View Single Post
Old January 20, 2012, 12:22 AM   #60
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
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.

Quote:
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


.
C0untZer0 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02754 seconds with 8 queries