Loading progressively more powerful rounds in magazine or cylinder?

[Thermactor]

Ive heard of people loading rock salt into shot shells to use as a first-shot less than lethal warning round. The rounds in the tube magazine after that are progressively more powerful, let's say something like duck shot, then buck shot, then a rifled slug. I'm wondering what its equivalent would be in the handgun or rifle world?

Something I could think of:
Taurus Judge revolver loaded with a rock salt .410 shell, then duck shot, then buck shot, then 45 long colt.
Or
AR-15 loaded with frangible ammunition, then Federal Fusion soft points, then M855 penetrator rounds
Or
.22 cal revolver loaded with rat shot (they make them in 22), then 22 subsonic, then 22 HV rounds

I don't think this is a good idea AT ALL but there have to be people who think like this and load this way, thinking its better to shoot to wound in a use-of-force situation.

 

[mnrivrat]

Just my opinion but shooting someone with rocksalt may or may not deter their agression , but almost certainly will put you in court with a likely civil suit if nothing else.

The whole question in defensive firearm shooting is wether you are justified to respond with lethal force. To do that you must be in fear of your life and it may be hard to convince a jury of that if your shooting rock salt or anything that may or may not be lethal in your firearm.

I'd opt for pepper spray if my mind was to stop someone from trying to kill me without seriously hurting them.

I'm not saying the idea isn't somewhat valid, it is the laws that need to reflect concepts like this, or concepts like the warning shot.

If your in fear for your life then shoot to stop the threat, and do so with lethal force. Otherwise - leave the gun in the safe and try something else.

 

[Sav .250]

If I thought my life was being threatened, I certainly would want more than rock-salt as my first response. J s/n.

 

[illinoisburt]

Regardless ammo type or any intentions otherwise, any use of a gun is automatically use of a lethal weapon in pretty much every state so better have a clear reason to use it. Rock salt or whatever else is stuffed in them doesn't make a gun harmless. I recall very well a young guy that was accidentally killed by the plastic wad from a shotgun and injuries from blanks are well known danger.

 

[rcmodel]

BAD idea all the way around.

Don't do it.

If you have to shoot someone in self-defense, shoot them!

Otherwise, don't shoot anything!
Its against the law.

rc

 

[Jim Watson]

Dangerous to your health - a peppering with rock salt might enrage your assailant enough for him to get to you before you could react and fire a serious round.

Dangerous to your freedom - shooting anything is "deadly force," legally justifiable only in fear for your life, and the use of some improvised gimmick could indicate you were not sure you were in serious danger.

 

[WestKentucky]

Shooting to maim is not only immoral but also illegal, not to mention stupid. If the use of potentially deadly force is used then that means the user was in danger of losing his life or losing the life of his family that he is protecting (he used in an asexual manner, same goes for male or female shooter defending themself). With stakes that high it is stupid to use anything other than the best of the best of the best because if you use weak crap like rats hot you A tip off the bad guy to you having a weapon, give them time to attack you, and waste ammunition capacity for shells that might actually eliminate the threat rather than scare or piss off the threat causing adrenaline dump creating a superhuman for a few seconds while they kill or maim you or whoever you are protecting.

To remove the odds of loss of life means you assume you will survive the encounter, so congratulations your still breathing. There will be a criminal investigation, and your actions will be called into question. It's much easier to defend yourself by having the same ammo in the gun from start to finish otherwise when you shoot the badguy with rat shot, then 22 short, then 22 long subsonic, then 22 long rifle then high velocity ammo twice to end the threat you shot the bad guy 5 times, and the DA or even worse civil case lawyers will say you rushed through those first 3 looking for the good stuff to kill the guy...and a reasonable person would have stopped an attack after the ratshot so the next 4 shots were not to defend yourself but rather to kill the guy as revenge for breaking into your home or whatever transgressions they did against you.

Stoke the gun up with what will work, and let that be the only ammo in it when it is "at the ready".

But to answer your actual question, many calibers have shot shells available which are worthless. I have 2 boxes in 357 mag that were given to me.
In revolvers you could quite often use ratshot then a "short" or "special" fmj (smaller hole) then a "short" jhp (expands so bigger hole), then the full power magnum loads in fmj, then full power jhp, and last but not least the full power cast lead ultra - heavy for caliber round. Example would be my 357 with ratshot then 38spl fmj, 38spl jhp, 357 mag fmj, 357mag jhp, 357 buffalo bore 180gr bear load.

In automatics you can't get away with such power variation with the slide cycling properly. You could still do it though with ratshot, fmj, jhp, cast lead, heavy cast lead. So take a 9mm, chambered round would be ratshot, second a fmj round followed by a jhp, then something like a gold dot, again lastly a heavy cast lead hunting round.

it's possible to do but really counterproductive and stupid.

 

[Thermactor]

Good discussion, guys.
I hope this thread will become a resource for those curious people who search about progressive lethality loading. What they may have heard from the grapevine about it being a good idea should vanish in the face of facts.

 

[Ranger Roberts]

Not to venture to far off the OP, but I vaguely remember a thread here a few years ago that basically said rock salt loads were a myth. I think they even posted a video of someone shooting ballistics gel with rock salt and couldn't get it to penetrate unless they were practically on top of it. I'm gonna do some searching to see if I can find it.

Back to the OP though. Our shotguns at work are actually colored differently for different ammo. That way you aren't grabbing a shotgun meant for "less lethal" purposes and trying to put down a deer with it (or worse, but I'm using the most common scenario for my rural patrol area).

Like others have said, it's a bad idea to load it with less lethal rounds for self defense purposes.



Edit: I found the links I was talking about:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=740118&highlight=rock+salt+myth
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-33-rock-salt-in-a-shotgun/

 

[lemaymiami]

Here's my take on lethal force in self defense... Never use any "half measures" if you're actually needing a full self defense response (and if you don't need a "full response" you shouldn't be reaching, drawing, and using a firearm, period...). If I'm ever involved in another shooting scrape I want my opponent down on the ground with a look of surprise (if he/she is still breathing). The first notice that you're even armed should occur after you've already fired... Nothing else will do if it's your life or a member of your family's life in the balance.

Basic street stuff... Are there folks walking around that might hurt other folks? Are there a few of those that you might actually have to outrun after you've hit them a killing shot? If you could sit that former young cop from Missouri down for a cup of coffee and a brief talk... I'm betting I know what his answers would be. I'd rather go up against a large ferocious animal than an enraged/crazy human being - the animal would be a lot easier to deal with... In short do everything possible to avoid any violent confrontation, if that's not possible then do what you can to delay the action part... but when all else fails act decisively and do all you can to put the circumstances in your favor since the "good guys" don't always win in the real world.

I'll get down off of my soapbox now....

 

[Zerodefect]

Buckshot. Keep slugs on a side saddle and learn to switch over quickly as needed.

 

[Doc7]

I would refrain from using the phrase "less than lethal" and stick to "less lethal" as I believe most agencies do nowadays. Any time a firearm is fired there is a possibility the person at the muzzle end will die, from a fluke or anything. Loading and using something you think is "less than lethal" and then killing them will no doubt end up with you in jail or at a minimum feeling extremely guilty for the rest of your life. Nobody should be shot with anything unless your life and limb is enough danger to warrant the possibility of them dying in the act of you shooting to stop the threat.

 

[rcmodel]

Yep!

You shoot someones eyes out with rat shot or rock salt and you will be supporting them the rest of your life too when they get done suing you for blinding them in civil court.

rc

 

[george burns]

When we were kids, I remember the Watchmen at the Cemetery we would cut through to get home faster, was rumored to have Rock Salt in his shotgun, and if he caught you messing around in the Cemetery, he would shoot you in the butt. I never actually heard or saw anyone who had the cursed rock salt in their Butt.
I would not try using rock salt for anything other than it's intended use.

 

[Warp]

I don't think this is a good idea AT ALL

Agreed. That's really all there is too it IMO. Terrible idea, generally not even worth bringing up unsolicited.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The whole question in defensive firearm shooting is wether you are justified to respond with lethal force. To do that you must be in fear of your life and it may be hard to convince a jury of that if your shooting rock salt or anything that may or may not be lethal in your firearm.

That is absolutely correct.

And when you fire a shot, you are using lethal force. If you fire a warning shot, you have used lethal force and ADMITTED you did not have justification.

If you fire something like rock salt, it's even worse -- since you're actually SHOT your opponent.

 

[Warp]

And when you fire a shot, you are using lethal force. If you fire a warning shot, you have used lethal force and ADMITTED you did not have justification.

Not necessarily, but that would take us rather off topic.

 

[FROGO207]

Many people do not understand what self defense actually means it seems. I hope I never get into this situation but I will do my best to be sure I am in life threatening danger and will then take steps to survive any threat if possible. There was a thread here recently about a member that ran to safety. Best outcome is not to engage IMHO remotely if possible.

 

[Warp]

Many people do not understand what self defense actually means it seems.

What do you mean?

Why is the phrase "self defense" what people are supposed to, in your opinion, understand?

 

[HankB]

There are a few ways in which a plausible argument can be made to load different ammo in a defensive gun; how convincing the arguments are remains to be seen.

1. The last few rounds in the magazine are tracers - when they show up, you know it's time to reload. (But how many times will you run a magazine dry, and how often is a defensive shooting justified if the bad guy is so far away that you can visually pick up a tracer you've shot at him?)

2. Alternating penetrating rounds like SS109 and expanding rounds in a magazine, figuring you're going to at least double tap every time you shoot. (Point of impact may vary, and what is the likelihood of needing an SS109 round to penetrate something a standard softpoint won't?)

3. Softpoints first, penetrators up last. (Has some validity in certain types of BIG game hunting, less validity in defensive use unless you assume a lengthy gunfight where the bad guy is behind cover you need to penetrate. With a shotgun, I've heard of starting with buckshot & finishing with slugs.)

Note that NONE of these scenarios use something deliberately ineffective like rock salt or bird shot. And for a handgun, my inclination is to choose ONE load and stick to it, following the KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid - principle.

 

[barnbwt]

Always put your best foot forward

TCB

 

[witchhunter]

This sounds crazy to me. I have friend that does this same thing in his 870 when bird hunting. He loads a low base 8, then a high base 7 1/2, then a high base 6. always. His thinking is that the bird will always get up close and fly farther away. My thinking is; the velocity is different on all of these rounds, making leading the shots beyond expectation. Keeping them sorted out even in his vest is beyond me. I shoot the same practicing as I do hunting, I practice with my carry ammo. Keep it simple and effective.

 

[Warp]

This sounds crazy to me. I have friend that does this same thing in his 870 when bird hunting. He loads a low base 8, then a high base 7 1/2, then a high base 6. always. His thinking is that the bird will always get up close and fly farther away. My thinking is; the velocity is different on all of these rounds, making leading the shots beyond expectation. Keeping them sorted out even in his vest is beyond me. I shoot the same practicing as I do hunting, I practice with my carry ammo. Keep it simple and effective.

That sounds exceptionally expensive

 

[Twiki357]

If you are going to use rock salt or even bird shot, then you are hesitant to fully neutralize a threat. Get pepper spray, a Taser, or a baseball bat and forget the gun. If you hesitate, you’re probably going to be the one on the short end of the stick (or dead) and another missing gun will be on the street.

 

[hso]

there have to be people who think like this and load this way, thinking its better to shoot to wound in a use-of-force situation.

And those people are grossly ignorant of the fact that a firearm is not a less lethal weapon and that you don't point a firearm at anything that is not a threat warranting deadly force.