defensive shotgun fact vs fiction

[T.R.]

#4 used to be called Duck & Pheasant load. Dangerous intruders are much larger than either bird.

0 and 00 used to be called Buckshot. Since an adult human is about same weight as a buck, this seems to be best choice.
TR

 

[dagger dog]

Birdshot, buck shot, I don't know about you, but I'm going to aim for the head!
It stands to be proven , and all else is speculation. A face full of #4's 5's or 6's ,at the distances dictated by the size of a room in a normal size house, is going to stop an intruder.

Going up to buck shot whatever size is going to improve the chances.

But as far as knocking a man off his feet with either,not withstanding a freak spinal or brain hit, it just ain't going to happen, a slug maybe, shot buck or bird , at any range other than the muzzle stuffed in his gut, it ain't goning to happen!

 

[surfinUSA]

I use both at work and contrary to the current wave of tactical coolness pointing toward the AR15, I really believe that at ranges less than 35 yards the 12 gauge is the way to go.

The AR is great at street ranges and defeating body armor but for social uses at close range its hard to go wrong with a shotgun.

Edited to add always use buck shot for self defense. Birdshot can be a killer and I would never want to catch a load at short range, but buckshot and slugs are the only real stoppers out of a shotgun.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If it knocked him down, it would also knock you down. It doesn't.

Well, this isn't entirely true since a lot more than basic energy transfer needs to be accounted for.

First, there's the obvious. The force impulse felt by the shooter is not the force impulse felt by the target. The shooter gets the benefit of the force being distributed over the length of the acceleration of the projectile. The target gets it all in one moment.

Second, the almost as obvious.. recoil reduction devices.

Third, and slightly less obvious is the fact that the shooter is ready to recieve the force impulse thus making him more likely to withstand it. It's the difference between a sucker punch and a boxing match.

Fourth, and not obvious at all to most people is the ability to cause the human body to instantly enter a shock condition. If you make a large enough wound.. or several small wounds that the body interprets as a large enough wound the human body may instantly enter into a shut down shock mode. Of course, this reaction isn't readily reliable or predictable in any manner in a chaotic situation.

So, long story and more variables than are worth going into... On the surface it's easy to say that it's just a simple comparison of any equal force being applied to two objects, in reality there are many more variables that may actually enable "knock down" on the target with easily manageable recoil force. So to sum up, "knock down" isn't entirely a myth... of course, it's no where near the silly debate that creeps up every now and then about the knock down power of the 9mm vs .45.

And of course.. when in doubt of "knock down" shoot again... and always be in doubt.

 

[woodyjustin42]

Well hmm

As I stated early I have never sot anyone with a shotgun or seen someone hit by it. What I have seen is many people hit by 5.56 and I have seen many get knocked down by that round and then get up and try to run away of course. Now that is how I deduce that if a 5.56 can knock someone on the ground at 75-100 yards a shotgun can at 10 feet, makes sense right maybe someone will come up with an explanation for that and say no dude your wrong, and tell me that a a 12 guage knocking someone on there butt is a myth because apparently that is what some people think. So if your gonna call it a myth explain to me a good reason why it is and I will listen. Otherwise dont throw out statements you have no clue about.

 

[woodyjustin42]

And if that doesnt work may i recommend this!

 

[BBroadside]

"Now that is how I deduce that if a 5.56 can knock someone on the ground at 75-100 yards a shotgun can at 10 feet"

I'm not expert, but I think the whole discussion is foundering on how literally we are to take the word "knock". Mathematically it just doesn't seem like a 5.56mm NATO round is going to have the momentum to knock someone far at all - I think it has about the same momentum as a baseball.

That much momentum concentrated into a 5.56mm diameter circle is obviously quite traumatic, which is why the neurological effects cause people to fall. People can swept off their feet by electrical shocks and chemicals; it doesn't have to be kinetic energy. Myself, I wouldn't be able to tell by watching whether someone was knocked down by an invisible fist or simply fell over from the tremendous nerve shock of getting their guts perforated by a 45-grain travelling at twice the speed of sound.

Again, I'm just repeating my understanding and not trying to claim expertise. I'll do the calculations, but for now I'm estimating that the 5.56mm rifle round couldn't knock much over from pure conservation-of-momentum considerations. You could also try it by armoring a dummy, and seating it in a chair, and shooting it in the side.

Okay, our 5.56mm NATO round is, let's say, a 62 grain bullet at 3100 feet per second. That gives it a momentum of 192,200. Compare that to a 5 and 1/8 ounce baseball (2242 grains) travelling at major league velocities (90 mph or 132 fps). That has a momentum of 295,969. So the batter is facing down a projectile with more momentum than an M16's. If it hits him, it may well break some ribs, but if he falls over it's not going to be from momentum transfer. Isn't that a fair assessment? If it hits the umpire in the chest, he won't topple backwards, will he? (This isn't a strictly fair comparison, because the ball will bounce off indicating an elastic collision, but then again, a rifle bullet can exit the body indicating incomplete energy dumping.)

The point I'm trying to make is that if you shoot the umpire, or even skewer the poor gent with a rapier, he'll have plenty of good reasons to fall down. (As if umpire wasn't a hard enough job already!)

 

[woodyjustin42]

Oh I agree totally, that's what I mean by knock down, maybe I should have stated that earlier!! duh. OF course from apurely ballistics standpoint it most likely wouldnt, if you shot a piece of firewood weighing 25 lbs a 5.56 probably might not knock it over. What I meant was from the Shock of getting hit. Maybe I should have realized people thought I meant from a ballistics standpoint. Hopefully nobody tries to enter into the whole shock debate. Bullets kill from the: A bullet may act faster than a knife or an arrow, but like them it kills either: 1) by causing a rapid loss of blood pressure, depriving the central nervous system of oxygen; or 2) by physically interfering with nerve pathways; or 3) both.
So with the greater amount of wound dmg caused by a shotgun that is what I meant by knock down. Anyhow a well placed .223 will do the same.

 

[BBroadside]

Okay woodyjustin42, I understand your position now. Part of the problem is, there are a lot of ballistically-naive types out there who have seen armored people in movies go flying 15 feet through the air from getting shot*, so some of us tend to suspect that "knock down" is meant in this simplistic sort of way.

Because I've still got my spreadsheet open, I'll add in the data for shotgun slugs: a 546-grain slug at 1600 fps has a momentum of 873,600. So at least there's something that beats a baseball!

* This scene just about ruined John Woo's Hard Target for me. It was a fun movie, featuring a Thompson Contender used in fighting, and all manner of unrealistic stuff, but Lance Henriksen flying backwards from a shotgun blast was just too much.

 

[Ergosphere]

While I won't dispute your later points, these claims violate basic physics:

Well, this isn't entirely true since a lot more than basic energy transfer needs to be accounted for.

Energy is not momentum. Upon firing a gun, the projectiles end up with the vast majority of the energy. But unlike energy, momentum is a conserved vector quantity, and so the total momentum (of the projectiles, propellant gas, and gun) is zero. Because the propellant gas has some fraction of the forward momentum, the recoil impulse is actually a bit larger than the impulse delivered to the target by the projectiles.

First, there's the obvious. The force impulse felt by the shooter is not the force impulse felt by the target. The shooter gets the benefit of the force being distributed over the length of the acceleration of the projectile. The target gets it all in one moment.

Actually that's not true if the projectiles penetrate the target. They do not instantaneously decelerate. And most acceleration is done in the first few inches of the barrel, in not more than a millisecond of time. So this makes no difference.

Second, the almost as obvious.. recoil reduction devices.

Recoil reducing devices do not reduce the impulse. They can decrease the peak force of the recoil but the total impulse is the same.

Also, the time scales at work here are too short to make any difference when it comes to knocking someone down.

 

[woodyjustin42]

Ya by kncok down I mean falling down, not flying through the wall landing in your front yard.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Because the propellant gas has some fraction of the forward momentum, the recoil impulse is actually a bit larger than the impulse delivered to the target by the projectiles.

Don't forget to factor in the weight of the weapon into the mass equation. That far outweighs the mass of the gas and acts as a damper on the side of the person firing, reducing the force applied to them.

Actually that's not true if the projectiles penetrate the target. They do not instantaneously decelerate. And most acceleration is done in the first few inches of the barrel, in not more than a millisecond of time. So this makes no difference.

The first part you are spot on and I should have included. But, at the time I wrote that I was thinking about the previous post that had mentioned an armored target.

Second, acceleration continues until the time the projectile leaves the barrel. Chrony two rifles in the same caliber with different length barrels. The longer barrel will produce a faster traveling bullet with the same ammunition.

Recoil reducing devices do not reduce the impulse.

A good muzzle break does reduce the felt recoil impulse. If it didn't shooting light .50s would be a very painful practice.

 

[Ergosphere]

Don't forget to factor in the weight of the weapon into the mass equation. That far outweighs the mass of the gas and acts as a damper on the side of the person firing, reducing the force applied to them.

The impulse (momentum transfer; force integrated over time) is what knocks you down. That is not reduced by the mass of the weapon.

Second, acceleration continues until the time the projectile leaves the barrel. Chrony two rifles in the same caliber with different length barrels. The longer barrel will produce a faster traveling bullet with the same ammunition.

True, but not very significant. Most acceleration happens in the first few inches, and the bullet has left the barrel after a few milliseconds. For the purpose of "knocking someone down" that's effectively instantaneous.

A good muzzle break does reduce the felt recoil impulse

Ah yes, that's true... I thought you were talking about those mercury stock inserts, which do not reduce impulse.

 

[aquapong]

Body armor or not, you're fine with a shotgun. While the shot may not penetrate, the total displacement of the vest will cause a lot of crush wound damage. They will just bleed internally instead of externally.

 

[dagger dog]

In the case of the shotgun slug that puts out 800,000 plus ft pnds energy at the muzzle, all that energy is foucused on a spot about 3/4" in diameter. That will result in a hole, in the body just about the same size,to shed the maximum energy the slug has to remain in the body, at distances dictated by the size of the room, I would doubt that could be achieved, it would most likley pass through , and all the excess energy would be shed into a couch, wall, etc. The rusulting shock effects, to the body of the reciepient,would be proportional to the damage done to the body and the persons mental ability to handle such said shock, (the drug crazed syndrome thing.)

No doubt, if the slug is put in the center of mass the person will be DEAD in short order, but I doubt it would knock them off their feet. They may stop what they are doing and shortly collapse, or if a head shot fall over or sit down.

I know a heavy weight prizefighter of 200 plus pounds fists are not traveling at any thing near the 1,600 fps quoted, and the probably don't have the same value of energy, but when their opponent, is hammered by a good shot to the jaw and the neck snaps around to short circut, the mass of nerves at the rear of the jaw bone, they don't go flying across the ring, sometimes the automatic reflexes take over and they are even able to finish the punch they started. The shock thing is all up to the person thats getting SHOCKED

 

[woodyjustin42]

Hmm apparently you have never seen anyone get shot?

 

[Husker1911]

#4 used to be called Duck & Pheasant load. Dangerous intruders are much larger than either bird.

0 and 00 used to be called Buckshot. Since an adult human is about same weight as a buck, this seems to be best choice.

You're confusing #4 shot with 4 buckshot.

#4 shot is .129" diameter, with approximately 135 pellets per ounce.

4 buckshot is .24" diameter, with approximately 21 pellets per ounce.

0 and 00 are still called buckshot, along with 000, 1, 2, 3, and 4 buckshot.

 

[BattleChimp Potemkin]

Question: I know, I know, its hollywood. My favorite movie is Open Range, with Kostner. In the end gun fight, there are a lot of shooting though walls and knocking people over with shotguns. Hocus?

Also the pineboard walls, they were shooting through them. i understand shotguns are powerful, but that powerful? The multiple pellets weakening the structure of the wall to a point to compromise the wall, but also disable (not kill, horribly wound) the man behind the wall?

 

[Funderb]

looks like it is time for an experiment!!!

 

[Fred Fuller]

It's been done...

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

lpl/nc

 

[Zach S]

Go with what you shoot the most. For me, its my AR. For the lady, its the same AR (I work graveyard shift).

The AR is also shorter, lighter, and has less recoil than the 590 that the lady cant shoot because of size, weight, and recoil.

I used to use my 590 for HD, but with the baby walking now, and my lady's physical limitations, I'd rather not leave two longuns outs. And with ammo prices what they are I dont get to shoot my 590 as much as I'd like. Since I have a Ciener for my AR, and another AR chambered in still-affordable 9mm, I get more triggertime with my AR than I do anything else.

 

[shadowalker]

Bullets may cause people to fall from shock but small arms wont knock them down. Good body armor will stop buckshot and slugs, whether or not the person is still able to or is interesting in continuing the fight is another question.

For recoil sensitive people look at reduced recoil / tactical buckshot, very controllable and yields 90% of the performance at home defense ranges.

Mythbusters investigated people being "knocked down" by bullets, you should be able to view the episode on their website.

Basically they used a dead pig as a human analog, hung it up on a hook where a good shove would cause the pig to fall and shot it with a variety of firearms.

They were surprised by their inability to easily get the pig to fall by shooting it. This was a target that was already on the verge of falling and had no muscular control to prevent a fall.

 

[woodyjustin42]

Do you know what guns they were using? Alot of it could depend on if the round stops in the person or passes through im not positive on that so dont quote me. A think the largest part of people falling down when they get hit is mental.

 

[woodyjustin42]

The thruth box is a great site, thx for posting the link lee

 

[Husker1911]

My favorite movie is Open Range, with Kostner. In the end gun fight, there are a lot of shooting though walls and knocking people over with shotguns. Hocus?

Bogus. Marvelous movie, but that scene induces embarrassed choking. Newton wrote of equal and opposite reaction.