Help convince BIL ratshot isn't good HD idea

[neededausername]

My brother-in-law recently purchased a GP-100 for HD. As I was admiring it with my wife, he started showing off his .38 ratshot. He said that's what he kept in the first three chambers, because he wanted to be able to get a shot off quickly and make sure the bad guy was going to get hit. I thought about trying to convince him this was a bad idea, but I know he would never listen to me. If someone could provide some links/studies about penetration and effectiveness against humans it might help. He might listen to a neutral third party.

Thanks in advance.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

Shooting someone with ratshot is going to hurt them, but it's not going to Stop them unless they are dangerously close and the shot placement is extraordinarily good. Not something to count on in a bad situation. Hurting someone three times and not Stopping them is just more time that a bad actor is going to continue his bad actions.

 

[neededausername]

4thPoint, I agree, but I know my brother in law and unless I have some kind of study or something to back me up he won't listen. Once he gets comes up with a "great idea" he's not easily convinced otherwise.

 

[TRGRHPY]

In self defense situations, the spread of the shot is very minimal and is not going to gaurantee a hit vs a jhp/fmj round. And if the BG is wearing thick clothing or jacket, it may not even penetrate.

 

[2ndAmFan]

Ratshot?? Look online at various defensive handgun instruction sites and send him a few links so he can join the .357 mag vs .45 ACP for SD argument like the rest of us and leave the ratshot for rats. I've never seen any expert instructor recommend ratshot for SD. That's crazy! Maybe he should save a few bucks and just use a slingshot with a ball bearing. Quieter and at least as likely to stop a BG.

 

[Sunray]

A GP is a dandy revolver. Shot bullseye with mine for years. However, shotshells out of any rifled barrel produces patterns with big holes in them at close range. The shot (109 pellets of #9 shot, .080" diameter, in .38 Special), flies in a spiral sending the shot who knows where at low velocity. If a bird shot or two pellets actually hits an intruder it won't make him go away or incapacitate him. Far more likely to just make him seriously PO'd. Unless he takes one in an eye. Not reliable.
"...make sure the bad guy was going to get hit..." Your brother-in-law doesn't shoot reguarly either does he? Even a weak shotshell has to be aimed.
Don't bother arguing with him though. Talk to your sister.

 

[Kevin77]

Talk your sister into divorcing him and marrying someone with a brain

 

[TAB]

not exactly a study, but this might help...

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot30.htm

 

[Brian Dale]

Rat shot's just fine, if he expects only ever to be attacked by rats.

It's called that for a reason.

 

[chuckusaret]

I suggest you have him do some target shooting at old clothing targets, drywall etc at 10 to 20 feet to check the shot grouping and penatration. In a HD situation the name of the game is to stop the guy dead in his tracks and the rat shot, in most cases, will not and will allow the BG to return fire. I suggest he read the info on the following site:
http://www.internetarmory.com/handgunammo.htm

 

[Bailey Guns]

Well, this example doesn't cite ratshot, specifically. But it's certainly representative. And if the MagSafe ammo, which I would say is probably far superior to ratshot in a defensive situation, is relatively ineffective one could easily demonstrate that ratshot would be even more ineffective.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number3/article432.htm

 

[hso]

Pull up the ballistics for ratshot, .38 HP and .357 HP and point out what a low energy it has.

Also, why not load all chambers with ratshot if it is somehow superior to solid bullets?

 

[Tom S.]

Ratshot won't even slow someone high on PCP/Meth down.



Unless maybe their name is Mickey??

 

[beatcop]

Why debate the obvious? It just wears you out.

 

[bdickens]

Ask him if he knows of any police departments that use it.

 

[heron]

Have him put an ordinary cardboard box out at about ten feet and fire at it, then look at the damage. It's very underwhelming.

Like the Box o' Truth guy says, "Bird shot is for little birds." Bad guys should get big, destructive bullets.

 

[Titan6]

Go to Supermarket. Buy a ham, a six pack and tub of cole slaw. Put the ham at 15' in package. Shoot ham with rat shot. Ask BIL if that is what he wants to happen to BG. Cook ham and eat with cole slaw and beer. Happy Ending.

 

[crushbup]

Go to Supermarket. Buy a ham, a six pack and tub of cole slaw. Put the ham at 15' in package. Shoot ham with rat shot. Ask BIL if that is what he wants to happen to BG. Cook ham and eat with cole slaw and beer. Happy Ending.

I like this plan, but I would 2 hams and shoot the second with a full-house .357 HP, just to make sure he gets the point.

 

[Zach S]

You know, our former VP did shoot a 78 year old man with birdshot, and he survived.

I dont know how 28 gauge shotshells compare to .38 rat shot, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that the 28 gauge is meaner.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

I smell a rat.

 

[Superlite27]

If someone shot me with ratshot, I'd shoot them with a hollowpoint.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Talk your sister into divorcing him and marrying someone with a brain

Not very highroad.......yet awesome nonetheless.








.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I’ve been taught that there were four ways in which shooting an assailant would stop the fight:



[1] psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."



[2] massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function



[3] breaking major skeletal support structures



[4] damaging the central nervous system.



Of those, damage to the central nervous system is the quickest, surest and most likely to be fatal. And many times the BG will stop because it hurts, is the least sure and most likely to be hazardous to your own health. But do you really want to count on it? People, both good and bad, have also fought long and hard with serious, and often ultimately fatal wounds. And someone who has massive amounts of adrenalin in his system, like a bad guy under the stress of committing a violent crime might, may not feel much pain from even a serious wound. 


Since adrenalin or drugs can blunt the effects of pain, and people have continued to fight when severely wounded, effectively stopping the fight reasonably quickly will call for causing sufficient damage to render the attacker physiologically incapable of continuing the fight, such as from massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen, major damage to important skeletal support structures or damage to the central nervous system.

We are generally taught, and practice, shooting for the center of mass of our attacker, i. e., his chest. It presents a bigger, and generally less mobile, target than the head. And the idea is that within that area of the body there are a lot of major organs that will bleed a lot when damaged. So the center of mass is the usual target of choice because it’s the one we’re most likely to be able to hit. And we thus rely on blood loss depriving the attacker’s muscles of oxygen to stop the fight. The rub is that the effects of blood loss and oxygen deprivation can take some time – during which our attacker will most likely continue to try to hurt us.

The more damage that is caused, the quicker the blood supply to the muscles and brain will be impaired and the more quickly the attacker will lose the physiological ability to press the fight. So we can try to increase the amount and rate of blood loss by (1) making more holes and (2) making bigger holes. On the other hand, the small, light #9 shot in ratshot is not going to penetrate well at all.

Of course, if the BG decides to stop because he doesn’t like getting shot, that’s okay too. I’m just reluctant to count on it.

 

[john1911]

Why waste the time arguing? If he ever has to use it, he'll realize his folly (if he survives). A painful lesson is a well taught lesson.

 

[230RN]

I dunno. I think in some respects your Brother-in-law may be right.

On a purely theoretical (if somewhat bloodthirsty) basis, I've often thought that a load of shot to the face might be a pretty good "stop the threat" load, "doughnut" pattern notwithstanding.

If it's good enought to kill a rat or snake ("snake loads"), a couple of pellets striking the eyeball would probably end the festivities right there. I think maybe those who rail against the use of these loads are a bit "religious" about it.

Again, this is on a purely theoretical basis, but the assumption seems to be that if you have good aim, the "doughnut hole" will give you a miss. But I'm not that good a shot anyhow, so I figure if I miss my POA, that might be a good thing.

I tried patterning a couple of these loads out of a 6" .357 and at about two yards the pattern was about ten inches in diameter, but there were a substantial number of pellets still going into the "doughnut hole."

Not that I run around the woods much anymore, but I kinda always thought a couple of shot loads to a bear's or a feral dog's face would make that here now dog or bear want to stop.

Your BIL is not the first to think of this by any means, but discussion of these as defense loads always seem to end up with the bulleted round crowd getting a little doctrinaire about it.

I wonder if Superlite27, when he said:

If someone shot me with ratshot, I'd shoot them with a hollowpoint.

has considered the fact that a #9 or #12 in either one of his eyeballs would probably render him incapable of returning fire with that there now hollowpoint.

Just sayin'.

I think it's one of those hot-button topics, though, and just maybe, just perhaps, just possibly, your BIL may have some solid reasoning behind his decision... I don't know about having three of them as first rounds, though.

Maybe just one.

Terry, 230RN