20 Gauge Defense Loads

[alucard0822]

Sigh.

Again, physics.

When the pellets are very close together, they act as a cohesive projectile. 1.25 ounces at 1100 fps. Almost like a slug. This dumps energy into the target in a very concentrated area. It will create large temporary and permanent wound channels with this behavior. We agree on this point.

Here is where the problem lies. As they spread out, they behave as individual pellets. This does not take long to occur. By 20 feet, the pellets are doing less than 2 inches of penetration into ballistic gelatin. This indicates a very low amount of energy. This your last statement is also inadvertently the correct answer beyond 10-15 feet.

As they spread out, they then behave as the individual pellets that they are. That's all I'm going to say on it. I know my weenie is little, no need for me to get in measuring contests.

It's not just spread in open air to consider. Have seen it tested in gel and for breeching. The shot column basically has to abrade material to penetrate, as soon as pellets have to penetrate on their own instead of a mass, they stop well short of sufficient penetration, almost always within 6 feet. .mil went to frangible slugs for that reason, they won't bread apart till they hit something. ANY barrier, clothing, bone, or muscle, and the bird shot column spreads and loose that ability to abrade through as a single fragmenting projectile. It can work, but isn't reliable, and pretty much any wall or piece of furniture becomes hard cover. Even then why handicap yourself. There is a major difference between 400 projectiles with 3 FPE energy each and a 1200FPE single projectile. Like trying to calculate how many times you have to slap someone before you achieve the same results as hitting them with a truck.

 

[possumman]

Any of you guys ever shot a pumpkin 10 yards away with birdshot? Try it! How long is your hallway?

 

[alucard0822]

Any of you guys ever shot a pumpkin 10 yards away with birdshot? Try it! How long is your hallway?

How often do pumpkins break into homes? Now watermelons, those M-fers are always up to no good.
Won't see anyone volunteer to get shot with a 22, and a 25rd mag has more energy than a 308 or 3 X 20ga birdshot

22, the ultimate defense........ against watermelons round:

 

[outrider58]

It's not just spread in open air to consider. Have seen it tested in gel and for breeching. The shot column basically has to abrade material to penetrate, as soon as pellets have to penetrate on their own instead of a mass, they stop well short of sufficient penetration, almost always within 6 feet. .mil went to frangible slugs for that reason, they won't bread apart till they hit something. ANY barrier, clothing, bone, or muscle, and the bird shot column spreads and loose that ability to abrade through as a single fragmenting projectile. It can work, but isn't reliable, and pretty much any wall or piece of furniture becomes hard cover. Even then why handicap yourself. There is a major difference between 400 projectiles with 3 FPE energy each and a 1200FPE single projectile. Like trying to calculate how many times you have to slap someone before you achieve the same results as hitting them with a truck.

Good analogy.

 

[jcutonilli]

First words mouth "A COM hit with appropriately loaded 12ga with buck or slugs is the closest there is for a 1 shot stop" agreed. Then it goes into nearly 1/2 hour of random rants without much info besides info from "experts" he claims to be repeating. 40 splits with a pump is really good, probably beyond what 99% of shooters can do with that, just like the 12-15 splits a good 3 gunner can hit in ARs. Simply put a carbine in most anyone's hands will put more rounds on target faster than a shotgun. He claims 3-4 hits from an AR to equal 1 hit from a 12ga with slug/buck, therefore a shotgun is superior because it can place 3 shells about as fast as an AR can place 6-12 rounds. It's not entirely unfounded, and in his example birdshot or other ineffective loads aren't in the conversation. The main issue is the data, and it relies on COM hits, and an opinion that might have more to do with "keep firing until the threat is stopped", and the AR's ability to place multiple rounds on target very fast, than the ability of each round to stop a threat.

Could be as simple as a shotgun's recoil and low capacity doesn't allow followup shots at the speed of a carbine. Might not be an issue with a hit, but definitely is an issue with a miss or multiple threats.
Both can be effective, but an AR is easier to run, easier to make followup shots if needed, and has a far greater capacity to deal with misses or multiple threats. CQB training that many here have, including myself is a large umbrella of tactics and principals to follow to deal with threats in confined areas and "close quarters". Want to take cover behind a bed, and cover the fatal funnel that is the doorway to your room, yup, that is CQB. Want to move from your room to go get your kids while recognizing and covering points of vulnerability, yup that is CQB too. Want to communicate with your wife to take a better defensive position so she can call police while you protect her, yup CQB. It's learning how to speak the language of armed combat, especially armed defense of a structure aka Home defense.




Have to understand where he is coming from. He has legitimate knowledge of tactics, and solid marksmanship credentials as a Marine. Outside of that he was a marksmanship instructor in the military and attended a couple classes at Gunsite after he was out. He absolutely has expertise in putting shots on target, but beyond that, take it with a grain of salt. The main problem with using butchered meat and oranges as a simulated "attacker" is the huge difference in resistance to penetration compared to dense wet, and moving living tissues. This is why most industry and LEO testing moved away from it, and went to gel. Gel isn't great either, but it is a better media to compare different loads.



Good info. The main problem ammo tries to solve is fairly simple, it need to penetrate the body's tough protective barriers, then do as much damage as possible in CNS, organ tissue, large blood vessels and most things deep in center of mass. A couple presentations I've seen showed the difference in damage caused by the temporary cavity in elastic tissue like fat or muscle, where it caused little tearing vs massive trauma to less flexible lung or brain tissue. This is why penetration, and a expanding/yawing mechanism when a round is past the tough outer layers is so important.

The ideal round penetrates like a needle, then goes to work cutting and stretching vital tissue inside. Part of what makes modern expanding solid rifle rounds so effective. They are engineered to delay expansion until they meet sufficient fluid resistance, then have open petals and retain enough velocity to increase the temporary cavity substantially compared to lead core ammo that tends to expand faster in tougher tissue. Also part of the reason birdshot is a bad idea, if it makes it past the outer layer at all, it doesn't have the energy or diameter to cause much trauma where it matters.

Add in low capacity, tons of recoil, cumbersome reloads and you end up with an effective, but very limited defensive firearm. Use an ineffective load or one that underperforms, and it's taking a risk if you are relying on it to save your life. If that risk is weighed against some criteria like laws in the area, living in an apartment or other valid criteria then it is understandable at least. If that choice is made to appease fears of the realities of lethal force, unfounded or inaccurate info, or a need to "prove" some theory not backed by current tactical training and ballistic science, then to each their own. If that is the case, don't think that trying to convince others to take those same risks will validate your choices or make an ill conceived choice valid.

He does not talk about birdshot as a reliable method because it is not reliable once the shot spreads out into individual pellets. That is why it can be an advantage for missed shots.

I am not sure I agree with your definition of CQB. While what you describe as CQB is certainly "close quarters", the B in CQB is battle. It tends to refer to multiple attacker/defender situations where speed becomes a major factor. That is not what you are describing.

You completely missed the point that in typical home defense situations you are unlikely to need lots of rapid follow up shots. He even stated you are unlikely to need more than a few shots. I believe that is backed up by statistics, although there is not much reliable data.

We certainly do not have a way to perfectly represent living tissue. Gel and meat are used as substitutes because they seem to be the closest we can get to living tissue. The reason we use gel over meat is due to repeatability. Gel very repeatable while meat is more variable.

You don't need to worry about a temporary cavity because the fragmentation of the pellets causes actual permanent damage that can be larger than the temporary cavity. It is the permanent cutting of the tissue due to the large number of pellets that arrive almost instantaneously together. This is backed up by testing of simulated media.

You want to "prove" your theory that birdshot sucks with half truths about training and science so that no one attempts to use it. Not everyone has your training nor do they live in the same environment you do. There certainly are lots of limitations with birdshot and those limitations should be made know so that people can make informed decisions.

 

[jcutonilli]

Not only are you wrong, but you are smugly wrong.

Once the pellets aren't all lumped together, they no longer act as a 1.25 ounce projectile. Your argument falls apart about 5 feet from the muzzle. There are no temporary wound channels around a piece of bird shot.

The pellets don't act like a solid 1.25 oz projectile. They are a 1.25 oz fragmenting projectile that causes significant permanent wound channels. Stop ignoring the permanent wound channels that this fragmenting mass creates. They behave much differently than a single pellet.

 

[teratos]

The pellets don't act like a solid 1.25 oz projectile. They are a 1.25 oz fragmenting projectile that causes significant permanent wound channels. Stop ignoring the permanent wound channels that this fragmenting mass creates. They behave much differently than a single pellet.

IT DOES NOT CREATE A LARGE WOUND CHANNEL ONCE IT STARTS TO SPREAD.

 

[jcutonilli]

Sigh.

Again, physics.

When the pellets are very close together, they act as a cohesive projectile. 1.25 ounces at 1100 fps. Almost like a slug. This dumps energy into the target in a very concentrated area. It will create large temporary and permanent wound channels with this behavior. We agree on this point.

Here is where the problem lies. As they spread out, they behave as individual pellets. This does not take long to occur. By 20 feet, the pellets are doing less than 2 inches of penetration into ballistic gelatin. This indicates a very low amount of energy. This your last statement is also inadvertently the correct answer beyond 10-15 feet.

As they spread out, they then behave as the individual pellets that they are. That's all I'm going to say on it. I know my weenie is little, no need for me to get in measuring contests.

The whole point about birdshot is that it can rapidly transition from being lethal/incapacitating at short ranges when then shot is very concentrated to non lethal/limited capacitating when they have spread out into individual pellets.

The exact distances are going to depend on the shot, the shotgun, the choke and the load. It seems that 10-15 feet the shot is still sufficiently concentrated to be lethal/incapacitating. Beyond that is unclear.

That is certainly sufficient for some/most home defense situations. It certainly is not sufficient for all home defense situations. Is that sufficient for you? I don't know. Make an appropriate decision for yourself.

 

[jcutonilli]

IT DOES NOT CREATE A LARGE WOUND CHANNEL ONCE IT STARTS TO SPREAD.

Yes, this is a benefit if you miss. It is no longer lethal past a certain distance/barrier. The downside is that it tends to occur a shorter ranges. For home defense this may be acceptable, or it may not depending on your particular situation.

 

[jcutonilli]

It's not just spread in open air to consider. Have seen it tested in gel and for breeching. The shot column basically has to abrade material to penetrate, as soon as pellets have to penetrate on their own instead of a mass, they stop well short of sufficient penetration, almost always within 6 feet. .mil went to frangible slugs for that reason, they won't bread apart till they hit something. ANY barrier, clothing, bone, or muscle, and the bird shot column spreads and loose that ability to abrade through as a single fragmenting projectile. It can work, but isn't reliable, and pretty much any wall or piece of furniture becomes hard cover. Even then why handicap yourself. There is a major difference between 400 projectiles with 3 FPE energy each and a 1200FPE single projectile. Like trying to calculate how many times you have to slap someone before you achieve the same results as hitting them with a truck.

Don't use birdshot for breaching. I never argued that point.

It is about what may be on the other side of that wall that may be important in your particular situation. It may be something that should not be killed. If that is not an issue in your situation, don't use birdshot. If there is you may want to evaluate it to see if it is appropriate for your situation.

 

[Biggfoot44]

The limitations of Birdshot are that the BG must be within 3 feet of the muzzle or less to have any semblance of striking as a single mass . Birdshot is Not the same mechanism as the various Prefragmented projectiles , which fly thru the are as solid object and release multiple projectiles In the target . This would be comparable to literal contact wound with a small bore shotgun .

Everything has tradeoffs . Including balancing the dangers of not decisively stopping the threat vs unintended damage of either passing thru the threat , or missing .

Not passing thru the intended target can largely be mitigated by readily available ammo choices . I referred above in this thread to effective handgun loads with +/- 10 inch penetration , very unlikely to exit .

With shotguns presently under discussion , 4 Buck is unlikely to exit ( implied distances for pattern to be contained on torso , at room distances ) .

With a total miss at close range , anything vaguely conventional , or vaguely general purpose will one thru at least one common interior wall . The gradations of " low penetration " are how many , ie one wall vs 4 or 5 .

IF , I repeat IF you have a truely unique situation , where not penetrating even one wall is absolute highest priority , there Is a solution . But it doesn't involve a Shotgun or a Rifle .

I have had an occasion where I discharged a .38 +P+ MagSafe into an interior wall , of common drywall / air space/ drywall construction . NOTHING exited the drywall facing the other room .

No , this or Glaser is Not general SD ammo . Yes , you had best have an unobstructed chest shot . Yes , it's $$$ per round , yes there is significant difference in POI even at close range . Yes , there can often be cycling issues with semiauto , so unless you're going to invest $$$$ for function testing , Revolver would be best practice .

But to Absolutely , Positively Not penetrate one wall , this is your pathway .

 

[alucard0822]

IT DOES NOT CREATE A LARGE WOUND CHANNEL ONCE IT STARTS TO SPREAD.

LOL, this is too much Doc T, less stressful when someone posts infowars BS in the covid thread. Or in my case, get out of a meeting with engineers so I can teach a room full of kids to simulate murder on each other in front of their parents. Makes the evening glass of booze taste all that much better

 

[jcutonilli]

The limitations of Birdshot are that the BG must be within 3 feet of the muzzle or less to have any semblance of striking as a single mass . Birdshot is Not the same mechanism as the various Prefragmented projectiles , which fly thru the are as solid object and release multiple projectiles In the target . This would be comparable to literal contact wound with a small bore shotgun .

Everything has tradeoffs . Including balancing the dangers of not decisively stopping the threat vs unintended damage of either passing thru the threat , or missing .

Not passing thru the intended target can largely be mitigated by readily available ammo choices . I referred above in this thread to effective handgun loads with +/- 10 inch penetration , very unlikely to exit .

With shotguns presently under discussion , 4 Buck is unlikely to exit ( implied distances for pattern to be contained on torso , at room distances ) .

With a total miss at close range , anything vaguely conventional , or vaguely general purpose will one thru at least one common interior wall . The gradations of " low penetration " are how many , ie one wall vs 4 or 5 .

IF , I repeat IF you have a truely unique situation , where not penetrating even one wall is absolute highest priority , there Is a solution . But it doesn't involve a Shotgun or a Rifle .

I have had an occasion where I discharged a .38 +P+ MagSafe into an interior wall , of common drywall / air space/ drywall construction . NOTHING exited the drywall facing the other room .

No , this or Glaser is Not general SD ammo . Yes , you had best have an unobstructed chest shot . Yes , it's $$$ per round , yes there is significant difference in POI even at close range . Yes , there can often be cycling issues with semiauto , so unless you're going to invest $$$$ for function testing , Revolver would be best practice .

But to Absolutely , Positively Not penetrate one wall , this is your pathway .

Where did you determine the distance is 3 ft or less? Paul Harrel has done some meat testing that indicates that 5 yds is still sufficient distance for birdshot to effective. The exact distance at which it transitions is not well defined and seems to be dependent on a number of factors.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I like Paul Harrell , and find him very interesting , entertaining , and frequently educational . The Meat Target is certainly interesting . But TNO9's protocols are more repeatable , and in close conformity to established professional protocols .

For TNO9'S test of #4 Birdshot , he moved in closer , to ten feet , and used 1 1/4 oz 1325fps , aka the traditional " High Brass " load , not particularly low recoil .

At ten feet , was still spread , with the pellets all in 6 to 8 inches . In gelatin that calibrated to the deeper end of calibration range . And still keeping in mind , bare gelatin . The specific IWBA protocol of 4 layers of denim , like any other standard , can be debated , but it is likely for burglars and home invaders to be clothed , and for clothing to have more effect on small pellets than single bullets .

Even if possibly more than 3 feet , significantly less than 10 feet , which still rounds off to way to close , for even in home defense .

Testing shot spread of 20ga at one foot steps on cardboard is on my near horizon . But doing so with Clear Ballistics blocks is not on my plate of time and $

 

[teratos]

I like Paul Harrell , and find him very interesting , entertaining , and frequently educational . The Meat Target is certainly interesting . But TNO9's protocols are more repeatable , and in close conformity to established professional protocols .

For TNO9'S test of #4 Birdshot , he moved in closer , to ten feet , and used 1 1/4 oz 1325fps , aka the traditional " High Brass " load , not particularly low recoil .

At ten feet , was still spread , with the pellets all in 6 to 8 inches . In gelatin that calibrated to the deeper end of calibration range . And still keeping in mind , bare gelatin . The specific IWBA protocol of 4 layers of denim , like any other standard , can be debated , but it is likely for burglars and home invaders to be clothed , and for clothing to have more effect on small pellets than single bullets .

Even if possibly more than 3 feet , significantly less than 10 feet , which still rounds off to way to close , for even in home defense .

Testing shot spread of 20ga at one foot steps on cardboard is on my near horizon . But doing so with Clear Ballistics blocks is not on my plate of time and $

Shoot 3 layers of denim in front of cardboard. See if it stops any pellets at all. That itself would be interesting. 10-15 feet.

I have a couple of leather coats which can be shot. I may play along. Heading out to shoot in the woods next weekend….

 

[Boondock Saint]

I would love to see testing on this from those who champion the use of duck pellets. That would be great. Please be sure to include the mea culpa at the end of filming, though.

 

[jcutonilli]

I like Paul Harrell , and find him very interesting , entertaining , and frequently educational . The Meat Target is certainly interesting . But TNO9's protocols are more repeatable , and in close conformity to established professional protocols .

For TNO9'S test of #4 Birdshot , he moved in closer , to ten feet , and used 1 1/4 oz 1325fps , aka the traditional " High Brass " load , not particularly low recoil .

At ten feet , was still spread , with the pellets all in 6 to 8 inches . In gelatin that calibrated to the deeper end of calibration range . And still keeping in mind , bare gelatin . The specific IWBA protocol of 4 layers of denim , like any other standard , can be debated , but it is likely for burglars and home invaders to be clothed , and for clothing to have more effect on small pellets than single bullets .

Even if possibly more than 3 feet , significantly less than 10 feet , which still rounds off to way to close , for even in home defense .

Testing shot spread of 20ga at one foot steps on cardboard is on my near horizon . But doing so with Clear Ballistics blocks is not on my plate of time and $

Shot is going to spread as a function of distance. I think you are misunderstanding what the testing showed because you are too focused on a purely distance number and apparently missed what he said.

The calibration for gel is a BB sized sphere traveling 3.25-3.75 in. The birdshot traveled more than twice that distance. More importantly was the amount of damage that occurred to the gel. He stated that the hole was 1-1/2 in. I suspect it was larger because the hole appeared oblong. That hole in the gel is what a mass of pellets does. There was no similar hole in the other test he did because the pellets had dispersed enough at that distance.

You don't pick birdshot because it is the best, you pick it because it is adequate at short distances and it will not over penetrate if you miss.

 

[Boondock Saint]

Test it for us. Let us see real world results and determine the proper upper range whereby duck shot behaves like a slug in a human being, but also won't penetrate drywall. Let us also find the max range where this slugduckshot will still go through drywall and kill your family.

I'm happy to kick in some bucks if this is tested in a scientific manner with repeatable results.

 

[Doco Overboard]

I would love to see testing on this from those who champion the use of duck pellets. That would be great. Please be sure to include the mea culpa at the end of filming, though.

15 ' it will mangle a mans leg right where it joins the ass to where it needs removed by a Dr.
Filming mea culpa not necessary. I can introduce you to the man that had the gun go off when he closed it up if you really care. His uncles dead now from NC so he aint going to make the show anyway.
Too close to far? Did it act like a slug? Best choice for HD? DGAF
I will say it was a 12 not a 20 and not sure what choke it was if that matters anymore
Lawyer still has the gun as far as I know, he never wanted it back.

 

[Worsley]

Good morning patriots, I would not want mess with anyone who’s pointing a 20 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 birdshot at my face. It will do the job.