PDA

View Full Version : Is a pistol even comparable to a 12 gauge?


Freetacos
November 19, 2006, 02:53 AM
When I drop the hammer on a 3 1/2 mag shotshell the blast and recoil feels ten times stronger than even the recoil on a .45 pistol. Sure pistol calibers are effective in trained hands, but it just seems that the shotgun is on a whole other level.

Mannlicher
November 19, 2006, 09:54 AM
shotgun is ok up close. A handgun can reach way out though. Guess it all depends on what you want a firearm to do for you.

Laz
November 19, 2006, 10:04 AM
At close range I don't think there is any comparison. The 12 gauge shotgun has often been called the most devasting close-quarters weapon ever devised. It not only throws a large amount of lead at high speed but some say the total affect of multiple projectiles striking in near unison is greater than the accumulative sum of multiple projectiles striking serially, i.e. the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

TheGreatGonzo
November 19, 2006, 11:20 AM
A pistol will never be able to replicate the tissue damage caused by a shotgun.

dfaugh
November 19, 2006, 12:16 PM
Not even close....

For example, I load my shotgun with S&B 3" magnum 15 pellet buckshot. Essentially, this is 15 .32 caliber projectiles, moving at ~ 1300 fps (similar to most handgun loads). So, in one shot I'm delivering WAY more energy/destructive power to the target.

And I've still got 7 more rounds x 15, for a total of (8x15) 120 .32 caliber hunks of lead on board. Handguns have their place, but if you really wanna make a mess of something, I'll take the shotgun any time.

A handgun can reach way out though.

Personally not so sure a pistol can reach out much further than a shotgun (depending on load), at least not accurately.

akr
November 19, 2006, 02:05 PM
A shotgun reaches out as far as I want it to. I consider the shotgun as the most nearly perfect weapon.

Syntax360
November 19, 2006, 02:25 PM
00 buck replicates being shot in the chest with a 9 round burst from a submachine gun - with all rounds landing more or less at the exact same time. No way a handgun can replicate that kind of performance. Or even better, #1 buck - not too many folks can function with 16 12" holes in their bodies. And that's just one shot.

Switch over to slugs and you have all the range of a handgun with devastating power.

The pistol's place is being at your side when you can't carry a rifle/shotgun.

akr
November 19, 2006, 02:30 PM
Amen to that!

Death from Afar
November 19, 2006, 03:29 PM
Its basic physics my dear chap. Shotguns fire a lot one way, so you get a lot back the other. And they are truely a great weapon, but as always, not the "cone of death" that Doom and Hollywood would have us belive.

akr
November 19, 2006, 09:57 PM
Well, they don't blow over cars, and throw a man over a building, but they don't need to. Make no mistake, they are very deadly. :eek:

Rimrod
November 20, 2006, 12:44 PM
A shotgun isn't the best choice for combat. But it's better than any handgun ever will be.

mikejonestkd
November 20, 2006, 01:00 PM
It may not be the best choice for combat/ military applications but for those of us not currently playing in the Iraqi sandbox is THE best choice for home defense situations. as the others have mentioned above, no handgun can put as many lethal holes in a target as a goodload of 00 buck out of a 12 ga.

A 12 ga may not blow the assailant through a wall like in the movies but it will put an attacker down for good with one center of mass shot - something no handgun round can claim to do.

akr
November 20, 2006, 02:23 PM
Correct--+1

Jim Watson
November 20, 2006, 02:28 PM
Shotguns are powerful and cheap, as decent quality firearms go.
But I can't get a concealment holster for one.
Every tool has its niche.