You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Best Shell for Home Defence?
- Thread starter RobertRogers
- Start date
FirstFreedom
Moderator
I use triple ot buck, but if I lived in an apt complex with thin walls, I'd use #4, #3, #2, or #1 buck instead.
Jeffenwulf
New member
I don't hunt, so all of my shooting is just to determine for myself what I should use in self defense. I mistakenly bought a box of 3" #4 turkey loads a while back instead of the #4 buckshot I thought I had. I fired off a couple slugs, some 3" 00 and 2 3/4 #4 buckshot, and then finished up with the turkey loads. I'm really impressed with those turkey loads. The 00 has 15 bbs, the #4 has 27, and the turkey loads have MANY MORE. An additional note, I now have evil black shells (Winchester Supreme high velocity) to go with my evil black shotgun. At 1300 fps I happily leave those in my gun now.
It makes me glad that I was retarded enough to buy the box without noticing the big turkey on it.
It makes me glad that I was retarded enough to buy the box without noticing the big turkey on it.
Birdshot
If you birdshot proponets would take the time to read this you might think otherwise http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm
Why do you think they named it birdshot?
If you birdshot proponets would take the time to read this you might think otherwise http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm
Why do you think they named it birdshot?
Bill DeShivs
New member
The link gives no particular information that would convince me not to use birdshot. Anyone who thinks that a large, ragged hole in a person (even if it is ONLY 6" DEEP) is not enough to stop them needs to rethink a little. I know someone who was shot with # 8 (right chest, less than 10 feet) and he actually didn't die, and ran 35 yards after being shot. It should have killed him, but he got lucky. He DID stop what he was doing, though.
The same genre of people who say 6" of penetration is not enough are generally the same ones who carry a 4" folding knife for "backup."
I would suggest any load larger than #6 shot, but I prefer bigger shot.
The same genre of people who say 6" of penetration is not enough are generally the same ones who carry a 4" folding knife for "backup."
I would suggest any load larger than #6 shot, but I prefer bigger shot.
Anyone who thinks that a large, ragged hole in a person (even if it is ONLY 6" DEEP) is not enough to stop them needs to rethink a little.
I never questioned the fact that bird shot at close range will make a severe wound.
At the ranges you are listing I would suggest that #1 Buck would deter someone equally as well as bird shot and I doubt they would run away.
I know someone who was shot with # 8 (right chest, less than 10 feet) and he actually didn't die, and ran 35 yards after being shot.
If the person in the example you sited was under the influence of drugs or was very determined instead of running away he could well have continued his attack.
I understand what the link is saying - but 1 1/4 oz of 4's or 6's at 1400 fps ( a good pheasant load ) may not drop a big man dead in his tracks in 1 second flat - but it will sure as heck deter them from what they were doing .......besides, hit him with a 2nd shell, or a 3rd .......
While the effective size of a pattern from a 12ga shotgun at 15 - 20 feet is probably only about a 12" circle at the most, there are a lot of pellets in that 12" pattern ( 170 4's / 279 6's ) and that is going to cause a lot of bleeding and I would be really shocked if death wasn't within a few minutes, but I'm confident they would be disabled in just a few seconds. Besides, hit them a 2nd or 3rd time ......no sense saving the ammo if they are threathening you or your family, in my opinon.
While the effective size of a pattern from a 12ga shotgun at 15 - 20 feet is probably only about a 12" circle at the most, there are a lot of pellets in that 12" pattern ( 170 4's / 279 6's ) and that is going to cause a lot of bleeding and I would be really shocked if death wasn't within a few minutes, but I'm confident they would be disabled in just a few seconds. Besides, hit them a 2nd or 3rd time ......no sense saving the ammo if they are threathening you or your family, in my opinon.
Besides, hit them a 2nd or 3rd time ......no sense saving the ammo if they are threathening you or your family, in my opinon
By all means continue to fire until the threat is no longer a threat.
You gentelmen are free to continue to keep your shotguns loaded with birdshot if thats what makes you feel the most confident.
I for one will continue to use the Buck.
I'll stay with 4's ( but that's what makes this discussion interesting ....) and I hope we would both find them dead .....quickly. Of course, hopefully neither of us will ever need to find out.
( but I'll also keep a .357 mag revolver / and a SIG 226 in .40 S&W close at hand as well ...) just in case. I have a hard time relying on just one option.
( but I'll also keep a .357 mag revolver / and a SIG 226 in .40 S&W close at hand as well ...) just in case. I have a hard time relying on just one option.
Deaf Smith
New member
You know, at room range, I bet a bird shot shell would take an arm off. If it gets 6 inches of penitration, well that's pretty much an arm (and we can guess what a head shot would do.)
Shawn Dodson
Moderator
Birdshot that encounters an impeding arm may or may not exit the arm, depending where the hit is located. In all likelihood the wounded arm will probably be completely useless, however a bad guy can choose to continue to fight. The concept of adequate penetration (12" minimum) is to stack the deck in your favor to increase the chance of success (damaging vitals critical to immediate survival) across a wide range of situations. Buckshot will perforate an impeding arm and retain enough penetration potential to reach vitals in the torso.Anyone who thinks that a large, ragged hole in a person (even if it is ONLY 6" DEEP) is not enough to stop them needs to rethink a little.
Based on your account, the wound did not involuntarily compel him to stop. He was clearly able to physically act with volition after incurring the wound.I know someone who was shot with # 8 (right chest, less than 10 feet) and he actually didn't die, and ran 35 yards after being shot. It should have killed him, but he got lucky. He DID stop what he was doing, though.
My wife says all the ones showing up at the ER that had taken a full blast of bird shot died. She said it didn't look that bad when they cleared the blood up, but upon cracking open the chest most of the internal organs were bleeding. Couldn't stop all of it so the patients died.
No one doubts that a 12 gauge loaded with birdshot and discharged at very close range is a deadly weapon. A person hit squarely in the torso by such a load may very well die despite the efforts of the best ER. But that's isn't really the point. A .22 LR is a surprisingly "deadly" round. But killing over time isn't the same as stopping them right there in their tracks. Somebody would HAVE to be drunk or on some big time drugs to try to penetrate my house with 12 Belgian Malinois hanging on them. In that situation, I want all the penetration I can get. I want to put the guy on the deck before he uses a machete on me or mine.
Gregg
Bill DeShivs
New member
"Based on your account, the wound did not involuntarily compel him to stop. He was clearly able to physically act with volition after incurring the wound."
You are correct-but it wasn't because of inadequate penetration. The ER pulled the wadding off his spine. Had the shot been 1 or 2 inches in any direction, he may have stopped right there. He DID cease all hostilities.
No gun is an absolute stopper-especially without shot placement.
You are correct-but it wasn't because of inadequate penetration. The ER pulled the wadding off his spine. Had the shot been 1 or 2 inches in any direction, he may have stopped right there. He DID cease all hostilities.
No gun is an absolute stopper-especially without shot placement.
Deaf Smith
New member
I suggest if one is worried about penitration (I'm not) I'd get some Federal true-flite OO 'tactical' buckshot. 9 pellets at 1100 fps (Regular buckshot goes out at 1350 fps or so.
Plus the tru-flite wadding keeps it together longer after it leaves the bore. 25 yard groups something like 14 inches from a cylinder bore.
And that would be that.
Plus the tru-flite wadding keeps it together longer after it leaves the bore. 25 yard groups something like 14 inches from a cylinder bore.
And that would be that.
workinwifdakids
New member
Long reply, but I think worth the read...
The IWBA article referenced argues that #1 buckshot has a 30% increase in wound size over 00 buckshot. The specifics, though, are a 1.13 square inch shot pattern for #1 vs. a 0.77 square inch shot pattern for 00.
First, the practical difference between 0.77 inches and 1.13 inches at two to three yards is negligible (read: silly). By way of analogy, imagine two ballistic missiles. Missile A strikes within 3 feet of your house every time, whereas Missile B strikes within 100 feet of your house every time. If both missiles' payloads cause a crater 2,000 feet in diameter, then saying Missile A is more accurate is factually correct; however, if the crater you've made exceeds the difference in accuracy between the two missiles, there's no point to the discussion. Your house would need new wallpaper either way.
Second, the IWBA's 30% increase in wound size is based on shot patterning. The problem, of course, is that shot patterning is not the same as a temporary stretch channel, a wound channel, or penetration. According to tests on ballistics gel, both #1 and 00 buckshots produce strikingly equal temporary stretch channels (at 8.5" each), and very similar wound channels. By wound channel, we mean, "What is the path of the pellet inside the human frame?" This is where the similarity between ballistics gel and humans fall short, because the variations of the human frame just aren't replicated in a block of gelatin, but you can reliably say that the two loads react similarly. Thus, the only difference left is in penetration, and in fact the penetration of 00-buckshot in ballistics gel is about 30% more than that of #1 buckshot. Of course, clothing, bones, and other variations of the human body may not allow exit of either shot in any case.
A visually dramatic analysis of shotgun rounds takes place at:
http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=109958
(WARNING: SITE NOT DIAL-UP FRIENDLY!)
The authors offer pictures of a huge variety of birdshot and buckshot embedded in ballistics gel. Though the authors' examination fails in not taking into account clothing, bone, and the differing structural density of human tissue, the relative differences are still valid.
At any rate, I choose 3" magnum (15-pellet) 00-buckshot for home defense. A center mass blast on-target within home defense ranges would be similar to a 15-round simultaneous burst from a 38-caliber submachine gun. That would certainly fall within the range of the one-shot stop.
I appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions.
The IWBA article referenced argues that #1 buckshot has a 30% increase in wound size over 00 buckshot. The specifics, though, are a 1.13 square inch shot pattern for #1 vs. a 0.77 square inch shot pattern for 00.
First, the practical difference between 0.77 inches and 1.13 inches at two to three yards is negligible (read: silly). By way of analogy, imagine two ballistic missiles. Missile A strikes within 3 feet of your house every time, whereas Missile B strikes within 100 feet of your house every time. If both missiles' payloads cause a crater 2,000 feet in diameter, then saying Missile A is more accurate is factually correct; however, if the crater you've made exceeds the difference in accuracy between the two missiles, there's no point to the discussion. Your house would need new wallpaper either way.
Second, the IWBA's 30% increase in wound size is based on shot patterning. The problem, of course, is that shot patterning is not the same as a temporary stretch channel, a wound channel, or penetration. According to tests on ballistics gel, both #1 and 00 buckshots produce strikingly equal temporary stretch channels (at 8.5" each), and very similar wound channels. By wound channel, we mean, "What is the path of the pellet inside the human frame?" This is where the similarity between ballistics gel and humans fall short, because the variations of the human frame just aren't replicated in a block of gelatin, but you can reliably say that the two loads react similarly. Thus, the only difference left is in penetration, and in fact the penetration of 00-buckshot in ballistics gel is about 30% more than that of #1 buckshot. Of course, clothing, bones, and other variations of the human body may not allow exit of either shot in any case.
A visually dramatic analysis of shotgun rounds takes place at:
http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=109958
(WARNING: SITE NOT DIAL-UP FRIENDLY!)
The authors offer pictures of a huge variety of birdshot and buckshot embedded in ballistics gel. Though the authors' examination fails in not taking into account clothing, bone, and the differing structural density of human tissue, the relative differences are still valid.
At any rate, I choose 3" magnum (15-pellet) 00-buckshot for home defense. A center mass blast on-target within home defense ranges would be similar to a 15-round simultaneous burst from a 38-caliber submachine gun. That would certainly fall within the range of the one-shot stop.
I appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions.
insane_irish
New member
hey guys, I recently bought my first ever shotgun specifically for use as a house gun. I got a 12 gauge Mossberg 500 Persuader w/the 18-1/2" barrel. I like the gun a lot.
Heres the thing though, the only shells I have been able to find locally thus far are 00 & #4 buck and birdshot #4 thru #8. I would really like to try out some of the #1 loads as well as the low-recoil 00 loads but can't find them. I have found the Hornady 00 TAP shells, but they aren't low recoil.
Where do you guys get your shells from? Do you order them on the net?
Also, any recommendations on shells for practice, cheap but consistent birdshot? What size?
Thanks.
Heres the thing though, the only shells I have been able to find locally thus far are 00 & #4 buck and birdshot #4 thru #8. I would really like to try out some of the #1 loads as well as the low-recoil 00 loads but can't find them. I have found the Hornady 00 TAP shells, but they aren't low recoil.
Where do you guys get your shells from? Do you order them on the net?
Also, any recommendations on shells for practice, cheap but consistent birdshot? What size?
Thanks.