On Fighting Shotguns....

[Capstick1]

This subject is more controversial than the old .30-06 vs the .270 Winchester argument. Everybody seems to have different opinions about what makes or breaks the ideal fighting shotgun. Most of my shooting experience has been done at the trap and skeet range. Even when shooting trap and skeet aimed fire is still more effective than sustained fire. You just have to lead ahead of your target if it's moving. Forget about that "Aim in the general direction" nonsense. I also think pistol gripped shotguns are for mall ninja's and are a complete waste of time. Some of the familiarization and fundamentals you use in shotgun sports can be applied to the HD shotgun situation. I'm not going to say what type of action is best but I think if you do alot of skeet and trap shooting you should use a short barreled version of the gun your used to for Home defense.

[RugerMcMarlin]

Warning: Selection of the weapon of your choice is no longer,to be based on what you are comfortable with. It must first be voted on and ratified by a non-elected group, of self appointed experts. If it is deemed ineffective, any magical qualities it once had, will disappear. Those of you that do not possess the self confidence to select your own implement, will be victim of the latest fad. A commonly held notion ,based on what everyone else thinks is best, is a fad, whether its a group of teenagers, or a group of geriatrics.

[andrewstorm]

Will complain of my 1897 win 12 ga pump......second only to a browning machinegun.........

[Nushif]

You do know there was no Nazis in WWI .... Right?

[Sam1911]

You do know there was no Nazis in WWI .... Right?

It was satire ... hopefully.




Man, I hope it was satire.

[Justin]

Is 24" barrel too long for home defense?

I run a 24 inch Benelli M2 for 3 gun, and after getting used to the length, as well as forcing myself to actually drive the gun, I've found that it works fine.

In one of the previous threads dealing with PGO shotguns, I actually set up a dryfire course in my house that involved navigating through a few rooms and then dry-firing at a target at about ten feet.

I found that while the PGO shotgun felt faster, running the same drill multiple times with a shot timer and a par time, it was much faster with a fully-stocked, 24 inch shotgun than with a PGO shotgun.

Transitioning from low-ready to getting a "shot" on target was glacially slow with the PGO, and that's based on an assumption that a shot fired from the hip was an actual hit.

[Doxiedad]

Here is what mine looks like



I guess I need to get more rounds through it. I think I've shot it like 6 times

I went to a local sporting goods store and they had a Nova Tactical 18" with ghost ring sights that I liked.

Wonder how hard it would be to put a light (for 4 legged bump in the night encounters) and the sights on it? All it has is a Fiber optic bead up front.

What's weird is now when I go to Benelli's website it doesn't show that configuration. It only shows the steady grip as a turkey gun with in Camo.

[andrewstorm]

Only the "Jerry's"(Hitler was there)of the trenches of WWI would complain of the 97,s advantage,as they did protest the using of the Winchester 97 pump 6 shot double ought,gave the Germans second thought,s also my grandfather left the black forest in 1914,at the direction of his boss (a German field marshal)for France ,because of political unrest of the soon to be Nazis,sadly after the field marshal helped him get to ellis island,he was drafted and sent to europe to fight against his friend,was awarded the purple heart,and became an american citizen.and returned to detroit .

[Axel Larson]

I have a Benelli Super nova tactical with pistol grip and ghost ring sight. No matter what people say pistol grips make the shotgun feel more comfortable, now I will not argue that having no pistol grip makes it come up on target faster but for throwing slugs down range the combination of ghost ring sights and a pistol grip;however, if I want a defense gun loaded with buckshot, I would take a pump action beaded sight and no pistol grip because it keeps it light wight and allows it to come on target fast.
Yet I will say use what you are comfortable with because that is what you will be best with.
Also I do not pretend to be a expert, this is just what I have found from shooting at the range.

[OldCavSoldier]

My current "fighting shotgun." And, is it ever SWEEEEEEEEEET!

[chieftain]

Picture ain't working.

Fred

[MyGreenGuns]

Wow. Just Wow. No further comment.

[mdauben]

I don't even use buck in my Mossie. bird only. I don't want to go to jail for the rest of my life...and anyone who thinks bird is anything but a solid stream of lead at 20-25 feet (still a relatively long distance in a home invasion scenario) is dreaming in technicolour...it is more than enough to put anyone down, on the spot.

Not really sure what birshot and jail have to do with each other?

I know a lot of people like the idea of bird shot for SD loads in shotguns. The thing is, all the evidence I have heard says you are wrong about its effectiveness. Anecdotal evidence from police and EMTs garnered on-line seems to say that birdshot tends to make bloody, but shallow and often non-incapacitating, wounds. Buckshot on the other hand penetrates much deeper and is much more likely to stop an attacker immediately.

Certainly any sort of "on line" evidence is subject to critical examination, but I have heard nothing except arm-chair opinion that bird shot is an effective SD round, while there seems to be plenty of real world evidence that it is not.

[straightshooter9]

Personally, if and when the situation is serious enough that I actually need to SHOOT somebody, I'm shooting to KILL!

A COP told me once that it's always better not having a "witness"!

but that's just me!.........

[Sam1911]

Personally, if and when the situation is serious enough that I actually need to SHOOT somebody, I'm shooting to KILL!

Oh, please not this again!

Look, please remember, we are not executing anyone, we aren't judging them and sentencing them to death for their misdeeds. Causing the death of someone is not, under any circumstances in the US, a lawful GOAL of shooting. That would be murder, not a homicide (potentially) justified by necessity.

Their death -- or continued life -- is NOT a goal of our shooting, nor of consideration or consequence. We shoot SIMPLY and ENTIRELY to STOP the the immediate threat to our lives.

If the attacker runs away -- the threat is stopped.
If the attacker drops his weapon and surrenders -- the threat is stopped.
If the attacker falls down and stops moving -- the threat is stopped.
If the attacker drops, "dead-right-there," -- the threat is stopped.

At any point at which the threat is stopped -- we cease our lethal force response.

We choose our ammunition and our defensive weapons with the intent that they will be the most effective choice we could make to STOP THE THREAT.

Never let it be said that you chose any aspect of your defensive plan because it was more likely to KILL someone. You will be charged with murder. You are likely to be convicted of murder. And you probably should be.

A COP told me once that it's always better not having a "witness"!

That COP was advocating dangerously unlawful and unethical behavior, and is a disgrace to the uniform.

but that's just me!.........

Heavens, let us hope not!

[straightshooter9]

Mr Moderator.....

My spouse was murdered by someone that broke into my house 2 years ago when I wasn't home.......

you do whatever you feel you need to do and I'll LEGALLY do what I think is necessary within the confines of MY home!

As I've said before, if you don't want to get shot don't break into my house!
I live in FLORIDA with the "CASTLE" doctrine, so I have some leeway and RIGHTS to protect my home.

When the police in my town, MIAMI SHORES, tells me I can shoot someone as they crawl thru the broken window/door I would make that decision at that time.........I wasn't talking about shooting somebody in the back.

edited:
I'm certainly not advocating killing anyone without "just" cause.
But as far as "no witnesses", it makes sense to me........as was pointed out to me, rightfully so, the explanation, after the fact, will play an important roll as to innocence or guilt of either party.
Force is certainly justified to stop someone, even if the BG dies as a result of your action.

It's wrong to take someones life unnecessarily, but it may not affect someone that has been in a military conflict the same as a "civilian".
Taking anybody's life should be avoided if possible, but lets be honest here, shooting the BG in the chest with one shot of "00" will probably not only stop the BG but he may also "expire".

[Sam1911]

My spouse was murdered by someone that broke into my house 2 years ago when I wasn't home.......

That is tragic, and you have all of our condolences.

you do whatever you feel you need to do and I'll LEGALLY do what I think is necessary within the confines of MY home!

Of course. I don't believe that we'd take different paths in the case of someone violently breaking into our homes.

However, that is not "shoot to kill" -- it is shoot to stop the threat. There is a difference, and it is an important one.

As I've said before, if you don't want to get shot don't break into my house!

Certainly. That career choice does have risks.

I live in FLORIDA with the "CASTLE" doctrine, so I have some leeway and RIGHTS to protect my home.

Yes indeed. It is important to understand exactly what that "leeway" and "rights" entails. "Shoot to kill" as a goal, isn't allowed by the castle doctrine, or any other law of the land.

When the police in my town, MIAMI SHORES, tells me I can shoot someone as they crawl thru the broken window/door I would make that decision at that time.........I wasn't talking about shooting somebody in the back.

Again, though, the "I'm going to shoot to KILL -- no witnesses" line of discussion is NOT excused by those circumstances.

Someone crawling through your broken window or door, in a state with a castle doctrine provision, often would lower the threshold of the evidence you must present to prove that you needed to shoot.

It has nothing to do with your desire or intent to kill that person, either out of fear, revenge, nor out of a desire that they do not live to testify against you.

But as far as "no witnesses", it makes sense to me........as was pointed out to me, rightfully so, the explanation, after the fact, will play an important roll as to innocence or guilt of either party.

Having an attacker die may help you at trial, or it may not. That possibility is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the action you take in stopping their attack.

Acting with violence against someone for the reason of causing their death is murder.

Acting violently against someone out of last-ditch necessity to prevent them from hurting or killing you is (...well, can be...) justifiable self defense. See the difference there?

[straightshooter9]

Agreed!

[sinisterevil01]

any one here own a benelli nova or super nova

[Dave McCracken]

Sinister, go ahead and ask in a new thread.

[sinisterevil01]

not reall y sure how to work this website yet whats a new thread and when is it appropriate to comment on someones thoughts?

[sinisterevil01]

I do however agree with sam911 because if u are in a situation that requires a weapon of any kind the goal is to stop the immediate threat. Disarm and disable. But I will say this if it comes down to kill or be killed, well I guess that's a different thing all together.

[jbg762]

I don't care for shotguns for tactical use I think they're over rated. Home defense is another matter. A shotgun is fine for that. It's just my preference. I'm issued a 14.5" modified bore Rem 870 with rifle sights, sling, and Surefire light fore end. I've seen a guy shot broadside with a full load of reduced recoil 00 buck duty load. None of the 8 pellets even penetrated his shoulder through to the torso. For awhile I quit carrying it and only carried my issued M-16A1. Until I decided I wanted a shoulder gun up front with me in the roof rack, not just back in the trunk. So I started carrying it again. But I loaded it down with 1 oz reduced recoil slugs should I need to engage someone in a vehicle. I don't have a choice on ammo carried. If I did it would be 9 pellet full power 2 3/4 inch 00 Buck and full power 2 3/4 inch 1 oz rifled slugs.

[jbg762]

Well put Sam1911. I can tell you that if you are involved in a shooting you will be interviewed by the police. No matter how cut and dried justified the shooting was. And if you go in there spouting off lines like "shoot to kill" and "no witnesses" and crap like that you sure won't be helping yourself. Even if the shooting is 100% justified and you're not tried criminally all you're doing is hanging yourself in civil court. So if you're stupid enough to spout all that off to a criminal investigator you may want to just go ahead and exercise that 5th amendment.

[straightshooter9]

Originally Posted by jbg762

Well put Sam1911. I can tell you that if you are involved in a shooting you will be interviewed by the police. No matter how cut and dried justified the shooting was. And if you go in there spouting off lines like "shoot to kill" and "no witnesses" and crap like that you sure won't be helping yourself. Even if the shooting is 100% justified and you're not tried criminally all you're doing is hanging yourself in civil court. So if you're stupid enough to spout all that off to a criminal investigator you may want to just go ahead and exercise that 5th amendment.

I never said that I would tell the POLICE any of that!

Are you stupid (your word, not mine) enough to think that I would ever have a conversation like that with anybody after an incident ?!?