Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Lately, I've read several posts where TFL members have mentioned loading several rounds of less-lethal rubber buckshot as the first rounds in their shotgun in order to defend their home against intruders.
This strikes me as a remarkably bad idea for a number of reasons. I am going to explain my reasoning here and hopefully, TFL can educate me on when and where (if ever) rubber buckshot might be appropriate for home defense.
1. The first issue is that many people mistakenly believe these rounds are "less than lethal" but in fact, they can and have caused deaths - particularly at close ranges. In the above linked study, the chance of serious injury from a less lethal projectile increases significantly as the range becomes less then 10'.
As a result, in many states, the law for using "less lethal" ammunition such as rubber buckshot is the same as 5he law for using buckshot or other lethal ammunition - you must have a reasonable belief that you face an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury from your attacker/intruder.
So right away, my first problem is that you are almost always using the wrong tool for the task when you load rubber buckshot. If there is no imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, you shouldn't be using a tool (shotgun) that causes that.
If there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury, then using a load that has limited effectiveness is probably not a real good idea given the seriousnesss of the consequences.
2. My second problem is that less-lethal rounds were never envisioned in the home defense role.
The National Institute of Justice study linked above recommends that law enforcement officers employing less-lethal munitions be backed up by officers with lethal force. In short, they recommend that less-lethal munitions are appropriate when used by groups of trained people wearing body armor and backed up by lethal force
Now, maybe your home defense plan is different than mine; but realistically, I don't see many gunowners using the NIJ recommended procedures and training.
3. My third problem is loading with one or two rounds of rubber buckshot assumes you will have the time necessary to escalate to more serious ammo if your first shot is ineffective.
In the force-on-force training I've done, people are remarkably reluctant to stand there like a B-27 silhouette and let you shoot at them repeatedly. Usually things are fairly dynamic - they are moving and shooting, you are moving and shooting. If they aren't moving, it is usually because they are hiding behind something that will block your shots.
To give an example, not too long ago I read here a firsthand account of a home invasion in Houston where intruders had enetered the man's two story home and were moving down the 2nd floor hallway. The man barricaded himself in the bedroom and announced he was armed and had called police. The intruders responded by firing randomly through the wall. At this point, the man decided he had to go out into the hallway to deal with the problem. He stepped out into the dark hallway and identified the first threat. He used a weapon mounted flashlight which caused the man to stop shooting and raise his pistol to shade his eyes. He shot that man. He then noticed a second man firing at him and changed his position and lit up, ID'd and shot the second man. Unfortunately, during the process he was shot in the abdomen as well. On the bright side, the non-rubber buckshot (assisted by the considerable amount of time he had spent training with the shotgun) ended both threats with a single shot.
When I think of that scenario, I don't think "I bet that guy wishes he had rubber buckshot loaded for the first two rounds."
So I am admittedly biased against this practice. I think it is a misapplication of the tool. So why do people do it?
This strikes me as a remarkably bad idea for a number of reasons. I am going to explain my reasoning here and hopefully, TFL can educate me on when and where (if ever) rubber buckshot might be appropriate for home defense.
1. The first issue is that many people mistakenly believe these rounds are "less than lethal" but in fact, they can and have caused deaths - particularly at close ranges. In the above linked study, the chance of serious injury from a less lethal projectile increases significantly as the range becomes less then 10'.
As a result, in many states, the law for using "less lethal" ammunition such as rubber buckshot is the same as 5he law for using buckshot or other lethal ammunition - you must have a reasonable belief that you face an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury from your attacker/intruder.
So right away, my first problem is that you are almost always using the wrong tool for the task when you load rubber buckshot. If there is no imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, you shouldn't be using a tool (shotgun) that causes that.
If there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury, then using a load that has limited effectiveness is probably not a real good idea given the seriousnesss of the consequences.
2. My second problem is that less-lethal rounds were never envisioned in the home defense role.
The National Institute of Justice study linked above recommends that law enforcement officers employing less-lethal munitions be backed up by officers with lethal force. In short, they recommend that less-lethal munitions are appropriate when used by groups of trained people wearing body armor and backed up by lethal force
Now, maybe your home defense plan is different than mine; but realistically, I don't see many gunowners using the NIJ recommended procedures and training.
3. My third problem is loading with one or two rounds of rubber buckshot assumes you will have the time necessary to escalate to more serious ammo if your first shot is ineffective.
In the force-on-force training I've done, people are remarkably reluctant to stand there like a B-27 silhouette and let you shoot at them repeatedly. Usually things are fairly dynamic - they are moving and shooting, you are moving and shooting. If they aren't moving, it is usually because they are hiding behind something that will block your shots.
To give an example, not too long ago I read here a firsthand account of a home invasion in Houston where intruders had enetered the man's two story home and were moving down the 2nd floor hallway. The man barricaded himself in the bedroom and announced he was armed and had called police. The intruders responded by firing randomly through the wall. At this point, the man decided he had to go out into the hallway to deal with the problem. He stepped out into the dark hallway and identified the first threat. He used a weapon mounted flashlight which caused the man to stop shooting and raise his pistol to shade his eyes. He shot that man. He then noticed a second man firing at him and changed his position and lit up, ID'd and shot the second man. Unfortunately, during the process he was shot in the abdomen as well. On the bright side, the non-rubber buckshot (assisted by the considerable amount of time he had spent training with the shotgun) ended both threats with a single shot.
When I think of that scenario, I don't think "I bet that guy wishes he had rubber buckshot loaded for the first two rounds."
So I am admittedly biased against this practice. I think it is a misapplication of the tool. So why do people do it?
