The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Dave McCracken Memorial Shotgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 14, 2015, 02:00 PM   #1
dgludwig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 7,486
No.4 Buck vs 00 Buck in Terms of Penetration

I'm having a debate with a friend regarding the depth of penetration between these two shot sizes. Which penetrates deeper, everything else being equal, No. 4 Buck or 00 Buck? Thanks.
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED
...Aristotle
NRA Benefactor Life Member
dgludwig is offline  
Old October 14, 2015, 03:24 PM   #2
Cheapshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 8,306
Here is a couple youtube video tests. The pellets vary in penetration depth for both shot size, and the penetration range is pretty close for either.
But for pure destruction of the target medium, be it ballistic gel, or flesh, I will stick with 00.

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=w6cmGHz-4O4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dbFLY9OIqPA
__________________
Cheapshooter's rules of gun ownership #1: NEVER SELL OR TRADE ANYTHING!
Cheapshooter is offline  
Old October 14, 2015, 06:27 PM   #3
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2,313
I'm a fan of buckshot, and have been shooting quite a bit with 00 and #4 in two different shotguns (Mossberg 500' and Beretta 1201FP).
The shotgun cognoscenti have written off #4 in recent years, but I'm not convinced. I like the large number of pellets, and I think it would perform fine at typical close engagements.
#1 buck is the latest greatest thing according to the experts...but seems largely unavailable. My LGS recently started keeping Winchester #1 on the shelf. I've tried five rounds and liked it enough to buy some more.
I keep a mixture of FliteControl buckshot and standard old fashioned buck on hand, and personally, I like the standard loads for my purposes better. Plus, my LGS sells the Estate 00 load for $6.99/25rd box. Cheap enough to shoot.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen.
Be Here Now.
amd6547 is offline  
Old October 15, 2015, 07:52 AM   #4
precision_shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 2,475
I think for deeper penetration, the fiocchi nickel plated #4 and 00 would penetrate deeper than the bare lead shown in the videos posted.

Also, the fiocchi comes in boxes of 10 for about the same price as 5 of other brands. It's some warm ammo as well.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, 1776
precision_shooter is offline  
Old October 15, 2015, 10:01 AM   #5
Stevie-Ray
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,783
Quote:
Plus, my LGS sells the Estate 00 load for $6.99/25rd box. Cheap enough to shoot.
Cheap enough? That's incredible!
__________________
Stevie-Ray
Join the NRA/ILA
I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed.
Stevie-Ray is offline  
Old October 18, 2015, 02:59 PM   #6
RMcL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 7, 2006
Location: Alabama
Posts: 273
In an article entitled: Buckshot: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Bryce M. Towsley reported testing buckshot penetration in wet newspaper.
The reported results:
-----------------------------------------------------
#4 Buckshot (.24 / 21 grains): 3.5 inches

#1 Buckshot (.30 / 40 grains): 5 inches

#00 Buckshot (.33 / 54 grains): 7 inches

.30-30, 170 grain soft point: 14 inches (control load)
----------------------------------------------------

In my own testing, Dixie TriBall buckshot, (.60"/315 grains), penetrated 31" in wet newspaper.

Last edited by RMcL; October 19, 2015 at 04:59 PM.
RMcL is offline  
Old October 26, 2015, 07:31 PM   #7
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,312
#4B v. 00B

At the front of my career, ('79) my agency had adopted #4B, so had a number of other Federal agencies as well. The argument was indeed higher pellet count, thus denser patterns, and to a certain degree, higher hit/wounding rate. I have a 1965 or so dated article from the "Rifleman" that was endorsing #4B in combat use in Vietnam, using the same logic.

All well and good at bedroom ranges. But afield, when the shotgun got deployed for an LE incident, or certainly in a combat zone, one would think, the ranges are longer. or have good potential to be longer.

There the #4B pellet runs out of steam due to its smaller mass. The lighter #4B does not do so well on obstacles either (nor does 00B for that matter). Auto glass, sheet metal, even simple interior doors are a formidable barrier. For those reasons, many of my acquaintance carried slugs as a duty load in their shotgun, untill the advent of the patrol carbine as a regular item became a reality.

Finally, after about a decade, 1990', the agency went back to 00B. That, I think, is a national trend. For all that, one of the two shotguns here at bamahouse in the ready mode is indeed loaded with #4B. Intended for marauding coyotes at night, it would be bad news for human threat as well, within its limited range.
bamaranger is offline  
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.03436 seconds with 8 queries