birdshot, birdshot, slug slug slug

[Candiru]

What legal repurcussions would occur from loading a revolver with two rounds of birdshot/snakeshot followed by three slugs? I'm envisioning something like an NAA mini loaded with birdshot for less-than-lethal deterrent, followed by slugs in case the birdshot doesn't do the trick. Questions of effectiveness aside, it seems to me that this opens up a legal can of worms: By loading a gun so that it first shoots intentionally less-lethal ammo but switches over to lethal loads at a point that can't be controlled by the wielder, one would seem to be getting into the same legal territory that forbids booby-traps. The damage of the weapon escalates suddenly without choice on the part of the user.

On the other hand, points could be given for using birdshot first and only escalating after two rounds. The problem here, though, is that a prosecuting attorney could claim that one more round of birdshot would have done the trick, making the subsequent .22WMR to the head excessive force.

Or if you'd rather just laugh at the thought of using an NAA mini-revolver for self-defense, have fun.

I know this is simultaneously my first post and first thread here, but I've been a long-time lurker. Please let me know if I've broken any rules written or otherwise.

Edit: Accidentally put non-lethal when I should have said less-lethal. Thanks, itgoesboom.

Edit 2: To clear up any misconceptions, I'm just wondering about this in the purely theoretical sense. I carry Gold Dots or Hydra-Shok.

 

[itgoesboom]

Anytime you are using a gun you are using lethal force. Period.

Birdshot is not non-lethal.

But it is less effective, and pistols are not the best stoppers as it is, so why would you use something that might not stop the threat, and allow the threat to kill you?

Once again, you pull your gun out, you are employing lethal force, so you are already in danger of losing your life, you better end that threat quickly.

I.G.B.

 

[itgoesboom]

BTW, welcome to The High Road.

And no, you didn't break any rules.

I.G.B.

 

[carebear]

A couple problems with that very common bad idea.

In general, if you are justified to draw at all, the situation must make you feel that you are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm.

If you are in that much danger why would you want to just (maybe) "deter"?

The prosecutorial problem (if it comes up at all) will be, if you had the time to fire a "warning" or "deterring" shot you were then by definition not in enough danger to justify shooting at all. Remember, the use of deadly force is the use of a "deadly weapon," not any particular loading per se. Contrarywise, if you are justified in firing birdshot you are justified in shooting a slug.

Then throw in the facts that 1) you don't know the birdshot won't kill the guy anyway or 2) you may only have enough time to get off one or two shots. If you only meant to "deter" and ended up killing, that implies negligence; if the rounds fail to stop the guy, then you have wasted your only opportunity to effectively end the situation and might die or be injured.

Fancy loading schemes sound ok in theory, but assume that things are going to go the way you plan and also involve a mistaken idea about the reality of armed encounters.

Load to best effectively stop only. It's realistic and absolutely defensible in court.

 

[SMMAssociates]

I don't have any experience with the .22WMR or associated birdshot rounds, so the following is just thinking out loud:

1. .22 birdshot in a short barrel might make a mess out of somebody at close range, but may not have any real stopping power. I had a friend who emptied a tear gas gun into a construction worker's face one time, and when the worker realized he wasn't really hurt, he chased my friend about six blocks....

2. The .22WMR, while an effective varminter, is definitely in the "placement", "placement", "placement" category against humans, and may also lack the stopping power to be of too much value.

What we have then is having to fire twice before we get to a reasonable expectation of serious stopping power unless you can pump the birdshot right into somebody's brain or heart.... Juries can get upset by how many times you fire, even if you miss....

What it boils down to for me is that when we shoot, we shoot to immediately stop something. If the individual gets dead as a result, well, he knew the job was dangerous when he took it. Warning shots tell juries that you had time to find an alternative response. More than a couple of shots tell them the same thing.

While one of those little guns is better than nothing, they really don't fit the "stop" rule all that well. Juries may have problems with "you have to kill the BG because your weapon won't otherwise stop him". (IANAL, and I also wonder if that'd fly in court, but.)

IMHO, the minimum "stopper" is a .380, in a PPK or PPK/S (the new S&W version is superb) sort of gun. Given that you can find similarly priced 9mm's in the same size range, it might be better to go for one of those. The 9mm is slightly hotter (in ordinary factory loads) than the old "standard" .38SPL your local PD carried for half a century; both are pretty good when loaded up with lightweight hollow points. That'll do what you need, I think.

Nothing wrong with a small .38 revolver either. I would avoid the hotter loads and the super-lightweights, but they make up in simplicity what they lose in being a little fatter than a semi. My preference there is for a 3" Chief's Special or something of that nature - the extra inch will conceal about as well and just point better. In revolvers, I can't hit the backstop with a 2" without being VERY careful. I can do about anything I want with a 4".

Most importantly, practice, practice, practice, and carry something you feel confident in.

 

[artherd]

9mm +p+ 2 COM, 1 head. Evaluate threat. Repeat as nessecary.

 

[critter]

Anybody who deserves to be shot at all deserves to be shot with the most effective armaments you have at your disposal.

 

[R.H. Lee]

A gun is a gun is a gun. There's no advantage trying to use a gun as a non-lethal weapon. There could be a significant disadvantage for you if it doesn't stop the attacker. If a situation has deteriorated the the point where you need a gun, you need it right now, not 3 birdshot rounds from now IMO.

 

[mhdishere]

The only time I'd think it would be a good idea is if you're in a situation where the birdshot is an appropriate round for the thing you'll most likely have to shoot, for instance if you're hiking in snake country. If you're most likely to encounter a goblin you need to load goblin-shot.

I'm not saying anything about zombies.......

 

[Lennyjoe]

Its a "must" when hunting in the swamps of Georgia

Them there water moccasins are aggressive little buggers.

On a personal protection note, if Im gonna pull a gun for personal defense, it aint gonna be to just wound a person.

I want the most lethal means in my firearm to neutralize the threat.

 

[dfaugh]

having tried .22 birdshot

on the pidgeons in my barn...well, its not gonna deter anyone or anything...At 20 ft. all it did was scare the pidgeons...I do load birdshot (#4) as the first 2 rounds in my HD shotgun, followed by 00 buckshot...If I need anything more than that, I've used the shotgun to "cover my retreat" to a rifle or carbine.

 

[SMMAssociates]

IMHO, birdshot in a HD shotgun is going to deliver a lethal wound close in with little risk of penetration as long as you're reasonably careful with placement.

Double-0 is going to be "better" at longer ranges, and/or quicker at short ranges, but there will be some penetration issues.

It makes sense to me to load that way - the first shot or two may be taken in haste, where a larger pattern may be desireable, and the "keep the BG's head down" effect may be valuable. Just be honest about the first couple of "misses"....

To reiterate, for the benefit of the guys who get hauled into court on this one, you've chosen a load that is likely to give you control of the situation. If the BG escalates, you're ready. Lethal force is lethal force, but I think it becomes a "control" issue - enhance the possibility of stopping the BG with the first couple shots, while being ready to escalate if that doesn't work.

And, we're talking "long gun" here....

Regards,

 

[carebear]

MallNinja-

That popped into my head when I first read it too. Thanks for going all the way.

Birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot sluuu-uuug sluuuuuu-uuug

Birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot sluuu-uuug sluuuuuu-uuug

Blaaaaank, It's a Blaaaaank!

Aaaand....

Birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot sluuu-uuug sluuuuuu-uuug

 

[Standing Wolf]

What legal repurcussions would occur from loading a revolver with two rounds of birdshot/snakeshot followed by three slugs?

Both bird shot and slugs go in shotguns. There are shot loads for some hand gun calibers, but they're useless beyond about ten feet, and definitely can't be counted on to stop a criminal.

The smart money is on jacket hollow-point ammunition in serious calibers.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Pepper-spray would be more of a deterrent than a .22 shot load. Better stopper too, and far less legal complications.

 

[Art Eatman]

Post #4 probably gave the best answer...

I have a NAA in .22 Mag. I consider it a lot better than a loud scream. Assuming the skill to put all five rounds into a vital area, it might suffice as a stopper--but, IMO, barely.

If there is legal, rational, "prudent person" reason to believe deadly force is needed, I think it's impractical to consider anything less than the maximum effective ammo available for whatever handgun one has.

Art

 

[Coronach]

Birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot sluuu-uuug sluuuuuu-uuug

Blaaaaank, It's a Blaaaaank!

Aaaand....

Birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot birdshot sluuu-uuug sluuuuuu-uuug

Funny. I was gonna say:

Lawyer! Its a laaaaaawyyyyyyyer!

It was the imagery, I guess.

Mike

 

[71Commander]

Anybody who deserves to be shot at all deserves to be shot with the most effective armaments you have at your disposal.

When I read this, the first thing I thought of was, if you're gonna shoot someone, do it in the most humane way possible.

 

[Kamicosmos]

My dad shot a copperhead with one round of 22 birdshot from my Beretta Mod 21a. It did kill the snake (eventually). I think only one or two pellets hit the snake (it was a young one too, btw), and he was way too close to a posionous snake, about 10 feet when he shot.

I wouldn't trust birdshot to stop a person at all, even out of a 22 Mag.

And to echo the others, When you pull your gun, it is to STOP a threat, not hurt, slow down, intimidate, etc. STOP, with as few shots as possible.

 

[HungSquirrel]

Dead crooks can't sue.

 

[Coronach]

Families still can.

The thing is this:

Is he a threat? If so, stop his threat.

Which is gonna do this, birdshot or solid bullet?

If you choose the birdshot for practical reasons, you're incorrect. If you choose it for legal reasons...you're in trouble. Its a dichotomy. He cannot kindasortamaybe need stopped. he either does, or he doesn't.

Mike