What 12gauge load for HD?

[nate45]

Originally Posted by shurshot

I agree that Buckshot or slugs has a better chance of stopping a bad guy, as oppossed to birdshot... no dispute here guys.

Originally Posted by shurshot

I don't dispute the numbers.

Originally Posted by shurshot

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

/thread

[shurshot]

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... 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)....

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

[Marquezj16]

PDX 12. A slug in the middle and the three buckshots are spread outside of it. Very accurate too.

[C0untZer0]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Moyer

Heck, 6 ft is probably farther than any defensive shot would be in my tiny apartment.

Originally Posted by shurshot

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.

Originally Posted by Moyer

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

Originally Posted by Moyer

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.

Originally Posted by Moyer

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

Originally Posted by shurshot

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

Originally Posted by shurshot

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

Originally Posted by shurshot

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?

Originally Posted by shurshot

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

Originally Posted by shurshot

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.

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

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]

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.

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]

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.

[nate45]

Originally Posted by shurshot

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

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

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

Originally Posted by shurshot

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]

That's it Nate45, thats the article, minus the pics. Your OK after all! A little too tightly wound perhaps, but ok nontheless.

[lefteye]

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]

I refuse to stop playing X-Box

[Tabor]

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]

Oh my, here we go again......

[hangglider]

blank on purpose

[lefteye]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Numner 4 buckshot