The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
fickman wrote:IIRC, the bead sights on shotguns are typically zeroed in for 100 yards from factory. Try adjusting your aim lower for shorter distances.JALLEN wrote:I need some practice to build accuracy.
If they are in the house the intiminidation for want mean a lot and it my mean seconds between death and life.Topbuilder wrote: I do believe in the intimidation factor of a shotgun slide racking.
carlson1 wrote:If they are in the house the intiminidation for want mean a lot and it my mean seconds between death and life.Topbuilder wrote: I do believe in the intimidation factor of a shotgun slide racking.
Amen, Bro Carl. The only sound that will get a BG's attention is BOOM!carlson1 wrote:Believe what you want. You have two types of burglars. Those who do not want confrontation (the professional) and those who do want confrontation (the ones who will hurt you). Rack a shotgun is will not work against those who want confrontation. I am not going to take time to rack my shot gun, aiming, safety off, and shooting. I am aiming, turning off safety, and pulling trigger.
I have met very few suspects I ever arrested that was intimidated by a rack of a shotgun, because more than the majority was armed.
To much movie watching for racking a round runs the bad guy off.
MoJo wrote:2/0 Buck indoors. Outdoors, slugs.
Topbuilder, you should rethink the birdshot. Birdshot is for bird hunting. Would you put a rubber bullet as your first round in a handgun? Racking the slide on a shotgun only intimidates those who would be intimidated by a loudly spoken command. A determined bad guy or one on drugs will not be deterred by sounds or birdshot.
xb12s wrote:Guys, thanks for all the links with comparisons of birdshot to buckshot. Here's the link I mentioned to the video of Jeff Quinn shooting the meat showing penetration with birdshot. I think he proves his point well enough. No, it's not 12 inches of penetration in ballistic gelatin, but I think it lends credence to performance in a human. The information in a couple of those links was pretty good. The link with the strongest statements against birdshot was long on hyperbole in my opinion. Application and distance matters. Certainly buckshot is superior, but I think stating that you'll end up in a pine box if you choose birdshot is probably not accurate.
That being said, buckshot is clearly superior in penetration. For me personally I'd like to have the option to shoot somebody through a barrier (door or couch) if needed, so buckshot is a better choice. But, I tend to lean towards the argument that more is more <as opposed to less is more>.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq3RVvL9ZjU
I like Jeff Quinn, but I have to disagree with him on this one. Yes, a direct hit to front-facing COM with birdshot at interior distances will probably work to stop a threat. But probably just ain't good enough for some of us. The reason FBI ballistics testing stipulates 12 inches minimum penetration is because that's what is needed if a bad guy is turned side ways (sees you pointing the gun, turns away as you fire) and you hit bad guy in the arm/shoulder. And his meat test exhibits this deficiency perfectly, the birdshot made a devastating wound to the pork shoulder but he even says it DID NOT "overpenetrate" the approximately 4 inches of pork shoulder meat and bone.xb12s wrote:Guys, thanks for all the links with comparisons of birdshot to buckshot. Here's the link I mentioned to the video of Jeff Quinn shooting the meat showing penetration with birdshot. I think he proves his point well enough. No, it's not 12 inches of penetration in ballistic gelatin, but I think it lends credence to performance in a human. The information in a couple of those links was pretty good. The link with the strongest statements against birdshot was long on hyperbole in my opinion. Application and distance matters. Certainly buckshot is superior, but I think stating that you'll end up in a pine box if you choose birdshot is probably not accurate.
That being said, buckshot is clearly superior in penetration. For me personally I'd like to have the option to shoot somebody through a barrier (door or couch) if needed, so buckshot is a better choice. But, I tend to lean towards the argument that more is more <as opposed to less is more>.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq3RVvL9ZjU
Good point. I was sarcastically speaking about some mechanical sound. Ballistic sound are more powerful.carlson1 wrote:Believe what you want. You have two types of burglars. Those who do not want confrontation (the professional) and those who do want confrontation (the ones who will hurt you). Racking a shotgun will not work against those who want confrontation. I am not going to take time to rack my shot gun, aiming, safety off, and shooting. I am aiming, turning off safety, and pulling trigger.
I have met very few suspects I ever arrested that was intimidated by a rack of a shotgun, because more than the majority was armed.
To much movie watching for racking a round runs the bad guy off.
OTOH, someone hopped up on drugs might brush it off and keep coming. You can say that about any round of course, but we're dealing with probabilities, and a bad outcome is more likely with birdshot than buckshot or 9mm or .45 ACP.
Good points guys. There's certainly no arguing that buckshot is better. In some ways its similar to the caliber wars conversation with some key differences. 9mm or 45 both may not stop a threat unless you hit in the right place. Birdshot would probably fall into that category too. Looks like ancillary damage to somebody might be more debilitating from birdshot than a pistol though. E.g. a hit to the shoulder (not passing through the COM after) would likely not stop a determined individual with a pistol round, but the birdshot would be more likely to filet open their shoulder and be debilitating. With the penetration of the buckshot as you point out, you'll do quite a bit more damage from a shot on somebody facing sideways or whatever.A-R wrote: The reason FBI ballistics testing stipulates 12 inches minimum penetration is because that's what is needed if a bad guy is turned side ways (sees you pointing the gun, turns away as you fire) and you hit bad guy in the arm/shoulder. And his meat test exhibits this deficiency perfectly, the birdshot made a devastating wound to the pork shoulder but he even says it DID NOT "overpenetrate" the approximately 4 inches of pork shoulder meat and bone.
Now imagine if that pork shoulder was a human shoulder. Yes, to 95% of the population that would be a devastating wound that would likely convince them to stop attacking. It might even eventually prove fatal if not attended to quickly by medical professionals. But to someone high on addrenaline + possibly narcotics, it may not STOP the threat as quickly as you need the threat stopped.
I've been citing these stories below ad nauseum in discussions with libtards about why we "need" so-called "high capacity" magazines and semi-auto firearms ... it's because one or two shots doesn't necessarily STOP THE THREAT. Nor will a painful shoulder wound. Stopping the threat may require hits to vital organs, which the bird shot will not penetrate deeply enough nor with enough force to do.
I've never seen #1 anywhere either. I can't even get the Federal flight-control buckshot locally....the only place I've seen it is at Cabela's. However, the Hornady "Versatite wad" buck is about the same and available in 10 round boxes at Academy.xb12s wrote:OTOH, someone hopped up on drugs might brush it off and keep coming. You can say that about any round of course, but we're dealing with probabilities, and a bad outcome is more likely with birdshot than buckshot or 9mm or .45 ACP.Good points guys. There's certainly no arguing that buckshot is better. In some ways its similar to the caliber wars conversation with some key differences. 9mm or 45 both may not stop a threat unless you hit in the right place. Birdshot would probably fall into that category too. Looks like ancillary damage to somebody might be more debilitating from birdshot than a pistol though. E.g. a hit to the shoulder (not passing through the COM after) would likely not stop a determined individual with a pistol round, but the birdshot would be more likely to filet open their shoulder and be debilitating. With the penetration of the buckshot as you point out, you'll do quite a bit more damage from a shot on somebody facing sideways or whatever.A-R wrote: The reason FBI ballistics testing stipulates 12 inches minimum penetration is because that's what is needed if a bad guy is turned side ways (sees you pointing the gun, turns away as you fire) and you hit bad guy in the arm/shoulder. And his meat test exhibits this deficiency perfectly, the birdshot made a devastating wound to the pork shoulder but he even says it DID NOT "overpenetrate" the approximately 4 inches of pork shoulder meat and bone.
Now imagine if that pork shoulder was a human shoulder. Yes, to 95% of the population that would be a devastating wound that would likely convince them to stop attacking. It might even eventually prove fatal if not attended to quickly by medical professionals. But to someone high on addrenaline + possibly narcotics, it may not STOP the threat as quickly as you need the threat stopped.
I've been citing these stories below ad nauseum in discussions with libtards about why we "need" so-called "high capacity" magazines and semi-auto firearms ... it's because one or two shots doesn't necessarily STOP THE THREAT. Nor will a painful shoulder wound. Stopping the threat may require hits to vital organs, which the bird shot will not penetrate deeply enough nor with enough force to do.
The key difference is the penetration depth, a pistol shot through someone's side would penetrate nicely also, whereas the birdshot would require a hit to COM from the front or back more than likely to be a sure stopper.
I am currently loaded with 0 or 00 I think. I noticed that one of the articles you guys cited recommended #1 buckshot. I don't think I've ever seen that for sale. They listed 00 as the next best alternate. I wonder why they didn't say 0 as the next best alternate.