Rugerismisticness
New member
Whose the bright guy that made the shotgun argument for HD, go get a pistol. Why even argue over the HD shotgun concept (or, more specifically, the ammo)when a pistol option is much preferable.
Federal #1 Buck with FliteControl Released!
- Thread starter NYCShooter
- Start date
Rugerismisticness
New member
"arentol, you might be a little light in knowledge or experience regarding shotguns, their application, or performance as well as other firearms but don't stamp your feet at me over it. Geez"
Thats great, the application is clay birds/deer/door hinges, the performance is situation and platform based. This is getting to be grabage. The only time you should go looking for buckshot is; in the event of a buck, or in the event of some sort of firefight not less than 15yards away. Any closer, use a pistol.
Thats great, the application is clay birds/deer/door hinges, the performance is situation and platform based. This is getting to be grabage. The only time you should go looking for buckshot is; in the event of a buck, or in the event of some sort of firefight not less than 15yards away. Any closer, use a pistol.
Firearms Tactical Institute report recomends #1 Buck
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm
Quote:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm
Conversly if you want to get a large pattern you can fire shells that have no cup and tend to pattern wide, and when you fire them out of a rifled shotgun barrel they get get even wider although they tend to form a ring.
Normally a shot pattern for normal shells (not FliteControl type cups) opens up 1" per yard from the muzzle. So for typical HD distance you're going to be creating 3"-4" holes.
However... with a rifled barrel and a load like Wolf - which is known for opening up pretty early you can get some pretty large shot patterns.
I calculated that the Wolf through rifled barrel spreads 3.6 times the "normal" rate.
Normal shot through a smoothbore would give roughly a 5" pattern at 5 yards. The Wolf through rifled opens up to 18"
So firing Wolf at 6 feet should create a 7.2" pattern, 10.8" pattern at 9 feet.
Granted the pattern takes on a ring shape...
Buckshot through a rifled barrel:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot43.htm
If I were absolutely sure I'd never have to engage an attacker at more than 6 feet, and that I would never miss -I'd choose the Wolf through a rifled barrel because I think I'd have a good chance of puncturing both lungs, damaging not one but two major blood vessels as well as a good chance of puncturing the heart.
But if I miss, I'm putting projectiles into someone else's house.
So I'd just rather have something that keep a tight group.
I still lament the fact though that Federal took a pellet out of this load. I really want all sixteen projectiles.
But I since I can't garantee the distance, I'd rather
Normally a shot pattern for normal shells (not FliteControl type cups) opens up 1" per yard from the muzzle. So for typical HD distance you're going to be creating 3"-4" holes.
However... with a rifled barrel and a load like Wolf - which is known for opening up pretty early you can get some pretty large shot patterns.
I calculated that the Wolf through rifled barrel spreads 3.6 times the "normal" rate.
Normal shot through a smoothbore would give roughly a 5" pattern at 5 yards. The Wolf through rifled opens up to 18"
So firing Wolf at 6 feet should create a 7.2" pattern, 10.8" pattern at 9 feet.
Granted the pattern takes on a ring shape...
Buckshot through a rifled barrel:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot43.htm
If I were absolutely sure I'd never have to engage an attacker at more than 6 feet, and that I would never miss -I'd choose the Wolf through a rifled barrel because I think I'd have a good chance of puncturing both lungs, damaging not one but two major blood vessels as well as a good chance of puncturing the heart.
But if I miss, I'm putting projectiles into someone else's house.
So I'd just rather have something that keep a tight group.
I still lament the fact though that Federal took a pellet out of this load. I really want all sixteen projectiles.
But I since I can't garantee the distance, I'd rather
Yes, at close quarters, both would be effective. But part of the benefit of #1 buck is that its been shown to effectively penetration human vitals but is less likely to overpenetrate with a lot of remaining energy. Any projectiles that easily pass completely through a target are A) wasting energy that could have been used to further damage the intended target and B) endangering unintended targets downrange.
Last edited:
C0untZer0 said:
It is Gehrhard insisting once again that shotguns are more effective with as wide a shot spread as humanly possible because anyone using them is, by definition, going to miss their target... He has previously taken this to the point that he insists 000 buck is better against a grizzly than a hardened slug because if you miss the animal entirely you will still hit with more than half the 000 pellets thanks to your 5' wide buckshot spread and the magic tendency of buckshot to bend towards bears. And of course a single pellet of 000 hitting anywhere on the bears body will instantly drop a grizzly in its tracks.
Last edited:
Rugerismisticness
New member
I say that a pistol is a much better option because; opening doors is less vulnerable, working tight corners is easier, no extra buckshot to destroy the other items, and the mag changes are faster. If I had even a short shotgun, that would put me at a sever disadvantage as I would have to lower my gun each time I need to open a door or turn in a tight hallway. I, as well as most others, can get as many as 6 more accurate shots in with a handgun in the time it takes to shoot two out of a pump gun (I assume pump, as what most people seem to build their HD gun off of).
All this is off topic and should be and has been discussed in another thread but...
...again, a much better option for you, not for everyone.
....I think you may be using your training/comfort level as a guideline for 'most'.
Too, many do build their HD shotgun off a pump but some don't. I'm one of those that don't. My Rem. 1100 and I go back 30+ yrs. with many,many a rd down the tube. I know best, what I'm capable of doing with it both in shot placement and maneuvering.
As far as maneuvering a shotgun, a pistol is smaller, thus more maneuverable but with the right tactics/training, maneuvering can be done quite sufficient with a shotgun in most dwellings.
My nightstand pistol does no more for me then escort me to my shotgun because I'm more confident with a shotgun. I'm sure, according to many past threads and post here on TFL and other forums, I'm not alone in this scenario.
There are advantages of using a pistol, there are advantages of using a shotgun. There are dis-advantages to both.
You prefer a pistol, I prefer a shotgun.
There's no right/wrong here and opting for either pistol or shotgun does not make one 'brighter' than the other. Again, just a difference in training/comfort levels with each weapon.
...again, a much better option for you, not for everyone.
....I think you may be using your training/comfort level as a guideline for 'most'.
Too, many do build their HD shotgun off a pump but some don't. I'm one of those that don't. My Rem. 1100 and I go back 30+ yrs. with many,many a rd down the tube. I know best, what I'm capable of doing with it both in shot placement and maneuvering.
As far as maneuvering a shotgun, a pistol is smaller, thus more maneuverable but with the right tactics/training, maneuvering can be done quite sufficient with a shotgun in most dwellings.
My nightstand pistol does no more for me then escort me to my shotgun because I'm more confident with a shotgun. I'm sure, according to many past threads and post here on TFL and other forums, I'm not alone in this scenario.
There are advantages of using a pistol, there are advantages of using a shotgun. There are dis-advantages to both.
You prefer a pistol, I prefer a shotgun.
There's no right/wrong here and opting for either pistol or shotgun does not make one 'brighter' than the other. Again, just a difference in training/comfort levels with each weapon.
i figure for a HD situation, which seems to be the "flow" of this thread. the tight pattern sounds like something i would want. a 5" spread at, say about 10'-15', would be devasting in my book. a lot better than half the pellets hitting spread around a 18" circle, or even more spread out. i am interested in this #1 buck. i normally use #4 buck in the .410 and 00 in the 12 ga, but i will be trying this out. to me this is a moot point and a little off topic, but i will address it. as far as a shotgun being less maneurverable than a handgun. once i have my hand on the shotgun, i'm not going around clearing the house.
^ Yep.
I don't know anyone who recomends trying to clear your house by yourself.
IMO Police(plural) clear houses. I don't
I am trying to understand Gehrhard's reasoning, I believe it can be summed up by saying that as the pattern gets tighter and tighter there is a point at which different numbers of different sized pellets makes no difference in stopping power / wounding capacity. I think this could only be predicated on the thought that some of the pellets are not impacting tissue / traveling through and damaging tissue because they are following the wound channels already created by the pellets in the front of the shot column - the first pellets. Autopsies and tests in ordnance gelatin show that this is not the case. More projectiles that meet minimum penetration standards of 12" or more, equal more wound channels which equals more damage to vital tissue / quicker loss of blood pressure (if not immediate cessation of life).
Kind of the reverse of this argument is the birdshot / column of lead idea, that at close range the pattern hasn't spread out and the column of birdshot acts similar to a slug. Autopsies and tests in ordnance gelatin show that to be false. Bird shot quickly spreadsout and loses velocity. It creates a gruseome surface wound but seldom penetrates deep enough to reach vital tissue.
Also, shot paterns are not random. They almost always have a circular or oblong shape to them. On the one hand if my POA is center of mass and I have a 14" pattern, I have a pretty good chance of puncturing a lung, possibly puncturing a kidney, but I also am going to be putting pellets into the stomach, the diaphram, along the ribs and other non-vital places. If I have a circular pattern and it's 14" wide, my best aim gives me something like a 20% chance of hitting the heart or major arteries. With a tight pattern, my best aim probably gives me somewhere in the neighborhood of a 90% chance of hitting the heart or major blood vessels.
I don't know anyone who recomends trying to clear your house by yourself.
IMO Police(plural) clear houses. I don't
I am trying to understand Gehrhard's reasoning, I believe it can be summed up by saying that as the pattern gets tighter and tighter there is a point at which different numbers of different sized pellets makes no difference in stopping power / wounding capacity. I think this could only be predicated on the thought that some of the pellets are not impacting tissue / traveling through and damaging tissue because they are following the wound channels already created by the pellets in the front of the shot column - the first pellets. Autopsies and tests in ordnance gelatin show that this is not the case. More projectiles that meet minimum penetration standards of 12" or more, equal more wound channels which equals more damage to vital tissue / quicker loss of blood pressure (if not immediate cessation of life).
Kind of the reverse of this argument is the birdshot / column of lead idea, that at close range the pattern hasn't spread out and the column of birdshot acts similar to a slug. Autopsies and tests in ordnance gelatin show that to be false. Bird shot quickly spreadsout and loses velocity. It creates a gruseome surface wound but seldom penetrates deep enough to reach vital tissue.
Also, shot paterns are not random. They almost always have a circular or oblong shape to them. On the one hand if my POA is center of mass and I have a 14" pattern, I have a pretty good chance of puncturing a lung, possibly puncturing a kidney, but I also am going to be putting pellets into the stomach, the diaphram, along the ribs and other non-vital places. If I have a circular pattern and it's 14" wide, my best aim gives me something like a 20% chance of hitting the heart or major arteries. With a tight pattern, my best aim probably gives me somewhere in the neighborhood of a 90% chance of hitting the heart or major blood vessels.
Stevie-Ray
New member
I've said this before, but I clear my house each and every time I come home when it's been empty. Even more important with the place up north. Either one would have to look like something's amiss for me to have the police clear it.
Don't want anybody bursting out of a closet after I've gone to bed.
Don't want anybody bursting out of a closet after I've gone to bed.
Slugthrower
New member
Sounds like a good load to train with and maybe for some short range outdoor defensive use. Personally I'd rather have full velocity ammo though. A tighter pattern is a good thing in a limited role in the city.
As far as people thinking of room clearing with a shotgun or otherwise. They'd do real well to consider what room clearing really is and what it takes to make such a tactic successful. Once you do think real hard about it, and even better actually attempt it. You'll understand why a single individual doing any form of clearing is nonsense. Such a deadly game of peek a boo has a very high chance of not ending well for the defender. Suffice it to say that entry team work requires overwhelming numbers and surprise with a few flash bangs tossed in for luck, along with a lot of training.
If anything it would be far better to make your bedroom very defendable and lie in wait. Let them do what they will outside. Call the police and be ready to fight back if needed. That is what the HD shotgun is going to excell at in competent hands. Once you begin to start searching with one it becomes a totally different game. A pistol would be advantageous if you really have to begin searching in many ways. It may be counter intuitive, but it really is better given what you may have to do to survive such madness if at all. Even if you have a partner to help out, you could be facing more than just one or two people. If that partner cannot act as if they are your other hand and has trained quite a lot with you it may go bad real fast. We all have these notions in our heads about how well we will perform in such a situation. When it is put to the test it will not be ideal by any strech of the imagination.
It reminds me of people that are trained in martial arts and think they can engage in a knife fight and come out on top unscathed with a a truly determined attacker. Seen a video not too long ago involving such a thing. It illustrates what can happen to the defender that has only a modicum of training and is presented with a full on attack and not some preplanned demonstration. Things can get real ugly, real fast.
Don't let the imagination get the better of your natural instincts to not go into the hell of a fight, unless you are willing to lose and possibly die in the process. It isn't that a person can't win, but rather the price could very well be much higher than we'd like to admit to ourselves.
Just copy and paste this and have a little look. It is only 11 seconds long.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ah_0gia4A0
It would be pretty bad for the defender. Granted this isn't a firearms thing, it does illustrate how we tend to only look at the ideal rather than what things will tend to be in the real world. The men are trained fighters, maybe not masters, but trained none the less.
Back on point.
If anything #1 buck with flight control and reduced power is going to be real effective at typical HD ranges. Really don't see it as too disadvantageous. Given the distances typically are in feet as opposed to yards in such applications. So long as you are confident and in it and it fills your bill is all that matters. We all have our ideas on how to protect ourselves. Let's just hope they are as good as they can be and hopefully are never needed.
As far as people thinking of room clearing with a shotgun or otherwise. They'd do real well to consider what room clearing really is and what it takes to make such a tactic successful. Once you do think real hard about it, and even better actually attempt it. You'll understand why a single individual doing any form of clearing is nonsense. Such a deadly game of peek a boo has a very high chance of not ending well for the defender. Suffice it to say that entry team work requires overwhelming numbers and surprise with a few flash bangs tossed in for luck, along with a lot of training.
If anything it would be far better to make your bedroom very defendable and lie in wait. Let them do what they will outside. Call the police and be ready to fight back if needed. That is what the HD shotgun is going to excell at in competent hands. Once you begin to start searching with one it becomes a totally different game. A pistol would be advantageous if you really have to begin searching in many ways. It may be counter intuitive, but it really is better given what you may have to do to survive such madness if at all. Even if you have a partner to help out, you could be facing more than just one or two people. If that partner cannot act as if they are your other hand and has trained quite a lot with you it may go bad real fast. We all have these notions in our heads about how well we will perform in such a situation. When it is put to the test it will not be ideal by any strech of the imagination.
It reminds me of people that are trained in martial arts and think they can engage in a knife fight and come out on top unscathed with a a truly determined attacker. Seen a video not too long ago involving such a thing. It illustrates what can happen to the defender that has only a modicum of training and is presented with a full on attack and not some preplanned demonstration. Things can get real ugly, real fast.
Don't let the imagination get the better of your natural instincts to not go into the hell of a fight, unless you are willing to lose and possibly die in the process. It isn't that a person can't win, but rather the price could very well be much higher than we'd like to admit to ourselves.
Just copy and paste this and have a little look. It is only 11 seconds long.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ah_0gia4A0
It would be pretty bad for the defender. Granted this isn't a firearms thing, it does illustrate how we tend to only look at the ideal rather than what things will tend to be in the real world. The men are trained fighters, maybe not masters, but trained none the less.
Back on point.
If anything #1 buck with flight control and reduced power is going to be real effective at typical HD ranges. Really don't see it as too disadvantageous. Given the distances typically are in feet as opposed to yards in such applications. So long as you are confident and in it and it fills your bill is all that matters. We all have our ideas on how to protect ourselves. Let's just hope they are as good as they can be and hopefully are never needed.