Does birdshot behave like a slug at close range?

[kudu]

No, birdshot is not a suitable ideal defense, but if it was the only thing I had available at the time I wouldn't tell the bad guy, 'here come kill me because this shot load isn't suitable to shoot you with.' I would let the hammer fall hope for the best. It sure isn't gonna let him have a good and peachy day with the amount of trauma, superficial or not that he will receive. Yes I would rather have buck or slugs or a good pistol round for a defense situation, but when it comes right down to it, it's better to have any gun and load rather than no gun.

 

[10point]

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

If i shoot you in the leg with any gun you will survive if i shoot you in the vitals you will die nobody survives that your point makes no sense obviously if you take a bad shot and you don't hit vitals you're not going to kill anything no matter what you use

 

[10point]

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

They dont fly accurately

 

[salt&battery]

They dont fly accurately

he hit the board at 100 yds almost in the center. I am not advocating it at that range but up to 50 yds it is lethal and good enough to hit with

 

[salt&battery]

If i shoot you in the leg with any gun you will survive if i shoot you in the vitals you will die nobody survives that your point makes no sense obviously if you take a bad shot and you don't hit vitals you're not going to kill anything no matter what you use

you proved my point which is there is no perfect round for anything if you miss the target or vitals. one guy suggested some rounds no good but his was perfect

 

[chopinbloc]

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.
.

*sigh*

No one has made the claim that birdshot isn't dangerous or can't kill. It would likely be just fine for murdering people who are motionless. It is absolutely unsuitable for defense because the penetration is inadequate to reliably reach vital organs.

 

[chopinbloc]

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.

Yes, for defense. What exactly do you think they developed the standard for? Murder? While you can argue that law enforcement officers have a stronger need for barrier blind ammunition, the reasoning behind the 12" minimum applies equally to private citizens. You need to read this before commenting further: http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

 

[chopinbloc]

I said it will act similarly. I did not say it would be as effective.

I understand that you qualified it and that makes the interpretation a bit subjective but I don't believe that it was remotely similar in any way. Not even close. I'm interested in hearing why you think slugs and bird shot were similar, though.

 

[chopinbloc]

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

I posted this earlier, but this test illustrates the fact that cut shells don't substantively improve penetration. It is still far too shallow to be suitable for defense.

 

[chopinbloc]

If i shoot you in the leg with any gun you will survive if i shoot you in the vitals you will die nobody survives that your point makes no sense obviously if you take a bad shot and you don't hit vitals you're not going to kill anything no matter what you use

A hit to the femoral artery (which is in the leg) has a very strong possibility of killing. People have survived holes literally in their heart. Nothing is certain. But you're right that shot placement matters a great deal more than ammunition. The problem is that a gunfight virtually guarantees less than optimal shot placement.

 

[Acera]

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.

So now you going to take the tactic of playing dumb and relying on data by others that set criteria for something other than the situation you tried to demonstrate. You should not be putting yourself out there and making outrageous claims then. No worries, others have completely missed the point also, whoosh, right over them. Quit making videos if you don't know anything and going to parrot what others say. Use your mind man.

When you post garbage like this 'Birdshot is perfectly capable of killing, but cannot penetrate deeply enough, under any circumstances, to reliably incapacitate.' and use that phrase 'under any circumstances' you open yourself up showing how closed minded you are. Those are your exact words. Your initial video shows how false that statement of yours is. I see you did not choose to answer any of my other questions. I will take that as you don't want to dig this hole you are in deeper. You must understand that an affirmative answer to any of those would show how ludicrous you statement is. So you post some gibberish about the FBI, blah, blah and then just ignore it and quit, nice tactic......................



.



.

 

[chopinbloc]

You are being intentionally obstinate. I am not qualified to disregard the 12" minimum and I don't believe that you are, either. Read the Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness report that I posted earlier. It will help you understand this better. Birdshot does not meet the 12" minimum. Not even close. Not even from inches away as demonstrated by the video in my OP. Not even in a cut shell. Not on a boat. Not with a goat. It does not meet the standard. Period.

 

[entropy]

If i shoot you in the leg with any gun you will survive if i shoot you in the vitals you will die nobody survives that your point makes no sense obviously if you take a bad shot and you don't hit vitals you're not going to kill anything no matter what you use

10point; It's not that simple. As chopinbloc pointed out, a hit in the leg may kill someone, if it severs the femoral artery. But it takes @ 30 seconds to bleed out to incapacitation (shock anaphylaxis), and in that time, it is possible they may continue their attack. A hit in the vitals (as you quaintly put it) may, again, kill someone, but again, it is rarely instantaneous, and not 100% sure.

From your username, I assume you are a deer hunter; I am too. Let's examine why we aim where we do at deer, and the circumstances in which we shoot, and see how they relate to human incapacitation. I aim at the top of the aorta. The reason I do so despite CNS shots having the highest percentage of fast stops is that the CNS is a small target on a deer, well protected (the head) from most angles, we generally aren't shooting them at less than ten yards, and the top of the aorta hit causes bleedout to incapacitation very quickly. (But again, up to 30 seconds. In that thirty seconds, I had one buck run 75 yards and hide under a log. We'll revisit the reason why in a minute.) If i am a little bit off, I hit lung for about 3" any direction I am off. Again, the deer might run, but I'll be eating venision. This is the most ethical shot for deer, the aorta, IMHO.
People are not deer; Deer haven't been told by TV and movies to die when shot, like humans, nor do the ingest chemicals that reduce pain response to keep 'fighting throught it'. (I'll get to adrenaline in a second.) Many deer just drop from a well-placed shot, but not because Hollywood taught them to. (Despite Bambi's mom..) It's because they are not under the effects of adrenaline. Some deer are under the effects of adrenaline when shot; their usual response is to run fast, tail down. (Not bound, tail up, as when alerted.)
As with deer there are many variables to incapacitation of humans. One added that deer don't (generally, though there are exceptions) have is attack intent; A human with a 'mission' to attack you and adrenaline coursing through them is a formidible adversary. (Think 'Berserker rage'.) They will take hits and keep on coming, hits that would drop someone who is just sitting there, drop them like a sack of potatoes. A femoral artery hit on such will kill them, but it may be a Pyrric victory, as they might well have killed you in the time it takes for them to be incapacitated. A "vital" hit will most likely kill them, but again, not quick enough to help you. A CNS hit has the highest probability of the quickest incapacitation. The more penetration in that hit will increase that probability. Bird shot to the skull is not reliable enough, I have seen the results. A guy I grew up with shot himself under the chin with a AA Trap load attempting to kill himself. He succeeded, but it took two weeks for him to die. The results were not pretty.

Chopinbloc, I agree with you, but I do have to point out; If the FBI is the authority on penetration, how come they keep switching rounds?

 

[chopinbloc]

Chopinbloc, I agree with you, but I do have to point out; If the FBI is the authority on penetration, how come they keep switching rounds?

Again, I'm not qualified to say, but I'd presume it is a complicated mixture of cost, contract stipulations, technology advances, and other considerations. Please note that, while their chosen load has changed, the standards have not. While I might argue that 9mm 124 gr Gold Dot or HST is slightly better than 9mm 124 gr Golden Saber or Ranger T for barrier performance and retained weight, they all meet the standards and are all fine choices. They are all suitable for defense. I'd even grant that 9mm FMJ is adequate, though not ideal. Birdshot is not adequate because it does not meet the standard.

 

[Jim Watson]

We may have a straw man argument here. I have not heard anybody to claim that birdshot was equal to a slug. I have often heard that birdshot is adequate for close range defense and even that it is desirable for home defense because of the low wall penetration of individual pellets after the pattern has developed.
And some sources wax plumb lyrical over the "rat-hole" wound of just-off-the-muzzle birdshot.
Me? I hope to open fire before an assailant gets that close. Buckshot. Slug? No, if I am shooting a single projectile it will be from a rifle or carbine with less recoil and more magazine capacity.
Of course if you are lucky, merely brandishing a weapon can be enough. The yegg doesn't know what is in that .729" hole.

The "Cut Shell" was legalized in some states during the Depression an World Wars.

This is news to me. I never heard that a cut shell would get you anything from the game warden but a visit to the judge. Not that the possibility deterred folks whose main diet was small game and even sighting a deer was a rare event. And I would not be surprised if a cut shell might not be more accurate than the pre-Foster "punkin ball". Which was too specialized and too expensive anyhow.

 

[chopinbloc]

No, not a straw man. Here's a screen shot of one, but there were several posts saying essentially the same thing in the forums.

 

[Jim Watson]

Guess I just kind of skimmed over a FB guru talking about a "slog."
I saw the "wax slug" highly touted recently, too.

Be nice to see some real tests instead of YT clips. But Mythbusters fell prey to similar leap of illogic in their "shoot down a hand grenade" episode, too.

Remington once offered a riot load of plastic no. 4.
I don't recall the exact range gates, but at the intended distance, the plastic pellets would "sting" and not much farther out, would fall out of the air.
But if a rioter got in your face, the unspread mass was said to have "the energy of a .41 Magnum" for a lethal hit.

 

[chopinbloc]

What do you mean by "real tests"?

 

[10point]

10point; It's not that simple. As chopinbloc pointed out, a hit in the leg may kill someone, if it severs the femoral artery. But it takes @ 30 seconds to bleed out to incapacitation (shock anaphylaxis), and in that time, it is possible they may continue their attack. A hit in the vitals (as you quaintly put it) may, again, kill someone, but again, it is rarely instantaneous, and not 100% sure.

From your username, I assume you are a deer hunter; I am too. Let's examine why we aim where we do at deer, and the circumstances in which we shoot, and see how they relate to human incapacitation. I aim at the top of the aorta. The reason I do so despite CNS shots having the highest percentage of fast stops is that the CNS is a small target on a deer, well protected (the head) from most angles, we generally aren't shooting them at less than ten yards, and the top of the aorta hit causes bleedout to incapacitation very quickly. (But again, up to 30 seconds. In that thirty seconds, I had one buck run 75 yards and hide under a log. We'll revisit the reason why in a minute.) If i am a little bit off, I hit lung for about 3" any direction I am off. Again, the deer might run, but I'll be eating venision. This is the most ethical shot for deer, the aorta, IMHO.
People are not deer; Deer haven't been told by TV and movies to die when shot, like humans, nor do the ingest chemicals that reduce pain response to keep 'fighting throught it'. (I'll get to adrenaline in a second.) Many deer just drop from a well-placed shot, but not because Hollywood taught them to. (Despite Bambi's mom..) It's because they are not under the effects of adrenaline. Some deer are under the effects of adrenaline when shot; their usual response is to run fast, tail down. (Not bound, tail up, as when alerted.)
As with deer there are many variables to incapacitation of humans. One added that deer don't (generally, though there are exceptions) have is attack intent; A human with a 'mission' to attack you and adrenaline coursing through them is a formidible adversary. (Think 'Berserker rage'.) They will take hits and keep on coming, hits that would drop someone who is just sitting there, drop them like a sack of potatoes. A femoral artery hit on such will kill them, but it may be a Pyrric victory, as they might well have killed you in the time it takes for them to be incapacitated. A "vital" hit will most likely kill them, but again, not quick enough to help you. A CNS hit has the highest probability of the quickest incapacitation. The more penetration in that hit will increase that probability. Bird shot to the skull is not reliable enough, I have seen the results. A guy I grew up with shot himself under the chin with a AA Trap load attempting to kill himself. He succeeded, but it took two weeks for him to die. The results were not pretty.

Chopinbloc, I agree with you, but I do have to point out; If the FBI is the authority on penetration, how come they keep switching rounds?

Thats why a said (vitals) arterys are vital also or they not ? Brain heart lungs spine anything need to stay alive

 

[mavracer]

no just saying you think you have the ultimate defense round that cant fail and I am saying it does not exist

I have said nothing about slugs or buckshot, only that birdshot cut or not don't penetrate like slugs or buckshot.

hit the board at 100 yds almost in the center. I am not advocating it at that range but up to 50 yds it is lethal and good enough to hit with

A good 2 feet below point of aim and he missed with the second, watched another video where only 1 of 4 hit @100 and about 1/2 of the ones at 50 opened up before reaching the target not to mention all the gun malfunction the cut shells induced

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I've gone back and forth on this myself personally. Though I generally prefer buckshot, I think birdshot could be used to effectively and minimize overpenetration. If one shot didn't stop the threat, shoot again. If second shot didn't work, aim somewhere else on the threat. Below are my two favorite videos on the subject.

Body penetration Jeff Quinn Gun-blast: really enjoy Jeffs videos:



Birdshot and Sheetrock video from Paul Harrell (I like his videos and I'm kind of jaded about gun videos)

 

[chopinbloc]

Tonight's homework is to Google the terms "confirmation bias" and "Dunning-Kruger effect".

 

[mavracer]

Tonight's homework is to Google the terms "confirmation bias" and "Dunning-Kruger effect".

Thanks I've often said that idiot's don't realize others are smarter than them, never realized there's a term for it.

 

[salt&battery]

I've gone back and forth on this myself personally. Though I generally prefer buckshot, I think birdshot could be used to effectively and minimize overpenetration. If one shot didn't stop the threat, shoot again. If second shot didn't work, aim somewhere else on the threat. Below are my two favorite videos on the subject.

Body penetration Jeff Quinn Gun-blast: really enjoy Jeffs videos:



Birdshot and Sheetrock video from Paul Harrell (I like his videos and I'm kind of jaded about gun videos)

jeff Quinn is a funny guy love when he was busting the "expert" that said birdshot would not got thru a pizza box. remember he used a light target load. high brass #4 would have gone a little deeper. not saying birdshot better then buckshot but the birdshot is a lot better then most thought

 

[chopinbloc]

Birdshot can easily be stopped by a pizza box or two.....


....if they have pizzas in them and are inside the insulating carrier.