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 Jupiter:

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.

That's not why I lost my temper.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

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.

That's not why I lost my temper.

Para, I've been around here long enough to know it was more than just a disagreement regarding birdshot. My comment was based on me getting into animated discussions on this topic in the past on other forums and even an argument with my son one time.

In the 25 years I've been a member, I've only reported what I considered bad behavior 2 times. In both cases, it was the same member. With that said, even with the bad blood, I hope this long time member realizes what a fine forum this is and the reasons it's stayed that way. He may not think so but I do value his contributions.

pedropcola is welcome to stay, but he may not. He would be floored if he found out that, a few week back, I considered asking him for a phone call, to clear the air. When all communication is written only, much is left out- the inflection of the human voice, instantaneous reactions, wholly extemporaneous remarks, etc. The absence of these things can, at times, be detrimental.

That offer is still open. Some of what I said to him, I meant, and some of it was pure temper. I wouldn't blame him, though, for taking all of it to heart.

He would be floored to read I valued his opinion. I'm pretty sure I could lure him back by posting in the "P320 and discharges" thread but that would more than likely put me and pedropcola back in hot water with the moderator in short order.

quote:

He would be floored to read I valued his opinion.

Indeed. He often has a great deal of insight into a variety of subjects. He just needs to not be so ...strident at times and to pick battles better.

Saying that there are two sets of rules here, while not entirely untrue, indicates he fails to understand that I make the rules.

Ever see me enter a karma? Ever see me remarking on personal appearance? Posting wild conspiracy theories? There is a host of rules I've created, to which I adhere.

But, yes, when the irresistible force meets the immovable object, the immovable object gets moved out of here. Find a web forum where this is not so.

He just needs to accept things as they are, and frankly, it's not such a bad arrangement- for anyone.

By the way, anyone who has paid attention over the years can see that I'm much less apt these days to ban members, or suspend them. Much less apt.

And I own up when I'm wrong, and when my conscience bothers me, despite what he seems to think. That's a fact. I can't understand how he doesn't know this.

Sometimes it is hard when strongly held beliefs are challenged. Unfortunately I find that the conflict generated at these times is the most entertaining part of this forum. That probably makes me a bad person, but I would much rather read folks arguing about the lethality of bird shot and the drama that ensues than read another what tires should I buy thread. Pedro was entertaining, I hope he comes back.

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.

I think I figured it out Prdro's mystery. He got birdshot shells mixed up with "cut shells", and equated the latter as an equal to a slug. So he made two mistakes, not just one. That's why dangerous game hunters use cut shells for the really big stuff.

Good grief, I can't take it anymore. If you made your living making decisions based on that line of reasoning, I'm glad I never had to work for you.

It hasn't been that long since there was a vigorous internet discussion about the tradition of the Cut Shell. I don't think it rose to dangerous game though. There was less mention of the Waxed Shell than I would have expected.

You guys have reinvented the small shot for defense debate. I recall when it was commonly said that a game load would blow a "rat hole" in an intruder.
But don't look at me, I am a buckshot loader... when I can't get to a rifle or don't have to draw a pistol.

I don't need a reason to not use birdshot for self defence.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Watson:
It hasn't been that long since there was a vigorous internet discussion about the tradition of the Cut Shell. I don't think it rose to dangerous game though. There was less mention of the Waxed Shell than I would have expected.

You guys have reinvented the small shot for defense debate. I recall when it was commonly said that a game load would blow a "rat hole" in an intruder.
But don't look at me, I am a buckshot loader... when I can't get to a rifle or don't have to draw a pistol.

Jim, I was being facetious.

What if you carefully removed the shot from the birdshot, then cast it into a hollow tube about an 1 1/4" on the outside, 7/8" on the inside and 18" long. That would be a man-stopper right there, and a real conversation starter! Imagine supplementing this weapon of ultimate destruction with a short section of rope, a heavy brass candle holder, a kitchen knife, a monkey wrench, and lastly a revolver. 100% protection from all threads, both foreign and domestic.

Finally made it out to the range today to test some birdshot loads with water jugs.

Before I went I paced off some distances in my house. From my bedroom door to the front door is 7 yards. Maximum possible shot inside my house is about 15 yards. I also did some testing at 3 yards, even though that's not a distance that I'd like to engage with a long gun, as when you get that close it's very easy for “my” gun to become “our” gun.

I used my 870 for most of the penetration testing, as it is my primary HD long gun. It has an 18” barrel with fixed IC choke. I also brought my A300 with 28” barrel and shot some of the loads with a modified and a full choke to get an idea of the pattern, but unfortunately I didn't have enough milk jugs to test all the possibilities.

For ammo, I had some 2 ¾” #8 target loads, some 2 ¾” #6 Field loads, and 3” Magnum #4 Turkey loads. I also shot 1 round of Federal Flight Control 9 pellet 00 Buck, but didn't pattern this as it's expensive and I'm already familiar with its performance out of my gun.

The first thing I did was pattern the loads and the guns.

The 870 with improved cylinder produced approximately a 3” group at 3 yards with all 3 birdshot loads. At 7 yards the #8 was 10.25”, the #6 9”, and the #4 8.25”. At 15 yards all three of them were off the 18” wide cardboard.

With the modified choke at 3 yards all 3 were between 1.5-2”. At 7 yards all three were about 5”, and at 15 yards each was about a foot.

With full choke the 3 yard shots were again 1.5-2”. At 7 yards they were about 3”, and at 15 yards they were about 12”, which was actually very similar to what I got with the modified choke.

For shooting the milk jugs I stacked a row of jugs in a line, placed 4 layers of blue jean (2 legs) over the front jug, and placed a piece of ¼” plywood between the first and second jug to simulate bone. This is way thinner and flimsier stuff than the 1” board that I typically use for bear load testing, and I imagine human bone is likely to be a lot stronger than this stuff, but it's what I had. I didn't have enough jugs so I only shot them with the #6, the #4, and 00 buck.

At 7 yards with #6, most pellets penetrated the first jug and then lodged in the board. None penetrated the board.

At 7 yards with the #4 magnum turkey load, basically the same thing happened, except one pellet made it through a pre-drilled hole in the board and fully penetrated the second jug, without penetrating the third.

Then I moved up to 3 yards.

At 3 yards with #6, the first jug was destroyed, but no pellets penetrated the board.



At 3 yards with #4, the first jug was destroyed, and the board was cracked from the pressure, but no pellets penetrated.



At this point I decided I needed to test penetration without the board. Unfortunately, I was out of #4, so I could only try #6. At 3 yards, #6 destroyed the first jug and penetrated into the second, but no pellets exited the second jug.

Finally, I did the 00 buck with the jugs I had left. Since the FBI standard for handgun ammo penetration is 18”, and each jug is about 6” thick, I moved the board to behind the third jug. I fired one round of 00 at 7 yards. It went through the first 3 jugs, the board, and ultimately stopped in the 6th jug.



Conclusion: I'm well aware that this is not a scientific test, and milk jugs and plywood are not a perfect 1:1 analog for human tissue or residential construction. But they do provide a basic idea of penetration.

The performance of the #6 shot was underwhelming. Even without a piece of wood in there I didn't get a full 12” of penetration, even at a measly 3 yards.

The #4 load carried more energy but didn't achieve much more penetration, despite being a heavy magnum turkey load with as much or more recoil than the 00 buck. It got stopped after one jug by a whimpy piece of ¼” plywood (granted it did crack the plywood in half). I wish I'd had enough of it to try shooting plain jugs without the wood, but based on the other observations I’d guess it would make it into the 3rd jug but not exit. So if you're willing to take on the magnum recoil and capacity penalty, theoretically you might achieve adequate penetration on soft tissue without overpenetrating, but if it encounters anything hard it's probably going to get stopped.

00 at 7 yards is very effective. Yes, it's probably going to overpenetrate with enough force to kill somebody right on the other side of a wall from your intended target. But unless you live in an apartment, trailer park, or some tightly packed subdivision with super crappy construction, I wouldn't be too concerned about accidentally killing the neighbors with pellets that have already gone through the bad guy. If you miss altogether, though, then it's definitely going to punch through walls.

The ideal load is probably going to fall somewhere between the #4 turkey load and the #00 buck. I know #4 Buck has been quoted as an ideal HD load to minimize overpenetration, but unfortunately I don't have any of that to try.

Thankfully in my situation, my kids are upstairs, my wife is behind me in the back corner of the house furthest from the door, and my neighbors in a 180 degree semicircle out the front of the house are all at least 100 yards away. So 00 works for me. It might not be best for you.

And based on what I saw, a #6 field load isn't right for anybody.

6 inches of penetration is not acceptable by any ballistic testing standards.