20 Gauge Defense Loads

[outrider58]

Love these debates.

SxS shotgun with 00 buckshot. Miss once and you've actually missed 9 times. Miss twice, you've missed 18 times and your pop-gun is empty.

Miss with yer rubber balls, well...

 

[Raiderjack23]

I appreciate all the replies and sharing of expertise. Hopefully, there will never be a need for me to find out what is really required. Thanks.

Love these debates.

SxS shotgun with 00 buckshot. Miss once and you've actually missed 9 times. Miss twice, you've missed 18 times and your pop-gun is empty.

Miss with yer rubber balls, well...

Many of the posts seem to be coming from the point of view that the rubber ball round is the only thing being used. Shell one is the rubber ball load. Next four in the tube are #3 Buck.

 

[Worsley]

Many of the posts seem to be coming from the point of view that the rubber ball round is the only thing being used. Shell one is the rubber ball load. Next four in the tube are #3 Buck.

Completely agree, that’s the exact point JD McGuire made.

 

[outrider58]

I appreciate all the replies and sharing of expertise. Hopefully, there will never be a need for me to find out what is really required. Thanks.



Many of the posts seem to be coming from the point of view that the rubber ball round is the only thing being used. Shell one is the rubber ball load. Next four in the tube are #3 Buck.

It's not that I'm opposed to LTL means(but I am), I'm opposed to shotguns being used as home defense weapons, unless you know how to deploy that SG, tactically. Most people don't take a shotgun self defense regime seriously. It's not about grabbing your trusty 32" goose gun full of(3 rounds) steel shot and running down your hallway with the intent of scaring a malevolent intruder. I don't want it to get that far. A person should(in a perfect world) know their fall back position and fatal funnel. From their, they can make their verbal commands to the intruder, call 911, and if necessary, stop that threat if it persists. For me, that is a repeating arm that I can pinpoint shoot and has a multiple round capabilitiy.

 

[woodline]

It's not that I'm opposed to LTL means(but I am), I'm opposed to shotguns being used as home defense weapons, unless you know how to deploy that SG, tactically. Most people don't take a shotgun self defense regime seriously. It's not about grabbing your trusty 32" goose gun full of(3 rounds) steel shot and running down your hallway with the intent of scaring a malevolent intruder. I don't want it to get that far. A person should(in a perfect world) know their fall back position and fatal funnel. From their, they can make their verbal commands to the intruder, call 911, and if necessary, stop that threat if it persists. For me, that is a repeating arm that I can pinpoint shoot and has a multiple round capabilitiy.

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter. Not a huge fan of shotguns for home defense, but I’ve had very little luck convincing people that want to use them that an AR, for example (doesn’t need to be an
AR, just citing that as a great example) is easier to use and keep fed than a shotgun. But some people just like shotguns. To them I say “as long as you train and have a home defense plan that you rehearse on occasion, sounds good to me.” People should use what they like and are comfortable with. And train regularly.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I went and checked again TNO9's first Birdshot test . The distance was 20 Feet .

20 feet Is a relevant SD distance . The bulk of pellets were between 3 and 4.5 inches , with only small handful of individual pellets going deeper . And that's with bare gelatin .

The more knowledgeable portion of Birdshot advocates is relying on the mechanism of the pellets impacting in essentially a solid mass , something like a prefragmented slug in operation .

But this is a phenomenon that occurs at Really close distance , off the top of my head and memory of various reported tests , something like 3 to 5 Feet .

Actually , this sounds like a good behind the barn test , with my latest acquisition , the 20ga ( smooth) Slug Gun . I'll try to get some time and cardboard and test this myself .

 

[jcutonilli]

I went and checked again TNO9's first Birdshot test . The distance was 20 Feet .

20 feet Is a relevant SD distance . The bulk of pellets were between 3 and 4.5 inches , with only small handful of individual pellets going deeper . And that's with bare gelatin .

The more knowledgeable portion of Birdshot advocates is relying on the mechanism of the pellets impacting in essentially a solid mass , something like a prefragmented slug in operation .

But this is a phenomenon that occurs at Really close distance , off the top of my head and memory of various reported tests , something like 3 to 5 Feet .

Actually , this sounds like a good behind the barn test , with my latest acquisition , the 20ga ( smooth) Slug Gun . I'll try to get some time and cardboard and test this myself .

What I remembered was the pattern had dispersed a bit with individual pellets showing. One complicating factor with shotguns is the choke that is used.
https://1source.basspro.com/news-tips/hunting-gear/7692/guide-shotgun-choke-tubes

I would guess that he was using a cylinder choke, which appears to spread at closer to 2 in per yard.

I don't believe you need a solid mass for birdshot to be effective, but a 12 or 14 in pattern is way too large. Based on some of the testing by Paul Harrell, I would guess the pattern should be six inches or less.

 

[teratos]

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter. Not a huge fan of shotguns for home defense, but I’ve had very little luck convincing people that want to use them that an AR, for example (doesn’t need to be an
AR, just citing that as a great example) is easier to use and keep fed than a shotgun. But some people just like shotguns. To them I say “as long as you train and have a home defense plan that you rehearse on occasion, sounds good to me.” People should use what they like and are comfortable with. And train regularly.

One of the problems is the mythology that lives in the head of gun owners. They think shotguns are absolutely devastating with any ammo. They can be, but not always. They think buckshot will penetrate less than an AR round, it doesn't. They make up all kinds of stories about how the prosecutor will have a field day with an AR being used. I can't find a single case where modifications to a firearm made a difference.

 

[Worsley]

One of the problems is the mythology that lives in the head of gun owners. They think shotguns are absolutely devastating with any ammo. They can be, but not always. They think buckshot will penetrate less than an AR round, it doesn't. They make up all kinds of stories about how the prosecutor will have a field day with an AR being used. I can't find a single case where modifications to a firearm made a difference.

Kyle Rittenhouse approves this message.

 

[woodline]

One of the problems is the mythology that lives in the head of gun owners. They think shotguns are absolutely devastating with any ammo. They can be, but not always. They think buckshot will penetrate less than an AR round, it doesn't. They make up all kinds of stories about how the prosecutor will have a field day with an AR being used. I can't find a single case where modifications to a firearm made a difference.

Personally I want a home defense gun that’s the size of my car keys, has the muzzle energy of .50bmg, has zero recoil, only penetrates the flesh of bad guys who want to hurt my family or deny climate change, has an aiming laser, zero noise, and makes a mean cup of rooibos.

For some inconvenient reason, that doesn’t exist. So I’ll take a suppressed modern semi auto that has generous capacity and low recoil, is pinpoint accurate from zero to at least 50 yards, fires projectiles possessing acceptable terminal ballistics, and is capable of mounting a flashlight, a modern sighting system, and a sling. I’ll make my own bush tea I guess.

But again, that’s what I own, train with weekly and am comfortable with. Which is more important than what my weapon preference happens to be.

 

[outrider58]

Personally I want a home defense gun that’s the size of my car keys, has the muzzle energy of .50bmg, has zero recoil, only penetrates the flesh of bad guys who want to hurt my family or deny climate change, has an aiming laser, zero noise, and makes a mean cup of rooibos.

For some inconvenient reason, that doesn’t exist. So I’ll take a suppressed modern semi auto that has generous capacity and low recoil, is pinpoint accurate from zero to at least 50 yards, fires projectiles possessing acceptable terminal ballistics, and is capable of mounting a flashlight, a modern sighting system, and a sling. I’ll make my own bush tea I guess.

But again, that’s what I own, train with weekly and am comfortable with. Which is more important than what my weapon preference happens to be.

We'll have to have tea sometime...

 

[teratos]

We'll have to have tea sometime...

We are having tea Saturday....

 

[outrider58]

We are having tea Saturday....

By George, we are!

 

[alucard0822]

One of the problems is the mythology that lives in the head of gun owners. They think shotguns are absolutely devastating with any ammo. They can be, but not always. They think buckshot will penetrate less than an AR round, it doesn't. They make up all kinds of stories about how the prosecutor will have a field day with an AR being used. I can't find a single case where modifications to a firearm made a difference.

So much this. Have run courses with carbines and shotguns as both a student and instructor, flat out NOBODY can simply hit a series of targets at CQB range with a shotgun as fast as they can with a carbine. A shotgun is effective, but it is one of the more difficult firearms to run well, primarily due to reloading and recoil. Given the choice between 30 effective rounds and light recoil vs a few effective rounds and heavy recoil, the AR wins any day. Even more if some of those few shotgun rounds are handicapped due to a lack of comfort with defensive firearms, or self defense in general. There are cases where the prosecutor did argue that deploying a LTL weapon when a firearm was available showed the person was not in fear for their life. It's also a bad idea to load at least the first 20-50% of the capacity of a firearm with ammo that will not be effective. IMO a flashlight and training is a better way to avoid accidentally shooting a loved one than to nerf potentially the only shot that you can take against an attacker. As far as arguing that birdshot is a good choice for HD, usually falls under the adage, "beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance"

I went and checked again TNO9's first Birdshot test . The distance was 20 Feet .

20 feet Is a relevant SD distance . The bulk of pellets were between 3 and 4.5 inches , with only small handful of individual pellets going deeper . And that's with bare gelatin .

The more knowledgeable portion of Birdshot advocates is relying on the mechanism of the pellets impacting in essentially a solid mass , something like a prefragmented slug in operation .

But this is a phenomenon that occurs at Really close distance , off the top of my head and memory of various reported tests , something like 3 to 5 Feet .

Actually , this sounds like a good behind the barn test , with my latest acquisition , the 20ga ( smooth) Slug Gun . I'll try to get some time and cardboard and test this myself .

This, there are a couple anecdotes of bird shot hitting at near point blank range and penetrating deeper that they would a few feet away. It's not a reliable mechanism, and most any barrier, or a dozen other variables, and it won't work. Gel isn't a perfect medium, it's made to give a relative comparison with density that approximates an "average". Skin alone can resist penetration as well as 4" of gel, some organs are far less than gel. So it's not as simple as 10" of penetration is twice as good as 5", the 10" might just barely reach organs from some angles and stop a threat, the load that tests at 5" might not make it through a jacket and skin.

 

[woodline]

So much this. Have run courses with carbines and shotguns as both a student and instructor, flat out NOBODY can simply hit a series of targets at CQB range with a shotgun as fast as they can with a carbine. A shotgun is effective, but it is one of the more difficult firearms to run well, primarily due to reloading and recoil. Given the choice between 30 effective rounds and light recoil vs a few effective rounds and heavy recoil, the AR wins any day. Even more if some of those few shotgun rounds are handicapped due to a lack of comfort with defensive firearms, or self defense in general. There are cases where the prosecutor did argue that deploying a LTL weapon when a firearm was available showed the person was not in fear for their life. It's also a bad idea to load at least the first 20-50% of the capacity of a firearm with ammo that will not be effective. IMO a flashlight and training is a better way to avoid accidentally shooting a loved one than to nerf potentially the only shot that you can take against an attacker. As far as arguing that birdshot is a good choice for HD, usually falls under the adage, "beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance"



This, there are a couple anecdotes of bird shot hitting at near point blank range and penetrating deeper that they would a few feet away. It's not a reliable mechanism, and most any barrier, or a dozen other variables, and it won't work. Gel isn't a perfect medium, it's made to give a relative comparison with density that approximates an "average". Skin alone can resist penetration as well as 4" of gel, some organs are far less than gel. So it's not as simple as 10" of penetration is twice as good as 5", the 10" might just barely reach organs from some angles and stop a threat, the load that tests at 5" might not make it through a jacket and skin.

One of my goals for 2021 is to improve my shotgun reloading speed. Definitely need some work, but it should be an interesting departure from my normal training routine.

And thank you for taking the time to spell out the ballistics gelatin minutiae. I feel like similar arguments come up so often nowadays that I don’t have the energy to argue about it. But it is important for folks to understand that 12-18” of calibrated ballistics gel penetration is not the same thing as 12-18” of penetration through home invader. Again, thank you for spelling it out. Hopefully some folk on the fence look at your post and reconsider what is adequate (or inadequate) for terminal ballistics.

 

[teratos]

One of my goals for 2021 is to improve my shotgun reloading speed. Definitely need some work, but it should be an interesting departure from my normal training routine.

And thank you for taking the time to spell out the ballistics gelatin minutiae. I feel like similar arguments come up so often nowadays that I don’t have the energy to argue about it. But it is important for folks to understand that 12-18” of calibrated ballistics gel penetration is not the same thing as 12-18” of penetration through home invader. Again, thank you for spelling it out. Hopefully some folk on the fence look at your post and reconsider what is adequate (or inadequate) for terminal ballistics.

The single most important factor in incapacitating a bad guy is energy transfer into the body and ultimately the CNS. Lets say you have a 1 pound projectile, but it is 20 feet long and very thin/sharp. Fire it at 3000 FPS and you have a tremendous amount of energy, but because of the physics, almost none will transfer to the person. While it carries a tremendous amount of energy, without good shot placement, it will not incapacitate a bad guy. Even a .22 through the left ventricle may give a BG a few more minutes to harm you.

While bird shot is an ounce and a quarter of lead travelling pretty fast, but once is spreads just a little, you have a bunch of tiny things carrying very little energy. You have distributed the energy. Because the transfer of energy is distributed by tiny, low energy pellets the effect is poor. It will not do a good job or reaching the CNS and dropping your assailant. They may die of the trauma, but that takes time.

 

[Pale Ryder]

I’m not advocating shotshell use, but Google “turkey hunting accidental shooting” and you will find several critical injuries and quite a few fatalities. Take away #4 > #7 1/2.

FWIW my personal choice is 5.56 & 9mm already discussed considerably.

 

[teratos]

I’m not advocating shotshell use, but Google “turkey hunting accidental shooting” and you will find several critical injuries and quite a few fatalities. Take away #4 > #7 1/2.

FWIW my personal choice is 5.56 & 9mm already discussed considerably.

Toasters kill people too. Especially "florida man"

 

[jcutonilli]

So much this. Have run courses with carbines and shotguns as both a student and instructor, flat out NOBODY can simply hit a series of targets at CQB range with a shotgun as fast as they can with a carbine. A shotgun is effective, but it is one of the more difficult firearms to run well, primarily due to reloading and recoil. Given the choice between 30 effective rounds and light recoil vs a few effective rounds and heavy recoil, the AR wins any day. Even more if some of those few shotgun rounds are handicapped due to a lack of comfort with defensive firearms, or self defense in general. There are cases where the prosecutor did argue that deploying a LTL weapon when a firearm was available showed the person was not in fear for their life. It's also a bad idea to load at least the first 20-50% of the capacity of a firearm with ammo that will not be effective. IMO a flashlight and training is a better way to avoid accidentally shooting a loved one than to nerf potentially the only shot that you can take against an attacker. As far as arguing that birdshot is a good choice for HD, usually falls under the adage, "beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance"



This, there are a couple anecdotes of bird shot hitting at near point blank range and penetrating deeper that they would a few feet away. It's not a reliable mechanism, and most any barrier, or a dozen other variables, and it won't work. Gel isn't a perfect medium, it's made to give a relative comparison with density that approximates an "average". Skin alone can resist penetration as well as 4" of gel, some organs are far less than gel. So it's not as simple as 10" of penetration is twice as good as 5", the 10" might just barely reach organs from some angles and stop a threat, the load that tests at 5" might not make it through a jacket and skin.

Meet Mr Nobody


The answer as to what is best really depends on the situation. I have heard a number of people on this website make valid points that a home defense situation is not the same as CQB and that you should not try and attack the attacker.

The fact of the matter is that no firearm/ammo combination is 100% effective. There is more than just anecdotal evidence that birdshot is capable of penetrating sufficient distance to be lethal. The fact that it can also be less lethal can be a feature.

Remember

you are more likely to miss than hit

Yet the only advice on how to deal with it is don't miss. That is not really an answer for something that may be likely to happen. You may be able to control those around you where it may not be an issue, but you also may not be able to. Birdshot can be beneficial for those situations.

I am not arguing that gel is the perfect medium or that 10" of penetration is twice as good as 5". It can provide some indication of how it may perform in real world situations, which is the reason why it is used. The gel tests and other tests suggest that birdshot is capable of sufficient penetration when concentrated.

I would question your statement skin is 4 in of gel and coming to the conclusion that birdshot is not really capable of penetrating skin. There is lots of empirical evidence that it is capable of penetrating skin even at extended distances. https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/ballistic-gel-bullet-testing-what-you-need-to-know/380278 indicates that the 4 in of gel equivalent refers to the backside skin

 

[teratos]

Meet Mr Nobody


The answer as to what is best really depends on the situation. I have heard a number of people on this website make valid points that a home defense situation is not the same as CQB and that you should not try and attack the attacker.

The fact of the matter is that no firearm/ammo combination is 100% effective. There is more than just anecdotal evidence that birdshot is capable of penetrating sufficient distance to be lethal. The fact that it can also be less lethal can be a feature.

Remember Yet the only advice on how to deal with it is don't miss. That is not really an answer for something that may be likely to happen. You may be able to control those around you where it may not be an issue, but you also may not be able to. Birdshot can be beneficial for those situations.

I am not arguing that gel is the perfect medium or that 10" of penetration is twice as good as 5". It can provide some indication of how it may perform in real world situations, which is the reason why it is used. The gel tests and other tests suggest that birdshot is capable of sufficient penetration when concentrated.

I would question your statement skin is 4 in of gel and coming to the conclusion that birdshot is not really capable of penetrating skin. There is lots of empirical evidence that it is capable of penetrating skin even at extended distances. https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/ballistic-gel-bullet-testing-what-you-need-to-know/380278 indicates that the 4 in of gel equivalent refers to the backside skin

In focusing only on penetration you are missing a LOT.