[Benelli Shooter]

I want to hear the most up to date thinking on this subject. I know this has been discussed before. However, sometimes thinking on tactics evolve over time. And, sometimes new posters can add things that have not been considered before.

Which do you prefer?

Please assume the following:

1. Money is not an object
2. The user would be equally trained on both systems.
3. Civil liability is not a concern.
4. This is not a Katrina / End of the world riot situation.

I am looking at this purely from the viewpoint of which system would best allow you to engage and defeat one or more people who have entered your home with deadly intent.

[figment]

IMO there is no preference except what the situation requires. They are two different types of weapons with two philosophies of use. The carbine keeps them away, the shotgun deals with what got past the carbine, the pistol gives you time to get to the shotgun or carbine.

[TeamPrecisionIT]

I consider the AR15 my primary defense weapon for inside the home.

The reason being is that it can be used to great effectiveness by everyone in my household, minus my 7-year old. The light recoil of the weapon allows follow up shots to be taken with expedience and does not require the user to do anything other than pull the trigger again and again. It also allows for greater precision in the event that a hostage style shot would need to be taken. And while a shotgun holds 54 'shots' (depending on load used) within six shells, that is still only 6 onboard total rounds, where with the AR I have at least 28-29 rounds on board without a reload.

When you use your shotgun for inside the home stuff it is much easier to miss your intended target than most would think. The longest possible shot within the confines of my home is 14 yards, back door to front door. The spread even in my 18.5" cylinder bore barrel shooting my HD load is about 8-10 inches. That isn't exactly a spray and pray style shot to make and requires good aim and hold. My equipment (Moss 500 12 ga.) has a lot more recoil and it not as quick to get back on target due to it. It also requires the forearm to be cycled in order to get the next shot. And anybody that says that the 'shuck' of the forearm being cycled is the 'scariest' sound ever, needs to be silenced. Do you really want to give away your position and weapon?

These are the reasons I chose the AR15 to take up HD duties in my home and it will continue to do so. Would I feel undergunned with either? Absolutely not. Would I be worried if my wife or kids needed to defend themselves with my shotgun? Yes, only because the fierce recoil and their unwilling to get trained on how to manage it would be a hindrence. Just one guy's opinion on an HD weapon.

Damian

[berettashotgun]

ALWAYS is the Indian - not the arrows.
I honestly believe my Dad, with his training and in his prime, coulda' took 3-4 guys out with a pocket knife.
He used to complain the "soap bubbles were still running out his ears" from the brainwashing he got in the Marines. Same with both Gramps.
Me - I'd take the shotgun every-time

[benEzra]

For me, it would be the AR. I enjoy shooting carbines a lot more than I enjoy shooting shotguns, and hence in the real world would stay more proficient with a carbine. Having said that, it pretty much boils down to personal preference; they are both effective, and they are both practical.

[Mr.Davis]

I'd choose the AR-15 carbine for a few reasons:

1) High capacity and short barrels aren't mutually exclusive like they are on a pump or non-magazine fed shotgun
2) Low recoil of the 5.56/.223 round means easier follow up shots
3) If you were so inclined, you can suppress the carbine to minimize hearing damage in a self-defense/home defense scenario.

[villemur]

If you live in a city or populated area, I say go with the shotgun. At close range it is an amazing force to be reckoned with. And with the right choice of shot size you can limit the chance of projectiles penetrating through walls and hurting non-combatants.

If you live in an unpopulated area, especially in a house out of view of others, I'd say go with the rifle. Not because it is better inside the house, but because you may have to engage combatants surrounding your house at a distance.

[Fred Fuller]

I have both and have been trained with both. I'll still take a shotgun for situations that are up close and personal, and don't involve a mass assault from the entire 4th Mongolian Horde.

lpl

[memphisjim]

shotgun by large margin

[CoRoMo]

I go back and forth a lot, but I most often plan on the M4 with the points that Mr. Davis posted.

[Boats]

3. Civil liability is not a concern.

In what world is that not a concern? Aside from civil liability, I'd rather the Monday Morning QBs at the DA's office be examining pics of my pump shotgun when second guessing me than shots of any military pattern self-loader.

On a practical matter, I trust a pump gun to actually work far more than I do an AR.

[RatDrall]

You're probably more likely to short stroke a pump action, than a quality made and lubricated AR15 is to malfunction in a fight.

If I could afford one, and had equal training, I'd take an AR15 over a shotgun, but I can't and I haven't and I feel just fine with a shotgun.

http://www.hornadyle.com/products/more_detail.php?id=130&sID=73&pID=2

[Gunfighter123]

Shotgun ---one pull of the trigger and you have in effect shot 9+ times {with OO buck}

[Gunfighter123]

You're probably more likely to short stroke a pump action, than a quality made and lubricated AR15 is to malfunction in a fight.

And then there is always the Saiga S-12 semi-auto !!!!

[KenW.]

When you are tried in the "media" for a home defense shooting, a shotgun capable of taking upland game will be MUCH more easily defensable than a MILITARY-style evil black rifle designed to more easily KILL PEOPLE because of its carry handle, PISTOL GRIP, 30 round mag, and flash hider.

And triple "ought" buck loads have 6 pellets; less sheetrock to repair.

That being said, the only firearms within reah of my side of the bed are an XD45, XD9sc, and a couple of 1911s. So I'd have to go with a handgun and light.

[hso]

AR15

[waterhouse]

I'd be comfortable with either. I'd currently choose the suppressed AR, just for the sake of my hearing.

[rrruuunnn]

With either gun, you have to be accurate. I know that some train and shoot well with a bead sight of a shotgun. I prefer rifle sights.

[Fred Fuller]

This one's strictly a 'hardware' thread and has no 'software' content- it could go equally well in Rifle Country or in Shotguns, but since it started in Shotguns, I'm putting it back there.

S&T is for material that is at least partially if not completely 'software' oriented...

lpl

[Zerodefect]

Ar15.

My shotty is too big, heavy, and slow. I go with the smallest gun capable so I can move quickly and cleanly.

So unless it's TEOWAWKI I use a Glock 23 or FN PS90 with an Aimpoint ML3. Both are a bit more practical for me. If I have to go outside or on the offensive (not likely) then I'm grabbing the AR.

Seriously though. I'm not home alone. I can't leave guns laying around. more often than not everything except my CCW is locked in the safe. The CCW, usually my G23, goes in my nightstand at night, and stays in its holster there.

[jmr40]

Shotguns work within their limitations, but since price is not a factor the AR is a much better choice.

[Prion]

How about an 'evil black' Benelli M4 Tactical w/ pistol grip and a mix of #4 and 00 buck. You said price was no object. It was for me so I have an 'evil black' M2 Tactical, 18" barrel, pistol grip, etc.

[Dave McCracken]

I can run either, though I'd want to get up to speed with the carbine.

One thing, first shot time would be for most people slightly less with a shotgun. Get hold of the guys who run the 3 gun shoots in your area if you doubt that.

Either platform will work, if the shooter is up to it.

Practice,practice,practice.....

[winknplink]

edited: sorry, OP. I missed #3.

[Mr. T]

I would without a doubt choose my M4 Carbine, because:

1) I could shoot any perp through a wall - therefore they would have no "Cover".

2) My M4 is compact and would allow me better ergonomics in a CQB situation inside my house.

3) My M4 would allow me more pinpoint precision shots if need be with less opportunity for collateral damage.

4) Ammunition capacity on the M4 is thirty rounds versus 6 shots on my shotgun; not to mention reloading would be easier with the M4.

5) If the altercation then moved outside the house the M4 would allow me greater range to engage threats.

6) Reduced recoil of my M4 could be fired from almost anyone in my family if they had to use it -- thus giving them more confidence to use it and probably better accuracy versus the shotgun.

7) Rate of fire from the M4 would be superior to the shotgun

All that being said I wouldn't be afraid to use my shotgun for HD if that's what I had on hand; I just personally think the M4 is better set up to deal with CQB situations. :)

[DougW]

Shotgun (after a Glock 17) is the primary in the house weapon, and the AR's are for maintaining distance outside.

[benEzra]

1) I could shoot any perp through a wall - therefore they would have no "Cover".
Do be aware that 00 buckshot will out-penetrate most civilian .223/5.56 loads in drywall, with the possible exception of thick-jacketed FMJ. If you want to limit shotgun drywall penetration, you have to step down to smaller shot sizes. Having said that, even the lightest .223 loads will shoot through a single double-panel interior wall, though it may be fragmented by the time it exits the back side.

[Mr. T]

That's all I would consider shooting in a CQB situation is FMJ's. I watched the performance of the AR versus shotgun on TV and you're right about the 00 buck having better penetration...through multiple walls. The FMJ's tend to make it through the first wall relatively in tact, but sometimes they do break apart, but the test showed that they would still be effective through one wall, but usually they didn't go through two walls. I don't intend on shoot someone two or three rooms away. I would only intend on shooting through one wall, if knowing the individual just ducked around the corner of a wall and was standing there for cover.

[Al LaVodka]

A versatile, relatively short, shotgun.
Al

[gotime242]

I choose the ar15 based off of personal preference. I have a Rem 870 at my girlfriends house though, which i would feel totally comfortable with as well. My reasons include: 30 rounds per mag, semi auto (quick shots, follow up shots), accuracy/precision, extended range outside.

[amd6547]

I own both shotguns and AR15, but I choose my M1 carbine over both...for the same reasons given by others who like the AR.

[Beerme]

I own both shotguns and AR15, but I choose my M1 carbine over both...for the same reasons given by others who like the AR.
well said sir
i love my ole m1 carbine and intend on getting another, possibly with a collapsible stock and a hi cap mag


why not go the easy way
make your own project masterkey ;)

[Ben86]

I'm starting to lean more towards and AR for home defense because of the precision of fire it will allow me to have. This precision, I believe, will create a larger margin of safety for me family.

[dom1104]

Shotgun.

Because whatever you use will be taken away for a long long time.

Cheap and effective and easily replaced.

Live in reality.

The End.

[Benelli Shooter]

I think the biggest question in this whole debate is:

"Which weapon characteristic is most important for a dynamic home defense scenario with an adversary trying to kill me back?"

Is it so-called knock down power, capacity, speed of followup shot, maneuverability, ect...?

That is the issue. What makes it tough to answer is that there is no scientific quantitative way to test the various theories. A gun school training class can't realistically simulate this reality. Most of us have never even seen one person shot by a shotgun or a carbine. You would need to see dozens and dozens of people shot by both weapons systems to form a rational opinion on just the "stopping power" issue alone.

Fighting in an urban war would probably be the closest you could get to really knowing. Not an option for most of us.

[ArmedBear]

Most of us have never even seen one person shot by a shotgun or a carbine.

That's true. It might be very shocking. That would argue for a weapon that stops an attacker with one shot, so you don't have to worry about your psychological ability to pull the trigger again.

However, I'd say that whichever weapon you can use the best, is the best choice. Many -- perhaps most -- rifle-only shooters can't point a shotgun worth a hill of crap. Look around this forum, and you'll find out that a lot of the generation who grew up thinking a rifle should feel like an M4 has no idea what a cheek weld is. Given that they CAN hit something with a carbine, I'd say use a carbine!

OTOH, someone who shoots clays every week and eats wild bird all season is probably going to be VERY fast on target with a standard shotgun -- not a folding stock, but a real shotgun buttstock that fits right. An M4gery is likely to feel rather unwieldy to someone more used to shooting a good bird gun.

[roo_ster]

I have shot lots of rounds through both.

I'd have to side with the shotgun, as I can handle it faster than the AR and it points better for quick shooting. After whacking clay pigeons by the case, I can't imagine a faster-handling weapon for short range quick shots.

A shotgun with slugs/buck is also useful against larger 4-legged critters near the house, if that is a possibility. AR, not as much.

If the range gets out there, though, the AR gets the nod.

[TexasRifleman]

My opinion on this has nothing to do with the actual firearm.

Around here anyway there are VERY few shooting ranges that allow for "combat" type shotgun shooting so the ability to practice with the shotgun becomes very difficult.

Yes, they are relatively easy to use, no question.

Still, having the ability to practice with a home defense firearm is important to me and that seems to be hard to do with a shotgun.

Most of the ranges around here only allow for patterning around dove season :)

[cottonmouth]

It's hard to beat a 12 gague with #4 buckshot!

J.B.

[MattTheHat]

I have both. For home defense *inside* the home, my choice would be a SG, hands down. And I'd have my trust Government model in my back pocket just in case.

Now, up at the farm, I'd take my M4 hands down. Same trusty Government model would also be in my back pocket.

I just don't see a scenario *inside* the home when my scatter gun would not be preferable. Up at the farm, where it's more likely a BG will be further away from me the M4 would seem the way to go.

I don't want to shoot a "perp through a wall" because I don't know if it's truly a perp on the other side or a loved one. Even so, I don't see two layers of sheet rock slowing down 12 gauge buckshot much any way.


-Matt

[ArmedBear]

Range training?

Quail hunting (California Quail, Gambel's Quail, etc., not Bobwhites) is some good training in rapid target acquisition with adrenaline flowing, in difficult terrain, with random obstacles everywhere. The targets come out when THEY decide to, not you; they are small and fast, and if you don't hit any, you go home empty handed. Your dog loses all respect for you.

I'd call it a lot more demanding than "combat" range practice on a flat floor, with a few token obstacles, and the shooter deciding when to go. Sure, the quail doesn't shoot back. Neither does cardboard. For that, paintball is the ticket, but you can't really use a shotgun for that.

[MattTheHat]

5) If the altercation then moved outside the house the M4 would allow me greater range to engage threats.

If the altercation moves outside the house, then it's not home defense. If the BG is fleeing the home, I don't see the need to continue engagement. If the BG retreats past SG range to the point that you *need* a rifle to continue, I'm guessing you're asking for legal trouble if you continue engagement in most states.


-Matt

[TexasRifleman]

I'd call it a lot more demanding than "combat" range practice on a flat floor, with a few token obstacles, and the shooter deciding when to go. Sure, the quail doesn't shoot back. Neither does cardboard.

Going around walls and through doors in the dark with a light doesn't come up much in my quail hunting, maybe you do it differently :evil:

[mcdonl]

Given that the OP said:

1. Money is not an object
2. The user would be equally trained on both systems.
3. Civil liability is not a concern.
4. This is not a Katrina / End of the world riot situation.

I guess I would go with "which ever is closer" - or Both.

Every time we debate this topics like proficiency and penetration are the dominating factors. Take those away and I guess you are left with capacity and ease of use. That gives the nod to the AR IMO, but if you look at "Knock Down Power" nothing beats the 00 buck... PLEASE DO NOT READ THAT AS THE AR15 HAS INSUFFICIENT KNOCK DOWN POWER... not what I was saying at all. Just saying, at 12 feet across the room and you need to stop a full grown man from moving any further the 12g has the best odd's....

[ArmedBear]

Going around walls and through doors in the dark with a light doesn't come up much in my quail hunting, maybe you do it differently

Not every wall is made of sheetrock. Come on over next season and you'll see what I mean.:D

[Myles]

It depends on where I am in the house, and which is closest when a threat occurs.

[amd6547]

I'm not so concerned about having my beloved M1 carbine siezed temporarily after a "good" shoot, as I am using the weapon I am comfortable with and certain of it's capabilities.
As for the ability to reach out, I am personally familiar with a situation where a 50yd shot would have been called for, and the responding police said the shot should have been taken...
A shotgun is a fast handling weapon, but so is a carbine. Particularly the M1, which is lighter than my shotgun and handier. It points like a finger, and I have no doubts about the 15 110gn SP rounds it is loaded with.

[mljdeckard]

Simple. A shotgun is the most devastating close-quarters weapon you can use.

Buckshot wil go about as far through sheetrock ad an AR. Test it.

If you don't like the ergos on your shotgun, modify it. But there is a difference between ergonomics and comfort. I can live with discomfort if I can use the weapon correctly.

You can modify the capacity on your shotgun, and each 00 buck round holds nine pellets. This means my 870 holds 72. How much lead do you think you need in your house?

If the altercation moves outside the house, the shotgun will work out to the ranges considered defensive. If there is fighting in the streets, this it more of an SHTF scenario which the OP specifically excluded.

All adults can handle 12 ga recoil. This is a training issue, not a confidence issue. I want the gun that's the most effective, not the one that hurts less to shoot.

My primary is a shotgun loaded with #4, my wife's primary is an M-1 carbine.

[ArmedBear]

All adults can handle 12 ga recoil. This is a training issue, not a confidence issue.


It's also a gun fit issue. I'd say that physically unimpaired adults can handle 12 Gauge recoil from the proven standard shotgun stock design.

Some folding and other "tactical" stocks I've seen? They just plain suck, and they're made to sell to someone who wants a gun with a certain look, not someone who knows anything about shotgunning.

It's an ammo choice issue, too. As mljdeckard said, a standard 00 buck round holds 9 pellets. A standard 870, without a mag extension, puts 45 on target. A standard Mossberg 500 is good for 54. How many more do you need? 3" Magnums are harder to shoot, especially if you want to stay on target. But at 5-15 feet, who needs more than 9 pellets anyway?!?

[blaisenguns]

My vote is the shotgun. Capacity and ergonomics are a none issue because you can add to the capacity to the shotgun, and swap out stocks so you have rails, collapsible stocks, etc. For longer range you have slugs, and you cant really beat the fire power of 12gauge 3inch shells.

Anyone ever see the M16's with the shotgun mounted underneath?

For that, paintball is the ticket, but you can't really use a shotgun for that.


Mr. Bear why cant you load shot shells with paintballs?:neener:

[OregonJohnny]

At first, I thought, "Well a new 870 at the local sporting goods store is about $300-400, and a decent AR at a gun shop is about $1,000," then I saw:
1. Money is not an object
Then I thought, "Well, a basic pump shotgun is a little easier to master for the average person than an AR (at least it was for me)," but I noticed:
2. The user would be equally trained on both systems.
Hmmm, well in my home (a 2-story townhome with attached neighbors on either side) I'm less nervous about 4buck than I am about .223. But:
3. Civil liability is not a concern.
Dang it. You keep doing that.
4. This is not a Katrina / End of the world riot situation.
Oh, well then, shotgun. Hands down. :D

[Sir Aardvark]

A suppressed AR15 would be my choice with the parameters you listed, but again, in real world terms the cost and ease of use of a shotgun give it the edge.

Anyone ever see the M16's with the shotgun mounted underneath?

The Masterkey system used to breach doors - very cool!

[AcceptableUserName]

shotgun. in case of self defense ill always take less guesswork. short stroking is a possibility, but not if you practiced with the gun to the proper extent. and short stroking aside, an AR has nothing on a shotgun in terms of simplicity.

and we're talking DEFENSE here, not offense. hard to make a case for self defense at ranges of 50 yds and greater.

[Mr.Davis]

an AR has nothing on a shotgun in terms of simplicity.
Um, yeah it does.

Rack - BANG - Rack - BANG - Rack - BANG - Rack - BANG - Rack - BANG - Rack - BANG

-versus-

Click - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG - BANG.

I'm not arguing that the shotgun is a bad choice, but an AR that has been tested reliable is far more straightforward in operation than a pump shotgun.

and we're talking DEFENSE here, not offense. hard to make a case for self defense at ranges of 50 yds and greater.
It is possible (and often preferable) to use a rifle at short range.

[trol79]

my coice would be a shotgun, or two! primary because I'm more used to them, secomdry: I don't like the thought of bullets flying with THAT much energy in a place where also my family lives. I would feel better using some low-recoil buckshot or heavy birdshot like BB,T,F or some thing like that.

[Dee]

It seems to me that the SG does a lot more damage loaded with buckshot and/or slugs at close range than an AR would but maybe that is just my perception. I think they are both great weapons but I would go with a SG for any HD scenario that I can think of over an AR.

[ArmedBear]

I'm never QUITE sure the AR will go

Click BANG BANG BANG as opposed to

Click BANG Click DAMN slam slam BANG

I honestly trust the Mini-14 to go BANG every time, more than the AR. However, I can't really see having a long-range varmint round in a short-range carbine. The AR is much more accurate and so far I haven't welded the barrel to my finger like with the Mini.:D

[figment]

lets all end this now and admit that the AR15 is better than a shotgun. I have a dozen or more of both anyway. :neener:

[Sheepdog1968]

If you live in a city or populated area, I say go with the shotgun. At close range it is an amazing force to be reckoned with. And with the right choice of shot size you can limit the chance of projectiles penetrating through walls and hurting non-combatants.

If you live in an unpopulated area, especially in a house out of view of others, I'd say go with the rifle. Not because it is better inside the house, but because you may have to engage combatants surrounding your house at a distance.
+1 and my exact thoughts.

[benEzra]

I'm never QUITE sure the AR will go

Click BANG BANG BANG as opposed to

Click BANG Click DAMN slam slam BANG

ROFL. You almost had to buy me a new keyboard over that...

[Max]

That's a simple one for, me. Since I don't own a shotgun anymore, it's the M4. though realisticaly I might grab for the pistol first and escalate to the carbine if nessesary.

[Al LaVodka]

Around here anyway there are VERY few shooting ranges that allow for "combat" type shotgun shooting so the ability to practice with the shotgun becomes very difficult.

Yes, they are relatively easy to use, no question.

Still, having the ability to practice with a home defense firearm is important to me and that seems to be hard to do with a shotgun.

Most of the ranges around here only allow for patterning around dove season :)
It must be hard to miss all the clay shooting sports places around. Me? SInce there are so many places that let you practice "combat" type RIFLE shooting just as you would in and around your home, I'm gonna shoot trap next weekend with an AR 'cause I have a good cheek weld...
Al

[Argent]

Personally I go with a shotgun, but both have the pros and cons. A Shotgun would have a lesser degree of overpenetration through drywall, I would take nearby collateral damage into consideration depending on your situation and dwelling (you have kids, you live in an apartment/condo, etc.) However the sound indoors of the shotgun would be more deafeningl, not to mention the flash from the muzzle at night could temporarily blind you. I would feel more comfortable with the heft of my browning pump stock than my collapsible AR15 if the BG decided to rush in to close the distance in a CQC-scenario. I don't see the advantage of having 30+ rounds in a home-invasion situation unless you plan on missing more than 70% of your shots, or plan on having an extended gun battle in your house. Guessing on average your longest shot indoors would be less than 20 ft, long-range shooting shouldnt be a factor unless you are living in a rural/remote area. Just my 2 cents.

[BushyGuy]

AR15 by a mile, i have more ammo capacity and longer range then the shotgun, also the AR15 i can move around faster then the shotgun. when the AR fails then i will go to my Model 94 30-30 , my 870 is my last resort weapon .

[ArmedBear]

the AR15 i can move around faster then the shotgun

Wrong shotgun, then.

[Mr. Bojangles]

I prefer the shotgun for most home defense situations. The stopping power of a 12-gague is incredible (although with fewer shots available as compared to an AR.)

Some of the decision is personal preference, as situations vary from case to case.

[jmr40]

You may handle a shotgun faster, but most people would be better off with a 16" barreled 6 lb AR than a 18-20" barreled 8 lb shotgun with recoil near 300 win mag levels. The AR gives up nothing to a good shotgun except price. You can get 3-4 good shotguns for the price of a good AR. That is something for most to consider, but not a consideration in the OP's post.

Before you get too warm and fuzzy about a shotguns legendary stopping power consider that 1 round of 00 buck is about the same as 1 magazine from a 380 pistol. Not that it won't get the job done if multiple hits are made, but most of us would not think of a 380 as a devastating round. Even if we made multiple hits.

It is not that buckshot does not work, it does, but it is also highly over rated. Most people have watched too much TV and have unrealistic expectations.

[Ben86]

If you are using hollowpoints in your AR the risk of overpenetration can't be any more than using buck shot.

[Al LaVodka]

I think u r rather mistaken. A shotgun has the highest level of single-shot stopping capability. To your point, 1 round of 0 Buck (actually) is like firing a dozen .32's into your target. Multiple hits are the design, hit probability is much greater, and effectiveness is superior at close range compared to a .223 as I understand it. For all these reasons, the shotgun wins for distances within the optimal and operating range of the arm. Full-auto .223 within the same ranges? I might reconsider but that's not what you've got and that'd have its drawbacks too...
Al

[Ben86]

Full-auto .223 within the same ranges?

Who said anything about full auto?

[TexasRifleman]

To your point, 1 round of 0 Buck (actually) is like firing a dozen .32's into your target. Multiple hits are the design, hit probability is much greater

The problem with this is that the hit probability isn't really any greater with a shotgun than a rifle.

Here's a great image from Box O Truth showing the group sizes of buckshot at 12 feet, an average "across the room" shooting distance.

At most you can expect a 4 inch group, usually much less. That doesn't really give much more hit probability than a rifle.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/images/20-4.jpg

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, I would disagree with Lee, this really is a software issue as either weapon is more than adequate for the task of home defense and both can be very well adapted to the task. It really comes down to which one works better with your software.

For me that would be the AR, simply because I don't have as much training on it as the shotgun. If the AR did stop running for some reason, I can clear a stoppage almost as fast as I can engage with my secondary. If I short-stroked an 870, I'd be standing around for 30 seconds trying to figure out exactly what happened - and that isn't the 870's problem, that is a failure of my own software because I don't use the 870 much.

[Mr.Davis]

I'm never QUITE sure the AR will go

Click BANG BANG BANG as opposed to

Click BANG Click DAMN slam slam BANG

I honestly trust the Mini-14 to go BANG every time, more than the AR. However, I can't really see having a long-range varmint round in a short-range carbine. The AR is much more accurate and so far I haven't welded the barrel to my finger like with the Mini.
:rolleyes:

Then 1) Buy a decent AR, 2) Take care of it, and 3) Practice a lot, enough to trust the weapon.

ARs are just as reliable, if not more so, than any other semi-automatic weapon. Please don't go projecting insecurities onto everyone else's weapons.

[Fred Fuller]

BR,

The thread isn't "AR15 Tactics VS Shotgun Tactics." If a shooter can't run the gun, then he ain't GOT no tactics, no matter which gun it is he can't run.

Thus, this is a pure hardware thread. And thus I moved it back out of S&T to Shotguns from whence it originally came.

Tactics is a discussion of WHEN and WHY you use a gun and WHAT YOU DO while you are using it, not WHICH gun you use.

jmho, ymmv,

lpl

[Al LaVodka]

Tex says "the hit probability isn't really any greater with a shotgun," "the most you can expect a 4 inch group" at 12 feet and "that doesn't really give much."


I think it is generally that spread or larger with Cylinder bore, but just for sake of argument, you're saying I only have an inch or two grace at 12 feet with multiple deep penetrating first-strike 32-caliber hits? Probably a foot's grace at as many [I]yards. Where do I sign up!?

As for short-stroking, I was thinking, don't do that! Or, like me, don't grab the 870 first. Interesting how everyone presumes a pump. And "need" a semi-auto? They make those in "shotgun" too -- for about a century. My smallest "HD" shotgun is 5+1. Identifying and stopping the close-in threat immediately is my first consideration. Firing again would be my second and reloading my last.

I stand by my choice(s).

Al

[BugOutBoy]

Well before this question can be answered, we have to decide whether we are talking about normal everyday home defense or SHTF home defense. For me this is a very important issue.

If we are talking normal everyday home defense, I would definitely pick the shotgun over the AR-15 for these reasons:
1. Greater stopping power in home sized distances. There is no contest, I think we all know that. 00 Buck across an average sized room is absolutely devastating if it hits you.
2. High capacity magazines don't necessarily provide an advantage given that most home defense gun fights are over in 3 seconds and at most, 2 or 3 shots shots are fired. A lot of situations don't even result with gunfire, the sound of a shotgun being racked or simply the sight of one is often good enough to deter the crook. Most crooks are not hardened war vets who are gonna stick around for a gunfight, they are simply small time guys looking to steal something to sell for drugs.
3. In a home defense situation, your first order of business is to get your family, HIDE and call 911, not to go out looking for the crook with your gun. Firing your gun is a last resort. Those of you talking about if the gunfight goes outside your house should realize that if the crook retreats outside of your house, it is not your job to go out after him guns blazing. Therefore, there is no advantage to having a longer range weapon. If you are standing in your doorway taking pop shots at a retreating perp at 50+ yards, you will probably be spending the next few years of your life in a jail cell, especially if you actually manage to kill him/her. Never take an offensive position in any situation, perps have rights too (unless you live in Texas!) Remember that.
4. The ability to switch out round types in a shotgun at any time makes the shotgun a much more versatile weapon than the AR-15. Round types in a shotgun range from non-lethal (which I recommend) to very lethal. As far as I know all AR-15 rounds are lethal. I could be wrong on this so please let me know if there are readily available non lethal rounds made in .223/5.56 caliber. I have never heard of .223/5.56 caliber bean bags!! You can load your shotgun with rounds in order from non-lethal to lethal. It's always better to give the perp a chance to reconsider his plans and get out of the situation alive. You will have a much better time in court if you do so. Also, I don't know about any of you but I hope I never have to kill another human being, especially if all they wanted was to steal a few items to sell for money. My flat screen TV is not worth killing someone over. If you don't agree, maybe you need to talk to someone about your issues. I value human life over anything else. I would kill if the person was threatening the lives of anyone in my family but other than that, I would hope to avoid killing.
5. Everyone seems to forget that shotguns come in semi-auto too so the semi-automatic advantage of an AR-15 over a shotgun is a moot point. But semi-auto shotguns aside, I prefer the pump over the semi-auto because other than short stroking, you are less likely to have malfunctions with your shotgun than with your AR-15. Between FTF, FTE, OOB etc, there is a lot that could go wrong with your AR, especially in a stressful situation. If you are dealing with a semi-auto shotgun, the possibility of malfunction increases.
6. Price. You could get four or five high quality shotguns for the price of one good AR-15. You would then have to buy accessories for your AR which would a few more hundred dollars in cost, especially if you are buying expensive optics like Aimpoint or Eotech sights. After all is said and done, you could pay in excess of $2000 for a decent AR-15 with accessories. With the shotgun, all you need is ghost ring sights, a light mount and possibly a side saddle to carry more ammo (not that you really need it). You could have the shotgun and all that for $350-$400.

Now, on the other side, if we are talking about a SHTF home defense situation then I think I would definitely have both the shotgun and the AR-15 with me when defending my home. If I had to choose one, it would be the AR-15 given the extended range, higher magazine capacity etc.
If you see a band of looters approaching your house, a weapon with range would definitely be an advantage. Shotgun slugs have range but nowhere near the same accuracy or range as a .223 round.
In an SHTF situation there is no rule of law so you wouldn't need to be as careful as you would in an everyday normal situation so using an AR-15 would work well. When SHTF, all bets are off and you need to have a weapon that can work well close range and long range.
Clearly the ideal situation would be to have both. The more people you have with you, with a wide array of firepower, the better. Fighting off a band of looters by yourself will probably end badly for you regardless of which gun you decide to use.

...anyway, that's my $0.02! :neener:

[SnakeLogan]

A good short barreled shotgun like the Benelli SNT or M4 is the best home defense weapon out there IMO. Load it with 12 pellet 00 buck shells; that way you don't lose any capacity yet you're throwing 3 more .33 pellets at the BG per pull of the trigger. You are much more likely to hit the CNS with that than with an AR15.

[Mr.Davis]

Well before this question can be answered, we have to decide whether we are talking about normal everyday home defense or SHTF home defense.
The OP pretty completely answered this question when he specifically stated this is not a SHTF scenario in the first post of the thread.
4. The ability to switch out round types in a shotgun at any time makes the shotgun a much more versatile weapon than the AR-15. Round types in a shotgun range from non-lethal (which I recommend) to very lethal. As far as I know all AR-15 rounds are lethal. I could be wrong on this so please let me know if there are readily available non lethal rounds made in .223/5.56 caliber. I have never heard of .223/5.56 caliber bean bags!! You can load your shotgun with rounds in order from non-lethal to lethal. It's always better to give the perp a chance to reconsider his plans and get out of the situation alive. You will have a much better time in court if you do so.
Negotiation ends when a violent criminal actor enters my home. I can't imagine using "bean bag" rounds to try and "make the perp reconsider his plans".

[BugOutBoy]

The OP pretty completely answered this question when he specifically stated this is not a SHTF scenario in the first post of the thread.

Quite right. As such, I would definitely go with the shotty, no question.

[amd6547]

An AR15 does not need to cost $2000, or be equipped with the full array of tacticool accessories. My own AR is a home made retro clone built with a surplus M16A1 upper...I think I spent about $450 building it. Later, I added a 16" barreled CAR upper I found used for $150. As far as the M1 carbine, CMP sells them for about $500.
While it is popular to claim that the AR is not reliable, my own AR has been 100% reliable through 100's of rounds, regardless of which upper I have on it.

[scottishclaymore]

Given all the provisions that the OP has made... I don't think it really matters. That said, you have a lot more control over the level of power from a shotgun round. So I guess it'd be my first pick, all other things being equal.

[Avenger29]

I used to be firmly in the camp of Shotgun Rules, everything else drools.

Now I'm firmly in the camp of "The AR-15 will meet my needs better". And it does.

The shotgun does have a major advantage, though. COST. You can outfit yourself with a top notch fighting shotgun for pretty darn cheap. If you're starting out with guns, and you're young and poor, a shotgun will stretch that dollar for you.

Click BANG Click DAMN slam slam BANG

Your experience, not mine. My AR-15 works. Maybe mine is broken?

[C-grunt]

4. The ability to switch out round types in a shotgun at any time makes the shotgun a much more versatile weapon than the AR-15. Round types in a shotgun range from non-lethal (which I recommend) to very lethal. As far as I know all AR-15 rounds are lethal. I could be wrong on this so please let me know if there are readily available non lethal rounds made in .223/5.56 caliber. I have never heard of .223/5.56 caliber bean bags!! You can load your shotgun with rounds in order from non-lethal to lethal. It's always better to give the perp a chance to reconsider his plans and get out of the situation alive. You will have a much better time in court if you do so. Also, I don't know about any of you but I hope I never have to kill another human being, especially if all they wanted was to steal a few items to sell for money. My flat screen TV is not worth killing someone over. If you don't agree, maybe you need to talk to someone about your issues. I value human life over anything else. I would kill if the person was threatening the lives of anyone in my family but other than that, I would hope to avoid killing.

Problem with that is you dont decide what kind of badguy enters your home. when a guy is about to do serious physical harm to yourself or a family member, you dont want to shoot him with a bean bag.

You might only get one shot off to save your families lives. I want that shot to count.

FYI the national average of shots until compliance for the bean bags is about 4, per my depts instructors. Ive personaly seen it take 3 until the guy gave up.

[C-grunt]

On topic. I prefer the AR to a shotgun, but would feel comfortable with either. I have more training with the AR and believe it will handle multiple bad guys and body armor scenarious better.

I light hollow point has little overpenetration and is devastating to the target.

[BugOutBoy]

Problem with that is you dont decide what kind of badguy enters your home. when a guy is about to do serious physical harm to yourself or a family member, you dont want to shoot him with a bean bag.

You might only get one shot off to save your families lives. I want that shot to count.

FYI the national average of shots until compliance for the bean bags is about 4, per my depts instructors. Ive personaly seen it take 3 until the guy gave up.

I agree with you on this. You might only be able to get one shot off. But, I also agree with those that go the non-lethal route. Mind you, in my shotgun, I only load 1 bean bag round, after that, it's 3 rounds of 00 Buck and then 2 slugs. I'm not gonna try to hit a guy with 4 bean bags, that's just stupid in that situation. I give him 1 chance to change his mind and if continues to advance then all bets are off and the next round will put him down for good.
I can definitely see the benefit of starting with a bean bag but I can also see the benefit of starting with buckshot or slugs right off the bat as well. I wouldn't fault you for putting him down right away, I mean he's in your house at night without an invitation and you have a family to protect.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Tactics is a discussion of WHEN and WHY you use a gun and WHAT YOU DO while you are using it, not WHICH gun you use.

Lee, the idea I was trying to convey is that both of these hammers are more than capable of pounding that particular nail. So in this case, it all comes down to personal preference/training.

I'm not trying to argue with you over what forum this should be in, simply trying to point out that this is a training issue. If you have none, there may be a slight advantage in an AR. If you have training, then whatever type of firearm you have training with is going to be the way to go.

Round types in a shotgun range from non-lethal (which I recommend) to very lethal.

Using less-lethal rounds in a shotgun is usually going to be a bad idea. Let's look at the practical aspects of this:

1. Less-lethal rounds such as bean bag rounds or rubber buckshot can, and occasionally do, kill people. Like any other round using such rounds from a shotgun is considered "use of lethal force" and may only be legally used when you or someone else is in immediate fear of death or serious injury.
2. By design, non-lethal rounds rely on psychological compliance, meaning the choice of whether to continue doing whatever it was that put you in fear of death or serious injury is in the hands of the person you just shot, hurt but probably did not physically stop.
3. When police officers deploy these types of ammunition, they always do it with other police officers backing them up with lethal force (and typically it is used on people threatening suicide or attempting "suicide by cop'). Your average home defense scenario is likely to find you in a reactive mode and without backup and the person in it is more likely to be looking to end your life than ending their own.

[blaisenguns]

have more training with the AR and believe it will handle multiple bad guys and body armor scenarious better.

The shotgun is much better at dealing with body armor. If a perp is hit in the chest with a slug wearing Kevlar, the blunt force destroys his ribcage and is lethal, even though there is no penetration.

[76shuvlinoff]

Quote:
have more training with the AR and believe it will handle multiple bad guys and body armor scenarious better.
The shotgun is much better at dealing with body armor. If a perp is hit in the chest with a slug wearing Kevlar, the blunt force destroys his ribcage and is lethal, even though there is no penetration.

Not sure if that's completely true or not but it is exactly why my HD 870 is loaded for a slug to be the first round down the pipe, then it's all buck till dry.

[jmortimer]

A slug will incapacitate someone wearing boby armor - it might kill them but most likely will just put them down for awhile. Still the slug will stop most any fight. In Iraq and Afghanistan the pieces-O'krap fear our shotguns and not so much for the tiny .223. For urban warfare and HD there is no debate, the shotgun is better. I'll take a FN SLP 12 guage any day. In open areas a auto/semi-auto rifle would be better. And for home defense I'd take a Ruger Mini 14 over the AR - more reliable and more handy.

[berettashotgun]

7 rounds of 9 pellets = 63 projectiles
7 rounds of 12 pellets = 84 projectiles
Enter some tungsten into the equation - WOW
I believe that's about plenty for many if not most every encounter.
Besides - point shooting isn't very useful with a rifle.

[Jason_W]

You could always load a shotgun up with one of these. Of course, you can forget about a quick followup shot:D

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k278/jwimb/th_12galightfield.jpg (http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k278/jwimb/?action=view&current=12galightfield.flv)

[oldpuppymax]

SHOTGUN, without doubt. The object is to STOP a thug, or two or three. A 12 gauge loaded with #2 buck (00 isn't really necessary) will do just that, very quickly and decisively. A large guy can overcome a .223 slug, but not buckshot through the midsection. If it doesn't sever his spine, bleeding will be profuse and death very rapid, especially as over a 10-15' range, the shot will have limited opportunity to spread. And I can't imagine many criminals, stupid enough to break into an occupied home who wouldn't run pretty quickly after the sound of the first blast--especially INDOORS-- never mind the sight of one of their comrades cut in two.

[Rshooter]

Shotgun over my AR for me. If I need thirty rounds I'm going out the second floor window.

[FAS1]

Since I don't yet own an AR15 my Beretta 1201FP is my choice. Probably would still be the same if I did own an AR.

[KAK]

AR.

High capacity... bring on 10 BGs at once!!! Ive always got 4 loaded mags ready to rock.


I have wondered about things like a bolt gun in 300 mag with a thermal scope or something to take them out through walls.

[Youngster]

Shotgun.

I'm much better with a shotgun that any carbine.

[76shuvlinoff]

with a thermal scope or something to take them out through walls.

not a good idea

[oneounceload]

I have wondered about things like a bolt gun in 300 mag with a thermal scope or something to take them out through walls.

Sounds like too much video gaming going on........

Shooting anyone past immediate life or death distances is NOT a good idea. The use of deadly force, while allowed in most locales, is a restricted use. Learn what it is in your locale and act accordingly.

[Hawk]

7 rounds of 9 pellets = 63 projectiles
7 rounds of 12 pellets = 84 projectiles
Enter some tungsten into the equation - WOW
I believe that's about plenty for many if not most every encounter.
Besides - point shooting isn't very useful with a rifle.

I don't have a dog in the fight but I believe I recall the general consensus of the shotgun forum to be "birdshot isn't a good idea for HD". If so, I would question the relevance of projectile count.

After all...
7 rounds of 460 pellets = 3,220 projectiles.
Add copper plated and, well, still not "WOW".

It would appear that pellet count is inversely rather than directly proportional to perceived effectiveness. To wit: most here appear more comfy with one slug over the 400 to 500 one would get with #8 birdshot. According to this (http://www.shotgunworld.com/amm.html) using #12 (which I didn't even know existed) would give you a whopping 18,000 projectiles with 7 rounds at 1-1/8" ounces per.

Besides - point shooting isn't very useful with a rifle.
Even at home defense distances?

Interesting observations though.

[RockyMtnTactical]

I would prefer my AR15. I am better trained with it and feel most comfortable with it. That said, I would likely grab whichever weapon was closest to me at the time.

Either will do, if you will...

[ArmedBear]

Hawk, you have that all backwards.

The reason buckshot is more effective than birdshot is that it shoots much larger, heavier pellets.

If you could shoot 350 pellets of 00 Buck in one round, you'd better believe it would be more effective than 9. What's NOT effective is using #7 1/2 birdshot instead.

[IllHunter]

since it has not happened, (insert prayer here)is that the dog will stop/slow the invader at the entry point. I will take the glock to figure out the threat, and if the dog is no longer making noise, I will get the 870 and retreat to a defensive position, holding the hallway, bedrooms and baths. She is on the cell in a defended corner behind me. If it gets to shooting, it will be the noisy 12ga making it's presence known. If they persist, they must be zombies:eek: and then it's empty the ext-mag, the butt saddle and the glock (2x17). My imagination runs out after that and I segue into "Night of the Living Dead" as I open the safe and decide on whether to grab more 12ga ammo or the rifle. (If I can get to the safe, they will be out of the way. I believe I shall put more 12ga ammo in the bedroom!:uhoh:

[berettashotgun]

Uh.....Hawk.....mathematically speaking:p those 00 buck pellets in my little "equation" are pretty big chunks O' lead.
Tungsten is a little heavier than lead, and a WHOLE lot harder than "Add copper plated and, well, still not "WOW".

My point is simply,

A: at the range for HD a single round of 00 buckshot containing 12 pellets with around 2 grand of muzzle energy is very VERY! lethal. All that and a box of cookies with ONE - count 'em - ONE pull of the trigger.
1 trigger pull and you have BASICALLY 12 32acp +P rounds ( ENERGY WISE ) in the empty space between you and Mr. BG. at around 1300fps. Nice as most any pistol can do.

B: with a common shotgun holding 6 + 1 ( well - my common shotguns ~ Beretta 1201FP's) the shot-gunner has tremendous fire power with little if any "work" from himself.

BTW~ -in 1982 I was standing next to a man who was shot in the stomach/chest with #7.5 birdshot from a Stevens double. You could see thru the hole. He was my Step-dad and his murderer did a lot of time. Didn't bring him back.
My respect for the power of a shotgun is founded on BTDT.
On the other hand, at 40 yards a pellet of 6-7-8 stuck in my behind thru my pants. That really stung. If I didn't hear it, I'd swear a wasp stung me.

[Hawk]

The shotgun is much better at dealing with body armor. If a perp is hit in the chest with a slug wearing Kevlar, the blunt force destroys his ribcage and is lethal, even though there is no penetration.

I would be interested in your comments regarding BoT's results:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm

As noted previously I don't have a dog in the fight apart from an interest in accuracy of assertions. Conjecture vs. informal test results, that sort of thing.

The whack to the clay with a slug looked decidedly uncomfortable but I'm not picking up "shattered ribcage" and / or "lethal".

Mostly, though, I'm completely missing where this:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/images/16-20.jpg
is "much better at dealing with body armor" than this:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/images/16-12.jpg

I don't believe IIIA is "listed" for slugs but since this whole thing is academic anyway, what the hey? It's not like BGs wearing body armor hasn't already tipped the topic well into the TEOTWAWKI realm.

Box of Truth's summary:
Lessons learned:
1. Level IIIA armor stopped the handgun bullets tested, just as designed. Either JHPs or Ball.

2. Once again, "Rifles are rifles and pistols are pistols". Rifles went right through, just as expected.

3. The armor stopped 00 Buck and Rifled Slugs.

4. If your adversery is wearing armor, don't depend on pistols or shotguns. Go for a rifle. As Clint Smith says, "The only purpose for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should have never laid down".

[Hawk]

Hawk, you have that all backwards.

The reason buckshot is more effective than birdshot is that it shoots much larger, heavier pellets.



Then I simply wasn't clear - my point is that projectile count is irrelevant in the context of both rounds mass being roughly the same. A lot more pellets = birdshot = not ideal.

Larger and heavier == fewer of them. Hence projectile count is inversely proportional to HD viability.

One is good; 500 is not so good. They both weigh right around an ounce.

If you could shoot 350 pellets of 00 Buck in one round, you'd better believe it would be more effective than 9.

No doubt, but this was "shotgun vs AR" not "punt gun vs. AR". I wasn't considered pintle-mounted shotguns in my reply.

[ArmedBear]

Hawk, you're still completely wrong.

Did read what you quoted in your post?

"7 rounds of 9 pellets = 63 projectiles"

That means 7 rounds, and each of them has 9 pellets of 00 Buck. You're saying that you think that 7 rounds of 9 00 Buckshot pellets, fired consecutively from a shotgun, would be less effective at stopping an attack than one round of 9 00 Buck pellets?

500 pellets of 00 Buck do NOT weigh an ounce.

[Hawk]

Hawk, you're still completely wrong.

Did read what you quoted in your post?

"7 rounds of 9 pellets = 63 projectiles"

That means 7 rounds, and each of them has 9 pellets of 00 Buck. You're saying that you think that 7 rounds of 9 00 Buckshot pellets, fired consecutively from a shotgun, would be less effective at stopping an attack than one round of 9 00 Buck pellets?

We may have to conclude that we're simply talking past one another - happens on the internet all time.

To answer the question:

No. I'm not saying "that 7 rounds of 9 00 Buckshot pellets, fired consecutively from a shotgun, would be less effective at stopping an attack than one round of 9 00 Buck pellets".

I am saying "that 7 rounds of 9 00 Buckshot pellets, fired consecutively from a shotgun, would be no more effective less effective at stopping an attack than seven one rounds of 1 slug each.

Further, I am asserting "that 7 rounds of 500 #8 pellets, fired consecutively from a shotgun, would be less effective at stopping an attack than seven one rounds of 1 slug each.

In both cases, 7 pellets (seven slugs) is accepted by the majority here as viable as is 63 pellets (7 rounds of 00 buck) but 3,500 pellets (7 rounds of birdshot) is not viable. Hence I view the "pellet count" thing as a red herring outside the context of crew-served shotguns.

500 pellets of 00 Buck do NOT weigh an ounce.
500 pellets of #8 do, more or less. That's why I have an issue with pellet count - if pellet count was the alpha and omega we wind up with birdshot assuming our total mass per round is fixed in the general vicinity of an ounce rather than whatever a canister of grapeshot would weigh in at.

Hope this helps.

If you still think I've got it bass-ackwards, I'll write it off to communication issues on my part - I've never known you to be disingenuous on this forum and don't believe you're starting now. I, on the other hand, may be having challenges with the written word. I assure you the math is sound - the communication may be lacking though.

[Hawk]

A: at the range for HD a single round of 00 buckshot containing 12 pellets with around 2 grand of muzzle energy is very VERY! lethal. All that and a box of cookies with ONE - count 'em - ONE pull of the trigger.
1 trigger pull and you have BASICALLY 12 32acp +P rounds ( ENERGY WISE ) in the empty space between you and Mr. BG. at around 1300fps. Nice as most any pistol can do.
(bold mine)

I'm not saying that it isn't.

I am saying it's not any more impressive than a Brenneke Gold at 3 grand of muzzle energy. Or a "reduced recoil tactical defense" which still hovers around the 2 grand mark.

In other words, 1 slug is giving up nothing to your 12 pellets. Either one will either hit or miss.

Hence my issue with "pellet count" - on a per round basis the consensus appears to be:
1 pellet (slug): Viable
9 pellets: Viable
12 pellets: Viable
500 pellets: Not Viable.

Somewhere between 12 and 500 the "pellet count" theory melts down (in a home defense context). I don't know where that would be - 30 pellets? 70? 100?

Perhaps the confusion is that you're deriving a comparison with handguns while I'm comparing one type of shotgun round to another type of shotgun round.

I have no conjecture on comparing 12 pellets to 12 .32ACP rounds - strikes me as apples vs. gazelles - an interesting exercise but without apparent connection to the "home defense" portion of the thread - I've seldom (never?) seen 12 round .32ACP handguns (with ballistically challenged projectiles - even in groups of seven) put forward as a recommended alternative to either shotguns or rifles.

[SnakeLogan]

Hawk:

I don't have a dog in the fight but I believe I recall the general consensus of the shotgun forum to be "birdshot isn't a good idea for HD". If so, I would question the relevance of projectile count.

After all...
7 rounds of 460 pellets = 3,220 projectiles.
Add copper plated and, well, still not "WOW".

It would appear that pellet count is inversely rather than directly proportional to perceived effectiveness. To wit: most here appear more comfy with one slug over the 400 to 500 one would get with #8 birdshot. According to this using #12 (which I didn't even know existed) would give you a whopping 18,000 projectiles with 7 rounds at 1-1/8" ounces per.

It's an entirely different situation when the projecticles from the shotshell on average penetrate as much as the deepest penetrating 223 rounds in ballistic gel.

[SnakeLogan]

The only guarenteed way to physilogically stop a determined attacker is to hit his CNS, which means the spine or brain. You're much more likely to do that to a BG before he's able to harm you with 12 pellets of 00 per trigger pull than 1 223 bullet per trigger pull.

[ArmedBear]

No. I'm not saying "that 7 rounds of 9 00 Buckshot pellets, fired consecutively from a shotgun, would be less effective at stopping an attack than one round of 9 00 Buck pellets".

I am saying "that 7 rounds of 9 00 Buckshot pellets, fired consecutively from a shotgun, would be no more effective less effective at stopping an attack than seven one rounds of 1 slug each.

Further, I am asserting "that 7 rounds of 500 #8 pellets, fired consecutively from a shotgun, would be less effective at stopping an attack than seven one rounds of 1 slug each.


Well, that's not what you posted before. You were comparing 7 rounds of 00 Buck with a bunch of birdshot, and with a slug, and with god-knows-what-all.

And none of it made a lick of sense. I wasn't talking past you. I was actually reading what you wrote.

Birdshot has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING here, and it was YOU who for some reason started comparing birdshot with buckshot. Whether a single slug or several large lead balls will be more effective as an immediate "stopper" is left as an exercise. I don't know, since I've never had the opportunity to compare them firsthand in real-world use, and I hope I don't ever need to.

I do think that SnakeLogan is correct. A slug may be less likely to do that than a small pattern of 00 Buck, or it might penetrate better. Depends.

[Hawk]

Well, that's not what you posted before. You were comparing 7 rounds of 00 Buck with a bunch of birdshot, and with a slug, and with god-knows-what-all.

And none of it made a lick of sense. I wasn't talking past you. I was actually reading what you wrote.

Well, now I feel better. It's evidently less of a communication issue on my part than a reading comprehension issue on your part.

You may feel free to post a quote where I actually did what you describe but I doubt you'll be able to do it. I clearly stated that I viewed pellet count to be inversely proportional to HD effectiveness. I would have thought that it would be obvious that the intent was to compare the typical birdshot round to the typical slug (thus questioning the whole "number of pellets downrange thing) but I guess with everything else in this thread I should have made it more obvious.

Just to be clear: 500 pellets underperform 1 (or 9 or 12) pellets in a given single 12 gauge round, all else equal. We're pretty much agreed on that and the rest is you "reading between the lines" - ordinarily an enviable talent but one inapplicable to what I'm talking about.

The proposal that 9 pellets of whatever size and mass are as effective as 9 rounds of whatever handgun round is under discussion has less than nothing to do with what I said - more pellets per unit mass is not an advantage - unless one is to postulate that one might hit with some pellets while the slug might be clean miss - an assumption I don't see as plausible given typical 00 group sizes at HD ranges. If one misses with 3 of the 9 pellets it's reasonable to assume the other 6 will not do much - they're certainly not going to be anywhere near COM. My intent is not to address 1 pellet vs 12 as much as "one to a dozen" vs. "hundreds".

Like Red Leader said in the first Star Wars: "Stay on target". Engaging me in debate over a position I don't hold is a waste of both our times. Perhaps re-read my first post on the matter? It was basically "I'm told birdshot is a bad idea so why are we crowing about "pellet count"?. Extolling the virtues of pellet count is bogus (outside the context of punt guns).

My other assertion, quite independent of the "pellet count" observation is that I find the bald assertion that slugs outperform M123 rounds against body armor to be contradicted by informal testing. But I'll keep an open mind - I've requested that the poster making the assertion provide additional info.

Snake makes a good point but I again feel people may be responding to what I didn't say - I'm not pushing the AR - it's a "body armor" only issue that I'm questioning.

Birdshot has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING here, and it was YOU who for some reason started comparing birdshot with buckshot.
Yup - I did. As an example of why I didn't believe "pellet count" to be of any consequence in the discussion. I didn't realize I was not permitted examples of large pellet counts.

[berettashotgun]

At home DEFENSE ranges - I have personally experienced the effects of birdshot. It's horrible.
And was deadly. On the spot.
I would not ever intentionally use birdshot, but it still has the same amount of energy as a slug ( of equal weight ) for the few feet HD distances encompass.
The Box O'Truth has some validating tests on shotgun projectiles; how many yards are most ( or all ) of those tests performed at.
That stated, I wouldn't try and change your mind.
This is all pretty much overdone here anyways.
I most likely would just sic my Wife on'em. Unless they brought beer and called in advance - I feel sorry for them.

[blaisenguns]

Quote:
The shotgun is much better at dealing with body armor. If a perp is hit in the chest with a slug wearing Kevlar, the blunt force destroys his ribcage and is lethal, even though there is no penetration.

I would be interested in your comments regarding BoT's results:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm

As noted previously I don't have a dog in the fight apart from an interest in accuracy of assertions. Conjecture vs. informal test results, that sort of thing.

The whack to the clay with a slug looked decidedly uncomfortable but I'm not picking up "shattered ribcage" and / or "lethal".

Mostly, though, I'm completely missing where this:

is "much better at dealing with body armor" than this:


I don't believe IIIA is "listed" for slugs but since this whole thing is academic anyway, what the hey? It's not like BGs wearing body armor hasn't already tipped the topic well into the TEOTWAWKI realm

OK I admit I am not an expert on body armor, but I know that if you shoot someone wearing Kevlar with a non-armor piercing .223/5.56 round it will not penetrate. Granted the slug wont either, but it is like getting hit in the chest with a sledge hammer, and it is enough to kill, and they will at least be down for a while. I have heard of people wearing body armor and being hit with a slug and dying, from friends in the police force and history channel shows etc. If your packing a 7.62 NATO rifle, hey there you go, but .223/5.56 are no good against body armor, even the 7.62x39 wont penetrate.

[dom1104]

OK I admit I am not an expert on body armor, but I know that if you shoot someone wearing Kevlar with a non-armor piercing .223/5.56 round it will not penetrate. Granted the slug wont either, but it is like getting hit in the chest with a sledge hammer, and it is enough to kill, and they will at least be down for a while. I have heard of people wearing body armor and being hit with a slug and dying, from friends in the police force and history channel shows etc. If your packing a 7.62 NATO rifle, hey there you go, but .223/5.56 are no good against body armor, even the 7.62x39 wont penetrate.

I believe you are wrong re: this. A rifle plate is needed to stop rifle rounds for the most common body armor types.

[KenW.]

No CONCEALABLE law enforcement body armor will stop a center fire rifle round unless a rifle plate is also used. Even most cops won't wear one of those full-time.

My vest is a IIIa, and I know it won't stop a .223, much less a deer rifle like a .30-06 or 7mm.

A slug won't penetrate, but the trauma from the impact of an ounce of 000 buck or a slug will cause lasting, and possibly fatal, damage even without full penetration. I shot a level IIa vest once with 000 buck. A couple of the pellets DID penetrate. Most likely because the pellets that hit first caused enough damage to the kevlar aramid fiber that allowed the following pellets to get through. Out of six pellets of 000, two got through. That's two -.36 cal (9.1 mm) projectiles into the target.

[JShirley]

A large guy can overcome a .223 slug, but not buckshot through the midsection.

Well, that's an interesting statement. What PROOF do you have?

Some of you have completely derailed the intent of the OP, which was to compare rifle vs. shotgun for HD. If you can return to the subject of the thread, it'll stay open.

[figment]

there's some pretty crazy claims being made here.

I have not read this thread in a couple of days because it was spiraling away from reality even then. Some of you guys are quite knowledgeable, others apparently get all your information from the internet and TV shows. Those in the later group, do yourselves a big favor and get out and actually shoot.

.223 ball will make a +.30 cal hole in 1/2 plate steel at +75 yards. How do I KNOW? Done it. Really been there. SEEN it happen. no joke. Propping up a table or standing behind a car door (like they do on TV)is useless against a .223 and so is body armor. You may be sincere in your beliefs but you will be sincerely dead if you relied on these defenses against a rifle.

That being said, my primary choice for HD is the shotgun due to a number of factors that include penetration, knockdown and reliability.

[amd6547]

Use what you have, use what you are effective with. I own both, but most likely would have a handgun in hand if something goes bump in the night.

[JShirley]

Okay, that's an excellent note to end on.