truth, the light, and the way. Sheeple who develop a sense of self-defense often become unruly. Not good. Next thing you know they will want to become self-reliant. How is that going to help the collective?

too true...

m

unclestu
April 21, 2005, 07:26 PM
"Would you rely on rubber buckshot "

Nope!

Para Bellum
April 23, 2005, 12:44 PM
thank you guys, I'll put the lead in then (#00, #1 or #4)
have a nice weekend.

hummelsander
May 1, 2005, 03:50 PM
Granny on Beverly Hillbillies used rocksalt and baconrind in her double barrel. ;)

Para Bellum
May 2, 2005, 01:33 PM
Granny on Beverly Hillbillies used rocksalt and baconrind in her double barrel.
good to know :)

Edward429451
May 2, 2005, 03:19 PM
:" Slug use looses the one big advantage of a shotgun- high hit probability".

I have to disagree with that as its utter nonsense. At typical inside the house distances even a big load of small shot doesn't have the time / distance to spread. It'll hit em (or miss em) just like a slug if you're not aiming and just pointing and hoping for the best.

Thats some kind of myth that all you have to do is point the SG in the general direction and you get em. But OTOH, if you have slugs and know you only have one projectile, you aim...and there's your advantage with a SG!

YMMV.

Double Naught Spy
May 2, 2005, 08:12 PM
I won't comment on the rubber buckshot but would argue that 00 Buck is overkill ( no pun intended) for HD. In tests conducted in some gun rag several years back, 00 buck went through something like 4 walls before stopping. #4 went through 1+if memory serves. I'd limit my liability and get some #4 or 6 Bird shot/hunting loads. It'll be better for overpenetration and the use of common off the shelf wally world ammo will not call notice to your "premeditated" ammo selection decision process.

"Overkill" is a misnomer. There is no such thing when it comes to life and death situations. What you have is just one level of being dead, dead. You are alive or you are dead. You may be walking dead, but that means you area alive and fighting even if you aren't going to survive. Platt was walking dead in the Miami FBI shootout. As noted, the suspects were dying, they just were not dying fast enough. If sticking to misnomers, he suffered underkill. He wasn't going to survive, but he was still able to kill and wound agents between the time of being fatally shot (he supposedly would not have survived the 9mm shot through his arm, into his chest, nicking one of the major arteries and filling one lung completely with blood. It was a lethal wound unto itself).

So if the choice is overkill or underkill, overkill is what you want if your plan is to be sure that you survive.

I would also add that gun rags cannot be considered optimal for making decision on which your life will depend. Their goal is to sell issues, plain and simple.

Trip20
May 2, 2005, 09:24 PM
Although I would feel remorse for having killed someone that someday, because they may have gotten their life straight and invented a cure for cancer that might save thousand of lives in the future (far fetched I know, but I hope you see what I meant), I would not let them hurt my family no matter what the law is at the time.
This $#!+ kills me.

That same b@st@rd would not have the same courteous decision making while deciding what to do with me and my girlfriend while he's holding us at gunpoint.

I do not subscribe to the idea that I should care about anyone who is intending to do me/mine harm, or that is looking to steal what I have worked my entire life to achieve. Persons that do think this way are wonderful, big-hearted people. We need people like this in the world. I am just not one of them.

I would not matter to me in what state I reside. I feel, that being startled from sleep, trying to assess a situation that, in the middle of the night, is quite out of the ordinary… All while contemplating laws, and what if's, and “can I shoot him now???”... I'm not going to go through that. I am fully prepared to go to prison to defend my family, and my home.

They wouldn't do me the favor by giving me all of this over-consideration (i.e. rubber buck-shot...) if, God forbid, they got the best of me.

Realism (n.): the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth

Sneevil
May 2, 2005, 09:54 PM
No, I wouldn't even consider it. If you are not prepared or justified to use deadly force, don't pick up a shotgun.

novus collectus
May 3, 2005, 06:18 AM
Although I would feel remorse for having killed someone that someday, because they may have gotten their life straight and invented a cure for cancer that might save thousand of lives in the future (far fetched I know, but I hope you see what I meant), I would not let them hurt my family no matter what the law is at the time.
I do not subscribe to the idea that I should care about anyone who is intending to do me/mine harm, or that is looking to steal what I have worked my entire life to achieve. Persons that do think this way are wonderful, big-hearted people. We need people like this in the world. I am just not one of them.
I was responding to Fred's debate when I posted that and I would defend my family first before taking that into consideration. I was just talking about remorse of the loss of life. Imagine if the neighborhood, pubescent teenager broke into your house after his first time drinking and doing something stupid. You shot him because you automatically shoot someone who poses a threat to your family (as I probably would). Would you feel remorse for the young honor student's death and the loss to humanity if he was working to be a minister or a doctor later in life? The guy who shot that teenage Japanese student in Louisianna in the mid 90's, who was drunk and wouldn't respond to a pointed gun and leave the front of the house, probably did. I think he did the right thing protecting his family (as I would have as well), but that doesn't change a common human response which is remorse for taking a young life. I do not speak for you, but many of us have screwed up in life in a minor or major way (as kids mostly) and have changed our lives to make up for the mistakes.

Trip20
May 3, 2005, 08:36 AM
Imagine if the neighborhood, pubescent teenager broke into your house after his first time drinking and doing something stupid.
The only sorrow I would feel is the loss his family would have to deal with. It would not be for the pubescent teenager. More realistically (rather than him being a pastor or doctor) is he would turn into a criminal.

A "pubescent teenager" that is so inebriated that he does not know breaking into someone's home is a bad thing (complete BS) is hard enough for me to understand, let alone the determination this same punk would have to show in order to actually get past locked doors and such to get inside.

That type of determination tells me this isn't just a drunk dipsh*t having fun. It's someone determined to do SOMETHING bad and I do not want to give them a chance to show me what it is.

I got drunk as a teen (as I'm sure everyone here did). I was also into drugs as a teen (as maybe only some of you here were), and if I had broken into someone's home I damn sure would expect to be shot. I'm not putting any undue restrictions on anyone else, that I wouldn't put on myself.

Besides anyone stupid enough to think B&E is "fun" (drunk or not) should be culled from the gene pool.

Edward429451
May 3, 2005, 10:30 AM
I gotta admit, it'd be hard to argue with logic like trip20's. All too often young punks, 'scuse me, young little angels who make 'mistakes' in fun are let off cause they were just having fun, at our expense. A prosecuting attorney can always make any situation sound like backing off and letting the criminal have his way would've been the right thing to do.

Pubescent teenagers are not shot for perpetrating B&E's, but that B&E's be not perpetrated! Even drunk teens can understand news reports and remember consequences. Being drunk or young is not an excuse or permission to act stupidly. (I'm not THAT drunk...etc.)

918sgt
May 3, 2005, 11:28 AM
Being an attorney you should know that if the perp lives he's gonna sue your pants off. Rubber shot (blinded, welts, lots of red marks for photos by HIS attorney) will hurt both of you. You more than him/her. Would you use a rubber knife?

Trip20
May 3, 2005, 12:56 PM
I agree Edward.

I don't know if my rational is "right" or "just"... in most peoples eyes, and it doesn't need to be so.

I also want to make it clear I'm not picking on novus (I hope your not taking it that way novus :) ).

In fact in my post where I first quoted novus just above, was not necessarily picking on his view point. He made a perfectly good disclaimer in the same quote stating how far fetched it was.

It was more directed towards the people that feel that way through and through, with no disclaimer.

I hope my comments do not make people think I am pulling the trigger regardless of circumstances. Don't paint my comments with that broad a brush.

918sgt - good comparison - rubber knife.

novus collectus
May 3, 2005, 01:15 PM
I also want to make it clear I'm not picking on novus (I hope your not taking it that way novus ).
Not at all. And besides, you were answering the question I asked.

[Rubber knife? "watch out!!! He's got a broken candle" (from the movie "the Bus" or "Superbus")] :)

Reading this thread completly made me forget about the idea about using rubber buckshot in my SG for home defense, a week or so ago. So much so that I had a nightmare where I couldn't kill the guys who were attacking my home and was fumbling around trying to put real bullets in my unloaded pistols. Dreams tell you things sometimes that the conscious mind sometimes ignores.

hummelsander
May 4, 2005, 07:46 PM
So much so that I had a nightmare where I couldn't kill the guys who were attacking my home and was fumbling around trying to put real bullets in my unloaded pistols. Dreams tell you things sometimes that the conscious mind sometimes ignores.

Funny.. :D ..that's almost as bad as the bad guy counting to ten and then getting back up just to blow me away. :D

stevelyn
May 8, 2005, 08:25 AM
Would you rely on rubber buckshot as your first shot?

Hayel No! Anybody or anything needing shot deserves being shot with lead. If you think the threat dosen't warrant you sending them a load of Federal's best, then you don't need to shoot.
Rubber buckshot, fin-stabilized rounds, bean bags and things of that nature are designed for law enforcement and are to be deployed in situations where there are several officers present to gain control of the suspect after they get whacked with one of these loads.

Edward429451
May 8, 2005, 09:41 AM
Is that what they're for? Dang, I thought they was for drunk beliggerant family members.....J/K :D

locked'n'cocked
May 8, 2005, 08:19 PM
i would never use rubber shot. if you feel you need to shoot someone but dont think that your life is threatened enough to kill them then you shouldnt be shooting in the first place. also, as some other people said at HD ranges even rubber shot can be lethal.

novus collectus
May 8, 2005, 10:12 PM
Rubber buckshot, fin-stabilized rounds, bean bags and things of that nature are designed for law enforcement
I thought that rubber buckshot was designed for the rabbit hunting "catch and release" program.

shojin
May 8, 2005, 10:32 PM
I agree with the sentiment that if someone has become such a threat that I've got a shotgun pointed in their direction, its going to have double ought in the tube.

mfree
May 11, 2005, 02:27 PM
I would rely on it at or near muzzle contact distance. That's about it....

foghornl
May 17, 2005, 01:14 PM
The "rubber shot/beanbag" and all those other novelty rounds are just that...
Novelty Rounds.

For serious socializing needs, lead only. My choice is #4 Buckshot. If the situation has deteriorated to the point where I am having to present my shotgun in a HD/SD scenario, I'm NOT betting my hide on "Nerf" ammo.

Death from Afar
May 18, 2005, 03:07 PM
I do think slugs are a very bad idea. They have enourmous recoil, a big muzzle flash and over penetrate. While I do agree that 00 buck does not create a vast "cone of death" killing all in its path, you still have a higher hit probablility than with a slug. Heck, if I wanted a single projectile, I would grab the AR 15!

Rojoe67
May 18, 2005, 03:36 PM
My choice of home defending ammunition is a magnum load of turkey shot in the size of 4, 5, or 6. Close combat range with these picks in my pump 20 should take care of issue at hand. I go a little lite because I have family in the home that I hope aren't going to be hit by an over penetration of power that I fear buckshot could be? Just my pick and not going to try to sell my point just share it.......

good luck.... ;)

Dead
May 21, 2005, 04:16 PM
For self defence usage of a shotgun I would ONLY use live ammo, no less lethal ammo at all. If you are in a situation where you can USE a gun, you should be using it to stop the bad guy rubber bullets just might not do anything to stop them, other than **** them off. I would vote for #2 shot or #4buck reduced recoil loads. They pack plenty of power, should not over penetrate, and will allow faster follow-up shot(s) if needed. Using magnum ammo in a defence shooting in an enclosed area would be killer on the ears, and shoulder to say the least, without providing any plus.