You need to reread what I wrote, because your reply indicates you have misunderstood what I wrote. I also said I don't recommend it for defense.
Does birdshot behave like a slug at close range?
- Thread starter chopinbloc
- Start date
- Status
You need to reread what I wrote, because your reply indicates you have misunderstood what I wrote. I also said I don't recommend it for defense.
Acera
Member
Yes it can, reference my post earlier. While you may have a bit more padding up front, from you gel test it has enough to penetrate more than enough on me to do fatal damage immediately.
Your hyperbole puts you in a predicament where while trying to prove your point, you lose sight of common sense. Obviously there are situations where it is way more than adequate to reliably incapacitate, especially at contact distances. Do you want a list? To disprove your 'words', just need one example and that is easy.
You need to back off and look at your stance. We understand it is not ideal to use birdshot for self defense, but by your putting such inaccurate vigor in your stance you place in question all your thinking.
.
OP
OP
chopinbloc
Member
When the FBI and every credible authority on the subject backs off the stance that 12" is required for defense, then I will too. I don't have the expertise to disregard their advice. If you think you are qualified to disregard their advice, then that is just something we'll have to disagree about.
OP
OP
chopinbloc
Member
Ah, you're wrapped around the axle about the word "any" Context matters. Is there "any" difference in the average penetration if you collected a statistically relevant sample size? Sure. Probably. I guess so. But you're way off in the weeds. Birdshot, even at close range penetrates WAY too shallowly to be considered for defense and it does NOT behave anything remotely like a slug. Should I have qualified that statement by saying there isn't any SIGNIFICANT difference in penetration? Sure, if that makes you happy. You're still missing the point.
Jason_W
Member
I'm thinking that at a range of a few inches birdshot would probably turn most of the contents of a human chest cavity into something resembling gespatcho soup.
I'm also thinking that gunfights, much like birdshot are unpredictable. What if the fight doesn't occur at 5 feet but at 30? Birdshot might inflict an ultimately lethal wound at that distance, but death by exsanguination can take a while.
As cheap as buckshot and slugs are, why use anything else?
I'm also thinking that gunfights, much like birdshot are unpredictable. What if the fight doesn't occur at 5 feet but at 30? Birdshot might inflict an ultimately lethal wound at that distance, but death by exsanguination can take a while.
As cheap as buckshot and slugs are, why use anything else?
JohnBiltz
Member
Not an expert but I personally know two people who were shot with bird shot and lived. One was shot at the distance of the width of a car hood and the other was shot at the distance between a sidewalk and the street. In the later case, he was shot by the pair of thrill killers we had here in Phoenix several years ago while walking down a sidewalk, pellets did not make it through his arm into his chest.
Coltdriver
Member
This cut shell demo shows a 100 yard shot and it is clearly all still in the shell which blows right thru the plywood.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...870B7E2CA13C71249FBB870B7E2CA13C712&FORM=VIRE
I never heard of a cut shell before reading this post.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...870B7E2CA13C71249FBB870B7E2CA13C712&FORM=VIRE
I never heard of a cut shell before reading this post.
Acera
Member
So you honestly don't think that 6 inches of penetration into the chest cavity with that amount of shot would incapacitate a person? Come on man, you can't believe that can you? Take out a tape measure and measure your width, that would probably put the shot on the far side of your heart and lungs. That is pretty much enough to do the deed don't you think? Don't rely on testing standards for your inflexible statements. Those numbers are not absolute, and are used for a wide range of testing.
Your statement is false. Admit that you are over hyping your beliefs to make your point.
Can you understand that there are numerous places that a contact shot with birdshot would be immediately incapacitating? Use some common sense man.
I am not trying to defend birdshot, just pointing out your over the top statements are false. There are plenty of circumstances that the minimum penetration of birdshot would be more than enough.
But if you want to stick to your false idea that the testing standards are real world absolutes answer these questions.
Would a contact shot by 12 gauge birdshot at the base of the skull not incapacitate a person?
Would a contact shot by 12 gauge birdshot center mass on the sternum not incapacitate a person?
Would a contact shot by 12 gauge birdshot upward under the rib cage not incapacitate a person?
Would a contact shot by 12 gauge birdshot in the mouth directed toward the rear of the skull not incapacitate a person?
Would a contact shot by 12 gauge birdshot directly in an eye/ear opening not incapacitate a person?
Would a contact shot by 12 gauge birdshot directed into the subclavian arteries not incapacitate a person?
Would a contact shot by 12 gauge birdshot perpendicular to the throat not incapacitate a person?
Do some research on venerable points to a knife attack, most of those would be more incapacitating if shot with a shotgun.
(Let me know if you need more example, one should have done it, but I don't think you are able to get the point with just one.)
There are plenty of circumstances where your statement is completely false.
If you can't see that the need for12 inches of penetration you reference is completely insignificant in considering any of the above wounds then you really don't need to be making videos and trying to impress on people you know what you are talking about.
Like I said before your over the top statements, and now your reliance on testing data and not common sense show you need to take a step back.
.
Attachments
OP
OP
chopinbloc
Member
I honestly don't think I'm qualified to disregard the advice of experts. If you think you are, that's where we part ways.
Well i hunt deer with a shotgun slugs . Even when you shoot them in the heart they can run 10 yards or more before they die and thats with a slug .
Unless you spine them animals will still run after being shot .
That goes for humams as well if you want to stop someone in there tracks and i mean fully you have to take out the central nervous system . Or create a shockwave in the central nervouse system body that nocks them out untill death . There is dead then there is really dead . I think if some guy has a knife and is comming at you . You probably want really dead . Just use buck shot , slugs
are good to but they can go right through your target and walls so that is why they recomand buck shot for self defence over slugs indoors . Ps getting shot by bird shot or anything out a shotgun is not going to be Pleasant either way .
Unless you spine them animals will still run after being shot .
That goes for humams as well if you want to stop someone in there tracks and i mean fully you have to take out the central nervous system . Or create a shockwave in the central nervouse system body that nocks them out untill death . There is dead then there is really dead . I think if some guy has a knife and is comming at you . You probably want really dead . Just use buck shot , slugs
are good to but they can go right through your target and walls so that is why they recomand buck shot for self defence over slugs indoors . Ps getting shot by bird shot or anything out a shotgun is not going to be Pleasant either way .
Death can occur from a blank pistol round (see Jon-Erik Hexsum), but does it make sense to rely on them for home defense? Of course not. 275 Rigby can kill elephants, but does that make sense for most of us? The point is that home defense requires the best tool for the job, and that from all formal studies is 00 buckshot or a slug. Doesn't matter how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Yep you are correct
danez71
Member
For defense? I don't think they ever said that.
I think they came up with spec they felt met their need and we adopted it for 'defense' so we have something to talk about on gun forums.
Bird shot certainty isn't ideal but when you make these kinds of outlandish statements it undermines any point you're trying to make.
Last edited:
Is there a ban on slugs or buck shot in this country ?
Im pretty sure there is not so why would you use something like bird shot when there is ammo that is much better then that to us?
Makes no sense to use bird shot unless you cant get anything else .
Im pretty sure there is not so why would you use something like bird shot when there is ammo that is much better then that to us?
Makes no sense to use bird shot unless you cant get anything else .
Ifs and maybes won't make it suitable for self defense.
You really want to bet your life on the ability to get a contact shot?
Creature
Member
I said it will act similarly. I did not say it would be as effective.
salt&battery
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 781
it is impossible to argue against a cut shell in the first video dog soldier put up where at 100 yds the cut shell was still intact and went thru the board sideways. I would never think it could do that at 100 yds close range yes
salt&battery
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 781
people have survived getting shot with 44 mags. guys have gotten stomped in Africa after hitting animals with big magnums. so they are no good also? no round is absolute nor any situation
So now you're gonna use birdshot for large African game. Film that please
salt&battery
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 781
no just saying you think you have the ultimate defense round that cant fail and I am saying it does not exist
- Status
