PDA

View Full Version : What 12gauge load for HD?


HALL,AUSTIN
January 16, 2012, 03:58 AM
I have #4buck in at the moment but is there a truly better option or is it a personal preference?

Sport45
January 16, 2012, 06:06 AM
I have 00 buck and #4 buck. At in-house ranges I feel either will get the job done nicely, but not necessarily neatly.

Coach Z
January 16, 2012, 08:35 AM
I carry Hornady in my pistols so I went with their 00 buck

FAS1
January 16, 2012, 09:01 AM
00 Buck is all that I have ever used for HD. I have heard some people recommend #4 Buck if overpenetration is a concern such as living in a mobile home park or apartment.

Rifleman1776
January 16, 2012, 10:07 AM
At in-home ranges it is not important. The shot column, regardless of shot size or choke, is still very small at 10 or 20 feet. Your assailant will be blown in half and you will have a messy clean up job ahead of you.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 16, 2012, 10:27 AM
The shot column, regardless of shot size or choke, is still very small at 10 or 20 feet. Your assailant will be blown in half and you will have a messy clean up job ahead of you.

If the shot column is still very small, then how can you blow someone in half with it at 10-20'? Or do you consider a shot column that covers the width of a torso to be very small? And if you do consider that very small, wouldn't you still need for the shot to penetrate most of the way through the torso? I ask because you said "regardless of shot size" but low mass projectiles penetrate much less than higher mass projectiles. So how would you blow something in half with a small shot column of shot that doesn't penetrate through the torso?

Or is my internet sarcasm meter broken?

Lee Lapin
January 16, 2012, 10:37 AM
EVERYTHING that has to do with shotguns is personal preference, as far as I can tell :D. Especially where the internet is concerned.

If you're happy with #4 buck, there's nothing wrong with it. It'll most likely do fine, in the unlikely event it has to be used at all, if the shooter does their part of course. A miss with #4 is no better or worse than a miss with 00, save that the #4 might not chew through quite as much intervening household material before it stops.

Which might be a disadvantage for #4, if the housebreaker hides behind something in the house that's more or less substantial and starts plinking at you.

Gets complicated, don't it?

Me, I settled on 00 (Federal LE127 00) in the magazine and Brenneke KO slugs in the Sidesaddle a long time ago. Haven't found any reason to change anything so far. But of course, YMMV.

There is no "right" answer to any of this, that I know of.

C0untZer0
January 16, 2012, 10:45 AM
Here is TFL's poll: (Thanks Hogdogs)

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=454273&highlight=tactical+firearms+institute

Another thread:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=452487

The Firearms Tactical Institute recommends #1 Buck:


"Number 1 buck is the smallest diameter shot that reliably and consistently penetrates more than 12 inches of standard ordnance gelatin when fired at typical shotgun engagement distances. A standard 2 Ā¾-inch 12 gauge shotshell contains 16 pellets of #1 buck. The total combined cross sectional area of the 16 pellets is 1.13 square inches. Compared to the total combined cross sectional area of the nine pellets in a standard #00 (double-aught) buck shotshell (0.77 square inches), the # 1 buck shotshell has the capacity to produce over 30 percent more potentially effective wound trauma. In all shotshell loads, number 1 buckshot produces more potentially effective wound trauma than either #00 or #000 buck. In addition, number 1 buck is less likely to over-penetrate and exit an attacker's body."

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm

old bear
January 16, 2012, 10:56 AM
Didn't the Navy settle on # 1 buckshot for a general all purpose load? If so this would be good enough for my needs.

Understand I'm not a shotguner but I would rather have a wider pattern of pellets and less chance of over penetration. As for having to shoot through a barricade it could happen but I don't believe this is something that most homeowners should have to worry about.

C0untZer0
January 16, 2012, 11:02 AM
There is a pervasive idea that at short distances, because the pattern has not begun to open up, birdshot is a column of lead which acts similar to a shotgun slug.

This is false.

No pellet in a birdshot load is connected, welded, glued or attached in any way to any other pellet in the load. As such - each pellet is it's own separate mass. When birdshot hits material - like living tissue, the pellets shed velocity quickly and do not penetrate anywhere near the depths seen with shotgun slugs. Birdshot penetrates to rather shallow depths and generally doesn't reach vital organs

C0untZer0
January 16, 2012, 11:18 AM
I've heard this argument before.

Why does the Army use #00 Buck ?

Why did they switch from .45 ACP to 9mm? Why don't they switch to .40 S&W or 5.7 ??? - I don't know. They have their reasons I suppose.

Why does the Army use #00 Buck ? Maybe they never read the report by Firearms Tactical Institute on #1 Buck, or maybe the Army and Marines have a much different application for the shotgun than the average homeowner does...

It's pretty rare that the military is worried about over penetration of enemy personell, or over penetration in a direct fire scenario period.

Having said all that, I don't think 00 Buck is going to fail to stop an attacker in an HD scenario provided you don't miss...

skoro
January 16, 2012, 11:27 AM
I have #4buck in at the moment but is there a truly better option or is it a personal preference?

I keep 00 handy in my cabin, but I think ANY buckshot load is a wicked HD round.

rem44m
January 16, 2012, 01:03 PM
I'm confident that any buckshot will do the job.

ltc444
January 16, 2012, 01:13 PM
If you know a reloader who will make up some loads for you, Buck and ball is an excellent HD load.

This load stems from the Civil War. A number of units were issued muskets because the standard Springfields were not availabel. The load was good only for 100 yards. As these units proved their worth they often held the center of the line. They waited until the enemy was within range. Their fire in many cases broke the attack.

Buck and ball consiste of a single ball nestled in buckshot.

hangglider
January 16, 2012, 01:13 PM
000 buck magnum in my 870 express--supposedly able to take down a bear.

Stevie-Ray
January 16, 2012, 03:22 PM
As has been said, #1 buck is the preferred HD load. I have been pretty much stuck on 00 buck, as #1 buck is near impossible to find around here, and I don't enjoy buying ammo off the net. 00 buck is generally listed as the number two choice in HD situations. I keep my 930 SPX loaded with it and have plenty of it on hand, generally Rem.

nate45
January 16, 2012, 03:29 PM
If you already have #4 Buck and it patterns good in your shotgun, it'll be okay for HD. As already noted its not the best preforming buck shot in testing, but most of its pellet load penetrates well enough and it is, way, way better than any size birdshot.

C0untZer0
January 16, 2012, 04:58 PM
Federal did come out with a FLITECONTROLĀ® in #1 Buck now -

http://le.atk.com/general/federalproducts/shotshell/tacticalbuckshot.aspx

It has one less pellet than most other #1 loads and I beleive it is reduced recoil.

Maybe that will make #1 Buck easier to get in places where it's currently hard to find.

Federal FLITECONTROL #00 Buck on Bob and Chuck the zombies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHIrUYRiBk

exphys2010
January 16, 2012, 05:13 PM
I live in an apartment, so to me overpenetration is an issue. In my 12 gauge I have two shells of Remington HD copper plated BB shot followed by three shells of Remington Express #4 buckshot. If overpenetration was not an issue then I would definitely go with 00 buckshot.

garryc
January 17, 2012, 12:01 AM
Remington Express #0 Buckshot, 6 of them. 870 Shotgun with 8 round extension tube kept in condition 4 (hammer down on an empty chamber, safety off.)

9ballbilly
January 17, 2012, 06:20 AM
For HD in my 870 it's #1 buck. Second choice is #00 buck.

Gehrhard
January 17, 2012, 07:17 AM
Overall, #0 Buck.
In small house or apartment, #4 Buck, #BB or #2 Shot.

Deja vu
January 17, 2012, 01:19 PM
I know this will make me look like a freak but I like Dixie triball. I all so like the Winchester PDX1-12 but I like the triball more.

Nothing like 3 60caliber balls to stop some one.

I feel I need to mention I would not recommend this if you have neighbors.

publius
January 17, 2012, 01:31 PM
I have always used #1 or 0 if I can't find #1.

Stevie-Ray
January 17, 2012, 04:56 PM
Federal did come out with a FLITECONTROLĀ® in #1 Buck now -

Maybe that will make #1 Buck easier to get in places where it's currently hard to find.That's what I'm hoping as well.

Moyer
January 17, 2012, 06:36 PM
Distance is very important to consider here. Large open rooms (or outdoor/garage situations) might require #1 or 00. In my apartment building (and many small homes), 20ft is much farther than any realistic shot. Heck, 6 ft is probably farther than any defensive shot would be in my tiny apartment. Now, at that distance, I don't think there is a commonly sold 12ga round that would not drop a man with a center mass shot.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 17, 2012, 06:45 PM
Heck, 6 ft is probably farther than any defensive shot would be in my tiny apartment. Now, at that distance, I don't think there is a commonly sold 12ga round that would not drop a man with a center mass shot.

You'd think that and yet there is a fairly decent list of people who have survived a shotgun blast in the torso and even head at that range and survived (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4536289&postcount=32). In pretty much every one of those stories, the shotgun was loaded with birdshot.

trex1310
January 17, 2012, 10:19 PM
I would think that 2-3/4" 00 buckshot (non-magnum) would get the
job done.

Sheikyourbootie
January 17, 2012, 10:48 PM
00 buck here...just because it's the only buck that wally world has on hand.

8MM Mauser
January 18, 2012, 12:54 PM
"I know this will make me look like a freak but I like Dixie triball. I all so like the Winchester PDX1-12 but I like the triball more.

Nothing like 3 60caliber balls to stop some one.

I feel I need to mention I would not recommend this if you have neighbors. "

I've never used the tri-ball, but I usually stuff a round or that Winchester PDXI-12 in between some 00 Buckshot when I have to clear the house. I don't think that it's strictly necessary (as in, I probably won't need anything more than the buckshot), but you never know.

The PDXI-12 will pretty much incapacitate someone, like...NOW. There is something to be said for that, home invasions aren't super common in my area, but when they happen it's usually someone hoped up on meth or crack, I don't need them to stay standing long enough to put two 9MM's in my chest. It is hard to beat a 1 ounce slug plus 3 rounds of plated buckshot when you need them down now.

zippy13
January 18, 2012, 02:02 PM
If you know a reloader who will make up some loads for you, Buck and ball is an excellent HD load. Using reloads, or exotic loads, for HD may be effective; however, with liberal attorneys, you may be opening Pandora's box. I'd use a factory load that duplicates what your local LE uses.

federali
January 18, 2012, 06:07 PM
Military and police use of shotguns have different tactical considerations than those of the average homeowner. If over penetration could be a problem, that rules out large buckshot such as "0", "'00" or "000". At typical distances within the home, even #4 shot (not #4 buck) is very deadly. A standard load of #4 buck, in 12 gauge, has 27 pellets, each of .22 caliber. Going back to #4 shot, a two-ounce turkey load of #4 shot will blow a hole in someone large enough to see through.

This topic is beaten to death just about every week. If you center the pattern on a home invader, it pretty much won't matter what size buckshot you use. You'll need private cleaning contractors who specialize in crime scene cleanup to remove the bloody mess from the walls, ceiling and floors.

Nnobby45
January 18, 2012, 07:20 PM
Smaller shot is safer for innocent family members and Bubba as well. If you want to turn your shotgun into a spittin' distance weapon, that's your call. Many feel that way.

00 buck works just fine and always has, and is effective at any range likely encountered in the average home. It will also defeat certain cover, such couchs and chairs.

It's a trade off. Make your choice, understand the avantages and disadvantages, and take your seat.:D

shurshot
January 18, 2012, 07:25 PM
#6 birdshot. The same as you hunt bunnys with. It won't go through a wall and hurt a neighbor or family member in the same manner a slug or Buckshot will.
If you have any doubts about birdshot, go fire a shell or two into a gallon jug filled with water at 7 yards or less. Buck and slugs are TOO powerful to use inside your home. Birdshot is fine. Test it.

Moyer
January 18, 2012, 08:58 PM
You'd think that and yet there is a fairly decent list of people who have survived a shotgun blast in the torso and even head at that range and survived. In pretty much every one of those stories, the shotgun was loaded with birdshot.

I appreciate the info, but NONE of those stories prove your point. Many of them are lacking important details like range or the angle of the shot. 2 were with a .410. One appears to have been close range, but was a shot to the jaw so I can only assume it was from a side angle (the shot destroyed her jaw and the murderer killed at least 2 other people with one shot each in the same house).

I actually know 3 people personally who have survived 12ga birdshot, but that proves nothing because they were all at much much greater distances than a home defense situation.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 18, 2012, 09:00 PM
I appreciate the info, but NONE of those stories prove your point.

Really? Which one of those do you think would have survived the same shot with buckshot?

nate45
January 18, 2012, 09:20 PM
Instead of swapping stories, we can just look at birdshot vs buckshot penetration tests.

12 gauge Wound Profiles (http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=109958)

Its abundantly clear from the above test results that birdshot is inadequate for defense. There are also several other tests that can be found on the net, all showing the same kind of results.

A very small percentage of people continue to insist that bird shot is adequate for defense. Although they have no evidence to support their claims.

shurshot
January 18, 2012, 10:01 PM
Hey, use slugs, buckshot, a .308, .300 Magnum, hell, use a grenade if you will.

I'm concerned about family in the next room, neighbors, liability, etc., not "Internet tests". My "evidence" comes from the field, not the internet...LOL! I have hunted and trapped my entire life and have seen what birdshot can do at close range (under 7 yards) out of a 12 Ga shotgun, so I'll stick with my birdshot. ;)

Turn off your laptops this weekend, go out to a gravel pit, and SHOOT a load of birdshot at 4 or 5 yards (avg. living room distance might be closer to 3 yards), into a gallon jug filled with water. Test #6 birdshot out of a 12 Ga at close range. No, its not a slug or buckshot load, but it WILL leave a big, NASTY rat hole. You may just change your mind about what you read on the "net" from some Mall Ninja, or at least question as to if the person posting spends more time online than on the range. :rolleyes:

Moyer
January 18, 2012, 11:39 PM
Really? Which one of those do you think would have survived the same shot with buckshot?

Don't try and change the argument. You're saying that 12ga birdshot is not deadly at less than 10 feet. NONE of those stories even come close to proving that.

I'm sure there are tens of hundreds of people who have survived buckshot wounds too, but that doesn't prove crap.

Moyer
January 19, 2012, 12:00 AM
A very small percentage of people continue to insist that bird shot is adequate for defense. Although they have no evidence to support their claims.

Sir, please look in the link you yourself posted at the #5 birdshot. I'm skeptical about how far away the barrel was from the gelatin in order to make a wound channel over four inches wide, but either way, that's a recipe for death. Almost all of the pellets penetrated 7-9 inches.

C0untZer0
January 19, 2012, 12:55 AM
People like Dr. Martin Fackler and Duncan MacPherson are not mall ninjas.

In 1959 Duncan MacPherson developed a new guidance technique and the equations that were used to guide the Mercury astronauts into orbit on the Atlas launch vehicle. These equations were modified under his supervision to control Gemini and, later, Apollo launches. Both his BS and MS degrees were won at MIT's Honors Course in Mechanical Engineering.

In the early sixties he began to study and research trajectory dynamics. He wrote the book, "Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting From Wound Trauma."

If you want to dismiss his work as "Internet" that's fine - but it doesn't lessen his actual credibility or expertise in reality.

The people who read this forum can decide if they want to listen to people like Dr. Martin Fackler and Duncan MacPherson's recomendations based on medical and scientific research, or if they want to listen to the advise of people who base their experience on having shot ducks, turkeys, deer and water jugs.

HALL,AUSTIN
January 19, 2012, 12:56 AM
Well I'm no sharpshooter but I will take buckshot over bird shot. Have 0 evidence to say why, but IF I have to shoot a person in my home, they are taking a long nap. My thought with #4 is if it can rip through a 40lb coyote at 20yards then something like a human chest, being just about as thick should have a decent wound to deal with, 41 pieces of 20caliber lead would drop me all day (odds are SOMETHING is hitting an artery/spine). And Now lets switch the debate to 2 3/4 or 3inch shells.

C0untZer0
January 19, 2012, 01:02 AM
The BB calibration shots for the blocks of gelatin shown in the Shotgun World tests penetrated rather deeply, and the results weren't normalized (using the formula that Duncan MacPherson devised).

So what that means is that the results for birdshot would have been even more dismal if the blocks had been the correct density.

HALL,AUSTIN
January 19, 2012, 01:14 AM
Did the blocks have bone? Cause bone is important

Bartholomew Roberts
January 19, 2012, 07:15 AM
Don't try and change the argument. You're saying that 12ga birdshot is not deadly at less than 10 feet. NONE of those stories even come close to proving that.

If you think that is my argument, you misunderstand me. As I recall, the argument was "there is not a commonly sold 12ga round that will not drop a man with a center mass shot.". My answer is that even with a center mass shot, people do take 12 ga rounds and not only keep going for awhile; but survive. I then gave links showing this and noted that as shot size increases, there are fewer and fewer of these types of stories.

That isn't to say that 12ga birdshot at household distances can't kill you. It most certainly can. However, people take center mass shots of birdshot (a commonly sold 12ga round) and do not drop. Those stories get less common as shot size increases, so the type of 12ga round used does matter.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 19, 2012, 09:11 AM
I'm concerned about family in the next room, neighbors, liability, etc., not "Internet tests".

Where I live, the "next room" would be two pieces of 5/8" drywall (powdered gypsum backed by paper) and if you are lucky, maybe some fiberglass insulation blown in between the sheets. Something that won't penetrate that barrier is extremely weak. Now presumably the reason you are using a firearm in the house to begin with is that there is a threat that is even more dangerous than you shooting a firearm in your house. So if you have that kind of threat, it would seem that stopping that threat promptly is of high importance.

My "evidence" comes from the field, not the internet...LOL! I have hunted and trapped my entire life and have seen what birdshot can do at close range (under 7 yards) out of a 12 Ga shotgun, so I'll stick with my birdshot.

Hunted a lot of 200lb mammals with birdshot during that time?

Turn off your laptops this weekend, go out to a gravel pit, and SHOOT a load of birdshot at 4 or 5 yards (avg. living room distance might be closer to 3 yards), into a gallon jug filled with water. Test #6 birdshot out of a 12 Ga at close range. No, its not a slug or buckshot load, but it WILL leave a big, NASTY rat hole. You may just change your mind about what you read on the "net" from some Mall Ninja, or at least question as to if the person posting spends more time online than on the range.

"Penetration in rows of water-filled, 2-quart (1.89 liter) cartons is approximately 1.5 times that which would occur in 10% 4 degrees C gelatin. Since a U.S. 2-qt. carton is 3.75 inches (9.525 cm) wide and 3.75/1.5 = 2.5, one simply multiples the number of the carton in the row from which a test bullet was recovered by 2.5 to determine approximate gelatin penetration in inches or by 6.35 for the reading in centimeter. For example, a shot recovered from carton #6 would correspond to a gelatin penetration depth of approximately 15 inches (38.1 cm). (Cotey, Gus Jr.:"Number 1 Buckshot, the Number 1 Choice." Wound Ballistics Review, 2(4): p. 11; 1996.)

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs12.htm

So using this formula, we find that your results are very close to ballistic gelatin results. You got penetration of about 5" at close range. #6 birdshot at 10' from a 12ga typically penetrates about 5-6" with most of the shot at 3-5" in bare gelatin (i.e. no bones, no jacket, no drywall, no skin, no clothing). So using 12ga #6, you have a load that is effective under the following conditions:

1. You attacker is not behind ANY kind of cover. Not even a couch, appliance or drywall.
2. Your attacker is 12' or closer.
3. Your attacker is lightly clothed, or even better, naked.
4. Your attacker is the same size or smaller as the average male (about 19" shoulder to shoulder and about 9" front to back)
5. Your attacker is facing you with his hands out to the sides providing an unobstructed center mass shot.

If any of those conditions change, 12ga #6 birdshot loses a lot of effectiveness. You've made a choice to limit the potential liability by limiting the effectiveness of the firearm to a fairly narrow range so you don't have to worry as much about shoot or don't shoot decisions in a high-stress scenario. That is certainly one way to approach the problem. However, I would submit that making the firearm more effective, getting training, and utilizing a little prior planning to identify safe backgrounds and no-shoot backgrounds gives you more options and ultimately makes your family safer by being more likely to stop the threat that made you decide that firing a gun inside the house was less dangerous than not firing to begin with.

markj
January 19, 2012, 04:34 PM
A very small percentage of people continue to insist that bird shot is adequate for defense. Although they have no evidence to support their claims.

I know 2 guys shot themselves wit ha shotgun and both are alive now. Both shot themselves over a gal too (not the same gal) both hit the stomach area wit hthe barrel close to their body both used 6 shot.

I prefer buckshot or at the very least number 2 plated goose shot.

Roman556
January 19, 2012, 04:52 PM
The PDX1 Defender 1oz Slug looks nice. Problem is you are limited to a single projectile in a high stress situation. My jury is still out on it, and I will need to play with it to decide. Until then the standard PDX1 Disks/buck are my option.

Here is the PDX1 Defender slug being tested a few days ago at SHOT with Rob Pincus and Winchester

http://youtu.be/v1PCBOzgD8c

shurshot
January 19, 2012, 06:06 PM
I agree that Buckshot or slugs has a better chance of stopping a bad guy, as oppossed to birdshot... no dispute here guys. However, to read many of your posts, you make birdshot at close range sound as effective as a Crosman BB gun. :confused: Anyone who has fired birdshot at targets at close range (under 7 yards), be they water jugs, lumber, foxes, turkeys or woodchucks, understands how lethal birdshot is, and while it won't penetrate like buckshot or slugs, it is nowhere near as weak and ineffective as some on here are saying. This makes a few of us wonder, given some of the high posts counts that some of you have racked up in such a short amount of time, if perhaps too much time is spent on the internet and not nearly enough on the gun range. ?? :rolleyes: Books and numbers are great for armchair commandos, but getting outside and testing the rounds yourself is much more fun, educational and reality based. Just saying...LOL! Load what you will. Be safe.

nate45
January 19, 2012, 06:26 PM
I agree that Buckshot or slugs has a better chance of stopping a bad guy, as oppossed to birdshot... no dispute here guys.

So then why not use and advocate the use of, the indisputably more effective loading?

However, to read many of your posts, you make birdshot at close range sound as effective as a Crosman BB gun.

Interesting impression you gathered. When I reread the posts in this thread I can't find anything even close to suggesting that.

Book and numbers are great for armchair commandos, but getting outside and testing the rounds yourself is more fun and reality based. Just saying...LOL! Load what you will. Be safe.

You ever tested birdshot on a drugged up, psycho home invader?

You ever hunted 150-400 pound wild boar with birdshot?

Ever killed a deer with birdshot?

Didn't think so.

Read,or reread post #46 (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4915940&postcount=46) Bart does a good job of laying the facts out.

Buzzcook
January 19, 2012, 07:14 PM
As I mentioned on another thread I have goose shot in my bed side shotgun.

It's a 2 3/4 1oz lead BB load that gets about 1200fps.

Can't use the lead around here for geese anymore and I do think shot of that size at that speed will reliably put holes in things.

I'd be hesitant about using any smaller shot and certainly at any slower speed.

LockedBreech
January 19, 2012, 07:23 PM
I load my Remington 870 Express Tactical with Hornady's 2 & 3/4" TAP 00 Buckshot load, and store it safety off, fired on an empty chamber with 6 in the tube.

shurshot
January 19, 2012, 07:24 PM
Nate45, to answer your close ended questions;

I have been fortunate never to have had anyone break in. So no on your hypothetical "drugged up, psycho, home invader" question. :rolleyes:

The only wild boar I ever killed was with an old Bear Kodiak Hunter recurve and a 2 bladed broadhead. However, at 3-7 yards, out of my full choke 12 Ga, I'll bet #6 shot in the head, if not lethal, would at least stagger or slow down a wild boar long enough to get a 2nd or 3rd shot into it.

And although I have never killed a deer with birdshot and would not attempt it, as it is unethical and not to mention illegal, I know someone who did, a few decades ago. A head shot w/#6 shot, full choke 20 Ga., out of a treestand. Range was close, less than 20'. Forgot his Buckshot, grabbed birdshot by accident, already in the woods when he realized his error.

*I can't wait to see him and tell him that the Internet gun gurus have spoken and that there was no way he could kill a deer with birdshot even at close range...LOL! He will get a kick out of that. How did he ever get by without Net experts back in the day?:rolleyes: How the hell did Wild Bill Hickok get by for as long as he did with those weak, ineffective .36 cap and ball Colts?

Why don't I advocate the use of, or use Buckshot? Thin walls, family members and the windmill of civil litigation that will surely follow, if God forbid I am ever forced to defend myself and or family. And, as I thought I spelled out... I am comfortable at VERY CLOSE RANGE, 3-7 yards or LESS, with a load or two of birdshot to STOP any threat, without going though walls and endangering others..

Bart did a great job of repeating others research findings and brings up some good points of his own, and I don't dispute the numbers. If I lived alone, and didn't worry about neighbors and civil litigation, I would use buckshot, as it is a superior round for self defense. But as I don't live alone, and despite your highly subjective statement "birdshot is inadequate for defense.", I think I'll just stick to #6 high brass, the same load I use for Turkeys, in my Turkey gun. ;)

Moyer
January 19, 2012, 07:47 PM
If you think that is my argument, you misunderstand me. As I recall, the argument was "there is not a commonly sold 12ga round that will not drop a man with a center mass shot.".

Please read the the sentence of mine that you actually quoted when you started arguing with me. It reads 6ft.

I completely agree that most people reading this forum would be much better off with buckshot. It depends though on how big of a place you live in, who you live with, how close your neighbors are, etc.

I live in a small apartment as part of a large apartment building (as I previously stated). Three out of four of my outside walls, as well as my ceiling, have innocent people on the other side of them. When I go to sleep at night, there's less than 8ft between my feet and the bedroom door and another 10ft between that door and the front door. If I don't kill an intruder with #6 shot in my apartment, it's because I missed.

shurshot
January 19, 2012, 08:01 PM
Moyer, with only 8 posts, you make more sense than a few that have racked up THOUSANDS of posts...LOL! :D

Thanks Al-Gore, for inventing the Net and bringing all these armchair Gun experts together online!!!! I just wish some spent half as much time SHOOTING as they do reading and posting advice!

Willie Lowman
January 19, 2012, 08:21 PM
Shurshot, that just means he has thousands of posts where he can doesn't have to say anything of value! :p

Bartholomew Roberts
January 19, 2012, 09:08 PM
Please read the the sentence of mine that you actually quoted when you started arguing with me. It reads 6ft.

Yes, and in the examples I gave you, at least one of those was a 12ga at 6ft and it not only didn't stop the attacker; but the attacker shot and killed the man who shot him, despite being blind in one eye. My point being, there is nothing handheld that will guarantee a stop with a single center mass shot - and load does matter.

It is your choice to load what you want. I just want people to understand that birdshot has serious limitations.

nate45
January 19, 2012, 10:49 PM
The problem with telling stories about shooting results and relating feelings about effectiveness; is that there is no way to corroborate it. Thats why penetration tests are important as evidence.

A shallow wound that dosen't reach the vital organs will be ineffective. The reason I used the rethorical questions that I did, is because all of those examples, wild boar, deer and home invader require adequate penetration to reach their vitals.

although I have never killed a deer with birdshot and would not attempt it, as it is unethical and not to mention illegal

Why is it unethical and illegal? It is unethical and illegal because bird shot lacks the penetration and effectivness to kill deer. Just as in lacks the penetration and effectivness to stop determined attackers.


Pro Tip: I could write all sorts of shooting stories and the effects I've seen. Sometimes I do as it relates to the topic. However, there is no way to verify pseudo-anonymous tales.

Here is an example: Thanks Al-Gore, for inventing the Net and bringing all these armchair Gun experts together online!!!!

Now from that post someone might gather that Al Gore invented the internet, when in fact he did not. "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp) In fact he never even said that he did.

Thats why I post links to testing, scientific evidence and articles by well known defense and firearms experts. It corroborates my claims much better than un-sourced anecdotes.

lefteye
January 19, 2012, 11:55 PM
If shot size is irrelevant to "stopping power", as has been implied by some posts, why do different shot sizes even exist? Heck, 7 1/2 is good enough for Canada Geese and bad guys with a .357. ;) Most (maybe all) shot sizes will produce a horrible, but shallow, surface wound on an attacker at 6 feet or 6 yards or whatever - but that is not the objective. THE objective is to STOP the attacker and that may require much greater penetration. As noted previously in this thread, No. 1 buck has been shown to be the best and 00 is (a close) second place. FWIW, I still have several five shell boxes of Peters 2 3/4" Magnum Buckshot, 20 pellets, No. 1 Buck (price tag - $1.59), as well as much more recent production Federal 00 buck. :D

C0untZer0
January 20, 2012, 12:22 AM
It's the argument that at close ranges, because the pattern hasn't expanded, the load acts like a "column of lead", just like a slug.

But it's not true.

Birdshot, because of its small size, does not have the mass and sectional density to penetrate deeply enough to reliably reach and damage critical blood distribution organs. Although birdshot can destroy a great volume of tissue at close range, the permanent crush cavity is usually less than 6 inches deep, and this is not deep enough to reliably include the heart or great blood vessels of the abdomen. A gruesome, shallow wound in the torso does not guarantee a quick stop, especially if the bad guy is chemically intoxicated or psychotic. If the tissue crushed by the pellets does not include a vital cardiovascular structure there's no reason for it to be an effective wound.


It's been proven to not be true in ballistic gelatin, and real life examples.

The difference between bird shot and buck shot is this.

How buckshot behaves when it comes into contact with a human body is documented in autopsies. How birdshot behaves when it comes into contact with a human body is documented in hospital reports.

#1 Buck or #0 seem to be the best mix of weight and number of projectiles. The pellets are large enough to penetrate to past 12" and numerous enough to cause a lot of tissue damage.

Did I mention that Firearms Tactical Institute did a report on it?

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm :rolleyes:


.

Nnobby45
January 20, 2012, 01:51 AM
#6 birdshot. The same as you hunt bunnys with. It won't go through a wall and hurt a neighbor or family member in the same manner a slug or Buckshot will.
If you have any doubts about birdshot, go fire a shell or two into a gallon jug filled with water at 7 yards or less. Buck and slugs are TOO powerful to use inside your home. Birdshot is fine. Test it.

Being in awe of a burst water jug doesn't amount to a test.

I've "tested" #6 birdshot on many a bird and a few bunnies. Typically it doesn't penetrate the rabbit, and is often found under the skin of a bird the size of a chukar or even quail.

It's rather amusing that some would choose their HD shotgun load on how unlikely it is to harm a family member without much consideration that it's also less likely to injure Bubba the home invader and his friends.

YES, for cryin' out load, if the range is so close that the shot basically amounts to a single projectile, it can be deadly. But to choose a load that has no penetrating ability once the pattern starts to spread is a little silly.

Tightwad
January 20, 2012, 05:45 AM
Here is what we use:

12 Gauge - 2 3/4" Standard Velocity #1 Buckshot

20 Gauge - 2 3/4" Standard Velocity #3 Buckshot

I use the 12 Gauge and my Mom and Little Sister use the 20 Gauges.

PS Im comfortable with those choices when it comes to recoil, penetration and pellet count.

Moyer
January 20, 2012, 11:50 PM
Yes, and in the examples I gave you, at least one of those was a 12ga at 6ft and it not only didn't stop the attacker; but the attacker shot and killed the man who shot him, despite being blind in one eye.

Really? Which link was that? Was the shot straight in front or from the side?

Moyer
January 20, 2012, 11:52 PM
I've "tested" #6 birdshot on many a bird and a few bunnies. Typically it doesn't penetrate the rabbit, and is often found under the skin of a bird the size of a chukar or even quail.

And yet, at less than 10ft, it blows them in half.

shurshot
January 21, 2012, 10:06 AM
Moyer, I gave up. With all due respect, I suggest you do the same. We keep repeating birdshot is lethal @ short distance, living room distance... and they keep twisting facts, taking our statements out of context, etc. There doesn't appear to be many real hunters or experienced Law Enforcement Officers on here, or folks who shoot often (if at all), but MANY who read, have some knowledge of the facts and then post advice loaded with hypothetical "what if's" and subjective observations, questions and scenarios, based upon other peoples research and data.

I doubt there are many humans out there, drugged or not, who could stand a full load or two of #6 in the chest / neck / face area at 10 feet, and still be much of threat. Obviously, there are quite a few who disagree and feel a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with birdshot (even at 10 feet), it is "inadequate".

Water finds its own level...:D

C0untZer0
January 21, 2012, 10:29 AM
I'd like to hear from an experienced law enforcement officer whose department issued #6 shot to stop burglars, home invaders, bank robbers, escaped convicts and other assorted felons.

hangglider
January 21, 2012, 11:05 AM
What difference does it make? If someone elects to choose a lower-powered birdshot shell because of liability concerns to his neighbors--that's their choice to make--even if it may or may not be a zombie-killer on first trigger pull.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 21, 2012, 01:29 PM
I doubt there are many humans out there, drugged or not, who could stand a full load or two of #6 in the chest / neck / face area at 10 feet, and still be much of threat.

I can't say how many are out there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCiiNTzwOB4); but they are out there (http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2007/24Oct07.html) - and however many they are, the number who can stand a full load of buck is even fewer.

Everybody has to assess their own risk, I think the risk of having a running firefight in my home where only one of us (and it isn't me) has cover is a more serious risk to neighbors and family than using more penetrative loads. Others may make different risk assessments; but they should understand what those risks are rather than kidding themselves that a shotgun is a death ray regardless of what it is loaded with.

HALL,AUSTIN
January 21, 2012, 01:45 PM
Well, yes birdshot can be lethal, especially at close distance. NOT debatable. But I do NOT care about the whole over penetration deal. Never seen anything in 12gauge 3inch that would go through my interior walls and then the block, then brick exterior walls..

Stevie-Ray
January 21, 2012, 04:40 PM
I'd like to hear from an experienced law enforcement officer whose department issued #6 shot to stop burglars, home invaders, bank robbers, escaped convicts and other assorted felons. As would I, or even one that recommends it be used if any type of buck is also available.

nate45
January 21, 2012, 05:49 PM
#6 birdshot. The same as you hunt bunnys with. It won't go through a wall and hurt a neighbor or family member in the same manner a slug or Buckshot will.
If you have any doubts about birdshot, go fire a shell or two into a gallon jug filled with water at 7 yards or less. Buck and slugs are TOO powerful to use inside your home. Birdshot is fine. Test it.

How do you know what size shot the readers here use to hunt rabbits with?

So, #6 birdshot lacks the the penetration to go through walls, but it will still go through clothing, ribs and human flesh and reach the heart and spine? Will it also penetrate a skull and reach the human brain? Its some amazing stuff if it can do that and still not penetrate drywall.

I never knew that shooting a gallon jug of water, was a definitive scientific ballistics test that proved terminal effectiveness. Do you have any independent evidence to support that theory?

Buckshot and slugs are TOO powerful for use inside the home? According to whom and based on what evidence? Was it more water jug testing, or did you shoot a tree, or a scrap piece of plywood to reach that conclusion?

Birdshot is fine. Test it. Fine for what shooting rabbits and water jugs? Birdshot has been tested, on ballistic gelatin, the industry standard and it was found to be lacking for defense.

Hey, use slugs, buckshot, a .308, .300 Magnum, hell, use a grenade if you will.

I'm concerned about family in the next room, neighbors, liability, etc., not "Internet tests". My "evidence" comes from the field, not the internet...LOL! I have hunted and trapped my entire life and have seen what birdshot can do at close range (under 7 yards) out of a 12 Ga shotgun, so I'll stick with my birdshot.;)

Turn off your laptops this weekend, go out to a gravel pit, and SHOOT a load of birdshot at 4 or 5 yards (avg. living room distance might be closer to 3 yards), into a gallon jug filled with water. Test #6 birdshot out of a 12 Ga at close range. No, its not a slug or buckshot load, but it WILL leave a big, NASTY rat hole. You may just change your mind about what you read on the "net" from some Mall Ninja, or at least question as to if the person posting spends more time online than on the range.

You're concered about overpenetration thats understandable, many people are. However, the truth of the matter is, that any rifle, handgun, or shotgun round that is capable of penetrating deep enough to reach the vitals i.e. the heart, aorta, and CNS has the ability to penetrate walls. The surest way to avoid penetrating walls is to hit ones target.

Again, shooting small animals and plastic jugs filled with water, does not prove that birdshot is effective for, or wise to use, for defense. It is analogous to shooting a water jug with a high powered rifle varmint bullet and declaring it adequate for defense against grizzly bears, because it makes a big explosion. It might work, if thats all one had, but I don't think many people would recommend it as a preferred loading.

I agree that Buckshot or slugs has a better chance of stopping a bad guy, as oppossed to birdshot... no dispute here guys. However, to read many of your posts, you make birdshot at close range sound as effective as a Crosman BB gun.:confused: Anyone who has fired birdshot at targets at close range (under 7 yards), be they water jugs, lumber, foxes, turkeys or woodchucks, understands how lethal birdshot is, and while it won't penetrate like buckshot or slugs, it is nowhere near as weak and ineffective as some on here are saying. This makes a few of us wonder, given some of the high posts counts that some of you have racked up in such a short amount of time, if perhaps too much time is spent on the internet and not nearly enough on the gun range. ??:rolleyes: Books and numbers are great for armchair commandos, but getting outside and testing the rounds yourself is much more fun, educational and reality based. Just saying...LOL! Load what you will. Be safe.

A common theme through out your posts in this thread, has been to impugn the credibility, character and experience of those who disagree with you. It is what is known as, an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack. You've stated your doubts about our field shooting experience, whether or not we are real hunters, or real LEOs, etc. You know I suppose its true, I might be an inexperienced teenage boy, or a twelve year old french girl with a firearms fetish. Since I chose to remain pseudo-anonymous on this site, who's to say for certain?

However, that fact cuts both ways shurshot. How do any of us know you have ever shot anything with a shotgun? We don't, we only have your posts to go on. No one, myself included has said you didn't shoot the things you claim to have. What, at least what I'm saying, is that rabbits, water jugs and enraged chipmunks, do not equal scientific evidence. They also do not equal after shooting reports, autopsies, etc. Your theories on birdshot also aren't in accord with the advice of the vast majority of self defense experts. Which is why I link to independent sources.

The reason I and many others take the trouble to refute the assertion that birdshot is good for defense; is not for love of debating, or winning an internet argument. It is because many uninformed people read The Firing Line in search of informed, fact based information regarding self defense. What loading those people ultimately choose to use for self defense could lead to life or death consequences.

No one in this thread ever claimed birdshot did not have the potential to be lethal. No one claimed it was impossible to defend one's self with a shotgun loaded with birdshot.

What was and is claimed, is that ballistic testing, medical and autopsy reports as well as the advice of ballistic and self defense experts all agree; buckshot and slugs are preferred and recommended for defense.

TL;DR see above sentence

Moyer
January 21, 2012, 07:04 PM
I can't say how many are out there; but they are out there - and however many they are, the number who can stand a full load of buck is even fewer.

Haha. You just realized you posted BS links before so you post a youtube video and another broken link? How's that for scientific?! Check out the pellet spread on that poor kid's x-ray in the video. Tell me how far away you think the barrel was.

Moyer
January 21, 2012, 07:13 PM
So, #6 birdshot lacks the the penetration to go through walls, but it will still go through clothing, ribs and human flesh and reach the heart and spine?

Obviously it will still blow through a wall at close range. It's just less likely to keep deadly velocity after going through the other side (and continuing through more walls after that).

Buckshot and slugs are TOO powerful for use inside the home? According to whom and based on what evidence? Was it more water jug testing, or did you shoot a tree, or a scrap piece of plywood to reach that conclusion?

Do you seriously think 12ga slugs & 00 buck are not powerful enough to go through insulation and 2 little layers of drywall at close range and hurt someone on the side? Have you ever shot a 12ga at anything at close range? Ever?

nate45
January 21, 2012, 07:32 PM
Why are you worried about shooting through a wall Moyer?

According to you everything inside your place will be ten feet or less.

Are you afraid you will completely miss from less than four yards with a shotgun?


Why don't you name some effective, recommended defense cartridges for rifle, pistol, or shotgun that aren't capable of shooting through two sheets of drywall?

I suppose if someone lives in a cracker box with exterior wall made out of sheet rock and surrounded by nuns and hemophiliac orphans, maybe no firearm at all is the best choice.

shurshot
January 21, 2012, 08:57 PM
NATE45 (you cute little french girl, you ;)) and the rest of your anti-Bird shot clan...:D I surrender, I was wrong. You guys ARE right about effective loads for self defense. How could I have been SO foolish to trust birdshot at 10 feet? (PSsst! Moyer, just play along!)

After all, NO police agency issues Birdshot! You are correct guys. Police encounter various ranges of conflict (perhaps even 100 yards or more) and situations, domestic disputes, armed standoffs, moving vehicles, Riots, Robberys, Burglarys, etc. I only wanted stopping power at 10 feet or so in my living room, without any danger of the buckshot or slugs going through the perp, a wall and hitting anyone else, hence my narrow minded choice of #6 shot. What ever possessed me to think that a load of birdshot at 10 feet, out of my tight choked 12 Ga Turkey gun, could be a fight stopper?

I think I read an article (BIG MISTAKE), a few years ago by a firearms defensive trainer, a Clint something or other, (Smith?), in "GUNS" Magazine.. and he advocated using hunting shotguns (duck, turkey, etc.) and birdshot, for home defense. Perhaps this was where the idea took root in my head, as he outlined some very positive points about the birdshot and hunting shotgun for home defense, due to the very short range and penetration concerns. I remember testing the #6 shot on lumber at 10 feet after reading the article, and it looked like it would do the trick. After reading this thread, boy was I (and Clint) wrong. I'm going to write to Clint, and tell him that the TRUTH is on the internet, not in his published articles. I plan to tell him, the internet experts say only use BUCKSHOT! The Nerve of that guy to write about Birdshot! Just because he is a certified firearms self defense trainer with combat experience who wrote a monthly colum for GUNS Magazine, which has only been around since the 1950's. Birdshot...! He is as bad as that Ayoob suggesting 5 shot snub .38's are OK for concealed carry!

You guys have instructed me, corrected me, in the fine art of Internet Combat skills and Armchair Mall Ninja defense tactics and the need for POWER!! I am putting away my shotgun until Turkey season. No birdshot. In fact, I had NO IDEA that there are bad guys out there running around that can take a load of #6 birdshot in the face @ under 10 feet and keep going! Scary stuff my friends! In fact, no buckshot either! I dug around in the barn, under the floor boards and found my old box of "SHTF" toys and I'm loading up for ZOMBIES, thanks to the advice I got here in the last 24 hours! I'm done with shotguns, to hell with over penetration concerns! Look out family, look out neighbors! Lock and Load Boys... Shurshot has seen the light! Praise be to the online gun gurus! I'm going TACTICAL!!!!!!! Hardball or No Ball! :D

From now on, it's 7.62 and .45ACP. I'm ready to get full penetration in any blood thirsty Zombies or blocks of aggressive "ballistic gelatin". that might invade my home (I keep reading warnings about that stuff on here. It sounds like they are tough to kill if you only have birdshot, at least according to the test results).

Thanks for the education "Self Defense Experts" and you too "little french girl":) Although Nate45, I must say, the way you alude to "Since I chose to remain pseudo-anonymous on this site, who's to say for certain?", we are now wondering if you are CIA, or work at the Gunsite Ranch, ex-Navy Seal, Casey Anthony's Attorney, or perhaps part of some covert, undercover, elite online strike force?:eek: You tease us with the possibility of having a 007 clearence, or perhaps you are an industry insider, or, well, who knows... then leave us hanging. No fair. You engage in 2 days of Socratic Dialectic, then tease us with your real identity.?? Do tell, Do Tell!!!!!

Me? I won't leave anyone hanging, alude to Gun Guru status, or play "Guess who". I'm just an old gun guy, no more, no less and obviously not up to date on the latest ballistics test or expert's gun wisdom. After all, who reads GUNS magazine and takes their advice anyhow???

But now, after reading these posts, I'm going TACTICAL guys! RAW POWER AND HIGH CAP CLIPS FROM NOW ON!


(PSssst! Moyer... are you still following along? I'm just trying to get them to ease up. They will dispute ANYTHING we say and take our statements out of context, so why try? Don't worry, I didn't lose it...I'm STILL keeping my #6 birdshot loads handy for my Turkey gun! Don't tell anyone, but I LOVE GUNS magazine and suspect that Clint Smith has forgotton more about firearms than half these guys pretend to know! Some of these are old junker guns I'm going to get rid of. A few of these boys on this forum are hardcore (at least when it comes to giving expert advice online..LOL!), so if they see these pics of "Tactical style stuff", perhaps they will relax, sip a cold one and just chill out as they will think they won... and if not, at least they were able to boost their post counts..:rolleyes: My Turkey gun and birdshot are still fine for the house, and my snub .38 fits in my coat pocket when I leave home).

nate45
January 22, 2012, 12:16 AM
I agree that Buckshot or slugs has a better chance of stopping a bad guy, as oppossed to birdshot... no dispute here guys.

I don't dispute the numbers.

I was wrong. You guys ARE right about effective loads for self defense.

/thread

shurshot
January 22, 2012, 09:44 AM
Ok, so my memory being foggy, and after last nights tounge in cheek response, and wanting to provide a serious reply on this thread, I dug around in the barn this morning after putting the SHTF toys away (Damn is it cold in there!), and located the GUNS mag I was speaking of, although I know there were other articles in other issues of the same mag advocating Birdshot for home defense. I hate to defend mysef with other's research, but (insert ad hominem attack...;)), it appears to be how the self appointed gun experts on this forum get such high post counts and validate their points (as many don't appear to get outside much to shoot), so I guess I'm safe in using another's research to support my statements about birdshot (although not as lethal as buckshot), being OK for home defense at SHORT range. After all, my years of experience in the field with birdshot don't count...right? Or so I'm told... :rolleyes: But, I'm not a self appointed internet gun guru, I'm just an old gun guy, so ... I'll use a well known and respected gun writer & self defense trainer / expert's evidence based research and words to make my point. ;)

I won't copy the entire article by Clint Smith, or reprint the photos or test results graphs, due to copyrighting issues and out of respect for Mr. Smith, and I know that many of the armchair self defense "experts" on here will dispute anything stated, no matter by whom (unless of course THEY read it, repeat it and it involves that something "Tactical" or that magical and cool looking "ballistic gelatin".

"GUNS" magazine, April 2005, article called "DUCK GUNS FOR DEFENSE?", page 44, By Clint Smith. And Mr. Smith, a well respected gun writer and seasoned self defense trainer, experimented with various 12 Ga loads in several shotgun barrel lengths and chokes, at 5 yards, and recorded and documented the test results. Shot used in controled 5 yard tests were 00 Buck, #4 B, #6 and & #7 1/2 birdshot.

Mr. Smith, wrote "Even relatively small shot sizes can be devastating at close range, especially from a full choke gun", and "Inside the home, the size of the shot is probably not as important as the placement of the hit on the threat. All of the impacts on test targets hit at room-size ranges varied from rat-hole type wounds to leaving quite a substantial mark, which would be pretty devestating to the recipient".

So Clint Smith, an experienced shooter, firearms self defense trainer and published author / gun writer, advocates that shot placement is a more important factor than shot size, at living room distance. Same thing I learned as a kid growing up in a family of hunters / shooters. IMAGINE THAT...:rolleyes:

And according to many on here, self appointed experts or otherwise (Yes Nate45, be you a young french girl or master spy, an international man of mystery.. you are included, along with Bartholomewl Roberts ;)), continue to state that birdshot, pertaining to self defense at short range is... "inadequate for self defense"(Nate45), and "birdshot has serious limitations"(Bartholomewl Roberts).... :rolleyes:

Foolish Clint Smith, foolish Moyer, foolish me... at least I'm in good company.:D

Marquezj16
January 22, 2012, 10:54 AM
PDX 12. A slug in the middle and the three buckshots are spread outside of it. Very accurate too.

C0untZer0
January 22, 2012, 11:05 AM
I don't automatically give people credibility just because they run a school, have lectured or are publised authors. The Relative Incapactitaion Index was publshed in American Rifleman - that didn't make it scientifically valid. It was just one man's idea, and it was eventually proven to be an inadequate model for describing how projectiles effect human beings.


Clint's right about shot placement.

He's a little fuzzy on what "devastating" means.

Birdshot from 2 feet away on a cross shot to a home invader's temple is going to produce a very high percentage of stops. No one is saying that birdshot is going to bounce off of someone and that it creates no tissue damage ever under any circumstances.

Many things in life follow a bell curve. In most HD situations the attacker is going to be facing you, while distances are going to be short, most home owners are not going to be pulling the trigger on their assailant at grappling distances.

If you choose to use birdshot - you're banking on a psychological stop. You're going to have an attacker who is physically capable of continuing the attack, but chooses not to because of fear or pain or both.

You might have someone who decides to capitulate, or you might have someone who decides that they're going to pay you back for the pain and start shooting you.

Buckshot is better for home defense than birdshot, and according to the Firearms Tactical Institute, #1 Buck pellets are the smallest pellets that consistently penetrate to the twelve inches or more needed to reach VITAL tissue -and of the loads that contain pellets that penetrate to 12" or more, #1 Buck produces the greatest wounding volume and is also therefore more likely to produce a hard physiological stop.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 22, 2012, 12:43 PM
1. You attacker is not behind ANY kind of cover. Not even a couch, appliance or drywall.
2. Your attacker is 12' or closer.
3. Your attacker is lightly clothed, or even better, naked.
4. Your attacker is the same size or smaller as the average male (about 19" shoulder to shoulder and about 9" front to back)
5. Your attacker is facing you with his hands out to the sides providing an unobstructed center mass shot.

Yes, I consider these serious limitations - and I imagine Clint Smith would as well. If you don't, that's your business and your risk to assume.

lefteye
January 22, 2012, 02:11 PM
I had NO IDEA that there are bad guys out there running around that can take a load of #6 birdshot in the face @ under 10 feet and keep going!
Has anyone suggested a bad guy can take a load of #6 birdshot in the face under 10 feet and keep going? If the shot is perfectly centered, the BG would probably not "keep going".

However, who recommends shooting a BG in the face in self defense at any distance before shooting at the BG's Center of Mass?

SO, THE QUESTION SHOULD BE: WILL #6 BIRDSHOT HITTING COM AT 10 FEET STOP THE ATTACKER?

C0untZer0
January 22, 2012, 03:42 PM
I think there is an attempt here to shift the argument to the issue of shot placement.

Granted that the OP doesn't have a lot of information about house layout - construction materials, proximity of neighbors, how the OP handles recoil or anything like that. It's a pretty open question.

But the shot placement argument can't be used to make a case for birdshot as a more effective load than buck shot.

shurshot
January 22, 2012, 04:03 PM
CountZero; Who tried to say that birdshot was more effective than buckshot? I don't believe anyone on here stated that. Why would you try to throw that out there when it was never said? Who tried to "shift" the topic to shot placement? I repeated what Clint Smith wrote, which was that if the shot placement was good, even birdshot is devestating and effective. "Inside the home, the size of the shot is probably not as important as the placement of the hit on the threat. All of the impacts on test targets hit at room-size ranges varied from rat-hole type wounds to leaving quite a substantial mark, which would be pretty devestating to the recipient". (Clint Smith).

That makes sense, as any shot charge or bullet, be "it" a .22 LR, .45 ACP, .308 WIN, Birdshot or BUCKSHOT, will not be as effective at ANY range, if the shot placement is poor. ;)


No one said birdshot was better than buckshot for defense. Where did you get this idea??? Once again, words are being taken out of context, and twisted. Obviously some folks need to read posts 2 or 3 times in order to fully understand what was written, BEFORE they start replying. Or, don't drink and post. As I said before, water finds its own level. :rolleyes: Some of you guys need to shut off your laptops, stop playing X-Box 360 games and get some real shooting experience under your belts.

nate45
January 22, 2012, 04:11 PM
Heck, 6 ft is probably farther than any defensive shot would be in my tiny apartment.

SHOOT a load of birdshot at 4 or 5 yards (avg. living room distance might be closer to 3 yards), into a gallon jug filled with water.


You're saying that 12ga birdshot is not deadly at less than 10 feet.

When I go to sleep at night, there's less than 8ft between my feet and the bedroom door and another 10ft between that door and the front door. If I don't kill an intruder with #6 shot in my apartment, it's because I missed.

And yet, at less than 10ft, it blows them in half.

who could stand a full load or two of #6 in the chest / neck / face area at 10 feet

How could I have been SO foolish to trust birdshot at 10 feet?

What ever possessed me to think that a load of birdshot at 10 feet, out of my tight choked 12 Ga Turkey gun, could be a fight stopper?

I remember testing the #6 shot on lumber at 10 feet

I am comfortable at VERY CLOSE RANGE

Obviously shurshot and Moyer are comfortable at very close range. Did you test your turkey gun 10ft from where you were standing shurshot? Or was it 10ft from the end of the barrel? I guess it really doesn't make much difference.

Also it appears that the same two guys/girls, whichever the case may be, who are worried about missing from 6-10ft and penetrating a wall, are perfectly certain of their ability to make head shots from that distance. Interesting.

I guess shurshot is partially right about me not having real experience, at least not his kind, because I've never done much shotgun testing on lumber, water jugs and small mammals at 6-10ft. Oh sure I've patterned my shotguns for hunting and defense purposes, just not at prison cell length distances.

1. You attacker is not behind ANY kind of cover. Not even a couch, appliance or drywall.
2. Your attacker is 12' or closer.
3. Your attacker is lightly clothed, or even better, naked.
4. Your attacker is the same size or smaller as the average male (about 19" shoulder to shoulder and about 9" front to back)
5. Your attacker is facing you with his hands out to the sides providing an unobstructed center mass shot.

If any of those conditions change, 12ga #6 birdshot loses a lot of effectiveness. You've made a choice to limit the potential liability by limiting the effectiveness of the firearm to a fairly narrow range so you don't have to worry as much about shoot or don't shoot decisions in a high-stress scenario. That is certainly one way to approach the problem. However, I would submit that making the firearm more effective, getting training, and utilizing a little prior planning to identify safe backgrounds and no-shoot backgrounds gives you more options and ultimately makes your family safer by being more likely to stop the threat that made you decide that firing a gun inside the house was less dangerous than not firing to begin with.

shurshot
January 22, 2012, 04:19 PM
Nate45; You do understand that many of the above comments that you cut and pasted, the ones from last night on Post #75 that I made about "Going Tactical", were made in Jest? I was poking fun at you guys, being a wiseazz. I still keep my Turkey gun ready with #6. I thought everyone knew I was joking, but now you are trying to take those comments out of context? Lighten up guy. :D

I'm not concerned about missing, but of buckshot and or slugs, going through the bad guy, and THEN the wall. I did write that in post #75, about over penetration concerns. I thought, wrongly so, that we all were talking about hits...?

Anyhow, get the back issue of GUNS, April 2005, read Clint Smith's article and then all you cyber gun experts can write to Clint and tell him he is wrong. Or better yet, open your own shooting school (online of course, virtual world combat course), and dump all over anyone who disagrees with you.

Mike1234
January 22, 2012, 04:19 PM
After reading hundreds of on-line articles and forum threads I opted for two rounds of #4 buck followed by #00 buck. Lately, I switched to all #4 buck. However, now I'm thinking of switching to two rounds of #4 followed by #1.

It seems the more I learn about a subject the less I know. Maybe I'm just over-thinking this one. My belief is that any #4 through #000 buck or any combination of them are good enough. I'll never use bird shot for HD and will probably never use slugs for HD. At least I know that much... I think.:D

nate45
January 22, 2012, 04:29 PM
article called "DUCK GUNS FOR DEFENSE?"

Duck guns for defense? You don't have to put ol' Long Tom away after waterfowl season is over. It can still do yeoman duty for home defense (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_4_51/ai_n11840312/)

Above is the full title to Clint Smith's article and a link so those interested can read it. The only testing he did was to pattern the various loads at five yards.

I would suggest that the article is more to do with his 'running what you've got' theme of training. Which is more to do with encouraging people
(who won't invest in the proper equipment) to use their hunting weapons for defense. It is in no way suggesting that a proper defense shotgun, loaded with buckshot, or slugs isn't to be preferred.

Defensive Shotgun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhgwHQCJwWw)

In the above video he demonstrates how less than ideal shotguns can be employed for HD.

I was poking fun at you guys, being a wiseazz

Well, we aren't joking, we take Tactics and Training and life and death decisions seriously. This is a serious forum with people who want to share and learn accurate information.

shurshot
January 22, 2012, 04:33 PM
That's it Nate45, thats the article, minus the pics. Your OK after all! A little too tightly wound perhaps, but ok nontheless.;)

lefteye
January 22, 2012, 05:43 PM
The last two sentences of the article:

Because you hit the target doesn't mean the bad guy or the duck is down, it simply means you hit them. They may--to your dismay--continue to fly or fight. If so, shoot again, and shoot well.

A 30" barrel full choke shotgun with bird shot, for example, CAN be used for self defense in a home BUT both the shotgun barrel length and the bird shot are less than ideal for self defense in a home.

C0untZer0
January 22, 2012, 06:42 PM
I refuse to stop playing X-Box :mad:

Tabor
January 22, 2012, 07:22 PM
Why buckshot? #6 is perfect, it has a wider pattern (provided enough distance for shot to expand), more shot in the shell, and it will pretty much turn flesh into jello...

shurshot
January 22, 2012, 07:53 PM
Oh my, here we go again......:rolleyes:

hangglider
January 22, 2012, 08:01 PM
blank on purpose

lefteye
January 22, 2012, 08:10 PM
Welcome aboard Tabor.

The answer is: (1) deep penetration (from the surface of the chest to the spine or deeper) IS required to instantly stop (rather than wound) a human attacker; (2) a heavier projectile will penetrate deeper than several lighter projectiles with the same total weight; and, therefore, (3) a 1 ounce solid slug will penetrate far deeper than a 1 ounce load of 7 1/2 shot. If these statements were not true, law enforcement agencies would use very small bird shot rather than #1 or #0 buckshot or other heavy projectile shotguns loads so they could minimize the risk of harm to other people behind and in line with the target, perhaps on the opposite side of a wall that could be penetrated by the projectiles that law enforcement agencies actually use.

Tabor
January 22, 2012, 08:14 PM
Truthfully at the distance inside a room inside of a house i think just about anything will give you time to get the heck out of dodge.

Tabor
January 22, 2012, 08:20 PM
Forgot to mention, a friend of mines dad was a e.m.t who was dispatched to a shooting one night. A fight had occured over a bag of a weed, the owner of said weed got his shotgun and shot his girlfriend in the head, he said the front forehead portion of her head was opened about 3 inches or so and the inside of her skull was perfectly clean and dry as if someone had wiped it clean with purple power and a rag, with bird shot. So it seems to me it is atleast just as potent as anything else at that range, totally agreed further out though.

lefteye
January 22, 2012, 08:33 PM
Horrible and sad story!

But the problem with your suggestion is this: The first two shots in self defense should be at the Center of Mass (COM), not the face, head or neck because those targets are too small, are likely to be moving, and are, therefore, very risky. A shot to the face or neck with bird shot is likely to stop (and maybe kill) nearly any attacker but the first one or two shots in self defense should be aimed at the sternum, the center of a much larger lethal target (heart, lungs and liver) that moves much slower than the hands, head or feet.

Tabor
January 22, 2012, 08:46 PM
I see your point, i would preffer #6 if i were to decide to use a shotgun. However i first choice is a sa rifle, sa handgun, and then shotgun. Due to factors such as the layout of my house, and number of people in my home there will be noone in harms way. If he should decide to duck behind the island in the kitchen, so be it, i will pulverize him even still.

blueridgerunner
January 23, 2012, 06:33 PM
As a retired police officer I have personally seen the results of a shooting with a 12ga. standard issue load of .00 2 3/4 buckshot. Very effective, the perpetrator did NOT survive.

Hard Ball
January 23, 2012, 07:43 PM
Numner 4 buckshot

C0untZer0
January 23, 2012, 10:00 PM
Numner 1 buckshot

Edward429451
January 23, 2012, 11:10 PM
I'd use a factory load that duplicates what your local LE uses.

I haven't seen shotguns near as much as the M4's that they all seem to have now. Less mess than SG, more capacity, lighter recoil...223 seems like a reasonable alternative to the 12 ga SG for HD. I have both actually.

My SG is ready too, right beside the AR. I keep my SG cruiser ready with #00-00-slug-slug-slug-slug. The idea being that if two rounds of 00 Buck doesn't stop the threat, then slugs to follow makes all sorts of sense...

Or does it when I could have picked up the AR? :D

Glenn E. Meyer
January 24, 2012, 03:45 PM
Here's a take on the shotgun vs AR argument. BTW, I've taken shotgun classes and AR ones.

http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Classes/deflonggun.html

I'm going for the AR first if it came to long guns

GEM

Moyer
January 24, 2012, 06:31 PM
Why are you worried about shooting through a wall Moyer?

According to you everything inside your place will be ten feet or less.

Are you afraid you will completely miss from less than four yards with a shotgun?

Um, yeah genius. Earth to Nate45, this isn't Call of Duty. I'm sure if you wake up out of a deep sleep at 3am to the sound of someone busting your door down, your adrenaline is pumping at its max, and you're just gonna be 100% accurate no matter how fast someone's moving or shooting back at you? How have been been on this forum so long without reading stories of trained LEOs and Vets missing shots at closer ranges than that?

If you're going to assume 100% accuracy, you should be recommending I use a .22 for "head shots"... and then go back to whatever fantasy world you're living in.

Of course this is all not to mention the possibility of heavy buckshot or slugs actually going through the intruder and then through a wall, which would be easy if it doesn't hit bone.

hangglider
January 24, 2012, 07:29 PM
That's a surprise--I have an SG and AR also and I'd probably grab the SG first in a home defense gotta-hit-and-incapacitate on the first shot situation, especially at night. Might defer to the AR in daylight as I might be able to be more assured of a precise shot. That's my less-than 2 cents.

Frank Ettin
January 24, 2012, 07:43 PM
It looks like good manners and civil discourse left this thread some time ago. No need to continue it.