Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1

User avatar

Jago668
Senior Member
Posts: 685
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:31 am

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby Jago668 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:57 pm

NRA Benefactor Member

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby Jusme » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:01 pm

Jago668 wrote:Just use one of these.

http://www.tacticalimports.ca/gm6-lynx-p-3.html



Yeah.., I think I'll just avoid bear country. Buying that, and then getting enough ammo to be proficient, would definitely put me over SWMBO "gun budget" money. :biggrinjester:
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:


Greybeard
Senior Member
Posts: 2274
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Denton County
Contact:

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby Greybeard » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:35 pm

I would especially question the use of #1 Buckshot, or even 00. Just not enough weight there to get sufficient penetration on a big, thick bear.
CHL Instructor since 1995
http://www.dentoncountysports.com "A Private Palace for Pistol Proficiency"
24/7 Independent Practice Plans for local LEOs and Texas CHL holders

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22797
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Contact:

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby The Annoyed Man » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:32 pm

I've noticed Alaskan State Troopers carrying two different kinds of long guns into the brush on that TV show - either a 12 gauge shotgun, or a Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70. I think it would be a toss up, depending on range to the target. I also notice that they only unlimbers the AR15s when its a human contact they're worried about.
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5427
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby Pawpaw » Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:09 pm

Greybeard wrote:I would especially question the use of #1 Buckshot, or even 00. Just not enough weight there to get sufficient penetration on a big, thick bear.

:iagree:

I don't think most people understand just how tough bears really are. Years ago, when I was about to be stationed 150 miles inside the Arctic Circle, the USAF took great pains to brief us on what a person is up against in a confrontation with a polar bear. I'm fairly sure any other bear would be simply scaled down from that.

A polar bear's skull is so thick a 30.06 round will just bounce off. You could try to get in through an eye socket, but that's only about the size of a dime. In other words, shooting one in the head is pretty much out if all you have is a rifle.

You could go for the heart, but even that isn't much help. A polar bear's heart only beats 8 times a minute. That means after destroying his heart, he'll still have about 20 minutes to do whatever he wants to you.

The only way to stop one in a timely manner is to get a solid CMS hit. Most anything smaller than one of those heavy slugs has almost no chance of succeeding.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts: 4991
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby puma guy » Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:49 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've noticed Alaskan State Troopers carrying two different kinds of long guns into the brush on that TV show - either a 12 gauge shotgun, or a Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70. I think it would be a toss up, depending on range to the target. I also notice that they only unlimbers the AR15s when its a human contact they're worried about.

I read an article on the internet something to the effect "the 10 best Alaskan bear defense weapons". The first four or five were pistols or revolvers - .44 mag, .454 Casull, .480 Ruger, .460 and .500 SW, 10mm. 12 Ga SG (Mossberg 500 or Rem 870 with short bbl loaded with 00 Buck, a Marlin 1895 Guide Gun lever action in .45-70 and a Ruger Guide gun in .375 and and .416 Ruger. In a defense situation with a bear the encounter has a high probability of being sudden with shooting action likely to be fast and furious. There are pros and cons to all those choices and any could be effective, so it would come down to what an individual prefers and feels comfortable with. Personally I still think I'd like a short shotgun with a round of 00 and then slugs.
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
Image

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5702
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby ELB » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:05 pm

Pawpaw wrote: ... A polar bear's heart only beats 8 times a minute.
...


OK, I had to question that one. Googling around it appears their heart rates range from 60-90 bpm during normal activity, down to 40 when sleeping, and up to 130 bpm when they are chasing people who didn't bring a slug-loaded shot gun. ;-)
http://wildpro.twycrosszoo.org/S/0MCarn ... DetPhy.htm

But I'm not going to sneak up on one with a stethoscope just to check...
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22797
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Contact:

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby The Annoyed Man » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:55 pm

Pawpaw wrote:
Greybeard wrote:I would especially question the use of #1 Buckshot, or even 00. Just not enough weight there to get sufficient penetration on a big, thick bear.

:iagree:

I don't think most people understand just how tough bears really are. Years ago, when I was about to be stationed 150 miles inside the Arctic Circle, the USAF took great pains to brief us on what a person is up against in a confrontation with a polar bear. I'm fairly sure any other bear would be simply scaled down from that.

A polar bear's skull is so thick a 30.06 round will just bounce off. You could try to get in through an eye socket, but that's only about the size of a dime. In other words, shooting one in the head is pretty much out if all you have is a rifle.

You could go for the heart, but even that isn't much help. A polar bear's heart only beats 8 times a minute. That means after destroying his heart, he'll still have about 20 minutes to do whatever he wants to you.

The only way to stop one in a timely manner is to get a solid CMS hit. Most anything smaller than one of those heavy slugs has almost no chance of succeeding.

I've heard all that stuff before about .30-06 bouncing off the skull, etc., but other well informed people have put it to me this way: "it can happen. But if you drill the bullet straight in at 90º to the slope of the skull, that bear is going down." Also - and this is well worth noting - back in the day, the Inuit people used rifles chambered in .22 Hornet to take polar bears......which they accomplished by running up to the bear, thrusting the barrel into its mouth, and pulling the trigger. Death was quick for the bear, and sometimes less quick for the shooter, but in all cases requiring stones the size of boxcars on the part of the hunter(s).

Hunger will make you take big risks.
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5427
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby Pawpaw » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:24 pm

ELB wrote:
Pawpaw wrote: ... A polar bear's heart only beats 8 times a minute.
...


OK, I had to question that one. Googling around it appears their heart rates range from 60-90 bpm during normal activity, down to 40 when sleeping, and up to 130 bpm when they are chasing people who didn't bring a slug-loaded shot gun. ;-)
http://wildpro.twycrosszoo.org/S/0MCarn ... DetPhy.htm

But I'm not going to sneak up on one with a stethoscope just to check...


Then I stand corrected. However 8 bpm is definitely what they told us. Back then it was difficult to look it up to check. It was before Al Gore invented the internet.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member


WTR
Senior Member
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:41 pm

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby WTR » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:58 pm

For hunting bear my friend took his with a .338 Win Mag. He said most of the guides carried a .300 Win Mag. Many guides also preferred and carried a .460 pistol. For a weapon preferred to kill a rushing bear at close quarters the 12 ga shotgun with buckshot and slugs was the weapon of choice . As far as the natives who chased polar bear with snowmobiles the Rugar Mini 14 was the most used weapon.

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5702
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby ELB » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:48 am

Pawpaw wrote: ... It was before Al Gore invented the internet.


Heh.

I noticed the briefings I got in the USAF didn't always correspond to reality. :mrgreen:
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


LeonCarr
Senior Member
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:42 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby LeonCarr » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:09 am

For Hunting: .338 Win Mag with 250 Grain Nosler Partitions would be the bottom rung on the latter for me, some guides up there are using .458 Win Mag or similar to absolutely positively stop one before it eats the client who used poor shot placement.

For Defense: A Pump Shotgun (I like either the Remington 870 or Benelli Nova) loaded with Brenneke Slugs. Brennekes are used by the Alaska Game Wardens and the Alaska State Troopers. The only buckshot I would even think about loading in a shotgun used for bear defense would be Dixie Slugs Tri-Ball. Google it or go to http://www.dixieslugs.com. It is an impressive shotgun shell.

As mentioned if you are engaged in bear defense it will happen fast, and the pump shotgun will put ounces of lead down range in a relatively short amount of time. Most rifles cartridges suitable for Big Bears are chambered in bolt action rifles which are slower to operate.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
The Libertarian Conspiracy - To take over the government, and then leave you alone.


flechero
Senior Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby flechero » Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:11 pm

Range. Shotgun with slugs is a more devastating load, most times. But it's a relatively short range option. If you were hunting bear, you'd use a rifle and preferably shoot from a bit further out.

Up close you want a sledgehammer, not a dart... it stops things a lot faster. :smash: :lol:


Topic author
surprise_i'm_armed
Senior Member
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:16 am
Location: Lewisville, Texas. (Metro Dallas/Denton County), Home of the Fighting Farmers.

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby surprise_i'm_armed » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:47 pm

Well, this has been a very enlightening discussion.

Jason812 mentioned that a <standard?> shotgun slug = 437.5 grains.
Someone else mentioned that the Brenneke (sp?) slugs = 602 grains.

A .45 ACP is fairly heavy for a pistol round, but is only 230 grains.

So, a standard slug of 437.5 grains would = 1.90 .45 ACP rounds in weight.
A Brenneke slug of 602 grains would = 2.62 .45 ACP rounds in weight.

Given the various stats provided on this thread, I now consider myself
schooled on why so many people prefer a shotgun for a home defense firearm.

SIA
Arms discourage and keep the invader in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...
Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of them.

Thomas Paine, 1737-1809

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5427
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Pros & cons comparing rifles w/ shotguns using slugs?

Postby Pawpaw » Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:08 pm

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Well, this has been a very enlightening discussion.

Jason812 mentioned that a <standard?> shotgun slug = 437.5 grains.
Someone else mentioned that the Brenneke (sp?) slugs = 602 grains.

A .45 ACP is fairly heavy for a pistol round, but is only 230 grains.

So, a standard slug of 437.5 grains would = 1.90 .45 ACP rounds in weight.
A Brenneke slug of 602 grains would = 2.62 .45 ACP rounds in weight.

Given the various stats provided on this thread, I now consider myself
schooled on why so many people prefer a shotgun for a home defense firearm.

SIA


Actually, for home defense, it's simpler than that.

One 00 buck round delivers 9 (typically) .33 caliber (53.8 gr) balls, totaling 484.2 grains and delivering 2.41584849 square inches of wound trauma.

One #1 buck round delivers 15 (typically) .30 caliber (40 gr) balls, totaling 600 grains and delivering 3.327615 square inches of wound trauma.

Now you know why most shotgun fights only last a very few seconds.

:mrgreen:
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member


Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests