shot size for home defense

[35remington]

Any response to my request for links to those news articles, turmech? I note, from your earlier post, that a man died defending his home with birdshot. Doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of its use for home defense.

[turmech]

My point in those stories was, I would rather die under-gunned than live and a accidentally kill a loved one in another room.

If someone lives by themselves (no kids, grand kids, wives, etc..) in other rooms shoot what you want in your home. But for me I know what buck shot does to my back stops and would not dream of shooting in my home with my family in other rooms. At inside the home distance 5 yards bird shot will work for me. Forget the news stories shoot something at close range with 7 ½ 's and inspect the damage. Will it out preform any larger shot NO. Will I win the fight Yes.

Don't belive, me test it yourself or watch the two videos post in this tread..

[35remington]

"Forget the news stories......"

I presume no such links to your claimed home defense shootings exist, then? The stories were apocryphal? If they were true, the guy using birdshot certainly did not win the fight.

If you're going to claim actual events occurred, then don't use examples that do not exist to make your "point." If the cited events actually did occur, then they would exist in on the local paper's online edition for all to see.

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/view...p?f=7&t=109958

Review the link I posted and note the lack of damage with birdshot.

Not to be controversial, but hitting someone else besides the intruder is not a given in a home defense shooting. Worthy of consideration, yes, but not to the degree that the effectiveness of the arm is severely compromised. And I'd rather live due to being properly armed. If you live due to being properly armed, less harm is likely to occur to your loved ones. The consequences of failing to stop a threat are just as dire as a missed shot.

That's certainly worthy of consideration.

[turmech]

I mis-understood your questions as to a link to the two articles. These were fictional I merely made them up to illustrate a point I was attempting to make. I apologize for any one I mislead thinking they were factual. I thought everyone who read them would get that, sorry

I did notic in my new story post I said "potential new stories"

Rick, Federal's Flite Control 00 ammo has made your department's choice of #4 buck a needless liability. Time to "look back."

Turmech, could you post a link to that tragedy, please? I notice in one of those cases, birdshot didn't work. The other problem would have been solved with better judgement.

[turmech]

Did the link you posted with shotgun penetrations say what was the distance to the target. I may have missed it. Either way it looked like #8 shot gave a pretty bad wound channel 4 to 5 inches deep. This was just as I would have expected.

Given my situation with kids in other rooms surrounding the home we live in I would take that rather than the alternatives. Once again this may be just me. I guess it worthy of mentioning I would not be shooting a single barrel. If 5 or 6 shots don't do it there is always my but stock or boot heal.

Most of the problem with bird shot occurs beyond in side the home ranges. this is not from any site, link or test I could send you to. It comes from my shooting experiences.

[35remington]

If that was presented as a hypothetical news story it certainly wasn't capable of making any worthwhile point.

The testing in the link I provided was from "inside the home" distances.

The testing was conducted at nine feet. That certainly qualifies. Birdshot fared miserably. This was on unprotected media. How would it have fared had a jacket been used? Likely even more miserably.

I would be most fascinated if anyone could find, anywhere, a news article wherein a charge of buckshot missed a home intruder, went through a wall, and injured or killed another family member.

Since the "overpenetration through walls" scenario is frequently cited, I'm looking for proof of an incident where exactly that happened.

[turmech]

The OP linked a youtube video where a pork shoulder and rib cage are shot. The pork is wearing jeans and an onion sack. Looked good enough to me.

I don't know of any articles where friendly fire buckshot killed anyone. I just know it can and chose bird shot.

[John in WI]

For my home defense shotgun, I have it loaded with a "duplex" load that is made of #F and #1 pellets. I like the intermediate sized shot for larger but thin skinned critters--especially at the kind of ranges we're talking about.

I've lately been trying to find commercial #F buckshot for the role. While I agree that birdshot lacks the penetration and is not well suited for home defense, I don't think you need to go crazy increasing the mass of the pellets. #F shot is .22". So let's say each pellet has roughly the equivalent of a .22lr (or even .22 short). One pellet wouldn't do much--but I think 20 or 30 of would do great. I shot a coyote with a reload last year, and about half of the pellets exited. So we'd be talking respectable, multiple penetration. Up close it would work even better.

[35remington]

In what way is a whopping four inches of penetration from birdshot (saw the video) adequate in any situation desperate enough to justify shooting in the first place? Under what scenario does the target present a perfect shot requiring a mere four inches of penetration every time, or even most of the time?

Perhaps it's much more advisable to take the advice of those that study wound ballistics for a living, rather than amateur shade tree backwoods gun theorists. It is very well accepted by now that the number one job of any projectile is to penetrate adequately. Birdshot doesn't do that very well. Even at very close range.

Remember, your target gets to shoot back, too. He is free to use cover rather than just standing there upright and breathing easy. He gets to wear clothing of differing thicknesses. He gets to face you obliquely rather than directly.

I mean.......four inches? Seriously? C'mon.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_De...N%20AMMUNITION

http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=176

The fact of the matter is that very few, if any of us are going to get to test these ideas for real, thank God. However, the idea of birdshot for any defensive use, including home defense, has been tested and throughly rejected by people who make such recommendations for a living. These people are experts in their field, rather than amateurs. Their recommendations are now essentially codified and followed as rigorous standards for testing ammunition for the FBI and law enforcement agencies. How are their pronouncements valid for the LE agencies yet not for the average homeowner? They have weighed in on the validity of birdshot and found it lacking......at any range.

There is an understandably natural tendency on their part toward a preference for loads that can be counted on to work in more instances than not. Again, that isn't birdshot.

[35remington]

John in WI, a #1 buck pellet weighs 40 grains, same as a 22 long rifle bullet. #2 buck weighs about the same as a .22 short bullet. #4 buck weighs a little over 20 grains. F buck falls well short of both of those (22 short and LR) weights.

It would be better than birdshot, at least, but if you're using .22 short or long rifle bullet weight as a "reasonable minimum" weight for buckshot, F buck doesn't measure up.

[turmech]

I will leave this thread with two I believe indisputable facts.

1) buck shot is more lethal than bird shot at any range.
2) Bird shot will loose more energy as it passes through a homes wall.

How these facts are applied to an individuals self defense pan is up to the individual.

Below are my conclusions and mine alone, use what best for you.

Do I think I can stop an intruder with bird shot, yes I do. All the test and videos linked to on this tread show 4 to 5 inches of devastation.

Do I think there are proven cases of bird shot not stopping someone. Yes I do.

Do I think larger shot would give me more stopping power, Yes I do.

Do I think my family is safer from rounds fired from my gun in a shootout in my home if I am shooting bird shot, Yes I do.

The police use FBI that rate shot for defense I don't think would justify getting into a fire fight with buckshot with people in other room. If they do then I am mistaken. My understanding is they are constantly developing rounds and specific guns for such shooting. I don't own these rounds or currently have the time to study there test. I do own a shotgun and have bird shot.

[35remington]

The criteria for rating the effectiveness of a given load by those who study such things is based on one thing.......effectiveness in getting the job done.

That criteria is no different than that needed by the ordinary individual. They rated birdshot as being well below the level needed to be effective.

"The police use FBI that rate shot for defense I don't think would justify getting into a fire fight with buckshot with people in other room."

Given that police, FBI, and SWAT can and do get into gunfights with people present in the other room, (think building entry on drug busts, etc.) that makes this point rather moot, don't you think? Their criterion for selecting ammunition is rightly that of choosing ammo that is most capable of resolving the threat in the fewest number of shots. And that is the safest ammo to use for all concerned, innocents in the other room included. Few advocating birdshot ever consider that when the problem is solved with the least number of shots, from both yourself and the intruder, there is less likelihood of damage to bystanders. If an intruder is still allowed the capability to keep shooting, he will do so.......increasing the chance that someone in your family will get hit from his fire.

And birdshot is safer, how, exactly, given this increased chance of the survival of your intended target allows him to continue shooting as well?

"All the test and videos linked to on this tread show 4 to 5 inches of devastation."

All those same experts in the field of wound ballistics rated a wound of 4 to 5 inches depth to be completely inadequate.

Had our pistol bullet penetrated 4 to 5 inches, it would be rightly regarded with great derision and labeled as completely inadequate for the job by all, and rightly so. Yet a shotgun wound of the same depth is adequate?

The experts say otherwise. All this is irrefutable. Degrees of inadequacy are of small comfort, and using a load of proven inadequacy can reasonably be questioned, no matter what other concerns are present.

Greatly compromising effectiveness for what "might" happen in a worst case scenario greatly increases the odds of something going badly in the more likely scenario.

Increasing the odds of an undesirable result in the most likely scenario by preferentially using birdshot does not seem like a good compromise to me.

[wilded]

I have shot a ton of coyotes and feral hogs on ranches here in Central Texas where we are trying to eliminate them because of the damage they cause to land and livestock. After many years and thousands of rounds we have switched to #4 buck as it provides a decent pattern out to 60 yards and enough power to kill out to that range. Inside forty yards it is devastating. I have seen coyotes run through a 00 pattern at ranges over 40 yards, while at close range a 00 pattern is so tight one can miss a target under stress. JMHO

[-06]

One assumes that OO will only be used on a standing target(perp) and then pass through to kill/injure innocents. What if he is hiding behind your wall and door shooting at you--will you say "wait a minute while I load OO so I can shoot through walls/studs/and doors"? Like another said--you use what you want---OO is staying in mine. 9 30 caliber balls is a lot--especially when you keep pumping them 9 at the time.

[tacofrank]

Number six is what I use. Seems like a good compromize.

[35remington]

wilded.......you do realize we're talking about home defense, right? At close home defense ranges, patterns with all types of birdshot and buck are small.

One size of shot over another will not increase hit probability at home defense ranges. At HD range, all shotguns are essentially rifles in terms of hit probability.

All birdshot is too much of a compromise in penetration.

[Ole]

Another video that some may find useful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIfilArIHlY

[turmech]

I found it interesting watching a show, on discovery channel I think, which showed the secrete service developing rounds for shooting bad guys in crowds of people. These rounds were specially developed to not hurt bystanders. So to think law enforcement does not consider collateral damage does not seem correct. They even shoot tactical slugs and buckshot with less penetration and less recoil.

I am not talking about clearing a room, entering someone else space and needing to put them down quickly not knowing who they are and there abilities to fight back.

I am talking about stopping hopefully one maybe two strung out punks entering my home. And if not stopping them at least taking some of the fight out of them. I don't plan on giving them time to take cover. And if they do I bet they won't be as healthy as they were when they enter. The kind that hold there gun sideways when shooting. One my turf which I know better than them especially in the dark. I like my odds. Again not saying bird shot is one shot one kill round. Like in deer hunting if he is still standing put another round in him.

Now if multiple well trained, well armed men, with a plan, intent on killing me come in my home I will not stand a chance. Truthfully probably won't matter what I am holding.

[35remington]

"So to think law enforcement does not consider collateral damage does not seem correct. They even shoot tactical slugs and buckshot with less penetration and less recoil."

It might not seem correct to you.......because things are not as you assert.

For room entry, where there may be people in another room, they still use standard ammo. This is much more analogous to the real situation in a house than your "crowd" example, which has nothing to do with it.

I repeat.....for house entry, with others possibly present, standard, not low penetrating ammo is used by LE.

Tactical buckshot and slugs have equal or more penetration, not less. Re review that link I provided. Reduced recoil is the only concern. Penetration is not even considered, as there is no difference.

If you need another shot, it's a bigger chance for stray gunfire, from him or you, to do more harm. If it's less likely to do the job, the shootout is more likely to get someone in your home killed that was not the intended target.

As I said, I cannot see where less effective birdshot saves any lives. Yours or your family's.

LE does not use "low penetration ammo" for their dealings that may involve shootings in a home.

[turmech]

I see the need for birdshot for the abillity to shot some what more indiscrimiantly that I would if I am overly conserned with what lies behind my target. My thinking is in a self defese situation taking time to aim like I would at say a deer may not be there. I don't want to hesitate thinking one of my children are the other side of that wall behind the bad guy. I can't control what round he loading but I can control mine.

I guess it is worth mentining that I have had law enforcement training in the past. I was in the USCG for 6 year and was a boarding team menber most of that time. This is not exactly seal team 6 or L.A SWAT but something. We received a week of LE traning every year. I have never been shot or shot someone elese, but I have experienced training on the use of deadly force. As well as other non fun somewhat unrelated traing. Been sprayed with pepper spray (not the civilian verison the real thing), tear gassed, and tased. LE carteria for deadly force does not allow for the use of anthing which does not penetrate 12” Like you said. This is main because once deadly force is autorized to be use (by the actions of the bad guy) LE rounds must Kill. If they incopacitate they do not meet the requirements of deadly force. LE, at least back then had the position if Deadly force is use it must be Deadlly. Just like they did not train to give wounding shots. Double tap center mass.