5.56 vs Foster Slug?

[Phaedrus/69]

I would like to see the individual who could take a slug in the chest, at 50 yards or less and be able to function in an effective way, even with a vest. Just saying what a huge impact...

Yeah, in the case of the Truball it will have about 400 ft/lbs more energy than the 5.56 round. If we're talking soft armor the backface deformation would probably be severe, not sure how much as the NIJ doesn't test 12ga as part of the rating although I've never seen a Level IIIa that wouldn't stop 12ga. If we're talking a ceramic/PE plate you'll notice it but you're unlikely to suffer any injury; they're made to stop a lot sterner stuff.

Apropos of nothing if we're talking defense against humans I can't fathom why a person would go with a slug vs buckshot of some type. Especially for home defense! The big advantage that folks generally tout of the shotgun is the multiple projectiles causing multiple wound tracks, the higher percentage chance of scoring a hit and the decreased penetration. Slugs negate all of those advantages leaving you with a low capacity "rifle" with punishing recoil, slow follow-up shots and vast capacity to overpenetrate common building materials. A 1oz fosters slug has a pretty good chance of going completely through a typical house or apartment, at least if it doesn't hit the water heater, etc. For HD I'd much rather go with Flight Control 00 Buckshot for the 12ga. When hiking or camping it's slugs all the time though; even the largest buckshot might not penetrate a 900 lb bear deeply enough to bring it down before it wrecks you.

 

[SwampWolf]

Efficiency and experience in handling a given weapon is obviously important but, as I understand it, the op was simply asking which of the two rounds would produce the most damage to a human target? I'm guessing the slug.

 

[entropy]

I've seen what a 55 gr. V-Max does to the thoracic cavity of coyotes and deer. I've seen what slugs do to the same on deer. Slugs do not turn lungs to jelly as effectively as a V-Max. ( or Ballistic Tip Varmint.)
No, I would not want to be hit by either.

 

[earlthegoat2]

For the body armor vs shotgun slug crowd.

 

[Havok7416]

For the body armor vs shotgun slug crowd.

That was both horrifying and downright funny. More or less what I expected going into the video though.

 

[Anchorite]

Guns occasionally jam. Operator headspace and timing can cause them, as can maintenance issues. Shotguns can be short shucked, nervous, inexperienced AR owners can cause malfunctioning, Lord knows I've seen almost every possible way.
But it is more of an 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' mental exercise anyway. It's what the OP likes to do, posting such questions; surprisingly he hasn't dove in in opposition to anyone yet. The reality is there are too many variables to categorically declare one or the other always has a clear advantage.

Spot on, and thank you. The question is too narrow or too broad, as the considerations are applied. Now back to reading the intellectual masturbation reply-responses and enjoying my morning coffee.

 

[redcon1]

I'm voting for the 5.56 because:
1) it will shred soft armor.
2) you have 30 rounds available for immediate use against hard plate body armor wearing threats and can; therefore, more effectively place multiple rounds into non center of mass target areas which, due to fragmentary effects, will still be devastating and potentially lethal.
3) if you're being attacked by one bad guy wearing body armor, there's a pretty good chance you're being attacked by multiple bad guys wearing body armor and the 5.56 will give you a better chance of engaging those multiple targets.

There should be a 7.62x51 option however because number 2.

 

[SterlingBullet]

There are invisible angels that have to help push the not so aerodynamic slug on its trajectory. These are known as angel grunts. Then, there are invisible angels known as angel flyboys who hold onto the 5.56 round using their wings as additional lift to give it greater range.

So the real question is not slugs versus 5.56s, it really is angel grunts versus angel flyboys. Since this is a really a religious military controversy, a moderator should now lock this thread.

 

[bearcreek]

I'm voting for the 5.56 because:
1) it will shred soft armor.
2) you have 30 rounds available for immediate use against hard plate body armor wearing threats and can; therefore, more effectively place multiple rounds into non center of mass target areas which, due to fragmentary effects, will still be devastating and potentially lethal.
3) if you're being attacked by one bad guy wearing body armor, there's a pretty good chance you're being attacked by multiple bad guys wearing body armor and the 5.56 will give you a better chance of engaging those multiple targets.

There should be a 7.62x51 option however because number 2.

Most of that doesn't apply to the question, since we're talking about a single shot here.

 

[redcon1]

Most of that doesn't apply to the question, since we're talking about a single shot here

The question asked was "which is more effective on a human attacker". I chose to interpret the question of "effectiveness" as being more comprehensive than a "single shot". The excellent Paul Harrel video made me consider the question when the human attacker is wearing body armor.

 

[bearcreek]

The question asked was "which is more effective on a human attacker".

No it wasn't. This is the question from the OP

Which one, shot for shot, would produce the most terminal damage to the target?

Notice the bolded portion.

 

[redcon1]

No it wasn't. This is the question from the OP

The OP asked two different questions. I answered the first one.

 

[bearcreek]

The OP asked two different questions. I answered the first one.

Guess we'll have to wait for him to weigh in. I see one question there, and capacity isn't part of it. Not saying I necessarily disagree with your ideas though. As I posted earlier, comparing one shot to one shot when it comes to defensive/offensive firearms use is an almost useless exercise.