quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I’m not married to any idea yet but I do mildly scoff at old sayings being passed around as solid fact.

Birdshot is for birds. It may be an old saying, but there's a reason for it.

Birdshot is small pellets. Pellets not meant to penetrate through the bird's feathers and skin. Birds are killed by kinetic energy with a mass of birdshot pellets, not by vital organ penetration. Scoff all you want, but that means you don't know what bird hunting is all about.

Sure but so is “I won’t carry anything that doesn’t start with a 4”. It is a trope and nothing more. Passing it off as some solid science in the short ranged very specific scenario we are talking about is kind of inaccurate/misleading.

Besides which when was the last time you shot a bird at 10 feet? I’m guessing never because it would be a pile of feathers and mush. Yes, at bird hunting range birdshot is for birds. At 10 feet it seems to be more amenable to other victims.

150 #4 or #5 birdshot at 15 feet is a killer I suspect in nearly every case. What I need is that guy in army whatever’s video to dress up some more lunch meat and bbq to test out my theory though. lol.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I’m not married to any idea yet but I do mildly scoff at old sayings being passed around as solid fact.

Y'know, you keep saying that, and it has nothing to do with the thing that every competent shotgunner knows. I've never even heard that trite expression, but you keep saying that all those who are telling you to not make a deadly mistake in home defense are doing nothing but parroting a meaningless expression, without giving it any real thought. Just get off of it. If you don't want to listen to common sense and experience, that's your business. Oh, but I know- you're just pondering this non-issue, thinking out loud, trying to discern the facts, et cetera and so forth.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
It is a trope and nothing more. Passing it off as some solid science in the short ranged very specific scenario we are talking about is kind of inaccurate/misleading.

Then by all means, get out there and do some testing. Provide the world with scientific, non-biased data. Test different shot sizes -- #7-9 shot, #4-6 shot, small buck, large buck. Lead, steel, tungsten, or whatever metal is used in the pellets. Short through long barrels. Cylinder through full choke. Various distances. Through various materials and clothing. Test for penetration. Test for kinetic energy delivered.

And then you can tell us...

quote:

then you definitely need the most technologically advanced teeny little birdshot pellets.

-- per the Big Guy with the picture of a majestic bald eagle

And then maybe -- just maybe -- you can state odds of efficacy for a given firearm configuration, load type, distance to target, clothing type & layers used by the perp, size of the perp, how motivated/high is the perp.

Or maybe one just stacks the odds in their own favor. And leaves birdshot for birds.

Like all things shotgun, it depends on your gun.

I've told the story before about the Moss 500 I keep around the house, I kept some Duplex turkey loads with it. A hot/heavy load of #2's & #6's, going with the "fist of lead" theory.

I don't recall the actual timeline, but I'd probably be embarrassed by how long I kept that load with the gun without actually trying it. Anticipating a slow work day at the range one day, I took it with me. Set up a board and man sized target on the 7 yard pistol range. Let one fly dead center and was horrified to see a spread that covered the whole target. There was no "fist of lead", just a huge sparse pattern that while painful, wouldn't have incapacitated anyone. Maybe blinded them if I was lucky. (it was back to 00 buck in that gun after that)

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Besides which when was the last time you shot a bird at 10 feet? I’m guessing never because it would be a pile of feathers and mush. Yes, at bird hunting range birdshot is for birds. At 10 feet it seems to be more amenable to other victims.

And I'm amused that people would even think a shotgun for HD at 10 feet range is a smart idea. If one lives in such a small apartment or small house that only affords such short distances to take cover and engage an intruder with a long gun or shotgun, IMO they are using the wrong tool. My shotgun strategy in my house is for a static position, with distance from an assailant; in my likely scenario, 30-32' from just beyond my bedroom door behind cover to the front entry way. No way am I tangling with an intruder(s) at real close range unless I have a handgun for mobility, quick movement, and less chance of having my weapon taken away at close engagement ( Tueller Drill)

At 10 feet, I'd much rather use a S&W 29-2 revolver loaded with .44 magnum Hydra-Shok than a shotgun with birdshot. Or realistically, my HD handguns I have on hand.

If it was all you had, sure.

If it’s not all you have, then no.

I use the KISS Principle, you shoot a 9 pellet 00 buck, then a 1oz. slug.

Barrel length, choke, distance, shot size and powder charge. Lots of things that affect what a shotgun will do to living tissue that people who don’t have enough experience killing things with shotguns just can’t appreciate the gravity of. At ten feet, basically anything out of a shotgun is a solid mass. Past that? Things start to change rapidly, again, depending on a lot of variables. What doesn’t change is that .36 caliber pellets out of a shotgun are going to retain more energy at further ranges. I killed a fox with buckshot at about the distance Dick Cheney shot a friend in the face with birdshot.

In watching a bunch of Beretta 1301 videos recently, I ran across this one. Ernest Langdon does a pretty good job demonstrating what I’m talking about, here.

I had a busy weekend and haven't had much time to check in here. I'm sorry this thread escalated the way it did.

I've got a couple of shotguns, a few different chokes, some milk jugs, some drywall, and a bunch of random 12ga shot shells lying around. I think I'd enjoy testing some of this stuff if I get the time later this week or next. I've shot plenty of stuff with buck, bird, and slugs in the past...enough that I think I have a pretty good idea of what it will do...but never with the goal of answering this specific question in mind.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I had no ulterior motive other than hopefully being pointed to more testing on the subject without wading through pages of search results.

Your persistent chase of a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist is futile, it is like trying to figure out how to dig a large hole in the ground with a spoon, disregarding the fact that shovels and backhoes are designed for the task. I cannot begin to understand the deliberate choice of birdshot for HD, just a horrible choice when much better choices designed for the job exist. I have more understanding for someone who chooses .22LR for home defense to drastically reduce felt recoil due to strength issues in hands and upper body, gaining a better chance of hitting target. And it is a caliber the vast majority of gun enthusiasts will discount as a viable H.D. caliber. Birdshot gains nothing, unless it is not a choice, but the one only option available.

quote:

Originally posted by ss9961:
Ammo selection doesn’t matter when it comes to home defense with a pump shotgun.

Simply rack the slide forcefully and the
chack-chack sound will frighten off any and all villains.

Where's ASG with his Chack Chack speech when we need him?! Empty jar of Vaseline and dong a flapping and all.

I wouldn't use birdshot for defense, mainly because that wasn't what it was designed for. It was designed to shoot birds, not people. 00 buck wasn't originally for that, either, but it was since been realized to be an effective load for SD, so now there are dedicated commercial loads of 00 buck made for this purpose. I'm not aware of any bird shot loads made for this.

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
It was designed to shoot birds, not people.

Well, and beyond all that, if we want to get hung up on Fuddlorisms and all that, the other end of it works as well: "If birdshot was great for killing people, we would have heard all about it by now, many times over." We haven't because it isn't. The logic works both ways for me. It doesn't pass the test in either direction.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I am wondering if you guys watched that video. 4 layers of denim, pork ribs, then ham hock. It easily penetrated enough to incapacitate to my mind. It penetrated enough to get to my vitals.

Is there a link in this thread to that video? I'm not finding it.

I’m not seeing one either…
Where did the tell tale video go??

On topic, I have some 3” BB copper plated lead loads and some 2 3/4” BB loads made with Hevi-shot.
Would I trust either of these to penetrate deep enough for an instant stop for a home invasion?
NOPE!

quote:

Did anyone look at the video I posted...Birdshot went through 6" of bone and meat and then some, IDK about you guys but 6+ inches is enough to reach my vitals.

And where is this mystery video?
ONLY if you are standing upright, presenting a full frontal shot.
Add in a possible bladed stance, possible weapon in your hands, even crouched over and the thought that “6 inches is enough to reach my vitals” is mistaken. How thick are your arms? Even my underworked arms are about 6”.
Angle of entry is a “thing” that must be taken into account.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Is there a link in this thread to that video? I'm not finding it.

I’m not seeing one either…
Where did the tell tale video go??
y is a “thing” that must be taken into account.

I don't know what video he was talking about. Here is one from Paul Harrell. You can decide for yourself as Paul would say.

"Bird Shot in your Home Defense Shotgun"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaR1EVybUgc

This subject seems to arouse emotional controversy like politics & religion discussions online, and in real life.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



The video demonstrations linked are well worth the time, if you will watch them with an open mind:



Watch the entire Langdon video posted by P220 Smudge.

It's long and has a lot of idle banter from the interviewer, but Langdon makes a convincing case for the versatile shotgun as THE tool of choice for home defense.

Langdon addresses distance, gauge, sights & sighting, choices of shotgun shell loads, pellet/slug sizes choke, barrel length, need for lights and sidesaddles, everything. It also emphasizes that one can miss the target with a shotgun, a seemingly obvious but often ignored truth.

______________________________________________________



Then watch the whole Paul Harrell video posted by Jupiter, specifically demonstrating various birdshot load performance at short distances.


Disclaimer: The iron sighted, 18" 12G semiauto under my bed loaded with 00 traditional shells (not FliteControl) is my longstanding & current choice for my suburban home defense, over handguns and rifles.

But I can see the argument, that given short in house distances, choke, and load selection, birdshot might well be a reasonable and effective threat stopper.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
This subject seems to arouse emotional controversy like politics & religion discussions online, and in real life.

You're not kidding, Richard.

Besides the mention of ammo, can we touch on the operator? What I’m getting at is that single shot H&R 410 may be more of a tool than the M-4 semi auto, in the right hands.

https://youtu.be/hcRyIxLJZBs?is=JGUWdC8tEPvDC04g

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
This subject seems to arouse emotional controversy like politics & religion discussions online, and in real life.

And why it does is a mystery to me.

I can understand the 9mm vs. .45 debate, the lines are so close, almost overlapping, the "debate" is over slight nuances in modern times caliber wars. And to a lesser extent, .22LR as a defensive choice.

But advocating the choice or consideration of birdshot in home defense is like debating the merits of choosing a NASCAR vehicle in a Formula One race, it is that ridiculous. As others have stated, no competent shotgunner would even contemplate choosing birdshot in a home defense setting.