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

[anti]

Birdshot has been proven on many occasions not to be an effective way to stop a human. It CAN work but why gamble with such a thing? The point is to neutralize the threat ASAP, not toy with them or just piss them off even more. Birdshot for small game - buckshot for large game/people. It's quite simple.

and hey ElDebu1950, all is not lost with that #4 birdshot if it just so happens that ducks start breaking into your home

[8886]

+1 to HopetonBrown

Thanks for posting the video.

[hossb7]

Threads like this really get to stretch the limits of the ignore list feature.

Anyone suggesting birdshot clearly has no knowledge of ballistics and should seek to educate themselves immediately - unless you live in a neighborhood full of aggressive birds...

I've patterned Federal Flite Control 00 Buck through my 870 and can keep all pellets inside a torso out to 35 yards.

[Excelsior]

Threads like this really get to stretch the limits of the ignore list feature.

Anyone suggesting birdshot clearly has no knowledge of ballistics and should seek to educate themselves immediately - unless you live in a neighborhood full of aggressive birds...

I've patterned Federal Flite Control 00 Buck through my 870 and can keep all pellets inside a torso out to 35 yards.

You can shoot 35 yards in your house? Wow, big house. Just think about how small your pellet pattern is at 5-10 yards. You'd never miss though, right?

I'd like to see ANYONE stay on their feet after getting hit with a load of #6 at that range...

Tom Gresham and his band of experts routinely recommend birdshot...

[Excelsior]

Birdshot has been proven on many occasions not to be an effective way to stop a human. It CAN work but why gamble with such a thing? The point is to neutralize the threat ASAP, not toy with them or just piss them off even more. Birdshot for small game - buckshot for large game/people. It's quite simple.

and hey ElDebu1950, all is not lost with that #4 birdshot if it just so happens that ducks start breaking into your home

Bull.

[hossb7]

You can shoot 35 yards in your house? Wow, big house. Just think about how small your pellet pattern is at 5-10 yards. You'd never miss though, right?

I'd like to see ANYONE stay on their feet after getting hit with a load of #6 at that range...

Tom Gresham and his band of experts routinely recommend birdshot...

[ZombieTactics]

... Just think about how small your pellet pattern is at 5-10 yards. ...
I'd like to see ANYONE stay on their feet after getting hit with a load of #6 at that range...

... indicates strongly that poster has no knowledge of wounding effects on humans, or of physics for that matter. Given that people hit with more powerful loads "stay on their feet", it seems this comment is simply bluster or whim-worship.

Tom Gresham and his band of experts routinely recommend birdshot...

Tom is a helluva guy with established "outdoorsman" credentials. His opinion in this regard runs counter to that of every established self-defense, military and LE authority on the subject.

I think we all know that just about anything will put a hurt on someone, and that might make them reconsider the error of their ways. That's not the same thing as physical incapacitation. When we start hearing of all the BGs physically stopped by birdshot, let's talk. Until then, let's just call folksy conjecture by its proper name, and leave it at that.

[TMB 1]

This argument kind of reminds me of some of the 223 vs 308 arguments. Except the birdshot guy aren't saying birdshot is the best do it all load. They're arguing one purpose extremely short range HD.

The reason you hear about more people surviving birdshot is because more people are shot by birdshot than any other load.
Survivors can make videos and post their story. Non survivors may get nothing more than a page 4 newspaper story saying they were killed in a hunting accident etc...

[Bill Steele]

I think I will wait until I see more LE agencies adopt various birdshot loads as their preferred shotgun ammo before I make the switch.

[ZombieTactics]

... the birdshot guy aren't saying birdshot is the best do it all load. They're arguing one purpose extremely short range HD.

I'm of the opinion that firearms are best configured to deal with a wide set of plausible scenarios, not simply cherry-picked solutions for a small set of circumstances. I need a solution which deals not only with those easily dissuaded by loud bangs and painful superficial wounds, but also those more violent, determined and/or crazy.

The reason you hear about more people surviving birdshot is because more people are shot by birdshot than any other load.

Which is an interesting way of saying that we have an awful lot of evidence supporting the notion that it isn't all that effective.

Survivors can make videos and post their story. Non survivors may get nothing more than a page 4 newspaper story saying they were killed in a hunting accident etc...

There are millions of hunters who go after large game ... and use 00 buck as their chosen load. Unless they are especially safer in their habits, we should reasonably expect to hear nearly as many "I survived 00 Buck!" stories. We don't, and that's a clue.

===================================

Much of this discussion centers around the notion of buying a solution instead of achieving skill or simply choosing a more appropriate weapon. It's easy to say "I can't handle 12-gauge 00 Buck" and thereby talk yourself into believing that something else will work just as good ... something you are "more comfortable" with.

And that's probably true to some extent ... just not to the point where you start believing in nonsense. I would sooner go to a 20-gauge with #3 or #1 buck than I would anything shooting something designed to take down small game. That's my wife's shotgun-solution, and she has nearly zero upper-body strength to speak of. Others would be better off simply foregoing the shotgun altogether, and opting for a rifle or pistol.

Many people would be far better off simply gaining skill - with anything - as a means of addressing the (largely mythical) fear of over-penetration. I think it's smarter to be able to put 9mm (or whatever) rounds where you want them, than to count on a wide pattern combined with an "oops factor" based upon a substandard round.

[TMB 1]

[QUOTE=ZombieTactics;13603655]I'm of the opinion that firearms are best configured to deal with a wide set of plausible scenarios, not simply cherry-picked solutions for a small set of circumstances.[QUOTE]

Which is an interesting way of saying that we have an awful lot of evidence supporting the notion that it isn't all that effective.

There are millions of hunters who go after large game ... and use 00 buck as their chosen load. Unless they are especially safer in their habits, we should reasonably expect to hear nearly as many "I survived 00 Buck!" stories. We don't, and that's a clue.

Much of this discussion centers around the notion of buying a solution instead of achieving skill or simply choosing a more appropriate weapon. It's easy to say "I can't handle 12-gauge 00 Buck" and thereby talk yourself into believing that something else will work just as good ... something you are "more comfortable" with.[/QUOTE
LOL You're funny
#1 You're right the shotgun is great for many scenarios.
#2 Higher numbers shot equal higher survivor numbers no matter what's used
#3 I'm sure there are a lot more birdshot users than just hunters with trap shooting etc...
#4 as far as being able to handle buckshot of any size. My 1 7/8oz #4 turkey loads recoil more, but at extremely close range I don't have to worry about over penetration. Not saying it best, just what I use for in the house. Now if I'm going out to check the barn etc... I'm going to grab the shotgun loaded with buck shot or slugs.

[epilepticninja]

If birdshot were an effective solution for defense of life and limb, then Law Enforcement would use it in their shotguns.

[ZombieTactics]

LOL You're funny

Apparently even when I'm not trying to be.

#1 You're right the shotgun is great for many scenarios.

It's a very versatile platform. That means it can be great for just about anything if configured/loaded correctly.

#2 Higher numbers shot equal higher survivor numbers no matter what's used

Which simply gives us a large sample set. If that large number being shot equaled large numbers (as a percentage) being killed, the notion of birdshot effectiveness would be supported. The large sample set we have doesn't produce that result, so the opposite hypothesis seems to have more weight, given the available evidence.

#3 I'm sure there are a lot more birdshot users than hunters with trap shooting etc...

I'm sure that there are millions in both categories. That's a large enough sample set for us to start drawing some reasonable solutions. You don't need equal numbers in order to validate similar percentages.

#4 as far as being able to handle buckshot of any size. My 1 7/8oz #4 turkey loads recoil more, but at extremely close range I don't have to worry about over penetration.

If I were to place my faith in any birdshot ... I'd start with something in the T to FF range. You won't get much argument from me about using T at relatively close distances. That #4 turkey load will certainly get some attention, and hopefully that's all you need.

The over-penetration angle continues to amaze me, since it just about never, ever actually happens. I understand the theory, but at some point it has to be noted that it's as rare as hens' teeth, and probably better addressed in another way.

Not saying it best, just what I use for in the house. Now if I'm going out to check the barn etc... I'm going to grab the shotgun loaded with buck shot or slugs.

I guess the question remains as to why you'd use something less than optimal for its intended purpose: "putting down" a large mammal? The over-penetration argument really does evaporate the moment you start examining it carefully ... especially in a rural location.

The assertion that you'd grab something bigger for a trip out to the barn ... I don't understand that from a ballistics point of view. Given that 00 buck or slugs can be deadly effective at ranges exceeding 100 yards ... how are you not equally concerned about some possible innocent (perhaps the very people who live indoors) being in the line-of-fire, unseen? Or are you saying you would only fire if the barn itself were the backstop? Doesn't that limit your self-defense options in a weird way?

At some point the question becomes "why do you want to use a shotgun?" ( if you are going to configure or load it in a way which negates all of its advantages). A shotgun is not inherently effective regardless of the load used. Would it not be more sensible to simply go for a good pistol or rifle (maybe even a .38/.357 lever action) with JHP rounds? That seems to solve the fear of over-penetration while addressing every concern about effectiveness.

[TMB 1]

The over-penetration angle continues to amaze me, since it just about never, ever actually happens. I understand the theory, but at some point it has to be noted that it's as rare as hens' teeth, and probably better addressed in another way.

I guess the question remains as to why you'd use something less than optimal for its intended purpose: "putting down" a large mammal? The over-penetration argument really does evaporate the moment you start examining it carefully ... especially in a rural location.

Well I have seen a couple deer shot with buckshot where at least some of the shot went in one side and out the other at ranges much greater than inside my house. Not saying I'm worried about deer but if it can go through a deer at 30 yards. Why wouldn't it go through a bad guy at ten feet?
Even though I live in a rural location. The walls in my house aren't any thicker than my friends houses who live in the city.

[ZombieTactics]

... Not saying I'm worried about deer but if it can go through a deer at 30 yards. Why wouldn't it go through a bad guy at ten feet? ...

It's absolutely the right question, and that's usually as far as people take it ... simply asking that question and assuming an answer based upon fear of something bad happening.

My point is simply that I can't find any instances of a negative outcome based upon that kind of over-penetration. My assumption is that they must occur, but it appears so rare as to be almost impossible to find. That's a poor thing (IMHO) upon which to base a self-defense plan.

Any rounds which will be effective upon a human being will be capable of penetrating typical household walls and retain enough force to kill. So, I guess my position is that chasing that "magic round" which will reliably stop the Bad Guy dead in his tracks at 10 feet, but reliably won't penetrate the wall enough to grievously wound (or kill) your daughter(?) ... it probably doesn't exist.

I understand that this notion jars the sensibility of some people. The idea that you can't simply buy a solution which guarantees the right things will happen is counter to the mindset of our consumer culture. I'm not saying that's YOU, I am saying that's ALL OF US to some degree, and it's a mindset we constantly have to battle if we want to be realistic about this kind of stuff.