Survivalist Forum banner
41 - 60 of 138 Posts
JUST OUT of curiosity

How many shootings have you ACTUALLY been to to see first hand the results of the weapons used along with the environment where it happened and the responses of the parties involved?
or
are your 20 years of extensive ballistics studies based upon the writings of others? I think it is a fair question.
Well since you asked, I was a cop in one of the ten most dangerous cities in America. I have seen a dead body about every 3rd-4th shift on average I would say. I have seen plenty of people shot with guns. I have driven people that have been shot to the trauma center in the back of my patrol car.

I attended about 25 autopsies of homicide victims over the years and got to see first hand how bullets interact with the human body.

I was present and about 10 feet away when my partner shot a guy in the stomach with a slug. It was spectacular.

I have hunted pigs for decades and have conducted necropsies afterwards and seen what projectiles work, and what doesn't

Yeah I think I can speak on the arena of ballistics, competently.

We all have different training and experience levels.

You recalled a story about asking the FBI agent to step back off the hood of a car. That was based on your training and experience. You saw a problem, you rectified a problem.

Bird shot is the same for me. I have seen what it can (and cant) do. I have seen gruesome, nasty wounds, and the guy holding his guts in, walk his way to the ambulance. I also know that same guy could have been a very deadly threat if he was an attacker. He was not incapacitated. When we look at defensive ammo, we need to take into account its ability to "actually" incapacitate people via exsanguination (blood loss) or central nervous system damage. We cannot, and should not, as professionals, depend on the a persons phycology, to stop from attacking further. We MUST account for the possibility that a deadly attacker could be in an excited delirium (Miami face eating zombie) frame of mind. We MUST account for the possibility that a deadly attacker is a suicidal subject (suicide bomber, deranged ex-husband).

Home invaders, robbers, and criminals, have never been known to use intoxicants, drugs, or alcohol, in excessive levels, correct? These people are NOT in the same frame of mind as you, me, Joe Home Defender. They might stop if they are shot with bird shot. Or they might not. The Miami face eating zombie literally growled at the cop and went back to his meal after taking a .40 caliber Gold Dot to his chest.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Excellent point that is often overlooked since the majority of people who are in the shotgun for home defense discussions didn't grow up hunting various animals with a shotgun and only experience is shooting paper targets and watching Youtube videos (No offense to the OP. Excellent video). There is a massive difference in the capabilities of a high brass #4 field loads versus a #12 dove load.
I'm one of those guys that grew up with a shotgun, in a shotgun-only deer zone. That was your gun and you used it for everything. We know what it can and can't do against a very wide variety of creatures with a very wide variety of loads and ranges.
Some people talk as if "birdshot" is this one single thing and that's it.
They do have a point in that the smaller stuff may well not penetrate through an outstretched arm and continue deep enough in the chest to hit something important. It will however render that arm useless, likely putting their weapon on the floor and if not there's nothing says you can't pump it and hit them again.

At across the room distance shot is still mostly a mass of pellets. Maybe a few starting to fly off but a whole lot more traveling one behind the other than spreading out.

I can't be the only one who's seen what a load of #4's will do to a hog or rabid dog at that range, or watched a pheasant explode as it didn't flush til it was damn near stepped on and guy didn't let it fly off a ways first.
 
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.
 
Really, depending on how it's made the shot may still all be in the wad/cup, which pretty much makes a cut shell "loose slug" of sorts.
Cut shells are a fun concept, but are not nearly reliable enough. They also will not function in any pump or auto loader. Any traditional shot load leaves the wad within 3-4 feet from the barrel.
 
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.
 
This debate screams for gel testing. (y) I'm sure it must exist somewhere. Bottom line is that PDX1 and other fancypants boutique buckshot is far too expensive for my taste for now and the foreseeable future, although I already have more than ample stocks of 00 and even #4 Buck, both of which are absolutely devastating.

I also have some boutique Buck from not too long ago with a single huge pellet + several 00 pellets for a similar effect. I'll gladly pick up some PDX1 when prices are more sane.
 
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.
 
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.
Bunch of my nam vet buddies used birdshot for clearing charlie out of holes.

For the kind of close quarters a typical home defense situation would be.....lemme give you one in the face and you'd change your mind.
 
"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.
 
"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.
Actually it's a legitimate question. Which is EXACTLY why you don't like it.
 
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 “non-survivable” hit, Platt continued to fight and went on to kill Jerry.
It was important to understand that Jerry’s shot happened before any of the agents were seriously wounded. Jerry’s shot went through Platt’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.
 
Ask five different instructors (or LE or combat vet or medical examiner) for their impressions of best/worst choices based on their experiences, and you can get five different answers. With shotguns, I've heard virtually every gun/ammo combination offered up as the best, but some seemingly trivial situational detail offered by one would-be expert nullifies their opinion when presented to the next person you ask. Give someone a shotgun and put them in a different environment from their own - apartment vs. current home construction vs. "good ol' days" construction vs. nominal barriers between dwellings - and see what you come up with.

I am one of those stubborn bastards who prefers a (relatively) slow-moving .45ACP JHP as my threat-stopper of choice within the home, so I'm not likely going to sell anyone on my preference, but once the discussion turns to rifle and shotgun options, I am of the opinion that the environment dictates defensive choice far more than with a handgun. I recall one carbine class instructor insisting that ballistic-tipped .223 ala Hornady V-Max was the best choice, because it was designed to fragment "violently and immediately" with relatively shallow penetration. Another instructor advocated for frangible rounds. Neither of these are even in the "best" conversation from ballistics experts, because shallow penetration could be too shallow for a solid CNS hit to immediately stop the threat. However, ballistics experts don't have to be defensive shooting experts, while instructors really do. On the premise that I care about preventing threats to my loved ones, I choose the option that allows me to have the best control over a bad situation, and 9+ projectiles per trigger press don't seem like the best option in my environment.

So, using a shotgun for HD currently comes in as my third-place choice. If I resort to that, it is probably in a SHTF/WROL situation, and for such conditions, I have a couple of boxes of (discontinued?) Herter's Multi-Defense, which is a "buck-and-ball" load, but not a rifled slug as used in the PDX. It kicks like a mule out of my 21.5" Remington 870, so I'm not going to claim it'd be my preference as a shooter, but there aren't many threats against which I'd feel under-equipped at applicable distances. For less expensive stockpiling, plain old 00 buckshot fills in the gaps.
 
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.
 
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.
 
41 - 60 of 138 Posts
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