Shotguns are preferred because at close range the large bore is devastating.
Preferred by those who prefer shotguns. That's a tautology.
No one, I think, argues that a single shot from a .729 caliber shotgun
isn't at least somewhat more lethal than a single .223 JHP at 3000+ fps. The position of those of us who prefer carbines is that the carbine is effective
enough (certainly as effective, or more so, than a .357), and the other advantages of the carbine,
for us, outweigh the single-shot-lethality issue.
One such advantage is, I have absolutely no interest in shooting shotguns for fun and recreation, hence I don't even own one. I DO very much enjoy plinking with small-caliber carbines, and am looking into some local carbine matches now. So I not only own a defensive-caliber carbine,
I like to shoot it, and hence get a lot of practice with it.
I have no problem whatsoever with those who advocate the shotgun as their preferred HD choice, or who expound the virtues of the shotgun as an HD weapon (it is indeed a good choice). What I disagree with is the dogmatic assertion that the shotgun is the best choice for non-shotgun-aficionados, and that those of us who prefer carbines over shotguns are either mall ninjas, Walter Mittys, or ignoramuses.
They're both excellent choices. What's best for you, may not be best for me, and vice versa. What's important is that someone be confident in their own shotgun/rifle/handgun, enjoy shooting it enough to PRACTICE with it, and select ammunition and tactics intelligently.
The number of rounds fired in home defense situations typically is very low. As it should be. For all you guys who think it is important to be able to rip off 20 or 30 rounds inside your house to stop the intruder, all I can say is I hope you never ever have to put your theory to the test.
The usual worst case scenario is a break in in the middle of the night. Now you might be ready to go with an AR or an AK and a 30 rnd mag, but are you really going to blaze away, and need a reload? It just doesn't seem realistic to me.
I don't think anyone envisions shooting 20 or 30 rounds in a typical HD situation. As Bartholomew Roberts said, the nice thing about having a 20- or 30-round capacity is that you likely won't have to reload, or have think about carrying extra shells or whatever.
If, heaven forbid, I ever have to use a .223 for HD, I wouldn't expect to have to fire more than two or three rounds. But there's no penalty for having unfired rounds in the magazine as insurance.
And for all the tactical carbine proponents out there, try shooting a short barreled high intensity cartridge inside a closed room without hearing protection sometime. You could easily wind up with permanent hearing damage from 1 round.
Equally true of a shotgun of comparable barrel length.
http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml
Table 1. SHOTGUN NOISE DATA (DECIBEL AVERAGES)
.410 Bore
28" barrel...............150dB
26" barrel...............150.25dB
18" barrel...............156.30dB
20 Gauge
28" barrel...............152.50dB
22" barrel...............154.75dB
12 Gauge
28" barrel...............151.50dB
26" barrel...............156.10dB
18" barrel..............161.50dB
Table 2. CENTERFIRE RIFLE DATA
.223, 55gr. Commercial load 18 _" barrel.....155.5dB
.243 in 22" barrel...........................155.9dB
.30-30 in 20" barrel.........................156.0dB
7mm Magnum in 20" barrel.....................157.5dB
.308 in 24" barrel...........................156.2dB
.30-06 in 24" barrel.........................158.5dB
.30-06 in 18 _" barrel.......................163.2dB
.375 — 18" barrel with muzzle brake...........170 dB
Table 3. CENTERFIRE PISTOL DATA
.25 ACP...........155.0 dB
.32 LONG..........152.4 dB
.32 ACP...........153.5 dB
.380..............157.7 dB
9mm...............159.8 dB
.38 S&W...........153.5 dB
.38 Spl...........156.3 dB
.357 Magnum.......164.3 dB
.41 Magnum........163.2 dB
.44 Spl...........155.9 dB
.45 ACP...........157.0 dB
.45 COLT..........154.7 dB
Contrary to popular belief, there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between shotgun, pistol, and rifle noise levels, although the sound spectrum is undoubtedly different. There is a correlation with caliber (e.g., .30-06 is louder than .223 and .357 is considerably louder than 9mm or .45). There's a tight correlation with barrel length (shorter is louder for any given caliber), but less correlation with velocity. For all the 7.62x39mm shooters out there, I'd assume the sound levels would be about the same as .30-30, which it resembles.
For those who don't grok decibels, it's a logarithmic scale (usually log10); a 3dB difference equals twice the radiated acoustic energy, and a 10dB difference is ten times the radiated acoustic energy. The ear perceives a 10dB difference as a doubling in volume, and IIRC the average person can just barely distinguish a 1dB difference. A car interior at highway speeds is 60-70 dB, a vacuum cleaner in the 80's to 90dB, I think, for perspective.
The upshot is, if you have to shoot in self-defense in an HD situation, you will probably suffer some degree of hearing damage, and pretty much any effective choice (carbine, shotgun, pistol) is equally likely to cause such damage, sans suppressor. But if low probability of hearing damage were the primary criterion for choosing an HD gun, we'd all be using .22 carbines with subsonic ammo.
I also have to wonder why everybody always assumes the only shotgun to use is a pump. I have a cheap chinese made coach gun loaded to repel boarders, and have no doubt it will do the job.
I'd prefer a magazine-fed gun, only because a capacity of 2 seems to be pushing the statistics a bit. Mas Ayoob discussed some years ago that a major police department (NYPD, I think) used to use 12-gauge side-by-sides, and that their hit percentage with shotguns was under 50%. The inference he drew was that yes, shotguns are extremely lethal with a well-aimed shot, but if you limit yourself to a 2-round capacity and find yourself attacked by two people instead of one, you can't even miss
once. And once you've fired two shells, you are temporarily disarmed until you can retrieve some more ammunition.
Again, if it works for you, fine, but for me, I'd rather have some reserve.
And when the police take if as evidence, I'm not out too much if I never get it back!
Compared to the value of your life or my family (or even your legal fees, if you have to shoot to defend yourself), even a $1000 carbine, pistol, or shotgun would be easy to write off.
I'm not knocking your choices at all, but for me, I don't think the shotgun is the best choice.
And BTW, for those shotgun enthusiasts upthread making mall-ninja-Delta-force-wannabe
ad hominems against those of us who prefer carbines, PLEASE. This is the High Road, not a frat house. I'm not some Force Recon wannabe; I'm a bespectacled thirtysomething, goatee-wearing, poetry-reading, writer and physics geek with a B.A. in English. I don't prefer the carbine because it looks "k3wl" or because I use one to blast n00bs in Counter Strike; I prefer it because I have though through the issue, and
for me, consider the advantages of the carbine to outweigh those of the shotgun.
