PDA

View Full Version : Shotguns Outdated?


Socrates3000
April 9, 2006, 07:32 PM
How many of you out there believe that the shotgun is outdated for protection and that a carbine like a CAR-15, mini-14, Hk-93, etc., or a submachine gun like mp5 can do everything that a shotgun can do and better?

How many of you believe that there are some things a shotgun can do that other guns can't do for protection?

Not trying to start a flame war. I just want to hear the rational behind opposing views.

Captain Bligh
April 9, 2006, 07:39 PM
Different tools for different jobs. Used in the right application, one is neither better nor worse than the other.

Dave McC
April 9, 2006, 07:49 PM
The Search Feature is your friend....

johnbt
April 9, 2006, 08:02 PM
There's a 60+ post thread on GlockTalk on this very subject. Search terms "shotguns outdated" will get you there.

John

jhgreasemonkey
April 10, 2006, 01:46 PM
I'd rather use a good 12 guage pump loaded with buckshot for close quarters. But its all about what kind of situation you might be facing. I dont think shotguns are outdated. I guess personal preference.

FirstFreedom
April 10, 2006, 03:39 PM
No way, Jose!

There most certainly IS something the shotgun can do that the others you mention cannot do - like throw twelve .30 caliber pellets at your attacker at the same time. Nothing, but nothing from a small arm equals the devastating stopping power against a human violent aggressor of a shotgun, on a per-shot basis. Sometimes, you only have 1 shot to achieve incapacitation before you're dead, so you'd better make that one shot count. Gimme a 12 ga anyday for producing 'rapid incapacitation'. In that example (00 buck), you multiply your chance of hitting CNS times 12, and multiply blood loss / wound channels times twelve. CNS hits and blood loss is what leads to incapacitation. Incapacitation is what stops an attack.

Not to mention make it 100 times easier to hit flying/moving game over said MP5 or AR15.

mathman
April 10, 2006, 03:46 PM
For inside the house, I'll take a shotgun...

For outside, I'll take a SOCOM 16...

In the vehicle...a 1911...

...different tools for different applications...my friend...;)

oletymer
April 10, 2006, 03:50 PM
Quit worrying and move out of the "Hood".

hippo
April 10, 2006, 05:44 PM
Well, I suppose that with the introduction of different firearms and capabilities over the years and then, like so many have replied here to your bacic question, it depends on the situation (job) at hand. I can think of a situation in which an old Derringer 2 x barrel would be better than a shotgun - but I try not to spend too much time on this type of thought. In home protection cases there are times when a bar of soap tucked neatley in a dirty sock and delivered to an intruders brian housing group with force and accuracy is not only quicker, and more readily availabe, but is safer to other occupants as well. Won't disturb the neighbors either. They like that.

Mannlicher
April 10, 2006, 06:51 PM
for defending the casa, I like a rifle. Either one of my .30 M1 Carbines or the Bushmaster shorty.
I don't think shotties are outdated at all, but I prefer a rifle.

Hotbarrel
April 11, 2006, 01:24 AM
Ask any cop or Moe on "The Simpsons." They'll tell you nothing is more persuasive than that "Ch-CHUK!" of a pump being racked.

You ever see that police video of the two cops pulling over two fugitive brothers? Everybody is less than 3 feet from each other. Everybody unholsters and empties their guns at each other. Everybody misses. Everybody jumps back into their vehicles and the chase resumes.

That would never happen with shotguns!

Death from Afar
April 11, 2006, 03:26 AM
And, also , shotguns are simple the most versitile gun there is . I love em. As the dude at gunsite said; " I like my pistol, but I love my shotgun".

OBIWAN
April 11, 2006, 11:35 AM
I am one that thinks a good carbine all but replaces the shotgun for defense

They are a niche weapon...not obsolete...but they have a much narrower engagement range.

At very close range (HD)there is little/no spread to the pellets

Yes...they are devestating at that range....but so is a carbine

At medium ranges, the patterning helps with hitting your target, but we are not shooting birds here....with a good carbine I can easily get head shots at 50 yds...I don't need a "pattern"

At longer ranges, the spread now becomes a hazard to those other than the target.

ATW525
April 11, 2006, 03:30 PM
I reckon the typical smoothbore shotgun has an effective range of 25 yards with shot, and about double that with a slug.

I can't come up with many realistic scenarios where I'd be legally justified in shooting another human being beyond that range.

Within that range, if I only had a chance to get one shot off, I would prefer to send a load of shot or a good heavy slug in the bad guys direction, rather a single bullet from a carbine.

Should I miss, the round from the carbine is going to potentially travel alot further than even a slug from the shotgun, increasing the chance of unfortunate consequences.


So, in my opinion the shotgun is the superior weapon for defensive purposes. War fighting is a different story, of course.

johnbt
April 11, 2006, 04:14 PM
"At longer ranges, the spread now becomes a hazard to those other than the target."

Hitting a pie plate at 100 or 125 yards or so shouldn't be a problem using slugs. Forgot about the slugs, didn't you? :)

John

Death from Afar
April 11, 2006, 06:07 PM
And of course pellets run out of steam far sooner than bullets so in an urban situation are a much wiser choice.

OneInTheChamber
April 11, 2006, 08:15 PM
HD: Shotgun territory. The shotgun owns it. Nothing else within 30 feet will deliver as much punch. So what it only spreads 2''. 9/12/30 (whatever your loaded with) is better than a single .223.

SHTF: Firmly belongs to the carbines. Carbines can be excellent room clearing tools; but for CIVILIAN use, the shotgun still owns this. Carbines are excellent for all reasonable ranges; have the capacity most shotguns do not, and can be easily outfitted with all the rage of gadgits.

The shotgun is a speciality tool in my opinion. But man, it is good at what it does.

I understand slugs can hit pie plates at 100's of yards too; but if your loading a shotgun with slugs; just use a carbine instead. The shotguns advantage lies in mulitple projectiles causing multiple wounds.

DWARREN123
April 11, 2006, 08:29 PM
Never, all firearms have a place.

OBIWAN
April 11, 2006, 10:16 PM
I most certainly did not forget about slugs

I didn't say what a shotgun couldn't do(try to remember that).....merely that there was not much it did better than a carbine

You keep pointing out things you can with it do to be as good as a carbine

So ....I can either practice with my carbine

Or practice with both weapons in case some day....some how...I am in a situation within those narrow boundaries where a shotgun functions adequately

Rules HD???

30 ft is a big room in any home....and most shotguns will deliver all the shot and the wad through one ragged hole

Devastating...yes...better than a single round from a carbine...not so much

There was a test tdone and 55gr 5.56x45 rounds were less likely to go through sheetrock/lumber walls than most handgun rounds and all shotgun rounds

The shotgun is not "done"....but it's major claim to fame is that people still cling to the notion that it is some kind of magical weapon that destroys everything in front of it.

I know I used to ...and now everytime someone says how awesome a shottie is for defense I just smile and ask them the same question......

Why......and they trot out the same tired platitudes that we see every time this comes up. None of them are exactly false...but they aren't true just because we have always said them either:D

I eventually realized that a carbine is VERY effective from contact distance to 300 yds.

And despite being real good with my shotgun....I am much better with my carbine

I can chew the head off the target at 50 -100yds..if I want to...or I can make a ragged hole in the middle of it

I can get consistent hits on an ipsc target at 300 yds

I can carry 28 rounds of carbine ammo in my back pocket

(please don't start doing the math with pellet counts or I will ask you to shoot 28 bad guys spaced at 10 ft intervals:D )

I am not trying to convince everyone to pitch their scatterguns......

Just asking people to think

It would probably be easier to get them to ditch the scatterguns;)

Simply ask yourself this....

If you had to hit a 3 inch circle at 50 yds.....life depended on it....which would you choose????

Ok...so exactly why would you choose the less precise weapon

loosecannon
April 11, 2006, 10:50 PM
Are you going to shoot dove with your Uzi?

ATW525
April 11, 2006, 11:03 PM
If you had to hit a 3 inch circle at 50 yds.....life depended on it....which would you choose????

I would choose a carbine of course. After all, they both have thier place.

Shotgun=Home defense
Carbine=Shooting little circles half a football field or more away because my life somehow depends on it

mjolnir
April 11, 2006, 11:26 PM
Are you going to shoot dove with your Uzi?

Probably hit more that way.;)

johnbt
April 12, 2006, 08:02 AM
"Just asking people to think"

A lot of us have, and come to different conclusions than yours.

Using a slug to punch through a wall or car door is an additional advantage to the multiple-pellet-theory stuff.

John

BIGRED
April 12, 2006, 10:39 AM
Some of u guys are getting of topic. The topic is "PROTECTION". this is in reference to you or loved ones, not IRAQ insurgants. to Protect yourself you would either need to be in a building, car, or outside (CCW) and the distance for a target to threaten you would be within 50 feet at most. which = 16.6 yards. It is a no brainer that for home protection a shotgun with Buckshot is the optimum load. now if you at the city park or in your vehicle and someone threatens you they will be within 10-20 feet. you will use your HANDGUN. if you are in IRAQ and someone has a rifle pointed at u from the next building over, yes the rifle is a better choice.

sounds like some of you realllllly love your carbines too much to understand their purpose.

prater
April 12, 2006, 11:13 AM
I personally would only use one of my rifles inside my home as a last resort. Rifle ammo will travel much farther than shotgun ammo at extremely close range such as in a room of a house, and there is always a possibility the roudn will go through the BG and through a few walls and be a danger to an innocent bystander in the surrounding area. I just don't want to take the chance. If my 00 Buck or my 40. Hollow points won't stop em or aren't in easy access then yes I would consider grabbing my Mini 14 or my SKS (god forbid it ever comes to that) but for close quarters I really think shotguns are an extremely effective weapon. They are versatile enough that they can fire the equal to 15 rounds of 30 cal, or a slug with devestating capabilities or in certain situations less than lethal rounds such as bean bags and rubber slugs. And if all else fails the stock makes a pretty good club. So no IMO the shotgun is not outdated.

prater
April 12, 2006, 11:16 AM
"If you had to hit a 3 inch circle at 50 yds.....life depended on it....which would you choose????"

You must live in an enormous house.

Nanuk
April 15, 2006, 10:55 PM
My bedside companion is a savage 720 (Browning A-5) with an 18" BBL and 7 rounds of 00 buck. It will fire as fast as I can pull the trigger and the recoil operated system shoots so sweet:cool: . I OWN anything to 25 yards. At close range they are far from obsolete.

cslinger
April 15, 2006, 11:25 PM
Mark my words when humanity makes it into space in the mainstream the umbiquitous 12 bore will be there.

Chris

DBR
April 16, 2006, 12:03 AM
If God forbid, you ever had to shoot a home invader, it will be easier to explain why he (she) has 9-12 holes in them and is most likely deceased if you fired once with a shotgun and 00 buckshot than if you emptied a hicap pistol into them. Particularly if they are threatening you with a knife or bat of some kind a handgun may not stop the attacker before you suffer serious injury.

Socrates3000
April 16, 2006, 11:58 PM
I'm under the impression that overpenetration in a shotgun or rifle are both related to what rounds you feed them and that both have rounds that are overpenetrators. Is this correct, or am I missing something? Maybe 5.56 HP rounds don't always expand and overpenetrate sometimes.

DBR
April 17, 2006, 12:31 AM
5.56 NATO 55gr FMJ ammo is actually one of the least penetrative rounds through building material and one of the most effective for antipersonnel applications. The reason is that it breaks up and fragments. Unlike pistol ammo were fragmentation may compromise penetration with the 5.56 NATO ammo it creates a hugh (4-6") temporary cavity that is then shredded by the fragments producing a large wound cavity. If memory serves, it only penetrates about 3-6 layers of sheet rock.

Cowled_Wolfe
April 17, 2006, 01:47 AM
I'd say shotgun because of A: Kachunk!... And B: The psychological re-assurance it offers -- that big hole in the barrel means buisness.

Also, there's some psychological re-assurance in the "can't miss" aspect of shotguns. Sure, by all means in rational thought a shotgun's not signifigantly more likely to hit than any other firearm in a hallway... But at 3AM when you hear glass breaking and your heart's pounding, I doubt you're going to be pondering the technical merits of a shotgun's patterning... I know I'd be alot more likely (if I thought about it at all) to think "Shotgun. Cone. Good!"

Cheers,
Wolfe...

Jack19
April 17, 2006, 04:14 AM
5.56 NATO 55gr FMJ ammo is actually one of the least penetrative rounds through building material and one of the most effective for antipersonnel applications. The reason is that it breaks up and fragments. Unlike pistol ammo were fragmentation may compromise penetration with the 5.56 NATO ammo it creates a hugh (4-6") temporary cavity that is then shredded by the fragments producing a large wound cavity. If memory serves, it only penetrates about 3-6 layers of sheet rock.

Only partially true.

Read the following....

The Box O' Truth #3 - The Shotgun Meets the Box O' Truth
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

Tommy Vercetti
April 17, 2006, 06:57 AM
I believe the shotgun is the very best close range defense weapon available to civilians :)

FirstFreedom
April 17, 2006, 09:18 AM
Jack19, on that very subject, see also the .223s and the box o' truth with simulated walls:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm

Socrates3000
April 17, 2006, 05:24 PM
Thanks guys, Jack19, and FirstFreedom.

So my take on the subject is that anything that will stop a bad guy will also penetrate several walls, so regardless of what weapon one uses, he must place well aimed shots at the bad guy, and the argument of shotgun over .223 because of less penetration is not a good one because one must load his shotgun with rounds that will penetrate.

Let me know what u think.

Also, I'm wondering if anyone has proof that OO buck is a better man stopper than .223 HP. I know this is a touchy subject. Just trying to give the carbine a fair chance.

roy reali
April 17, 2006, 06:32 PM
In World War One, the Germans were not too thrilled with our use of shotguns in the trench warfare. Even though they used nerve gas, they thought our use of scatter guns was cruel.

The shotgun must have had been effective for this kind of reaction.

Pezo
April 17, 2006, 06:37 PM
Probably hit more that way. and at a greater $cost$

KMBRTAC45
April 17, 2006, 06:39 PM
Today on the History Channel was Tales of the Gun. It was about the shotgun, where it began and what mark it has left on history. I don't think it would have stayed around as long as it has if it were obsolete(now or ever).

RsqVet
April 17, 2006, 10:11 PM
Please... is the revolver outdated??

Why is the military buying the Benelli M4 quicker than they can make them???

How many carbines would hold up to some of the abuse that has been delt out to ratty old police shotguns over the years? How many engagements occur at ranges over 25 yards???

Yeah the world has proven that LE needs carbines or rifles in the cruiser for some situations but overall the shotgun is still very usefull and very effective and the choice of many out there.

Death from Afar
April 18, 2006, 04:05 PM
The shotgun has many things going for it:

1/ It can do a wide variety of tasks. Shoot birds. Shoot clays. Shoot bad guys. Blow doors off hinges. Deliver tear gas.

2/ It has more firepoer in a compact package than anything, save a decent SMG.

3/ A shotgun has a higher hit probability- although no "awesome cone of death" as hollywood would have us believe.

4/ For what you get they are quite cheap compared to other weapon systems.

5/ They are quite easy to use, and with practice I belive can be mastered more quickly than , say, an automatic weapon.

6/ As you have at least 3 welds to the weapon, they hold and point easily.

7/ They are more fun than you can possibly imagine.

biglabsrule
April 19, 2006, 10:48 AM
i know not another person brining this topic to the top, but damn deffinetly not outdated, look at trip ot buck shot, thats alot of lead in the air, in close cordors thats deadly, shotguns also dont travel as far and get bystandards, like in urban combat that were dealing with more and more,.... tons of applications, like riot control....

Savage10FP308
April 19, 2006, 11:51 AM
but with many of their tests they make critical mistakes that could change the results. In their bullet resistant glass test, they shoot the same piece of glass with everything under the sun. The last two round they fire at it (shotgun slug and something form a Sharps rifle) penetrate. They then claim that the glass can't stop every round. For that statement to be true, they would have to shoot at a piece of glass only one time and then switch to a different piece. I know that would be very costly, but if you can't do the test right then don't claim that your results are the absolute truth. Anyways, anyone who thinks the shotgun is outdated is not familiar with guns. A shotgun is capable of far greater devastation at close range than ANY handgun and most rifles and is very versatile as far as load selection. If someone was in my house and posed a threat to me or my family, I would feel confident knowing I had a 12 guage 870 with 5 rounds of 00 buckshot. Who wouldn't?

FAL-schutter
April 22, 2006, 04:15 AM
Cowled_Wolf wrote: "I'd say shotgun because of A: Kachunk!... And B: The psychological re-assurance it offers -- that big hole in the barrel means business."

Absolutely. One of my wife's ex-boyfriends is a Coast Guard reservist, and he's taken part in more than a few boardings of floating meth labs. Nasty business, since the crews tend to rather violently resist arrest, and after the first couple such operations, he ditched his Coast Guard-issue rifle and carried a privately bought 12-gauge pump-action. Between the racking of the slide and the size of the muzzle, that had way more intimidation value, and he found that any crewmember facing it became markedly less enthusiastic about trying to put up a fight at all.

Admittedly, that says little about the relative value of the weapon in an actual firefight, but if you can get the other guy to surrender rather than try to shoot it out, your health is significantly less at risk in the first place.

jamaica
April 22, 2006, 10:48 PM
Quote: How many of you out there believe that the shotgun is outdated for protection, End quote

Not me.

I can't think of anything I'd rather have in my hands if a "Bad Guy" was busting into my house. It doesn't much matter what it is loaded with either, at the expected ranges of 25 feet or less.

j

jamaica
April 22, 2006, 11:17 PM
Quote: Sure, by all means in rational thought a shotgun's not signifigantly more likely to hit than any other firearm in a hallway... end quote.

I don't agree. Hitting anything is definitely easier with an arm with a longer barrel. My point being; you are more likely to achieve a good hit with a shotgun than with a pistol or snubby revolver. (If you had said "than a carbine", I would agree. )

The advantage I see in a shotgun at close quarters is not the "spread" of the load but the mass of it. 1 1/4 oz. of lead ain't going to be dismissed lightly.
That is about the same weight as five 44 bullets.

Double Naught Spy
April 23, 2006, 02:21 AM
Sure, the shotgun is outdated for defense given various rifle choices just like the automobile is outdated given airplanes.

444
April 23, 2006, 06:44 AM
I agree with a lot that has already been said.
The shotgun is a niche weapon, for the most part. For civilian defensive applications, I would put the range of buckshot at about 15 yards: but, this is something that has to be tested using your actual shotgun and your actual defensive buckshot load to determine your max range. Contrary to most of what I read on the internet, the max range is the max range that you are going to be able to keep all your pellets on the target. Just like any other weapon, it is a real bad idea to have stray pellets (bullets) flying around the neighborhood. Buckshot is certainly deadly beyond 15 yards and that is exactly why we need to keep all pellets accounted for. Luckily, in most civilian situations, 15 yards is plenty. Past the distance where you can keep all your pellets on target you need to select slug. The slug is (IMO) too much for urban defensive purposes in most cases. You will have massive over penetration. Contrary to what most people think, it is very easy to miss with a shotgun. I have had this proven to me time and time again. When I took Gunsite 260, I managed to miss more than one target inside a simulator with a shotgun. A couple weeks ago I was shooting a three gun match (submachinegun, handgun, shotgun) and managed to miss one target with a shotgun. It is FAR easier than most people think. I am not interested in making noises (racking a shotgun) or showing people the muzzle. I am interested in it's effectiveness and the shotgun is very effective. I have seen and touched a number of people who have been shot with shotguns and the results are dramatic. In my 20+ year career as a paramedic in a large city I have only seen one person survive being shot with a shotgun and that was birdshot at over 50 yards.
The carbine is a much more versitile tool. I have also seen a few people shot with carbines and I honestly couldn't tell you which would be worse. Both are extremly effective. For the criteria listed in this discusssion, I would rather have the shotgun. I think it has a little bit more going for it in the narrow confines of this discussion. If we were talking anything other than personal defensive use by a civilan, I would probably have to go with the carbine.
Very few people have addressed the submachinegun issue. I have a little bit of experience using one. First of all, I own one. I also shoot in our local machine gun matches when I can. I have fired quite a few different subguns over the years. I have also taken a formal four day subgun class as well as a formal four day M16 class. I have been in the military and fired the M16 as well as the M3 submachine gun while in the reserves. IMO, the submachinegun has no legitimate purpose other than a toy. I can't think of a case where I would rather have a subgun rather than a shotgun or carbine. In these local subgun matches, I am quite sure I could hit the targets faster (and with far less rounds) using a semi-auto AR15.

44 AMP
April 25, 2006, 10:06 PM
Lots of good things said here, and most true as well, but I do take exception to a couple of points.

It was said that max range was the max where you could keep all your pellets on the target. I disagree. Max range is the max where you can get enough pellets on target to get the job done. I realize that civilians have to be concerned with where the stray pellets may go, but I submit, that first, that is not as much of a concern as getting the job done, and second, What kind of civilian "defense" situation would cause you to shoot someone at that great a distance?

Penetration through walls, 12 ga was compared to 5.56mm (55gr). Consider this, everyone talks about 00 Buck (or even slugs) when they talk defense with a shotgun. These will definately go through multiple walls. What wasn't mentioned is what savy shotgunners know, the inside the house, across the room, #8 birdshot is effective, and seldom penetrates multiple walls. As far as the argument that the tiny pellets do not have much energy, remember that at 30 feet or less, they are still in a pretty compact mass. That is the secret to the shotgun's effect. Mass, and plenty of it.

Remember, not matter what anybody tells you, size DOES matter!:D

444
April 26, 2006, 12:06 PM
You miss the point.
I brought up the max range of buckshot because it was mentioned earlier in a previous post and the range given in my experience was far greater than would be safe for a civilian defensive situation. It doens't matter if you can envision a senario at that distance, it is still the max range.
So, in your first paragraph you seem to think that it is OK to fire at any distance as long as you stop the target, but in the second paragraph you are worried about overpenetration. Missing the target and overpenetration have a lot in common: stay bullets hitting things we dont' intend.

DAVID NANCARROW
April 26, 2006, 12:36 PM
I tend to agree with most here that a shotgun is more effective than a carbine at close ranges. If the carbine has any advantage at all, it would be at the reload, assuming a detachable magazine or stripper clips.

A shotgun at close range-say 15 yards and less is going to deliver more energy per shot and starts a hole through the bad guy that the carbine user can only wish for.

Pezo
April 26, 2006, 05:15 PM
#8 birdshot is effective, and seldom penetrates multiple walls. As far as the argument that the tiny pellets do not have much energy, remember that at 30 feet or less, they are still in a pretty compact mass. That is the secret to the shotgun's effect. Mass, and plenty of it.
birdshot is for the birds. Use buck or slugs. After they clean up the mess that was once the home intruder badguy, you can then explain how shotguns are obsolete.

Pezo
April 26, 2006, 05:17 PM
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b260/pezo/redocollection1-6-06.jpg

ron73644
April 26, 2006, 06:03 PM
#8 birdshot is effective

Effective for what? Don't bet your life on it.

Death from Afar
April 26, 2006, 06:28 PM
Birds, probably.

44 AMP
April 28, 2006, 06:27 PM
Birdshot is effective, but only at very close range. Inside the house/apartment, ranges less than 10 yards (I have small rooms). Considering that at close range, the shot column (and wad) will blow a hole through 3/4 inch plywood, I suspect it will be effective against an intruder. The fact that birdshot loses its energy very rapidly, and consequently it's ability to penetrate is a plus for those people who have other people living on the other side of the wall. Again, understand that birdshot is for very close range. As the first round, to "repel boarders". And if overpenetration is a concern to you. Follow up rounds, buck or ball at your discretion.

All of us "know" that buck shot or slugs are what you "need" for defense. But don't automatically dismiss fine shot as useless at very close range. The fact is, anything you put in a 12ga is going to be effective at point blank range. Slugs, buck, birdshot, rock salt, even split peas. People have even been killed by blanks at contact distance.

Check it out for yourselves. Shoot some stuff at 15-20 feet and see. Is birdshot as effective as 00 buck or slugs, no. Will it mess up an intruder, you bet.

Of course, we all know that birdshot is totally ineffective, just ask Dick Cheney's hunting partners.:D

ron73644
April 28, 2006, 08:48 PM
Only the "very naive" would load their self defense shotgun up with #8 birdshot just to minimize the repair work on their walls. If you are afraid of penetration of walls, you could still go much larger. It just isn't smart to advocate birdshot, especially small birdshot for self defense. You need, in my opinion, at least #1 buck for one shot stopping power for an intruder. That is what you should want....one shot stopping power. Other factors to consider are whether they have on a thick coat in winter, and whether they are "hopped up on something". All you birdshot guys can protect your family and yourself with anything you want. You are the man of the house......use a slingshot if you want.

cslinger
April 28, 2006, 11:43 PM
00 Buck Minimum in this house.

Chris

oletymer
April 29, 2006, 01:23 PM
Most of you are going to die in an armed conforntation. Get what ever you want and practice, practice, practice. Most of the HD shooters I have seen are pathetic in their ability.

ron73644
April 29, 2006, 06:45 PM
I don't know that I would go so far as to say that most of us "are going to die in an armed confrontation".......not any more likely to die than the adversary........or you. How many of us have you seen shoot, and are you the shotgun expert of all time? I agree with you about practice, practice practice, but having a gun that you are willing to use against an armed intruder, I feel, puts you in better shape than not having one at all.......so what's your gripe?

Pezo
April 29, 2006, 07:41 PM
Most of you are going to die in an armed conforntation. Get what ever you want and practice, practice, practice. Most of the HD shooters I have seen are pathetic in their ability I'll take the highroad with my opinion of this person's statement.

Pezo
April 29, 2006, 07:50 PM
deleted

Homerboy
April 29, 2006, 07:54 PM
This guy sounds like an armchair commando jerkoff. Plenty of people survive gunfights who aren't green berets or anything. A willingness to protect your family and yourself goes a long way.

Doggieman
April 30, 2006, 11:11 PM
I'm always surprised when people say there's essentially "no shot spread" at home defense ranges. That might be true if you have the muzzle stuck in the guy's belly, but other than that there is a significant amount of spread even at close range from a HD shotgun (28" barrels may be something altogether different, dunno).

Here is a pic of some shot spread at fairly close range from a 20" mossy:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f95/will_210/shotspreadsm.jpg

The Body Bagger
May 1, 2006, 01:29 AM
There was a test tdone and 55gr 5.56x45 rounds were less likely to go through sheetrock/lumber walls than most handgun rounds and all shotgun rounds
Go visit http://www.theboxotruth.com
Would you like to reconsider?

As for the birdshot guy, birdshot is for birds.

roy reali
May 1, 2006, 09:53 AM
Buckshot is not the right ammo for defensive purposes either. It is designed for use against male deer. It says so right on the ammo box.

ron73644
May 1, 2006, 12:06 PM
Does Wal-Mart carry "Intrudershot"? :confused: :confused:

johnbt
May 1, 2006, 12:19 PM
I believe about the closest thing they have are turkey loads. :p

Doggieman
May 1, 2006, 03:16 PM
"Manshot" ammo is pretty hard to come by. I'd stick with buck

ron73644
May 1, 2006, 05:04 PM
Can't you just imagine asking a Wal-Mart sports dept. guy if they have any "manshot"?------- if you can ever find one behind the counter. I'll bet they would look for it, or just say, "We are out right now".

Minator
May 1, 2006, 05:18 PM
Buckshot is not the right ammo for defensive purposes either. It is designed for use against male deer. It says so right on the ammo box.

I guess 99.9% of the LEO's in the US are wrong since that is the standard issue ammo for their shotguns other than slugs.

:rolleyes: Also I guess since my box of .22lr says it goes a about a mile it should be the military's new sniper round too.

Edward429451
May 1, 2006, 09:58 PM
I pretty much agree with obiwan...

I'm not likey to sell off my 870 but reality (IMO) suggests that the SG IS a niche weapon. The SG is my inside the house go to weapon (00 or slugs), but if I had to step outside...gimme a rifle or carbine, no question.

Why's the military procuring so many SG's? House & structure clearing!

Why'd the coast guard guy who raids floating meth labs trade for a SG? House (boat) & structure clearing! (Same scenario.)

What's hard to understand about that, unless you watch too much TV.;)

johnbt
May 2, 2006, 06:51 AM
Let's see, I step outside my house and the longest shot I have is still only about 30 yards. Slugs should do if buckshot won't. The joys of urban living. ;)

John

Greg Bell
May 3, 2006, 10:44 PM
Honestly, what would you pick for your opponent for CQB, a Carbine or a 870? If my opponent is inside a structure or even across a yard, I would rather he be equipped with a M4gery with all the latest toys than an 870 with bead sights. The current .22 micro carbine craze seems to be creating a crop of guns that aren't particularly well suited for any "niche."

Doggieman
May 3, 2006, 10:49 PM
a shotgun is the most effective close-quarters anti-personnel weapon on the planet, besides a flamethrower.

Death from Afar
May 7, 2006, 10:41 PM
Yes, you do use a shotgun to get to your FN FAL, but when things are close, they are the best. I often thought about what a great weapon for jungle warfare/FIBUA.