PDA

View Full Version : For those that advocate birdshot


DonR101395
May 7, 2008, 11:00 AM
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/3225



Shot in groin, it was no drive-by
By CHRIS BRISTOL
Yakima Herald-Republic


YAKIMA -- Friends of a 20-year-old man who accidentally shot himself after putting a sawed-off shotgun in his pants initially claimed he was the victim of a drive-by shooting, Yakima police said.

The man, suffering from massive groin damage, was airlifted to a Seattle hospital where he was reported in satisfactory condition Monday.

Police found the man in the 700 block of North 24th Avenue about 1:30 a.m. Sunday, but quickly deduced his injuries did not correspond to reports of a drive-by shooting.

The officers then got a search warrant for a house about a half block away and confirmed their suspicion the shooting was self-inflicted. The man was airlifted to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Capt. Greg Copeland said both barrels of the shotgun accident-ally discharged when the man for unknown reasons placed the gun, which was loaded with birdshot, in his pants.

On Monday, police said the shotgun had been illegally sawed off on both ends.

During the search of the house, officers said they also found a 9 mm Ruger semiautomatic pistol that had been reported stolen in Spokane.

Copeland said police expect to ask prosecutors for felony weapons charges against the man, who has a lengthy criminal record that includes convictions for assault, theft and drug use.

It was unclear if the man is an active gang member. According to court records, his involvement in a shooting in 2003 was gang-related.

















Mods this may need to be moved, I wasn't sure whether to post it in SG, general or here.

cxg231
May 7, 2008, 11:05 AM
Please elaborate, I am unclear as to what relationship there is between this person's massive stupidity and birdshot? ;)

PS - I'm not a birdshot advocate. Just wondering what the point is? Don't jam a shotgun down your pants? :p

TwoXForr
May 7, 2008, 12:06 PM
No, don't jam a sawed off shotgun down your pants, you can jam regular shotguns down your pants all you want.

DonR101395
May 7, 2008, 12:14 PM
The point being that this guy shot himself point blank twice, apparently no arterial penetration, but much hamburger de' groin with birdshot and is in satisfactory condition the next morning. Granted his sex life won't be the same:D

Stiofan
May 7, 2008, 12:17 PM
As I posted in the other thread, I've had second hand experience with birdshot blowing off a substancial portion of a guys head. So what does this prove, someone breaks in, don't aim for his package? Come on.

KyJim
May 7, 2008, 03:30 PM
If he was stuffing it down his pants, the shot would have been a grazing one, not as if he shot himself full on.

publius
May 8, 2008, 06:18 PM
What an idiot. What is really bad is he probably stole and sawed off someone's LC Smith.:eek:

velobard
May 8, 2008, 09:01 PM
Depending on the extent of the damage, he may have done the gene pool a favor.

Deaf Smith
May 8, 2008, 09:42 PM
Since it hit just his groin, then it could have been buckshot, slug, whatever and the dammage would have been the same.

I think everyone here has heard of hunters pulling their shotgun (with birdshot left in it from bird hunting) by the barrel and offing themselves with a chest full of shot. Never heard of one of them getting up after being hit with a load in the chest.

My wife was a ER nurse, CV OR, head of CVICU, and a bunch of other positions. She said shotgun wounds were the worst and almost always carried in, not walking in like many handgun wounds (especially .22 and .25, lots of them walk in talking.)

jimbob86
May 8, 2008, 10:24 PM
......

The point being that this guy shot himself point blank twice, apparently no arterial penetration, but much hamburger de' groin with birdshot and is in satisfactory condition the next morning. Granted his sex life won't be the same


..... that there are fates WORSE than death. One (this one) would be to be and being known far and wide as "the critter dumb enough to blow his own balls off....... twice."......

Stupid should hurt............ by this measure, that HAD to be excruciating.........

ActivShootr
May 9, 2008, 12:54 AM
I have only seen one shotgun wound on a human and it ain't pretty. It was self inflicted using small game loads (probably 6 or 7.5), the fella didn't survive.

I couldn't imagine shooting myself in the groin and SURVIVING!!! :eek:

KyJim
May 9, 2008, 03:14 PM
Depending on the extent of the damage, he may have done the gene pool a favor.
I think the Darwin Awards normally require one to kill oneself in some stupid way. Maybe this can qualify, however, given the nature of the injuries. :D

BerettaFox
May 9, 2008, 05:58 PM
a friend of mine, who is a plumber shot his thumb off with an old shotgun... he was riding in a truck and had the butt of the shotgun on the floor, apparently it was an old single shot with no kinds of safety. he was grabbing the shotgun near the end of the barrel with his thumb in/over the top of the barrel. They hit a big bump in the truck. Now he can do that thumb magic trick like no other.

bobthewelder
May 11, 2008, 09:22 AM
Actually, this guy will probably have a pretty active sex life, just from the receiving end in prison where he belongs. I keep mine loaded with 00 TAP.

chrisandclauida2
May 13, 2008, 11:36 PM
the report said nothing about the ammo or where he shot himself. it is useless for the subject you brought up.

i like bird shot for its dense load up close and mitigated power after it starts encountering objects.

birdshot has its place. we used to skip in bird shot or shoot the legs of rioting inmates over 25 yards because used in this way it is considered less lethal.

it is up to the owner to use want they want then know the limitations of those tools.

there is a lead powder shot that is extremely dense and is even better than bird shot in its loosing energy at distance.

only you can know what you feel comfortable with.

Wyldman
May 14, 2008, 11:41 AM
As I posted in another thread: the son of a friend of ours had the entire top-half of his head taken-off with birdshot at approx 20 yds in a hunting accident. Another person we knew had his shotgun loaded with birdshot in the window rack in his truck and it went-off and shot him in the chest as he was pulling it out of the rack, killing him instantly. The statement that birdshot is not an effective self-defense round is entirely false! One just has to exercise some common sense in using it. If you try to pop a perp at 50+ yds with it then you are being entirely unrealistic. A 10 ga with buckshot isn't lethal at such long ranges. Self-defense shotguns are meant to be effective at 10-30 yds at best. With 00 Buckshot you can pepper a guy at 40-50 yds and perhaps scare him and do some minor damage but IMHO, anyone who hangs around after being shot at with a shotgun is a freaking idiot and probably belongs in a mental hospital!

DonR101395
May 14, 2008, 01:49 PM
the report said nothing about the ammo or where he shot himself. it is useless for the subject you brought up.


Reading is fundamental.



The man, suffering from massive groin damage, was airlifted to a Seattle hospital where he was reported in satisfactory condition Monday.


Capt. Greg Copeland said both barrels of the shotgun accident-ally discharged when the man for unknown reasons placed the gun, which was loaded with birdshot, in his pants.

Ledbetter
May 14, 2008, 06:06 PM
Somebody that stupid should NOT be getting free helicopter rides paid for by the rest of us.

kgpcr
May 14, 2008, 06:14 PM
a .458 Win mag would not kill you if not hit in the right spot! this says nothing about buckshot effectiveness or even bird shot for that matter. I think you hit a guy COM with a load of 1.5oz 4 shot and you would have a body to dispose of provided it was close range.

chrisandclauida2
May 15, 2008, 01:47 PM
i missed the bird shot part. my frak up. i made a mistake. i know your saying not him but who knew right. lol


the point about where he was shot is that groin is a generic term. you used it to defend that birdshot is useless because there was no arterial penetration. my point is groin is a generic term which can include from the waist down to a few inches of the leg.

case in point. no one would doubt that a 357 is one of the premium man stoppers. i know a guy who carried idiot style in his waist band. well one day he was screwing around, as idiots do, and didnt lower the hammer he had cocked.[another idiot thing playing with a loaded gun but what can you expect from someone who carries in their waist band idiot style] as he inserted gun in waist band he made another idiot mistake and had his finger in the trigger gaurd.

kaplam goes the 357. he got a vasectomy, penile reduction surgery, pelvis trimming surgery and muscular liquefaction and removal all at once all for free. missed all the arteries though. lucky guy as some know severing an artery very high in the groin sometimes causes it to retract into the pelvis thus making emergent clamping impossible.

i know one 125 grn lead projectile is different than a hundreds or so bb's. but the point is some folks are lucky. guys go thru a firefight unscathed only to find a crap load of holes in their jacket back packs pants etc.

another importiant point about the birdshot is the fact it quickly loses its umph when it hits something. its penetration isnt spectacular and over penetration of nearly non existent. this is one of the reasons some like it for use in a house. the chances of buck over penetrating at 10 feet are pretty high. that shot will go thru walls and kill people where bird shot loses so much energy thats the chance of unintentional death of your kids sleeping in the next room is minimal even with a few bb strikes.

it all goes back to use what you feel comfortable with.

LanceOregon
May 18, 2008, 02:26 AM
Guys, even just a tiny .410 shotgun loaded with birdshot is deadly at close range.

Here is an autopsy photo from the FBI's website showing a man who was shot in the head with just a .410 using birdshot:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2004/images/research2_10.jpg

I would venture to say that this fellow died very quickly.

Now if you want to see a bunch of EXTREMELY graphic photos of what 12 gauge loads to the human body, buy a copy of this book:

http://www.personaldefensesolutions.net/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/StressfireII.jpg


Shotguns are extremely destructive at close range, no matter what size shot is in the shell.


P.S. - This news story at the start of this thread does not mention what gauge of shotgun this fellowed stuffed down his pants. I don't think that one can assume that it was a 12 gauge. A smaller gauge sawed-off shotgun would be easier to conceal.

.

James K
May 18, 2008, 05:31 PM
There is no question that bird shot can be deadly at close range.

But advocates of the shotgun for home defense often make two claims that don't stand up to testing.

The first is that "you don't have to aim or anything, the room will be filled with a cloud of shot that will kill anybody in there." Since the average spread of a shot charge is about 1" per yard, the shot spread across an average room will be about 3-4 inches, hardly a "cloud of shot" that eliminates any need for aiming or even pointing the right direction.

The second claim is that "birdshot will not penetrate dry wall or anything else so your loved ones will be safe." Not true. Any shot load with the power to kill or seriously wound an intruder will have enough power to harm innocent people, even behind dry wall.

Jim

ISC
May 18, 2008, 06:04 PM
Jim that's absolutely true, but although a 7.62 round will go through several walls and remain lethal, bird shot won't. If your kid is on the other side of the wall and you shoot they're getting peppered, but if the shot has to go through 2 walls (4 layers of sheetrock plus insulation) and whatever furniture is in the room in the 25 ft between you and your kids it's a different matter.

Bird shot wouldn't make that trip. Buck shot might, a pistol round almost certainly would. An AK round definately would.

LanceOregon
May 18, 2008, 06:19 PM
There is no question that bird shot can be deadly at close range.

But advocates of the shotgun for home defense often make two claims that don't stand up to testing.

The first is that "you don't have to aim or anything, the room will be filled with a cloud of shot that will kill anybody in there." Since the average spread of a shot charge is about 1" per yard, the shot spread across an average room will be about 3-4 inches, hardly a "cloud of shot" that eliminates any need for aiming or even pointing the right direction.

The second claim is that "birdshot will not penetrate dry wall or anything else so your loved ones will be safe." Not true. Any shot load with the power to kill or seriously wound an intruder will have enough power to harm innocent people, even behind dry wall.

Jim

That is very true. You still have to aim a shotgun. You cannot just point it in a general direction, and hope to be successful.

A shotgun would be most useful in protecting your home in case of a riot or other type of breakdown in civil order as took place during Katrina, or the LA riots.

But against an intruder inside your home, a good handgun is still your best option.

.

bobthewelder
May 18, 2008, 08:10 PM
That is your opinion Lance, I feel that it depends on the situation which is my opinion. I own a large two story home with a basement. If I hear something downstairs, I'll go for the scattergun, and the pistol on my hip. If it takes place upstairs where my kids rooms are adjacent to my bedroom, scattergun first is likely, but millions of scenarios will dictate different opinions. I know my Hornady TAP 00 buck can penetrate walls and keep going, as with my TAP .45 ammo. If I miss upstairs from my place in bed, I will likely hit one of my kids. This is why I have motion detectors set up to alert me in bed when someone nears any entrance point of my home. I also have a camera, and will be adding more. If somehow they make it upstairs without me knowing about it first, I hope I remember to drop to one knee and fire up at the dirtball so that if I miss all I hurt is my property.

Crosshair
May 19, 2008, 12:34 AM
I think the Darwin Awards normally require one to kill oneself in some stupid way. Maybe this can qualify, however, given the nature of the injuries.
No, they only require that the person looses the ability to reproduce. Be it death or otherwise.

STAGE 2
May 19, 2008, 03:01 AM
But against an intruder inside your home, a good handgun is still your best option.

I don't think so.

schnarrgj
May 19, 2008, 07:28 AM
Well I have worked in a level one trauma hospital for almost 20 years. With the bird shot, it is like any defensive weapon, it can be devistating or not. I have seen a case where bird shot was used at a distance with only a few pellets hitting the side of the head, but one happened to penetrated the suture of the skull and transversed the brain killing the individual. In another case, the patient tried to commit suicide with a 410 under the chin and lived. Both of those were the exception.

Birdshot can be very effective and I do not hesitate to use it. That being said, as with any defensive weapon, don't stop until the BG is no longer a threat.

simonkenton
May 19, 2008, 12:56 PM
I worked as a Paramedic in central Georgia for 13 years. I saw many gunshot wounds. Besides the cases I worked, I went over to the ER to check out any GSW that came in, as our barracks was in the parking lot out behind the ER, and I was particularly interested in gunshot wounds.
I was fascinated by the lethality of birdshot wounds to the torso.
In the course of my career I saw 14 close range birdshot wounds to the torso and every one of them died.
Most of these injuries occurred inside a house, so you are talking 10 feet to maybe 25 feet max.
We did have one sad case, a teenage boy was crossing a barbed wire fence. He had a .410 with number 6 shot. The gun went off and hit his brother in the back of the neck, ten feet away.
The kid was dead when the ambulance arrived.
Most of the shotgun torso wounds I saw were like that, we would get there ten minutes after the shooting and the guy would be graveyard dead.
I saw hundreds of gunshot wounds and close range birdshot was the most lethal gunshot injury I saw.

If any of y'all doubt the effectiveness of birdshot, it is easy to do a penetration test.
I had heard that birdshot would not penetrate a leather coat. I doubted this so I made a test. I got a pair of old workboots, the sole was worn out but the ankle leather was still good, easily as thick as the leather of a coat.
I got a 20 gauge shotgun loaded with number 8 shot. At fifteen feet I shot the boot. The shot went right through the leather, and went right out the other side. The pattern was familiar, about 1 1/2 inches wide, a rough jagged hole.
Then I put a pine 1x4 into the other boot. I figured that 3/4 inch of pine was a pretty good simulation of human bone.
I fired again. The shot went through the leather and blew right through the board. This time, only a few shot exited the other side of the boot.
I had the feeling that if someone had been wearing this boot they would have had their foot blown off, it would have given the orthopedic surgeon a very long night to try to save it.

44 AMP
May 22, 2008, 11:41 PM
At very close range. I think it is a fine load for inside the house use in an emergency. As to the lethality of bird shot, I don't care. It is often very lethal, but in a defense situation, I don't care one bit about killing the attacker. What I care about is stopping them. If they die as a result of being stopped, they die. But killing is not my primary concern.

A stray pellet or two is unlikely to be lethal, and may not even cause serious damage, but the full shot charge (and wad) certainly can. I have read many folks on the Internet discounting birdshot as a viable defense round, always claiming the lack of penetration as "proof" of its inability to be a good stopping round. If you have a large house, and fire across the length of it, you just might get a shotgun pattern to open up enough to start to lose some effectivness, but under 40 feet (and in my house that is farther than any distance I can shoot) the shot column hits like one large bullet, no matter what the shot size.

Those idiots who tell novices that they need not aim ought to be beaten bloody, as this "advice" is not only incorrect, it is potentialy dangerously harmful. Patterns do open up, but not instantly, and even the most open choked gun will only be 4-5 inches spread at max inside the house range. You MUST AIM a shotgun! You just don't aim it like a rifle or pistol. But you still need to aim, or you WILL MISS!

STAGE 2
May 23, 2008, 02:39 AM
A stray pellet or two is unlikely to be lethal, and may not even cause serious damage, but the full shot charge (and wad) certainly can.

When its my life and the life of my family on the line, I'm not going to put my eggs in the "certianly can" basket.

There is more than enough evidence out there that shows the ineffectiveness of birdshot for stopping the attacker. Add to this some tweaker who hasn't come down yet and you have serious problems.

With low recoil loads there is no excuse for using buck in your shotgun.

P95loser
June 3, 2008, 03:39 PM
For those that advocate birdshot

Birdshot: Neutering retard, gang-banging, gun stealing, dope heads since 1776.

yettoblaster
June 5, 2008, 05:53 PM
I'm gonna teach our dogs to shoot.
They're up all night anyway.;)

LanceOregon
June 5, 2008, 11:18 PM
There is more than enough evidence out there that shows the ineffectiveness of birdshot for stopping the attacker.

Yet you are unable to cite any such "evidence"? Hmmm....

.

LanceOregon
June 5, 2008, 11:26 PM
I don't think so.

Again, it is interesting to see people state their opinions, yet have absolutely nothing to say to back up their remarks with.

As I have stated in a similar thread in the shotgun section of these forums, handguns offer definite advantages over a shotgun when it comes to home defense. In your average home, unless you live in a "mansion", you are operating in very tight quarters. A shotgun is going to be far more cumbersome to handle and deploy effectively.

Accessibility, though, is really the clear advantage the handgun has. It is going to be far easier and more practical to store a handgun in a safe and accessible location where you can easily retrieve it, than it will be for the far larger shotgun.

And a handgun in your hand far away beats out a shotgun in a nearby closet or safe.

.

simonkenton
June 6, 2008, 06:53 PM
Lance, it is funny, the guys who have never seen a person shot with birdshot are full of info about how ineffective it is.
Those of us who have seen the effects of close-range birdshot know the truth.

LanceOregon
June 6, 2008, 09:21 PM
I'm trying to think of an informal test that I could do, to compare the two types of loads. Maybe even video tape the two shots for comparison. I'm specifically considering comparing a magnum 12 gauge 2 3/4" load with 12 00 Buckshot in it, with a magnum 12 gauge 2 3/4" Turkey hunting load of #5 Birdshot.

Within home defense type ranges, I can't see there being any practical difference.

I wish I knew someone here in Western Oregon that had ballistic gelatin available.

.

Deaf Smith
June 6, 2008, 09:44 PM
Do a mythbusters! Buy a frozen pig or two and use them (after they have thawed out of course.)

grey sky
June 7, 2008, 03:33 AM
Didn't the box o truth do this??

grey sky
June 7, 2008, 04:05 AM
Yes he did but only with various buck loads and at 12 feet. I don't think this answers the question as in the house the distance is going to be closer or is at least likley to be.
I am inclined to believe being on the recieving end of a load of bird shot is going to slow down aggressive behaior appriciably and there is always the option of follow up shots:D

LanceOregon
June 7, 2008, 05:47 AM
I was thinking of testing at 20 ft. I am confident that even birdshot is going to hurt a heck of a lot at that range.

Where does one buy a frozen pig? I checked locally, and this was the only type of pig that I could find available for sale:


http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Guinea-Pig.jpg

LanceOregon
June 7, 2008, 06:19 AM
I did find a birdshot gelatin test on the web. However, it was only of a light 1 1/8 oz field load of #4 shot. Still, the average penetration of the #4 shot at a range of 9 ft was 6.5 inches. And the wound is quite massive in size:


http://www.shadonet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/bird4_heavy.jpg


This sure looks like a lethal hit to me.


Now in contrast, I found a photo of a fellow who survived a hunting accident of being shot in the side with birdshot. I have no info about the range involved, but just by judging the size of this pattern, he must have been some distance from the shooter. Certainly you can contrast this pattern size here to the pattern size at 9 ft in the gelatin photo.


http://postarchives.entensity.net/082905/birdshot1.jpg


Still, though, I have got to think that this fellow must have been in terrible pain from this shot. The number of pellets here would also indicate to me that this was a rather small shot size. Remember that not all of the pattern would have hit him.

.

simonkenton
June 7, 2008, 06:56 AM
Lance if that had been a man, instead of gelatin, he would not have been in any pain.
He would have been dead.
I have seen it many times on ambulance calls and the result was always the same. Dead Right There.
You get 9 inches of penetration. How thick is a human? Your chest wall tissue is like a deer's, it is maybe 2 inches thick, on a fat person 4 inches thick.
Get through that and all you have is stuff that bleeds a lot, like lungs and arteries.
Hit a man with a load like that in the torso and he will be in full cardiac arrest when the paramedics get there.

Bill DeShivs
June 7, 2008, 12:53 PM
.... But..... but... the "FBI Penetration test" says it won't even hurt!:rolleyes:

Hawg Haggen
June 7, 2008, 03:38 PM
A buddy of mine was shot in the belly with bird shot across a small room. It messed him up and he has an awful scar but he lived. The guy who shot him didn't.

Rampant_Colt
June 7, 2008, 04:07 PM
Using birdshot for home defense is laughable... But whatever :rolleyes:

Lots of good comparison information here:
http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/ballistics_shotgun.html


This photo of an average-size dude is worth 1000 words:
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/350/shooterwo8.jpg



If you still cannot figure out why birdshot is a lousy choice...
I personally like the odds stacked in my favor

LanceOregon
June 7, 2008, 07:35 PM
Lance if that had been a man, instead of gelatin, he would not have been in any pain.
He would have been dead.

The reference to pain was in regarding to the hunting accident photo, which is not showing up for some reason. I agree that the gelatin shot would be 100% lethal.

.

LanceOregon
June 7, 2008, 08:06 PM
Using birdshot for home defense is laughable... But whatever

Lots of good comparison information here:
http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/ballistics_shotgun.html

Thanks much for posting that link. The gelatin tests there clearly prove that Birdshot is extremely lethal at close range.

I see absolutely nothing on that website to support your contention. In fact, the photos there conclusively show the birsdshot loads to be highly damaging.

Just look at this gelatin block showing #1 Birdshot ( yes, Birdshot that is between #2 and B in size, and works out to .16 caliber in size:


http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/content_sub/gelatin_testing/bird_1_kent/birdshot_1_kent_f.jpg


Penetration in the gelatin block was over 9 inches. The temporary stretch cavity was so huge, that it ripped open the entire gelatin block, as you can see in the above photo. And here is a close-up of the permanent cavity, which is also enormous in size:


http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/content_sub/gelatin_testing/bird_1_kent/birdshot_1_kent_d.jpg


A load of smaller #2 Birsdshot also penetrated over 9 inches, and caused this huge wound:

http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/content_nonsub/gelatin_testing/bird_2_rem_express/shot_2_rem_express_b.jpg


And has been previously pointed out by others, even the lighter 1 1/8 oz load of smaller #4 Birdshot would have been very lethal. Here is another view of that gelatin block, and you can see how badly that block was shattered too:


http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/content_nonsub/gelatin_testing/bird_4_rem_heavy_dove/bird_4_heavy_dove_rem_d.jpg


Again, thanks so much for providing this data that definitely proves your arguments against birdshot to be false.

.

LanceOregon
June 7, 2008, 08:15 PM
A buddy of mine was shot in the belly with bird shot across a small room. It messed him up and he has an awful scar but he lived. The guy who shot him didn't.

Please ask him to visit this forum and post a photo of his scar in this thread. This would be a most interesting scar to examine.

He could then also relate to us more details about the incident, such as the type and caliber of shotgun used, as well as the birdshot size.

.

Bill DeShivs
June 7, 2008, 08:45 PM
People can live through amazing things. I knew a man who was shot from across the room with a 12 ga. 1100 loaded with #8 shot. Blew out most of his right lung. He lived. Buckshot would not have made a difference, but a couple of inches difference in shot placement would have.

Hawg Haggen
June 8, 2008, 01:03 AM
Please ask him to visit this forum and post a photo of his scar in this thread.

He won't do that. He doesn't even like to talk about it. I saw it accidently once after I'd known him for several years and pressured him into telling me. The gun was a 12 gauge single barrel and all I know is the shot was bird shot. It took out half of his stomach, his whole left side is sunk in and a mass of scar tissue.

Double Naught Spy
June 8, 2008, 05:52 AM
The point being that this guy shot himself point blank twice, apparently no arterial penetration, but much hamburger de' groin with birdshot and is in satisfactory condition the next morning. Granted his sex life won't be the same

I must have missed the medical part of the artical that said "no arterial penetration." Where did it say no arterial penetration?

I have to agree with others, this incident seems to have nothing to do with the effectiveness of birdshot. From the sounds of things, it was just an appendage hit. This isn't a penetration issue as obviously birdshot has the ability to penetrate such an appendage. No doubt the shot passed right through, that which hit.

That is another thing, Don. Somewhere in the two blasts, I think you are assuming that they were full impacts, which certainly may not be the case.

Rifleman 173
June 14, 2008, 10:02 PM
With a shotgun loaded with birdshot, buckshot or slugs, there is no appeal once the trigger has been pulled and the shell discharged. Birdshot can be deadly, just as deadly as buckshot or slugs if fired accurately into a kill zone and at close range. Glancing shots with anything will wound and not neccessarily kill.

HKFan9
June 15, 2008, 12:11 AM
People always say "You cant fix stupid." I'd this is as close as it comes to fixing it:eek: