#4 buck shot

[Traveler]

Bird shot is not great against winter or thick clothing. Are you hunting birds, or trying to keep a killer from harming your family? Choose wisely.

 

[Traveler]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-3-the-shotgun-meets-the-box-o-truth/

We have done tests with various birdshot loads. Birdshot penetrated through two pieces of drywall (representing one wall) and was stopped in the paper on the front of the second wall. The problem with birdshot is that it does not penetrate enough to be effective as a defense round. Birdshot is designed to bring down little birds.

http://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2015/03/18/mad-gun-science-birdshot-effective-home-defense/

As to effectiveness for home-defense, you have to make your own call. The short range performance was certainly devastating to plywood, but the gel tests showed nowhere near the level of penetration that a traditional handgun bullet would achieve.

https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/05/10/pros-and-cons-of-using-birdshot-for-self-defense/

Birdshot for self defense
Insofar as self defense is concerned, I do not consider birdshot to be effective, and this opinion is shared by many other people. The reason is simple: To stop an attacker right away, before they can kill or seriously injure you, you must disrupt their vital organ(s). The small birdshot pellets are unable to penetrate an attacker deeply enough to reach a vital organ. Birdshot will cause a painful and messy looking wound, but it simply won’t reach the vital organs. Some people will argue that at close range, birdshot is “like a solid column of lead”, but this is not the case either. While it is true that the pellets are close together and nearly touching, they will still behave as individual pellets as they penetrate the target, and ballistic gel testing demonstrates this. The birdshot, even at extremely close range, will only penetrate about 6 inches of ballistic gel, while penetration of 12 inches of ballistic gel is generally considered the minimum effective depth to stop an attacker. With birdshot, the attacker may well be fatally wounded, but in the many minutes or hours it takes before the attacker succumbs to their wounds, they still can kill you or a loved one. That is why I generally recommend at least 00 buckshot for self defense, when using a shotgun.
I discuss self defense ammunition for shotguns, as well as rifles and handguns in greater detail here.

 

[Pinecone]

I am sure they will kill geese. they will also kill deer and deer are far tougher to than people.

How many deer wear heavy coats?

 

[Pinecone]

Yeah I know. But couple that with two layers of thick books, wood, the wall and associated accoutrement and the chances of penetration along the intended path are greatly reduced.


Unless you're one of those idiots that decided to use M855 or AP for Home Defense.
They make quality hollowpoints and soft points now. Or did ya not get the memo?

So you are willing to risk your family's lives on SHOULD?

Test first, if you think it will work.

I shot 3/8" steel plate with standard M193 at about 100 yards. It made CLEAN holes right through it. It did not transfer enough energy to even make a swinging plate, visibly swing. I will post pics of the plate when I get home, if I can find it. I am sure I did not throw it out.

M855 doesn't penetrate that much better, it was only designed to penetrate a standard infantry helmet.

Now AP might do more. But might now. Penetration against armor is based on how hard/tough the bullet is. In soft stuff, it is more about tumbling or fragmentation (and yes, AP will resist fragmentation).

 

[mopar92]

So you are willing to risk your family's lives on SHOULD?

Test first, if you think it will work.

I shot 3/8" steel plate with standard M193 at about 100 yards. It made CLEAN holes right through it. It did not transfer enough energy to even make a swinging plate, visibly swing. I will post pics of the plate when I get home, if I can find it. I am sure I did not throw it out.

M855 doesn't penetrate that much better, it was only designed to penetrate a standard infantry helmet.

Now AP might do more. But might now. Penetration against armor is based on how hard/tough the bullet is. In soft stuff, it is more about tumbling or fragmentation (and yes, AP will resist fragmentation).

I'll give ya fiddy bucks if you can show me where I said that I use M193 in my home.

Here's a HINT!

http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=3809482&postcount=14

Now as I said before numerous times and in several places. If you have to use "mil-spec" ball ammo because your boss is an idiot, job requirement, or you're Billy Bob Bumpfire the better stuff is Mk. 262, followed by Mk. 318, followed by M193 and then M855 and AP.

IF however you are a citizen of the US and want something effective use a softpoint or a hollowpoint expressly designed for anti personnel use.

Oh and in case you where wondering that setup does stop my chosen load.

 

[smokey]

Yeah I know. But couple that with two layers of thick books, wood, the wall and associated accoutrement and the chances of penetration along the intended path are greatly reduced.

Another option is picking up a few sheets of tile from home depot and affixing them in some layers to the back of a bookcase. Ceramics are pretty decent at breaking up projectiles and dispersing energy. Or just pick up some actual ballistic sheets for the wall...
http://www.pacificbulletproof.com/products/bullet-resistant-fiberglass/
http://armorcore.com/applications/residential/
http://www.tssbulletproof.com/product/bullet-resistant-fiberglass/



A relatively small investment may be worth it when kids are concerned. You could also try dropping to a knee and shooting at an upward angle if it's situationally practical. There's lots of ways to ensure the path of your bullet doesn't end up somewhere it shouldnt.

 

[44man]

How many deer wear heavy coats?

they all wear nice buckskin coats but I know what you mean. although I once bounces a 9mm round off a deer and never drew blood so maybe I should use my 44mags for hd?

 

[smokey]

#4 buckshot, and birdshot, are lousy ideas. We really need a sticky thread. This keeps coming up again and again. #1 buck, at a minimum.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm

For home defense, #4 bk isn't really that bad. Here's a gel test through denim...



So at 10' out of a cylinder bore, you're looking at ~3" wide of a pattern for that load, penetrating to between 11-15" with 27 pellets that are .24" in diameter. That's just about ideal for home defense distances, not shooting through barriers.

Here's some #1 buck...

so, with the increase in shot size, you're getting ~3" more penetration, with it stopping around 14-18". That's a pretty ideal range of penetration. It'll allow a shot to truck through heavy clothing, an arm, some fat, some ribs, and still reach the vitals on a large person.

Now up to 00 buck...

Moving on up again, you're moving penetration up to between 18-25". You're also improving penetration through barriers. I say improving, because if you're choosing 00 over #1 or #4 buck, it's essentially because you want to be able to shoot through barriers and still have good penetration. In home defense, 00 may allow you to shoot the threat if he(sexist I know right?) is using a couch/table/wall as concealment, and still reach the vitals.

For outside stuff, 00 extends the range you can be from a target and still have decent penetration...although if you're back far enough for that to be a consideration, you should probably be using slugs....especially if it's a distance where your pattern is spilling off of the intended target.


Then you've got slug people....they're in the "if it's worth killing, it's worth overkilling" crowd. Slugs also tend to have great penetration through cover. One aspect of a slug's terminal ballistics is that when penetrating cover, they've got so much momentum that they don't really deflect off course much. That could be useful. They also extend the useful range of a shotgun. Crazy as it is, regular rifled slugs will often completely deform and stop within 15" of gel. So, while they'll truck through barriers well, they don't really overpenetrate much through soft tissue...they just use all that energy to turn that soft tissue to mush.

 

[Pinecone]

In hard materials, FMJ versus Soft Point is not a huge difference. At rifle velocities, the bullets punch through mild steel. Unlike the movies and TV.

But I HIGHLY suggest you test any "bullet stopping" matrix you come up with. Better to build a setup, shoot and find out if it performs the way you THINK it does. Versus assuming it will work, and finding out it does not when you shoot a family member through it.

 

[mopar92]

In hard materials, FMJ versus Soft Point is not a huge difference. At rifle velocities, the bullets punch through mild steel. Unlike the movies and TV.

But I HIGHLY suggest you test any "bullet stopping" matrix you come up with. Better to build a setup, shoot and find out if it performs the way you THINK it does. Versus assuming it will work, and finding out it does not when you shoot a family member through it.

Who tied your shoes this morning?

If you don't want to answer how much did your parents have to pay for you to pass remedial English?

 

[photoracer]

I used to use a HD loading in a Mossy 500 of 1 #8 (warning or animal shot), 2 rds of 3" magnum #4B (41 pellets) 2 rds of 00B and 1 slug. Now using a Mossy 930 and I load 8 rds of Win PDX1. I am considering adding a few PDX1S segmented to the mix since they are high velocity 1600 FPS. Still though on a farm with sensors that tell me when anything moves within 100 yards (usually means the cattle are making a break for it) I can just as easy pick up the AR. Just need that nightvision scope on the AR (so I can terminate any coyotes that come by and not any of the cows).

 

[Pinecone]

Who tied your shoes this morning?

If you don't want to answer how much did your parents have to pay for you to pass remedial English?

Hmm, who started by saying that X setup would reduce the risk? Without ANY evidence that the suggested method would work or not?

Maybe it would, maybe it would not.

Personally, I would not risk the life of my family on what you THINK might work.

 

[mopar92]

Hmm, who started by saying that X setup would reduce the risk? Without ANY evidence that the suggested method would work or not?

Maybe it would, maybe it would not.

Personally, I would not risk the life of my family on what you THINK might work.

Here's a hint.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=3811938&postcount=65

Now make sure you read it SLOWLY ('speshully da last line ETA: Thats the line right before it ends) and sound it out as you go along. I know English obviously isn't your first langauge but I believe in you. YOU CAN DO IT ALL BY YOURSELF! I KNOW YOU CAN!

 

[Biggfoot44]

If we're going to quote the internet , I will refer to TNOutdoor9 ( consistant protocols, presents the straight foreward results for the viewer to interpet). He has tested just about every possable shotgun load.

The various sizes of birdshot penetrated 1-2 inches. I am a believer the effects of multiple hits, but nowhere near that extent. Lead BB reached 3-4 inches. Still less than I would recomend, but not too much less than certain loadings of Glasers using #12 shot.