Bird Shot for home Defense?

[Musketeer]

DO NOT get bean bags or other garbage for your shotty. ANYTHING fired out of a gun is considered deadly force. Using that bean bag will buy you the same amount of trouble as birdshot. In addition just the use of the weapon to make a threat is threatening deadly force without justification if you do not believe using deadly force is justified.

[Mike U.]

I don't see it as a game, I think it is deadly serious business. People who have no or limited knowledge of firearms read this site in search of factual information. They may be trying to decide what is the best load to load a newly purchased shotgun with, a shotgun they may need to defend their lives and the lives of their famalies.

If someone wants to load their shotgun with birdshot for defense thats their business, but it is not the best choice and it's a choice that could have fatal consequences.

If they are, in fact, searching this site for factual information, then how could they possibly overlook the dozens of threads where shotgun afficionados continually advocate the use of shotgun slugs or buckshot for HD and SD?
It is THE standard answer.
Every newbie that steps in and asks is given the same advice. Use buckshot or slugs, then it's on to which one(?) and can I use rifled slugs in my smoothbore(?) Yada, yada, yada. The song remains the same.

[Bill DeShivs]

For the umpteenth time-
Buckshot is great for confrontations of uncertain distance-like encountered in law enforcement. Targets may even be 40 yards away.
In your home, heavy birshot will suffice. You are choosing the distance-it's in your house.
I personally know of an instance of #8 shot blowing a hole almost through a man's chest.
I also know of a suicide, where buckshot did NOT exit the head.
All the "expert's" recommendation of buckshot is geared toward law enforcement-not home defense. If you fear overpenetration, heavy birdshot is fine.

[T.A.Sharps]

I thought I would post this since I'm not sure how many of you would actually take the time to look here when you give someone advice to defend their lives with bird shot.

It is from the Box O' Truth web sight that people talk about.

Originally Posted by The Box O' Truth

Birdshot as a Defense Load
I have had a lot of questions, summed up as follows: How effective is birdshot (#4, #6, #8, etc.) as a defense load?

We have done tests with various birdshot loads. Birdshot penetrated through two pieces of drywall (representing one wall) and was stopped in the paper on the front of the second wall. The problem with birdshot is that it does not penetrate enough to be effective as a defense round. Birdshot is designed to bring down little birds.

A policeman told of seeing a guy shot at close range with a load of 12 gauge birdshot, and was not even knocked down. He was still walking around when the EMTs got there. It was an ugly, shallow wound, but did not STOP the guy. And that is what we want... to STOP the bad guy from whatever he is doing. To do this, you must have a load that will reach the vitals of the bad guy. Birdshot will not do this.

In fact, tests have shown that even #4 Buckshot lacks the necessary penetration to reach the vital organs. Only 0 Buck, 00 Buck, and 000 Buck penetrate enough to reach the vital organs.

Unless you expect to be attacked by little birds, do not use birdshot. Use 00 Buck. It will do the job.

But doesn't 00 Buck penetrate too much in interior walls to be a "safe" load in a home?
Yes, it does penetrate a lot. But any load that is going to be effective will need to penetrate walls to have enough power to penetrate bad guys. If our only concern was to be sure we didn't penetrate walls, we would use BB guns. However, BB guns will not stop bad guys.

Therefore, we must use loads that will STOP bad guys, and this means that they will also penetrate walls. So, be sure you hit the bad guy and do not shoot into walls where loved ones are on the other side.

When To Use Birdshot
A friend of AR15.com sends this:

"I saw a gunshot victim, about 5' 10" and 200 lbs, taken to the operating room with a shotgun wound to the chest. He was shot at a range of six feet at a distance of just over the pectoralis muscle. He was sitting on his front porch and walked to the ambulance. We explored the chest after x-rays were taken. The ER doc had said 'buckshot' wound, but this was obviously not accurate.

It was # 6 shot. There was a crater in the skin over an inch in diameter. When the shot hit the level of the ribs, it spread out about five inches. There was ONE pellet that had passed between the ribs and entered the pericardium, but not damaged the heart at all. As you say, 'use birdshot for little birds.'"

[nate45]

Originally Posted by Mike U.

Every newbie that steps in and asks is given the same advice. Use buckshot or slugs, then it's on to which one(?) and can I use rifled slugs in my smoothbore(?) Yada, yada, yada. The song remains the same.

And yet in the very next post....

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

In your home, heavy birshot will suffice. You are choosing the distance-it's in your house.
I personally know of an instance of #8 shot blowing a hole almost through a man's chest.

Then in the next post....

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by The Box O' Truth

We have done tests with various birdshot loads. Birdshot penetrated through two pieces of drywall (representing one wall) and was stopped in the paper on the front of the second wall. The problem with birdshot is that it does not penetrate enough to be effective as a defense round. Birdshot is designed to bring down little birds.

Then I bolster this post with a visual aid.....


First three inches of permanent wound cavity were completely destroyed. Little to no temporary stretch cavity effects were observed. Small sized birdshot such as this #8 heavy dove load is a poor choice for deployment with a tactical shotgun. Wounds inflicted from birdshot tend to be gruesome yet shallow as they lack the penetration required to reach vital cardiovascular or central nervous system structures.

Range: 3 yards
Shotgun: 18 inch barreled Remington 870 Marine Magnum
Round: 12 gauge 2 3/4 Remington Heavy Dove 1-1/8 oz #8 Birdshot
Gelatin: 9'x9'x19' 10% ordinance gelatin block
Measured Average Permanent Cavity Penetration: 4.5 inches (11.4 cm)
Temporary Stretch Cavity: 1.0 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.6 cm)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If someone is going to claim the earth is flat or the sun is the center of the universe(which given the empirical evidence is akin to what the bird vs buck shot debate has become) then to be taken seriously they need to provide some proof.

Autopsy reports, ballistic testing or at least the writings of a noted expert something to bolster their claim. Until the time that evidence is produced, I'm going to continue to be convinced that buck shot #1 or larger and slugs are the prudent choice for defense applications, whether they be home or police/tactical in nature.

[sourdough44]

We can debate all year about the best 'man stopper'. Here's the truth, any gun held by someone with the mindset to use it will repell 95%+ of said bad guys. Yes that other 5% is out there. If what I have at the moment is an H&R single shot 20ga, that's what I'll use.

[rem870hunter]

i have seen the box o' truth shotgun tests. and like before when i first saw it. i would like to see the testing done on something other than bare gelatin. like maybe bare gelatin with a winter coat or leather jacket,jeans,heavy trousers. maybe do a gelatin test with it poured into a torso shaped mold and dressed to simulate an intruder wearing heaving or light clothing to see what kind of penetration there is. if its the same depth, shallower,deeper. if there is any deflection of pellets,even if its buckshot. yes if they are wearing body armor that may stop it. but i recall a NJ cop (Zimmerman) that was hit in the face through a door with a shotgun blast. he did die. and i bet he was wearing a vest.

[mavracer]

DO NOT get bean bags or other garbage for your shotty. ANYTHING fired out of a gun is considered deadly force. Using that bean bag will buy you the same amount of trouble as birdshot.

I was more trying to say I't a bad idea to admit you wern't trying to kill with birdshot,than reccomending anyone use LTL ammo.as you stated here.

Sorry but that is an absolutely irresponsible mindset.

If you shoot someone it is because you believe lethal force was necessary.

however can you cite any cases where someone was convicted of attempted murder while using LTL ammo or are you stating your opinion as fact.

after all I read it on the web.

In addition just the use of the weapon to make a threat is threatening deadly force without justification if you do not believe using deadly force is justified.

sorry, thought sombody had broke into the house.didn't know we were talking about something else

[300magman]

Personally I have very little to nothing staked on this discussion but I am very curious as to how a 3" magnum heavy waterfowl load or even a 3.5" magnum heavy waterfowl load of steel size T shot would fare.

As an unbiased spectator I promote nothing, only knowledge...and perhaps as a natural **** disturber...I do feel the need to point out that most of this testing with bird shot I have have just looked at was done with what seem like pretty light loads to me. Where do you even get 1oz loads of 7.5 ??? The minimum I fire at partridge is 1 1/8 oz but there is plenty of 1 1/2, 1 5/8, or even 1 3/4oz loads that you could have tried those tests with instead.....Would the results have been much different, probably not a whole lot, but if you want to put more effort into your arguements against birdshot at least fire the heaviest damn loads out there and see.

Again, not promoting anything, just pointing stuff out.....and hoping I might egg someone on into testing a load of 3.5" steel T Just for the heck of it.

[Musketeer]

sorry, thought sombody had broke into the house.didn't know we were talking about something else

justification for use of deadly force, even in the home, varies from state to state.

The ONLY universal in the USA is a reasonable fear for life. Some jurisdictions consider the presence of an intruder as enough to establish that and others do not. I prefer to craft my argument to cover everyone in the USA, even in the most liberal areas.

I do know one class of intruder I would suggest using bird shot against.


Now for Less Than Lethal:

I base my statements on what I have read from qualified experts such as Ayoob. The guy has been there to testify enough that I accept his statements on the issue. In addition here is a little tidbit:

http://www.aele.org/critical-01.html

2. Bean Bags

Deorle v. Rutherford, 263 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) An emotionally disturbed plaintiff was shot with a beanbag round while advancing on an officer. The beanbag removed plaintiff’s eye and left lead shot in his skull. Court denied qualified immunity, but held that use of beanbag round was not deadly force. The court stressed that the officer gave no warning and there was no immediate safety threat. In a footnote (11), the court states,

“The appellees also call the cloth-cased shot a "beanbag" round. That euphemism grossly underrates the dangerousness of this projectile. The round is not some sort of "hackey-sack." It is a projectile capable of inflicting serious injury or death, rather than some children's toy.”

In another footnote (14), the court quotes the plaintiff’s expert:

“According to the affidavit of Peter A. Reedy, ‘the Use of Force Continuum, as used in California, would list an impact weapon high on the schedule of force. ... It would be unreasonable for an officer to use an impact weapon on an unarmed person.’”

This court also attached great significance to the mental state of the plaintiff, stating, “In the case of mentally unbalanced persons, the use of officers and others trained in the art of counseling is ordinarily advisable, and may provide the best means of ending the crisis. Even when an emotionally disturbed individual is ‘acting out’ and inviting officers to use deadly force to subdue him, the governmental interest in using such force is diminished by the fact that the officers are confronted, not with a criminal, but with a mentally ill person.”

Now this court's findings of this not being deadly force probably has something to do with protecting an LEO to some degree and is also surprising given the suspect was shot in the head with a bean bag. At the same time the court goes on at length stating that this is not a harmless projectile and can cause significant harm. Remember, that this finding applies to a LEO who has been given specific training in the use of this weapon. Would a court find the same (not lethal force) for an untrained civilian should it come before it? I would not be so certain...

[mavracer]

Would a court find the same (not lethal force) for an untrained civilian should it come before it?

It should since the president has been set

Court denied qualified immunity, but held that use of beanbag round was not deadly force.

the court held that the use of beanbag round was not deadly force.
the defense rests

The ONLY universal in the USA is a reasonable fear for life. Some jurisdictions consider the presence of an intruder as enough to establish that and others do not. I prefer to craft my argument to cover everyone in the USA, even in the most liberal areas.

In addition just the use of the weapon to make a threat is threatening deadly force without justification if you do not believe using deadly force is justified.

your arguement is there is a jurisdiction that would concider BRANDISHING in the home illegal.gonna need another case citing.
good luck

[Musketeer]

It should since the president has been set
...
the court held that the use of beanbag round was not deadly force.
the defense rests

The court held that the use of a beanbag round by an LEO was not deadly force while going on at length regarding its dangerous nature.

LEOs are trained in the proper use of such devices, civilians generally are not. An LEO using a riot baton on a person is not deadly force while Joe Sixpack using a baseball bat is... Precedent is only applicable should all the contributing factors support it. The only precedent here is that the Bean Bag was non-lethal for the LEO to use while at the same time capable of significant harm. I have found another case online where a mentally deranged suspect did eventually die from bean bag rounds used by the police. Arguing that such force used by an untrained individual is not lethal will be an uphill struggle, especially given the owners manual for the shotgun clearly indicates it is a deadly weapon and I would wager the packaging for the bean bag rounds also states its potential to kill if not used properly.

[mavracer]

The court held that the use of a beanbag round by an LEO was not deadly force while going on at length regarding its dangerous nature.

I'm sorry I missed where it differentiated LEO in the court decision you posted gotta get my glasses checked.wait I don't wear glasses.

[Musketeer]

The case was concerning an LEO and the decision was therefore in reference to one.

Trying to tie that decision relating to an LEO trained in the use of such a device to a justification for a civilian with no such training is a risky proposition. If you doubt me ask a lawyer.

[mavracer]

Trying to tie that decision relating to an LEO trained in the use of such a device to a justification for a civilian with no such training is a risky proposition. If you doubt me ask a lawyer.

actually the president is set with the court case you quoted.it's very plain language beanbags are less than deadly force.the DA is going to have to argue LEO have rights to use them that I don't and thats the loosing propisition.And I can hardly see a worse case sceniro for the DA with no verbal warning and a head shot, when TRAINING is a verbal warning and aim below the sternum.

Hey you don't want to use them fine. Hope the DA doesn't see your posts here because "you just wanted to kill him".

[oneounceload]

The ONLY universal in the USA is a reasonable fear for life.

Not necessarily true - in certain states, you are required to exit your home and leave it to the BG to ransack and steal rather than have a deadly force confrontation.

I, however, now live in FL, where the Castle Doctrine says otherwise

[Musketeer]

Not necessarily true - in certain states, you are required to exit your home and leave it to the BG to ransack and steal rather than have a deadly force confrontation.

Cute but not true, even in NYC.

actually the president is set with the court case you quoted.it's very plain language beanbags are less than deadly force.the DA is going to have to argue LEO have rights to use them that I don't and thats the loosing propisition.

Believe what you want. No precedent exists in a vacuum. It is fully dependent on the contributing factors, a big one of which is an LEO in the case in point.

For a DA to argue a LEO has rights with regards to the use of force, lethal and non-lethal, beyond that of a non-LEO is easy and already established. In almost all jurisdictions LEOs have the right to use a variety of levels of force to resolve situations that the normal citizen does not. To say an LEO has a right to use a bean bag where you do not is easy given they already have a right to use a bullet, taser, baton and other tools in situations where you do not.

[mavracer]

so you are still contending that I've got 8 rounds of buckshot in my gun and one LTL shell you as a DA are gonna prove I intended to kill him with the first shot (the LTL round).
the president has been set they're less than lethal.says so on the box and they confirmed it in a court of law.
yes the LEO may deploy different levels of force than I can.many places you can't persue a criminal.
but the defined levels of force are the same.
If a LEO shoots a live round at you it's deadly force if you shoot one back it's deadly force.
if deadly force is not warrented it is illegal.
LTL shells are not deadly force.

[Mike U.]

Autopsy reports, ballistic testing or at least the writings of a noted expert something to bolster their claim. Until the time that evidence is produced, I'm going to continue to be convinced that buck shot #1 or larger and slugs are the prudent choice for defense applications, whether they be home or police/tactical in nature.
__________________

Bold emphasis added by Mike U.


I agree.

I'm running low recoil 00 buck* as of this writing.
However, recently I've been kicking around the idea of using #2 or #3 buck. More pellets, .25 and .27 caliber respectively, still sized large enough to produce a favorable conflict resolution for the intended victim/homeowner.
This kind of goes against my grain as I normally feel .30 caliber projectiles are a good starting point for serious social conflict resolution. My thinking here is more is better.




*I'm still recovering from open heart surgery so I can't use anything with more power(read: kick).

[Bill DeShivs]

There is a PRECEDENT that we have the most liberal PRESIDENT in history.

[Musketeer]

Believe what you want. If you fire a gun at someone it will be construed as lethal force no matter what comes flying out of it.

Lethal force is related to training as well as the device itself. If I beat you with a police baton there is every chance I will be guilty of using lethal force. If an LEO does so they are most likely not going to be considered using lethal force because they are documented as having been given specific training in the use of the device in a non-lethal manner.

If you do not believe me that these things can kill when used by the untrained and unqualified look at the company that makes them http://www.alstechnologies.com/ and read this concerning training in their use:
http://static.alstechnologies.com/ar...e-dec-2007.pdf

Impact munitions—whether they be rubber, wood, or even
electronic like the new TASER eXtended Range Electronic Projectile
(XREP)—are specially designed projectiles that are made to
strike a subject’s body, causing non-lethal blunt trauma and incapacitation.
Unfortunately, when used incorrectly or when fired at
the wrong angle, some impact munitions can cause serious injury
and even death.

Proper deployment of impact munitions is not just a matter of
aiming at a non-lethal zone on the subject’s body. Many impact
munitions are not as aerodynamic as lethal projectiles. In the case
of bean bag rounds, for example, the shape offers so much resistance
that it affects flight accuracy.

The desired effect of impact munitions is to allow an officer to
incapacitate a subject at a distance without inflicting any permanent
injury on that subject. To achieve this goal, you have to
know where to shoot that subject and how to deliver the impact
round on target.

[mavracer]

There is a PRECEDENT that we have the most liberal PRESIDENT in history.

thank god spell check is here.

If you do not believe me that these things can kill when used by the untrained and unqualified

I understand they can be lethal (irrguardless of training) if used improperly.But you are trying to relate that to intent.the worst public defender in the world could surely make it clear to the jury "if my client had of ment lethal force he would not have used a non-lethal round.

I understand you stated your opinion and tried to make it seam fact but the very court case you brought up refutes your own statement.

non lethal= no deadly force.

DO NOT get bean bags or other garbage for your shotty. ANYTHING fired out of a gun is considered deadly force. Using that bean bag will buy you the same amount of trouble as birdshot.

IF as you say birdshot=beanbag surely you can find a case where birdshot used by LEO was concidered not deadly force.

[shortwave]

My preference is #4`s to slugs. Stay away from the 'dragon`s breath' and 'bolo' round.

[Musketeer]

I understand they can be lethal (irrguardless of training) if used improperly.But you are trying to relate that to intent.the worst public defender in the world could surely make it clear to the jury "if my client had of ment lethal force he would not have used a non-lethal round.

and nobody has been convicted for using lethal force when they thought the item non-lethal?

The bottom line is the owners manual on the weapon says it can be lethal. The product in question says it can be lethal. There is every reason to expect when used by the untrained that LESS LETHAL (the term used on the manufacturer's website) item will is lethal. Use a gun as a civilian with anything and it is lethal force in the eyes of the law. Use a certified less lethal device in a firearm as an LEO with training in the use of such devices and it is considered Non-Lethal. It is the training and certification which makes the difference and which you seem to not understand.

If you take a scalpel to a persons chest cavity and a surgeon does the same the court views both acts differently even if you both have the same intention. YOU are not properly trained or certified to cut up a thorax, the doctor is. Likewise you are not properly trained or certified to use a bean bag round, the LEO who does is. The court may have found his use in this case as non-lethal but it clearly recognizes the significant risk the device posed. The officer has department training and protocol to fall back on to justify his application of the device at that time. You do not. The standards you are held to and the effect of the device in both your hands is completely different.

I see no point arguing with you further. You fail to accept that decisions do not happen in a vacuum irrespective of contributing factors and precedent cannot be simply plucked from one decision and applied to another independent of those factors. You also seem to think your rights to use force are the same as that of an LEO. I have made my case and simply hope any people looking for guidance can understand that logic. If they question it ask an expert in the field or lawyer.

Every weapon's manual says it is a deadly weapon. Anything you fire out of that weapon will come from a box with a warning saying it can be lethal. If you as a citizen fire anything from a gun at a person it is lethal force. PERIOD. If you state you used something less because you felt lethal force was not warranted then you are guilty of using said force without justification. If you loaded a bean bag or bird shot or rock salt or anything else you care to stick down your boom stick, are known to have loaded that stuff to avoid inflicting a lethal wound and use it you may be facing a world of legal hurt. Decide for yourself.

[mavracer]

There is every reason to expect when used by the untrained that LESS LETHAL item will is lethal.

why? and I assume you ment "be lethal"

Likewise you are not properly trained or certified to use a bean bag round, the LEO who does is.

apparently you don't under stand the "court denied qualified immunity".It didn't matter that he was a trained LEO because he in fact used the ammunition incorrectly.

Deorle v. Rutherford, 263 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) An emotionally disturbed plaintiff was shot with a beanbag round while advancing on an officer. The beanbag removed plaintiff’s eye and left lead shot in his skull. Court denied qualified immunity, but held that use of beanbag round was not deadly force. The court stressed that the officer gave no warning and there was no immediate safety threat.

I see no point arguing with you further.

your not really your arguing with your own evidence.