jerkface11
Member
I'd go with #4 buck. At close range it's more than effective enough and it won't penetrate as much as 00.
Home Defense With Rubber Buck And Other "Non-Lethal" ammo
- Thread starter Wisconsin_Trap
- Start date
- Status
Boba Fett
Member
Gotta say +1 to all that.
The only reason I might use the LTL stuff is as my first round. This way, in a court case, I can say, "I didn't want to kill anyone, but he kept coming after the first shot and I had to stop him with the second to protect myself and my family."
Of course, I'm probably not going to wait to see if the first shot was enough and follow it with the second right away.
And the idea that you will just try injure someone is insane. Lawsuit for injury, plus you shot him in the back as he was running away.
Less than lethal is a good idea for certain circumstances, but not when you and your family are on the line.
In Missouri 00 Buck is not available on shelves because it's illegal to use hunting for deer. No sales, no stocks on hand.
I'm not aware of many professionals who use 00 for deer simply because a solid slug or sabot is so much superior in range and effectiveness. In states with shotgun only seasons, solids seem to dominate. For LEO use, solids are recommended for antivehicular use, armored meth houses, etc. Sure, 00 has it's place there, too - as an antipersonnel round, just like it was used in WWI in the trenches.
For home defense, 00 Buck is TOO effective, and I see it as a legal liability - in Missouri. Your mileage may vary.
I'm not aware of many professionals who use 00 for deer simply because a solid slug or sabot is so much superior in range and effectiveness. In states with shotgun only seasons, solids seem to dominate. For LEO use, solids are recommended for antivehicular use, armored meth houses, etc. Sure, 00 has it's place there, too - as an antipersonnel round, just like it was used in WWI in the trenches.
For home defense, 00 Buck is TOO effective, and I see it as a legal liability - in Missouri. Your mileage may vary.
MatthewVanitas
Member
Everyone pretty much covered the basics here, but since we're on the topic:
Was it one of the famous gunwriters who had some bit that went like:
-old boy loads up some rock-salt loads to discourage trespassers
-teenager is mucking around on old boy's property, is caught and starts running
-old boy decides to "let fly to teach kid a lesson in the buttocks" with rock salt
-fires, turns out rock salt had hardened together in casing, formed a solid chunk of mineral which nails kid in back, killing him.
Was that just from some THR thread, or was that a documented case that Keith, Cooper, or whoever covered in a book?
Was it one of the famous gunwriters who had some bit that went like:
-old boy loads up some rock-salt loads to discourage trespassers
-teenager is mucking around on old boy's property, is caught and starts running
-old boy decides to "let fly to teach kid a lesson in the buttocks" with rock salt
-fires, turns out rock salt had hardened together in casing, formed a solid chunk of mineral which nails kid in back, killing him.
Was that just from some THR thread, or was that a documented case that Keith, Cooper, or whoever covered in a book?
Just took my concealed class here in N. Carolina. The laws seem to be stacked against the law abiding citizen. My instructor jokingly stated that if a robber is stealing your TV and does not put it down when you tell him to, you should ask him if he needs any help carrying out to his truck. If you dont see a weapon and he starts an exit you should let him go. Now..........Thats gonna be hard for me to do but I wouldn't want to spend a whole bunch of money or spend a lot of time in jail. If I felt in danger and he had a weapon its lights out! But the way it is here, you better have all your ducks in a row before you shoot him. I had no idea that a homeowner is put in this situation. If he is trying to break down my door then I can shoot through the door, but if he breaks down the door and enters without a weapon I cant shoot?
This doesn't seem right.
This doesn't seem right.
mgkdrgn
Member
So, in Missouri if you kill an intruder with say, #6 shot you'll be in less trouble than if you use 00 buck?
At in-house HD distances, if you shoot someone with -anything- flying out of a 12 gauge shotgun, you -are- going to kill them.
As for availability ... that's why there is mail / internet order.
divemedic
Member
I missed this part of your post the first time around, Tirod. A CLAYMORE is a less lethal munition? 600 steel balls propelled by a hunk of C-4? A Sabot round is less lethal? A hardened penetrator, with a disposable sabot, less lethal? A sabot slug you mean? A .50 caliber shotgun slug is less lethal? Less lethal than what? A nuke?
Then you go here:
Professional what? Deer hunters?
I wasn't aware that there were levels of lethal force. Where does 00 Buck lie on the force ladder?
Your posts must be kidding, or something.
Again, I don't know how it works in other states, but I'm still amazed that 00 buck would be considered a liability in terms of a SD shooting.
I am absolutely serious when I say that the sporting goods stores here carry primarily slugs, birdshot, and 00 buck-- no other bucks.
I was looking for some 0 buck a bit back and our Walmart had NOTHING but 00 buck.
I think we'd be OK around here using it.
-- John
I am absolutely serious when I say that the sporting goods stores here carry primarily slugs, birdshot, and 00 buck-- no other bucks.
I was looking for some 0 buck a bit back and our Walmart had NOTHING but 00 buck.
I think we'd be OK around here using it.
-- John
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I've heard that a plausible answer to give -- should one ever be faced with the unlikely situation of sitting through a cross-examination where the prosecutor is questioning your choice of using such a lethal type of ammunition as 00 Buck -- is, "I just chose to use the same ammunition to defend myself that the local police use to defend themselves."
00 Buck is about as ubiquitous as it gets.
If you're hand-loading your own shells with explosive-tipped, hardened flechettes, dipped in cyanide, well then...maybe...that's going to come up on the stand.
00 Buck? Naaah. No way.
-Sam
00 Buck is about as ubiquitous as it gets.
If you're hand-loading your own shells with explosive-tipped, hardened flechettes, dipped in cyanide, well then...maybe...that's going to come up on the stand.
00 Buck? Naaah. No way.
-Sam
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Member
There is NO SUCH THING as "non lethal".
There is NO SUCH THING as "non lethal".
There is NO SUCH THING as "non lethal".
It is a less lethal round. Less lethal as in getting stabbed in the leg is less lethal than someone slitting your throat. People can and do die from less lethal rounds. I saw it first hand in Iraq; 40mm sponge grenade. It hit the target too high (chest vs abdomen) and stopped his breathing. Despite the medics working on him he died on the scene.
When you pull that trigger you had better be certain the situation warrants ending someones life.
You use lethal force against a threat that warrants lethal force.
You DO NOT FIRE A FIREARM at someone who does not warrant lethal force. Period.
Forget that and you can end up in jail.
A snip from article talking about LESS LETHAL (not NON LETHAL) shotgun training.
http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...big-punch-But-require-lots-of-extra-training/
At home defense ranges your so called "non lethal" round WILL KILL someone. Using nonlethal round in a questionable situation that end up in a death "could" result in a homicide conviction.
Obviously it will depend on your state's self defense laws. If you don't know then then learn them. Learn when you can use lethal force.
There is NO SUCH THING as "non lethal".
There is NO SUCH THING as "non lethal".
It is a less lethal round. Less lethal as in getting stabbed in the leg is less lethal than someone slitting your throat. People can and do die from less lethal rounds. I saw it first hand in Iraq; 40mm sponge grenade. It hit the target too high (chest vs abdomen) and stopped his breathing. Despite the medics working on him he died on the scene.
When you pull that trigger you had better be certain the situation warrants ending someones life.
You use lethal force against a threat that warrants lethal force.
You DO NOT FIRE A FIREARM at someone who does not warrant lethal force. Period.
Forget that and you can end up in jail.
A snip from article talking about LESS LETHAL (not NON LETHAL) shotgun training.
http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...big-punch-But-require-lots-of-extra-training/
At home defense ranges your so called "non lethal" round WILL KILL someone. Using nonlethal round in a questionable situation that end up in a death "could" result in a homicide conviction.
Obviously it will depend on your state's self defense laws. If you don't know then then learn them. Learn when you can use lethal force.
Last edited:
Wisconsin_Trap and Nugilum, I suggest that some good "use of force" training would be very helpful to both of you -- with a focus and "when" rather than "how." If you ever have a chance to take one of Massad Ayoob's, for example, I'd heartily recommend doing so. I think it would give you a very different perspective.
[1] Threatening with a gun, pointing a gun and, of course firing a gun, all constitute the use of lethal force. It doesn't matter whether the gun is loaded with rubber bullets or lead bullets. It's still lethal force. And if you employ lethal force if it's not justified, you will be charged with at least aggravated assault, and it gets worse for you the more damage you cause.
[2] In general (there are some subtle differences depending on whether there's a Castle Doctrine in your state and what flavor it is), you are justifiied in employing lethal force only when a reasonable and prudent person, in like circumstances and knowing what you know, would conclude that lethal force is necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. To demonstrate that there was indeed a real danger from the assailant, one must show that the assailant had (1) the Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm; (2) the Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and (3) put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he has the intent to kill or cripple. A person claiming self defense will need to be able to articulate why in the exact situation as it unfolded he concluded that lethal force was necessary based in the forgoing paradigm.
[3] If circumstances exist that justify the use of lethal force, you, or some other innocent, by definition, would appear to the reasonable person to be in immediate danger of serious injury. In such circumstances, you need to definitely stop the assailant as quickly and as surely as you can. If there is a true credible danger, just scaring him or hurting him may be insufficient.
[4] You'll notice that when LEOs deploy "less lethal" ammunition, they do so in a group with back-up ready to immediately deploy ordinary "lethal" ammunition.
[5] And BTW, if you think that there's an intruder in the house and you're going looking for him, you have just given him a substantial tactical advantage. He will easily be able to ambush or flank you, and you will probably lose. Arm yourseld, get your family together in a safe room, call the police and wait.
[1] Threatening with a gun, pointing a gun and, of course firing a gun, all constitute the use of lethal force. It doesn't matter whether the gun is loaded with rubber bullets or lead bullets. It's still lethal force. And if you employ lethal force if it's not justified, you will be charged with at least aggravated assault, and it gets worse for you the more damage you cause.
[2] In general (there are some subtle differences depending on whether there's a Castle Doctrine in your state and what flavor it is), you are justifiied in employing lethal force only when a reasonable and prudent person, in like circumstances and knowing what you know, would conclude that lethal force is necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. To demonstrate that there was indeed a real danger from the assailant, one must show that the assailant had (1) the Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm; (2) the Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and (3) put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he has the intent to kill or cripple. A person claiming self defense will need to be able to articulate why in the exact situation as it unfolded he concluded that lethal force was necessary based in the forgoing paradigm.
[3] If circumstances exist that justify the use of lethal force, you, or some other innocent, by definition, would appear to the reasonable person to be in immediate danger of serious injury. In such circumstances, you need to definitely stop the assailant as quickly and as surely as you can. If there is a true credible danger, just scaring him or hurting him may be insufficient.
[4] You'll notice that when LEOs deploy "less lethal" ammunition, they do so in a group with back-up ready to immediately deploy ordinary "lethal" ammunition.
[5] And BTW, if you think that there's an intruder in the house and you're going looking for him, you have just given him a substantial tactical advantage. He will easily be able to ambush or flank you, and you will probably lose. Arm yourseld, get your family together in a safe room, call the police and wait.
twoclones
Member
If an intruder knows/learns I am home and they do not run, it's a safe bet they are willing/planning to kill someone in my house. Using anything other than lethal force would be too big of a risk to my loved ones.
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Member
There are less lethal claymores. They are used in military prisons. Instead of 600 steel balls they are rubber balls and reduced explosive charge. At close range they will kill though. Generally used for riot control in a scenario where some casualties is a better outcome than using another lethal area control weapon and having 100% casualties.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m5.htm
40mm sponge grenade round is also common, as in a 40mm foam slug round.
There is a less lethal shotgun sabot. It is rubber or foam I am not sure. We weren't issued any when we deployed. If I remember the brief correctly the sabot allows the rubber blunt projectile to be spin stabilized. I never saw it in person because we didn't deploy with them.
Once again all these rounds have and will kill. Generally they have a red line; a minimum safe range. Inside the red line they are just as lethal as bullet. Even beyond the redline there are specific operating parameters. In rubber ball claymore is too high or angled it will strike people in the head and neck = lethal. If sponge round is fired at chest or head = lethal.
Less lethal is something that requires training, tactical planning and understanding of weapon parameters. It isn't a "magic bullet" that you load and suddenly you have a non-lethal option.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
If a criminal knowingly enters an occupied home and doesn't flee when he encounters the homeowner, what in the world makes you think he just wants the homeowner's DVD's?
The crux of the issue.
Robocop
Member
I mean where do you draw the line ? Does everyone coming into your home want to rape your wife ? Probably not but I mean if they where and I was sure of that yeah, right in the head, no questions asked. But I dont think it appropriate to kill somone over a handfull of DVD's.
1. You do not know why someone would take the risk to break into a home. In Texas, it is ALWAYS a risk to do so. When someone takes that risk, I would assume the worse. The police can sort the rest out after they rule my shooting as justified.
2. I worked alot of overtime to buy those DVD's. To put up with those crappy hours just to have some deviant take them...I don't think so.
3. Non-lethal rounds only produces a surviving deviant who will try to sue me for his injuries,and "emotional trauma".
4. The line is at my fence.
1. You do not know why someone would take the risk to break into a home. In Texas, it is ALWAYS a risk to do so. When someone takes that risk, I would assume the worse. The police can sort the rest out after they rule my shooting as justified.
2. I worked alot of overtime to buy those DVD's. To put up with those crappy hours just to have some deviant take them...I don't think so.
3. Non-lethal rounds only produces a surviving deviant who will try to sue me for his injuries,and "emotional trauma".
4. The line is at my fence.
D.M. is not kidding!! Not that Wisconsin Trap suggested this, but sometimes we still see some "expert" say, "Ahh, if he ain't armed, just stick a knife in his hand," or "If he's outside, just drag him inside, har har har."
Disturbing evidence or manipulation of evidence at a crime scene will gain you a very fast trip down to the police station in handcuffs! And then, boys and girls, your real problems begin! Never, ever disturb evidence at a crime scene. The officers and detectives will immediately pick up on it.
FWIW.
L.W.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
i use the less than lethal in the yard on critters. in the house its a shoot no shoot deal
a beanbag round can cause rupturing of organs, breaking of ribs, clamping on major arteries in a way that can cause hemorrhaging, etc.
Normal buckshot comes out with substantial force and speed. The rubber shot is more or less carrying that same substantial amount of energy in one way or another.
Mace and tasers are nice only if the BG isn't armed better than you.
either aim a gun with 'real', ordinary ammo and use it if need be, or don't and rely on a home security system an lockdown procedures (something that should be done regardless of your being armed).
Normal buckshot comes out with substantial force and speed. The rubber shot is more or less carrying that same substantial amount of energy in one way or another.
Mace and tasers are nice only if the BG isn't armed better than you.
either aim a gun with 'real', ordinary ammo and use it if need be, or don't and rely on a home security system an lockdown procedures (something that should be done regardless of your being armed).
JImbothefiveth
Member
I feel the same way, that it is innapropriate to shoot someone over property.
But remember, rubber buckshot is just less-lethal, not non-lethal. Don't shoot him over DVD's, period.
Not a good idea! You should always identify your target first. Also, house clearing is generally a bad idea. If you need to to get to your kids, fine, but in general it's not good to go house clearing, too risky. It's generally reccomended instead for you and your family to stay in a "safe room".
I'd reccomend taking an NRA personal protection in the home class.
Also, I'll say this: If someone breaks in to your house at night, and then proceeds to barge in to your "safe room", chances are they are not there for anything good. I heard in the news today about an elderly couple in Detroit, one was beaten to death by a home invader, the other is in critical condition.
Also, shoot to stop, not to kill. The best place to aim is center mass, such as for the chest. The attacker may die because of it, and although I'd rather he didn't, the important thing is that he's stopped form harming me.
Well, I've got my home os secured that I figure anyone entering my home illegally is probably willing to do me harm. You could draw the line at "when they bust in to my safe room".
Last edited:
MD_Willington
Member
I'm mean, I'd work up to OO-buck...
bean bag -> wooden baton -> rubber buck -> rubber ball -> OO-buck
YMMV
{/I'm making a haha.. get it.. haha
bean bag -> wooden baton -> rubber buck -> rubber ball -> OO-buck
YMMV
{/I'm making a haha.. get it.. haha
kingpin008
Member
Mind providing a citation for that one?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
