Home Defense--use #7 Bird.
- Thread starter Bootganger
- Start date
- Status
Charles S
Member
EdLaver,
I think you might want to check your mouse, I think it is set on burst. LOL
I think you might want to check your mouse, I think it is set on burst. LOL
One of Many
Member
If the intent is to KILL a person, and you don't care if someone in another room may be killed when you miss the intended target, then by all means use Buckshot. Most professional legal advice is to shoot to stop the attacker, not to kill them.
I have seen some of the "experts" on TV, advocate using two pistol shots to COM followed by one to the head, for stopping an attack. Then the "expert" spouted off a poem that ended something like 'and one to the head, makes them dead'. This by a "professional" trainer that happens to be a police officer, swat team member, and police trainer. A civilian following that advice (to train to kill - on the advice of a police officer) will find themselves in much more legal difficulty than a police officer, when the case gets to trial.
We all should use deadly force with extreme caution, and reserve it for situations where no other action is possible. The police attempt to use LESS LETHAL force when possible, even though that force sometimes does kill (tazers). Birdshot as the first two rounds of a magazine, followed by buckshot, will reduce the risk of fatality, and still offer a reasonable protective force. After all, there are many reports that the mere sound of a pump shotgun being racked, froze an attacker in place.
If the intent of the shooter is to kill, rather than stop, then buckshot (as advocated by so many "experts") is the obvious choice. It seems that the popular opinion on this board, is to maximize the potential of killing as a means of stopping an attack, regardless of the danger to non-aggressors. What a bloodthirsty lot of armchair gunslingers we have on this board.
The best advice is to try to avoid an armed conflict; barricade in a safe room and call the cops. Don't try to sweep the house so you can initiate an attack that justifies shooting the home invader. Use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop an attack, and don't try to hold the invader for the police. Don't chase the invader out of your house.
You are more likely to lose your possessions due to legal expenses, than to what a home invader may carry off in his arms. Only when it is absolutely necessary to save your (or family/guests) life from serious harm or death should you even consider shooting a home invader.
I have seen some of the "experts" on TV, advocate using two pistol shots to COM followed by one to the head, for stopping an attack. Then the "expert" spouted off a poem that ended something like 'and one to the head, makes them dead'. This by a "professional" trainer that happens to be a police officer, swat team member, and police trainer. A civilian following that advice (to train to kill - on the advice of a police officer) will find themselves in much more legal difficulty than a police officer, when the case gets to trial.
We all should use deadly force with extreme caution, and reserve it for situations where no other action is possible. The police attempt to use LESS LETHAL force when possible, even though that force sometimes does kill (tazers). Birdshot as the first two rounds of a magazine, followed by buckshot, will reduce the risk of fatality, and still offer a reasonable protective force. After all, there are many reports that the mere sound of a pump shotgun being racked, froze an attacker in place.
If the intent of the shooter is to kill, rather than stop, then buckshot (as advocated by so many "experts") is the obvious choice. It seems that the popular opinion on this board, is to maximize the potential of killing as a means of stopping an attack, regardless of the danger to non-aggressors. What a bloodthirsty lot of armchair gunslingers we have on this board.
The best advice is to try to avoid an armed conflict; barricade in a safe room and call the cops. Don't try to sweep the house so you can initiate an attack that justifies shooting the home invader. Use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop an attack, and don't try to hold the invader for the police. Don't chase the invader out of your house.
You are more likely to lose your possessions due to legal expenses, than to what a home invader may carry off in his arms. Only when it is absolutely necessary to save your (or family/guests) life from serious harm or death should you even consider shooting a home invader.
One of Many,
I am sorry...are you serious? You mean to tell me if 2 home invaders came into your home looking to steal, pillage, and possibly hurt you or your wife and children you would simply coral your family into a room and call the cops while they pillage and destroy your home? C'mon now, I know that nobody will agree to that here. ONCE AN INTRUDER HAS ENTERED YOUR HOME SELF DEFENSE IS A MUST!
Now I know courts are becoming more dumb-founded about the obvious, but I dont know a jury on the planet that would convict a home owner for killing a or several intruders for invading his/her home. The only way I could see that happening is if you shot one in the back multiple times or something like that. Or if you chased them out into your front lawn and shot them dead. If a single intruder ever came into my home I would try to detain him 1st at gunpoint only if he wasnt armed with a firearm. If he was armed then I would fire. Multiple burglars (which most home invaders work in teams) I wouldnt even hesitate to fire.
I am sorry...are you serious? You mean to tell me if 2 home invaders came into your home looking to steal, pillage, and possibly hurt you or your wife and children you would simply coral your family into a room and call the cops while they pillage and destroy your home? C'mon now, I know that nobody will agree to that here. ONCE AN INTRUDER HAS ENTERED YOUR HOME SELF DEFENSE IS A MUST!
Now I know courts are becoming more dumb-founded about the obvious, but I dont know a jury on the planet that would convict a home owner for killing a or several intruders for invading his/her home. The only way I could see that happening is if you shot one in the back multiple times or something like that. Or if you chased them out into your front lawn and shot them dead. If a single intruder ever came into my home I would try to detain him 1st at gunpoint only if he wasnt armed with a firearm. If he was armed then I would fire. Multiple burglars (which most home invaders work in teams) I wouldnt even hesitate to fire.[temporary thread hijack]
Personally, I don't care if it's a firearm or not. When I was on active duty SF orders at my base, we recieved an e-mail from a local police captain showing the most horrendous knife wounds many of us had ever seen. They were inflicted on one of his officers by a gang member that got the drop on him before he could draw his weapon. After that e-mail, our Commander initiated a 30 foot standoff rule for persons armed with edged weapons - if someone so much as pulled out a knife within our view, guns were drawn. If the person took a step toward one of us, night night. The safeties on our M9s were also off at all times. Always. I suppose such measures are nessecary while protecting 30 million dollar fighter aircraft.
[/ temporary thread hijack]
That being said, I feel the same way about edged weapons as I do about firearms. Just as deadly, and alot less noisey, which obviously has it's advantages to a BG. I treat all weapons as just that - weapons. I do agree with you though to a certain extent. If someone is ransacking my house and I haven't secured my wife and son yet, then hell yes I'm going to go find them, and go room to room looking if they aren't where they should be. If I manage to find them before I find the BG(s), then I'll bunker down with them in a secured room and let the thieves take whatever they want. I'll call the cops and let them sort it out - my family comes first. Stuff is replaceable, lives are not.
Oh, and Federal RR 00 buck is in my gun.
I also see your point, and you've made several valid ones. However, coming from an LE background, my mentality is that if I have to shoot someone, that means I feel that my life is in imminent danger of being prematurely ended by whatever unfortunate jackass found his way into my home. If I get put into that situation, I'm going to shoot to kill. Not shoot to maime, hurt, sting, or offend. I'm not looking for a fight, but if someone brings the fight to me, you can bet your ass I'm going to win it.
Every person needs to consider thier surroundings and, with a degree of common sense that every gun owner *should* posess, pick an appropriate type of ammunition to suit their needs. Is 00 or 000 buck good for an apartment complex? Certainly not. No one is here to endanger the lives of innocent bystanders on purpose. There is a use for birdshot, as some situations don't allow for anything else. A heavy turkey load seems to be the best bet in those situations. But, for someone who has the safe option of effectively using 00 buck as opposed to birdshot, I don't see why someone would choose the latter over the former.
But thats just me. Like I said, if I have to shoot, I'd rather kill the person than turn their abdomen into hamburger. If they don't go down right away, that affords them the opportunity to retaliate. I'd wager a paycheck that someone who has hamburger where their abdomen used to reside would be willing to take a shot or two before they went down, if it even DID bring them down.
Its not ineffective, but IMO if there is a better option for so-and-so, why tell him not to go with it?
Axman
Member
Yes, I would like to point out that, "A wounded animal (BG) goes into defense mode." Put yourself in the attacker's shoes. If you were the BG and were shot, wouldn't you want to take a chance of getting a good hit in before losing the fight?
I agree on shoot to stop, not to kill. However, explain to me how birdshot, which does not penetrate deeply enough to reliably strike any major organs outside of immediate contact distance (And some would argue inside of it, as well), is supposed to reliably stop an assailant. Sure, you just turned his stomach into hamburger. That's nice. What if your assailant is not dissuaded? The whole point is to create reliable rapid physical incapacitation. That is not achieved via a flesh wound. It can only be achieved via wounds that, through tragic coincidence, also have a high mortality rate. C'est la vie.
The trainer, if he was not quoted out of context and portrayed just that, is an idiot. There are a lot of idiot trainers out there. Some of them wear badges. They produce bad trainees, some of whom wear badges, and further the spread of silly ideas.
The drill described is the Mozambique drill. The idea is to get two shots to COM and then aim for the head. The time it takes for you to re-aim for the small target of the head give sthe opponent a chance to expire, fall down, drop the gun, run away, or continue to threaten. So, you now have a sight picture on his melon. Is the target still up and threatening? If so, press the trigger again. If not, cover him with your weapon and/or achieve cover and/or address other threats.
One can make the argument that the whole drill can be done very rapidly and fluidly, and thus seem like a killing move, but it is not the erstwhile-victim's fault that his attacker took too long to fall down. I'd certainly not be tarrying too long on the analysis; I like life on the green side of the grass. But if I shot him twice and he went down like a sack, I'd refrain from adding the third shot. That is what counts.
That is the real test of what your purpose is; if you shoot him twice in the chest and he falls down and is no longer presenting a threat, do you shoot him again? If the answer is yes, you're almost certainly in legal hot water. If you don't, it sounds like you shot to stop, not kill. Whether he lives or dies is up to EMS.
Mike
epijunkie67
Member
I've posted this story before but it bears repeating. I'm an ER doctor and did my residency in emergency medicine so I've seen a few gunshot people before. When I was in training I was rotating on the trauma team at the level one trauma center when we got a guy who had been shot breaking into a house COM with a 12 gauge using birdshot.
Dude was climbing in a window when he was confronted by a 15 year old with the shotgun. Kid was in the room and distance was 5-12 feet from the window. Kid told him "If you come in this house I'll shoot you." Dude said "F%$& you" and tried to come in anyway. Kid pulled the trigger and hit him square in the center of the chest. Dude fell back out the window, got up, and ran down the street. Cops found him huddled up on a porch a few houses away. Ambulance came and brought him to us. Dude was awake, combative, and required restraint when he got to us in the trauma bay!
Had two partially collapsed lungs and a chest full of birdshot. He was lucky that his heart hadn't taken a hit. As it was he got put on the ventilator, went to ICU, and walked out of the hospital 6 weeks later.
Important point? After getting shot the dude ran away and was still awake and fighting us 20-25 minutes later. If the purpose of shooting someone is to stop the threat then in this case birdshot failed. If you want to put it in your shotgun then by all means go ahead but I'll never use it for self defense.
Dude was climbing in a window when he was confronted by a 15 year old with the shotgun. Kid was in the room and distance was 5-12 feet from the window. Kid told him "If you come in this house I'll shoot you." Dude said "F%$& you" and tried to come in anyway. Kid pulled the trigger and hit him square in the center of the chest. Dude fell back out the window, got up, and ran down the street. Cops found him huddled up on a porch a few houses away. Ambulance came and brought him to us. Dude was awake, combative, and required restraint when he got to us in the trauma bay!
Had two partially collapsed lungs and a chest full of birdshot. He was lucky that his heart hadn't taken a hit. As it was he got put on the ventilator, went to ICU, and walked out of the hospital 6 weeks later.
Important point? After getting shot the dude ran away and was still awake and fighting us 20-25 minutes later. If the purpose of shooting someone is to stop the threat then in this case birdshot failed. If you want to put it in your shotgun then by all means go ahead but I'll never use it for self defense.
rustymaggot
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 838
epijunkie67,
exelent story.
birdshot is not worth using unless you have nothing else. buckshot or slugs, forget the birdshot.
exelent story.
birdshot is not worth using unless you have nothing else. buckshot or slugs, forget the birdshot.
4fingermick
Member
We use 6 shot in the prisons, doesn't penetrate past the fat layer as a rule. Takes the fight out of a con, but I think I'd prefer a bit more when the target could reach out and re-arrange me. I don't think slugs are a good idea because you will be waking up out of a deep sleep probably, I'd like a bit more error compenstaion factored in. Mick.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
One of Many,
It's necessary to solve Problem One first, before you have the luxury of worrying about Problem Two. In other words, if you are put in a situation where shooting is necessary, then you best shoot quickly and effectively, because if you do not solve Problem One (the shooting quickly and effectively problem) then you will never have to worry about Problem Two (the legal problem) because someone will be throwing dirt in your face.
I wish people would get over the idea that it was their responsibility- or option- to "shoot him just a little bit." Citizens are not cops, and are governed by a different set of rules in the use of force. What cops do, or what someone erroniously thinks cops have to do, is of no matter. IF you as a private citizen are justified in shooting, then you are justified in killing. IF you are not justified in killing, you are not justified in shooting. Even if you are justified in your own mind the legal system may take an opposite tack- there are some prosecutors in some areas who seem convinced that no private citizen under their authority has any right of self defense at all. Fortunately those prosecutors are few and far between, but they do exist. BUT you have to be alive to be prosecuted, even unjustly, and if you do not solve Problem One then Problem Two gets to be pretty irrelevant.
It would be nice if we could all carry our Star Fleet- issued phasers around with us, set on STUN. Maybe someday we can. But right now that's not possible, so we have to make the best we can of the options we have. As far as I am concerned, the best option I have to defend myself and my family at home is a short repeating shotgun with both buckshot and slugs available as needed. No, I don't WANT to kill someone- I am not a homicidal maniac. I would not shoot someone over physical property- only someone who was threatening grave bodily harm or worse to myself or someone else. I understand the concept of shooting to stop, and I understand the necessity of making each single shot as effective in stopping an attack as possible.
You see, every shot fired will be accounted as a separate blow struck in self defense. EVERY SHOT FIRED must be justifiable, not just the first one. There are people rotting in jail right now for having fired one shot too many in what was an otherwise justifiable shooting... . Think about that, please, and then tell me how good an idea it is to load your defnsive shotgun with something less than the most effective ammunition it is capable of firing.
Please go to the thread at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=231925 and read Skip Gochenour's lecture outline that I posted earlier. And let me append here a paraphrase of his closing remarks, not included there:
If you have made up your mind to defend yourself and your loved ones, with complete awareness that you might be injured, crippled or even killed in the process, and that your loved ones might have to witness whatever horrors transpired in the process... if you have faced those ugly realities and dealt with them, and are still sure that the right thing for you to do is to defend yourself and your family when necessary no matter what the cost... ARE YOU GOING TO BE SCARED OF SOME LAWYER?
lpl/nc
It's necessary to solve Problem One first, before you have the luxury of worrying about Problem Two. In other words, if you are put in a situation where shooting is necessary, then you best shoot quickly and effectively, because if you do not solve Problem One (the shooting quickly and effectively problem) then you will never have to worry about Problem Two (the legal problem) because someone will be throwing dirt in your face.
I wish people would get over the idea that it was their responsibility- or option- to "shoot him just a little bit." Citizens are not cops, and are governed by a different set of rules in the use of force. What cops do, or what someone erroniously thinks cops have to do, is of no matter. IF you as a private citizen are justified in shooting, then you are justified in killing. IF you are not justified in killing, you are not justified in shooting. Even if you are justified in your own mind the legal system may take an opposite tack- there are some prosecutors in some areas who seem convinced that no private citizen under their authority has any right of self defense at all. Fortunately those prosecutors are few and far between, but they do exist. BUT you have to be alive to be prosecuted, even unjustly, and if you do not solve Problem One then Problem Two gets to be pretty irrelevant.
It would be nice if we could all carry our Star Fleet- issued phasers around with us, set on STUN. Maybe someday we can. But right now that's not possible, so we have to make the best we can of the options we have. As far as I am concerned, the best option I have to defend myself and my family at home is a short repeating shotgun with both buckshot and slugs available as needed. No, I don't WANT to kill someone- I am not a homicidal maniac. I would not shoot someone over physical property- only someone who was threatening grave bodily harm or worse to myself or someone else. I understand the concept of shooting to stop, and I understand the necessity of making each single shot as effective in stopping an attack as possible.
You see, every shot fired will be accounted as a separate blow struck in self defense. EVERY SHOT FIRED must be justifiable, not just the first one. There are people rotting in jail right now for having fired one shot too many in what was an otherwise justifiable shooting... . Think about that, please, and then tell me how good an idea it is to load your defnsive shotgun with something less than the most effective ammunition it is capable of firing.
Please go to the thread at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=231925 and read Skip Gochenour's lecture outline that I posted earlier. And let me append here a paraphrase of his closing remarks, not included there:
If you have made up your mind to defend yourself and your loved ones, with complete awareness that you might be injured, crippled or even killed in the process, and that your loved ones might have to witness whatever horrors transpired in the process... if you have faced those ugly realities and dealt with them, and are still sure that the right thing for you to do is to defend yourself and your family when necessary no matter what the cost... ARE YOU GOING TO BE SCARED OF SOME LAWYER?
lpl/nc
sm
member
I have followed this thread, and have not posted until now.
It is of my opinion, this thread went awry of THR Misson Statement, and then with some Quality postings got back to THR Mission Statement.
I appreciate the Quality Postings and feel as others have shared, this thread should be closed and end with Quality posts.
Steve
It is of my opinion, this thread went awry of THR Misson Statement, and then with some Quality postings got back to THR Mission Statement.
I appreciate the Quality Postings and feel as others have shared, this thread should be closed and end with Quality posts.
Steve
My take. #7 #8 and #9 shot are for clay and real small birds so they are very bad stoppers. #4 to #6 are borderline man stoppers, since they are made for bigger birds, but like www.theboxotruth.com showed #4 will still penetrate multiple layers of sheetrock. There is no magic bullet. If you have a concern about over penetration try a heavy fowl or turkey load as the first round, THEN follow it up with buckshot.
PolarPanda
Member
870 w/ 20" barrel and 7 shot tube. 7+1=8 000, slug, 000 slug, 000, slug, 000, slug. I hit it one way or another. Pretty sure it wont get up when its over with.
One of Many
Member
Quote of epijunkie67:
Emphasis mine.
The threat WAS stopped, because the invasion/attack was ended by the use of birdshot fired into the chest of the BG. When the BG ran away, the purpose of defense was accomplished. That the BG was still able to fight the cops and ER people, is not germane to the effective use of birdshot as a defense, which DID stop the BG from continuing his invasion/attack. In some cases where defense is not the primary reason for having the gun, it may just be what shells were left over from the last hunting trip.
Whether you load birdshot, or heavy turkey loads, #6 shot, #4 shot or more lethal choices, should be well considered before even picking up a gun as a defensive tool. In the other situations (from example above) we are discussing, a deliberate choice is being made. In many cases, a BG getting wounded by gunshot will scare them into flight, or surrender. In a few cases where the attacker is crazy or doped up, lethal force may be necessary to stop an attack. What I am suggesting is that we consider a less lethal force as the first choice, backed up by the more lethal means.
Whenever a gun is discharged at an attacker, we must have the legal right of using lethal force, or the shooting is not justified; that does not mean that we should intend to kill, if other options are available. A shotgun with 5 to 8 rounds in the magazine, provides an opportunity to begin the defense with less lethal (usually) force, and progress through more lethal choices of ammo if the attacker does not stop quickly.
We each have our own personal sense of morality, that will determine our actions when the necessity of defense occurs. I choose to stop the attack using the minimum lethality necessary, rather than the maximum lethality possible. Your choice is not my responsibility, nor vice versa. The fact that we can discuss the reasons for our choices, make us all more aware of the gravity of the decisions we make, and the possible consequences.
Emphasis mine.
The threat WAS stopped, because the invasion/attack was ended by the use of birdshot fired into the chest of the BG. When the BG ran away, the purpose of defense was accomplished. That the BG was still able to fight the cops and ER people, is not germane to the effective use of birdshot as a defense, which DID stop the BG from continuing his invasion/attack. In some cases where defense is not the primary reason for having the gun, it may just be what shells were left over from the last hunting trip.
Whether you load birdshot, or heavy turkey loads, #6 shot, #4 shot or more lethal choices, should be well considered before even picking up a gun as a defensive tool. In the other situations (from example above) we are discussing, a deliberate choice is being made. In many cases, a BG getting wounded by gunshot will scare them into flight, or surrender. In a few cases where the attacker is crazy or doped up, lethal force may be necessary to stop an attack. What I am suggesting is that we consider a less lethal force as the first choice, backed up by the more lethal means.
Whenever a gun is discharged at an attacker, we must have the legal right of using lethal force, or the shooting is not justified; that does not mean that we should intend to kill, if other options are available. A shotgun with 5 to 8 rounds in the magazine, provides an opportunity to begin the defense with less lethal (usually) force, and progress through more lethal choices of ammo if the attacker does not stop quickly.
We each have our own personal sense of morality, that will determine our actions when the necessity of defense occurs. I choose to stop the attack using the minimum lethality necessary, rather than the maximum lethality possible. Your choice is not my responsibility, nor vice versa. The fact that we can discuss the reasons for our choices, make us all more aware of the gravity of the decisions we make, and the possible consequences.
The threat was stopped only by chance and the decision on the part of the criminal to abandon the crime, not by the birdshot. epijunkie67 story shows that at a little further than contact range the birdshot clearly didn't remove the criminal's ability to attack, merely his desire, which is germane to the basic concept of self defense. Fine, that ended this particular attack, but real world you plan not for the optimum condition, but for the worst case. And in the worst case, had this attacker been slightly angrier or more determined the birdshot clearly wouldn't have stopped him. In a dangerous, dynamic situation, the last thing most people want to be worried about is analyzing their attacker. I don't know what he's thinking, or how he'll react to any given action on my part, and don't really care to do the math. The only way I exercise control of the situation is by acting in a way that limits the available options of my attacker, hopefully to nothing but harmless ones. What you're advocating, outside of an ammo choice, is a strategy that deliberately introduces extra variables into a potentially life or death situation, by making a choice that clearly will live the attacker with decision making capabilities and what's worse, only slightly impair his ability to act. That might be fine in your logical/moral framework, but it won't work for a lot of people, and it's clearly fraught with many perils.
There is NO nonlethal firearm, so even a round with "minimum lethality" can kill; even 'less than lethal' beanbags/stingers/baton rounds can kill; once you've committed to discharge a firearm you've committed to potentially killing someone. And without a medical history you have no realistic way of concluding that your round is less likely to kill this particular individual; i.e. a beanbag at close range might more effectively kill a person with a heart problem than buckshot. Therefore again, the only choice that is objectively rational is to use a round that has the least chance of allowing continued struggle, because this would ultimately lead to either a) the atttacker successfully harming you/someone you're trying to protect, or b) needing to be shot again, and no matter what the baseline lethality is for a particular round, that lethality goes up as more are applied. Long sorry short, once confrontation has become inevitable, it should be ended as quickly and definitively as possible, for everyone's safety. And via the long trail of logic, we arrive back where we started; it has been demonstrated repeatedly that birdshot cannot be counted on to accomplish a quick and definitive end to a confrontation reliably. So therefore while it may be a fine personal presence of mind choice, it's not by any stretch of the imagination, an objectively sensible choice.
Last edited:
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Folks,
Y'all will all have to make your own decisions in regard to if, and when, and how you will defend yourselves and your loved ones. That's a given.
None of us will very likely be there to help out any of the rest of us with their gunfights. Likewise, courtroom battles, if it comes to that. You're on your own, pretty much, you and yours; and your decisions and actions will decide the outcome of your particular situation.
But please understand this. There is absolutely nothing "more moral" about using a potentially less effective load in your HD shotgun. I don't care if Billy Graham himself tells you that's the case- it's flat wrong. You have no guarantees you will have a chance to fire more than one shot in your gunfight- you may receive a disabling wound, your firearm may be damaged by incoming fire- who knows what might happen. You have no guarantees that the hot burglars/home invaders/crazied junkies/whoever that crash into your house are going to make room in their plans for your moral superiority. But you can bet they didn't kick in your door to invite you to a picnic on your lawn. You have no way to be sure that they will follow your neatly scripted home defense scenario that starts with your throwing a handful of marshmallows at them from across the room and gradually increasing your level of lethality from there. And if you assume that they will, and make your plans accordingly, you are in my humble opinion acting in a genuinely foolish fashion. Life doesn't give a dead rat what your plans and expectations are, Murphy is a bastard and he's always hanging around looking for someone to put the dunce hat on. Whatever else you do, don't volunteer to be Murphy's stooge.
I hate to repeat myself, but I feel I have little choice here. Folks, you CANNOT shoot someone 'just a little bit." ANY TIME you fire a shotgun at someone, NO MATTER WHAT it's loaded with, you are exercising lethal force- and you had better be justified in using lethal force EVERY TIME you pull the trigger, because you can bet that someone is going to eventually evaluate every shot you fired as to its necessity. Do yourself a favor- picture yourself as the star attraction in a courtroom. Picture yourself explaining to judge and jury EVERY ACTION you took in defending yourself and your family, and picture yourself being gnawed on by a hostile attorney who inists that you explain every reason for every action you took. Ask yourself in your heart of hearts if you want to try to explain that, while you were in fact willing to shoot someone repeatedly with a shotgun (you had a PLAN to do that, right? You just said so...), that you didn't really want to kill them but were perfectly willing to settle for just maiming them for life. Do you think anyone is going to be grateful to you for not killing them, but only blowing away half their face? Really? I suggest you go back and re-read Skip Gochenour's material again, especially :
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/Feature/2006/08_Feature.htm
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/05_StudyDay.htm
Odds are that it won't ever come down to you actually having to use your shotgun in defense- relatively few people ever do. But in cases like this, it is not the ODDS that matter- it's the STAKES, and the stakes are your life and those of your loved ones. If you do need it, you are going to need it very badly. Loading it with anything less than the most effective ammunition you can manage is like refusing to call the fire department when your house catches on fire because you have your garden hose, and therefore don't need a 3" line with a Turbojet nozzle on it.
This stuff is not a game of Mother May I, anyone who is willing to violate your home and threaten your family with sufficient bodily harm to justify being shot at by you, has surrendered all rights to the expectation of any consideration from you. Your only concern should be making sure you and your family survive such an encounter without injury, and effectively stopping the person or persons who seek to cause injury to you and yours. Stopping them effectively might just mean they die. It DOES NOT mean you are trying to kill them, that you want to kill them, that you intend to kill them- just to stop them. My advice is that you try to stop them in the most effective manner possible, and I assure you that you will achieve no moral superiority by using less effective means in stopping an unprovoked assault once it comes to actually pulling the trigger. If anything, by using less effective means, you only pave the way for tragedy. And if your moral compunctions against killing someone in legitimate justified self defense are so strong that you aren't willing to risk it, then you have no business planning to shoot someone 'just a little bit' with a shotgun.
Get some training, people. Go out and put yourself into the hands of an instructor who has done his or her homework, and who is prepared to explain to you what you really do need to know about trying to save your life with a shotgun. The NRA classes are available all over, you don't have to necessarily spend three days in the sun with Louis Awerbuck, or elbow your way into the NTI. But whatever you do, get yourself beyond the myths, and the what-ifs, and the if-onlies. They'll get you in trouble.
I'm done with this thread now, I just hope this whole thing helps someone avoid making a bad mistake, or a series of them.
lpl/nc
Y'all will all have to make your own decisions in regard to if, and when, and how you will defend yourselves and your loved ones. That's a given.
None of us will very likely be there to help out any of the rest of us with their gunfights. Likewise, courtroom battles, if it comes to that. You're on your own, pretty much, you and yours; and your decisions and actions will decide the outcome of your particular situation.
But please understand this. There is absolutely nothing "more moral" about using a potentially less effective load in your HD shotgun. I don't care if Billy Graham himself tells you that's the case- it's flat wrong. You have no guarantees you will have a chance to fire more than one shot in your gunfight- you may receive a disabling wound, your firearm may be damaged by incoming fire- who knows what might happen. You have no guarantees that the hot burglars/home invaders/crazied junkies/whoever that crash into your house are going to make room in their plans for your moral superiority. But you can bet they didn't kick in your door to invite you to a picnic on your lawn. You have no way to be sure that they will follow your neatly scripted home defense scenario that starts with your throwing a handful of marshmallows at them from across the room and gradually increasing your level of lethality from there. And if you assume that they will, and make your plans accordingly, you are in my humble opinion acting in a genuinely foolish fashion. Life doesn't give a dead rat what your plans and expectations are, Murphy is a bastard and he's always hanging around looking for someone to put the dunce hat on. Whatever else you do, don't volunteer to be Murphy's stooge.
I hate to repeat myself, but I feel I have little choice here. Folks, you CANNOT shoot someone 'just a little bit." ANY TIME you fire a shotgun at someone, NO MATTER WHAT it's loaded with, you are exercising lethal force- and you had better be justified in using lethal force EVERY TIME you pull the trigger, because you can bet that someone is going to eventually evaluate every shot you fired as to its necessity. Do yourself a favor- picture yourself as the star attraction in a courtroom. Picture yourself explaining to judge and jury EVERY ACTION you took in defending yourself and your family, and picture yourself being gnawed on by a hostile attorney who inists that you explain every reason for every action you took. Ask yourself in your heart of hearts if you want to try to explain that, while you were in fact willing to shoot someone repeatedly with a shotgun (you had a PLAN to do that, right? You just said so...), that you didn't really want to kill them but were perfectly willing to settle for just maiming them for life. Do you think anyone is going to be grateful to you for not killing them, but only blowing away half their face? Really? I suggest you go back and re-read Skip Gochenour's material again, especially :
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/Feature/2006/08_Feature.htm
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/05_StudyDay.htm
Odds are that it won't ever come down to you actually having to use your shotgun in defense- relatively few people ever do. But in cases like this, it is not the ODDS that matter- it's the STAKES, and the stakes are your life and those of your loved ones. If you do need it, you are going to need it very badly. Loading it with anything less than the most effective ammunition you can manage is like refusing to call the fire department when your house catches on fire because you have your garden hose, and therefore don't need a 3" line with a Turbojet nozzle on it.
This stuff is not a game of Mother May I, anyone who is willing to violate your home and threaten your family with sufficient bodily harm to justify being shot at by you, has surrendered all rights to the expectation of any consideration from you. Your only concern should be making sure you and your family survive such an encounter without injury, and effectively stopping the person or persons who seek to cause injury to you and yours. Stopping them effectively might just mean they die. It DOES NOT mean you are trying to kill them, that you want to kill them, that you intend to kill them- just to stop them. My advice is that you try to stop them in the most effective manner possible, and I assure you that you will achieve no moral superiority by using less effective means in stopping an unprovoked assault once it comes to actually pulling the trigger. If anything, by using less effective means, you only pave the way for tragedy. And if your moral compunctions against killing someone in legitimate justified self defense are so strong that you aren't willing to risk it, then you have no business planning to shoot someone 'just a little bit' with a shotgun.
Get some training, people. Go out and put yourself into the hands of an instructor who has done his or her homework, and who is prepared to explain to you what you really do need to know about trying to save your life with a shotgun. The NRA classes are available all over, you don't have to necessarily spend three days in the sun with Louis Awerbuck, or elbow your way into the NTI. But whatever you do, get yourself beyond the myths, and the what-ifs, and the if-onlies. They'll get you in trouble.
I'm done with this thread now, I just hope this whole thing helps someone avoid making a bad mistake, or a series of them.
lpl/nc
imprezagm4
Member
This thread (especially that computer case picture) has made up my mind. 00 buck is what I shall load the 870 with.
Frog48
Member
It depends on the housing situation...
If you live in an apartment, I could understand using birdshot. It wouldnt penetrate walls and potentially kill your neighbor like buckshot would.
If you live in a house, buckshot is the only rational choice.
If you live in an apartment, I could understand using birdshot. It wouldnt penetrate walls and potentially kill your neighbor like buckshot would.
If you live in a house, buckshot is the only rational choice.
DJW
Member
Interesting thread. I wont get into the arguement about "most effective" but will state that equal weights of lead, traveling at the same speed will have equal results upon impact. I am of course not taking into consideration distance traveled as the 100 yard shot is not really rational in a self or home defense situation. Within "in house" range the size of the projectiles will be irrelevant as long as the weight of the charge is the same. Dispersion is not a great factor under 15 yards. Hopefully, none of us will have to find this out for certain under duress. Stay safe.
DJW
DJW
The-Fly
Member
DJW, my house gun is a 870 18" with a cylinder choke. At 15 yards, the spread with birdshot is pretty big. Now if a scum bag was 5 feet from me, birdshot MIGHT work. But i prefer to have the ability to drop him from a safer distance.
I live in an apartment, and i subscribe to the theory that anything that can drop a bad guy can go through many walls. Be it 223, 9mm, or buckshot. Moral of the story....dont miss
I live in an apartment, and i subscribe to the theory that anything that can drop a bad guy can go through many walls. Be it 223, 9mm, or buckshot. Moral of the story....dont miss
FortyFive70
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 26
I have a friend who was shot in the ass with a "dove load" of #8 shot. His girlfriend shot him after an argument. She tried to shoot him in the crotch, but he spun around when he saw her with his gun. The impact point was the rear right leg, right where the top of the thigh and lower buttock meet. As a result of the shot, he lost about a pound of flesh. He now has a hole there about the size of half of a fist. He has many pellets that could not be removed. The pellets went into his pelvis and hip and even into the bone. He spent 2 weeks in the hospital and a month in a nursing home with a suction device hooked up to the wound. He still walks with a limp. It was really a devestating wound. And to this day, when I talk to people about it, their reaction is "oh, bird shot." I have to explain to them that's about 3/4 ounce of lead that, for all practical purposes, hits like a solid mass of lead than immediately breaks up and goes every-which-way.
I think a load of #7 or #8 would be about perfect in a house. It'll stop anyone, and it won't shoot through walls or ceilings and kill your kid in his bed.
I think a load of #7 or #8 would be about perfect in a house. It'll stop anyone, and it won't shoot through walls or ceilings and kill your kid in his bed.
- Status
