rubber buckshot

[Mainsail]

Rubber buckshot is for deterring animals, it's not meant for people threatening your life.

 

[Sunray]

"...Out of concern that he has neighbors above him and on both sides of his place..." Exceptionally decent of him. However, most apartment buildings built in the last 20 to 30 years, are a bunch of hollow, reinforced concrete, blocks with dry wall interior walls. Keeps any fires in one unit. No shotgun round will penetrate the outside walls, floor or roof. Neither will many centre fire rifle bullets.
His only penetration concern is the doors and windows. Rubber shot won't penetrate the doors, not likely the windows, but it'll bounce all over inside. That wouldn't be good.
"...don't think he has any idea of what is between the walls of the apartments..." Can he thump on the wall when the neighbours are noisy and expect them to hear him? If not, it's concrete. Live in a university town. Have to go knock on the door to get the sterios turned down. Friggin' building resonants sound. I can hear a sterio on the other side of the building, when snoozing on the couch or in bed.
The dry wall goes on top of the concrete with about 1/4" in between. Had to fix the closet clothes bar. Had to cut the anchor to put in new screws.
"...Rubber buckshot is for deterring animals..." It'll deter people too.

 

[Shadow 7D]

OK, but when you look up your regs covering LETHAL FORCE, just think for a minute, if you use this, (BTW it is an enclosed space, so your in a small room with bouncy balls, smart...) then it gets bad trying to defend yourself after the fact, that is what many people here are saying.

Using special LESS LETHAL rounds
at the range inside of apartments, the probability of the "less lethal" killing someone, is much higher, as there is a minimum distance, and I doubt that you can get 30 or 40 feet, these things are designed to be fired at a crowd of rioter from police lines, and aren't used when it's close, because they kill. So I guess it would work, hope you don't go to jail, and don't hurt yourself too bad on the ricochets.

 

[Mainsail]

"...Rubber buckshot is for deterring animals..." It'll deter people too.

Of course it will, but that's not the point.

 

[psyopspec]

Good point Mainsail. If the OP were about deterring, it would be a different discussion. From what was written, we're talking about stopping an attack, rather than deterring.

 

[rscalzo]

If it's like most other homes up north, it'd dry wall, insulation, 2x4 studs, and more dry wall on the other side.

In most construction, you are correct. Penetration into another living area is quite possible.

Rubber buckshot is used by untrained individuals can kill. It happened a few years ago in Boston. Less than lethal is not Non-lethal. I think frangable is a better choice.

 

[ccsniper]

tell him to use #4 or 6 shot high brass loads. Those won't go through much, but will not tickle and WILL cause a nasty wound that could kill the assailant. Why would he use rubber buck when there are low recoil loads specifically made to keep over penetration to a minimum? Still yet he could use something like #4 buck which has proved effective and can be a useful home defense round.

 

[bearcreek]

"...Out of concern that he has neighbors above him and on both sides of his place..." Exceptionally decent of him. However, most apartment buildings built in the last 20 to 30 years, are a bunch of hollow, reinforced concrete, blocks with dry wall interior walls. Keeps any fires in one unit. No shotgun round will penetrate the outside walls, floor or roof. Neither will many centre fire rifle bullets.
His only penetration concern is the doors and windows. Rubber shot won't penetrate the doors, not likely the windows, but it'll bounce all over inside. That wouldn't be good.
"...don't think he has any idea of what is between the walls of the apartments..." Can he thump on the wall when the neighbours are noisy and expect them to hear him? If not, it's concrete. Live in a university town. Have to go knock on the door to get the sterios turned down. Friggin' building resonants sound. I can hear a sterio on the other side of the building, when snoozing on the couch or in bed.
The dry wall goes on top of the concrete with about 1/4" in between. Had to fix the closet clothes bar. Had to cut the anchor to put in new screws.
"...Rubber buckshot is for deterring animals..." It'll deter people too.

Most centerfire rifle rounds will most certainly penetrate normal concrete block walls as will shotgun slugs and many pistol rounds. I've not tried buckshot yet but i'm fairly certain it would as well, especially at less than 20 ft., the range likely to be encountered in an apartment.

 

[uspJ]

i would have to concur with others that in a small apartment setting the use of rubber buckshot could cause you to be injured by a ricochet, if the bg was not hurt this could give him the opportunity gain the upper hand. i would suggest a good low recoil sd load for any weapon.

 

[rdb]

A warning shot

rdb,

BAD idea... for several reasons.

1) You are responsible for EVERY shot you fire- and 'every bullet has a billet.' Advocating slinging lead around willy nilly isn't looked on favorably here...

2) What happens to you if your 'warning shot' is the only one you can fire? If your firearm breaks, jams, or whatever when you fire that 'warning shot?' What then?

3) If things get bad and you run out of ammo, what then? How much would that 'warning shot' round be worth to you at that point?

Etc.

fwiw,

lpl

I wasn't advocating slinging lead around willy nilly. This conversation was about rubber shot. I've been thinking it over and I think its a good idea. If a home invader ignores a verbal warning, then a less than lethal shot is next. Police use tasers in a logical escalation of force situation. If you are worried about your self defense weapon malfunctioning then you should reevaluate your choice. As far as running out of ammo, zombies are not likely to do a home invasion. If they do I have other options handy.
FWIW

 

[heviarti]

If he don't want to shoot 'em, get a Chinktonese '97 trench with the place to put the poky thing on the end. Gives a non-shooting solution with a shooting solution on tap. Assailant can't jump out of the way of a shotgun pinned to his chest like a sample insect on a board.

What about breachers? They impart all their kinetic energy to the target and have limited penetration. They also have range like a slug.

If he utterly insists on rubber shot... Aim under the rib cage in close. The viscera should pretty well suck 'em up with little chance for ricochet.

 

[Sam1911]

If a home invader ignores a verbal warning, then a less than lethal shot is next

Why? What decision chain brings you to the conclusion that a warning shot or "less lethal" shot is a good idea? I'm very interested because I firmly believe that most folks who buy such stuff get sold on a half-baked idea without ever subjecting their choice to any critical thinking. As you said you've thought about it deeply, that indicates more than just a "flash-in-the-brain" idea or someone falling for marketing hype. I'd very sincerely like to understand your reasoning.



In answering, keep the following in mind:

First: You aren't a law-enforcement officer making an arrest. Your force-continuum is a whole lot shorter. In essence, you have almost no authority to physically coerce anyone to do anything until you are justified in using lethal force. Second, you are one guy, not an officer with backup standing at the ready to use lethal force the instant your less-lethal option proves to be ineffective.

Second: If you shoot him with rubber bullets, you've still employed lethal force. You can only employ lethal force (shoot your gun) if you have a justifiable reason to commit homicide.

Third: You may quite unintentionally kill him with your "less-lethal" ammo, as the range is too close for it to work as intended and you won't be using the same techniques as law enforcement officers trained in safely deploying it.

Fourth: And worse, rubber shot is designed to NOT do exactly the one thing that you have to count on your defensive weapon to do, i.e.: create such damage that the attacker is incapable of continuing his assault.

If we agree on these points -- and I think we pretty much generally do -- then less-lethal ammo (and warning shots) leave you with all the liabilities of a lethal action with none of the benefits.

Like I said before, the worst of both worlds.

 

[rdb]

I'm not advocating a warning shot in the traditional sense. What I'm thinking is that one rubber shot is fired into the intruder's lower body/legs. If he is still making a fuss the next is 00 buck center mass. It will not take long to rack the slide, and I'm keeping my distance. If he gets close I will use the handgun which is closer to hand, anyway. With lethal ammunition.

I know it can be lethal, but at the point of using it, I would be justified. I am using it as one last opportunity to avoid taking a human life. I know once he has intruded in my home he is a bad guy. But how bad is the question. Are you saying all home invaders should be shot dead?

I'm worried about being sued, but either way you'll get sued. Using less than lethal shot may be looked upon favorably. Hopefully next year our legislature will work on a "castle doctrine" law here. Don't get me wrong, I will not hesitate to defend my home.

 

[Sam1911]

I know it can be lethal, but at the point of using it, I would be justified. I am using it as one last opportunity to avoid taking a human life. I know once he has intruded in my home he is a bad guy. But how bad is the question. Are you saying all home invaders should be shot dead?

I'm saying that all home invaders should be induced to stop their assault IMMEDIATELY. Not "shot dead." Not "scared off." Simply shot until the moment that they no longer threaten me and my family.

"How bad?" isn't part of the question. A home invader is bad, period. Bad enough. By their activities they have demonstrated that they must be stopped IMMEDIATELY and with whatever force I can bring to bear in that moment.

If someone breaks into my home they have crossed the threshold for the use of lethal force. While I will not shoot "to kill," I will shoot until they cease their advance/attack. There is a high likelihood that their death may result, but whether it does or doesn't is not a concern. I can only care that they stop their assault on me and my family. Considering that I might not get the chance to take a second shot, if at all possible I'll try to convince them to stop after the first one. Shooting their legs doesn't meet this standard. Shooting with rubber bullets doesn't meet this standard. Shooting center-of-mass with effective, full-power ammunition with the capacity to penetrate through clothing, cover, held objects, muscle, and bone MIGHT.

 

[rdb]

We will have to agree to disagree. There are too many variables involved in this hypothetical home invasion for me to start shooting center mass with full power ammunition after a verbal warning. I'm certain that a rubber shot will slow them down and that's what I'll do if, God forbid, it comes to it. "shot dead", proned out, or scared off are all negating the threat well enough for me.

Rubber Buckshot may not be recommended nor endorsed by the High Road, but I can see the benefits to it.

 

[Fred Fuller]

rdb,

We can agree to disagree.

I hope you have a really good criminal defense attorney on retainer... if you do, you ought to discuss this idea with him/her.

lpl

 

[rbernie]

I know once he has intruded in my home he is a bad guy. But how bad is the question.

The use of rubber buckshot is a moral question moreso than a legal one. Once you've determined that it's legal to use deadly force (and use of rubber buckshot *will* be considered lethal force despite its ability to be less-than-lethal), the issue at hand seems to be HOW to balance the desire to not take a human life against the desire to stop somebody who has demonstrated themselves to be some form of predator.

Some folk, and I dare say probably most, will devalue the well-being of the intruder and not provide the intruder the opportunity to Continue To Be Bad. They will 'shoot to stop', with loads designed to inflict sufficient damage such that the intruder is physically unable to continue their unlawful acts. If somebody chooses a different path, that is their choice. As far as I can tell, the legal benefit from doing so is effectively zero, the physical risk to the shooter is increased, and the moral gain is, well, in the eyes of the beholder.

Are you saying all home invaders should be shot dead?

No, but I fall squarely in the camp that asserts that I may only get one opportunity to stop an unlawful intruder. I am not wasting that opportunity to safeguard me-n-mine on some moral equivocation vis-a-vis the relative 'badness' of the predator. The first shot will be as potentially lethal as the remaining shots, and in doing so I will provide the predator with no opportunity to do harm if I can.

If the intruder didn't want to risk being on the losing end of deadly force, then they likely ought not have undertaken predatory behaviors.

 

[BigWoolyBanjo]

I agree with the 2 folks who suggested #4 Buckshot.

I've switched ammo in my HD shothgun from 000 Buck, to 00 Buck, then to a #4 Turkey load, all while trying to find #4 Buck in stock locally. Found the #4 Buck last week and that's what's loaded now.

I think it's a good soultion to the overpenetration issue, while still having the knowck down power that you need, if, God forbid, you ever have to use it.

Can't comment on the rubber buckshot, as I have no experience with that.