Are Combat Shotguns Obsolete?

It is a shotgun. It has specific attributes that may apply to your situation. Use the correct tool for the job.

I don't know of any servicemen who are issued one as a PRIMARY weapon, except for specialty tasks like MPs and guards, maybe naval boarding parties. So it's kind of hard to answer the question straight up.

Yes absolutely they have a role. But it isn't a primary one.

Shotguns are the King of Cheap and Accessible. Certainly not bad for HD but that is about it.

Completely obsolete.

They have no purpose whatsoever in a modern world.

All they do is launch various lead systems when the trigger is pulled. I can see no use for them in any capacity.



This just in.... is the 1911-style pistol obsolete?

I see many more people using forks these days... I think I will abandon spoons!

No but really, shotguns play a different role than a carbine, a carbine plays a different role than a sidearm, a sidearm plays a different role than an air strike. It's about what you want to do that decides what is best

Door breaching
Less than lethal applications
Signalling
Destroying lighting
Destroying electrical equipment
Close quarter clearing

Nope
I can't see any combat applications for the shotgun,,,,

There are plenty of Remington MCS sold to our Military. The R12 is offered by Remington Defense because there is a need. So there are plenty of applications for these weapon in Combat.

As for LE the shotgun has taken a back seat mostly due to younger officer coming out of the services knowing the M4 platform. But the shotgun is making a come back as Officers are realizing that there is more inital firepower in a 12 ga shotgun then any assault rifle or SMG.

For home defense or in close quarter environments - The Shotgun

For just about everything else out to 400 yards - The Carbine

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

There is plenty a Shotgun can do.

No one is arguing that there are not important tasks shotguns CAN do.

But read the initial question more carefully.

Is this any soldier's "PRIMARY" (his caps) issued weapon? Should any soldier "on the battlefield" (again, his words) be carrying a shotgun? So, answer his ACTUAL question, please.

I don't think so. The reasons why are pretty obvious.

I'm reminded of the account given by a young Army officer who I met when he spoke in promotion of a book he'd written.

He did carry a shotgun on patrols, (I believe his words were, "My NCOs let me carry the shotgun." ) but of course his primary weapon was the radio, and I can't remember if he ever said he'd even fired a shot.

History channel had a show where our boys in Fallujah used a shotgun (Mossberg) I believe to shoot the hinges off the doors before charging a house and killing a whole bunch of terrorists. Seems that most platoons have at least 1 shotgun.

I can't reply to the military side of shotgun use since I was never in combat (did a short tour in VN, but was mostly a pencil pusher).

As far as the police side of things.... In a 22 year career on the street I always had a shotgun in my hands whenever the situation was weapons indicated. Nothing beats one in a close quarters situation when you're forced to be somewhere no one in his right mind would consider going into... More than 90% of the time the safety was never off on my popper but the fellow or group of individuals I was pointing it at never knew that at all... At ranges under 20 meters the shotgun rules -and will allow you to put down an armed opponent with one shot, period. I never had the luxury of any "tactical shotgun"... all we had were the issued, beat up Remington 870 or Mossberg 500 basic models in riot configuration (18- 20" barrel, four in the tube, one in the chamber, bead sight only....). I always preferred the Remington since I distrusted the safety on the Mossbergs (nothing wrong with them -but I feared that under stress I might clear the safety without meaning to.....). Our ammo was basic 2 3/4" buck or slug, nothing fancy or extra powerful. The results of a full load of 00 buck on a human torso have to be seen to be appreciated.... In all my years I only fired one shot on the street.. with dead right there results at a range of 40 feet.

In my later years as I moved into supervision then to watch commander status I was able to have a dedicated shotgun issued for my use. I added a soft cloth bandolier with forty rounds that stayed with that weapon and came with me every time it was needed. I found that the old M16 cloth bandoliers meant for ten mags worked very well for the five round boxes that buck and slug come in (remove the bottom of the box before inserting into the bandolier - this will keep your ammo in new condition, but ready to go, for years and years...).

I retired out of police work in 1995 and at that time the move away from shotguns for police work was well underway. The push didn't come from any other source than the actual new police candidates themselves. As more and more females along with other recruits that never grew up around weapons or hunting came on line there was a clear need for lighter, more "user friendly" weapons. I wish that had never occurred but I was an urban type (in south Florida things are far more suburban than urban) and all my focus in armed confrontations was pretty much close quarters stuff. I'm sure cops in wide open areas far prefer a rifle to a shotgun...

Are Combat Shotguns Obsolete?

Click to expand...

I've never heard anything so silly as this. I can defend my home and family with it or take it out to shoot some dinner for the table. Where in that is Obsolete?

With the advent of SUV's does that make the pickup truck obsolete??

Jim

Jim, again though, that's not the question. Read post 11.

A shotgun is not flexible enough (range of engagement, mostly) or its ammo robust enough to be militarily relevant other than in specialty roles.

For civilian and LEO use, where engagement ranges are much more constrained and ammo isn't likely to be subjected to the same abuse as military ordnance, the shotgun is highly relevant.

Sam I still think it is a silly question, urban warfare is a lot different than that on a open battlefield, and yes they still should be issued. It is great for door breaching and close quarters combat. 00 buck shot and slugs do wonders on stopping attackers, while I like carbines better, only on full auto. That ends up being a lot more ammo that has to be carried. Maybe the question should be "Should M-4's still be issued since they use ammo of questionable stopping power?"

This is just my opinion others have theirs.
Jim

Well, your question and poll kinda presumes that at one point they were a primary weapon and now perhaps not. They serve they same (limited) roles in military and LE they always have. I guess LE is where they used to be the main secondary weapon and the carbine is now, but they were never the primary in the first place.

So "no" their abilities are too limited to be a primary weapon on the battlefield, but they are not "obsolete" because they never were a primary battlefield weapon. They are still around being used in the same roles they always were.

They have their place but not as a primary.

Sam I still think it is a silly question, urban warfare is a lot different than that on a open battlefield, and yes they still should be issued. It is great for door breaching and close quarters combat.

Click to expand...

Well, but door breaching is certainly a "specialty" role and is specifically excluded from the question. Is a shotgun better for "CQB?" Well, neither the military nor any home defender choosing a carbine these days (which seems to be most trainers as well) would say so.

00 buck shot and slugs do wonders on stopping attackers, while I like carbines better, only on full auto.

Click to expand...

Again, though, lots and lots and lots of folks are choosing semi-auto carbines for their in-house defensive weapons, and with some pretty good reasons. If they didn't work very well -- and that means at least 90% as well as a shotgun -- in that role, that wouldn't be so.

That ends up being a lot more ammo that has to be carried.

Click to expand...

Which brings up the next question. How many rounds does a soldier need to carry for his primary weapon? 100 rounds of buck and slugs is a LOAD, and I doubt many or any soldiers are issued that many shotgun rounds. 5.56mm, weather to be fired on full-auto or semi, is a whole lot less bulky (and of course, lighter), can be reloaded far faster, and unless it falls significantly short in dispatching the enemy (which doesn't seem to be a problem our troops report having), would be much the optimal choice. Especially when a soldier can carry more than twice that many 5.56 rounds, and may indeed expend even them (one and two at a time) on a patrol that gets unpleasant.

Maybe the question should be "Should M-4's still be issued since they use ammo of questionable stopping power?"

Click to expand...

Again, though, that seems to happen a lot at the gun counter and on the internet. The door-kickers out there doing MOUT, UO, or whatever the newest acronym is for house-to-house fighting don't report such problems with their 5.56 weapons.

(Some don't like the round for mountain-to-mountain fighting and other long-range tasks, which I could tend to believe.)

In my time, different war, and different place a shotgun supplemented my issued 1911A1. I thought it to be effective for the environment/circumstance thou my primary responsibility was not that of a shooter.

Shotguns were fairly widely issued and carried by combat troops in Vietnam. They've been used in various ways at various levels in various dustups since then, but not to the degree (that I know of) that they were used in SEA.

And they're still being bought by the military...

They've been obsolete ever since compact suppressors were mated with the M4, but in a world where guys "think" that a mini-revolver is a defensive handgun, the word is slow to get around.

I built several of these for an Army Military Police unit deployed to Iraq.


The were purchased with pooled funds when nothing meeting the requirement could be ordered through Military supply system at that time.
Guns were a mix of Mossberg & Maverick 500 series riot guns.
Pachmayer grips & forends.
Sidesaddle ammunition holders.
Handguards.
Provisions for sling swivels.
Dull matted or parkarized finish on all metal.
The guns were used for door and gate breeching using sintered lead "LockBuster" shells and as an initial entry gun.
First three rounds were Lockbusters & last three were Mil-Spec 00 Buckshot.
Six additional Lockbuster shells were carried in the sidesaddles and additional buckshot shells were carried loose in M16 magazine pouches.
They were the pointmans primary weapon, his secondary was the Beretta M9 handgun.

Combat employment technique was for the pointman to blow the lock and/or hinges from the door.
If hostile fire was returned from inside a second deployed a flashbang or frag grenade and the pointman then fired low into the primary entrance room with several buckshot rounds then backed off and the entry team deployed using carbines and SAWs.
Everything related back to me was the guns performed well, did the job and remained in Iraq at the completion of the units tour of duty.