Pump AND Semi Shotgun
- Thread starter jbays
- Start date
HighDesert
New member
I wasn’t aware of such a gun. Now, I’m trying to figure out what benefit there would be to the combo?
Benelli M3 and the SPAS are the only ones i know of. The SPAS was never a great gun, except in the movie Jurassic park lol.
The M3 was supposedly a pretty good gun, but i never really saw the need. My M1 eats all defensive ammo and trying to mix less lethal into the same gun seems problematic.
Not sure why you want a gun that goes both ways???
The M3 was supposedly a pretty good gun, but i never really saw the need. My M1 eats all defensive ammo and trying to mix less lethal into the same gun seems problematic.
Not sure why you want a gun that goes both ways???
reynolds357
New member
Thats the only ones I know of available new. I am not really a fan of the hybrid. We tested some M3 when I was on SWAT. No one on the team wanted one. But, the M4 is SWEET!
The only real reason for the hybrid is less than lethal. In my professional opinion, running less than lethal and lethal in the same gun (ever)is a disaster waiting to happen.
It wasn't a great gun in Jurrasic Park, as I recall, it went two shots and jammed...
Your SWAT team can call it anything they want as part of your professional jargon but there is no such thing as "less then lethal", technically, or legally.
the closest you can get technically, would be "less LIKELY to be lethal". If it comes out of the barrel of a gun, no matter what it is, legally, it is deadly force.
An inquiry may (and should) take into account the intent of the shooter, and choice of ammo, in determining legal guilt or not, but the fact is that people have been killed with all kinds of the 'less than lethal" ammo, such as rubber bullets, beanbags, etc. People have been killed by blanks. It's ALL potentially lethal.
As far as I can see, the only reason for a semi/pump "hybrid" is to keep the gun running in the event of failure of the semi auto action. With the hybrid, you have the large forend that is already in your hand, to use to operate the action, rather than having to reach for and grab the rather small operating handle on the bolt.
Its one of those ideas that seems sensible, but didn't seem to be any real world advantage when used in the field.
Moving to Shotgun forum...
reynolds357
New member
I would have to disagree with you on less than lethal. The Courts have consistently held that it is not lethal force when used within limits of intent of manufacturer application. It is considered identical to an impact weapon such as ASP or PR24. It is not considered lethal force unless shot is placed to the neck or head, just like an ASP or pr24. LTL actually causes less bodily harm than a baton swung by a well trained officer.It wasn't a great gun in Jurrasic Park, as I recall, it went two shots and jammed...
Your SWAT team can call it anything they want as part of your professional jargon but there is no such thing as "less then lethal", technically, or legally.
the closest you can get technically, would be "less LIKELY to be lethal". If it comes out of the barrel of a gun, no matter what it is, legally, it is deadly force.
An inquiry may (and should) take into account the intent of the shooter, and choice of ammo, in determining legal guilt or not, but the fact is that people have been killed with all kinds of the 'less than lethal" ammo, such as rubber bullets, beanbags, etc. People have been killed by blanks. It's ALL potentially lethal.
As far as I can see, the only reason for a semi/pump "hybrid" is to keep the gun running in the event of failure of the semi auto action. With the hybrid, you have the large forend that is already in your hand, to use to operate the action, rather than having to reach for and grab the rather small operating handle on the bolt.
Its one of those ideas that seems sensible, but didn't seem to be any real world advantage when used in the field.
Moving to Shotgun forum...
Lethal force does not have to kill.
Less than lethal has the ability to kill if misused.
The terms are not absolutes, they are based in likely probability.
Last edited:
I agree with this, however, the problem I have is the impression "less than lethal" creates in most people. They hear "less than lethal" and think it will not kill. It can, and it has.
Police operate under different legal standards than the public. They get trained on the rounds, what to do, and not do, so they are less likely to be lethal. Regular folks, not so much.
And for police use, they should. However, for private citizens it can be a different matter if used defensively. Its a tangled knot, but tied up in it is the idea that you must believe lethal force is necessary in order to be justified shooting someone. whether you kill them or not is another matter. There is a viewpoint that, if you don't believe lethal force is necessary, you should not shoot. It goes along with the idea of "shooting to wound". If you're an LEO you are aware of the legal complexities (or should be) but most people aren't.
Courts have held that shooting someone (defensively) without the belief lethal force was necessary, is not lawful self defense, it is assault. Arguments have been made that shooting to wound, or choosing "less lethal" ammo is proof the shooter did not believe deadly force was necessary, and therefore should not have shot.
It's tangled and every case is an individual where different factors can affect the court's decision, but the principles I've just mentioned have been used in the past, and probably will be, in the future.
One set of rules for police in the performance of their duty, a slightly different set of rules for the rest of us. Properly applied, its a workable system. When its not, its not.
reynolds357
New member
Of course if you shoot someone in self defense you dont tell the police what happened. You let your lawyer tell them what happened. I have told several people they needed to shut up and call their lawyer. Police instantly lawyer up in a lethal force case. Civilians should do the same.
The type of ammo being discussed (beanbag, rubber shot, flexible baton etc) are properly called “Less lethal”. Not “less then lethal”. The reason thats a big deal is they can (and have) killed...hence they are not a level of force below “lethal”, just less likely to cause death.
On my S.O. we used Def tech #23br beanbags exclusively. I still have a few rounds in my ammo stash. I would NEVER load em for use in a civilian shooting scenario. If you are JUSTIFIED in shooting the subject with something out of a shotgun, load buck or slugs and STOP the threat.
Ive seen people absorb a number of beanbag rounds and still be a threat. We NEVER attempted a beanbag shot without a number of other Deputies there to provide lethal cover for the beanbag shooter. They just dont always put a subject down like we would like to think they would.
Ive been told stories by LAPD & LASO members of guys sucking up a few 40mm rubber baton rounds and still being an active threat...those have much more energy then the 12ga variety.
No thanks. If they need shootin..im giving em buckshot.
On my S.O. we used Def tech #23br beanbags exclusively. I still have a few rounds in my ammo stash. I would NEVER load em for use in a civilian shooting scenario. If you are JUSTIFIED in shooting the subject with something out of a shotgun, load buck or slugs and STOP the threat.
Ive seen people absorb a number of beanbag rounds and still be a threat. We NEVER attempted a beanbag shot without a number of other Deputies there to provide lethal cover for the beanbag shooter. They just dont always put a subject down like we would like to think they would.
Ive been told stories by LAPD & LASO members of guys sucking up a few 40mm rubber baton rounds and still being an active threat...those have much more energy then the 12ga variety.
No thanks. If they need shootin..im giving em buckshot.
reynolds357
New member
We began using "less than lethal" in the early 90s. That was the proper term. Some adopted the term "less lethal". When I retired, we still had "less than lethal" in our S.O.P. The term "Less Lethal" creates problems in civil litigation. Juries are easily confused. It needlessly muddies the waters.
As you have given witness to, the rounds are not lethal when properly used.
Uhhh, not what i said. Even when “properly used”. Ie. Stand off distance, point of aim, etc are employed, people have still died as a result of the impact. They dodged and were struck in the head, as an example.
What i DID say was, they are not appropriate for civilian use of force encounters. There is STILL a chance of death. The fact they tend to be “less lethal” then say Buckshot or slugs doesn't change the fact you fired a gun at a person.
Heck, birdshot at distance is less lethal then buck. But, you cant LEGALLY shoot that at someone, unless LETHAL force is justified.
It's a language trap, and just because one group, even the maker calls something one thing, that doesn't mean it is correct.
Less Lethal leaves me wondering how can you be less than dead? People say "more lethal" and again, how can you be more dead than dead?
it's a one or the other thing, like being pregnant. If you are, you are, and you can't be more than pregnant. If you're not, you're not pregnant at all.
saying less than lethal means not reaching lethal levels, ever. And with the ammunition, we know that is not the case.
less likely to be lethal seems to be the closest we can get to accurately describing the ammo, but, that's a mouthful, and I can see where it is easily shortened to "less lethal" but doing that changes the literal meaning.
Sure, its ok when everybody in the group knows you mean less likely and just aren't saying it, but when you're outside that group, you're outside the knowing of what the 'in" jargon means.
Maybe its human nature, or just the nature of language to be shorted and get sloppy over time. Precise wording was the apex of an art, when the written word was the pinnacle of communication and time was not so pressing. Today the focus seems more on speed of general idea and not so much on precision, outside of certain technical disciplines.
DO you have a motor, or an engine in your car???
Most cars today have both. Usually one engine and multiple motors. But you find the terms used interchangeably in many casual conversations.
Less Lethal leaves me wondering how can you be less than dead? People say "more lethal" and again, how can you be more dead than dead?
it's a one or the other thing, like being pregnant. If you are, you are, and you can't be more than pregnant. If you're not, you're not pregnant at all.
saying less than lethal means not reaching lethal levels, ever. And with the ammunition, we know that is not the case.
less likely to be lethal seems to be the closest we can get to accurately describing the ammo, but, that's a mouthful, and I can see where it is easily shortened to "less lethal" but doing that changes the literal meaning.
Sure, its ok when everybody in the group knows you mean less likely and just aren't saying it, but when you're outside that group, you're outside the knowing of what the 'in" jargon means.
Maybe its human nature, or just the nature of language to be shorted and get sloppy over time. Precise wording was the apex of an art, when the written word was the pinnacle of communication and time was not so pressing. Today the focus seems more on speed of general idea and not so much on precision, outside of certain technical disciplines.
DO you have a motor, or an engine in your car???
Most cars today have both. Usually one engine and multiple motors. But you find the terms used interchangeably in many casual conversations.
reynolds357
New member
LTL is not treated as firing a gun at a person. It is treated as using an impact weapon. If the person ducks and you hit them in the head with a baton it can kill them. LTL is not treated as a use of deadly force.
Now you are putting Dept policy on the use of force continuum into the equation of the LEGAL issues. A civilian in a SD situation does not have that. There is no (that i know of) statute that allows a civilian to discharge a firearm at another person EXCEPT when Deadly force is justified.
reynolds357
New member
A civilian using any object against another is a violation of the law unless justified use of deadly force is present. You hit someone with a baton, brick, rock, pool cue, stick, ball bat, or shoot them with LTL, its all the same.