Be warned this is a long post.
I will endeavor to point out when I am stating fact, observation and/or opinion, so hopefully, at the end, the reader will be able to “make up their own mind”.
And, by so doing, I am in no way insinuating that I am the “know all, end all” with regards to shotguns and their use in combat. In fact, the more I study and the more I experience, the more I realize that I have not even scratched the surface of this important and often emotionally charged subject.
First off, this test was an “informal” test; in other words, it WAS NOT an “official” USMC test. The tests were conducted by a number of Reconnaissance Marines.
The tests came about as a result of one of our team-members having recently returned from a training engagement at Gunsite (of the mid 1980’s). It was a handgun course, but his “bunk mate” was a shooting school “junkie”. A civilian, he went to Gunsite, Massad Ayoob LFI, Chuck Taylor’s ASAA, etc. (Remember that this is before Thunder Ranch, Blackwater and a few of the “newer” schools).
This civilian knew that my friend was from the military, so discussion ensued regarding weapons and tactics.
The subject of shotguns came up, and my friend espoused his opinion about the matter. My friend basically stated what all of us “believed”. That the shotgun was the “king” of combat, especially when used in a “jungle” environment.
This civy had apparently just trained with Chuck Taylor (a definite BTDT – has “seen the elephant” around the globe) – and Chuck was just finishing up a long term T&E of the shotgun as a combat weapon.
The things this guy told my friend seemed to go contrary to what we “believed” about the shotgun.
So, we attempted to find out for ourselves where the bear really craps.
All of us were dead sure that this guy was full of baloney. We all “knew” the shotgun was GREAT for Military type operations.
Funny thing though, when we closely examine the rational behind our collective thoughts on the shotgun, we realized that our “opinions” were based on birdhunting, rabbit hunting, deer hunting, stories we had read and heard, pictures of soldiers carrying shotguns, etc.
And, the more we discussed our “opinions”, the more we realized that maybe we DIDN’T really know what a shotgun was and was not capable of. (For instance, there is virtually NO comparison with hunting birds and rabbits with a shotgun – and combat. Stories are usually opinion buried in fancy words. And, we knew from personal experience that pictures meant nothing. Case in point – you can find pictures of soldiers taping two mags together, but anyone that has done that, and then “hit the dirt” – realizes very quickly that the second mag gets filled up with dirt. You definitely don’t want to stuff THAT mag in the well, making that a “unwise idea”. Hence pictures cannot be trusted to be “gospel”.)
Through these discussions we recognized the effect EMOTION had on our opinions. But since we were professionals, we recognized (usually after it was pointed out to us) when emotion was rearing its ugly head.
Emotions are not based on facts, rather on feelings. The whole gun issue is “emotionally charged”. If the anti’s would look at the FACTS – they would have no basis to stand on. We recognized that we were doing the same thing. We were allowing emotion to “cloud” the issue.
So we pledged to be as objective as possible, and to carry out the tests with as little emotional bias as possible. (That obviously did not mean that we would not have fun while conducting said tests!)
We then planned what those tests would be, and the various criteria regarding those tests.
We tested a wide variety of shotguns from that era, with the Remington 870 18” barreled riot gun the most prevalent (that is what we had in the armory! The other shotguns were personnel guns of the some of the testers). We used government issue 00 buck, as well as “store bought” #4, 000, 00 and 0 buck. However, it must be stated that “buckshot” technology has come light-years since that time period. These were the days before “buffered shot”, “plated shot”, “tactical shot” and a plethora or other modern innovations to increase the effectiveness of buckshot. SO – the results that we got almost 20 years ago could be VASTLY different now. And it begs the question of – when to do the next test?
Our targets were “brown paper sacks” (yep, the exact same ones you bring your groceries home in). We chose these, because they very accurately display the average thoracic cavity size of an adult male, and they are “3-D”, and CHEAP.
We then came to a consensus as what we would qualify as “acceptable” with regards to rounds on target. We agreed that to qualify as a “stop”, 80% of the pellets would have to hit the target. In other words, if only one or two pellets hit the target, it was a “non-aggression stopping hit”. We were only interested in stopping further hostilities; we did not care if the person died three weeks later as a result of gangrene. We certainly recognized that “one pellet could get lucky” – and hit a vital that would “stop the fight” – but we did not want to depend upon “one lucky pellet”. We wanted to have confidence in what would work “most” of the time, not hope for that which rarely happened.
We would test targets in the open, targets directly behind concealment, and targets 7 and 15 yards behind concealment, respectively. (The latter in case there was some bushes in-between us and the “bad guys” – as it typically would be in a jungle or wooded environment.)
When patterning, we noticed how horribly some shotguns patterned. Even with the exact same brand and barrel length the patterns were different. And the same shotgun would pattern different with different loads. And as the barrels heated up, they patterned different with the SAME load. And these were not minute changes like what can be experienced with handguns and rifles. At least with handguns and rifles you would be “close enough for government work”. Not so with the shotguns we had. Clint Smith of TR fame is quoted as saying “if you don’t like the way your shotgun patterns, shoot it again – it will change.” We found that to be true! Some of the shotgun/load combinations were not effective at 25 yards in the open! Two sometimes three pellets on target, and nearly all of those were peripheral shots. ALL shotgun/load combinations “passed” at 15 yds.
When the target was DIRECTLY behind concealment and the shooter was 7 yards from the target, all loads “passed”. (Cover consisted of thick North Carolina lowland brush.) When the target was 7 yards behind concealment, and the shooter seven yards from the concealment, about half the time the target was “neutralized”.
When the targets were 15 yards behind cover, and the shooter was 5 yards in front of cover, less than 25% of the targets were neutralized.
I have purposefully NOT gone into great detail of the loads used, because the loads manufacturers put out today are clearly superior. HOWEVER, I think it would be VERY interesting to use “modern loads” with a “modern shotgun” to include the highly rated Vang Comp system to see how well shotguns and shotgun ammo performs today.
Needless to say, we came away with an altogether different opinion of the shotgun after performing those tests.
For the past two weeks I have been researching this topic quit studiously and here is what I have found.
Nearly all the “big” schools advocate the shotgun’s range at 25 meters or LESS (with buckshot). Slugs are rated at 75 to 100 yrds.
The spec op community (at least the guys I know that are “still in”) uses shotguns for breaching only. (Blowing doors hinges off for door kicking stuff) I have “read” that some SF units carry shotguns in Central and South America, but I have been unable to substantiate that as fact. So for now, to me, it is merely rumor.
After reading this far, you are probably wondering what the “bottom line is”.
I don’t know.
I think that before anyone trusts their life to a shotgun in combat, that some SERIOUS testing take place.
Tests like what we conducted above, but also to include penetration tests also. Over the past few weeks I have wondered – since most of the worlds armies are gravitating toward “body armor” – how effective is buckshot on body armor? My opinion is that it would perform poorly against body armor.
And what about LBVs? Will buckshot penetrate AK magazines that are basically covering the guy’s torso in his LBV? Will it penetrate 2 AK mags?
How thick of winter clothing will modern buckshot penetrate, and at what range?
For now, there are TOO many unknowns for me to recommend a shotgun for general purpose use.
For “un-obstructed” shots out to 25 meters, the shotgun IS king. (Like home defense or for "riot abatement".)
But other than that, I have my reservations.
I have no emotional tie to this issue, I really would like to know how modern guns/loads work.
There you go.
I've got my head down - ready for incoming!
cheers
tire iron
PS I just bought a Mossberg 9200 - the first shotgun I have had for over 10 years. Sold my "Bennelli" ten years ago - it was not the "ultra-reliable" shotgun that I had "read about". YMMV.
I will endeavor to point out when I am stating fact, observation and/or opinion, so hopefully, at the end, the reader will be able to “make up their own mind”.
And, by so doing, I am in no way insinuating that I am the “know all, end all” with regards to shotguns and their use in combat. In fact, the more I study and the more I experience, the more I realize that I have not even scratched the surface of this important and often emotionally charged subject.
First off, this test was an “informal” test; in other words, it WAS NOT an “official” USMC test. The tests were conducted by a number of Reconnaissance Marines.
The tests came about as a result of one of our team-members having recently returned from a training engagement at Gunsite (of the mid 1980’s). It was a handgun course, but his “bunk mate” was a shooting school “junkie”. A civilian, he went to Gunsite, Massad Ayoob LFI, Chuck Taylor’s ASAA, etc. (Remember that this is before Thunder Ranch, Blackwater and a few of the “newer” schools).
This civilian knew that my friend was from the military, so discussion ensued regarding weapons and tactics.
The subject of shotguns came up, and my friend espoused his opinion about the matter. My friend basically stated what all of us “believed”. That the shotgun was the “king” of combat, especially when used in a “jungle” environment.
This civy had apparently just trained with Chuck Taylor (a definite BTDT – has “seen the elephant” around the globe) – and Chuck was just finishing up a long term T&E of the shotgun as a combat weapon.
The things this guy told my friend seemed to go contrary to what we “believed” about the shotgun.
So, we attempted to find out for ourselves where the bear really craps.
All of us were dead sure that this guy was full of baloney. We all “knew” the shotgun was GREAT for Military type operations.
Funny thing though, when we closely examine the rational behind our collective thoughts on the shotgun, we realized that our “opinions” were based on birdhunting, rabbit hunting, deer hunting, stories we had read and heard, pictures of soldiers carrying shotguns, etc.
And, the more we discussed our “opinions”, the more we realized that maybe we DIDN’T really know what a shotgun was and was not capable of. (For instance, there is virtually NO comparison with hunting birds and rabbits with a shotgun – and combat. Stories are usually opinion buried in fancy words. And, we knew from personal experience that pictures meant nothing. Case in point – you can find pictures of soldiers taping two mags together, but anyone that has done that, and then “hit the dirt” – realizes very quickly that the second mag gets filled up with dirt. You definitely don’t want to stuff THAT mag in the well, making that a “unwise idea”. Hence pictures cannot be trusted to be “gospel”.)
Through these discussions we recognized the effect EMOTION had on our opinions. But since we were professionals, we recognized (usually after it was pointed out to us) when emotion was rearing its ugly head.
Emotions are not based on facts, rather on feelings. The whole gun issue is “emotionally charged”. If the anti’s would look at the FACTS – they would have no basis to stand on. We recognized that we were doing the same thing. We were allowing emotion to “cloud” the issue.
So we pledged to be as objective as possible, and to carry out the tests with as little emotional bias as possible. (That obviously did not mean that we would not have fun while conducting said tests!)
We then planned what those tests would be, and the various criteria regarding those tests.
We tested a wide variety of shotguns from that era, with the Remington 870 18” barreled riot gun the most prevalent (that is what we had in the armory! The other shotguns were personnel guns of the some of the testers). We used government issue 00 buck, as well as “store bought” #4, 000, 00 and 0 buck. However, it must be stated that “buckshot” technology has come light-years since that time period. These were the days before “buffered shot”, “plated shot”, “tactical shot” and a plethora or other modern innovations to increase the effectiveness of buckshot. SO – the results that we got almost 20 years ago could be VASTLY different now. And it begs the question of – when to do the next test?
Our targets were “brown paper sacks” (yep, the exact same ones you bring your groceries home in). We chose these, because they very accurately display the average thoracic cavity size of an adult male, and they are “3-D”, and CHEAP.
We then came to a consensus as what we would qualify as “acceptable” with regards to rounds on target. We agreed that to qualify as a “stop”, 80% of the pellets would have to hit the target. In other words, if only one or two pellets hit the target, it was a “non-aggression stopping hit”. We were only interested in stopping further hostilities; we did not care if the person died three weeks later as a result of gangrene. We certainly recognized that “one pellet could get lucky” – and hit a vital that would “stop the fight” – but we did not want to depend upon “one lucky pellet”. We wanted to have confidence in what would work “most” of the time, not hope for that which rarely happened.
We would test targets in the open, targets directly behind concealment, and targets 7 and 15 yards behind concealment, respectively. (The latter in case there was some bushes in-between us and the “bad guys” – as it typically would be in a jungle or wooded environment.)
When patterning, we noticed how horribly some shotguns patterned. Even with the exact same brand and barrel length the patterns were different. And the same shotgun would pattern different with different loads. And as the barrels heated up, they patterned different with the SAME load. And these were not minute changes like what can be experienced with handguns and rifles. At least with handguns and rifles you would be “close enough for government work”. Not so with the shotguns we had. Clint Smith of TR fame is quoted as saying “if you don’t like the way your shotgun patterns, shoot it again – it will change.” We found that to be true! Some of the shotgun/load combinations were not effective at 25 yards in the open! Two sometimes three pellets on target, and nearly all of those were peripheral shots. ALL shotgun/load combinations “passed” at 15 yds.
When the target was DIRECTLY behind concealment and the shooter was 7 yards from the target, all loads “passed”. (Cover consisted of thick North Carolina lowland brush.) When the target was 7 yards behind concealment, and the shooter seven yards from the concealment, about half the time the target was “neutralized”.
When the targets were 15 yards behind cover, and the shooter was 5 yards in front of cover, less than 25% of the targets were neutralized.
I have purposefully NOT gone into great detail of the loads used, because the loads manufacturers put out today are clearly superior. HOWEVER, I think it would be VERY interesting to use “modern loads” with a “modern shotgun” to include the highly rated Vang Comp system to see how well shotguns and shotgun ammo performs today.
Needless to say, we came away with an altogether different opinion of the shotgun after performing those tests.
For the past two weeks I have been researching this topic quit studiously and here is what I have found.
Nearly all the “big” schools advocate the shotgun’s range at 25 meters or LESS (with buckshot). Slugs are rated at 75 to 100 yrds.
The spec op community (at least the guys I know that are “still in”) uses shotguns for breaching only. (Blowing doors hinges off for door kicking stuff) I have “read” that some SF units carry shotguns in Central and South America, but I have been unable to substantiate that as fact. So for now, to me, it is merely rumor.
After reading this far, you are probably wondering what the “bottom line is”.
I don’t know.
I think that before anyone trusts their life to a shotgun in combat, that some SERIOUS testing take place.
Tests like what we conducted above, but also to include penetration tests also. Over the past few weeks I have wondered – since most of the worlds armies are gravitating toward “body armor” – how effective is buckshot on body armor? My opinion is that it would perform poorly against body armor.
And what about LBVs? Will buckshot penetrate AK magazines that are basically covering the guy’s torso in his LBV? Will it penetrate 2 AK mags?
How thick of winter clothing will modern buckshot penetrate, and at what range?
For now, there are TOO many unknowns for me to recommend a shotgun for general purpose use.
For “un-obstructed” shots out to 25 meters, the shotgun IS king. (Like home defense or for "riot abatement".)
But other than that, I have my reservations.
I have no emotional tie to this issue, I really would like to know how modern guns/loads work.
There you go.
I've got my head down - ready for incoming!
cheers
tire iron
PS I just bought a Mossberg 9200 - the first shotgun I have had for over 10 years. Sold my "Bennelli" ten years ago - it was not the "ultra-reliable" shotgun that I had "read about". YMMV.
