Survivalist Forum banner

Home Defense Ammo - PDX1 vs 00 Buckshot

12K views 137 replies 35 participants last post by  Rural Buckeye Guy 
Both are devastating, and will ruin the recipients' day. My general rule for a scatter gun is if you worry about over penetration, drop the size of pellets to #4. Maybe even birdshot to fully mitigate overpenetration in special situations (apartment dwellers, kids in adjacent rooms, etc.). (Please spare me the arguments, I've studied them all.) If you have less overpenetration concerns or live/travel in rural areas PDX1 and slugs are welcomed ideas. The benefit of the foster slug is, of course, accuracy at longer ranges where buck is not effective. The PDX1 bridges that gap well, giving benefits of range and patterned spreads to assure hits.
 
As long as you test a load in YOUR shotgun, and it patterns reliably, go with it. That is, #4 buck or larger. Nobody should be fielding bird shot in a defensive firearm. I hate that I even have to say that, with the wealth of knowledge open to everyone at their finger tips. What happens when it's through auto glass? What if they are partially behind a door? What if they are beyond 20 yards? Bird shot is a crappy choice for a shotgun. Period.

Loads like the PDX1 are a over complicated answer to a simple problem. Other than costing 4X a conventional load, what can it do better than a 00 load or a slug? Nobody walks away from a 1 oz slug. Will it make them more deader? It's a fancy round designed to wow people into spending money.
False.
Do you have a lot of auto glass in your home? Doubtful.

Do you have anything close to a 20 yard lawful defensive shot inside your home? That's 60 feet. I doubt it. Further, the spread on any buckshot at 60 feet is probably pushing its safe usefulness.

Birdshot is lethal behind a common household hollow core door. So if your perp jumps behind a household door, it won't stop birdshot. But your kids 3 walls over will thank you.

And, the POINT of birdshot in a HOME DEFENSE situation is so you don't murder an innocent person 5 walls away and go to prison.

Nobody walks away from a 1 oz slug.
This might include the old neighbor lady 4 houses away peacefully watching her late night television, that your slug hit after going thru 9 walls...

I shouldn't have to spell that out, knowledge open to everyone at their finger tips.
 
Firsty. This is prepping site, in case you are lost. We are preparing for contingencies. Home defense in a SHTF situation is not the same as it is of this moment. Secondly, find me one single well respected firearm instructor who advocates bird shot in a defensive firearm. There are none. BS like you are talking comes from armchair commandos with zero experience. If you have so many children and old ladies in your line if fire, perhaps you should rethink your living situation. If over penetration is the most important thing in the world to you, maybe fielding a AR15 with frangible ammunition is the answer.
Re-read the thread title.
"Home Defense..."

Not shooting people thru car windshields. Not shooting 60 feet away.

Try giving advice that meets the question, not some fantasy survivalist road warrior scenario where you're shooting people thru cars or a 1/2 football field away, where civilian causalities are secondary to your illusion defensive scenarios. Also, "defense" situations for home defense and civilians are almost never over 50 feet away... it's extremely rare. Finally, frangible ammo is effectively what bird shot is. Loads and loads of professionals including myself would certainly consider it where causalities from adjoining rooms are unacceptable.
 
There is nothing that will meet the 12-18" penetration guidelines that won't also kill someone through an interior wall in the event of a miss. You cannot have it both ways. Plan accordingly when setting up and aligning final protective fields of fire.
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.

I'm fully convinced it's one of the most useful and effective affordable urban defense tools where it's fully lethal at close range, and almost harmless at longer range or thru a handful of walls.

Don't be afraid of education.
 
I don't have a lot of post on THIS website, but I do on other gun boards. I have extensive ballistics knowledge over the last 20 years.

Birdshot, except in extremely limited scenarios, should NEVER be used or recommended for defensive use.

The FBI uses 12-18 inches for a very important reason. Birdshot will never penetrate that deep.

Bullets/projectiles can stop felonious attackers in three different ways. Psychological, blood loss, and central nervous system damage.

Birdshot can only reliably stop a person via the psychological means (ouch I've been shot, I think I will sit down here and wait for an ambulance). It lacks penetration to reach for central nervous system damage usually (spine/brain) and usually lacks enough penetration to reach arteries for fast blood loss.

There are numerous dead cops, that are now dead, because they had birdshot loaded in their shotguns. Had they had proper self defense ammo in their guns, they might still be alive.

DO NOT depend on a psychological stop! There are literally hundreds/thousands of cases of injured people continuing to attack. People are either high on drugs/alcohol, or suicidal, and don't care that they have been injured. They will continue their attack until you are dead, because they are in that frame of mind.

Here is a very simple scenario for you. You are recently divorced, back in the dating pool. You have a new girlfriend. She is sleeping at your house, when her drunk/deranged and suicidal ex boyfriend kicks in your door. He cant live without her, and he has decided that he will kill you, kill her, and then kill himself. He doesn't care if he dies. Its his intention. You shoot him with 7.5 birdshot load in the stomach from 13 feet away. It has not reached any vitals. Its a superficial wound. It might kill him in a few hours, but you don't have a few hours. You have seconds. He CAN and WILL continue advancing on you and attacking you with his weapon of choice, until you are dead, or he is dead. Wounding ammo such as birdshot will not save you in this situation.

Sure we can all agree that birdshot wounds can look gruesome, but without deep penetration, they look gross but a determined attacker can fight through the pain.

If you care about yourself and your loved ones, you would use a projectile that penetrates deeper than bird shot. #4 buckshot is a good compromise load.
1. You mentioned there are limited scenarios to use birdshot in defense. You did not say what those are.

2. You gave a scenario where you gutshot an attacker. Yet left it at that without the natural conclusions. Those are:
A. He's not superman. Being gutshot is going to do devestating shock followed by internal and external blood loss from dozens of wounds. It's not survivable without relatively quick medical care.
B. You get a follow up shot, don't you? While he is stunned from taking 1oz of lead to the gut, you shoot him again. Perhaps aim better.
C. In your example a slug or buckshot may make no difference unless you managed to hit the spine, b/c there are not immediately vital organs in the the gut. To the sides are the liver, kidneys, etc. But your "gut shot" example would be the same result with a slug or buckshot absent hitting the spine.

So, the answer is, also, that you did not accidentally kill the neighbor lady with and errant pellet. And also, you're not limited to 1 shot. You shoot a follow up.
 
Let it go. Every single argument you present could be used to debate why a .22 pistol is superior for home defense. If you want to stage your shotguns with loads meant for 6 oz birds, please, do so. What you should not do is spread your retarded logic to other potentially new firearm owners who do not know any better.
Anytime you want to sign a document and stand in front of a load of birdshot to prove how ineffective it is, you just let us know. An ounce of lead, REGARDLESS of the name or how it's packaged, ain't gonna just bounce off you at HOME DEFENSE ranges of under 20' or often under 10'. That load is going to come out as one dense hunk of lead, and drop or deter whomever is trying to do you harm.

Death dealing commandos on the internet are hilarious. You need a death laser to end an attack... No, not really. That's not supported by real world information. You have cops weighing in counter to your views. And REAL WORLD statistics showing that over 95% (and closer to 99%) of defensive gun use a shot is never even needed to be fired.

I applaud the person being responsible and using birdshot in a cramped urban situation so as to not needlessly risk innocents on the other side of the wall.
 
"You want to get shot with it?" is the war cry of the caliber clown. Did anyone here say dove loads bounce off human flesh? My sons BB gun is a great home defense weapon. No? Well would you let me ding you in the face with it then? Ammo choice is about effectiveness. Why we carry 9mm's instead of .25 acp's. It's why we don't hunt deer with .22's. It's why we usually choose a 12 ga over a .410. You clearly think you know the answer, even after multiple experienced people have broken this down for you. Thousands of veterans and police are obviously uninformed. You know better than everyone. Have a good day. Be safe.
I don't think the concept of missing or over-penetration is making an impression upon you. You have LEGAL and MORAL DUTIES to the people who live near you.

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.

Does little good if you end a home attack by using buckshot, when one of your pellets misses and kills 5 year old Johnny 3 rooms away, and you are convicted of negligent homicide for killing your son and go to prison.

Veterans (for which I am one) and police have vastly different jobs than a home defender, and will likely be encountering vastly different opposition for which they are actively trying to kill or capture, often chasing or going into extremely dangerous situations, against hardened suicidal drug fueled well armed people they must subdue or kill. This crowd must also utilize weapons that are capable at long ranges in addition to short ranges, so they carry different ammunition or weapons suitable for both defensive and offensive roles, because they may need to shoot someone 100 yards away.

The typical home defender is rarely going to face such things, but instead likely faced by a lightly armed and unarmored aggressor who will be statistically (99%) easily deterred by the mere presence of a firearm, and all but the most determined will be killed or warded off by a strike with probably any firearm caliber. There aren't too many folks who are thinking of continuing to rape or rob you when shot with anything. Probably close to 100% of civilian defensive shootings are within 10 feet, certainly 20 feet, and most involve less than 3 shots fired. 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.

I'll be safe if I don't have people needing to fire slugs in their homes anywhere near where I live.
 
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.



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.




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?










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 HOME DEFENSE 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. If your home is subject to this you are a higher than normal risk person/profession.

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.
 
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, and surely you're not advocating for that? 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.




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.

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?

I've studied and learned a lot and continue my education, even in the last 3 years. Plus, a handgun particularly a gun carried concealed in public is not a shotgun. It's a compromise.
 
lol I debated even bringing it up, but I was curious 🤪



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.
The critical point you're obtusely missing is the very simple difference in between a strictly defensive short-range weapon/ammunition combination, versus weapons that must be employed defensively and offensively at short and long ranges often purposefully thru barriers, glass, metal car parts, etc.

LEOs are out running around in public, needing to carry concealed or openly carry handguns, and have longguns at the ready. High powered and with the purposeful ability to punch thru barriers like doors and windows, often at longer ranges of 75 feet, 150 feet, etc. It would be impractical or foolish to attempt to use birdshot for most LEO applications. It lacks the range, the punch, etc. LEO often need. LEO/Military mitigate this by training far more than the average civilian. They do shoot houses, reactive targets, hostage scenarios, room clearing, etc. to quickly and reflexively identify shoot/no shoot targets, they train extensively on backstops for safe shootings, and so forth. Professionals often will not take a shot but maneuver to a better angle for a safer shot in their 360 degree threat environments.

Very little of that applies the apartment dwelling home defender covering a door with a shotgun and waiting on the phone with 911 at 2AM because a crazed ex is drunk and has a knife and banging on the door threatening violence. This ammo consideration supports the point that under current laws you will never be taking a lawful defensive shot beyond the effective range of birdshot, so the added energy is not only wasted but a liability.
 
It's weird that hammers and baseball bats account for a huge % of murders in this country, yet they're just hand implement blunt objects.

But an ounce of lead traveling 2000 fps that penetrates 6 inches of flesh is a harmless toy to some people. Will bounce off, not even phase.

FBI testing aside, grab a ruler and hold it to any part of your body and measure how deep a 6 inch penetration would be. (Please spare us the dirty jokes.) A square hit, it'll go to a major bone or organ for most adults except the truly obese. You aren't just going to shrug off a 6" deep cavity of hot lead moving at 2000 fps.

On me, a 6" penetration is 1/3 of the way thru my neck. It's to my lungs, my heart, my liver from the front. Well into my skull and brain. From the back, easily my spine and kidneys. Those are all death. Any major bone in the arm and leg, kneecap, hands, destroyed/shattered, crippling injuries and fight stoppers.

Ideal, no. Neither are many things in life. A good compromise for the urban dweller, I would say so.
 
We can dispense with theories and ideals and anecdotes.

I'd just add that regardless of the FBI "Ideals" for 12-18" inches of penetration, I'd like someone to name a location on his body where a scattergun wound 6" inches deep is of little consequence and you'd just keep on deciding to commit a robbery or rape, etc. You get hit with the force of such things, you're going to alter your course of action and find the nearest exit, if you're able and not laying on the floor dead or in agony.

And, that assumes just one shot. What about the followup coming in 1-2 seconds?

There is nowhere on my body, from any angle, front, back, sides, putting up my arm to block, that 1 ounce of hot lead creating a 6" wound is going to be harmless. It'll be devastating and often lethal. It's 1/2 way thru my skull, my neck, well into my lungs, ribs, heart, and organs, well into my major leg and arm bones, probably hitting any artery in the way, in all or any directions, bending, ducking, dodging, running...

It's just not reality to continually suggest that, at HOME DEFENSE ranges, birdshot against a TYPICAL attacker is insufficient. It may not be the "best" but after years of studying this, I believe it is a very good, affordable, compromise when factoring the lives of innocents just a few walls away.
 
I believe there was a symposium held a number of years ago, where it was decided that the "would you let someone shoot you with __" argument was finally legally banned.......

High time, considering how completely moronic it was.

If you disagree, I have a .177 pellet pistol sitting here..... I'll provide the beer and a band aid.


.
NP, to shut idiots up in the birdshot hating crowd, I'll take a hit with a .177 pellet pistol wearing up to 2 layers of typical clothing of my choice. The trade off is the haters can take a hit with a load of birdshot wearing up to 2 layers of typical clothing they like. I think that resolves the issue handily.

One, leaves a minor sting or wound, maybe a minor laceration. I've been shot with a pellet gun. It stings. I've seen people shot with them. It might break the skin and a pellet dug out. The other is lethal probably on the spot, or on the way to the hospital. This is a MORONIC comparison FYI.

I'm guessing zero takers on this one. lol. You'd be an absolute suicidal fool to do so.

So, outside a direct hit to the face or throat, maybe a few other really unique shots, a pellet gun is an aggravation.

I'd like to hear where you think you'd like to get shot with a load of #6 birdshot from 10' away. I'm waiting.
 
Wow. Your neck is 18 inches in diameter?

That paints a vivid mental picture.......
1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1/5, 1/8ths, 3/4. Irrelevant error, but all are lethal.

You've also strengthened my point. It's probably closer to 3/4. So, nice try.

Proving again weak attempts at scoring points you think you can score but failing to score them because you plainly miss the point. An ounce of lead with an inch penetration in your throat/neck at 2000 fps is going to ruin your day and probably be lethal. 2-6 inches, you're likely dead on the spot.

Play your fractions games all you want. You aren't scoring points.
 
As may have already happened over the course of four pages, I will offer up the notion that a not-immediately-lethal gunshot wound will still cause bodily harm, physical pain and (maybe) a psychological response, but none of those three conditions is guaranteed to stop a threat. Even disregarding factors like armor, heavy clothing and other barriers, there are plenty of variables that can reduce the perfect HD ammo choice to "meh" for the very reason that it was designed to perform within a very narrow set of parameters.

What isn't within those parameters is the defender's preference for specific firearm choice, skill with that firearm, and the precise conditions in which it's being used. Among gun owners I know, which is a lot, the absolute least-practiced discipline/scenario is use of a shotgun at feasible HD distances. Most of them use a shotgun for hunting or sporting use, outdoors over relatively long distances. Most indoor ranges (where I live, anyway) won't allow shotguns, or only slugs, and just maybe buckshot, but not birdshot. So, people aren't practicing, and some of them are singing the praises of the HD-oriented shotguns with short barrels and no stocks, which aren't going to react the same way as their long, heavy hunting/sporting gun. The choice of firearm and experience in its use are thus already questionable, and then you introduce a type of ammo that is simply not intended for defensive use. Furthermore, its lack of (over)penetration isn't due to a design consideration of possible defensive use, but rather because it's intended for use against targets that we'll conservatively call "less robust" than a human intruder.

In no way am I suggesting that anyone here is advocating the use of traditionally non-defensive ammo in a defensive role is uneducated or inexperienced, but plenty of lurkers or Google detectives reading posts like these may have neither knowledge nor experience. (They're probably also raiding their wife's tampon supply for their BOB because everyone knows that tampons are ideal for treating GSWs, and convinced that ramen is the perfect long-term food option.)
Lots of words, very little helpful information.

Which part of your body would you like to take a shot from 10' of #6 birdshot. You can wear a leather jacket or denim jacket if it makes you feel invincible. You can duck, tuck, roll, and twist if it makes you feel invincible. You can hold up your hand like a shield too. Which part of your body is taking the 1 oz of lead at 10' moving at 1500 fps? That's the real question to be answered. Your gut, your chest, your neck, your shoulder, your arm, your leg, your groin, your hip. All devastating injuries, probably fight stoppers and, some lethal... How about the followup shot, where would you like to shrug that one off?

You take a shot from this, and you're almost certainly immediately out of the fight. Unless your a trained assassin dedicated to killing someone, you aren't shrugging off a hit from a 12 gauge at this range regardless of whether it's called birdshot or buckshot. It's an ounce of lead traveling extremely fast as a mostly solid unit.

Watch this video of #8 shot against some hung meat. You aren't shrugging this off.
 
Leadcounsel. Still waiting on that "helpful information". One, single, incident of a justified shooting by a civilian that caused the death or even injury of a innocent person due to over penetration. 320 million people, hundreds of thousands of self defense situations. Seems pertinent to the argument.
Um, if you mean bullets that have overpenetrated thru wall(s) and killed or injured an innocent person? Too easy. There's probably millions of examples. Page 1 of search includes cops killing an innocent man thru walls, several articles of different children killed by errant bullets that came into their homes or exited the houses of the shootings to hit the children outside, etc. It's not clear to me what part of this is confusing. Overly powerful rounds in a urban setting must go somewhere until they exhaust their energy and sadly the high probability of hitting someone in an urban setting exists.

Not interested in your homework assignment beyond proving you're completely delusional and wrong. Almost every article on page 1 of my search, which returned a million hits...

Whether intentional or accidental, bullets go thru common walls quite easily and strike innocents on the other side. That is what we all want to ideally mitigate, which is a large risk in a urban environment. How can you not grasp this concept?





 
You seem to uptake information, filter out what you don't like, and move one. Not one incident you noted was a civilian involved in a justifiable shooting. Unless drive by shootings are justifieable where you come from. Considering the "millions" of incidents, it's funny you can't find a single one. I'll keep waiting.
Um. If you're shot thru a wall by someone's errant bullets, slug or buckshot or buck/ball combination, it's always an unjustified shooting. That's the first and most elementary point. The shooter is likely going to face criminal/civil liability regardless of whether the initial shooting was lawful. This happens frequently where the initial shoot was justified, but the errant rounds were not. I think you should revisit the fundamental rules of gun safety and self defense.

Second elementary point is that bullets don't know and don't care if the shoot is justified, they go thru walls with varying degrees of ability.

The common theme and take-away is bullets going thru walls. And bullets thru walls are probably often unjustified, and certainly dangerous b/c of the fundamental rules of gun safety.
 
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