Bird shot for self defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NineseveN - That is just not true.

In over 15 years in the ER I have seen a whole bunch of dead guys by just about every caliber, type, and size projectile. At home ranges (usually about 10 feet) it does not matter much between OO buck and 7 1/2 bird shot, 44 mag's and .22 rim-fire. Dead is dead.

Where are you getting that home defense firearm uses usually occur at 10 feet? Source? Do you realize how close 10' really is?


Shot placement has much more effect than caliber or shot size. Had one guy shot in the head with a 9mm. The bullet entered the front left, slid down the side of his skull, exited the back. Guy was still talking but did have a hell of a headache. Another shot square in the forehead with a .22 LR and was stone cold dead (impressive bullet fragmentation x-rays BTW).

Anecdote does not = evidence. You’re talking about a shooting with a million variables on whether or not a shot can incapacitate, the idea is to put the odds into your favor because you cannot eliminate those variables.

At 10' a center mass shot with 7 1/2 you are not getting up. If it does not kill you the impact with the force of 2, .45 ACP rounds hitting at the same time (approx. 500 grains) will be enough to pop your sternum like a twig. The fight is over even if the guy survives which I doubt. Would I CHOOSE 7 1/2 for home defense, no; if it is what I had would I feel under-gunned, again no. 10', 1200fps, 500grains = manstopper any day of the week. Have you ever seen anyone demonstrate a bullet proof vest with a shotgun blast? Nuff said


7 1/2 shot is what Cheney wounded Harry Whittington with (though they claim at 30 yards, which does make a difference)...the shot even made it to his heart and did not kill or effectively stop the man...and this was not someone hyped up on adrenaline wishing to do harm. At near point blank ranges, any firearm can kill, but again, exceptions do not make the rule and relying on 10' firing distances is a bad idea. If you wait for the 10' shot, most reasonably fit men can have you disarmed before you can rack the slide of a shotgun unless you have skills and training to avoid or counter such things, most folks here don't, no matter what internet bravado tells you.

7 1/2 is better than many other bird loads, but it is far from what one could consider a reliably effective self defense selection.

I have personally only witnessed 3 wounds from birdshot in my short lifetime, and one of them happened to be 7 1/2 shot (hunting negligence), and though it was the worst of the three, it was not what I would call a "stopping shot". Out of the 250ish pellets, about half of them hit and only 32 managed to penetrate an M65 field jacket with liner and a sweatshirt at 14 yards...they were all nestled under the skin about maybe 1/4 inch at the worst and just under the surface at best.

Now, your home might not have any distances that span 42', maybe the longest corridor or widest room in your home is 10' (which would be very, very odd), my residence consists of large rooms and high ceilings, my main hallway is nearly 50' long, my living room is 32' wide. During a home invasion or other home defense scenario, I will be bunkered in my bedroom; once someone enters the living room from the kitchen I have a straight shot from the rear wall of my bedroom into the living room, the distance is just under 48'. Birdshot is simply not reliable under those distances (and I'm not using just my anecdotal evidence to support my feelings), nor would I endeavor to judge a rifle or shotgun round solely on what it can do to someone from what amounts to point blank range (10' is a very short distance for any rifle or shotgun). Anything birdshot can do at 10', buckshot can do better.

I really think some folks have wild fantasies about defending their homes from unarmed zombies instead of drug addicts or real badassed criminals looking to do them harm. What do you do when all you have is birdshot and 2 guys break down your door and have their own guns? How are you going to get into the range where birdshot is effective enough to stop them right then and there? Do you honestly think you can rely on what could just become a superficial wound with two real deal criminal types who have firearms and the intent to use them? Also, what do you do about an attacker using cover inside your home while firing their weapon at you? You're taking a big chance there, one I am not willing to take, nor would I suggest that you advise any novice shooter without training in using a pump to do so either. We have to face the reality that “stopping the threat” may end up amounting to ending someone’s life, even if that’s not our specific intent (and it should not be).

For folks like Dave McCracken, well, he knows how to run a pump I'd imagine, he's spent time and money and dedication on the pursuit. You see, the better you are, the less you need the tools to help compensate. Hitmen have used .22 handguns to dispatch their marks for ages (this is not myth), an Olympic shooter (forget the name) dispatched multiple assailants with his Olympic target .22, but when folks do not have those skills, they must rely on something more than "good enough" or simply "it can kill if you do your part". Shot placement is key, even with a shotgun, but without training, you're taking a big gamble that you can deliver that birdshot to an organ that will incapacitate, unless you're 10’ away and the raider has no firearms and is raiding your home naked.

If you don't put them down right there, you are undoubtedly going to receive return fire. It's your life, it's up to you to take that chance, but be careful when you advise others to do the same when you don't know their skill level.

I’ve grown up with real criminals and been witness to more home invasions and gang incidents than I care to admit here, if they really want to harm you, racking your pump won’t necessarily inspire fear and make them run, and if you shoot, a wound won’t always stop them, in fact, I’ve seen severely wounded folks manage to fight harder with what they thought could be their dying breath. The physical ability to wound or kill is not the only consideration, birdshot can wound, birdshot can kill, but self-defense is about putting as many odds in your favor as you can, and in that area, buckshot or even slugs trump birdshot every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
Last edited:
After a long career around guns, there are two things I can pretty well state about defense shotguns:

1. NOTHING says "Stop that, leave us alone" like a load of buckshot.

2. NEVER, EVER, NEVER count on getting more than one shot in a real life incident.
People insist on planning to use one round FIRST, then if it doesn't do the job, they plan on using a different load.
In the "Real World" you'll be thankful if you manage to get off ONE shot.
That one shot had better be enough to do the job.


#1 and #2 both say "Use an effective shotgun load FIRST and always.
To quote famous Border Patrolman Bill Jordon: "Like being "just a little pregnant", there's no such thing as shooting someone "just a little". If you HAVE to shoot someone, shoot them GOOD".

The simple fact is, birdshot lacks the ability to RELIABLY penetrate deeply enough to involve critical organs.
The proponents of birdshot always go on and on about how it makes a "BIG, GAPPING, BLOODY HOLE".

True, it makes a big, bloody, gaping, SHALLOW hole.
While birdshot can and has killed, it doesn't do it reliably enough to trust your life to.
 
You can legitimately use bird shot for self defense only after the buckshot and slugs are used up. Also all rifle and pistol rounds, including .22 LR.
 
Choosing birdshot for a defense load is about as dumb as "racking" the slide of your shotgun to intimidate someone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top