Why Shotguns ??

B

BillX

New member
I have just never got it. I know that Scattergun Technologies and Vang make great guns but cripes, when you get done you still have a weapon fairly worthless past 40 yds with buck. What can you do with a shotgun that you can't do with a rifle? A rifle seems so much more versatile especially if the range is longer or if the range suddenly becomes longer. I know you can put slugs in them but then you are switching ammo to certain scenarios. And if you are using slugs why not use a rifle with higher round availablity such as an AR, AK or any other type milita weapon.
Although I do like my LC Smith for pheasants.
I know a combat shotgun is a devastating close range weapon but so are carbines or rifles. Someone explain this to me.

------------------
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats." H.L. Mencken
 
Shotguns are better for:

1. Breaching doors.

2. Hitting moving game like birds, rabbits, etc.

3. For use in areas where rifles are not allowed to hunt large game (e.g., Pennsylvania's special regulations area).

4. For use in areas where handguns and semi-auto battle rifles are virtually outlawed (e.g., NYC, Washington DC).

5. Downrange concerns to innocents. Buckshot and birdshot, with a spherical profile, are aerodynamically inferior to a boat-tailed rifle bullet (or any handgun bullet). They will thus lose energy more rapidly as they travel downrange.

Compare shooting at a goblin at 25 yards with a shotgun loaded with 00 buck versus a rifle in 5.56 NATO. Given that you miss the goblin completely, which gun will cause greater harm to innocents downrange?

Slugs are also aerodynamically inferior to boat-tailed rifle bullets. They are probably effective out to 100-150 meters at the most, but virtually every battle rifle cartridge retains lethal capability far beyond 150 meters.

This is not a discussion of overpenetration, but it could be argued that some shotgun loads are better in terms of overpenetration (e.g., birdshot). That said, as John Farnam notes in his shotgun book, the proper way to address overpenetration concerns is with shot placement, not underpowered ammunition.

6. Looking more "PC" than a AR15 or AK47 in a home defense situation.

HTH,

Justin

------------------
Justin T. Huang, Esq.
late of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania
 
At 20-30 yards, a .223 or 7.62 is gonna go through the BG and through the wall and possibly hit a bystander.

Also, I can't put #8 shot in my AR and go bird huntin this weekend.

Both have their place in different situations.
 
A shotgun is a much more versatile firearm for a variety of purposes. You can load subsonic bird loads, high power slugs, popper loads, midrange buckshot, steel loads for geese, flares, etc. Most shotguns provide more options with different barrels. I can put a 28" on my Remington 870 for clay targets and geese hunting and then the 18" for domestic duties. As well, shotguns are usually cheaper and a little more socially acceptable.

I agree with the comment about each having its place but if asked to choose one it would be the shotgun every time.

[This message has been edited by PJR (edited September 08, 2000).]
 
The shotgun's big advantage in an AS scenario is the massive amount of energy it can dump into a target. Nothing shoulder fired is a sure stopper, but a shotgun comes as close as anything this side of a crew served weapon.

In general usage, the shotgun can be used on everything from woodcock and quail to moose. And, I doubt I've got more than $300 in any of mine, so the economic impact is a little less agonizing.

Finally, imagine you're involved in a shooting.....

"The perp was coming at me and I used my Wingmaster 870 shotgun to defend myself," vs
" so I used my Loudenboomer SP Magnum"....
 
I am sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was talking about using the shotgun in a social situation only. I hunt every season with mine and have taken many species of small game plus deer and a couple coyotes. It is an excellent game getter.

I don't worry about social acceptability. I believe any legal weapon is socially acceptable. At least it is to me. And the perp won't care. IF it is a legal shoot the weapon used shouldn't matter.

------------------
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats." H.L. Mencken
 
BillX- could you restate your question again? I thought I got it on the first post, but after your second post, I don't think I know what you are asking. I'm just interested in your point, but I don't seem to be able see what you are asking.
 
Well Robe,
As they say, If you can't dazzle them with briliance, baffle them with bull**it.

I don't see the need for a combat shotgun except in a few extraordinary circumstances. Then you need to tailor the ammo to the job at hand. It seems to me an AK or AR or FAL, loaded with ball type ammo would be a better "all around" combat, civil disturbance type weapon. Maybe because I live in the boonies but the shotguns limited range is a big factor. In urban areas, maybe, but it seems to me that at ranges of 20 yds a pistol would work as would any of the above rifles.

The shotgun has limited range, limited rounds that the rifles mentioned does not. I just don't see the need for a social shotgun. A rifle will do far more generally and a pistol would be better (more compact) for house clearing.

I am probably wrong but I just don't get it. I understand that a shotgun dumps a lot of energy into a close target but a .308 will also.

------------------
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats." H.L. Mencken
 
Just think of guns as tools. You said yourself at close range a shotgun is devistating. You don't use a flathead screwdriver to tighten a philips head screw. (most people don't) The shotgun is a tool. It has its purpose for a defined situation. For my self that is home defense. I will never need the range a rifle can offer, for home defense. At close range a shotgun kicks butt. In my opinion it is the tool I want for my given situation. Some of your questions make sense, about switching ammo, this is just extending the possible range of the gun. I agree, if you need a rifle get a rifle. By being able to just change ammo and change the range of the gun is a very handy thing in a pinch. I think this shows how you can get more out of a shotgun than you can with any other type of gun.

curious
 
BillX said: "I believe any legal weapon is socially acceptable. At least it is to me. And the perp won't care. IF it is a legal shoot the weapon used shouldn't matter."

Well, I agree it "shouldn't" matter. But the fact is, in many jurisdictions, it WILL matter. That isn't right, but it's the truth. Here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, even if you are in the right, you can expect to go before the grand jury, which will be made up of anti-gun people. Most likely, you will go to a criminal trial and then to a civil trial. If you used a tricked out M4, with surefire light, ACOG sight, etc., I can just hear the assistant district attorney: "The defendant set a trap for the deceased, using military equipment so powerful that not even police officers are allowed to use, yadda, yadda, yadda. He used this automatic assault weapon to execute a teenage boy..."

Thanks, but I'll take a 12 guage pump instead. Besides, it's more effective than .223 at close range anyways. Regarding long range, I can't envision a defensive scenario here in the suburbs that would require long range -- my house isn't that big. And if I'm outside and the bad guy is 50 yards away, I'm runnin' not fightin.

M1911
 
I think what makes the shotgun so useful is its versatility. With a shotgun you can tailor the ammo to meet almost any need.

What other weapon can you use to stop bear, deer, rats, snakes, birds. You can shoot through door locks, propel a rope with some of the boating accessories. You can shoot slugs, buckshot, birdshot, bird bombs, flame-thrower etc.

You can change barrels. They are allowed in cities like Chicago, NY and DC where they ban everything else.

You can stop anything within 100 yards. Beyond that and I’m going to hunker down and they will have to come and get me.

The big drawback of course is the sickening recoil. I’m working on that. I don’t see why this thing can’t be tamed. If I can get the recoil down to about a 30.06, then I will be happy.

Shotguns are going to become the hip weapon before long.
 
As to energy dump of a shotgun vs a rifle, the maximum muzzle energy developed by a shotgun is 3200 ftlbs with 2 1/4oz at 1210 ft/sec (this with either 12gauge or 10gauge 3 1/2" loads). A magnum rifle in 7mm or 300 may beat that IF it did not exit.

More typical 12 gauge loads of 1 7/8oz of birdshot or fifteen 00 buck pellets at 1210 fps delivers 2650 ft lbs of muzzle energy. This is in the same range as 308 and 270 Win. and slightly below the 30-06 (again IF the rifle bullet does not exit).

But realistically, I agree with Dave that the actual dump of the shotgun in a human sized target is likely higher than a rifle because only the most rapidly expanding bullets will dump all their energy into such a thin target (at least compared to shoulder to shoulder shot of a deer or elk).

P.S. the above is also why the felt recoil of my heavy SxS 10gauge is less than my lighter 30-06. Thus those who make remarks about the brutal recoil of a 10 gauge have not tried one or, if they have, it was one of the lighter singles. Even then, they should be no worse than the typical (30-06 or 7mm magnum elk rifle).
 
Guys, a coupla things....

First, if you uncork a 12 ga inside a house in a HD situation, you may possibly have some hearing left after the dust settles. With a .223, 7.62X39, etc, you could be on the stage at a Greatful Dead concert and not hear squat.

I'm not letting the Stopping Power Genie out of the bottle, but the fact that perps shot with shotguns RARELY seem to need reshooting appeals to my sense of rightness.

Also, I've done courses of fire with my pet GM in 45 ACP and did them again with an 870. Times and scores are roughly the same except there's lots more holes in the shotgun targets.LOTS more....

While I recognise the fact that plenty of folks dislike the kick, fewer folks seem willing to learn how to deal with same. Good form, good stock fit, and reasonable gun and load weight plus practice clears that'un up PDQ.

Each of us here has his/her own set of abilities and opinions. I like the shotgun because, under certain circumstances of range and target, I'm deadly with it, to the right persons.

And to each his/her own,if something else seems to be the best choice, so be it. Ain't no Tablets of Stone here....
 
The attitude that 'all legal weapons are okay' (to paraphrase Bill) while morally and philosophically correct is an example of foolishly disregarding reality.

The reality of our existance is that we live in a world of gun-grabbers, soccer moms and damnfools, and more likely than not a substantial percentage of your jury will be made up of one of the abovelisted categories.

If you get involved in a shooting you have three fights to survive:

The first is the actual fight- the one where arguments such as 'better to be judged by 12 than carried by six' apply. IMO a shotgun- just a plain old shotgun without tactical addons and lethal surekill whozeewhatsits- is perfectly viable. The shotgun that rides in my car on duty has no sidesaddle, no weapon light, no pistol grip, no bayonet lug, no special sights. I feel perfectly fine using it. Any increased capabilities from tacitcal gizmos would be marginal. And certainly a battle or assault rifle would be at best marginally better. At best.

The second fight is the criminal legal battle. Logic, sense and the rule of law often pervail here, but with lawyers and politicians there are no sure bets. Little things can and do make big differences. And if the cops are required to present the facts to a grand jury regardless of the priopriety of your actions (this is the case in some jurisdictions), the decision of whether or not you will become a defendant in a criminal trial is in the hands of a dozen or so people too stupid to avoid jury duty. Think about that. Best not to give them ANY reason to think your gun was 'mean looking' or an 'assault weapon.' Yes, I know its crazy. But its reality.

The third fight is the civil wrongful death suit that can be filed by the family of the (hopefully) dearly departed. Don't think it doesn't happen. Suits have been filed on perfectly good shootings...yes, we know Uncle Joe shouldn't have been busting into your place and threatening you with a Raven Arms .22 pistol, but you didn't have to SHOOT him...now give me $50,000. The playing field is different here, too. Civil juries don't need unanimity to award damages, and juries do some really truly utterly brain-dead things when they are tossing around someone else's money. How many Rosie O'Donnel brain-dead soccer moms and sissyboys are gonna be deciding the fate of your family's money? All it takes is one or two on that jury and a few more people who really don't care or want to argue and the majority of the twelve benighted souls sitting in judgement over you will decide that yes, even though Uncle Joe was a crackhead, and he was threatening to kill you, you really shouldn't have perforated him with your evil ugly M-16 army-like rifle-thing, and you really shouldn't be so mean and stuff, and you should visualize world peace while you sell your house to pay off his aggrieved relatives...because Uncle Joe was GETTING HIS LIFE TOGETHER before it was tragically ended by this right wing militia member (thats you, in case you didn't figure that out).

Is it stupid? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it reality? Yes.

And reality has a nasty way of clobbering people who do not pay attention to it.


*rant mode off* ;)

Mike


[This message has been edited by Coronach (edited September 09, 2000).]
 
"I am probably wrong but I just don't get it. I understand that a shotgun dumps a lot of energy into a close target but a .308 will also."

Generally a .308 will not dump all its energy into the target that you described at close range, it will go right through the target and dump its energy into a barrier elsewhere (do you know where that is?). The energy of a rifle round is concentrated on one small point, the shotguns energy is dispersed through multiple projectiles in the case of a shot load. Given the limited distances of the home defense scenario, the shotgun is ideal, The .308 round as employed in a civilian defense situation within close quarters in house defense is not.
 
There seem to be some misconceptions that need to be cleared up.

A shotgun is indeed an awesome weapon, but talking about dumping energy into targets isn't valid when you're talking rifle round vs. shotgun slugs vs. shot. A rifle round damages from sheer velocity in many cases. The wound channel from the bullet is no more than a handgun round but the velocity at which is travels does some bad things to surrounding tissue. A shotgun slug can do much the same, though they have the same overpenetration problems that a rifle round might. Any size of shot has a further problem. At best, with 00 buck, you are getting the same effect on a person as shooting them several times with roughly the same location (depending on shot pattern) with a .380. How many people think that the .380 is an effective manstopper? I thought so. An aimed .380 can be, but shooting someone with one multiple times at random (sort of) might or might not be. The fact is, MANY people shot with 00 buck keep moving and fighting. Multiple hits with 00 buck do much better, but the same can be said for anything that you hit someone with.

I know many people think that the shotgun is the ultimate weapon. I used to be in awe of it, myself, until I really started looking at what it could and could not do. After that, I got rid of my Benelli (though I really regret it, now...I loved that shotgun) and use an AR as the "home defense long gun." Why? Ease of control, magazine capacity, weight. The round is perfectly capable of stopping an intruder. Overpenetration? Yes, perhaps. Like ANY gun that you use, you have to be sure of your target and try to be sure and HIT it and not miss. I have no fear of hurting my family or neighbors with it if it were ever to be used and I feel much better with it than with a shotgun.

I'm not knocking the shotgun, though, please don't assume that. A shotgun is a great weapon but, like ANY weapon, it has its limitations.

To leave you with a little story...

One of my two best friends is on a police raid team. He carries a shotgun (Benelli M1S90) on raids. He was amazed by what it would do on paper and to the paint on steel targets and was confident that it would serve him well in a defensive situation. He carried 00 buck in it with a few slugs on his vest for tactical reloads. On a raid one night, a man refused to surrender to him as he entered a room and actually charged him with a knife in hand. A double-tap to the chest from less than 20 feet with 00 buck didn't stop the guy or slow him down AT ALL. Fortunately, the man stumbled on some furniture and my friend had another shot. For whatever reason, he didn't do anything like a Mozambique drill and shoot for the head but rather shot the man twice in the pelvis from about 10 feet away. The guy was still WANTING to get to him, but the shredded muscle wouldn't ALLOW him to do so. Standing on his back while the EMS came kept him from kicking around much and he was saved (too bad) and is now out of prison. Four hits with 00 buck on a man who was NOT on drugs stopped him only because he couldn't move...not because he was down for the count. My friend still carries a shotgun on raids but he is now more realistic about what ANY weapon can or cannot do to the human body.

Keep in mind that there are NO ultimate solutions.
 
Let me get this straight,hdm25. A perp took four loads of 00 at close to contact ranges and is still breathing? Nothing is certain when it comes to stopping, but the track record of shotguns runs as good as it gets.

Forensic surgeons call shotgun wounds "Bloody ratholes".

In 20 years of working in some of Md's prisons I ran across exactly two that had survived shotgun wounds, neither was good for much.One is a wheelchair case, t'other slowly starved to death on a 5000 cal/day diet.No intestines left. OTOH, every other convict, it seemed, had been shot with a handgun. Most were too damn healthy.
 
There's familiarity also. While I've shot everything this side of crew served, a very large part of my recreational shooting is with shotguns of all types. Mostly I hunt deer in a shotgun only area, get in a little snow goose and dove, occasionally a turkey, shoot informal trap and clays, and find myself holding a shotgun frequently.And, the HD 870 is a gun I've shot for close to 40 years, it feels like a body part and not a well known tool.

No doubt I'd be effective with other choices, just not AS effective under certain conditions.
 
Crowslayer: I would hope never to have to choose what to be shot by, but your options are difficult. At 45 feet, I don't really think the .308 would be my choice, though. The shotgun wouldn't be pleasant, either, but it would depend on the load. Either would depend on where you were hit. An employee of mine was shot twice in the chest and once in the arm with an AK and lived to tell about it with very little impairment (lost a small part of a lung and a tiny bit of use of the right arm, though you could never tell it from watching him). Admittedly, the 7.62x39 is weaker than 7.62x51, but it's still some major wounding. If you were clearer on what weapon was being used, I could tell you more of my opinion. A man shooting at me from 45 feet with an 870 scares me (marginally) less than a man with an M1A shooting at me from 45 feet. It's really a moot point, overall. I don't want anyone shooting at me.

Dave: The text of the story tells it all. I don't have 20 years of looking around the prison system, but I know personally one guy who has lived through being shot with a shotgun (slug in the abdomen...from his brother, no less) and OF one who survived being shot with 00 buck (in the story I told above). I know of only one man (the employee from above) personally who has lived through being shot with a rifle caliber of any size in the trunk (I know of at least three others who were shot in an arm...all in Vietnam and all from AKs). I know two who have been shot with handguns and live with absolutely no impairment of any sort but we all know (or should) that any handgun caliber is a piss-poor manstopper.

In any case, anyone who believes that they carry in their hands an invincible weapon when they are holding a shotgun (or anything else) should seriously reconsider. The human body can take an awful lot of punishment before shutting down. I know a lot of people who have gotten into the whole "tactical training" hobby who are going to be in trouble if they are really confronted by a life or death situation. We should all take a look at what the effects of our weapons might be in addition to training and competing with them before assuming that they have the effects that are shown in the movies (I actually had one employee lie to me about seeing a guy shot with a 9mm handgun who was flung bodily ten feet backwards by the one shot...I don't think that he had ever heard of Newton's laws).

Have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top