Mossberg Shockwave

[freyasman]

It's hard to argue against that point -- except in that it pre-supposes the fact that you've hit the guy, quickly enough, accurately enough. And for that I'd reach for the handgun every single time. But everybody's got to get to the range on their own and assure themselves of sufficient capability in that regard.

I haven't bought one of these but I might someday, just for the hell of it. For right now, I spend my "gun stuff" budget on ammo and classes.... handgun classes, because as I told a buddy last year when he asked why I never want to take a carbine class with him, "We aren't soldiers any more.... If I ever have to shoot anyone again, it will most likely be with a pistol in a parking lot somewhere."
And if I do buy one of these, I would take it to a defensive shotgun course and run it against the stocked guns to familiarize myself with it's limitations. The only thing this has going for it IMO, (other than "cool factor") is the same thing a handgun has, it's more portable. It's a niche weapon that delivers a lot of close range power and is only useful in a very narrow set of circumstances, and only to people who have the upper body strength to use it well.

 

[Sam1911]

This tread is getting sillier than a Shockwave.

Interesting analysis. How do you figure?

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

And in order to decide that the PGO gun is a good choice for home defense one would have to establish that the relative ease in moving through a hallway is more important (actually, is WAY more important) than the deficit one experiences in hitting the threat as fast as possible, as accurately as possible, and tracking a moving target. That seems a bit like saying you'd choose to race at Monte Carlo in a car with a nicer, bigger back seat and a good air conditioning system, even though it doesn't have a lot of power or good brakes.


To the points raised specifically, a bit of practice (and maybe training) with a full stocked shotgun can easily overcome the perceived difficulty in moving in a structure or transitioning to the support shoulder, to the point that those factors become unimportant.

A bit of practice and training WON'T, however, make you as good and fast a shot with the PGO as with a stocked gun. One deficiency is surmountable. The other isn't.


Further, if you really do feel that ease of maneuvering in tight quarters and hand transitions are crucially important, one would be miles ahead to use a handgun, which has massive benefits over any shotgun (PGO or otherwise) in those areas, and is actually 10 times easier to get fast hits and transitions with than a PGO gun. Plus being fully operable with only one hand, leaving the other free for flashlights, opening doors, warding off grabs, etc. AND having a higher capacity.

Hence my "worst of both worlds" comments.

If I was looking for the tool that was "the fastest" I wouldn't be using a shotgun of any flavor. As to the handgun, yes it's more maneuverable but not as an effective round.

No amount of training overcomes the length of the weapon. You can only learn to work around it. I don't live at the range but I've got over a decade of military service and have completed formal training with a variety of weapons.

You don't have to find the value in it. As a matter of fact you are trying really hard to disprove how I feel about a subjective matter. I'm not having any problems firing or properly aiming the weapon or tracking targets. A shot timer may show that a shoulder fired gun is faster by a second or so but that's negligible. As stated, if speed was my primary concern I'd use a different tool altogether.

I think at this point we can just respectfully disagree on the value of this particular firearm in it's role as a home defense tool.

 

[Sam1911]

If I was looking for the tool that was "the fastest" I wouldn't be using a shotgun of any flavor.

And that's just fine. Though shotguns have been specifically developed for snap shooting at high-speed moving targets. If you can bring down a flushing quail with one you probably can track and hit a fast-moving intruder in your own home. The whole concept of a shotgun, its stock, it's aiming system, is designed for fastest possible use against targets supremely interested in not being hit.

Lop off the stock, break the connection that anchors the eye to the bore and gives you the ability to snap-shoot, lead, and track, and the system is now like a car with three missing wheels. Sure, it's still a car and people still think of it as capable of what a car should do. But it isn't anymore. It's more a "car-in-name-only."


On the whole, the reason I ask the questions I do, and challenge assertions on this as I do, is summed up this way:

"Self or "home" defense is not a plate shoot, USPSA match, benchrest competition, it is not a leisurely afternoon busting clays or plinking tin cans, and it isn't even equivalent to something "important" like the shot of a lifetime at a Rocky Mountain elk. There is no room in considering this life-saving and life-taking action for deliberately choosing a weapon that might work well enough. That you might hit your adversary with quickly. That might deliver a payload capable of punching through obstructions and bone to stop his body from working well enough to kill you. In other words, there is no room for choosing something that is not the most fit, most reliable, simplest choice to get the job done with the utter highest probability of success. What gun can YOU shoot such that you make the most hits, fastest? There is no other acceptable choice."

If someone wants to choose a defensive arm that isn't really, REALLY, good at fast, accurate, compelling hits on target, the reasons they are choosing that other option should be incredibly important, well thought-out reasons. Not guesses or untested assumptions. Certainly not entertainment value or the whims of fashion.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

"What gun can YOU shoot such that you make the most hits, fastest? There is no other acceptable choice."

One of my several .22's.

This is the problem with thinking speed is the only acceptable value.

 

[Sam1911]

"What gun can YOU shoot such that you make the most hits, fastest? There is no other acceptable choice."

One of my several .22's.

This is the problem with thinking speed is the only acceptable value.

Did you actually only read ONE line from that entire statement? That's hard to believe.

When you read the whole thing, it becomes a complete picture:

... That might deliver a payload capable of punching through obstructions and bone to stop his body from working well enough to kill you. In other words, there is no room for choosing something that is not the most fit, most reliable, simplest choice to get the job done with the utter highest probability of success. What gun can YOU shoot such that you make the most hits, fastest? There is no other acceptable choice."

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Did you actually only read ONE line from that entire statement? That's hard to believe.

When you read the whole thing, it becomes a complete picture:

No, I read it, it sounds like a motivational speech from a cheap cop film. The right tool for the job may be a compromise between several aspects and this whole thread has laser focused on speed and ignored pretty much anything else tangible.... and you are still trying to convince me that my experience and ability are suspect. You go right on ahead and pretend your way is the only way and anything less will get someone killed. I'm cool with that.

 

[Sam1911]

Wow.

Ok. Guess that's the takeaway message then.


No. Speed is VERY important. Ability to aim/point accurately, hit quickly, track moving targets competently, follow up, and so forth is really job one. If you and your chosen weapon can't do that at a pretty high level of capacity then you simply aren't going to succeed.

Of course, the round your weapon fires needs to be above some rough threshold of power and payload to do the job if you do succeed in getting it to the target.

And, of course, the gun has to be something you'd be able to carry with you or have near to hand wherever you're going to need it.

Some guns are easy to carry, pretty easy to learn to shoot accurately and quickly, and have enough power to do a reasonably good job at breaking down a bad guy. Those are handguns.

Some guns are harder to carry around, may be a little harder to maneuver in tight confines, but have an even more compelling effect on target when you hit with them. Those are shotguns and, to a near similar extent, carbines.

PGO shotguns are not a compromise between the two which bring the best traits of both. They bring the worst traits of both, and introduce some bad traits all their own.

The takeaway message should be, if you want to trust these with your life, get to the range and do the most objective job you can testing out your own capacities with the weapon -- and compare that, again objectively, with how you perform with handguns and long guns.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

It's subjective. Like everything in regards to combat and gunfights. There is no one magic answer that solves every problem. Everything is a compromise.

 

[Sam1911]

Of course. But "subjective" here doesn't mean "unknowable" or "performs in compliance with my beliefs."

And I'm not sure "subjective" is really even the right word. Subjective means, "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."
Whether you can engage a target fast enough with a heavy enough payload to stop him from hurting or killing you doesn't depend at all on your personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

I think you just mean that there are several different factors that must inform your choice beyond simply speed and power. And that's true. The summation of what I've said here is don't make unfounded assumptions as you're weighing those factors. KNOW your own competency with the platform and be honest about it.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Understood.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Interesting analysis. How do you figure?

The Shockwave is a novelty, a range toy. If someone wants one, that's great, I support their right to have it.
Pretending the Shockwave is the best choice for anything other than shooting old beer cans is just silly.

 

[Girodin]

And you can't do that with a handgun? The question was which of those detriments makes you wish you had a PGO shotgun instead of the more usable and capable handgun you already did have?

A handgun is not more capabale in every respect. Namely any handgun I carrycan’t match the lethal effect of a 12 gauge shotgun. One trigger press and one can send 16 pellets into a target. To your point that it presupposes a hit. At hotel room distances I don’t find the gun difficult to score hits and frankly my shot timer tells me first round hits from a low ready at 7 yards are as fast as with the stocked semi auto I was using. I think it’s worth noting the raptorhead grip is very different than other styles of pistol grips in use.

I still want to do more work with my little SBS, however at close ranges I don’t believe it is as useless as some are suggesting. It, like all weapons, has limitations and strengths. The key is to understand them and chose to use the proper tool for the proper job.

There are a lot of jobs that it wouldn’t chose it for over my handgun of choice, an AR, a stocked shotgun, one of SBRs. But it has narrow niche uses where it can shine when size and power are at premiums and ranges are short.

Rather than bicker on the internet I’d suggest getting a shot timer, trying to understand how to properly use a tool and then putting in the work to form some honest conclusions. This is true off all kinds of things in shooting beyond shotguns like the ones being discussed here.

 

[The Evangelist Cowboy]

My truck/Jeep gun is a 12 ga NEF single shot, cut it down to 18 inches even but hell I may want to pick up one of these to replace it, anyone who drives a two door Jeep wrangler knows space is a struggle sometimes.

 

[qwert65]

I work in an environment where everyone knows who I am and that I have cash and drugs- I'm also alone at night - that's why I ccw
It's also why I keep a shockwave behind my passenger seat - with that grip it can be drawn easily when someone approaches from front or passenger side
Also when on the road I don't need to disassemble it to put it in my gym bag
At home I use a stocked gun

 

[freyasman]

Firearms like this are not a new concept, and while there are only a few circumstances where it is appropriate, within it's niche, it's the most effective thing you're going to have. A load of buckshot delivered at close range has been effectively resolving problems for a really long time now, and while follow up shots are important, they are not nearly as important as putting that first shot where it needs to go, and this platform is more than capable of that.
People have realized the utility of a fast handling, reactive scattergun for certain situations for a long, long time.


http://www.cabelas.com/product/Pedersoli-Howdah-Hunter-Ga-Pistol/740261.uts

 

[Sam1911]

I actually am not looking to argue, but since we're really discussing this in such depth, let me ask for more analysis.

Firearms like this are not a new concept, and while there are only a few circumstances where it is appropriate, within it's niche, it's the most effective thing you're going to have.

Can you tell me what you mean there? Why is this the most effective weapon I'm (you're) going to have? What are you assuming circumstances to be that would make that statement true?

A load of buckshot delivered at close range has been effectively resolving problems for a really long time now,

No argument there at all. We could debate the threshold at which there's "enough" payload delivered to/through the target to "resolve the problem" and how that interplays with the comparisons to more maneuverable and easily carried handguns, but for the sake of argument I'll accept that a load of buck is just "better" than a .45 slug or two. (Assuming we're mostly talking about human targets, since the most common scenarios mentioned seem to be hotel room intrusions. Tigers don't do that very often.)

... and while follow up shots are important, they are not nearly as important as putting that first shot where it needs to go,

Again...it isn't a terribly good idea to presuppose a first-round hit. There's plenty of "anecdata" to go on which would lead us to conclude a first-round hit is just wonderful...if you can get it...and defenders don't as often as they do.
But perhaps we set that aside for the purposes of discussion, as well.

... and this platform is more than capable of that.

See, now that is the point of contention, I think. "More than capable" makes it seem like hitting a moving, attacking, human target (probably in the dark, probably under less than ideal conditions) is almost a given. Like it is EASY to do with a PGO shotgun.

It really isn't easy. It's pretty challenging, especially when comparing with other common defensive weapons. Again, pointing back to our late friend Dave McCracken's work in this area, rates of effective accuracy DO go down -- for everyone -- when a PGO weapon is used. The lack of stock and thus, lack of achoring for aiming (and to a lesser extent, operating the slide), simply IS a negative factor.

So someone deciding to choose a PGO needs to have a realistic idea of just how much of a negative factor that is. Be aware of it and not trust that they will be "more than capable" with the gun simply because it's a scattergun.

People have realized the utility of a fast handling, reactive scattergun for certain situations for a long, long time.

Absolutely. But with the exception of the very rare and historically abandoned example of a Howdah pistol (which was operated more as a pistol than a PGO pump gun), they haven't been realizing much utility in scatterguns without stocks.

 

[Joezilla]

Sam,

I am normally just a lurker and have been reading this thread with interest. I wonder why you are going so far out of your way to pick apart everyone's posts about possibly getting a Shockwave. I understand that you don't think they are a viable solution to any problem as I am sure everyone else does too. I just wonder why you are stating it over and over. You are a moderator so there is no way to turn you off. You have made your point.

Joe

 

[Sam1911]

Why? Because this is a discussion forum, and the topic interests me. PGO shotguns have been a tool I've owned and played with off and on for well over two decades and I have insights I think are worth consideration.

Even if that were not the case, when someone says something that rings a little hollow, or appears to me to be an un-examined viewpoint begging for a second look, I like to ask them to take another stab at it and see if it's really true, or if it makes sense with certain caveats, or maybe it's not a solid idea after all.

Note, I'm not now and have never picked on someone for wanting to get a PGO shotgun. But I DO ask people to cast a very analytical eye on statements like, "this is a hell of a home defense gun" or "just perfect for car-jackers" or "great for if I was trapped in a rioting mob..." or whatever. You want to buy this gun and go play and experiment with it? Awesome! I did too, back in the day, and they can be a hoot.

You want to tell me -- and other members who are supposedly making life-and-death choices here -- that it's a good defensive tool, you'd better be ready to back that up with something more than guesses and theories.

There's also sometimes a general feeling I get that people want to treat a discussion like a vote. "Hey, you said you don't like them, now shut up and let everyone else say anything they want without question or rebuttal." But this isn't a poll, or a popularity contest, or one of those theoretical situations where "every opinion is equal." This is a discussion and in a discussion questions are asked and answered and, in turn, prompt more questions so we can actually get to the bottom of a subject and learn things.

So, I don't see as inappropriate if 100 members jump in to each say, "the Shockwave is a great defensive weapon," I ask each of them to explain in detail why they think so.

Remember, I'm just a member, too. If I say something that doesn't make sense or doesn't appear to be well-founded, I expect to be called on it and asked to defend why I believe it.

 

[Sistema1927]

As I mentioned earlier, I just purchased a Shockwave. The Opsol clip came yesterday, I already had some Aguila buckshot rounds, and the side saddle came today. Rail and laser will be here in a couple of days. Then, off to the range to see if I can actually hit anything with it. If not, then it will have at least been a fun exercise. Who knows, it might just make me want to SBS the thing and send off for my permission (tax) stamp.

I do, however, see where Sam is coming from. When I purchased the Shockwave, the salesman (don't you just love them?) said the same old nonsense that "all you have to do is point it down the hallway, you can't miss". I didn't correct him ("Answer not a fool according to his folly"), but I knew right there and then that this was someone who had little or no experience with shotguns, especially for defensive purposes. You can miss with a shotgun, any shotgun, even at close quarters.

 

[justice06rr]

"Inclination" is a funny word. Though perhaps apt. There certainly are folks who are convinced that a PGO shotgun is not just a possible self-defense tool, but a GOOD one. If they are so inclined, words won't change their minds (and what's the point of trying?). Some (raising my own hand here) do put in the effort and, with enough practice and trial, manage to break down their own gut-level inclination.

Well, let's say instead of a motorcycle it's like a Reliant Robin. Sure, it's only got three wheels and it will tip over and flop on its side if driven without great caution, but lots of people (in Britain) did actually use them for daily transportation. And, if the conditions are nice and you go slowly and take a fair bit of care about your driving, you can get where you're going in one.

Now, contemplate rushing your wife or child to the hospital in an emergency. Do you reach for the keys to the Robin and attempt that life or death race, or do you go for something that gives you all the stability and lets you work to the edges of your own capabilities?

The problem is right there, when one contemplates the ultimate purpose -- realizing that a gun you use for self-defense isn't a folly or plaything. And it also isn't the every-day casual use item that sometimes is a bit finicky to operate but usually gets the job done ok. It's a last-ditch tool you grab to save your life or that of a loved one under the worst possible conditions. It MUST work and you must be able to make the best shot of your life with it under those worst-case conditions. While nobody facing down a home intruder or other violent criminal has time to think, "Man, this guns looks totally kwel -- I bet I look like the Terminator right now!!!" they might have just enough time left to ask, "Oh no, how did I MISS?"

The Reliant Robin is a poor automotive design to begin with, and obviously a terrible choice if you we're going to take family member to the hospital. In any case, its not a good idea to take a wife or child to the hospital in a motorcycle or a 3-wheeled vehicle. I think we all know that.

We are not saying that the Shockwave is the best or most effective weapon for HD/SD.
Is it usable? Yes.
Are there other guns more effective? Absolutely.
Is the Shockwave useless? No

 

[Sam1911]

The Reliant Robin is a poor automotive design to begin with, and obviously a terrible choice if you we're going to take family member to the hospital. In any case, its not a good idea to take a wife or child to the hospital in a motorcycle or a 3-wheeled vehicle. I think we all know that.

Exactly! Which is why it draws the obvious comparison to a "PGO" shotgun used for life-or-death purposes.

Is it usable? Yes.

Sure! Anything down to a Ming vase you bash the bad guy over the head with is usable as a defensive weapon.

I could probably set up a reasonable defensive line with nothing more than a competently wielded soiled diaper if I had to.

However, we sit here in the comfort of foresight and decide how we might prepare to best meet the challenge of the only shot of our lives that will really matter. When the discussion is about taking a life or losing one's own life in a terrible and sudden way, why entertain options that might work?

Are there other guns more effective? Absolutely.

Yes, clearly. And if we are going to decide to put a Shockwave style gun in our hands for that moment when someone is actually attempting to KILL us, we should know exactly why it was necessary or desirable to choose this "not more effective" option.

Is the Shockwave useless? No

Absolutely right. It is better than nothing. How much worse it is than other more traditional choices, and what reasons might force us to choose it over other options are the point of contention.

 

[macadore]

Does it? In reality? Generally we know that aiming anything with a laser sight is noticeably slower than with iron sights or a red dot. That's provable quickly on your own range, if you have a shot timer. You're never going to be as fast at "follow the bouncing ball" looking for that glowing dot to be printed on ... the wall, the couch, the ceiling, the floor, and, whoa there it is on the target! (wait, whoops, now it's gone again) -- as you are shouldering a shotgun or rifle and seeing that bead or front sight right there at the end of the gun where it always is. Iron sights are always faster. Optics are even a bit faster than that.

So laser sights are only a good idea if you really can't see your sights at all (maybe older folks with bad eyes, shooting small guns with bad sights) or for whatever reason you can't get the gun up to index in your line of sight. (Maybe you're shooting with night vision gear on, or using a riot shield.)

But if you're in your HOUSE, why would you not just use a full-stocked shotgun and get all the benefits of fast pointing that real shotguns have evolved for centuries to give you? Why would we say a PGO shotgun with a laser sight is a "hell of a house gun" when the most plain-Jane traditional shotgun would be FAR better?

There isn't, in that case, ANY benefit to not having a stock...so the Shockwave is a lousy "also-ran" in comparison.

Would a red dot be quicker?

 

[macadore]

Has anyone tried the NobelSport Mini-Buck Shells in the Shockwave? If so, how do they cycle?

 

[justice06rr]

I feel like we're going in circles with this topic.

So is a Ruger LCP useless due to its size compared to a full size or 1911 or Glock 17/21?

Is a 3" pocket knife useless compared to a machete?

Are AR pistols and AK pistols useless compared to Carbines?