What 12gauge load for HD?

[C0untZer0]

People like Dr. Martin Fackler and Duncan MacPherson are not mall ninjas.

In 1959 Duncan MacPherson developed a new guidance technique and the equations that were used to guide the Mercury astronauts into orbit on the Atlas launch vehicle. These equations were modified under his supervision to control Gemini and, later, Apollo launches. Both his BS and MS degrees were won at MIT's Honors Course in Mechanical Engineering.

In the early sixties he began to study and research trajectory dynamics. He wrote the book, "Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting From Wound Trauma."

If you want to dismiss his work as "Internet" that's fine - but it doesn't lessen his actual credibility or expertise in reality.

The people who read this forum can decide if they want to listen to people like Dr. Martin Fackler and Duncan MacPherson's recomendations based on medical and scientific research, or if they want to listen to the advise of people who base their experience on having shot ducks, turkeys, deer and water jugs.

 

[HALLAUSTIN]

Well I'm no sharpshooter but I will take buckshot over bird shot. Have 0 evidence to say why, but IF I have to shoot a person in my home, they are taking a long nap. My thought with #4 is if it can rip through a 40lb coyote at 20yards then something like a human chest, being just about as thick should have a decent wound to deal with, 41 pieces of 20caliber lead would drop me all day (odds are SOMETHING is hitting an artery/spine). And Now lets switch the debate to 2 3/4 or 3inch shells.

 

[C0untZer0]

The BB calibration shots for the blocks of gelatin shown in the Shotgun World tests penetrated rather deeply, and the results weren't normalized (using the formula that Duncan MacPherson devised).

So what that means is that the results for birdshot would have been even more dismal if the blocks had been the correct density.

 

[HALLAUSTIN]

Did the blocks have bone? Cause bone is important

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Don't try and change the argument. You're saying that 12ga birdshot is not deadly at less than 10 feet. NONE of those stories even come close to proving that.

If you think that is my argument, you misunderstand me. As I recall, the argument was "there is not a commonly sold 12ga round that will not drop a man with a center mass shot.". My answer is that even with a center mass shot, people do take 12 ga rounds and not only keep going for awhile; but survive. I then gave links showing this and noted that as shot size increases, there are fewer and fewer of these types of stories.

That isn't to say that 12ga birdshot at household distances can't kill you. It most certainly can. However, people take center mass shots of birdshot (a commonly sold 12ga round) and do not drop. Those stories get less common as shot size increases, so the type of 12ga round used does matter.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'm concerned about family in the next room, neighbors, liability, etc., not "Internet tests".

Where I live, the "next room" would be two pieces of 5/8" drywall (powdered gypsum backed by paper) and if you are lucky, maybe some fiberglass insulation blown in between the sheets. Something that won't penetrate that barrier is extremely weak. Now presumably the reason you are using a firearm in the house to begin with is that there is a threat that is even more dangerous than you shooting a firearm in your house. So if you have that kind of threat, it would seem that stopping that threat promptly is of high importance.

My "evidence" comes from the field, not the internet...LOL! I have hunted and trapped my entire life and have seen what birdshot can do at close range (under 7 yards) out of a 12 Ga shotgun, so I'll stick with my birdshot.

Hunted a lot of 200lb mammals with birdshot during that time?

Turn off your laptops this weekend, go out to a gravel pit, and SHOOT a load of birdshot at 4 or 5 yards (avg. living room distance might be closer to 3 yards), into a gallon jug filled with water. Test #6 birdshot out of a 12 Ga at close range. No, its not a slug or buckshot load, but it WILL leave a big, NASTY rat hole. You may just change your mind about what you read on the "net" from some Mall Ninja, or at least question as to if the person posting spends more time online than on the range.

"Penetration in rows of water-filled, 2-quart (1.89 liter) cartons is approximately 1.5 times that which would occur in 10% 4 degrees C gelatin. Since a U.S. 2-qt. carton is 3.75 inches (9.525 cm) wide and 3.75/1.5 = 2.5, one simply multiples the number of the carton in the row from which a test bullet was recovered by 2.5 to determine approximate gelatin penetration in inches or by 6.35 for the reading in centimeter. For example, a shot recovered from carton #6 would correspond to a gelatin penetration depth of approximately 15 inches (38.1 cm). (Cotey, Gus Jr.:"Number 1 Buckshot, the Number 1 Choice." Wound Ballistics Review, 2(4): p. 11; 1996.)

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs12.htm

So using this formula, we find that your results are very close to ballistic gelatin results. You got penetration of about 5" at close range. #6 birdshot at 10' from a 12ga typically penetrates about 5-6" with most of the shot at 3-5" in bare gelatin (i.e. no bones, no jacket, no drywall, no skin, no clothing). So using 12ga #6, you have a load that is effective under the following conditions:

1. You attacker is not behind ANY kind of cover. Not even a couch, appliance or drywall.
2. Your attacker is 12' or closer.
3. Your attacker is lightly clothed, or even better, naked.
4. Your attacker is the same size or smaller as the average male (about 19" shoulder to shoulder and about 9" front to back)
5. Your attacker is facing you with his hands out to the sides providing an unobstructed center mass shot.

If any of those conditions change, 12ga #6 birdshot loses a lot of effectiveness. You've made a choice to limit the potential liability by limiting the effectiveness of the firearm to a fairly narrow range so you don't have to worry as much about shoot or don't shoot decisions in a high-stress scenario. That is certainly one way to approach the problem. However, I would submit that making the firearm more effective, getting training, and utilizing a little prior planning to identify safe backgrounds and no-shoot backgrounds gives you more options and ultimately makes your family safer by being more likely to stop the threat that made you decide that firing a gun inside the house was less dangerous than not firing to begin with.

 

[markj]

A very small percentage of people continue to insist that bird shot is adequate for defense. Although they have no evidence to support their claims.

I know 2 guys shot themselves wit ha shotgun and both are alive now. Both shot themselves over a gal too (not the same gal) both hit the stomach area wit hthe barrel close to their body both used 6 shot.

I prefer buckshot or at the very least number 2 plated goose shot.

 

[Roman556]

The PDX1 Defender 1oz Slug looks nice. Problem is you are limited to a single projectile in a high stress situation. My jury is still out on it, and I will need to play with it to decide. Until then the standard PDX1 Disks/buck are my option.

Here is the PDX1 Defender slug being tested a few days ago at SHOT with Rob Pincus and Winchester

http://youtu.be/v1PCBOzgD8c

 

[shurshot]

I agree that Buckshot or slugs has a better chance of stopping a bad guy, as oppossed to birdshot... no dispute here guys. However, to read many of your posts, you make birdshot at close range sound as effective as a Crosman BB gun. Anyone who has fired birdshot at targets at close range (under 7 yards), be they water jugs, lumber, foxes, turkeys or woodchucks, understands how lethal birdshot is, and while it won't penetrate like buckshot or slugs, it is nowhere near as weak and ineffective as some on here are saying. This makes a few of us wonder, given some of the high posts counts that some of you have racked up in such a short amount of time, if perhaps too much time is spent on the internet and not nearly enough on the gun range. ?? Books and numbers are great for armchair commandos, but getting outside and testing the rounds yourself is much more fun, educational and reality based. Just saying...LOL! Load what you will. Be safe.

 

[nate45]

I agree that Buckshot or slugs has a better chance of stopping a bad guy, as oppossed to birdshot... no dispute here guys.

So then why not use and advocate the use of, the indisputably more effective loading?

However, to read many of your posts, you make birdshot at close range sound as effective as a Crosman BB gun.

Interesting impression you gathered. When I reread the posts in this thread I can't find anything even close to suggesting that.

Book and numbers are great for armchair commandos, but getting outside and testing the rounds yourself is more fun and reality based. Just saying...LOL! Load what you will. Be safe.

You ever tested birdshot on a drugged up, psycho home invader?

You ever hunted 150-400 pound wild boar with birdshot?

Ever killed a deer with birdshot?

Didn't think so.

Read,or reread post #46 Bart does a good job of laying the facts out.

 

[Buzzcook]

As I mentioned on another thread I have goose shot in my bed side shotgun.

It's a 2 3/4 1oz lead BB load that gets about 1200fps.

Can't use the lead around here for geese anymore and I do think shot of that size at that speed will reliably put holes in things.

I'd be hesitant about using any smaller shot and certainly at any slower speed.

 

[LockedBreech]

I load my Remington 870 Express Tactical with Hornady's 2 & 3/4" TAP 00 Buckshot load, and store it safety off, fired on an empty chamber with 6 in the tube.

 

[shurshot]

Nate45, to answer your close ended questions;

I have been fortunate never to have had anyone break in. So no on your hypothetical "drugged up, psycho, home invader" question.

The only wild boar I ever killed was with an old Bear Kodiak Hunter recurve and a 2 bladed broadhead. However, at 3-7 yards, out of my full choke 12 Ga, I'll bet #6 shot in the head, if not lethal, would at least stagger or slow down a wild boar long enough to get a 2nd or 3rd shot into it.

And although I have never killed a deer with birdshot and would not attempt it, as it is unethical and not to mention illegal, I know someone who did, a few decades ago. A head shot w/#6 shot, full choke 20 Ga., out of a treestand. Range was close, less than 20'. Forgot his Buckshot, grabbed birdshot by accident, already in the woods when he realized his error.

*I can't wait to see him and tell him that the Internet gun gurus have spoken and that there was no way he could kill a deer with birdshot even at close range...LOL! He will get a kick out of that. How did he ever get by without Net experts back in the day? How the hell did Wild Bill Hickok get by for as long as he did with those weak, ineffective .36 cap and ball Colts?

Why don't I advocate the use of, or use Buckshot? Thin walls, family members and the windmill of civil litigation that will surely follow, if God forbid I am ever forced to defend myself and or family. And, as I thought I spelled out... I am comfortable at VERY CLOSE RANGE, 3-7 yards or LESS, with a load or two of birdshot to STOP any threat, without going though walls and endangering others..

Bart did a great job of repeating others research findings and brings up some good points of his own, and I don't dispute the numbers. If I lived alone, and didn't worry about neighbors and civil litigation, I would use buckshot, as it is a superior round for self defense. But as I don't live alone, and despite your highly subjective statement "birdshot is inadequate for defense.", I think I'll just stick to #6 high brass, the same load I use for Turkeys, in my Turkey gun.

 

[Moyer]

If you think that is my argument, you misunderstand me. As I recall, the argument was "there is not a commonly sold 12ga round that will not drop a man with a center mass shot.".

Please read the the sentence of mine that you actually quoted when you started arguing with me. It reads 6ft.

I completely agree that most people reading this forum would be much better off with buckshot. It depends though on how big of a place you live in, who you live with, how close your neighbors are, etc.

I live in a small apartment as part of a large apartment building (as I previously stated). Three out of four of my outside walls, as well as my ceiling, have innocent people on the other side of them. When I go to sleep at night, there's less than 8ft between my feet and the bedroom door and another 10ft between that door and the front door. If I don't kill an intruder with #6 shot in my apartment, it's because I missed.

 

[shurshot]

Moyer, with only 8 posts, you make more sense than a few that have racked up THOUSANDS of posts...LOL!

Thanks Al-Gore, for inventing the Net and bringing all these armchair Gun experts together online!!!! I just wish some spent half as much time SHOOTING as they do reading and posting advice!

 

[Willie Lowman]

Shurshot, that just means he has thousands of posts where he can doesn't have to say anything of value!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Please read the the sentence of mine that you actually quoted when you started arguing with me. It reads 6ft.

Yes, and in the examples I gave you, at least one of those was a 12ga at 6ft and it not only didn't stop the attacker; but the attacker shot and killed the man who shot him, despite being blind in one eye. My point being, there is nothing handheld that will guarantee a stop with a single center mass shot - and load does matter.

It is your choice to load what you want. I just want people to understand that birdshot has serious limitations.

 

[nate45]

The problem with telling stories about shooting results and relating feelings about effectiveness; is that there is no way to corroborate it. Thats why penetration tests are important as evidence.

A shallow wound that dosen't reach the vital organs will be ineffective. The reason I used the rethorical questions that I did, is because all of those examples, wild boar, deer and home invader require adequate penetration to reach their vitals.

although I have never killed a deer with birdshot and would not attempt it, as it is unethical and not to mention illegal

Why is it unethical and illegal? It is unethical and illegal because bird shot lacks the penetration and effectivness to kill deer. Just as in lacks the penetration and effectivness to stop determined attackers.


Pro Tip: I could write all sorts of shooting stories and the effects I've seen. Sometimes I do as it relates to the topic. However, there is no way to verify pseudo-anonymous tales.

Here is an example:

Thanks Al-Gore, for inventing the Net and bringing all these armchair Gun experts together online!!!!

Now from that post someone might gather that Al Gore invented the internet, when in fact he did not. "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" In fact he never even said that he did.

Thats why I post links to testing, scientific evidence and articles by well known defense and firearms experts. It corroborates my claims much better than un-sourced anecdotes.

 

[lefteye]

If shot size is irrelevant to "stopping power", as has been implied by some posts, why do different shot sizes even exist? Heck, 7 1/2 is good enough for Canada Geese and bad guys with a .357. Most (maybe all) shot sizes will produce a horrible, but shallow, surface wound on an attacker at 6 feet or 6 yards or whatever - but that is not the objective. THE objective is to STOP the attacker and that may require much greater penetration. As noted previously in this thread, No. 1 buck has been shown to be the best and 00 is (a close) second place. FWIW, I still have several five shell boxes of Peters 2 3/4" Magnum Buckshot, 20 pellets, No. 1 Buck (price tag - $1.59), as well as much more recent production Federal 00 buck.

 

[C0untZer0]

It's the argument that at close ranges, because the pattern hasn't expanded, the load acts like a "column of lead", just like a slug.

But it's not true.

Birdshot, because of its small size, does not have the mass and sectional density to penetrate deeply enough to reliably reach and damage critical blood distribution organs. Although birdshot can destroy a great volume of tissue at close range, the permanent crush cavity is usually less than 6 inches deep, and this is not deep enough to reliably include the heart or great blood vessels of the abdomen. A gruesome, shallow wound in the torso does not guarantee a quick stop, especially if the bad guy is chemically intoxicated or psychotic. If the tissue crushed by the pellets does not include a vital cardiovascular structure there's no reason for it to be an effective wound.

It's been proven to not be true in ballistic gelatin, and real life examples.

The difference between bird shot and buck shot is this.

How buckshot behaves when it comes into contact with a human body is documented in autopsies. How birdshot behaves when it comes into contact with a human body is documented in hospital reports.

#1 Buck or #0 seem to be the best mix of weight and number of projectiles. The pellets are large enough to penetrate to past 12" and numerous enough to cause a lot of tissue damage.

Did I mention that Firearms Tactical Institute did a report on it?

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm


.