Survivalist Forum banner

Home Defense Ammo - PDX1 vs 00 Buckshot

12K views 137 replies 35 participants last post by  Rural Buckeye Guy 
From this video, PDX-1 slug and pellets penetrate around 19.5" at 10'



If the slugs are consistent in going where you aim them out to 100y, then I'm very fond of this modern take on "buck and ball"
 
You aren't likely to survive or stay in the fight with a birdshot hit at typical HD distances of under 15'. That lead is acting like a slug (e.g. a cut slug) at that range. It's absolutely lethal, and is going to convince the perp this was a bad plan.
Birdshot can of course kill, but I will not use or recommend birdshot for life safety purposes*, and believe it to be irresponsible to do. Your video only reinforces that.

No one is arguing it will not make nasty wounds and can't kill readily, particularly at point blank range. Note, however, the platform used in your video is a 24" barrel with a modified choke at 3.3 yards. You can find ranges significantly greater than that in a typical apartment or even a master bedroom, and your end user might be using a cylinder bore with 18.5" barrel, all of which exacerbate the limitations of birdshot even further. At very real distances you may encounter (and not just at the end of a hall) birdshot will not reliably penetrate sufficiently to reach vitals from lateral angles, through shoulders or through extended forearms, nor will it necessarily result in a psychological stop on a person with altered mental status. You don't assume the optimistic outcome, even if that often is the outcome.

Overpenetration is absolutely one factor that a person must consider when doing their due diligence, and depending on your circumstances may be of little consequence or great importance, so we should of course plan to mitigate that during our risk assessment, but within reason I cannot think of any situation in which that concern overrides the concern of effectively stopping the threat to the life of you or your family. Taking this analogy to pistols, the threat of over penetration or a miss killing a bystander exists no matter where you carry your concealed carry firearm if you're in a populated area, do you recommending carrying loads that under penetrate in this scenario as well?

Contingent on patterning, a reasonable compromise in my eyes for a home defense is #4 buckshot, and I say that acknowledging that this may still over penetrate and kill someone in an adjacent room. *There are a select few "birdshot" loads that will penetrate in the 12" range even out to 20 yards, and these would be viable as well. They tend to be plated "BB" sized pellets, but are more esoteric and not typically available at common retail outlets.

I'm not trying to change your mind as you've obviously drawn your conclusions, I'm just providing my rationale for whatever that's worth to someone else reading this.

NOW, ASK those same "respected instructors " what they advocate for INSIDE a house where potential over penetration could be an issue?
What do police officers use inside homes, where over penetration remains an issue? Departments that still use shotguns train to swap from buckshot to slugs as the situation dictates, do you know of any that swaps from buckshot to birdshot? Why do you suppose that is?
 
Saying "I've seen people killed with birdshot" is reverse survivorship bias - of course you have, and the ones you've been exposed to are obviously DOA or close to it, or they'd likely not be on scene anymore by the time you arrive, so I'm sure that experience has left a pretty deep impression on your decision making. But nobody here has claimed it won't kill, and your anecdotes are not relevant to the point we're making that birdshot doesn't typically penetrate sufficiently to reach the vitals and stop the fight unless they'd be inclined to stop the fight regardless of what they get shot with. That's not something one should rely upon for planning purposes on principle alone.

They don't have to be behind a barricade for this to become an issue, if the guy is pointing a pistol at me and I hit his outstretched forearm while aiming center mass, whatever I hit him with had better go clear through that arm and still have enough energy left to reach his vitals. Birdshot typically does not.

Overpenetration and a miss hitting a bystander is no less of a concern in any other situation, including your day to day life where presumably you carry a sidearm, but nobody advocates carrying ammunition that penetrates something like 6" in a handgun for the safety of everyone else involved, even though it can certainly kill, for good reason. Overpenetration is a concern, but it should not override the primary concern which is to stop the fight (particularly since the threat may well be shooting in the home too), and appropriate mitigation would involve finding a load with adequate but not excessive penetration (here we clearly diverge), being aware of your fields of fire, and understanding that nothing you do here will completely eliminate the risk.

You're clearly very invested in your conclusions, so I won't try and change your mind, but please understand that us criticizing those conclusions is not tantamount to us criticizing you.
 
Very early in the Miami gun battle, (Agent) Jerry Dove fired a bullet that stopped about two inches short of (bank robber Michael) Platt's heart. After this supposed ā€œnon-survivableā€ hit, Platt continued to fight and went on to kill Jerry.
It was important to understand that Jerryā€™s shot happened before any of the agents were seriously wounded. Jerryā€™s shot went through Plattā€™s right arm, severing his brachial artery, moving up and into the left side of his chest, traversing through his right lung, and stopping about two inches from his heart. It is speculated that this hit would stop 90 to 98 percent of most people. However, this did not stop Platt. He kept fighting. The shooting ended with Platt killing two agents and wounding five agents.
From: 1986 Miami Shootout: The Aftermath

This is why minimum adequate penetration guidelines exist. This man was fatally wounded and went on to kill others before he expired.

Re-read the firearm safety rules. None include using the biggest caliber or most potent ammunition for the task. But they are adamant about knowing what is BEYOND your target and taking measures to avoid hitting an innocent person.

So, in this discussion, the "I must use death rays at all times" attitude completely fails the test. FAIL.
This is a straw man argument. Espousing the minimum load that reliably reaches 12" of penetration, a standard used by many law enforcement agencies for good reason, is not the same as espousing "death rays". You're making it sound like people are talking about using 10mm hard cast with > 63" of penetration for home defense.


Inside 20 feet an ounce of lead traveling 2000 fps is irrelevant if it's a slug or buckshot or birdshot. It's extremely lethal and going to drop or deter any normal human.
Aside from the fact that many residents have spans of distances within their homes that exceed 20 feet, where in the world did you get the 2,000 FPS number?


The typical home defender is rarely going to face such things, but instead likely faced by a lightly armed and unarmored aggressor






That was less than a minute of searching, I could obviously keep going, but your assessment is based on some either flawed or outdated information.
 
1. The tired old 1986 shootout. lol. Has absolutely no bearing on a realistic situation. Here's a hint, it's 35 years old and still drug out in these discussions. It was FBI chasing hardened murderers. Has little to do with a typical home defender situation.
I'm sorry, what precisely has changed in the past 35 years that makes reaching vital organs and the CNS no longer relevant to ending a fight that may involved a determined or altered mental attacker not susceptible to a psychological stop?

Or rather, what has changed in the last 3 years?



since you used the "tired old" argument to justify 9mm over .380...

Your priorities seem to be
1. Do not overpenetrate
2. Stop the threat

In that order, precisely the reverse of many others and that's why it's so fascinating to explore. Which is fine, again I'm not here to change your mind. However, if that logic was applied consistently, it would mean something like underpenetrating .380 JHP loads, or even .22LR would be superior to 9mm, with underpenetration being a feature even, as they can still kill yet minimize the risk of overpenetration or a miss killing a bystander (which is a concern in any situation, not just a home defense scenario) and surely you're not advocating for that, are you? You didn't add a caveat in the above post suggesting that in the niche case of home defense .380 would be superior, so I have to believe the difference between then and now is simply how impressed you are at the devastating damage birdshot causes at very close range, while ignoring that even within the span of an interior home you can easily exceed the distances at which birdshot inflicts those very wounds.


2. The few examples of heavily armed/armored home invaders - while alarming growing trend - are limited to pretty much high crime professions. Drugs, drug dealers, arms traffickers, and like. IOW these are probably not just random, but very determined criminals. And you need rifles, not shotguns, to defeat body armor so buckshot is equally ineffective on body armor as birdshot.
Your second point is understood by all, but you seem to keep dismissing instances that do happen and have happened as unlikely to the prototypical encounter you have in mind, and therefore irrelevant. I'm not sure it's wise to bank the farm on reality itself being flexible so as to fit around your conclusions instead of the other way around. "It's not the odds, it's the stakes", is foundational to anyone who carries a gun, at least I thought so, and it isn't best practices to assume best case scenario in a self defense situation in which the deck is already stacked against you.
 
I knew that would haunt me. lol.
lol I debated even bringing it up, but I was curious šŸ¤Ŗ

What part of HOME DEFENSE shotgun loads in tight urban areas is lost on you?
Is the 1986 shootout fitting into any of this? Are there kids next door? Was there any drywall in that shootout?
The 1986 shootout is relevant for two reasons
1. The death of an agent and wounding of several people can directly be attributed to under penetration, which can also occur at any distance with most commonly found birdshot, but is exacerbated at distances exceeding 5 yards... distances which can readily be found in most homes

2. Unless your assertion is that an overpenetration or miss in the 1986 shootout was not a danger to bystanders, then bystanders were a concern there like they often are in a home defense scenario.

Assuming it's not your assertion that the underpenetrating round used in 1986 was worth the subsequent deaths or injurys of multiple officers for the peace of mind that risk of injury to bystanders was reduced, then I have to conclude that logic should apply to home defense as well. Given hindsight, I would imagine their preference would have been a load that penetrated 12-18"

I would be equally as critical of those in which overpenetration is not a priority at all, but short of that I'm not convinced it should come before stopping the threat.
 
You guys do know that "birdshot" could mean anything from what we called ratshot or dustshot up to BB, T, or even light buck (high flying geese) right?
Yep, mentioned earlier.

Here's some in BB size that penetrate 12-14", but they're not the common sort of birdshot you're likely going to pick up at a local walmart... though to be fair, you're not typically going to find #4 buck at the local store either.



 
Well, you keep using phrases like "of little consequence" "going to be harmless" "shrug it off" "how ineffective it is" "you need a death laser to end an attack" "I must use death rays at all times" as if these are things people have been asserting.

Who are you even arguing?

I don't recall anyone using those words that you appear to be associating with those who have valid criticisms of what you're espousing. Those of us who prefer a minimum adequate penetration to reach vitals at distances commonly found in the home asserted none of those things about birdshot; in fact I acknowledged that birdshot wounds can absolutely be lethal and make nasty wounds as a caveat prior to explaining the rationale behind my personal preference.

You have quite the straw man built up in your head, but not all rejections of your conclusion are that straw man.

Others have laid out their cases, some agree with you, some do not, so what else is there to say? Assertiveness doesn't make up for flawed reasoning, and we know your stance by now, so there's no point going circular with the argument. You do you. Personally, I prefer an AR-15 for home defense. šŸ˜± šŸ˜‰
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top