It all depends upon circumstances. If you're in an apartment, you probably shouldn't be using a shotgun.

But, I am in a house, as are many others here. No kids in my house, just me and my wife and pets. Behind my house is a dense stand of trees. My garage and hedges and a hill protect the neighbors in one of the houses next to me, and hedges and trees (and a slope which places the house at a lower level from mine) protect the neighbors on the opposite side. Across the street, directly out my front door (a likely path for errant projectiles when repelling home intruders) is a slight rise to the terrain, then a plank fence, after which there is a large back yard, and it's more than 200 feet or more before any pellets or bullets have even a chance of striking a home.

If I'm firing down the stairs from the second floor, any projectiles that miss are going into the floor.

So, it all depends, doesn't it?

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.

Sayings like “birdshot is for birds” are easy to remember and throw out but seriously what is the birdshot isn’t a good idea response when you actually test it such as in the video. That one (it’s just one test) test doesn’t scream out “clearly not enough gun” to me.

Rogue I know you have seen pellets bounce off metal but did that video not seem to read “incapacitating”? And that load certainly didn’t look “safe for drywall” it easily went through 2 complete walls albeit at 4 feet apart.

I’m not a massive shotgun guy so you guys are the experts and I will gladly listen to facts but presented with tests like that video I struggle to say that round wouldn’t be a showstopper. “Birdshot is for birds” seems like the settled science argument except that demonstration sure didn’t support that synopsis as an objective viewer. Would buckshot be MORE of a showstopper? Of course but we very cavalierly talk about ammo improvement in 9mm such that today’s 9mm is “just as good” as old school bigger calibers, is it not possible that birdshot of today is better than the birdshot from the “birdshot is for birds” origin days?

I have buckshot for my HD shotguns but a few more tests such as that video would certainly get me thinking whatever he shot in that video at 10 feet was probably enough to do the job. Unless he is carrying a car door of course. lol.

Interesting discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Of course but we very cavalierly talk about ammo improvement in 9mm such that today’s 9mm is “just as good” as old school bigger calibers, is it not possible that birdshot of today is better than the birdshot from the “birdshot is for birds” origin days?

There's nothing cavalier in stating the fact that contemporary hollowpoint design and construction is substantially superior to earlier hollowpoints. This is supported by empirical evidence.

It's difficult to determine if you're serious when you suggest that today's teeny little birdshot pellets are perhaps superior to yesteryear's teeny little birdshot pellets. Comparing little spherical pellets, to stabilized projectiles designed to expand and penetrate the human torso to an adequate depth is...odd.

However, if you live in an apartment which has an orphanage on the other side of the paper-thin wall ( ) then you definitely need the most technologically advanced teeny little birdshot pellets. Far be it from me to suggest a firearm which fires a single projectile.

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.

quote:

1860ARMY, you're fucking with the wrong guy.

You think you're right. Fine. I really don't care. You're compelled to be right. I care even less about that.

So when someone disagrees with you, then they are fucking with you.. OK I get it, enjoy your little world, little being to optimum word here. You said something I disagreed with and I called you on it, I didn't call you stupid or any other derogatory things... and I don't have to be right all the time, ask my wife how many thousands of times I'M wrong. But in my little personal world, when a couple of guys disagree we discuss the issue without throwing barbs, that's how people learn... But not here, This issue is the effectiveness and safety of bird shot, at close range. I have not insulted anyone, I have offered my personal experience, some ballistic statistics and some internet links trying to prove my point. Look back through this thread, I have been treated to pussy cat pics, comments about my motivations and a hilarious CO2 gun picture... But show me some empirical evidence presented that I am wrong... I'll tell you where I'm wrong, trying to have a level headed discussion with people who don't seem to know how...for the most part. and BTW, that CO2 gun picture was so funny I had to go to Urgent care to get my sides stitched up from laughing so hard, besides humor that poster seems to have another innate attribute, that being the ability to pick perfect screen names for themselves...

Listening out.....

60

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.

The guy in the video used a shotgun with a 24" barrel and modified choke fired at almost point blank range, 10 feet . The most likely distance with me in a defensive scenario in my house engaging an intruder, using a tactical HD shotgun with an 18" barrel and cylinder bore, is ten yards, and I ain't using birdshot, no fuckin way. At that distance, it will be a peppered pattern of maybe 20 inches wide of tiny holes, not a large single hole some people fantasize in their dreams. Most people using a HD shotgun at home will be using a pump with a 18" barrel, cylinder bore, at distances further than 10'

quote:

Originally posted by 1860ARMY:
I have not insulted anyone...

You took a snarky tone with me, and I don't have to put up with that shit. I devote a lot of time to maintaining this forum, and the luxury of not getting attitude from anyone here is the price I exact for that work.

Just state your case. If you had done so, you would have been fine.

quote:

I have been treated to pussy cat pics ...

What? There's only one cat picture, and it was not directed at you. It was a joke, in reply to another joke.

The OP is not about whether a charge of small birdshot will be lethal on a human. Of course it can be. So is .22 Long Rifle, but I wouldn't recommend it for most people for defense. I did not address that. My observation and concern is that out of a cylinder-bore barrel, some of the pellets are going to fly wide. What and how hard will they hit? I don't know either, but why take a chance?

For that matter, if the objective is to fire a tighter pattern, why do most defense shotguns have an unchoked barrel? The devastating wounds from a shotgun come from the pellets striking together all at once, do they not? The gun makers may have noticed this, because there are some models (costing more) that do have screw-in adjustable chokes.

I can't speak of any other agency, but we issued reduced recoil 9 pellet 00 Buck not to reduce penetration, but to reduce recoil and enable faster follow up shots, especially for smaller framed officers.

We then quietly switched to a full powered load a few years back and no one seemed to notice the difference, including those same smaller framed officers.

I've stood over a lot of people who have suffered hits from shotguns. 00 Buck is a devastatingly effective load within its effective range. It stops fights and puts people down hard. If I'm going outside my house, I probably want a rifle for the greater effective range, but in my personal opinion there is nothing short of a crew served weapon that is more effective inside 20 yards than a 12 gauge with either Buck or slug.

I've also seen a bunch of people hit with birdshot. At VERY CLOSE range it is going to be a solid mass and would be effective. Once that pattern opens up at all, and it happens very quickly with birdshot, those individual pellets do not have the mass to penetrate deeply enough to reliably and quickly incapacitate a target. One of my good friends in high school took a hit from birdshot when his hunting buddy had an oops. Ended up with some gnarly scarring and came perilously close to losing an eye, but he walked out of that field back to the truck to go to the hospital.

Anything that will penetrate tissue will penetrate sheetrock. From real world experience, 00 Buck tends to penetrate significantly less than 9mm or most rifle rounds. Light, fast 5.56 tends to break up quickly in sheetrock, but many of the bonded expanding loads penetrate more than you'd think. Know your fields of fire inside your home and where you absolutely can't send lead.

There is no universe where I would recommend the use of birdshot against a hostile target unless it was literally the only load I had available at the time. Again, I've seen the results more than once, and they aren't impressive. Number 4 Buck MIGHT be an option as long as you keep the range short, but that's as light a pellet as I'd feel comfortable with. I don't have any first hand knowledge here as I've never been present on a scene where 4 Buck was used.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
My observation and concern is that out of a cylinder-bore barrel, some of the pellets are going to fly wide. What and how hard will they hit? I don't know either, but why take a chance?

Birdshot is designed to "spread out" due to the extreme light weight and size of the individual pellets, while buckshot with much larger, heavier pellets, say 00, is designed to group in a tighter pattern to hit fast moving larger targets in a specific body area (deer, ek, etc). You are not going to use birdshot for deer, and certainly not 00 Buck for birds, the kinetic energy would just tear them apart. Plus the additional powder load in buck compared to birdshot is a huge factor. So it is no accident that LE and the military use 00 Buck and even slugs for bad guys. Why take a chance, indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
What? There's only one cat picture, and it was not directed at you. It was a joke

My pic of the Glenn Beck Special was directed at the shotgun expert, but as a joke as well in regards to over-penetration phobia. But the guy of course resorts to snide remarks such as "another guy has a POS shot gun that won't pattern birdshot so he condemns the birdshot not the gun" and "please let me know if you happen to move next to me..." But Mr. Expert refuses to believe that birdshot patterns badly at longer than point-blank distances, shot out of a short defensive shotgun (18"); I assume he was referring to my "POS shot gun" which is a Beretta 1301 Mod 2, hardly a slouch in the H.D. shotgun world.

But I imagine his ideal house defense shotgun has a long barrel, hunting or sporting shotgun with a mod or full choke, and to shoot it under 10 feet to get that "one large hole" he guarantees happens with birdshot . Yeah, that's the ticket, great, I could do the same with my Beretta Silver Pigeon II with a 30" barrel and modified choke and shoot it at extremely close range, but it would make a really shitty H.D. gun, wouldn't it? And shooting at very close range with a shotgun is a very poor home defense strategy.

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.

n.

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

If I discover a criminal in my house my last concern will be over penetration. My first priority will be to neutralise the threat as quickly as possible.
Venturing outside your house to engage a fleeing, possible felon, with a rifle, could get you imprisoned in many jurisdictions. Along with the chance that a stray shot could badly effect a innocent person a long way off.

Shotgun ammunition has improved in the last couple decades. Propellants are better, they are paired more efficiently with the loadings, the wad design is better. The actual shot can be denser as well. Absolutely a birdshot shell from today will outperform one from 50 years ago. That is just a fact that can be quantifiably proven. I don’t think what I stated earlier was off base at all.

I caught the video was 10 feet. I did not catch the choke or barrel length. I would love to see that test with an 18” barrel and cylinder which is what I think my 1301 came with. Not sure though.

I don’t have a lot of long shots inside my house so 10-20 feet seems like a reasonable starting spot. I’m all out of ham hocks though.

1860, Para is correct about the buckshot vs birdshot. Birdshot is not a reliable SD load under most scenarios, and still not so if you're forced to use it either purposely or because it's all you have.

So the question is do you want to use Birdshot under any and all circumstances ? I wouldn't nor would any other informed SD shooters.

I used #4 buck on a small deer at close range with perfect shot angle and perfect placement, and though worked, it wasn't as fast a stopper than 00 buck is. But I've had excellent stops and very clean kills with 00 buck on larger deer with proper placement.

Check out MikeinNC's post above about Federal Flight Control 00 Buck, there's your ticket for shotty SD loads. It was designed for that. Police use that stuff, and they use it because it works. No police use birdshot to stop bad guys, so why would you or anyone else.

If you got kids on the other side of the wall, then that's a house configuration/planning/execution problem, not a buckshot problem.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Shotgun ammunition has improved in the last couple decades. Propellants are better, they are paired more efficiently with the loadings, the wad design is better. The actual shot can be denser as well. Absolutely a birdshot shell from today will outperform one from 50 years ago. That is just a fact that can be quantifiably proven. I don’t think what I stated earlier was off base at all.

Jesus, man. Listen to what you're saying. You're comparing this stuff to the advances in hollowpoints. If you just want agree with this guy's goofiness because I was unkind to you a few weeks ago, go ahead, but, come on. No one in their right mind is going to trust their life to birdshot.

All true. Me and the wife are empty nesters and my house is concrete block so I could use anything I want. When I did have kids at home their bedrooms are directly opposite the master. So while saying that is a “house configuration/planning/execution” problem sounds reasonable to you I would say of course it’s not. You have the house that you have. No amount of planning will alter where people sleep in the middle of the night.

Yes Federal flight control is great ammo and a known man stopper. There is no argument there. My point and my only point was that that linked video certainly showed terminal performance to my eye. It warranted further investigation. That’s it.

It turns out it was with a really long barrel so I would like to actually see results from a typical HD shotgun at typical house ranges (10-20 feet) to see how the results change.

I’m a let me see the data guy. That video was data. Saying “birdshot is for birds” is lore. Modern ammo, yes even shotgun ammo is better than your grandpa used. Your pappy would have loved access to Federal Flight Control back in the day. Didn’t exist, couldn’t be made until components improved.

I was hoping someone had seen similar testing but with a more likely to be used HD style/sized/choked shotgun and could provide a link. I figured some redneck somewhere has probably peppered a denim wearing turkey invader wearing beef ribs for science. I eagerly await that video.

Yes, my heavens, we do need to "see the data" on a purely academic point. No one in their right mind is going to trust their life to birdshot, no matter what they claim. It's preposterous and you know it, and I know you know it.

I guess you're deriving a measure of satisfaction from ignoring me. Good for you.

Holy cow para, I am laying in a hotel bed 3 time zones away. Ignoring your posts? I’ve been responding as I see them. I know you hate this but I know it’s your house and even when I try to walk lightly I still seem to rankle you. It appears you seem to think I search out your comments and post in an attempt to annoy you. If you don’t believe a word I say please believe that I don’t do that. Topic was interesting to me, I would like to hear more on the issue.

Para I don’t comment on threads because of you. Ever. In fact I tend to usually avoid your threads because I clearly rub a sore spot on your hide and while I enjoy your forum immensely I too am tiring of being publicly disciplined. I commented in this thread because I’m interested in the topic.


For fear of getting jumped because I am pointing out that you are reading too much into my words, here goes. I merely was trying to convey that ammunition, yes even round lead ball ammunition, has improved massively since my early days. I never was comparing hollow point construction to lead, steel, bismuth, whatever spherical balls. Ever. If that’s how you took my comment then it’s an error of my writing style. I merely was pointing out that components and tech have improved even the simple shotgun shell ballistics and performance. Watching that video certainly showed a terminal performance to my eye and to me warranted more testing.

People have added detail about that test that I missed on one viewing. I would like to see more tests with more reasonable guns and distances using similar realistic targets. That’s it. I don’t search the internet for content but I figured here was a good place to ask if anybody had.

I don’t know if Armyshatever is off his rocker or not. I do know he’s shot a heck of a lot more things with birdshot than I have and he provided a cool video. I also know he got under your skin somehow. How I got under your skin on this post eludes me. I believed the point you have always pressed with me is that I can have an opinion just don’t be rude about presenting it to fellow forumites. I would go to my grave thinking nothing in my above posts warranted being taken to task. Clearly I have misstepped here before so I’m probably a terrible judge of that.

I’m not taking Armywhatevers side, I just thought his video showed better performance than I expected.

My post held no malice towards anyone including you para. I thought this was an interesting topic. That’s it. I did not mean to offend.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Shotgun ammunition has improved in the last couple decades. Propellants are better, they are paired more efficiently with the loadings, the wad design is better. The actual shot can be denser as well. Absolutely a birdshot shell from today will outperform one from 50 years ago.

I don't know that I've used any birdshot shells from 50 years ago, but I have shot many boxes that were 20-30 years old. The differences in decades old birdshot and today's birdshot isn't that significant, especially at shorter ranges. The differences:

Hulls come in a variety of quality standards. The hulls in most non-competition (those commonly labeled "field" or "practice") loads don't produce a noticeable down-range difference, regardless of which decade they came from. They're generally designed for one-time use, or maybe a few reloadings. The best hulls in recent years are Remington's STS, as they can be reloaded many times before the crimp becomes ineffective in holding the shot tightly.

Wads can be noticeably better now than decades ago. It just depends if the manufacturer is willing to put a shock-absorbing wad in the load. Cheaper loads generally have cheap wads. With birdshot, a shock-absorbing wad helps minimize shot deformation as the powder burns. More-nearly spherical shot flies with a tighter pattern, especially at distance. With birdshot, the better wad makes a difference at maybe 30-40 yards, and definitely at 50+ yards. The better wad produces no real difference in shot pattern inside 20 yards.

The shot itself in birdshot ammo has seen little change over the decades. Cheaper loads have less spherical shot. High quality loads have very spherical shot. High quality loads also add a few percentage points of antimony in the lead to make the pellets slightly harder. This makes the pellets less likely to become deformed as the powder burns. As with better wads, this makes antimony-lead alloy shot fly in a tighter pattern at distance. Again, for longer shots, especially 50+ yards. It's doubtful that a touch of antimony makes a birdshot load noticeably better at short distances. Also, antimony alloy pellets are generally found in higher-end competition birdshot loads from the big boys like Remington, Winchester, Federal, Fiocchi, Clever. Antimony alloy may not be included in "field" or "practice" loads.

Propellent changes in recent decades mainly affect barrel cleaning, barrel corrosion, and muzzle velocity consistency. A load that clocks at 1150 fps can be made from black powder, decades old powder, or the latest powder from the best factories. Powder -- in and of itself -- has no magic down-range effect. It all depends on the velocity it produces.

Good info. I think part of the discussion that should be occurring though is acknowledging that we are talking close range. A very limited set of variables. This is a load that would never be fired outside the frame of my house. Short range by fiat. I keep reading posts about the spread and lack of terminal effectiveness. I’m not at home right now but in my head the longest possible corner to corner (unlikely) shot inside my house is pretty short. I don’t live in a palace so the 10-20 foot margin is probably spot on.

The discussion, at least to me and no one else potentially, is what is the minimum loading I consider adequate for inside my house. Not outside not at a car not at distance. I’m not chasing anybody outside with a shotgun. So to that very restrictive case, possible grandchildren sleeping on the the other side of the house, absolutely no way to plan around that it seems reasonable, to me, to pick a shotgun load that is enough but not too much.

The bigger birdshot loads seem like at close range they would be more than adequate stoppers. Obviously useless for police or military work but at 10-20 feet that my house dictates I bet it would be enough.

Some will say “are you willing to get your life on it”? Yes. I bet my life on a BG 2.0 shooting little 380’s that probably won’t even expand. I have balanced my choices against my liabilities though and carry that thing everywhere knowing there are absolutely better choices.

So sure, I would love to see more videos like armywhatever posted to reinforce or demolish my current thinking.

I’m not married to any idea yet but I do mildly scoff at old sayings being passed around as solid fact. So if there are more video links I’m in. (I don’t even use my 1301 as an HD choice, I’m a AR and pistol at home guy. Which have their own issues.)