Does anyone NOT own a shotgun?

I could sell every firearm I own except for my concealed handgun and my Remington 870 and not lose a wink of sleep.

Those two firearms will handle virtually 100% of the threats a human will encounter in their lifetime. Additionally, every animal on this planet, including Elephants, have been taken with shotguns.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

You also demonstrate your ignorance of the terminal ballistics of rifles by lumping them in with handguns. I suggest you read the published works of Dr. Martin L. Fackler, and other members of the International Wound Ballistics Association to remedy said ignorance.

Click to expand...

Fackler was not exactly a proponent of the hydrostatic shock theory you reference above. So you're kind of introducing conflicting sources and theories. Fackler was all about hemorragic shock.

Anyway, people really seem to get personally caught up in these discussions.

You'll note that I have not disputed that rifle rounds cause terrific injury, especially at close range. I've actually shot enough of them into living, breathing things to know with absolute certainty that rifle rounds to vicious things to bone and tissue. I've seen with my own eyes all of the phenomenon typically referenced, such as fragmentation, tumbling, etc. Rifle velocities will turn bone itself into a muscle and artery shredding missile ripping through flesh. It's nasty stuff. And effective.

However, even WITH that first-hand, direct understanding, I personally believe the shotgun is more effective at close range. I've seen firsthand the effects of 00 as well. And with my own, firsthand experience, I answer the OPs question with, "you want to keep your shotgun because it will do horrifically nasty things to the goblin that hulk-smashes your door at 3am."

That statement is true. It cannot be disputed. Shotguns are lethal. Period.

If your response is "sell your shotgun because rifles are ...... " that's fine as well.

What I don't understand is why it's so all-fired important that someone must be right, definitive, and the end-all-be-all of all that is terminal ballstics right here in this thread and in this forum.

Shotguns are nasty.

Rifles are nasty.

I believe shotguns are nastier, and bring more nasty, quicker. You disagree. But if, zomg, you're right and I'm.... oh dear oh my .... "wrong," .... it isn't the end of the world.

The OP and anyone else reading the thread and asking the question can make up their own mind.

However, someone did refer to the concept of shotguns as stoppers as a "myth." Can anyone provide examples/anecdotes of folks that kept coming after eating a couple of rounds of 00 in the chest?

LeonCarr said:

I could sell every firearm I own except for my concealed handgun and my Remington 870 and not lose a wink of sleep.

Those two firearms will handle virtually 100% of the threats a human will encounter in their lifetime. Additionally, every animal on this planet, including Elephants, have been taken with shotguns.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Click to expand...

+100

Siglite, my comments were not directed at you. They were directed at unique dot, who lumps pistol and rile ballistics together as single projectile weapons.

You'll note I've not disagreed that shotguns with buckshot produce prolific wounds. I've also seen what a .223 Rem ballistic tip through the chest of a deer will do, and it's extreme.

I believe we are on the same page with rifle and shotgun terminal ballistics being extremely similar, and handgun terminal effects not even being comparable. I'm not trying to win any ballistics argument. I'm simply countering the assertions by some that only shotguns are capable of such prolific wounding. You've not engaged in any personal attacks, but have vigorously debated the issues. Thank you for showing such class in doing so.

Siglite, my comments were not directed at you. They were directed at unique dot, who lumps pistol and rile ballistics together as single projectile weapons.

Click to expand...

Yes i lumped them together because someone shot at self defense distance with a rifle has to be hit in the head or spine (there have been people hit in the heart that were able to return fire before expiring) to be instantly stopped as the bullet passes straight through taking it's energy with it when using common hunting ammo and especially NATO. Perhaps if you spend a bit of time with a few vets with first hand experience you'll have a better understanding...or you could just accept the fact that multiple hits are more lethal. Common sense should tell anyone that if a single trigger pull can strike the brain and heart almost simultaneously or at closer range completely destroy a torso that it's a more lethal weapon at those ranges. I have seen what shotguns do to people and animals, I have seen what handguns do to people and animals, and I have seen what rifles do to people and animals. At home defense ranges the scattergun has no equal... and it's much safer for your neighbors when the bullet passes through or misses the perp.

I'll have to admit I only bought it because I figured I should have one.

Click to expand...

You bought it. Learn it. Spend some time shooting it. Then sell it if you decide to. But actually take some time to get to learn the shooting a shotgun. Get good with it. See it for what it's worth.

It's like the proverbial bicycle. Isn't it better to have learned how to shoot a shotgun and that not? There is no loss in this.

If you only have an 18 " barrel? I shot a 3" group yesterday at the 50 yard line with an 870 Police Magnum with a 18" barrel with rifle sights. You can do the same thing with that barrel.

Keep it civil, guys.

Up close, in a home, speed of incapacitation is the NUMBER ONE attribute you are looking for in a weapon. At close range, every second the bad guy lives before he is out of the fight, makes it possible to kill you back.

There are no sure things. Every weapon will fail. The shotgun will fail less often to immediate put a guy out of the fight in the shortest time frame possible.

Droid noob said:

I know what your saying, but I don't do any of those things. I should have just bought a cheap 500 or 870 combo and been done. I went the tactical route and kinda have a one trick pony right now. Who knows... Maybe I'll just spring for a longer barrel for clays and see if that as fun as most think.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

I hear ya regarding the 18 to 20" barrel. The clay place I go to doesn't allow barrels that are under 26" (not that they kick out folks who bring them). As for the spare barrels, they can be expensive. The mossberg spare barrels i've seen can run 30 to 50% of the cost of a new shotgun. It might make more sense to sell what you got and then buy one of those combo packages that has both barrels.

By the way, not that I'm all that good (i hit reliably about 50 to 60% of the time) but I really enjoy going out clay shooting. Most ranges have affordable instruction you can get for a couple of hours to help you out. Place we go to is kinda like a golf course. Afterwards, my friends and I get a cold drink and buy some of the nice BBQ food they are serving. It's a nice way to spend an afternoon when I can spare the time.

Amen Leon. To keeping the carry gun and shotgun above all else. Spoken by a guy that loves life and wants to be around as long as possible.

Spoken by a guy that loves life and wants to be around as long as possible.

Click to expand...

Wow, that's a bit much. Are you really suggesting that people who don't want to keep their shotguns don't love life or want to be around as long as possible?

It's a freakin' shotgun, not a magic talisman. I enjoy my shotguns and wouldn't give them up, but I certainly don't ascribe some particular evidence of a superior joie de vivre to owning one. (Well, maybe some of the really high end doubles, but I can't afford that level of joie de vivre. )

A shotgun is a tool. If you like them, BA/UU/R. If you don't, find something you enjoy and drive on.

All the arguing over rifles/carbines vs shotguns. Just one thing to remember, you cannot legally go duck hunting with a .30-06. And, I got good money says I can outshoot you on a round of sporting clays, me with my 20 gauge, you with your Ruger 10/22.

The old cliche "To each his own" is applicable here. If a shotgun doesn't serve a "purpose" for you then I agree, why have it (logically speaking)? I'd get rid of it yesterday if I were you (or any material object one may have that 'collects dust').

That said, I consider a shotgun to be my most versatile and practical weapon in my modest collection. For CQB and like others have already eloquently stated, IMO it simply cannot be beaten (the data is empirical in this regard as I interpret). Now granted the shotgun is not the optimal "reach out and touch someone" (AKA long-range) type weapon. However, for my purposes I only need something that will be effective say out to 100-125 yds MAX and I have trained myself accordingly to achieve some decent slug groupings at said distances. So it makes for perhaps the most effective and devastating close-quarters weapon available as well as a very formidable long-range option if necessary (budget wise it renders very costly AR/AK platform unnecessary).

YMMV.

I admit I'm a bit puzzled by folks stating they have little use for shotguns.

Click to expand...

I don't hunt. Only use I had for one was shooting clays that I did once in a while. I've gotten far more use out of my rifle.

Those two firearms will handle virtually 100% of the threats an America Citizen will encounter in their lifetime.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

Up close, in a home, speed of incapacitation is the NUMBER ONE attribute you are looking for in a weapon. At close range, every second the bad guy lives before he is out of the fight, makes it possible to kill you back.

Click to expand...

I live in a neighborhood and fear over penetration so I use frangible ammo in my AK74. I don't think many people are going to be fighting back after 1 - 3 rounds of 5.45x39 fired into them.

To me a shotgun is the ultimate "feel safe" gun. The first time I ever shot guns was with friends. I knew nothing of firearms so I dont know everything I shot.

We were shooting at an old metal cabinet, those fully enclosed types with the double doors. I was handed a rifle and told to "have at 'er". The rifle punched neat little holes in the sheet metal. When the mag was empty they swapped it out for a single-shot shotgun. The shotgun punched a bunch of holes and dented in the face of the cabinet, the cabinet itself wobbled a bit before settling back in place. If it had been a pump action, I could have followed up and knocked the cabinet over.

I knew I had to have a shotgun. I've shot many rifles and shotguns since and have noted that most rifles will penetrate FAR more than a shotgun. I dont live in a close packed neighborhood but I am close enough that a rifle round could easily punch thru my walls and make it to a neighbors property. It is also possible with the shotgun (I'm sure), but less likely.

I know its not everyones cup o' tea, but its definately mine. If you dont want a shotgun, then sell it. Buy your "feel safe" gun, whatever that may be.

but I am close enough that a rifle round could easily punch thru my walls and make it to a neighbors property.

Click to expand...

It's still less likely than buckshot when it's something like 5.56 and 5.45.

Yes i lumped them together because someone shot at self defense distance with a rifle has to be hit in the head or spine (there have been people hit in the heart that were able to return fire before expiring) to be instantly stopped as the bullet passes straight through taking it's energy with it when using common hunting ammo and especially NATO. Perhaps if you spend a bit of time with a few vets with first hand experience you'll have a better understanding..

Click to expand...

You keep ignoring that I spoke with trauma surgeons from the Air Force Theater Hospital at Balad AFB Iraq while I was at Balad (being a REMF doing GTACS). That hospital is where the most critically wounded troops in Iraq were taken for treatment.

I also spoke with a good friend who's a retired USAF CMSgt and spent most of his career as a Para Rescue Man. He's a strong believer in shotguns over rifles based on the people he treated, and bodies he tagged in his 30 year career.

.or you could just accept the fact that multiple hits are more lethal. Common sense should tell anyone that if a single trigger pull can strike the brain and heart almost simultaneously or at closer range completely destroy a torso that it's a more lethal weapon at those ranges.

Click to expand...

I won't accept it because it's not a fact. Referring back to CMSgt friend, he further elaborated that buckshot pellets exhibit minimal deformation, and create a series of very small diameter, fairly clean, wound channels. Conversely, at close range M193 ball has full velocity behind it which allows it to very consistently tumble and fragment. He advised that this tumbling and subsequent fragmentation creates a very wide and very ragged wound channel. He described it as the bullet literally grabbing and ripping flesh on the way through. Unfortunately he's also seen folks who were hit by various expanding bullets from small caliber, high velocity rifles. He advised that those wounds are almost universally DOA, and untreatable regardless because both the heart and lungs have been pulped and liquified.

Here's a link that has illustrations from Dr. Fackler, which are congruent to the above descriptions - http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm.

I have seen what shotguns do to people and animals, I have seen what handguns do to people and animals, and I have seen what rifles do to people and animals. At home defense ranges the scattergun has no equal

Click to expand...

The experience recounted above contradicts that.

...and it's much safer for your neighbors when the bullet passes through or misses the perp.

Click to expand...

No. That's been beaten to death here on THR. Here's a good start - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=210739.

Drop45 said:

I don't have one YET, but I am seriously considering filing ATF papers and buying the tax stamp for a 14 inch barrel version. If its going to go boom, it might as well go BOOM.

Click to expand...

http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=88

Would that work for you instead?

--

Personally I don't own a shotgun never have, but I might end up buying one someday soon since they are so cheap and why not have another gun.

Jorge - how could you get any of that from my post. The guy made a statement I agree with and I stated so.

But since you brought it up. I 12ga shotgun has more initial firepower then any rifle, assult rifle or sub machine gun. So anyone serious about defending the homestead would want as much initial firepower as a civilian can bring to bare. And that is a 12 ga shotgun.

Also, being you're entrusted with the responsibility of being a Moderator so I am a little puzzled why you would have clean your post up. Why would you be nasty to a member for simply posting what I did? THR is one the best Moderated Forums on the net. Glad you cleaned up your post to keep it that way.

In the shotgun vs rifle argument going on here, just how is effectiveness at 1000 yards a factor? If a guy breaks in to my house, my living room is not 1000 yards across. And, if I were to shoot someone at 1000 yards, the law calls that, rightly so, FIRST DEGREE MURDER!. How can you claim self defense at ranges past 25 yards max? Even 25 yards is pushing it for self defense range IMHO.

I do keep a shotgun in the house, a 20 gauge loaded with 3 buck. I do think it'll do the job just fine and not kill my neighbors down the block or ventilate the side of my house if I'm forced to use it.

If you chose a .50 BMG for home defense, I hope you don't live in MY neighborhood.

nope no shotgun. but if you could tell me where you got that "tactical" for your shotgun...

a smooth bore and a 100 round box of walmart birdshot, is a pretty good time. Sell it if you want like everyone says its up to you. I will guess that you will buy another at some point. Maybe not, just my guess.

"One mans Garbage is another mans Gold."

i kinda jumped around on this thread reading posts here and there, so maybe ive missed some info, but what i do know about terminal ballistics is all from experience hunting...no expert here, no scientific studies, so take it for what its worth.

anyway, ive shot big whitetail deer with .357s, .44s, various rifle cartridges, buckshot and slugs, and i believe the 12ga is darn near as effective as youre gonna get if you want to drop something RIGHT NOW. i have no desire to give a badguy a second chance at harming me or my family, so there will always be a HD 12ga beside my bed.

In the shotgun vs rifle argument going on here, just how is effectiveness at 1000 yards a factor?

Click to expand...

Who said anything about long range effectiveness?

If you chose a .50 BMG for home defense, I hope you don't live in MY neighborhood.

Click to expand...

Please, tell me, who here has advocated a .50 BMG for defensive use?

You're insinuating things that no one here has advocated. It was a nice attempt to distract folks from the issue of short range rifle terminal ballistics, but it's not going to work.

I do keep a shotgun in the house, a 20 gauge loaded with 3 buck. I do think it'll do the job just fine and not kill my neighbors down the block or ventilate the side of my house if I'm forced to use it.

Click to expand...

A small to medium caliber rifle with proper ammo selection will be just as effective, and even less likely to overpenetrate.