Birdshot for HD vrs. # 1 buck

A

Al Thompson

Staff Alumnus
Hi folks,

Ran a quick test this afternoon as to the suitability of my chosen "first up" loads of # 2 shot.

Target was a Columbia SC phone book at 10 yards. This is about the longest shot "probable" in my house. Spread out of my M37 was 12 - 14 iches at this range. I tested the # 2 birdshot, Winchester # 1 buckshot and Remington "Tactical" slugs.

I deliberately "fringed" the book. Aimed a bit high so that the rat hole effect was lessened. (both loads - buck and bird) The Columbia phone book is 3.3 inches thick. It was braced against a bank of damp sand.

The # 2 birdshot penetrated about 1 inch, with pellet deformation.

The #1 buck also deformed and penetrated 2.25 inches.

The slugs - well, they may still be working their way to china. BTW, the recoil was pleasant with the "testical" slugs........:)

Thoughts: I have witnessed several deer shot with the #1 buckshot loads. I know it will drive through the body. The #2 shot going about halfway leads me to think that in my chosen role, I'll acheive a reasonable wound at my probable engagement range. I'm not changing the load.

FWIW, .25 ACP and .22LR penetrated about 1.25 in the same medium.

Opinions?

Giz
 
Well,it sounds like it was an entertaining afternoon.

I'm not sure that "fringing" the phone book will give an acurate example of penetration. Did you just kill one phone book,or was this an extensive test? I wouldn't draw any serious conclusions from one or two shots in any medium. I guess you know for sure if you're attacked by a phone book,you'll want to use slugs for a decisive outcome.:)

If you really want to get scientific,get a quarter beef. Stand it up in front of a mock interior wall,and blast away! I've always wanted to do that,but my wife won't let me. Go figure.:rolleyes:

Hey! my 100th post! I guess I'm elligible for social security now. The sad part is,probably 20% of those posts contained erroneous information. I'm pretty sure I'm right about the thing with the slugs-for-phonebook-attacks,though.:)
 
Thanks for that, Giz. Next time,it'd be interesting to see if 8s, 6s, and so on come in with greatly varying results. My GUESS is not.

Back before the days of ballistic gel and 'puter sims, we used stacks of wet newspaper to gauge the relative penetration of handgun loads.
 
Not a be all, do all test for sure

Actually, had the phone books getting ready for the recycler and a CCW permit class scheduled. Went a bit early and just shot up the phone books. (second "test" was .22 v. .25 - posted in General handguns)

I fringed the book as I was concerned about individual pellet performance as opposed to the entire shot charge. My thought was that if I centered the book, I may get a mass of pellets that would penetrate deeper due to their following each other. That didn't happen.

While my choice of ballistic media was not the best (my favorite is soggy newspaper in green garbage bags) it serves the purpose for comparison. I took a "Known" (#1 buck in deer), established a data point (#1 buck in book) and compared it to an "unknown", the #2 shot. Half the penetration still looks good to me.

I do wish that I had books and time to test #4 buck and some #6 bird shot. Maybe in the future.

Giz
 
Hope you don't think I was making fun of your test. I was up at three in the morning with a bad cold and I got bored. I was serious about the quarter beef thing,though. I think it would be educational AND fun.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top