All,
I am not nearly the writer I think myself to be, so please bear with me.
In a recent discussion on whether or not BB sized shot would stop a man effectively, many espoused the use of birdshot for self/home defense. I am NOT interested in stopping power, terminal ballistics, or any tests done with animals. What I am interested in is the belief that adequate penetration in a self defense is not only possible but probable with the smaller shot sizes, namely birdshot, AND that a miss with birdshot will somehow not penetrate building materials and is therefore safer. How do these two seemingly conflicting ideas exist in the same belief?
To reiterate (and hopefully alleviate any confusion the above paragraph may have caused)
1) My question is purely centered around penetration in self defense and building materials.
2) I have trouble with the theory that smaller shot, namely birdshot, will adequately penetrate for self defense, but then not penetrate the relatively flimsy building materials found in most homes (drywall).
3) Though I understand that the tactics used would alter/limit the damage of over penetration, I would ask that the discussion stay centered merely on penetration as it applies to self defense and penetration of common building materials.
4) If it is believed that a shot connecting with the target would have sufficient penetration to stop an assailant and that a missed shot would NOT penetrate building materials, then what are the distances involved? I will attempt to illustrate:
As this is the first topic I have started I hope that this question is on topic for this sub forum and stated in such a manner as my intentions are clear. If I have violated the theme of this sub forum or have stated my question in such a manner as to cause confusion, I would have no issue with the moderators deleting this post. Thank you all.
VR
Matt
I am not nearly the writer I think myself to be, so please bear with me.
In a recent discussion on whether or not BB sized shot would stop a man effectively, many espoused the use of birdshot for self/home defense. I am NOT interested in stopping power, terminal ballistics, or any tests done with animals. What I am interested in is the belief that adequate penetration in a self defense is not only possible but probable with the smaller shot sizes, namely birdshot, AND that a miss with birdshot will somehow not penetrate building materials and is therefore safer. How do these two seemingly conflicting ideas exist in the same belief?
To reiterate (and hopefully alleviate any confusion the above paragraph may have caused)
1) My question is purely centered around penetration in self defense and building materials.
2) I have trouble with the theory that smaller shot, namely birdshot, will adequately penetrate for self defense, but then not penetrate the relatively flimsy building materials found in most homes (drywall).
3) Though I understand that the tactics used would alter/limit the damage of over penetration, I would ask that the discussion stay centered merely on penetration as it applies to self defense and penetration of common building materials.
4) If it is believed that a shot connecting with the target would have sufficient penetration to stop an assailant and that a missed shot would NOT penetrate building materials, then what are the distances involved? I will attempt to illustrate:
"goodguy>--->"distance X">--->"target">--->"distance Y">--->"wall"
Where the origin of the shot = "goodguy"
The distance from the origin of the shot to the target = "distance X"
The distance from the target to a wall = "distance Y"
The distance from the origin of the shot to a wall = "distance X" + "distance Y"
As this is the first topic I have started I hope that this question is on topic for this sub forum and stated in such a manner as my intentions are clear. If I have violated the theme of this sub forum or have stated my question in such a manner as to cause confusion, I would have no issue with the moderators deleting this post. Thank you all.
VR
Matt