What 12gauge load for HD?

[Nnobby45]

#6 birdshot. The same as you hunt bunnys with. It won't go through a wall and hurt a neighbor or family member in the same manner a slug or Buckshot will.
If you have any doubts about birdshot, go fire a shell or two into a gallon jug filled with water at 7 yards or less. Buck and slugs are TOO powerful to use inside your home. Birdshot is fine. Test it.

Being in awe of a burst water jug doesn't amount to a test.

I've "tested" #6 birdshot on many a bird and a few bunnies. Typically it doesn't penetrate the rabbit, and is often found under the skin of a bird the size of a chukar or even quail.

It's rather amusing that some would choose their HD shotgun load on how unlikely it is to harm a family member without much consideration that it's also less likely to injure Bubba the home invader and his friends.

YES, for cryin' out load, if the range is so close that the shot basically amounts to a single projectile, it can be deadly. But to choose a load that has no penetrating ability once the pattern starts to spread is a little silly.

 

[Tightwad]

Here is what we use:

12 Gauge - 2 3/4" Standard Velocity #1 Buckshot

20 Gauge - 2 3/4" Standard Velocity #3 Buckshot

I use the 12 Gauge and my Mom and Little Sister use the 20 Gauges.

PS Im comfortable with those choices when it comes to recoil, penetration and pellet count.

 

[Moyer]

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.

Really? Which link was that? Was the shot straight in front or from the side?

 

[Moyer]

I've "tested" #6 birdshot on many a bird and a few bunnies. Typically it doesn't penetrate the rabbit, and is often found under the skin of a bird the size of a chukar or even quail.

And yet, at less than 10ft, it blows them in half.

 

[shurshot]

Moyer, I gave up. With all due respect, I suggest you do the same. We keep repeating birdshot is lethal @ short distance, living room distance... and they keep twisting facts, taking our statements out of context, etc. There doesn't appear to be many real hunters or experienced Law Enforcement Officers on here, or folks who shoot often (if at all), but MANY who read, have some knowledge of the facts and then post advice loaded with hypothetical "what if's" and subjective observations, questions and scenarios, based upon other peoples research and data.

I doubt there are many humans out there, drugged or not, who could stand a full load or two of #6 in the chest / neck / face area at 10 feet, and still be much of threat. Obviously, there are quite a few who disagree and feel a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with birdshot (even at 10 feet), it is "inadequate".

Water finds its own level...

 

[C0untZer0]

I'd like to hear from an experienced law enforcement officer whose department issued #6 shot to stop burglars, home invaders, bank robbers, escaped convicts and other assorted felons.

 

[hangglider]

What difference does it make? If someone elects to choose a lower-powered birdshot shell because of liability concerns to his neighbors--that's their choice to make--even if it may or may not be a zombie-killer on first trigger pull.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I doubt there are many humans out there, drugged or not, who could stand a full load or two of #6 in the chest / neck / face area at 10 feet, and still be much of threat.

I can't say how many are out there; but they are out there - and however many they are, the number who can stand a full load of buck is even fewer.

Everybody has to assess their own risk, I think the risk of having a running firefight in my home where only one of us (and it isn't me) has cover is a more serious risk to neighbors and family than using more penetrative loads. Others may make different risk assessments; but they should understand what those risks are rather than kidding themselves that a shotgun is a death ray regardless of what it is loaded with.

 

[HALLAUSTIN]

Well, yes birdshot can be lethal, especially at close distance. NOT debatable. But I do NOT care about the whole over penetration deal. Never seen anything in 12gauge 3inch that would go through my interior walls and then the block, then brick exterior walls..

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I'd like to hear from an experienced law enforcement officer whose department issued #6 shot to stop burglars, home invaders, bank robbers, escaped convicts and other assorted felons.

As would I, or even one that recommends it be used if any type of buck is also available.

 

[nate45]

#6 birdshot. The same as you hunt bunnys with. It won't go through a wall and hurt a neighbor or family member in the same manner a slug or Buckshot will.
If you have any doubts about birdshot, go fire a shell or two into a gallon jug filled with water at 7 yards or less. Buck and slugs are TOO powerful to use inside your home. Birdshot is fine. Test it.

How do you know what size shot the readers here use to hunt rabbits with?

So, #6 birdshot lacks the the penetration to go through walls, but it will still go through clothing, ribs and human flesh and reach the heart and spine? Will it also penetrate a skull and reach the human brain? Its some amazing stuff if it can do that and still not penetrate drywall.

I never knew that shooting a gallon jug of water, was a definitive scientific ballistics test that proved terminal effectiveness. Do you have any independent evidence to support that theory?

Buckshot and slugs are TOO powerful for use inside the home? According to whom and based on what evidence? Was it more water jug testing, or did you shoot a tree, or a scrap piece of plywood to reach that conclusion?

Birdshot is fine. Test it. Fine for what shooting rabbits and water jugs? Birdshot has been tested, on ballistic gelatin, the industry standard and it was found to be lacking for defense.

Hey, use slugs, buckshot, a .308, .300 Magnum, hell, use a grenade if you will.

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

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.

You're concered about overpenetration thats understandable, many people are. However, the truth of the matter is, that any rifle, handgun, or shotgun round that is capable of penetrating deep enough to reach the vitals i.e. the heart, aorta, and CNS has the ability to penetrate walls. The surest way to avoid penetrating walls is to hit ones target.

Again, shooting small animals and plastic jugs filled with water, does not prove that birdshot is effective for, or wise to use, for defense. It is analogous to shooting a water jug with a high powered rifle varmint bullet and declaring it adequate for defense against grizzly bears, because it makes a big explosion. It might work, if thats all one had, but I don't think many people would recommend it as a preferred loading.

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.

A common theme through out your posts in this thread, has been to impugn the credibility, character and experience of those who disagree with you. It is what is known as, an ad hominem attack. You've stated your doubts about our field shooting experience, whether or not we are real hunters, or real LEOs, etc. You know I suppose its true, I might be an inexperienced teenage boy, or a twelve year old french girl with a firearms fetish. Since I chose to remain pseudo-anonymous on this site, who's to say for certain?

However, that fact cuts both ways shurshot. How do any of us know you have ever shot anything with a shotgun? We don't, we only have your posts to go on. No one, myself included has said you didn't shoot the things you claim to have. What, at least what I'm saying, is that rabbits, water jugs and enraged chipmunks, do not equal scientific evidence. They also do not equal after shooting reports, autopsies, etc. Your theories on birdshot also aren't in accord with the advice of the vast majority of self defense experts. Which is why I link to independent sources.

The reason I and many others take the trouble to refute the assertion that birdshot is good for defense; is not for love of debating, or winning an internet argument. It is because many uninformed people read The Firing Line in search of informed, fact based information regarding self defense. What loading those people ultimately choose to use for self defense could lead to life or death consequences.

No one in this thread ever claimed birdshot did not have the potential to be lethal. No one claimed it was impossible to defend one's self with a shotgun loaded with birdshot.

What was and is claimed, is that ballistic testing, medical and autopsy reports as well as the advice of ballistic and self defense experts all agree; buckshot and slugs are preferred and recommended for defense.

TL;DR see above sentence

 

[Moyer]

I can't say how many are out there; but they are out there - and however many they are, the number who can stand a full load of buck is even fewer.

Haha. You just realized you posted BS links before so you post a youtube video and another broken link? How's that for scientific?! Check out the pellet spread on that poor kid's x-ray in the video. Tell me how far away you think the barrel was.

 

[Moyer]

So, #6 birdshot lacks the the penetration to go through walls, but it will still go through clothing, ribs and human flesh and reach the heart and spine?

Obviously it will still blow through a wall at close range. It's just less likely to keep deadly velocity after going through the other side (and continuing through more walls after that).

Buckshot and slugs are TOO powerful for use inside the home? According to whom and based on what evidence? Was it more water jug testing, or did you shoot a tree, or a scrap piece of plywood to reach that conclusion?

Do you seriously think 12ga slugs & 00 buck are not powerful enough to go through insulation and 2 little layers of drywall at close range and hurt someone on the side? Have you ever shot a 12ga at anything at close range? Ever?

 

[nate45]

Why are you worried about shooting through a wall Moyer?

According to you everything inside your place will be ten feet or less.

Are you afraid you will completely miss from less than four yards with a shotgun?


Why don't you name some effective, recommended defense cartridges for rifle, pistol, or shotgun that aren't capable of shooting through two sheets of drywall?

I suppose if someone lives in a cracker box with exterior wall made out of sheet rock and surrounded by nuns and hemophiliac orphans, maybe no firearm at all is the best choice.

 

[shurshot]

NATE45 (you cute little french girl, you ) and the rest of your anti-Bird shot clan... I surrender, I was wrong. You guys ARE right about effective loads for self defense. How could I have been SO foolish to trust birdshot at 10 feet? (PSsst! Moyer, just play along!)

After all, NO police agency issues Birdshot! You are correct guys. Police encounter various ranges of conflict (perhaps even 100 yards or more) and situations, domestic disputes, armed standoffs, moving vehicles, Riots, Robberys, Burglarys, etc. I only wanted stopping power at 10 feet or so in my living room, without any danger of the buckshot or slugs going through the perp, a wall and hitting anyone else, hence my narrow minded choice of #6 shot. What ever possessed me to think that a load of birdshot at 10 feet, out of my tight choked 12 Ga Turkey gun, could be a fight stopper?

I think I read an article (BIG MISTAKE), a few years ago by a firearms defensive trainer, a Clint something or other, (Smith?), in "GUNS" Magazine.. and he advocated using hunting shotguns (duck, turkey, etc.) and birdshot, for home defense. Perhaps this was where the idea took root in my head, as he outlined some very positive points about the birdshot and hunting shotgun for home defense, due to the very short range and penetration concerns. I remember testing the #6 shot on lumber at 10 feet after reading the article, and it looked like it would do the trick. After reading this thread, boy was I (and Clint) wrong. I'm going to write to Clint, and tell him that the TRUTH is on the internet, not in his published articles. I plan to tell him, the internet experts say only use BUCKSHOT! The Nerve of that guy to write about Birdshot! Just because he is a certified firearms self defense trainer with combat experience who wrote a monthly colum for GUNS Magazine, which has only been around since the 1950's. Birdshot...! He is as bad as that Ayoob suggesting 5 shot snub .38's are OK for concealed carry!

You guys have instructed me, corrected me, in the fine art of Internet Combat skills and Armchair Mall Ninja defense tactics and the need for POWER!! I am putting away my shotgun until Turkey season. No birdshot. In fact, I had NO IDEA that there are bad guys out there running around that can take a load of #6 birdshot in the face @ under 10 feet and keep going! Scary stuff my friends! In fact, no buckshot either! I dug around in the barn, under the floor boards and found my old box of "SHTF" toys and I'm loading up for ZOMBIES, thanks to the advice I got here in the last 24 hours! I'm done with shotguns, to hell with over penetration concerns! Look out family, look out neighbors! Lock and Load Boys... Shurshot has seen the light! Praise be to the online gun gurus! I'm going TACTICAL!!!!!!! Hardball or No Ball!

From now on, it's 7.62 and .45ACP. I'm ready to get full penetration in any blood thirsty Zombies or blocks of aggressive "ballistic gelatin". that might invade my home (I keep reading warnings about that stuff on here. It sounds like they are tough to kill if you only have birdshot, at least according to the test results).

Thanks for the education "Self Defense Experts" and you too "little french girl" Although Nate45, I must say, the way you alude to "Since I chose to remain pseudo-anonymous on this site, who's to say for certain?", we are now wondering if you are CIA, or work at the Gunsite Ranch, ex-Navy Seal, Casey Anthony's Attorney, or perhaps part of some covert, undercover, elite online strike force? You tease us with the possibility of having a 007 clearence, or perhaps you are an industry insider, or, well, who knows... then leave us hanging. No fair. You engage in 2 days of Socratic Dialectic, then tease us with your real identity.?? Do tell, Do Tell!!!!!

Me? I won't leave anyone hanging, alude to Gun Guru status, or play "Guess who". I'm just an old gun guy, no more, no less and obviously not up to date on the latest ballistics test or expert's gun wisdom. After all, who reads GUNS magazine and takes their advice anyhow???

But now, after reading these posts, I'm going TACTICAL guys! RAW POWER AND HIGH CAP CLIPS FROM NOW ON!


(PSssst! Moyer... are you still following along? I'm just trying to get them to ease up. They will dispute ANYTHING we say and take our statements out of context, so why try? Don't worry, I didn't lose it...I'm STILL keeping my #6 birdshot loads handy for my Turkey gun! Don't tell anyone, but I LOVE GUNS magazine and suspect that Clint Smith has forgotton more about firearms than half these guys pretend to know! Some of these are old junker guns I'm going to get rid of. A few of these boys on this forum are hardcore (at least when it comes to giving expert advice online..LOL!), so if they see these pics of "Tactical style stuff", perhaps they will relax, sip a cold one and just chill out as they will think they won... and if not, at least they were able to boost their post counts.. My Turkey gun and birdshot are still fine for the house, and my snub .38 fits in my coat pocket when I leave home).

 

[nate45]

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

I don't dispute the numbers.

I was wrong. You guys ARE right about effective loads for self defense.

/thread

 

[shurshot]

Ok, so my memory being foggy, and after last nights tounge in cheek response, and wanting to provide a serious reply on this thread, I dug around in the barn this morning after putting the SHTF toys away (Damn is it cold in there!), and located the GUNS mag I was speaking of, although I know there were other articles in other issues of the same mag advocating Birdshot for home defense. I hate to defend mysef with other's research, but (insert ad hominem attack...), it appears to be how the self appointed gun experts on this forum get such high post counts and validate their points (as many don't appear to get outside much to shoot), so I guess I'm safe in using another's research to support my statements about birdshot (although not as lethal as buckshot), being OK for home defense at SHORT range. After all, my years of experience in the field with birdshot don't count...right? Or so I'm told... But, I'm not a self appointed internet gun guru, I'm just an old gun guy, so ... I'll use a well known and respected gun writer & self defense trainer / expert's evidence based research and words to make my point.

I won't copy the entire article by Clint Smith, or reprint the photos or test results graphs, due to copyrighting issues and out of respect for Mr. Smith, and I know that many of the armchair self defense "experts" on here will dispute anything stated, no matter by whom (unless of course THEY read it, repeat it and it involves that something "Tactical" or that magical and cool looking "ballistic gelatin".

"GUNS" magazine, April 2005, article called "DUCK GUNS FOR DEFENSE?", page 44, By Clint Smith. And Mr. Smith, a well respected gun writer and seasoned self defense trainer, experimented with various 12 Ga loads in several shotgun barrel lengths and chokes, at 5 yards, and recorded and documented the test results. Shot used in controled 5 yard tests were 00 Buck, #4 B, #6 and & #7 1/2 birdshot.

Mr. Smith, wrote "Even relatively small shot sizes can be devastating at close range, especially from a full choke gun", and "Inside the home, the size of the shot is probably not as important as the placement of the hit on the threat. All of the impacts on test targets hit at room-size ranges varied from rat-hole type wounds to leaving quite a substantial mark, which would be pretty devestating to the recipient".

So Clint Smith, an experienced shooter, firearms self defense trainer and published author / gun writer, advocates that shot placement is a more important factor than shot size, at living room distance. Same thing I learned as a kid growing up in a family of hunters / shooters. IMAGINE THAT...:rolleyes:

And according to many on here, self appointed experts or otherwise (Yes Nate45, be you a young french girl or master spy, an international man of mystery.. you are included, along with Bartholomewl Roberts ), continue to state that birdshot, pertaining to self defense at short range is... "inadequate for self defense"(Nate45), and "birdshot has serious limitations"(Bartholomewl Roberts)....

Foolish Clint Smith, foolish Moyer, foolish me... at least I'm in good company.

 

[Marquezj16]

PDX 12. A slug in the middle and the three buckshots are spread outside of it. Very accurate too.

 

[C0untZer0]

I don't automatically give people credibility just because they run a school, have lectured or are publised authors. The Relative Incapactitaion Index was publshed in American Rifleman - that didn't make it scientifically valid. It was just one man's idea, and it was eventually proven to be an inadequate model for describing how projectiles effect human beings.


Clint's right about shot placement.

He's a little fuzzy on what "devastating" means.

Birdshot from 2 feet away on a cross shot to a home invader's temple is going to produce a very high percentage of stops. No one is saying that birdshot is going to bounce off of someone and that it creates no tissue damage ever under any circumstances.

Many things in life follow a bell curve. In most HD situations the attacker is going to be facing you, while distances are going to be short, most home owners are not going to be pulling the trigger on their assailant at grappling distances.

If you choose to use birdshot - you're banking on a psychological stop. You're going to have an attacker who is physically capable of continuing the attack, but chooses not to because of fear or pain or both.

You might have someone who decides to capitulate, or you might have someone who decides that they're going to pay you back for the pain and start shooting you.

Buckshot is better for home defense than birdshot, and according to the Firearms Tactical Institute, #1 Buck pellets are the smallest pellets that consistently penetrate to the twelve inches or more needed to reach VITAL tissue -and of the loads that contain pellets that penetrate to 12" or more, #1 Buck produces the greatest wounding volume and is also therefore more likely to produce a hard physiological stop.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

Yes, I consider these serious limitations - and I imagine Clint Smith would as well. If you don't, that's your business and your risk to assume.