Is there a way to make birdshot useful for defense?

chopinbloc said:

Pellets penetrate individually. If the case that you saw involved deeper penetration, it is because larger pellets and/or higher velocity was involved. Pellets are not encouraged to penetrate more deeply by being near their friends.

Click to expand...

That's not exactly true.

If they are still in the shot cup holding hands then there is a collective energy of them and the sectional density hasn't spread yet.

Think of gang tackling......or hammering nails.

A nail penetrates individually and if you keep hitting it with equal force, it drives in deeper just as a hundred more pellets ramming in deeper the 1st ones to make contact.


ETA it's briefly mentioned here as to (partially) why buck is better to bird shot.

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2012/11/15/buckshot-vs-birdshot/

Buckshot pellets tend to stick tightly together as they proceed downrange, dumping all of their collective energy into the target. Smaller pellets such as birdshot, on the other hand, have an inherent tendency to spread out more widely.

Click to expand...

The video of the ballistic gel going flying off the table is pretty impressive. I have never seen that before. While not the best choice it should be fairly obvious that even a bird shot load dumps a substantial amount of energy into the target at short ranges.

Is there any stories of people surviving point blank center mass shots with bird shot?

I keep reading response after response from some of you guys about the capabilities of bird shot. Comments like being only good for point blank range or maybe put to 2 - 3 feet. Are you serious? Bird shot from a shotgun can be down right lethal from across most rooms in a home. If not, it can cause massive damage. It may not be the ideal ammo for self defense but it will do the job. We are not talking long range shooting here. I would think that some of you here would have a better understanding of the capabilities of a shotgun.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Odd Job:

I'll explain it to you then: the mass of pellets entering the patient in one area has cleared a path for the shotcup. Pellets at the back of the "package" didn't have to contend with any skin or clothing resistance and had to contend with less tissue resistance than the pellets up front.

Click to expand...

230RN:

Somehow I get the impression that you're thinking of individual pellets, without considering the effects of a whole mass of pellets striking at once... even over a (say) 6" diameter circle. Almost instantaneously.

Eleven hundred foot-pounds (conservative) is eleven hundred foot pounds and doesn't get any less by talking about individual pellets. Let alone [considering] the effect of successive teeny little pellets impacting from further back in the shot string.

I also suspect some folks here are arguing just to keep the argument going.

Click to expand...

Respectfully repeated,

Terry, 230RN

See also:
Examples of teeny little particles acting en mass:
https://youtu.be/-E7u0LNUpO4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_disposal#Projected_water_disruptors

SHOOT THEM IN THE FACE !

Im sorry, no one else said it, I kinda had to....

chopinbloc said:

You can think of it in any way you wish, but I just demonstrated that theory is incorrect. You can see the behavior is not as you described.

Click to expand...

Actually the video in post 126 supports what I said.

You can see there is still shot in the cup and the cup penetrated further than the individual pelllets.


That supports my statement of

If they are still in the shot cup holding hands then there is a collective energy of them and the sectional density hasn't spread yet.

Click to expand...

Even though the shot it's loose in the cup, they collectively acted together.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seems that your saying that there is no difference between throwing a bean and throwing a bean bag.

blindhari said:

Reality Check,

In 1992 I was chosen for a jury in a murder trial. Without going into too many specifics;
one 12 ga round of 8 chill birdshot to the chest
one round of the same to the head
distance of discharge 8'
Mossberg pump short barrel
Two holes between 3 and 5" wide and 2"+ deep
death from shock and bleed out
over 100 photos crime scene and autopsy

All 12 jurors Murder 1

Bird shot can kill
I will never serve on another jury

blindhari

Click to expand...

Reality check: We all know birdshot can kill. Nobody has ever said or implied differently.

I suppose if you could count on two shots, one to the chest and one to the head, from a distance of 8 feet, guaranteed, maybe it wouldn't be a bad choice.

Can you guarantee 100% you'll land those shots defending your home, your life, and your family's life?


Better to use something that penetrates adequately.

reddog81 said:

Is there any stories of people surviving point blank center mass shots with bird shot?

Click to expand...

For starters, can you guarantee that when you fire in "self defense" it will be a point blank shot?

And yes ,there are. Sorry, don't have any handy at the moment

For snakes I carefully uncrimp low brass 7.5 shot shells, put in the same weight of #12, add some tissue (toilet paper) to take up the extra space and recrimp. Pattern is very good a the distances you'd shoot a snake (testing on 20oz bottles). Should be good even if a snake is wearing PET body armor

I suspect doing the same with high brass would make a pretty descent breeching round at a fraction of the cost.

Mike

chopinbloc said:

In terms of penetration? Yes, that's what I'm saying. To put a finer point on it, sure, the test with the cut shell died seem to have penetrated slightly more deeply than birdshot normally does, but it was done in clear gel, which occasionally gives exaggerated penetration figures. Even if we take that result at face value, the takeaway is that birdshot doesn't penetrate anywhere near deeply enough to be suitable for defense, even when contained in a plastic capsule until impact. Look, I'm willing to concede that it's possible the is a negligible increase in penetration if the shot is packed closely together on impact, but it doesn't matter. It's still a fraction of the depth that is necessary.

Click to expand...

As a percentage, it penetrated quite a bit better but I agree it still falls far short of the FBI stats.


Don't get the wrong impression.... Imo, bird shot is for our feathered friends.

A "cut" shell is more than adequate. If you have never done this or seen it done you really shouldn't comment. Old timers around here used to take down deer with a cut shell made from light loads while squirrel hunting. Almost like shooting a slug.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

For snakes I carefully uncrimp low brass 7.5 shot shells, put in the same weight of #12,

Click to expand...

Just wondering why you would do that? #7.5, 8, or 9 shot should be ideal snake medicine.

So I can only wonder how many wounded deer those squirrel hunters left out in the woods.
Did they cut their shells on the spot or carry a special pre-cut shell in their pocket?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

In the video the shot was made through a sheetrock wall before hitting the ballistics gel. Just saying. You can argue all you want on here. Bird shot is definitely lethal when used within moderate range. This being within a home. The damage to a human body would be catastrophic. You talk like all of the shot would have to completely pass through a person to be considered lethal.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Odd Job said:

I'll explain it to you then: the mass of pellets entering the patient in one area has cleared a path for the shotcup. Pellets at the back of the "package" didn't have to contend with any skin or clothing resistance and had to contend with less tissue resistance than the pellets up front.

By the way I suggest you lose the lippy attitude. You might learn something if you put in the effort to listen.

Click to expand...

This is correct. You would have to be a moron to not agree with this.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

I really like #4 and 5 shot because they will pass all the way through a squirrel at 35 yards and not stay in the meat to break my teeth. In rural self defence, besides humans, there are also snakes, poultry preditors, rabid skunks and coons, feral dogs and cats, etc. They often get more than one shot becauce I want them dead. If these guys on those videos and posting in this forum have not killed some stuff then they are using hearsay and assumptions. I have never seen balistic gel dressed in denim chasing my chickens, but I have seen coyotes and feral dogs. I think there is a lot of internet hype being spouted here. I f you want to know what it takes to disable or kill, go kill something. I was once was attacked by a guinea hen after AFTER I chopped its head off. My father killed a hog DRT with one rock from a sling shot. I have killed squirrels DRTwith gut shots and shot at others so many times they died of smoke inhalation.

chopinbloc said:

Well, I don't believe it, because it is factually incorrect, so what are you saying?

Click to expand...

It is factually completely correct. You are not dealing with each individual shot passing through its own hole. You have lots of shot following other shot through tissue damaged by the leading shot. At the beginning of the impact the tissue is compromised. It's repeated impacts in multiple locations. It's one of the factors that make a shotgun so effective. You have to think of it like bead blasting. Same effect on a smaller scale. It's not speculation, it's common sense. Apparently that is a dying quality in the world today.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk