Home Defense load

[76shuvlinoff]

Quote:
If a threat truly exists I must stop it, body armor or not. My first round is a slug because I mean it.

A slug won't go through body armor. IIIA vest will stop all handgun and shotgun rounds. A shotgun slug doesn't have enough sectional density to penetrate, but I'm sure it would hurt like hell anyway.

Yeah I had/have my doubts about penetration on body armor but my suspicion is it would ruin the targets day, and stop the threat (or sure as hell slow it down). Close range with buck would probably do the same. My other excuse for a slug up front is I feel it provides the option to be a little more surgical provided one has the need and the focus to pull it off.

 

[tblt]

00 or 000 not a slug

 

[riverdog]

One thing I've learned is to not overestimate my ability to remember stuff like which flavor shotgun round is up next. So my tactic to avoid this potential confusion issue is to load 00 Buck first through last, with more 00 Buck available when it's time to reload. I can refill the magazine in the dark and not worry about the order of slugs vs shot.

 

[ChCx2744]

Even though a slug or even buckshot may not penetrate level 3 ballistic plate, the energy will spread around that area of your body will more than likely knock you senseless or break something. If it knocks you out (which will MOST LIKELY HAPPEN), then the BG can probably get your weapon, shoot you in the head when your out, etc. The best is to take cover/concealment and don't get shot, whether or not you got a vest or not

 

[the foot]

My nearest neighbors are buried in a graveyard, about 1/4 mile away. So, since I don't have the problem of killing neighborhood innocents with my home defense weapons, I use the loads I consider sufficient and easiest to handle. And that is 12 gauge, 2 3/4" 00 buckshot.

 

[wrs840]

#4 High Power 2-3/4" Duck Load for me.

Les

 

[UnclePete]

chuckusaret,

Would you decipher KMFMS for me, please?

I read it as Keep My Flipping Mouth Shut.

 

[357wheelgunner]

My nearest neighbors are buried in a graveyard, about 1/4 mile away. So, since I don't have the problem of killing neighborhood innocents with my home defense weapons...

OMG they're in the graveyard because some mall ninja home defender used lolbuckshot and it went through their house and killed all the neighbors!!!! Now we should all use nerf balls, wadded up and crammed into shotshells, in our HD shotguns. THINK OF THE CHILDREN

(I'm not serious by the way)

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Research ballistic gelatin tests of whatever size shot you use.

 

[Mike U.]

Thanks UnclePete!

All this 'net-alphabet-soup-acronym talk sometimes befuddles my somewhat simple mind.

 

[heavyshooter]

I can't believe that ANYONE HERE actually plans on shooting someone with a sub-standard load (birdshot) in order to "give the perp at least some chance to survive".
What complete and utter ignorance. First off, this is in complete violation of an etched-in-stone cardinal rule: DON'T POINT A GUN AT SOMETHING THAT YOU AREN'T INTENT ON DESTROYING.
Second... a living perp gets a criminal defense lawyer. I know that I certainly don't want any of that trouble. -- Doc_Jude

Here we go with the universalized opinions again. Doc_Jude, if you want to skip the birdshot and kill the perp, then that is your home, your gun, and your prerogative. Pay close attention to how well I avoid words like "utter ignorance." First of all, most home defense shootings are at very short distances. Consequently, the #4 birdshot does not spread much and is more lethal than you appear to think. Second you have erected a straw man by quoting you "etched-in-stone cardnal rule." My stone says, "Do not point your gun at anything that you are not willing to destroy." The willingness does not communicate the obligation. The fact that I shot him means I am willing to kill him, it does not follow that I must kill him. I reject your cardinal rule. Thirdly, stop perpetuating the myth that I must kill someone to avoid litigation. Fewer people get sued for defending their homes than you may think and even fewer actually lose the lawsuit. Not to mention the fact that you may be sued by the family of the perp. YOU CAN'T SHOOT THEM!!! I am not shooting at a beast, I am shooting at a man; and I choose to give every man the opportunity to live. For me that means birdshot to stop him and if he does not stop I use buckshot. It's my prerogative. Again notice the lack of ad-hominem statements like "utter ignorance." Allow someone to have an opinion others than yours. It's not all that hard.

 

[heavyshooter]

...it will give the intruder, or his/her family, a greater chance of hauling you to court for a civil lawsuit.

Oh Yeah, I forgot about that. The perp's family will not sue you if you kill him. How could I possibly forget that rule?

 

[Doc_Jude]

Here we go with the universalized opinions again. Doc_Jude, if you want to skip the birdshot and kill the perp, then that is your home, your gun, and your prerogative. Pay close attention to how well I avoid words like "utter ignorance." First of all, most home defense shootings are at very short distances. Consequently, the #4 birdshot does not spread much and is more lethal than you appear to think.

Yes, I'm aware, but this has more to do with the spread. It IS interesting how you seem capable of avoiding the word ignorance and not ignorance itself.

Second you have erected a straw man by quoting you "etched-in-stone cardnal rule." My stone says, "Do not point your gun at anything that you are not willing to destroy." The willingness does not communicate the obligation. The fact that I shot him means I am willing to kill him, it does not follow that I must kill him.

So... your rationale is that you're shooting the guy with a "not non-lethal" round with the intention of NOT killing him? & when you shoot him with bird shot and your gun is found to have buckshot in it, your defense for using birdshot would be "I was willing to kill him but didn't intend to kill him"??? You think that this protects you from law suit? Shooting to Wound?

I reject your cardinal rule. Thirdly, stop perpetuating the myth that I must kill someone to avoid litigation.

I wasn't. Funny, I thought that I said this:"Second... a living perp gets a criminal defense lawyer. I know that I certainly don't want any of that trouble."

Is this true, or not true? I'd rather have to deal with the D.A.'s office, or a jury of my peers. Who's issuing the Straw Man now?

Fewer people get sued for defending their homes than you may think and even fewer actually lose the lawsuit. Not to mention the fact that you may be sued by the family of the perp. YOU CAN'T SHOOT THEM!!!

Yes....

I am not shooting at a beast, I am shooting at a man; and I choose to give every man the opportunity to live. For me that means birdshot to stop him and if he does not stop I use buckshot. It's my prerogative. Again notice the lack of ad-hominem statements like "utter ignorance." Allow someone to have an opinion others than yours. It's not all that hard.

Ad Hominem is an attack upon the person, not the argument or ideology. Please educate yourself before you use such terms that "you appear to think" you're capable of using. I specifically spoke against the PLAN, not the person.

BTW, I like the roll-eyed winky smileys. It almost seems like you care.

I am not shooting at a beast, I am shooting at a man; and I choose to give every man the opportunity to live. For me that means birdshot to stop him and if he does not stop I use buckshot. It's my prerogative.

Yes, it is. Oh, & I love the condescending tone: "Pay close attention... it's not all that hard." Blah

You know what? If you read some Hobbes, you'll learn about social contract and "the state of nature". If a man violates the social contract through thinking that he is entitled to everything, even your property, then he is no less than a beast, wouldn't you think?
Are you going to shoot someone with #4 birdshot, which is apparently "more lethal than I may appear to think", with the intention of wounding them? Where will you shoot them, with this "chance-granting yet not non-lethal" round? You're going to call a shot? Good luck with that.

In my world, & the world of most intelligent people, a burglar gets many chances, many opportunities "to live".
First, he presumably knows the law.
Second, he is breaking into my home, which is not his, to take property, which is not his, or to perpetrate a crime against someone who is obviously not him (he can do whatever he likes to himself, I could care less).
His third strike would be not doing EXACTLY what the hell I tell him when I have a gun pointed at him.
If you're pointing a gun at someone who's gone through all of these steps, and then are issuing, in essence, a "warning shot" with some bird load....
Here's a little article about SHOOTING TO WOUND


Also, I hope that you're not assuming that my stance is just shooting any and all burglars IN ORDER TO AVOID A LAWSUIT. It's not, is it? Because that would be another Straw Man on your part.

 

[Doc_Jude]

from thefiringline.com:
A number of years ago a local "night creeper" got caught by a ladies boy friend coming out of her bathroom. Boy friend gave the creeper a load of #6's at less than 10 feet. The creeper was arrested three days later when he showed up at a hospital, claiming the wound was caused by an accident while hunting.

He had been wearing a heavy flannel shirt and a down vest under an insulated leather bomber jacket. The #6's failed to penetrate enough to really do any real damage. The creeper told the Sheriff that if he had had his gun that night, he would have shot the boy friend.

I use #4 or #1 buckshot. If I lived in a thin walled apartment, I might intertain the birdshot idea.

If you want to cover all your bases you need to go with #4 at least.I too know of an incident where #7 1/2 failed to penetrate a heavy leather jacket.I guess your first can be a 7 1/2 if you want,but that second round better be able to do the job if the first round fails!

The load of choice at SCDC used to be birdshot - 7 1/2s or some such. Awhile back there was a well organized riot where the inmates used mattresses to enable them to close with the guards. The light loads would not penetrate enough to stop the inmates. The SCDC then tested larger and larger loads to get full penetration of the mattresses. End result - a 2 3/4 load of # 5s was chosen as the duty load.

My HD load is a round or two of # 2s, followed by appropriate buckshot/slugs.

I've related this a couple of times before but a buddy of mine was shot from across a small room with a 12 gauge loaded with birdshot. He underwent a lot of surgery but he lived. The guy that shot him didn't survive the encounter and my buddy was unarmed. Now granted the gun was a single shot and if the guy had a pump or auto the outcome probably would have been different. One shot with birdshot may or may not stop an attacker. I put my money on 00 buckshot

The other problem with birdshot is that for every anecdote of someone dropping instantly from being shot with it, there is another anecdote of someone continuing to fight and sometimes even kill the person wielding the shotgun.

There are too many variables in each of our lives for one size to fit all when it comes to shotgun ammo. The good thing is you have choices.

I don't live in an apartment, my home is not a split floorplan with bedrooms on both sides. If I am shooting toward an intruder, I am shooting away from my family. The intruder, if he is shooting toward me, is shooting toward my family who would be behind me. I want him stopped, NOW. 00 buck and slugs tend to do that faster. Are they a guarantee?? No. But they're the best bet for a quick stop.

You may live in an apartment. You may have valid overpenetration concerns given your situation. In that case, you may be better served with smaller shot. Just don't expect it to "act like a slug" or "be effective at accross the room distances". Sometimes it might, sometimes it won't, sometimes you may have to shoot farther than across your bedroom. Have a plan B.

There are many variables, as others point out, proximity being pivotal. There is a big difference between gelatin, targets and drug/alcohol/mentally derranged attackers. Though I have seen several lethal "birdshoot" wounds, none were beyond 3 yards, most 1 yard or less, and all were solid torso or head shots.

Though I understand the legitimate concern for overpenetration in certian circumstances, there is no free lunch, less penetration will pertain to all strutures.

I've personally seen two head wounds from point blank range from a 12g with small birdshot, not sure of the size. One was self-inflicted. Both survived, although one was fairly mangled (most of the right jaw and left ear area blown off). Neither had any of the birdshot actually penetrate the skull. Either could have continued the fight had they been a meth or crackhead intent on hurting someone else.

My agency also sends us incident reports. I've seen many, many photos of similar birdshot failures at short range. I wouldn't trust it, but if I did have to carry birdshot, the larger the better. Didn't one of the gellatin sites suggest that #2 birdshot almost made the magical 12" penetration at short range?

Here's some info to live by, instead of dying because of some abnormal moral demand to give someone a chance to live by shooting them:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm

 

[riverdog]

In a personal defense shooting, the intent is to stop the perpetrator, not kill them. The perp may suffer mortal wounds because stopping does involve lethal force, but the intent of shooting is to stop him immediately.

My thoughts are that birdshot is for birds. If I am forced to shoot someone to protect my life, I am not using birdshot. I'm not mixing and matching various loads as a continuum of force. Every round in my shotgun is the same, first to last.

 

[Dave McCracken]

OK, Dudes, the thread's locked because you guys can't follow the rules.

Sheesh!!