Ballistic gelatin test results : 7 1/2 birdshot (UPDATE: #8 shot, Post 75, 7/22/09)

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the Doctor,the pellets bounced around after hitting bones.

The above penetration in gelatin shows a depth of about 6" with 7.5 shot.

Even without medical knowledge, and even with the Dr. saying the pellets bounced around, it seems hard to believe that #9 shot could enter in the lower stomach and have enough energy to bounce off of anything in the body to end up

a) over 12" up to the neck
and
b) over 24" down to the ankle.

The 7.5 penetrated only 6" in ballistic gelatin, in ideal conditions. How could #9 bounce off of a bone and continue to travel over 2 feet?

I'm certainly open to learning, and I'm not questioning what you saw or what you repeated from the doctor, but I find the Dr.'s explanation lacking.

Perhaps some of the shot missed the stomach, and hit an odd angle on a wall, and some of it bounced up to the neck and some bounced down to the ankle, but it seems like the shot wouldn't be able to spread enough to miss from 2 feet.

I guess what I'm getting at, is, if your heart is still pumping blood, is it it medically possible to have #9 pellets traveling through your bloodstream to other parts of your body?
 
Sorry for the correction.It was #9 Birdshot that was used.

Yes, but I know a guy who tried to commit suicide with a skeet gun, and he's still alive AFAIK, after a contact shot. REALLY badly messed up by hundreds of little pellets, but certainly not DOA by any stretch of the imagination.

Nobody who has shot pigeons with smaller birdshot and watched them spin in the air, turn and fly away no worse for the experience, would consider using the same stuff for HD. You never know: a burglar might be wearing a down jacket, which apparently stops birdshot at least some of the time, as bird hunters know from experience:D.
 
#9 pellets spreading

How they got there I don't know for sure,except the 1 pellet I saw breaking thru the skin on the ankle had nothing to do with blood pumping.Only velocity would do that.As far as all the rest in the torso,it was full of blood when the Doc opened him up.It looked like a bomb went off.The hole in the stomach was no bigger than the size of a quarter,so all the spreading of pellets took place inside.
 
Even without medical knowledge, and even with the Dr. saying the pellets bounced around, it seems hard to believe that #9 shot could enter in the lower stomach and have enough energy to bounce off of anything in the body to end up

a) over 12" up to the neck
and
b) over 24" down to the ankle.

The most likely explanation for the ankle pellet is that it arrived at its destination via the arterial system. The most likely route is via the aorta, down an iliac artery and then down a popliteal towards the ankle.

I have one case of a fatality from birdshot in my research file, but I don't know what size the pellet is, according to the nomenclature being used on this board. Here is a picture of one of the pellets, next to a ruler in millimetres:

DSC00113.jpg

It is between 2mm and 3mm in diameter.
In the case I am discussing, there were a few pellets that travelled quite far in the tissues: certainly in the range of 10 to 12" from entry point.
The problem I have with this, is that there may be movement of the tissues and migration of the pellets in tissue planes and vessels, such that you can't get proper penetration distances unless you can explore the wound track of each of the wandering pellets in turn. In the case I am talking about, it was a close range shot in the left flank and most of the abdominal organs were damaged. The guy made it to hospital alive, he survived theatre, but died shortly afterwards.
Close range birdshot is very dangerous, but it wouldn't be my first choice in shotgun ammo for self defense.
 
Hmmm, just saw you said the pellet was breaking out of the skin at the ankle...well I can't explain that one. It would be useful to examine the clothing (shoes and socks) to exclude entry into the ankle from the exterior.
 
JE223,

Thanks for sharing the results of another of your tests. It's appreciated.


All,

I've posted the link to this forensic review previously when discussions of using birdshot in self defense have come up here. It's still useful, I think.

But keep in mind that one anecdote- even one calibrated gelatin test, or one forensic review of a suicide- are not really data. One case does not a rule make, in other words, and as my wife the professor frequently says- "It is dangerous to extrapolate beyond your data." Know what? She's right again.

That said, here's the link: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_11_041200/herdson/herdson.html .

In my checkered past, I spent some time as an EMT. I have zipped up a body bag on someone shot at close range with a shotgun loaded with birdshot. It certainly can kill- especially when several rounds are fired into the torso at close range. It certainly did in this case.

I know of other cases where birdshot at close range has proved lethal. I know of one case where a load of buckshot at point blank range was not lethal.

But those are anecdotes, not data.

What anyone who uses any firearm for self defense MUST understand clearly is that there are two components involved in the effectiveness of a firearm in stopping an attack- PLACEMENT and PENETRATION. Both are equally necessary. Shortcomings in either will result in less than optimal results in stopping an attack. Placement of the projectile or projectiles such that they strike a vital area is the shooter's responsibility- penetration is a function of the load the shooter selects.

IMHO- and that's my opinion only- birdshot does not offer sufficiently reliable penetration for use in a defensive shotgun, where more suitable loads are available. I won't use it as a defensive load, given any more suitable alternative. Of course, YMMV.

Stay Safe,

lpl/nc
 
Ernest Hemingway apparently thought birdshot out of a model 12 might keep a wounded leopard from eating him...
 
I asked tonight, and my local Domino's pizza delivery guy has an opinion, too. Sadly, just like Papa Hemingway he has no real-life experience shooting DG with birdshot.
 
Odd Job,

If the pellet in the pictue is about 2.5 mm (approx 0.10") in diameter, that would be about size #7 birdshot. This is a little bigger than #9 birdshot which is about 0.08" (about 2 mm) in diameter.
 
Ernest Hemingway apparently thought birdshot out of a model 12 might keep a wounded leopard from eating him...

He also spent a good part of WW II cruising around in his sportfisher, believing he could sink a German U-boat.

Then again, a shotgun blast is what killed him.

Comme Ci, Comme Ça
 
a person being hit with a load of birdshot at distances best measured in feet will have lost all thought of continuing whatever behavior you wished to modify

That simply cannot be taken as an absolute.
 
Actually the reason is to STOP. Deterrence has already failed at that point if you're in an active shooting situation in your home. If you are trying to stop an attack that means the person may be (probably is) armed.

This is splitting frog-hairs....and is also a continuation of the tiresome caliber/gauge/mousegun wars....to STOP someone means to stop them from doing whatever it is you want stopped, which is the exact same thing as DETER....it is NOT a the same as DROP, even though they rhyme....

I personally don't doubt I could run someone out of my house with a .410 pump loaded with birdshot, with them never thinking of, or being able to, return fire....I know I couldn't....and no naysayer has ever, and I mean EVER, volunteered to stand out there while I plugged them with my dinky (fill-in-the-blank, be it .22, .25, .32, .410, birdshot, slingshot, pellet rifle) ineffective little toy.....why?....because they know it would stop/deter them, too.....

I know drastical tactical cool toys are what is hot right now along with premium boutique loads for them, and they sell lots of ammo and toys due to wonderful marketing.....but shotguns typically single shots firing birdshot loads have been defending homesteads and running off intruders since before cartridges were invented, and quite successfully, too....much more successfully than buckshot loads have been at harvesting bucks....sure, the buckshot load is better in many respects, mostly theoretical respects, when it comes down to getting uninvited guests out of your house.
 
and no naysayer has ever, and I mean EVER, volunteered to stand out there while I plugged them with my dinky (fill-in-the-blank, be it .22, .25, .32, .410, birdshot, slingshot, pellet rifle) ineffective little toy.....why?....because they know it would stop/deter them, too.....

..how far we talking? i'd take a .22 in the rear for the right price.
 
If the pellet in the pictue is about 2.5 mm (approx 0.10") in diameter, that would be about size #7 birdshot. This is a little bigger than #9 birdshot which is about 0.08" (about 2 mm) in diameter.

Thanks, Pete!
 
One ounce of #9 shot should have about 585 little pellets. I think It’s probably just a numbers game. Maybe a couple pellets hit a metallic zipper or coins in a jacket pocket and bounced up into his neck or one or two imbedded just under the skin in his leg or foot. When you have this many pellets traveling this fast and hitting so many different structures all simultaneously a couple are bound to go somewhere odd. Also during transportation or as he bled externally some of the pellets (extremely small) could have traveled downwards and stuck to his skin and clothing as the blood dried. I really doubt that they could have traveled through the blood stream. These pellets as the original poster said light up like Christmas lights on a x-ray.

Thanks for the real world experience pbearperry. I would take a Remington 870 loaded up with 5 12ga skeet loads over my 16 shot Glock 10mm with win silvertips any day. Having said that I would prefer it to be loaded up with #2 or 4 shot or better yet buckshot. I am rather impressed with the damage. Especially when you take into account that this was low brass skeet loads. I’m sure #6 high brass would be much more destructive and still dirt cheap to practice with.

Dan
 
....to STOP someone means to stop them from doing whatever it is you want stopped, which is the exact same thing as DETER....

Thread veer warning...........

Actually it's not. Deter means to prevent it from starting in the first place. Stop means to stop it once deterrence fails.

When someone is shooting at you, you really don't want them to have to consider their actions and then stop. You want them to stop because biologically speaking they have no choice in the matter. It's faster that way and results in less continuing risk to you and yours.

.........end of thread veer.

Also, I still don't understand why it's "tactical" to use the same loads I deer hunt with to defend my homestead..........:confused:

Anyway, to each his own. You feel confident in your birdshot of whichever size you choose, I'll place my faith in 00 buck (with slugs as a backup).
 
Using a firearm in self defense is legally considered using lethal force, whether or not you are using birdshot, buckshot, or rubber "less lethal" options.

By using lethal force (firearm) in defense, you are essentially stating that you feel that your very life is in imminent danger, and if you don't use the lethal force, you are likely going to die.

In that context, the intent to wound, or "run off" an intruder insinuates that you aren't 100% in a situation where you are in imminent danger of losing your life. After all, if you were in imminent danger of death, you would use the most effective manner available to end the situation, and preserve your own life, right?

The intent with lethal force is to immediately incapacitate the aggressor, to force him to stop, by using a weapon.

There are of course, multiple ways of stopping a person, some more effective than others.

A CNS hit is the most effective, but can be hard to achieve.

A structural stop can stop the aggressor, but if he has a firearm, could still get a shot off, so it may not stop 100% of the threat.

A psychological stop is a great solution, but that involves aggressor having some rational thought and fear of what happens to them, either prior to, or after being shot, so because of that, it's not a reliable stopper. The psychological aspect is just one of the many reasons why Marshall and Sanow's "One stop shot" data can't be relied upon. There is no control, no indicator for when a psychological stop will occur, since there is no method of really knowing what's in an aggressor's head.

So what that leaves us with is the need to damage vital structures within the aggressor's body, to force him to stop through physical incapacitation. We don't want to rely on him "wanting" to stop, we want to force it.

In order to hit those vital structures, we need to be able to penetrate through to them, and create damage within them. That involves penetrating their clothes, skin, muscle, fat and bones prior to even reaching the vital organs.

Add in that an attacker may not be standing straight on towards you, and may have his arms in a position where they can block the path to their vital organs. Which means that now you need to penetrate through the aggressor's arms (skin, fat, muscle, bone, skin) prior to even hitting the body in front of his vital organs.

Add in the possibility of the aggressor being turned diagonally, and it's now easy to see why the experts in the wound ballistics field (who aren't trying to sell you anything) recommend a minimum of 12" in calibrated gelatin.

I used to think like many others currently do, and used to keep my shotgun loaded with birdshot. I even once on this forum defended the practice of keeping "less lethal" options (rubber buck/slug), though it wasn't something I would do.

Through a significant amount of research, my views have evolved, and are now more inline with those of the experts in the field, and I will continue to follow their recommendations.

As such, my shotgun is loaded with 00 Buckshot, and is being replaced with Federal 00 Buckshot with flight control.

Use what you will, it's your life, and the life of your loved ones on the line.

For anyone that really wants an education in regards to wound ballistics, here are some links:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/
http://www.tacticalforums.com/ (requires registration, but is worth it. Look for posts by DocGKR (Doctor Gary Roberts) )
http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/ballistics_shotgun.html
 
Last edited:
"the ethical and legal reason for shooting a human is to DETER, not kill"

What happened to rule #1 of firearms: "Never point a weapon at anything you don't intend to kill."

Before debating the effectiveness of one load over another you have to remember that we're not talking about skeet or hunting quail--we're talking about home defense and this means shooting people with the intention of killing them. itgoesboom just covered the legal points and if you are unfamiliar with the rules regarding use of deadly force in your state, educate yourself before you even think about purchasing that HD gun.

If you are morally/ethically unable or unwilling to take the life of another person, that's your decision and I respect it. You have a great variety of non- or less-lethal options at you disposal, but you SHOULD NOT pull out a gun. Period. The odds of a weapon being used against you increase exponentially in a confrontation where you are unwilling to use it and the BG calls your bluff. If someone forces a situation where you have to shoot them and they happen to survive, great. But, if you can't bear the most probable outcome of shooting someone, stick with a cell phone, a sturdy locked door and a Louisville Slugger.

If you are willing to take that step, then the next step is to consider your total HD strategy. If your battle plan depends on unprotected gut-shots at practically contact-shot ranges, then load with salt if you want(the gas expansion should do the job by itself). Personally I'd like a better battle plan and a heavier load.

While one or more rounds of birdshot may kill a person from blood loss--eventually--bear in mind that the gelatin tests are done at 3 yds which equates to 3-4 paces for a 6' male. A dedicated attacker can easily close that distance, strike you with his knife/crowbar/fill in the blank and continue to attack for quite a while before blood loss alone will incapacitate him. For CQB or HD considerations you want a round that will penetrate that heavy leather jacket, ribs/sternum, other limbs and will still have the power to destroy the heart/lungs/aorta. Ideally, a round that will also dump enough of it's kinetic energy into your target to knock him down--there's something about having to get up after getting shot like that that takes the fight out of people.

IMHO the best CQB round is Federal's 00 Tactical loads. I can easily put multiple groups C.O.M. with no overspray at the longest interior distances for my house, and have put full groups into headshots at 10-15 yds with confidence with an 18" bbl. I wouldn't use it for a hostage scenario, but anyone who chooses not to retreat when they hear my 12ga pump rack a round in the dark is going to have a nasty--and short--surprise.
 
Wow, that's not far at all. Imagine a fat guy with a leather jacket on holding a crowbar above his head and 4" isn't much.
Skinny guy like me 4" would be 90% through to my spine :D
I read a story a bunch of years ago where a pretty heavy guy was shot about 20ft with a 12g and still managed to kill the shooter before he collapsed and died.
Shot placement is still pretty critical regardless of the ammo.

Personally Im giving one warning shot to give an intruder the chance to leave. If I have to shoot its going to be the face and neck area. Little chance of just ignoring that, in my opinion, regardless of the shot size.
 
Personally Im giving one warning shot to give an intruder the chance to leave.

Not to veer the thread in that direction, but you may want to do some additional reading on that particular subject. Lots of reasons not to give warning shots. No good reasons to give them.
 
In that context, the intent to wound, or "run off" an intruder insinuates that you aren't 100% in a situation where you are in imminent danger of losing your life. After all, if you were in imminent danger of death, you would use the most effective manner available to end the situation, and preserve your own life, right?
You give the guy a warning shot IF you arent IN imminent danger because possibly youve come across him in your home and hes now just standing there and are giving him a change to leave or surrender....just like a LEO would do it.

*IF* he refuses to leave and makes a move towards you NOW you are in imminent danger.

Just opening fire to kill first thing without giving him the opportunity to surrender might just get someone some jail time.
Judges and Juries might be a bit smarter than we give them credit for.
 
Not to veer the thread in that direction, but you may want to do some additional reading on that particular subject. Lots of reasons not to give warning shots. No good reasons to give them.
Ive had intruders in my home...and you?
MOST of the time when they see a gun on them that Ive ever seen or read about they will either flee or surrender ((except where they are armed and they open fire)
Shooting to kill without offering a chance for a surrender might well end up in Jail or prison time if it can be determined that you ran in guns a blazing.

Ive read just enough of law and situations in Ohio and in NYS where I live now to know that no judge is going to fault anyone here in these two states at least for finding a way NOT to kill another human being.

That said *IF* I find myself having to actually shoot the intruder, its going to be in a manner to make sure he is entirely incapacitated. Few men would just shake off a shot to the face/neck area.
 
Both Mossberg535 and rantingredneck are correct.

Firing a warning shot is not a good technique because you need to be accountable for where every one of your projectiles go--shots into the air come down eventually and shooting blindly at ground level is not responsible shooting. While this may not be an issue on a 100 acre farmstead in Iowa its a BIG issue for most people in urban/suburban areas (a large percentage of the population). Tactics can be debated, safety can't.

HOWEVER, the term is home DEFENSE, not home OFFENSE. While certain states south of the Mason/Dixon might allow a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude, playing that game in the Northeast or West Coast is likely to end up with you getting detailed first-hand knowledge of the Criminal Justice system. Just as someone who is unwilling to take a life should not have a gun for HD, someone who is TOO eager to take a life should not have a gun for HD. I already know my home's layout, avenues of approach to my bedroom/s, backlighting, and lanes of fire. An intruder only knows where he came in and darkness. Giving him the opportunity to flee saves you the moral and legal trauma/hassle of dealing with the fact that you just ended someone's life (and it saves you the carpet-cleaning bill. Have you ever seen how much blood comes out of a human body? Pretty gruesome.) If the intruder chooses to make this a fight, you (should) still have the advantage of planning, terrain, firepower and training to end it quickly. A verbal or audio warning prior to blasting away is a sound and legally advisable technique --with the standard disclaimer "as the situation dicates".

In my professional experience 90% of opportunistic residential burglars are non-confrontational--they pick times that they think you are gone or asleep because they want your stuff without a fight and will flee unless cornered. The next 9% (the "home invasion" crew) are more aggressive and might even be armed, but are still looking for soft targets. When they realize they're facing someone w/ teeth they are also likely to flee rather than engage in a gun battle. The last 1% you're probably going to have to kill. As prior military and current LEO, my battle plan involves me w/ a pump and my wife w/ her .357 and a cell phone bunkered down in our bedroom with clear lines of fire on the back of anyone coming up our stairs and them facing a 12 yard dash down a straight, dark, backlit hallway attacking a barricaded shotgun. A rack of the slide with an announcement that the police have been called will take care of 95% of intruders. The other 5% face something that, professionally, I would want grenades or a SWAT team for. Should I wake up to him already in that kill zone, however, it is now a shoot-first situation and my gunshots can be the warning to any buddies he might have. Some days are just bad days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top