This might belong under "Tactics", but it is a very shotgun-specific issue.
I recently took a Defensive Shotgun course. It was very helpful, but I've had time to sit back and ponder some of the things we did.
We did a lot of training with controlled pairs and hammered pairs. I'm starting to question this. Here's why:
When fighting with a pistol, I totally understand the rationale for paired shots. Handguns are, frankly, not as effective at fight-stopping as we would like. Paired shots increase the liklihood of a vital hit as well as doubling the wound area. Most modern autopistols carry at LEAST 6 rounds in the magazine, often much more, and allow for extremely fast reloads.
The shotgun is a different animal, though. Now you have an effective fight-stopper. One GOOD hit will, in all probability, do the job. If it doesn't, it should at least hit with enough force to allow you time to assess. If you are dealing with an extreme circumstance (i.e. body armor), you will probably end up selecting slugs anyway (assuming you can't just get the heck out of town).
However, in most cases, you will not have anywhere near the capacity of an autoloading pistol. Four rounds is common (even for some LE purposes). Extended tubes usually provide 6 to 9 rounds, depending on barrel length. I'm not counting a round in the chamber, but go ahead and add it if you want.
And reloading a shotgun is frozen-molasses slow compared to an autopistol. We don't want to reload in a fight if we can avoid it. That means giving a little thought to ammo conservation.
So does the tactic designed for many ineffective shots apply to a weapon that provides a few highly-effective shots?
Also, if one round of... say... 00 Buck didn't do the job, what are the chances that a second (possibly unaimed) round would?
I can see a rationale for a "Shoot. Assess." pattern with a shotgun, but "Shoot. Shoot. Assess." seems debatable. If the first shot failed because it wasn't a good hit, I wouldn't expect a second unaimed shot to do much better -- except by pure luck. If the first shot WAS a good hit and was still ineffective, we've got a serious problem that may require a change in tactics.
Your thoughts appreciated. Thanks.
I recently took a Defensive Shotgun course. It was very helpful, but I've had time to sit back and ponder some of the things we did.
We did a lot of training with controlled pairs and hammered pairs. I'm starting to question this. Here's why:
When fighting with a pistol, I totally understand the rationale for paired shots. Handguns are, frankly, not as effective at fight-stopping as we would like. Paired shots increase the liklihood of a vital hit as well as doubling the wound area. Most modern autopistols carry at LEAST 6 rounds in the magazine, often much more, and allow for extremely fast reloads.
The shotgun is a different animal, though. Now you have an effective fight-stopper. One GOOD hit will, in all probability, do the job. If it doesn't, it should at least hit with enough force to allow you time to assess. If you are dealing with an extreme circumstance (i.e. body armor), you will probably end up selecting slugs anyway (assuming you can't just get the heck out of town).
However, in most cases, you will not have anywhere near the capacity of an autoloading pistol. Four rounds is common (even for some LE purposes). Extended tubes usually provide 6 to 9 rounds, depending on barrel length. I'm not counting a round in the chamber, but go ahead and add it if you want.
And reloading a shotgun is frozen-molasses slow compared to an autopistol. We don't want to reload in a fight if we can avoid it. That means giving a little thought to ammo conservation.
So does the tactic designed for many ineffective shots apply to a weapon that provides a few highly-effective shots?
Also, if one round of... say... 00 Buck didn't do the job, what are the chances that a second (possibly unaimed) round would?
I can see a rationale for a "Shoot. Assess." pattern with a shotgun, but "Shoot. Shoot. Assess." seems debatable. If the first shot failed because it wasn't a good hit, I wouldn't expect a second unaimed shot to do much better -- except by pure luck. If the first shot WAS a good hit and was still ineffective, we've got a serious problem that may require a change in tactics.
Your thoughts appreciated. Thanks.