Low Budget Shooter
Member
Dear THR Shotgunners,
Every so often I review the notes on that horrible 1986 FBI shootout in Miami. In doing so recently, I noted the fact that the two men armed with pump shotguns were not able to produce the devastating effect hoped for with such powerful weapons. I wonder if this experience pointed the spotlight on some of the pump shotgun's shortcomings. If so, I wonder how we can best use that knowledge.
Here's the link I'm working from for this information:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm
Matix, one of the bad guys, was armed with a pump shotgun loaded with #6 birdshot. Early in the engagement, he leaned out the driver's door and fired to the rear of the car, hitting only the grill of the car behind which agents were sheltering. He was then injured in both arms, and did not fire any weapon the rest of the time. Of course we are all glad of this in this bad guy's case, but it's easy to picture a police officer in a similar situation.
Mireles, one of the FBI agents, was armed with an 870 loaded with five rounds of 2 3/4" 9-pellet 00 buckshot. Wounded in one forearm early in the fight, he had great trouble holding, and especially cycling, the shotgun. Eventually, he did get off all five shots, but only late in the fight and slowly. From 25 feet, the first shot hit Platt's feet as he entered a car. The rest hit the windshield and window, and did not hit the two badguys, who were slumping down in the front seat. It does seem that the rounds fired into the car kept Platt pinned down long enough for his wounds to immobilize him.
It seems that one of the shortcomings of the pump gun that showed itself in this incident is difficulty of working the action in cramped quarters or when injured. Handguns, semi-auto long guns, or maybe even SxS shotguns, would seemingly be easier to cycle in such cases. Would Matix and/or Mireles have been more effective if armed with a weapon easier to cycle?
Perhaps another shortcoming is the real or perceived inability of buckshot to penetrate barriers such as car doors. Aiming first under the door, then above it, Mireles evidently considered the door an effective barrier to the buckshot. Would it have been? Does buckshot, being round lead pellets, penetrate barriers poorly compared with handgun or rifle bullets? I know that unintended penetration of drywall is a concern regarding accidentally hitting innocent bystanders, and buckshot will sail through drywall just like bullets do. But what about when the bad guy fires at homeowner or police officer from behind a car door, house door, dining table, etc.?
Well, thanks for reading my ideas. I look forward to reading the insight of others.
LBS
DISCLAIMER: No pump shotgun hate is involved here. A Defender loaded with buckshot is at the ready in my own bedroom.
Every so often I review the notes on that horrible 1986 FBI shootout in Miami. In doing so recently, I noted the fact that the two men armed with pump shotguns were not able to produce the devastating effect hoped for with such powerful weapons. I wonder if this experience pointed the spotlight on some of the pump shotgun's shortcomings. If so, I wonder how we can best use that knowledge.
Here's the link I'm working from for this information:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm
Matix, one of the bad guys, was armed with a pump shotgun loaded with #6 birdshot. Early in the engagement, he leaned out the driver's door and fired to the rear of the car, hitting only the grill of the car behind which agents were sheltering. He was then injured in both arms, and did not fire any weapon the rest of the time. Of course we are all glad of this in this bad guy's case, but it's easy to picture a police officer in a similar situation.
Mireles, one of the FBI agents, was armed with an 870 loaded with five rounds of 2 3/4" 9-pellet 00 buckshot. Wounded in one forearm early in the fight, he had great trouble holding, and especially cycling, the shotgun. Eventually, he did get off all five shots, but only late in the fight and slowly. From 25 feet, the first shot hit Platt's feet as he entered a car. The rest hit the windshield and window, and did not hit the two badguys, who were slumping down in the front seat. It does seem that the rounds fired into the car kept Platt pinned down long enough for his wounds to immobilize him.
It seems that one of the shortcomings of the pump gun that showed itself in this incident is difficulty of working the action in cramped quarters or when injured. Handguns, semi-auto long guns, or maybe even SxS shotguns, would seemingly be easier to cycle in such cases. Would Matix and/or Mireles have been more effective if armed with a weapon easier to cycle?
Perhaps another shortcoming is the real or perceived inability of buckshot to penetrate barriers such as car doors. Aiming first under the door, then above it, Mireles evidently considered the door an effective barrier to the buckshot. Would it have been? Does buckshot, being round lead pellets, penetrate barriers poorly compared with handgun or rifle bullets? I know that unintended penetration of drywall is a concern regarding accidentally hitting innocent bystanders, and buckshot will sail through drywall just like bullets do. But what about when the bad guy fires at homeowner or police officer from behind a car door, house door, dining table, etc.?
Well, thanks for reading my ideas. I look forward to reading the insight of others.
LBS
DISCLAIMER: No pump shotgun hate is involved here. A Defender loaded with buckshot is at the ready in my own bedroom.
