Would you trust your life to #4 buck shot?

[John Schwartz]

wilson133,

I know of two people who have had their homes invaded by armed men, and both were pot dealing pacifists. That is to say, they had cash, drugs, and no guns. They were targets of opportunity.

You claim that armed home invasions are on the rise. I don't know anything about that. A quick google search for "home invasion statistics" gave me a couple links.

http://www.superpages.com/supertips/home-invasion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion

The first link says "Though the chances of home invasion may have never occurred to you as particularly high, recent statistics suggest that this form of burglary is on the rise." That confirms what you said, sort of. It certainly leaves room for doubt. It also mentions "50 percent of home invasions involve the use of a weapon; the most common weapons used are knives or other cutting instruments." This means that 50 percent of home invasions don't involve weapons, and that invaders rarely use firearms.

In other words, that makes me feel confident that pumping the action of a shot gun will do plenty to secure my home. I know that if I broke into a guys house unarmed or carrying a knife I'd surrender to anyone with a gun. Knowing where they are is irrelevant when the odds are stacked against you like that.

Second link is wikipedia, and it says, "Few statistics are available on home invasion as a crime, because it is not technically a specific crime in most states. . . But law enforcement has been seeing the increase in "home-invasion robberies" since at least June 1995, when "home-invasion robberies" were the topic of the cover story of The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin."

Sounds like you're probably right about the home invasions being on the rise. However, statistics are still unclear, and after a quick search I haven't been able to find any break down for invasions of drug dealers versus other homes.

Back to pumping the action. You say it's a myth, and you're probably right in certain cases. If I lived in a very high crime area, or one where heavily armed gangs routinely invade people's homes, I'd probably keep five shells of buckshot in the tube, and one in the chamber. Where I'm from though, in the suburbs, most people don't even own guns. If I were dumb enough to break into a home, and I heard a shot gun getting pumped, I'd crap my pants. I'm not fighting a guy with a shotgun. That's just not worth it. I'd surrender, get arrested and maybe wind up locked up for a month with a suspended sentence of a couple years. That's much better than risking my life in a fight I probably won't win. The idiots I knew growing up who've been arrested for B&E would do the exact same thing. They weren't trying to get shot, they were trying to steal easily fenced items.

As far as warning shots go, you're right that they're not legally protected. I'd still rather explain a warning shot than a shot to kill. Police and prosecutors have a lot of discretion in dealing with things like that, and if you've got a decent lawyer and a clean record you'll probably get away with it. It all depends on circumstances. You can't shoot a warning shot at an unarmed intruder, and you wouldn't bother if they posed an immediate threat, but if they've got a knife (the most common weapon used in a home invasion), and they're across the room, shooting them in the feet is a way to end the situation without killing them.

As far as birdshot being ineffective, if you pointed a shotgun at my face and said that it was loaded with a trap load, I wouldn't think "ballistic gel blah blah blah." I think, "Holy crap, my eyes are about to be turned to goo." You don't have to kill every single person you see. Most situations can be resolved without ending someone's life.

You talk about training and experience, it makes me wonder. What kind of training? What kind of experience? Has you home been invaded by armed gangs multiple times? As far as I know you're an anonymous guy on a message board. What I've seen doesn't impress me. I've seen a bunch of Rambo wannabes talking about how getting shot with birdshot is just gonna **** you off, and how #4 buck isn't good enough for home defense. Swear to God, if you shot me with birdshot from across a room, I would do whatever you told me to do. If you shot me with #4 I'd probably be dead.

Capt. Mike knows that much. If he, or somebody else with a lick of sense, says that pumping the action is a myth, I'll believe him. I'm just sharing my own limited experience with you guys. I'm willing to be educated, I'm just not willing to swallow bull.

[nate45]

Originally Posted by John Schwartz

You talk about training and experience, it makes me wonder. What kind of training? What kind of experience? Has you home been invaded by armed gangs multiple times? As far as I know you're an anonymous guy on a message board. What I've seen doesn't impress me. What I've seen doesn't impress me. I've seen a bunch of Rambo wannabes talking about how getting shot with birdshot is just gonna **** you off, and how #4 buck isn't good enough for home defense.

Well, you got us John.

I knew someday, someone, would come along and tear the whole buckshot house of cards down.

I mean the fact that this site is owned by S.W.A.T Magazine and some of America's best gun writers, defense tacticians, ammunition and firearms experts post here, that fact did not stop us. No, after all these years, it took the amazing John Schwartz to come along and expose us as wannabes and tear down our lies.

[dgludwig]

I'm just not willing to swallow bull.

Nor should you. But what's already been said here is a long way from being bull. Pumping a shotgun before shooting it only says, "Hey, bg, I'm over here." If you need to fire a gun in self-defense it is only because your life and limb or that of an innocent other is in jeopardy. Warning shots only wastes ammunition and could compound any attendant legal ramifications. Save your bird shot for pheasants. If you mean to use your shotgun for self-defense, use ammunition appropriate to the task.

But the biggest mistake you're making imo is overly-stereotyping the criminal mind-set. I retired after over thirty years of le. My experience by no means makes me any kind of an expert in any sense of the word but what it did teach me is to never assume you have an understanding of how a criminal might think; allowing you to falsely predict his/her actions. All criminals are not stupid. All criminals are not cowards. And, most importantly, all criminals are not rational. Add a little meth or some other mind-altering substance and you potentially end up with a miscreant who doesn't run from the racking of a pump shotgun (like you or I or some other rational thinking person might be expected to do); is not deterred by a warning shot and whose drug-induced rage might allow him to temporarily withstand a load of no. 7 1/2 quail shot. Shooting somebody to stop them from killing you is no time for temporary measures. You don't shoot people in the feet who are trying to kill you. If they aren't trying to kill you, you probably have no business discharging a firearm in the first place.

If I were dumb enough to break into a home, and I heard a shot gun getting pumped, I'd crap my pants. I'm not fighting a guy with a shotgun. That's just not worth it. I'd surrender

,

You would-they might not.

The idiots I knew growing up who've been arrested for B&E would do the exact same thing. They weren't trying to get shot, they were trying to steal easily fenced items.

And your former high school punks are the ones you're counting on to invade your home?

but if they've got a knife (the most common weapon used in a home invasion), and they're across the room,

How long do you think it would take for them to close the distance from "across the room"? Would you believe under two seconds?

As far as birdshot being ineffective, if you pointed a shotgun at my face and said that it was loaded with a trap load, I wouldn't think "ballistic gel blah blah blah." I think, "Holy crap, my eyes are about to be turned to goo."

Yeah, you would. Remember, you're the one who can be depended on to act rationally. They're the ones who very well might not.

Most situations can be resolved without ending someone's life.

Not situations where firing a shotgun point blank at another human being is the only thing that will stop him from killing you. And those are the only situations where you would be justified in shooting at somebody. Your goal is stopping someone from killing you. Unfortunately, stopping often times entails killing. If you are unwilling to kill to keep yourself or a loved one from being killed, you really should think long and hard before arming yourself with a shotgun. I would seriously advise looking into some kind of chemical deterrent like mace or pepper spray.

[jammin1237]

i realize now from my prior posts in this thread, i was side tracked...i apologize for assuming that the #4 buck shot was coming from a 12 ga...

i would trust #4 buckshot from "any" shotgun with my life...

i don't give a crap what some intruder thinks, or his prior convictions that drive him/her to do what they do, save it for the Dr Phil Show...

i dont know the criminal mindset nor do i want to, all i know is that if it enters here, it will be challenged to the fullest extent, without question...

cheers

[NeroBrandt]

I would suspect that with anyone entering your house uninvited at 3:00AM was up to no good and the only logical assumption you could make would be that they were there either to kill you and your family and/or take your things (most likely both). I would also think that a person would be well within his rights to shoot them dead without hesitation or question...

[Shane Tuttle]

With this thread continuing from last year and the discussion being veered to tactics (if one really wants to think so anyway), I think this one's ran its course.

Closed.