20 Gauge Defense Loads

[Worsley]

My parents and in-laws recently decided to both aquire Stoeger 20 gauge coach guns as their first home defense gun. I had a previous thread discussing best firearm for elderly when SHTF where we discussed options, pro’s and guns but ultimately they did not want to go get HQLs and settled on the simple to use, reliable and manageable 20 gauge SxS.

After doing research on what ammo to use I see many conflicting recommendations and am leaning towards Winchester Super-X #3 Buck but wanted to find out what others recommend.

P.S. I see a lot of folks dropping deer with a 20 gauge, any recommendations for slugs?

 

[Doco Overboard]

I use any 20 g foster type slugs I can find to shoot deer when I carry one.
In an open sighted rifled m500 deer barrel to boot.

 

[ohen cepel]

Lots of debate and depends on their situation some and if going through walls is a concern for them (townhouse vs single fam home). In the end, I usually go with #4 or 00 myself. #3 would be fine also.

Depends a fair amount on what one can find these days also.

 

[Uncle Duke]

For home defense, you can debate buckshot size preferences all day long. For me, it would be #1 buck. I think it offers the best compromise of stopping power vs. lower risk of 00 overpenetration.

You would need Foster or Brenneke type slugs in that Coach model. I have never myself shot slugs through a side by side, but the practice was common years ago. I'd be very curious to try it. But I would expect some pretty stiff recoil out of that Coach. I would also be curious to see how slugs print out of a Coach, given differences in both barrel characteristics and alignment, as well as choke difference between barrels. My guess is, probably not so great. But you won't know for sure until you try it, and with various brands and loads.

I would stick to buckshot for home defense ranges. I see no real compelling overall utility for slugs at home defense distances. That's just me.

 

[Pale Ryder]

The thing with slugs though, is you would not be using them at 50 yds, or even 25 yds. 7-10 yds, I doubt it matters how regulated both barrels are with slugs. I would keep some on hand, but not for first use in HD. First two shots don’t work next two off a butt cuff would then be slugs. YMMV.

Buckshot choice would depend on home composition. Single family home, no close neighbors 00 buck. Apartment or very close neighbors 1 or even 4 buck.

 

[Uncle Duke]

The thing with slugs though, is you would not be using them at 50 yds, or even 25 yds. 7-10 yds, I doubt it matters how regulated both barrels are with slugs. I would keep some on hand, but not for first use in HD. First two shots don’t work next two off a butt cuff would then be slugs. YMMV.

Buckshot choice would depend on home composition. Single family home, no close neighbors 00 buck. Apartment or very close neighbors 1 or even 4 buck.

OP started out on home defense, then lastly jumped to deer. But yes, absolutely true that barrel regulation will matter not a lick, with intent to use slugs at spitting distances.

 

[Biggfoot44]

It's fairly simple .

Since recoil is one of the key considerations , use 2.75 in shells .

90 % plus of 2.75 in 20ga Buckshot is 3 Buck .

3 Buck is more than reasonably adaquate for SD at home distances .

If you just wanted to be different for sake of being different , test fire with Foster style slugs ( old school " Rifled Slugs " ) to see if either bbl hits reasonably close to point of bead at 10-15 yards .


FWIW - RIO does offer a 9 pellet 1Buck load . In the abstract , a nominal .30 dia pellet ( but in actuality to load in rows of 3 is probably +/- .290 real diameter) could have advantage over nominal .250 pellets . But doubtful to be worthwhile for 9 pellets vs 20 pellets .)

 

[Raiderjack23]

3 Buck is more than reasonably adaquate for SD at home distances .

This is what I settled on. No practical experience thankfully - only based on what I read and conversations concerning load effectiveness and containment of shot.

Wife requested a "less lethal' option. So, first shell is a double rubber ball followed by the #3 buck. I am sure there are a ton of 'what if' scenarios in regard to effectiveness of that first rubber ball load. I tend to fall in the camp that if you point a gun at someone - you want it to be effective. However, I am OK with the rubber ball load to 1] keep the marital peace. 2] I tend to think there is a level of effectiveness in establishing the scenario with the audible rack and if necessary, a first blast of whatever. If jeff G is still coming after you after that - then you are at a different level of home defense against a motivated intruder.

Again, no experience - Just how I have played it out in my minds eye.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Less Lethal Option for shotgun equipped person = Harsh Words , and Stern Admonitions to Depart .

 

[Uncle Duke]

Less Lethal Option for shotgun equipped person = Harsh Words , and Stern Admonitions to Depart .

This⬆⬆⬆. And if stern admonishment doesn't work.....

You'll have 2 shots with Coach. Maybe.

Don't give up one of them.

 

[jcutonilli]

This is what I settled on. No practical experience thankfully - only based on what I read and conversations concerning load effectiveness and containment of shot.

Wife requested a "less lethal' option. So, first shell is a double rubber ball followed by the #3 buck. I am sure there are a ton of 'what if' scenarios in regard to effectiveness of that first rubber ball load. I tend to fall in the camp that if you point a gun at someone - you want it to be effective. However, I am OK with the rubber ball load to 1] keep the marital peace. 2] I tend to think there is a level of effectiveness in establishing the scenario with the audible rack and if necessary, a first blast of whatever. If jeff G is still coming after you after that - then you are at a different level of home defense against a motivated intruder.

Again, no experience - Just how I have played it out in my minds eye.

You may want to consider birdshot. It is both lethal and "less lethal" depending on circumstances. At short ranges (inside a normal room, 3-5 yards) it is lethal when you really need it, but it rapidly transitions to "less lethal" with distance and barriers. Buckshot only gives lethal options in most HD scenarios.

 

[303_enfield]

Tons of "less lethal" rounds available, Lightfield makes some, look them up.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1002099915/

But you're not a LEO, if you shot you need to stop the threat. With a double barrel don't waste time with less lethal ammo. Reloading takes time, too much time.

 

[sxs]

You may want to consider birdshot. It is both lethal and "less lethal" depending on circumstances. At short ranges (inside a normal room, 3-5 yards) it is lethal when you really need it, but it rapidly transitions to "less lethal" with distance and barriers. Buckshot only gives lethal options in most HD scenarios.

Bird shot is also less likely to penetrate multiple walls and perhaps even pass through the exterior wall. Bird shot doesn't necessarily mean #7-1/2 or #8. It could mean something like #4 (not buckshot) in a high velocity shell (heavy field load that used to be called 'high brass').At 15 ft or less (and generally, inside you will be much less even in a 15 ft room since your muzzle will be 2, 3 4 ft or more from a wall) it is a pretty devastating load. Recoil on many of those loads are also generally less than most slug or buckshot loads unless you were able to acquire managed recoil loads.

 

[pre64hunter]

Good Choice

Steel shot waterfowl loads is what I have on hand for my wife. At 10 or 20 feet, an ounce of the biggest shot size you can find to the face or chest of an intruder will ruin their day or life. I say "their" because it could be more than one.
Why steel shot? Because it's more pellets, bigger pellets per ounce. Lighter pay load means less recoil in case a follow up shot is needed.
The steel shot is less likely to penetrate a wall with lethal force and kill someone in another room or building.
If their shots are going to be more than 30 feet then go with #4 buck shot.
Get one of those ammo holders that slip on the stock if the gun is stored properly.

I'm glad they settled on the 20 gauge. I joined your discussion on the OP. At their age they just need piece of mind and protection, no need to go full Rambo.

 

[alucard0822]

You may want to consider birdshot. It is both lethal and "less lethal" depending on circumstances. At short ranges (inside a normal room, 3-5 yards) it is lethal when you really need it, but it rapidly transitions to "less lethal" with distance and barriers. Buckshot only gives lethal options in most HD scenarios.

LOL, here we go again, this is wrong in many ways, and gets shut down constantly from pretty much all credentialed folk here every time you post it.

Simple answer is a SXS isn't a great HD weapon, lots of recoil, low capacity. Best thing is large diameter (#4 or larger) managed recoil buck or slugs, and have your folks practice with them.

Bird shot, and in fact all firearm propelled less than lethal loads are pointless at best and dangerous at worst, especially when you only have 2 chances to stop whoever needs to be stopped. If you are in fear for your life, you need a load that will stop the threat as fast as possible, AKA an effective lethal load, anything less is dangerous. If you are not in fear for your life, you cannot fire ANY load, lethal or not, you will be charged. Less lethal loads do have the potential to kill, although not reliably, and are far less likely to stop an attack, this includes bird shot. Attend pretty much any credentialed self-defense in the home course and find out exactly why in detail.

 

[teratos]

Steel shot waterfowl loads is what I have on hand for my wife. At 10 or 20 feet, an ounce of the biggest shot size you can find to the face or chest of an intruder will ruin their day or life. I say "their" because it could be more than one.
Why steel shot? Because it's more pellets, bigger pellets per ounce. Lighter pay load means less recoil in case a follow up shot is needed.
The steel shot is less likely to penetrate a wall with lethal force and kill someone in another room or building.
If their shots are going to be more than 30 feet then go with #4 buck shot.
Get one of those ammo holders that slip on the stock if the gun is stored properly.

I'm glad they settled on the 20 gauge. I joined your discussion on the OP. At their age they just need piece of mind and protection, no need to go full Rambo.

Do you know the spread of shot at 20 feet from a skeet gun? It's about 6"
Also, penetration sucks.

Not picking on you, but there is a LOT of legend surrounding the efficacy of birdshot in people.

 

[jcutonilli]

LOL, here we go again, this is wrong in many ways, and gets shut down constantly from pretty much all credentialed folk here every time you post it.

Simple answer is a SXS isn't a great HD weapon, lots of recoil, low capacity. Best thing is large diameter (#4 or larger) managed recoil buck or slugs, and have your folks practice with them.

Bird shot, and in fact all firearm propelled less than lethal loads are pointless at best and dangerous at worst, especially when you only have 2 chances to stop whoever needs to be stopped. If you are in fear for your life, you need a load that will stop the threat as fast as possible, AKA an effective lethal load, anything less is dangerous. If you are not in fear for your life, you cannot fire ANY load, lethal or not, you will be charged. Less lethal loads do have the potential to kill, although not reliably, and are far less likely to stop an attack, this includes bird shot. Attend pretty much any credentialed self-defense in the home course and find out exactly why in detail.

Yeah, here we go again, so called "credentialed folk" that want to ignore the rules of gun safety. You are ultimately responsible for every shot you take and every home defense situation is different. Everything that you said focuses on the immediate threat and ignores the consequences of what happens if you miss. That is typical among the so called "credentialed folk"

Birdshot certainly is not appropriate for all situations and has some very real limitations, but it can certainly be a viable option for certain situations. It certainly is not "pointless at best" as numerous simulated tests have shown. Do you volunteer to be shot with birdshot at 3 yards to demonstrate how "pointless at best" it can be?

 

[alucard0822]

Yeah, here we go again, so called "credentialed folk" that want to ignore the rules of gun safety. You are ultimately responsible for every shot you take and every home defense situation is different. Everything that you said focuses on the immediate threat and ignores the consequences of what happens if you miss. That is typical among the so called "credentialed folk"

Birdshot certainly is not appropriate for all situations and has some very real limitations, but it can certainly be a viable option for certain situations. It certainly is not "pointless at best" as numerous simulated tests have shown. Do you volunteer to be shot with birdshot at 3 yards to demonstrate how "pointless at best" it can be?

I don't think anyone is going to volunteer for you to piss on their shoe either, doesn't mean it's effective defense or good advise, it's just a common trope to defend a bad choice. If it isn't made of clay or wearing feathers, and you want it to stop, don't use birdshot, of course the Op is free to listen to who they want, the advice is worth the $0 they paid for it. As far as penetration or "overpenetration", if it won't penetrate drywall, it won't stop a person reliably, and you are more likely to miss than hit. So unfortunately the best way to limit the threat to innocent people on the other side of the wall is with the best placement of an effective round, stopping the threat as fast, and with as few shots as possible. Relying on 2 rounds of birdshot as a threat potentially mag dumps in your general direction is more likely to endanger the homeowner and anyone else in the house than a well aimed shot or two that are actually capable of reliably stopping a threat.

 

[jcutonilli]

I don't think anyone is going to volunteer for you to piss on their shoe either, doesn't mean it's effective defense or good advise, it's just a common trope to defend a bad choice. If it isn't made of clay or wearing feathers, and you want it to stop, don't use birdshot, of course the Op is free to listen to who they want, the advice is worth the $0 they paid for it. As far as penetration or "overpenetration", if it won't penetrate drywall, it won't stop a person reliably, and you are more likely to miss than hit. So unfortunately the best way to limit the threat to innocent people on the other side of the wall is with the best placement of an effective round, stopping the threat as fast, and with as few shots as possible. Relying on 2 rounds of birdshot as a threat potentially mag dumps in your general direction is more likely to endanger the homeowner and anyone else in the house than a well aimed shot or two that are actually capable of reliably stopping a threat.

I am not the one that described birdshot as "pointless at best". It sounds like you are not willing to stand behind that statement.

You don't even seem to understand the penetration capability of birdshot. Birdshot is more than capable of penetrating drywall. Even the individual pellets are capable of penetrating drywall. What individual birdshot pellets don't do is penetrate deeply. They tend to get stopped by a few layers of drywall.

This is a bonus when as you say "you are likely to miss than hit." People on the other side of walls are unlikely to be killed.

Shotguns do not shoot one pellet, they shoot a mass of them. The penetration capability of this mass of pellets is very different than a single pellet. This mass of pellets is capable of creating a lethal wound. This mass spreads out as a function of distance and penetration through barriers.

Once the mass spreads into individual pellets, it looses the capability of reliably creating a lethal wound and becomes "less lethal". This is both a limitation and a feature. The limitation is that birdshot is only lethal at short ranges and any use needs to fit within those ranges. Many, but not all home defense situations tend to fit within those ranges. The advantage is the same, it is only lethal at short ranges and and misses are unlikely to kill others. Remember "you are likely to miss than hit."

I am also unsure why you keep bringing up 2 rounds. While the original poster talked about a side by side, the post I responded to was talking about using rubber balls for the first shot. I was suggesting that second person might want to evaluate if birdshot would fit into their situation.

 

[Raiderjack23]

I was suggesting that second person might want to evaluate if birdshot would fit into their situation.

Assuming I am the second poster referred to above. I did consider (and bought some) #2 birdshot for some of the reasons mentioned. But mostly thinking it might be easier for my wife to handle in regards to follow up shots. After some range time . . . went with the rubber ball shell followed by #3 Buckshot. To be clear, we are equipped with a pump action and not a coach gun. Five shells in the tube with nothing chambered.

Less-lethal is not my first choice and I appreciated the humor in some of the follow-up comments. However, as mentioned in my first post, it keeps the wife agreeable and it is a constraint I will abide by.

At the risk of making this thread last longer than it should . . . Would be interested to know peoples' thoughts on if there is a legal benefit to using less lethal as I am.