PDA

View Full Version : not a good hd shell choice?


landlord
May 29, 2012, 06:39 PM
I was talkin about gettin more lil buckshot today and my wife asked why I needed more shells sense I just bought some bulk game shells. that got me thinkin why wouldnt that work? might be dumb but just a thought for the day.

Willie Lowman
May 29, 2012, 07:13 PM
You say more buckshot. Do you mean you already have some?

Game shells or bird shot don't penetrate as well as buckshot and are not reliable defensive loads because of that.

Archer 9505
May 29, 2012, 07:14 PM
This has been hashed out before, but here is my spin on it, again. First I believe the standard full throttle load of 00 buck (9 .33 pellets @ 1325 FPS) to be plenty of medicine at home defense ranges.

However, I being a perfectionist and a gun nerd, good enough is not the same as better or best.

My choice for close range HD loadings in a 12 gauge shot gun is Winchester #1 buck.

#1 Buck at .30 diameter is about as small as you can go and still get reliably deep penetration to ensure that vital, blood bearing organs are reached.

The cumulative pay load of a 16 pellet #1 buck load is 648 grains vs. 484.2 grains of 9 pellets 00.

The combined muzzle energy of #1 buck (16/ 40.5 gr. pellets at 1250fps) is 2260 ft lbs. VS 1898 ft lbs for 00 buck (9/ 54 gr. pellets at 1325 fps).

The cumulative surface area (Potential wound channel) for #1 buck (16/ .30 pellets) is 1.133 sq inches vs. .771 sq inches for 00 buck.

Recoil between the two different loadings is comparable.

My choice is #1 buck because it will create more deep wounds and produce a larger overall wound channel, increasing the potential incapacitation ability of this loading over the standard 00 loading.


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

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Deja vu
May 29, 2012, 07:17 PM
I keep my 870 loaded with the dixie tri-ball 3 inch rounds. 3 60caliber balls are very impressive on black bear, I am sure they would work fine on a BG... over penetration may be an issue

I tried the Winchester PDX1-12 but the buck shot did not pattern well in my gun.

I think any thing from #1buck through 000 buck would work well.

plumbernater
May 29, 2012, 07:31 PM
Have you seen what bird shot will do up close to anything. It want start speading till about 25-30 feet. It will work for home defence. You shoot a person inside your house with it wadding and all will go through them. I my self have double 00 buck shot in my shot gun. thats cause Im a red neck:eek:

HALL,AUSTIN
May 29, 2012, 08:15 PM
I hunt coyotes qith a full choke and #4buck. So I load for HD with #4 in an IC barrel.

oneounceload
May 29, 2012, 08:25 PM
The combined muzzle energy of #1 buck (16/ 40.5 gr. pellets at 1250fps) is 2260 ft lbs. VS 1898 ft lbs for 00 buck (9/ 54 gr. pellets at 1325 fps).

The energy is NOT 2260, it is the energy of each pellet and each pellet only - if you want massive ft lbs, use slugs

Archer 9505
May 30, 2012, 06:14 AM
The energy is NOT 2260, it is the energy of each pellet and each pellet only You're right; 141 ft. lbs 16 times vs. 210 ft. lb. 9 times would be a more accurate description. I was trying to make a comparison between the two loads. Cumulative projectile weight, number of potential wound channels and the cumulative size of the potential wound channel are the more relevant comparisons. My point was that by several measurable and comparable factors, #1 buck is more potentially damaging than standard 00 Buck. That being said, anything above #1 buck to include slugs is going to be plenty. I disagree adamantly with the selection of bird shot as a defensive ammo choice. Bird shot just doesn't have the penetration. If the assailant is standing erect and facing , arms a kimbo like a b27 target, a load of bird shot would be fine. What if the assailant is dressed in a heavy winter coat, has arms out in front as pointing a weapon and is partially concealed from kneeling behind a piece of furniture. I want a SD load that will penetrate furniture, clothing, muscle, fat and bone to reach vital organs. Heavy buck shot and slugs will do that. Bird shot cannot be relied upon to do it.

jmr40
May 30, 2012, 08:48 AM
Have you seen what bird shot will do up close to anything. It want start speading till about 25-30 feet. It will work for home defence. You shoot a person inside your house with it wadding and all will go through them. I my self have double 00 buck shot in my shot gun. thats cause Im a red neck

Yes, I've seen what it will do and I'm not impressed. If you can be guaranteed you will be shooting naked guys from contact distances then maybe. An intruder wearing heavy winter clothing may slow birdshot enough to prevent it from doing any more than penetraing the skin. Often many if not most of the shot will not even completely penetrate a leather jacket. And you may have to take a shot at ranges greater than 10-15'.

There is absolutely no reason to choose birdshot unless it is all you happen to have at the moment. There is no downside to just using the proper ammo in the 1st place.

baccusboy
May 30, 2012, 09:17 AM
TNOutdoors9 from Youtube just did a video on using game loads for home defense. Here are the results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIfilArIHlY&feature=g-all-u

Personally, I'd rather load-up with something like these Winchester PDX-1 Personal Defense shot shells. (http://www.slickguns.com/product/winchester-pdx1-personal-defense-shotshells-1399?a=2093&k=other)

oneounceload
May 30, 2012, 10:14 AM
Bird shot just doesn't have the penetration.

To me, it depends on the definition of "birdshot" - it you are talking about a skeet load of #9, I agree; however, if you are talking about some of the larger non-tox stuff, or even the old #2 lead goose shot, I believe that might have different consequences

Brian Pfleuger
May 30, 2012, 10:22 AM
Pretty hard to argue that good buckshot isn't more deadly than birdshot but very few people are going to take a chest full of a turkey or goose load at 20-30 feet and keep fighting.
Some? Yes, some will. How many? Who knows? Somebody, somewhere took a load of #1 at 20 feet and kept fighting.
Might your odds be better with #1? Yeah, they might, but your odds with a 12ga loaded with just about anything are pretty darn good.

rbernie
May 30, 2012, 10:57 AM
The cumulative pay load of a 16 pellet #1 buck load is 648 grains vs. 484.2 grains of 9 pellets 00.

The combined muzzle energy of #1 buck (16/ 40.5 gr. pellets at 1250fps) is 2260 ft lbs. VS 1898 ft lbs for 00 buck (9/ 54 gr. pellets at 1325 fps).

The cumulative surface area (Potential wound channel) for #1 buck (16/ .30 pellets) is 1.133 sq inches vs. .771 sq inches for 00 buck.

Recoil between the two different loadings is comparable.The two statements in bold are incongruous - you cannot move more mass to a fixed velocity without increasing the recoil.

TANSTAAFL.

Have you seen what bird shot will do up close to anything. It want start speading till about 25-30 feet. It will work for home defence. You shoot a person inside your house with it wadding and all will go through them.There are many instances of this simply not being reliably true. I know of folk that were shot at contact distance with #7 1/2 skeet loads and the loads failed to penetrate adequately to cause disabling and/or fatal wounds. The inference was/is that the shot column did not act as a monolithic whole.

From my readings and experiences, bird shot will not reliably penetrate the ribcage nor the skull of most folk.

Archer 9505
May 30, 2012, 12:21 PM
The two statements in bold are incongruous - you cannot move more mass to a fixed velocity without increasing the recoil.
Correct. Comparable, dose not mean the same.

40.41 Ft. Lbs of recoil force from #1 buck (in an 8 pound gun)
28 Ft. Lbs in a 9 pellet 00 load.

Yes, recoil increases when you switch to #1 over 00. However the recoil is still comparable in the sense that there is not a major increase in recoil.

In contrast recoil goes up to 58+ ft. lbs in a 3 inch 00 load.

Subjective I know but in my thinking an increase of of around 12 ft lbs (00 to #1) is comparable. An increase of 30 ft. lbs (2 3/4 to 3in ) and now we are talking two very different categories of recoil.

rbernie
May 30, 2012, 12:56 PM
Not to quibble, but I consider an approximate thirty percent increase in recoil to be outside the realm of comparable. :)

All told, I'm more partial to the low-recoil 8 pellet 00 loads than anything else - they provide better second-shot performance, are generally designed to provide lower muzzle flash, and (especially the Federal loadings) provide excellent patterns in all shotguns that I own.

landlord
May 30, 2012, 05:24 PM
I really did not figure on the detailed responses. I will just stick with my 2" buckshot then. The wife will just have to understand that HD shells are not cheap.

SHR970
May 30, 2012, 07:28 PM
Bird shot can deliver the energy but also make a shallow wound that will not necessarily incapacitate /netralize the threat of a determined / drugged attacker. The light/small bird shot loads can do the job but they can also fail. Buck shot can get deep enough that it hits the vitals and renders even a drugged up attacker out of service.

If you hit someone wrong, the adrenaline hits their system. Adrenaline can and does make people a damage sponge. Shot placement and penetration can take this out of the equation. Add your choice of drugs to this equation (meth., heroine, coke, salts.) before the adrenaline and it gets more interesting.

A big pipe beats nothing (intimidation). Bird shot beats no shot, buck shot beats bird. Over two hundred years of experience backs this up; there is a reason for the legendary status of the shotgun.

TheKlawMan
May 31, 2012, 02:10 AM
Any evaluation of home defense rounds and pentration has to consider collateral damage.

rbernie
May 31, 2012, 06:57 AM
Any evaluation of home defense rounds and pentration has to consider collateral damage. Any round that is reliably capable of limiting collatoral damage will, in turn, provide inadequately reliable penetration of bone and tissue.

Once again, TANSTAAFL.

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

Lee Lapin
June 1, 2012, 06:33 AM
At close range, birdshot might work in many cases. Might could be an awfully important word though.

Consider cases like the one documented in the article at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2000/173/11/shotgun-suicide-difference (it appears the text is no longer available online for non-subscribers). The medical examiner in this case initially thought they were dealing with a homicide, because the deceased had been shot THREE TIMES with a 12 ga. shotgun at contact distance. Turns out to have been a suicide.

One particular case has been documented from Australia. In February 1995, a man committed suicide on parkland in Canberra, Australia. He took a pump action shotgun and shot himself in the chest. The load passed through the chest without hitting a rib, and went out the other side. He then walked fifteen meters, reloaded, leaned the shotgun against his throat, and shot his throat and part of his jaw. He then reloaded, walked 136 meters to a hill slope, lay down on the slope, held the gun against his chest with his hands and operated the trigger with his toes. This shot entered the thoracic cavity and demolished the heart, killing him.[4] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide

The loads used in this case were #2 shot IIRC.

Keep in mind there are no guarantees your gunfight will go according to your plan. Chances are it will not, in fact. Consider your situation, what innocents nearby could be in danger from your projectiles if they miss or overpenetrate, and choose your defensive load or loads accordingly. Most of all, train and practice so you can hit under pressure and run the gun reflexively.

Hawg
June 1, 2012, 06:53 AM
A buddy of mine took a load of #6 shot in the belly from across a small bedroom. It messed him up real bad and he spent some time in the hospital having his stomach patched up but he took the gun away from the guy that shot him and beat him to death with it.

dwaawd
June 1, 2012, 10:14 AM
" but he took the gun away from the guy that shot him and beat him to death with it. "

So #6 loaded in a s/g will kill the bad guy...:rolleyes:

Hawg
June 1, 2012, 10:39 AM
So #6 loaded in a s/g will kill the bad guy..

It was a single shot 12 gauge.

TheKlawMan
June 2, 2012, 03:41 AM
Damn Hawg, That is a beatch of a way to learn about wound channels and stopping power. He is lucky that it was not only bird shot but pretty small bird shot.

Stevie-Ray
June 4, 2012, 05:47 PM
My choice is #1 buck because it will create more deep wounds and produce a larger overall wound channel, increasing the potential incapacitation ability of this loading over the standard 00 loading. Same here, but since finding #1B around here is a little like winning the lotto, I generally opt for 00B, something my SPX patterns very well, and 00 generally places #2 in the HD awards. I would not hesitate to put just about anything including birdshot in my shotgun for HD if it were all I had-that is until I got the proper HD load.

We're lousy with 00B around here though, just wish there were a few places that stocked #1B without having to order.

UnbearablePanda
June 5, 2012, 11:39 AM
Why not just multi choice your ammunition like all my friends do? He switches out with
1st. Bird
2nd. 04 buck
3rd. 00 buck
4th. slug
5th. slug

That way if the bird doesn't get em', you got buck in your channel, if you dont want to use bird because your mad. Just deload the first shell and get the 2nd. Or you could be just rabbit bashing mad and use a slug. Either way it gives you a chance to decide they're fate.

UnbearablePanda
June 5, 2012, 12:22 PM
Oh yea hawg, Your story is impossible to be correct. Getting shot in the stomach with any 9mm+ will kill in 15 minutes. The HCL from the stomach eats the other organs away and starts leaking into the fat. Burning into the bladder and liver causing failure and septic. Getting shot in the stomach is a fatal wound from a shotgun, nevertheless the amount of pellets. Your talking about less than 5 minutes for a ambu, very highly unlikely to happen. Especially since I have a police station/fire station nearby it would take 2 minutes to get here and to get to a hospital with almost no medical supplies inside to prevent HCL. Leaking into the organs, your myth has been busted.

Mike Irwin
June 5, 2012, 02:16 PM
"Getting shot in the stomach with any 9mm+ will kill in 15 minutes."

Uhm....

OK, not sure where you came up with that, but I guess someone forgot to tell my neighbor when I was growing up.

He fought in the Pacific in World War II and took a chunk of Japanese shell in the stomach.

He survived several hours without anything other than very basic medical care.

He ended up losing a good portion of his stomach and had a raging peritoneal infection to deal with, but he's living proof (well, he was, he died some years ago) that being shot in the stomach isn't a 15-minute death sentence.

Medical statistics from the Civil War indicate that roughly 11% of soldiers who were hit in the stomach survived (much better than abdominal wounds, which apparently were 98% fatal).

TheKlawMan
June 5, 2012, 04:19 PM
Who is talking about a 9mm? Hawg was talking about a load of #6 which is pretty fine bird shot. With any shot energy is dispersed amongst the pellets and the result is less penetration if I understand what others like oneounce are saying. With a 9 mm that energy is moving one single pellet.

TheKlawMan
June 5, 2012, 04:29 PM
Mike, I don't know that it is reasonable to compare survival rates to Civil War rates. Medical care has improved a lot since then when I have heard the soliders were more terrified of the hospital than anything else.

Mike Irwin
June 5, 2012, 07:10 PM
I used the Civil War survival rates for two reasons. First they were the ones i could lay my hands on quickly with a google.

Second, i think its e en more impressive that 11% of the men hit in the stomach survived the rather primitive medical care o f tjat time.

That means one thing to me - that if stomach wounds were survivable then they are even more survivable now.

TheKlawMan
June 6, 2012, 02:15 AM
All I know about myth busting Unbearable Panda is that as early as Dunkirk the survivability rate for abdominal injuries was 60% and recently is well over 80%.

UnbearablePanda
June 6, 2012, 04:28 AM
Huge difference in training for killing. Vs a home defense action. A normal person who has not trained in the military has a different mind set. Same with the man who killed 40 people with a shovel with a fatal wound and survived. Most of that is possible, yet i'm trying to point out the fact that with that many shots in a "small room" point blank. Your going to bleed, he stated "friend" not a military personell. Meaning that he probably went into shock. I highly doubt that within at least 40 minutes with that wound he could have survived. Let alone get close enough and fight him off than take the shotgun and beat him with it. If a person is going to put a gun to you and shoot. He probably is going to try and kill you with it. That proving that his story is inconceivable. That 9mm was just off some other forum anyway. It shows in the link that a #6 bird will make a 6inch cavity in the body at 10 feet. http://le.atk.com/pdf/Shotshell_Data_Book.pdf Look at the ballistics of a 10 feet distance. His "small room" common is probably going to be around 5-8 Let alone 10. You could try it out and test what he said. Get shot in the chest at 8 feet with #6 bird and see if you can run forward beat the crap out of a guy who probably woulda beat the hell out of you. Than call an ambulance and wait for help with a 6inch cavity.

rbernie
June 6, 2012, 07:22 AM
Same with the man who killed 40 people with a shovel with a fatal wound and survivedThis makes no sense. If he survived, it couldn't have been a fatal wound. Just sayin'.... :confused:

That proving that his story is inconceivable.No, it's not inconceivable. You clearly consider it unlikely, but that does not make it impossible. It just means that you ain't buying it. And being skeptical doesn't mean (at least in my neck of the woods) that you get to call somebody else a liar - it only means that you are skeptical.

It shows in the link that a #6 bird will make a 6inch cavity in the body at 10 feetMaybe I'm missing something, because that link is showing buckshot and slug tests and not birdshot. Having said that, I have no doubt that #6 birdshot will make a six inch cavity in a bucket of jello at contact distance. I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever being attacked by my kid's dessert or a giant amoeba.

Truth be told, #6 birdshot does a pretty good job of penetrating 3"-4" into the bodies of small upland game birds with rib cages so lighly constructed that you can dang near crush them in your hand. It's a little light for rabbit or squirrel unless ranges are pretty short, it's OK for headshots/neck shots on turkey, but it's way too light for game as large as a duck or similar waterfowl due to its inability to give adequate penetration even at close range.

That's a clue that it's probably not suited for critters that are an order of magnitude larger than a duck (unless they resemble a bowl of jello).

If I'm being attacked by a human or any critter bigger than a pheasant, then I'll likely choose to use a shotshell load that has been demonstrated in real life to actually penetrate the ribcage and other intermediate barriers to get to the jello inside of said attacker.

YMMV.

Frank Ettin
June 6, 2012, 09:50 AM
...Getting shot in the stomach with any 9mm+ will kill in 15 minutes. The HCL from the stomach eats the other organs away and starts leaking into the fat. Burning into the bladder and liver causing failure and septic. Getting shot in the stomach is a fatal wound from a shotgun, nevertheless the amount of pellets....Do you have any actual evidence to support any of that?

LSnSC
June 6, 2012, 06:02 PM
Ive never shot a shotgun into ballistics gelatin but I have shot a few hogs between the blinkers with copper plated 5"s while turkey hunting. It killed the snot out of them. I shot one at about 25 feet while he was looking at that camo blob leaning up agains a big swamp chestnut trying to figure out what it was. It took off the top of his head. None of the were high on PCP but I dont think it would have mattered.

I have no doubbt that a load of #4's or larger will kill you at across the room distances without blowing through the walls of you house and killing the neighbors. Anyone who has hunted with a shotgun, has little doubt the effect of small pellets up close. Ive seen a load of number 6's turn a duck inside out at a few yards. While he doent have the mass of a human, I know being hit up close would take the fight out of you, and cause devastating wounds.

FWIW several years ago there was an episode of cops where a homeowner had shot and killed two armed intruders. One was a big fella lying there dead as fried chicken, the other was face down outside. There as a pattern on the wall that was clearly small pellets.

TheKlawMan
June 6, 2012, 06:41 PM
LSnSC

I have read enough of your posts to see that you know a bit of what you speak, unlike some of us (like myself) know nothings. A lot of time it is confuses me when people talk about shot sizes, since some overlap. Meaning #4 Buck shot is nothing like #4 Bird Shot. I beleive you were talking about heading a pig with #5 Copper Plated Bird Shot. Since I bought a lot of copper plated home defense amo (copper plated BB's) I did some reading and per Chuck Hawks, I think it was him, copper plated shot pentrates about as well as the next largest pellet.

BTW my primary HD load is Remington Ultimate Home Defense 12 gauge with copper plated BB's. Remington also offers the same stuff with a mixture of #2 and #4 buck shot. As far as I know no one has done a ballistic gellatin test on the BB load so far.

There I go mispeaking again. I said they are copper plated BB's. I don't know where I got that from. The box says they are loaded with heavy density , Tunsten -Bronze-Iron Pellets.

LSnSC
June 7, 2012, 10:06 AM
Im talking about #4 and #5 shot.
Those Remington bb loads hit hard as well. Im confident Remington did their homework on those.

zippy13
June 7, 2012, 10:36 AM
The box says they are loaded with heavy density, Tunsten-Bronze-Iron Pellets.
Non-toxic for water fowl (or California's condor country)?

LSnSC
June 7, 2012, 11:10 AM
They are sold as home defense ammo. Denser than lead for better penetration. Repackaged hevi shot waterfowl loads.

zippy13
June 7, 2012, 11:19 AM
Thanks for the heads-up, LSnSC, what will they think up next?

LSnSC
June 7, 2012, 01:05 PM
Tactical s x s's and o/u's ...

zippy13
June 7, 2012, 01:25 PM
Don't laugh,
Stoeger already has the Double Defense and the Double Defense O/U:
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/7295/doubledefense.gif:eek:

Tony615
June 7, 2012, 02:31 PM
I used to keep my shotgun loaded with low recoil 00 buckshot. I still have some Federal LE 132 00 and 8 pellet 133 00 shells. Once I was able to obtain Federal LE 15 pellet #1 buckshot with flitecontrol I'm using that from now on. It is difficult to find these shells now but hopefully it will become easier in the future.

WV_gunner
June 7, 2012, 06:06 PM
I have a Stoegor Condor with an elastic shell holder on the stock filled with 5 Federal 000. Its my home defense gun and a hunting gun at times, very seldom. I also keep a box of 3 inch #4 turkey loads with the gun just in case.

rbernie
June 7, 2012, 06:36 PM
Ive never shot a shotgun into ballistics gelatin but I have shot a few hogs between the blinkers with copper plated 5"s while turkey hunting. It killed the snot out of them. I shot one at about 25 feet while he was looking at that camo blob leaning up agains a big swamp chestnut trying to figure out what it was. It took off the top of his head. Yet at the same time, I've had #6 field loads fail to put down a sixty pound coyote at fifteen yards and fail to incapacitate a small bobcat hung up on a high fence when shot at dang near contact distance.

I have no doubbt that a load of #4's or larger will kill you at across the room distances without blowing through the walls of you house and killing the neighbors. Anyone who has hunted with a shotgun, has little doubt the effect of small pellets up close. Ive seen a load of number 6's turn a duck inside out at a few yards. While he doent have the mass of a human, I know being hit up close would take the fight out of you, and cause devastating wounds.I have no doubt that a single 7.62x39 round from an AK can drop an aircraft if it impacts at just the right spot, and yet most folk likely won't want rely upon that degree of luck if their self preservation is on the line.

The bottom line for me is that I know of folk shot center mass at contact distance with 7 1/2 birdshot who suffered grotesque but not closely life threatening nor debilitating injuries. Relying upon birdshot to penetrate deeply enough into a human to cause rapid incapacitation is a heckuva crapshoot. Ya pays yer money and ya take yer chances.....

TheKlawMan
June 7, 2012, 07:49 PM
Yep on the repackaged Remington heavy water fowl loads. Zippy mentioned that a ways back and the pellets look to be the same. Check Hawks compares the two and concludes with a

Best guess for HD Ultimate HD alloy shot penetration is somewhere between lead birdshot and lead buckshot.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/remington_HDUHD_shotshells.htm

He basically can't see paying $3 a round for it. I got mine on sale in 10 round boxes for $14.95. (Big Jim, That is the same as $1.49 a round)

One thing I like about it is that if ever needed I want the jury to know that I was using the ultimate home defense round out of concern for my neighbors.

Sheriff Gotcha
June 8, 2012, 11:35 AM
Okay I did not search this or even read every post in this thread, but I didn't want to create a new thread on something that may have been stated before hand on a regular basis.

My question is: Is there a HD shell that is frowned upon as far as factory ammo is concerned? For example, Birdshot vs Buckshot, would one or the other make you an easier target for an attorney to make you look more guilty in a self defense in the home situation?

I know nothing about shotguns really and little about guns in general for that matter. I was curious about this though.

I know Buckshot will penetrate more than Birdshot, but will that make you look as though you had bad intentions. Like with handguns your better off if you defend yourself with a standard factory trigger over a custom lighter trigger. Does the same apply for shotgun loads used for HD?

Sorry if you think this is highjacking. I can make a new thread if the OP or Mods would like. Or if someone will provide a link to a previous thread based on this I'd like to see that.

RoscoeC
June 8, 2012, 03:37 PM
I never tire of this subject

I, on the other hand do. My HD shotguns (I have 2 in different locations) are loaded with 00 buckshot. I am a big boy. I understand the possibilities of collateral damage. I also understand the consequences of failing to achieve the desired results if I should have to pull the trigger.

This is me. I don't really give a flying patoot what you do. If you are willing to gamble your life and the lives of your family on bird shot then be my guest. Throw a rock at them if you like. Express bad intent. Fart in their general direction. Whatever you think will work for you is fine by me.

00 buckshot is what I think will work for me.

TheKlawMan
June 8, 2012, 07:33 PM
Sherrif Gotcha; Keep in mind two things. You need something that will do the job, which is to stop the threat and not necessarily to kill. The other is post shooting considerations. If it didn't do the job you may have no post shooting at all.

That is one reason I listened to a wise Zippy bird tweet about Remington HD Ultimate Home Defense ammunition. (The HD stands for High Density and not Home Defense.) You might be able to purchase Remington High Density Waterfowl ammo for slightly less and it is essentially the same, but I like the fact that I am using "Ultimate Home Defense" ammunition for home defense.

old fart
June 9, 2012, 03:40 PM
several years ago my two brothers were rabbit hunting, they each had 12 gauge and 7.5 game loads. it was cold and they were wearing winter coats, brother number one cocked his gun when a rabbit jumped up but he didn't get a shot and forgot to uncock it. he stumbled a few seconds later and shot brother number two, he was about 20yds away from what i was told. they were using cut off barreled single shotguns. brother number two had 1 pellet penetrate his coat and go into his arm. he went to the dr. and had it removed, the coat was full of pellets. i'm sticking with my buckshot. thanks