Buckshot vs Birdshot for HD . . . Here we go again.

[anti]

Excelsior, you're missing the point. Birdshot CAN work and it's better than nothing at all, but there are better choices out there. If you can take the better choice, why settle for less? And if you're really taking serious advice from some John Doe Okie on a radio show then I don't know what to say, dude, but be careful...

[Excelsior]

Shooting dead, bled and (probably) cured meant is not an accurate test of anything. It has almost none of the properties (density, viscosity, etc.) of living flesh. It's probably the worst test medium you can think of. (I can break this down at a chemical level if you like)

"Cured?" Did you even watch the video?

It certainly is a good empirical test although the penetration/destruction would have been greater on a living/breathing human as Quinn clearly pointed out.

[Excelsior]

Excelsior, you're missing the point. Birdshot CAN work and it's better than nothing at all, but there are better choices out there. If you can take the better choice, why settle for less? And if you're really taking serious advice from some John Doe Okie on a radio show then I don't know what to say, dude, but be careful...

Actually no, I'm not.

I was responding specifically to:

"A physical stop requires a round capable of penetrating deep enough to effect major arteries and internal organs. #7.5 birdshot isn't something you can trust to do that with a high degree of reliability ... even at only 10 feet."

That's simply untrue. Jeff Quinn provided a conclusive (albeit simplistic) empirical test to put that notion to bed once and for all. There dozens of such tests available to view at no cost on-line.

I'm also not sure that depending on the settings (apartment, kids in adjoining rooms, etc.) that bridshot isn't a superior option to buckshot in some cases.

[anti]

Okay, some of us will stick with buckshot, some of us will stick with birdshot. No one is swaying anybody's opinion so let's just end the thread.

[Excelsior]

This conversation reminds me of those that feel shotgun slugs fired through an unrifled barrel are useless beyond 25 or possibly 50 yards. The reality is quite different.

[anti]

This conversation reminds me of those that feel shotgun slugs fired through an unrifled barrel are useless beyond 25 or possibly 50 yards. The reality is quite different.

lol this guy. Just stop dude...

edit - Have you considered joining a debate team or something?

[L84CABO]

Here's the thing with birdshot...what if you actually do have to shoot through a wall to take somebody out? What if the bad guy is wearing a leather jacket and a motorcycle helmet? What if the fight spills over into the backyard where the distance is greater than 5-7 yards? What if you have to take a long shot from your house out into the street for some reason?

Birdshot would not be my choice. But I certainly won't criticize or judge anyone who chooses it, as long as they understand the limitations of the round.

What concerns me is when people recommend the round without explaining it's limitations. I see it here all the time. Newbie comes on asking what round to use for home defense and the birdshot crowd comes out of the woodwork. Very seldom do I ever seem them actually explaining the limitations of the round. And this could literally get someone killed. So if you're going to recommend the round, please at least give the pros and cons of it. It's the responsible thing to do.

[anti]

^^^ STOP what if what if what if we just let this stupid thread die. Me posting in it isn't helping but please everyone just stop posting! in here.

[elSquid]

"A physical stop requires a round capable of penetrating deep enough to effect major arteries and internal organs. #7.5 birdshot isn't something you can trust to do that with a high degree of reliability ... even at only 10 feet."

That's simply untrue. Jeff Quinn provided a conclusive (albeit simplistic) empirical test to put that notion to bed once and for all. There dozens of such tests available to view at no cost on-line.

He showed that such birdshot makes shallow wounds, which isn't a surprise to anyone...

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=109958

( #8 bird above )

The question is: how much penetration is needed in order to reliably reach and damage important internal structures from a variety of angles in a majority of situations?

The FBI says minimum 12 inches.

-- Michael

[Excelsior]

He showed that such birdshot makes shallow wounds, which isn't a surprise to anyone...

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=109958

( #8 bird above )

The question is: how much penetration is needed in order to reliably reach and damage important internal structures from a variety of angles in a majority of situations?

"Shallow wounds?" Oh?

The FBI says minimum 12 inches.

-- Michael

Are most people even 12" thick (sans their guts?)

[Excelsior]

Here's the thing with birdshot...what if you actually do have to shoot through a wall to take somebody out? What if the bad guy is wearing a leather jacket and a motorcycle helmet? What if the fight spills over into the backyard where the distance is greater than 5-7 yards? What if you have to take a long shot from your house out into the street for some reason?

I guess that falls into the category of those locales that have pizza boxes made out of cast iron.

If you follow someone into your backyard and fire on them as they're opening-up the distance from you, then you've got huge problems.

Birdshot would not be my choice. But I certainly won't criticize or judge anyone who chooses it, as long as they understand the limitations of the round.

It certainly would be mine if I lived in an apartment or if I was afraid of hitting anyone in an adjoining room.

What concerns me is when people recommend the round without explaining it's limitations. I see it here all the time. Newbie comes on asking what round to use for home defense and the birdshot crowd comes out of the woodwork. Very seldom do I ever seem them actually explaining the limitations of the round. And this could literally get someone killed. So if you're going to recommend the round, please at least give the pros and cons of it. It's the responsible thing to do.

What concerns me are those that discount it without having back-up. You know, the "period" folks. Those that never mention the inherent advantages of birdshot such as not killing the child in the adjoining room.

[elSquid]

Are most people even 12" thick (sans their guts?)

This is probably the best primer on terminal ballistics available to the public:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

It's geared towards handguns, but is appropriate for the current discussion.

Here's a teaser for the section:

AMMUNITION SELECTION CRITERIA

The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity The bullet must penetrate sufficiently to pass through vital organs and be able to do so from less than optimal angles. For example, a shot from the side through an arm must penetrate at least 10-12 inches to pass through the heart. A bullet fired from the front through the abdomen must penetrate about 7 inches in a slender adult just to reach the major blood vessels in the back of the abdominal cavity. Penetration must be sufficiently deep to reach and pass through vital organs, and the permanent cavity must be large enough to maximize tissue destruction and consequent hemorrhaging...

-- Michael

[bigbearbear]

Are most people even 12" thick (sans their guts?)

No, but not all your targets are likely to stand there and not move, presenting their torso for a perfect 90 degree shot like you're in a range.
Read this: http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Sel..._FAQ/index.htm

[Rosereader]

I wouldn't use birdshot to take deer.

I would use buckshot (thus the name).

Deer are bigger than humans. If it'll kill bambi I can rely on it to down Mr. invader. If it came down to it I would use birdshot (several times) but would pick up buckshot first every time.

If my neighbors weren't so close and I lived alone I would be using slugs. Probably just the usual suspects, Foster or (less likely) Brenneke though I would love some of the frangible options out of Northern Europe...

[NapalmCheese]

What concerns me are those that discount it without having back-up. You know, the "period" folks. Those that never mention the inherent advantages of birdshot such as not killing the child in the adjoining room.

Load whatever you want, but here are some things to think about:
The world is a large, 3D place. Shot fired from a shotgun disperses into this 3D place. The child in the room next to you is a relatively small target. The further away from you the child is, the smaller target s/he presents. The chances of accidentally killing your child by either missing your target or over penetrating your target are relatively small, especially if you put your child out of any expected lines of fire. If you over penetrate your target, the buckshot is not going to carry a lot of energy. If your buckshot penetrates your target and then goes through another two sheets of drywall it'll be carrying even less energy.

Decision time: Would you rather have the best chance at immediately incapacitating an attacker such that you can continue to defend your family at the cost of possibly killing your child (neighbor, whatever) should a buckshot hit him or her? Or would you rather chance not immediately incapacitating your attacker such that he or she could possibly kill you, potentially allowing any accomplices to take action against your family?

Surely it's a hard decision, but it's one you make when you load a firearm for defensive purposes.