TexasCHLforum.com

twomillenium wrote: It is, it has and that is proven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM5U2kGQCc

That video proves nothing other than birdshot had a larger spread... He even said that the birdshot will not penetrate as deep as the buck shot. Look at videos where the birdshot is shot into ballistic gelatin. The FBI states that you will need 12" or more penetration in ballistic gel to reliably hit vitals. Birdshot fails to reach 12" penetration.

Here is a video using #4 shot... It fails to have sufficient penetration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GqZaVQW7O4

Watch this & then come back and explain how effective birdshot is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhZf_x8Esms

Never ever did I say birdshot was more powerful than buckshot. Birdshot would not be a good choice outside of home defense, but it is more than effective inside the home with rooms no larger than 30 ft. especially where more than one people are in the home or the home is in the burbs, apartment or condo. I have witnessed similar threats and I would not depend on one shot to stop the threat and that is with any firearm.

If I feel the need for more, I kinda like this. I have done this but I don't know how they would act in a pump or semi shotgun. Maybe something worth trying out in the pump or semi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3M46XVfVOU&t=14s

Where I live if my 00 buck Over penetrated a wall it would fall short of anything outside or inside. I live in the middle of no where. That being said if 00 buck after it hit someone and went through bones and muscle and liquid then through drywall studs insulation drywall I'm pretty sure it would not have enough energy to go through another wall then metal siding. Also if I missed I doubt it would over penetrate the walls. Also I would NEVER use birdshot for SD unless it's all I had. I have shot doves and they exploded with a big poof of feather and kept on goin and I've seen that happen multiple times. I'm sorry but if I shoot someone I'm goin to use the most effective round that i can because not only my life but my family's life is in danger and I'm not gonna mess around with under powered loads. The only load I'd consider close to bird shot would be 3 1/2 # 2 magnums in lead shot or 3 1/2 BBB's. But if I have the option of 00 or 000 im using that. I understand that shot placement is key but bigger more powerful rounds deliver much more shock and damage. That's why I carry 45 acp and that's why I use 00 buck in my HD shotgun. People can argue till the cows come home about stopping power is it relevant is it a myth bla bla but I have seen first hand that it is not a myth in my own testing. I've got a friend who worked at a jail for a while and he said you hear inmates saying they got shot with a 9 six times or a 40 4 times or a 38 3 or 4 times but he said you don't hardly ever hear anyone gettin shot by a 45acp more than 2 times and making it. I'm am not saying 45acp is a godly round that should be the only round carried. I love 9mm and carry it every now and then and I have no prob defending my self with it but I'm goin with 45acp

twomillenium wrote: but it is more than effective inside the home with rooms no larger than 30 ft. especially where more than one people are in the home or the home is in the burbs, apartment or condo.

No, it isn't... It still does not penetrate to hit vitals. It makes a nasty looking, shallow wound... but it is way less likely to stop a threat than the buck shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T26cV_M_oAE

If you would not count on any firearm for a one shot stop, why would you use a load that is the least likely to provide a one shot stop?

And the cut shell doesn't perform any better...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tna--yR4JFQ

AndyC wrote:

apvonkanel wrote:It's not just the JHP creates a bigger wound cavity, it's that the JHP transfers a greater amount of velocity to the object (pushing the person back more)

Sorry, but that's nonsense, even if you were referring to energy and not velocity. Why do you even care how much velocity is left? If I hit you with a cannonball and it goes right through you, am I really going to complain that most of its energy was wasted? As much as I'm a Scot and we're notoriously cheap, we're talking about effectiveness - not efficiency.

A) I used improper terminology. Okay.
B) I'm looking at force of impact. If we were shooting cannonballs your argument would be perfectly sensible and valid. Considering we're talking about much smaller projectiles (unless you happen to be using a cannon, at which point I would say kudos to you) that often require a second or even third shot, I'd say it would be best if we talk about that. A hole jabbed through a person doesn't stop them nearly as quickly as a cavity that pushes them back. I'm not concerned about wasted energy, I'm concerned about total energy transferred. Energy transference plays a large part in stopping a charging attacker. A shot in kevlar can knock a man down, because practically all energy is transferred to the target. If your first shot is guaranteed to end the threat it becomes irrelevant, but in any other situation the amount of energy transferred to the target definitely plays a vital role.

WildBill wrote:

AndyC wrote:

apvonkanel wrote:It's not just the JHP creates a bigger wound cavity, it's that the JHP transfers a greater amount of velocity to the object (pushing the person back more)

Sorry, but that's nonsense, even if you were referring to energy and not velocity. Why do you even care how much velocity is left? If I hit you with a cannonball and it goes right through you, am I really going to complain that most of its energy was wasted? As much as I'm a Scot and we're notoriously cheap, we're talking about effectiveness - not efficiency.

Many people get confused about bullets pushing people back. Too many movies and TV shows IMO.

A) I used improper terminology. Okay.
B) I'm looking at force of impact. If we were shooting cannonballs your argument would be perfectly sensible and valid. Considering we're talking about much smaller projectiles (unless you happen to be using a cannon, at which point I would say kudos to you) that often require a second or even third shot, I'd say it would be best if we talk about that. A hole jabbed through a person doesn't stop them nearly as quickly as a cavity that pushes them back. I'm not concerned about wasted energy, I'm concerned about total energy transferred. Energy transference plays a large part in stopping a charging attacker. A shot to kevlar can knock a man down or around, because practically all energy is transferred to the target. If your first shot is guaranteed to end the threat it becomes irrelevant, but in any other situation the amount of energy transferred to the target definitely plays a vital role.

IF you are in a position where you must use lethal force in defense of your home, why wouldn't you choose the weapon and ammunition most likely to cause devastating and permanent damage to whoever is attacking you?

I don't want to have to defend my home with deadly force and take another human being's life. However, if the person puts me in that situation then I want to ensure that mine is the only side of the story that gets put into the police report. Dead men tell no tales, nor do they muddy the water with conflicting reasons on why they caused you to use deadly force.

Birdshot is for birds.

Federal HST (or other known and proven rounds) is for two legged creatures invading your home.

AndyC wrote:

apvonkanel wrote:Energy transference plays a large part in stopping a charging attacker. A shot in kevlar can knock a man down, because practically all energy is transferred to the target. If your first shot is guaranteed to end the threat it becomes irrelevant, but in any other situation the amount of energy transferred to the target definitely plays a vital role.

Rubbish. The impact of a bullet doesn't knock people down, and "energy transfer" as a wounding mechanism is nonsense. When a bullet stops, do you honestly believe that it somehow throws a magical force forward? Total garbage - when a bullet stops inside a body it's because it has simply run out of steam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x59iN4KMz4

Andy, You are absolutely correct. Totally ignoring Newton's laws by design or stupidity they never understand why the person firing the gun is not thrown backwards. Using birdshot for self defense is a birdbrain idea. You can make a "cutshell" from a birdshot shot shell, but why? That was common before slugs were available.

For the 597th time...birdshot does not penetrate deep enough to reliably stop a human attacker at any distance. Birdshot is for birds.

Just my youwouldthinkpeoplewouldstopbeingcheapandbuybuckshot .02,
LeonCarr

AndyC wrote:

apvonkanel wrote:Energy transference plays a large part in stopping a charging attacker. A shot in kevlar can knock a man down, because practically all energy is transferred to the target. If your first shot is guaranteed to end the threat it becomes irrelevant, but in any other situation the amount of energy transferred to the target definitely plays a vital role.

Rubbish. The impact of a bullet doesn't knock people down, and "energy transfer" as a wounding mechanism is nonsense. When a bullet stops, do you honestly believe that it somehow throws a magical force forward? Total garbage - when a bullet stops inside a body it's because it has simply run out of steam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x59iN4KMz4

I hope that job pays well!

Pawpaw wrote:Watch this & then come back and explain how effective birdshot is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhZf_x8Esms

That is a very cool video. Kinda takes the guess work out of it eh? No birdshot for me for home/self defense.

When I reach for something to save me I want a round in it that is designed to stop humans effectively. Not a round that is effective at peppering birds out of the sky with enough meat left for me to eat.