Ideas for self-defense shotgun loads?

[Fishguy]

If it's got enough to reliably stop a bad guy, then it will pose a threat to someone one the other side of drywall.

 

[rico903]

You're better off with a 9 iron than birdshot.

I'm a lousy golfer but pretty good with bird shot. I think a facefull will stop just about anyone.

 

[Fishguy]

I guess. That must be why cops and military load out with bird shot.

 

[pbharvey]

Depends on the definition of "birdshot". I use 3.5" Hevi-Shot "T" shot loads to kill geese, and those are birds. lol The shot is heavier than lead, and harder than steel. It leaves a mark.

Doubt anybody would want to take a load of that at 10 feet.

Of course the flip side of that is when you shoot a bird and it flies away and you scratch your head going, "how is that thing still flying?"
Not at 10' but still.
Human physiology is weird. People sometimes live after falling three stories and people die after falling out of a chair.

 

[Fishguy]

Of course the flip side of that is when you shoot a bird and it flies away and you scratch your head going, "how is that thing still flying?"
Not at 10' but still.
Human physiology is weird. People sometimes live after falling three stories and people die after falling out of a chair.

Exactly. Hitting someone with birdshot may or may not make them rethink their life decisions. Buckshot and slugs insure that the bad guy can't fight regardless of his thought process.

 

[Pretoria78]

You don't need any ammo. Just rack the action and the bad guy will be so scared they'll run away. I heard that at a gun shop, so it must be true.

(joking)

THIS is worth a read.

 

[joppaj]

Exactly. Hitting someone with birdshot may or may not make them rethink their life decisions. Buckshot and slugs insure that the bad guy can't fight regardless of his thought process.

This should be printed on the side of every box of shotgun ammo.

I do not want the bad guy to break off his attack. I want the bad guy to be physicality incapable of continuing his attack.

 

[Inigoes]

Birdshot allows the perp to testify

Buckshot not so much!

 

[daNattyFatty]

I'm a fan of federal's 00 or #1 with flite control wad. I lean more towards the 00 since #1 seems to be unobtanium. When it can be found, it's at least twice as much money as 00.

 

[pbharvey]

I'm a fan of federal's 00 or #1 with flite control wad. I lean more towards the 00 since #1 seems to be unobtanium. When it can be found, it's at least twice as much money as 00.

I understand the flight control wad for a LEO shooting at distance towards a marauding crowd or whatnot. I don't understand it for inside the home use. I do understand buying the best ammo you can get your hands on though.

 

[alucard0822]

This should be printed on the side of every box of shotgun ammo.

I do not want the bad guy to break off his attack. I want the bad guy to be physicality incapable of continuing his attack.

Have seen a couple decent instructors claim birdshot is OK, although with the disclaimer it's only for instances where you absolutely cannot have a round go through a wall, will shoot within 20' and are willing to sacrifice an effective load for reduced penetration. I look at reducing the chances of overpenetration the other way, I'd rather fire a round or two that are devastating, and may go through several walls instead of sending a lot more less effective rounds that penetrate less with a greater likelihood that the threat will fire a few themselves. Bird shot can do weird things at close range, it can drill it's way through like a fragmenting slug, and can blow through a couple walls or a bad guy, but move back 10' for it to spread, and it will bounce off of your front door or a pane of glass. Shotguns also are limited on capacity and slow to reload, so increasing rounds required to stop a threat is far more dangerous than in a handgun or rifle that has several times the capacity.

The unpredictability is what makes it essentially a limited and specialty round for self defense that is rarely a good choice. Personally 30 rounds in a carbine is my choice, but have relied on managed recoil slugs in the past, and prefer it over buck. Better control, wider effective range, less chance of errant pellets, better hard cover penetration, very good ballistics, modest recoil. If overpenetration is an issue, I would recommend a lightweight 5.56 in a carbine WELL before a shotgun with birdshot, similar limited hard penetration/fragmenting at close range, but way more capacity, fewer errant fragments, more precise, less recoil, faster to operate in most every way.

 

[Pinecone]

Exactly. Hitting someone with birdshot may or may not make them rethink their life decisions. Buckshot and slugs insure that the bad guy can't fight regardless of his thought process.

Especially when drugs might be a factor.

 

[Boondock Saint]

So many folks can't or refuse to understand that in a defensive situation where you deem it necessary to deploy lethal force, you're shooting to stop the fight. Period. There's nothing else to it. Deal with the consequences afterward. Gotta still be breathing first.

To that end, what is more effective at stopping the fight? You have no way of knowing the physical condition of the person(s) breaking into your house. Wearing some junky armor? Probably not, but it wouldn't be the first time. Several layers of clothing? Reasonable. Cranked out of their skull on some manner of drug(s)? Maybe. Capable of making a rational decision as concerns a half naked homeowner pointing a 12 gauge at their chest at 3 AM? No way to know.

Birdshot might do it. Buckshot will do it. Why mess around?

I really want to think that none of us are actually itching for the encounter where shooting someone would be reasonable. I certainly never, ever want to be in that situation. But if I should have the misfortune to be in a fight for my life and those of my family, I want every single advantage possible. I won't fight fair. I will fight to win.

 

[lsw]

If I remember correctly, Cheney was 40+ yards from his friend, a distance that is considerably further than the average interior room, which is why his friend wasn't killed or grievously injured. But I could be wrong.

You may be right, I admit I did not research that statement as I should have. However, it's an easy google search to find many examples of people surviving a hit from birdshot at close range. Whether they were incapacitated I cannot say.

A while back in another thread a member posted a video about a young man who took TWO hits of birdshot and was able to walk and find help.

 

[fred333]

While the case can certainly be made that you're physically safer by killing the attacker, I'd rather neutralize him without killing him if at all possible. And I'm pretty confident that a magazine full o' bird shot shells'll spoil any drug-addled attacker's party plan. Even if he brings a coupla buddies. That way, I don't have a death on my conscience or have to risk facing a murder charge. As we all know, we don't have the protection of the US Constitution here in Maryland.

 

[Inigoes]

While the case can certainly be made that you're physically safer by killing the attacker, I'd rather neutralize him without killing him if at all possible. That way, I don't have a death on my conscience or have to risk facing a murder charge. And I'm pretty confident that a magazine full o' bird shot shells'll spoil any drug-addled attacker's party plan. And remember, we don't have the protection of the US Constitution here in Maryland.

In a life or death struggle, the only life you need to worry about is your own.

Don't feel sorry for the guy, who is ready to kill you!

 

[alucard0822]

You may be right, I admit I did not research that statement as I should have. However, it's an easy google search to find many examples of people surviving a hit from birdshot at close range. Whether they were incapacitated I cannot say.

A while back in another thread a member posted a video about a young man who took TWO hits of birdshot and was able to walk and find help.

plenty of instances where someone was not incapacitated from a few handgun rounds too. There is always a tradeoff, weither it is a good or bad decision depends largely on what you are giving up, and what you are gaining in exchange. At home my built up AK is my HD choice, but not practical to CC, so I trade power, control and capacity for a small concealable G27 when I leave. When heading to MD, that is traded for a tactical folder and can of OC, far less effective, but legal without a MD permit. In the case of birdshot, too many are trading an effective defense for one that is far less so in order to gain a perception of safety based largely on a misunderstanding of "overpenetration", especially when more effective means of planning and shooting can better protect innocent people in close proximity without handicapping your firearm to that degree.

For the most part death is a byproduct of shooting to stop, just happens that targeting and penetrating to the structures in the body that can offer the quickest incapacitation also are the most important to life. Limiting the lethality of the ammo tends to limit it's ability to stop a threat. Legally there isn't much in MD caselaw to really back up the assertion many here have that they will be whisked off to prison after a defensive shooting, especially a justified one, in the vase majority of cases the opposite is true, and there are few charges or convictions stemming from a reasonable shoot. In any case if you are not justified in killing someone to protect yourself, you aren't justified in pointing a firearm at them either, much less firing at them.

 

[Pinecone]

While the case can certainly be made that you're physically safer by killing the attacker, I'd rather neutralize him without killing him if at all possible. And I'm pretty confident that a magazine full o' bird shot shells'll spoil any drug-addled attacker's party plan. Even if he brings a coupla buddies. That way, I don't have a death on my conscience or have to risk facing a murder charge. As we all know, we don't have the protection of the US Constitution here in Maryland.

Just realize, that you are risking your life and the lives of your family over the POSSIBILITY of stopping the attacker with potentially less force.

Your choice.

Mine is to hit them as hard as possible. A reasonable shoot is a reasonable shoot.

 

[Traveler]

While the case can certainly be made that you're physically safer by killing the attacker, I'd rather neutralize him without killing him if at all possible. And I'm pretty confident that a magazine full o' bird shot shells'll spoil any drug-addled attacker's party plan. Even if he brings a coupla buddies. That way, I don't have a death on my conscience or have to risk facing a murder charge. As we all know, we don't have the protection of the US Constitution here in Maryland.

Never shoot planning to wound. You are kidding yourself, and you will go to jail. If you are not afraid for your life, and needing to use lethal force, you had better stick to a baseball bat.

 

[Mickey the Dragon]

While the case can certainly be made that you're physically safer by killing the attacker, I'd rather neutralize him without killing him if at all possible. And I'm pretty confident that a magazine full o' bird shot shells'll spoil any drug-addled attacker's party plan. Even if he brings a coupla buddies. That way, I don't have a death on my conscience or have to risk facing a murder charge. As we all know, we don't have the protection of the US Constitution here in Maryland.

I really don't understand that reasoning. If you were going to get charged with murder for killing a home invader, you'll still get charged with attempted murder once you put a few rounds of birdshot into him. To make matters worse, there will also be surviving witnesses to testify against you.

As to the rest of your statements, once you start shooting at someone one of four things will happen. 1) They will be permanently incapacitated. 2) They will live and run away. 3) They will live and continue fighting. 4) They will live and decide to lay down their arms and repent of their sins. I'm not willing to accept the risks associated with #2 or #3 and I'm unwilling to bet on #4 happening. That's why I want to use the most effective tool available for achieving #1, and it's certainly not birdshot.

And before someone trots out that tried-and-true logical fallacy along the lines of "If birdshot's such a terrible idea, let me shoot YOU with it," please realize that I also don't want to get kicked in the nuts, but that doesn't make a steel-toed boot an effective home defense tool.