Have tactical shotguns "lost it"?

[lemaymiami]

There are still quite a few around that consider a shotgun very much worth having and learning to use properly in a tactical sense (as opposed to a "tactical shotgun" so called because of various additions to the basic weapon...). This is a current thread and worth a look in my opinion...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=774679

 

[Miky]

Ok you can't have it both ways the facts on how low percentage of police hits and most people don't spray and pray with autos

Roy

Your missing the point here Roy, the low hit percentages in LE shootings existed when cops carried revolvers.

An action that is slow (relative to an auto) does not make you a more accurate shooter in a gunfight. It just doesn't work that way, it's a bunch of unsighted trigger mashing, the is no "equal height....equal light...press...press...press....let it be a surprise..." there is no advantage to having a manually operated low capacity weapon in such scenarios.

Again, the pump shotgun is an excellent choice for home defense, but this is because it is affordable and ballistically effectice, not because it is slow to operate and carries few rounds, those two characteristics are never an advantage.

 

[Inebriated]

Irrelevant. If you read the OP, you should know that this thread is about tactical use.

You quoted the wrong person. I did not say anything about versatility.

Re-read.

 

[plumberroy]

Your missing the point here Roy, the low hit percentages in LE shootings existed when cops carried revolvers.

An action that is slow (relative to an auto) does not make you a more accurate shooter in a gunfight. It just doesn't work that way, it's a bunch of unsighted trigger mashing, the is no "equal height....equal light...press...press...press....let it be a surprise..." there is no advantage to having a manually operated low capacity weapon in such scenarios.

Again, the pump shotgun is an excellent choice for home defense, but this is because it is affordable and ballistically effectice, not because it is slow to operate and carries few rounds, those two characteristics are never an advantage.

First off the part you quoted was mostly tongue in cheek. But you are making my point if you can't hit something with 6 rounds 17 or 30 in a AR ain't going to make a difference . I also would disagree with a double action revolver being slower than an auto in the hands of some one willing to learn how to use it .
That is the problem I see L.E. can't hit with 6 shots so they give them 17 shots instead of making the learn to shoot . Certain Recruits can't handle/aren't comfortable shooting this gun so we will buy something easier . First they wasting our tax money second it is down grading the effectiveness of L.E. as a whole
The utility of a shotgun also has a place in the discussion because there are people that don't want 14 different guns for different things that puts a pump shotgun high on their list. A Remington 870 or Mossberg 500 with a 28 " barrel screw in chokes and an 18-21" slug barrel with cover nearly anything you would need a gun for in the U.S. My 870's and my single shots will effectively function with everything from my handloaded 20/28 ga loads in a 12 ga hull up to 3 IN. brenekkes, buckshot or turkey loads I can not depend on a semi auto shotgun to do that .

 

[Miky]

First off the part you quoted was mostly tongue in cheek. But you are making my point if you can't hit something with 6 rounds 17 or 30 in a AR ain't going to make a difference . I also would disagree with a double action revolver being slower than an auto in the hands of some one willing to learn how to use it .
That is the problem I see L.E. can't hit with 6 shots so they give them 17 shots instead of making the learn to shoot . Certain Recruits can't handle/aren't comfortable shooting this gun so we will buy something easier . First they wasting our tax money second it is down grading the effectiveness of L.E. as a whole
The utility of a shotgun also has a place in the discussion because there are people that don't want 14 different guns for different things that puts a pump shotgun high on their list. A Remington 870 or Mossberg 500 with a 28 " barrel screw in chokes and an 18-21" slug barrel with cover nearly anything you would need a gun for in the U.S. My 870's and my single shots will effectively function with everything from my handloaded 20/28 ga loads in a 12 ga hull up to 3 IN. brenekkes, buckshot or turkey loads I can not depend on a semi auto shotgun to do that .

I can't argue with the hunting/defense versatility a shotgun provides. I agree with you all the way on that one, if you could only have one gun, a 12 gauge would be a good option.

I just want to point out that the logic of "fewer round makes you a better shooter" is flawed.

You see it a lot on 1911 and s&w forums..."if I can't do it with 6, I shouldn't be carrying a gun"...that's just not true. Given a shooter of any skill level, beginner to expert, they will be more deadly with a gun that fires faster, with more ammunition. Having fewer rounds requires you to be better to score the necessary hits, it doesn't make you better.

What you are saying is a bit like saying you'd prefer to drive the slowest car in the race because it will make you a better driver. It won't.

It will however, force you to execute perfectly if you want to have any chance at winning. Putting yourself in that situation is a challenge in a car race, it's foolish in a gunfight.

 

[nathan]

I like slugs on my REmington 870. With 20 inch RS improved cylinder barrel, i can easily hit man sized target s at 50-65 yrds.

 

[Sunray]

No such thing as a tactical shotgun or tactical use of one. And a shotgun is an inanimate object. Can't have anything to lose. However, there's only so much useless junk you can hang off a shotgun. Marketing types know that.
A local police officer in London ran through a residential neighbourhood, a few years back, discharging his issue pistol(13 plus rounds of 9mm out of a Glock, I think. Doesn't matter.), supposedly at a fleeing criminal. Bullets hit assorted private homes, including over an empty baby crib, causing property damage all over the area. No charges of any kind. Screamed ' squad room bet' to me.

 

[plumberroy]

I can't argue with the hunting/defense versatility a shotgun provides. I agree with you all the way on that one, if you could only have one gun, a 12 gauge would be a good option.

I just want to point out that the logic of "fewer round makes you a better shooter" is flawed.

You see it a lot on 1911 and s&w forums..."if I can't do it with 6, I shouldn't be carrying a gun"...that's just not true. Given a shooter of any skill level, beginner to expert, they will be more deadly with a gun that fires faster, with more ammunition. Having fewer rounds requires you to be better to score the necessary hits, it doesn't make you better.

What you are saying is a bit like saying you'd prefer to drive the slowest car in the race because it will make you a better driver. It won't.

It will however, force you to execute perfectly if you want to have any chance at winning. Putting yourself in that situation is a challenge in a car race, it's foolish in a gunfight.

You miss the first time against some one who doesn't panic and knows how to use a gun you will not get a second shot period end of story . doesn't matter how many shots you have in your gun
If you can dance a can across the ground as fast as you can pull the trigger then you have an reason to have 30 rounds if you can't spend the money on ammo to practice 0% of 6 or 30 is still zero
Learn to shoot first then worry about ammo capacity

 

[TestPilot]

Post by Inebriated:
You quoted the wrong person. I did not say anything about versatility.

Re-read.

Right. I was quoting a different person. Sorry.

 

[TestPilot]

Post by Officers'Wife:
Modern weapons available to SWAT is hardly the definition of the complete weapon system for home defense.

There is no way for me to determine what your arbitrary definition of "complete weapon system for home defense" even means or what weapon will suffice for it.

I can tell that "modern weapons available to SWAT," like a 5.56mm self-loading rifle, can be a very effective home defense weapons.

You keep insinuating they're not, but unable to explain why. When you say things like "SWAT has an offensive mission"
you must explain why the rifle SWAT use is good only for room clearing and shotgun is better for bedroom defense. Otherwise, you're just throwing out meaningless rhetorics without understanding.

Keep in mind that the military has in it's inventory only two weapon systems that have been used in every war, police action and conflict in the 20th and 21st century. Those being the M2 heavy machine gun and the 12 gauge "trench gun." I'm told by people that were there that the 12 gauge was the most issued weapon guarding ammunition dumps in Korea and Vietnam. The latter, most of the weapons used by SWAT were available.

You keep saying SWAT is irrelevant to home defense, AT THE SAME TIME you use what military does to justify your reasoning. Ammo point guard is NOT the same context as bedroom defense either. Ammo guard can be attacked by opponents weilding AK-47 from hundreds of meters away. So, why were they still given shotguns? Well, let's just say even military does things that do not make sense on occasion.

I was in the military. I can tell you from experience that shotgun in the military I've seen was used for breaching. When on guard duty, even while guarding ammo or weapons point, I was given rifles.

Also, like I said before, what military does or does not do is not always a result of sound reasoning, and I am a first hand witness do that on number of occasions.

Most home defense is not going to involve going from room to room clearing out possible hostiles. Some of the military experienced may correct me if I'm wrong but the first chore of defense is to establish a perimeter to defend. The second chore is to find a spot where the defender has a tactical advantage. The third chore is to increase that advantage. In that situation comparing SWAT chores is apples to oranges.

You just don't get it.

A gun is to end the fight in CONTACT. Whether that contact happend while you're defending a bedroom, or if that contact happend while clearing room to room, the requirement to end the fight quickly with minimum number of shots fired does not change.

Please answer this simple question. If a shotgun is the quintessential CQB weapon as some suggests it is, then why do people on the offensive not choose it for CQB? What is it about "offensive" make the alleged superiority of shotgun not important all of a sudden?

 

[Miky]

You miss the first time against some one who doesn't panic and knows how to use a gun you will not get a second shot period end of story . doesn't matter how many shots you have in your gun
If you can dance a can across the ground as fast as you can pull the trigger then you have an reason to have 30 rounds if you can't spend the money on ammo to practice 0% of 6 or 30 is still zero
Learn to shoot first then worry about ammo capacity

I surrender Roy, you are right.

It's just like the western movies, the first shot is a kill shot every time. Every professional gun toter out there is wasting their time carrying around high-capacity weapons, all they really need is a muzzle loader and some more training.

Yikes...

 

[plumberroy]

I surrender Roy, you are right.

It's just like the western movies, the first shot is a kill shot every time. Every professional gun toter out there is wasting their time carrying around high-capacity weapons, all they really need is a muzzle loader and some more training.

Yikes...

Not trying to be hateful Just tired of the trend of people from law enforcement on down spending more on bigger gun or more capacity or what ever instead of learning to shoot If you don't have the basics down, if you don't have a plan, if every one in the house doesn't know the plan you have problems if you have an intruder . Way to many have an AR with every gadget they can afford bolted on it and 10 30 round mags stacked on the bed stand They have not fired 30 rounds total out of them . My guns don't even see defense duty until they have run 500 rds down range .
We are talking home defense you get loved ones behind you call 911 and wait unless the bad guy brings it to you . In that situation nothing beats a shotgun I have fired everything from a barrett M82 to an m60 to an m16 ar's Ak47's
No I have not shot at B.G. I have worked with dog warden on dogs killing livestock I had a 65lb dog come out of a collapsed shed he was in the air when I shot I was covered in blood but unhurt I could not have made that shot with an AR rifle I would not have got the safety off . I later killed a st Bernard coming as hard as he could from around 45 ft I doubt a 223 would have stopped him 6.8 or 308 would have and yes that shot I could have made with an AR style gun. The worse situation I got myself into was in Ok. We had a steer that weighed 800-1000 lbs hurt another ranch hand (I was a ranch hand at the time too) I kicked him in the nose where he stopped with out moving my other foot from where I shot One shot is all I would get in all three of these encounters
This is why I don't count on getting a second shot off
First I put myself in these situations
second why is it you have 300 cattle the 299 good ones are out in the open munching on grass and the only one that wants to stomp you into dust is in the thick bush
Roy

 

[Inebriated]

Right. I was quoting a different person. Sorry.

If it helps, I am with you on the "versatility" aspect.

 

[ZVP]

A $200 12 or 20 ga pump r double will more than suffice for HD use Noone will argue with the gaping muzzles and should you need to shoot, the battle will end quickly!
Old School yes but decisive.
JMHO
ZVP

 

[TestPilot]

Post by Ash:
As to how you will react when a baddie is showing up, shotgun hunting on live prey is far better practice than shooting at paper. The same is true regarding a rifle. How many times do AR guys spend shooting moving targets? If wing or fur hunting with a shotgun are not good training (where muscle memory is well-trained), then the only way to practice in the real world is to find some bad guys and shoot it out with them.

Standing in the open with no cover with no obstructions like walls for furniture and shoot at targets that conveniently pops up at the optimal range for a shotgun, like 20m, being visible for the whole path while you track aim, is not a realistic representation of CQB environment.

While training you mention may be useful in some regard, that only refers to the type of traiing, not type of arms. There is no reason reactive shooting can only be done with a shotgun.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Please answer this simple question. If a shotgun is the quintessential CQB weapon as some suggests it is, then why do people on the offensive not choose it for CQB? What is it about "offensive" make the alleged superiority of shotgun not important all of a sudden?

Never said it was.

And just what does an offensive mindset have to do with defense? If I were tracking terrorists through Jakobee swamp or the backwater of the Monon the 5.56 would still not be my first choice for a number of reasons. If I were "defending" one of the pasture from terrorist incursion that AR platform would be useful although I would prefer the Enfield simply because I have experience with the Enfield on living creatures. However, since I am unlikely to be tracking terrorists it's a moot point. If I were to be less than polite I would call it a red herring.

Once again, the intruder of insidious intent coming up the stairway will be facing my SAIGA 20 gauge, if he makes it to the top of the stairs he will be facing my 32-20 Winny. I would leave hubby's AR in the closet. Not for lack of confidence in the weapon itself but lack of confidence with my operation of the system. As someone far older and wiser than both of us put it long ago - when you are scared enough to <need to change your underwear (modified for Sister Beatrice's sensitivities)> you need the weapon you are most familiar with. In my case that is the SAIGA and the carbine. I have operated both machines under (limited) stress situations, I have not the AR. Unlike the SWAT personnel- if I am murdered my children are likely to as well with only a 10% chance of the murderer being brought to justice. I would not have body armor and fellow gang bangers providing suppression fire. I would be all alone with my children's safety at sake. I'm sorry if that offends your sensitivities but it seems to me a very poor time for on the job testing of an unfamiliar system.

 

[TestPilot]

Post by Officers'Wife:
And just what does an offensive mindset have to do with defense? If I were tracking terrorists through Jakobee swamp or the backwater of the Monon the 5.56 would still not be my first choice for a number of reasons. If I were "defending" one of the pasture from terrorist incursion that AR platform would be useful although I would prefer the Enfield simply because I have experience with the Enfield on living creatures. However, since I am unlikely to be tracking terrorists it's a moot point. If I were to be less than polite I would call it a red herring.

Once again, the intruder of insidious intent coming up the stairway will be facing my SAIGA 20 gauge, if he makes it to the top of the stairs he will be facing my 32-20 Winny. I would leave hubby's AR in the closet. Not for lack of confidence in the weapon itself but lack of confidence with my operation of the system. As someone far older and wiser than both of us put it long ago - when you are scared enough to <need to change your underwear (modified for Sister Beatrice's sensitivities)> you need the weapon you are most familiar with. In my case that is the SAIGA and the carbine. I have operated both machines under (limited) stress situations, I have not the AR. Unlike the SWAT personnel- if I am murdered my children are likely to as well with only a 10% chance of the murderer being brought to justice. I would not have body armor and fellow gang bangers providing suppression fire. I would be all alone with my children's safety at sake. I'm sorry if that offends your sensitivities but it seems to me a very poor time for on the job testing of an unfamiliar system.

Nothing wrong with using what you are most effective with, nor am I advocating doing something you are not properly trained to do without justification. And, no that does not offend me.

I think you missed the point.

I am not trying to dictate your choice or what to do. All the things you typed above is revolving around what YOU are used to or trained on. That is not the topic.

The topic is about the characteristics of the weapon itself.

You may be a deadly person with an Enfield. But, that has nothing to do with whether if characteristics of an Enfield itself makes it best suited for a particular task compared to other more modern rifles.

 

[Kayaker 1960]

I have a Maverick 12 gauge with a light mount. Simple, inexpensive, reliable and devastating at in the house ranges. I see no need to buy an AR or AK for H.D.

 

[Officers'Wife]

The topic is about the characteristics of the weapon itself.

You may be a deadly person with an Enfield. But, that has nothing to do with whether if characteristics of an Enfield itself makes it best suited for a particular task compared to other more modern rifles.

Deus ex machina aside, it's never the machine it's the operator. As I've mentioned before, I was once in a timed rifle match against "professional" with modern weapons (Mini14's IIRC) yet I won the match with a 100 year old Winchester. My competitors were extremely skilled at getting 10 rounds downrange very quickly but they had a little problem hitting the target.

My late uncle could perform magic with his "Stoner" yet he seemed to prefer other weapons. Local legend has it that he and a couple "good old boys" stood off a motorcycle gang sometime in the 70's. His arm of the moment was a Browning almost as ancient as my Winchester. Oddly enough, it's said he carried a shotgun in Vietnam as well.

My grandfather pretty well dismissed my uncle's "Stoner" after one magazine. His weapon of choice was a CMP Garand or a lever action in 45-70. The former is understandable as somewhere between crashing into France in a glider and going into Germany he made a peace treaty with the Garand that lasted the rest of his life.

I repeat, it's not the machine, it's the operator. The only weapon in the human arsenal is located within the pitifully few cubic millimeters inside his skull. Everything else, from AR's to Zenite are just tools.

 

[MCgunner]

And despite the energy difference the terminal effect in humans and similar size mammals is the same.

In my experience, total bovine excretion. Perhaps if we're talking .30-06 vs shotgun, but .223 is lame. I ain't saying the .223 won't work. Hell, a .22LR will work, I'm just saying at close range, give me the power of the mighty 12.....or in my case, the 20.

 

[MCgunner]

If you think shooting a fully exposed torso size static target that does not move while a shooter goes "Boom! cachink... Boom! cachink...Boom! cachink...Boom! cachink...Boom! cachink...Boom! cachink...Boom! cachink...Boom!" has ANY relevance to how a gun fight goes down....

That's one thing I like about a shotgun with NO RIFLE SIGHTS. I cah swing with it. I hit iddy biddy birds with mine all the time, on the wing flying 40 mph. I point my shotgun instinctively. Rifles, or shotguns with rifle sights, I have to align two sights. I don't rely on electronics, either, other than a light...usually when I'm after something at night trying to raid my chicken pen. The shotgun is FAR more instinctive to me, but then, I've been shooting rifles AND shotguns for a long long time and know how both work for me.

There's more to it than just the sights, too. In shotguns, it's the fit that makes it so instinctive. It has to fit the shooter, become one with the shooter.

 

[Inebriated]

I cah swing with it. I hit iddy biddy birds with mine all the time, on the wing flying 40 mph.

And what's your spread at 40 yards on those itty bitty birds? 2 feet? 3?

I point my shotgun instinctively.

I do the same with my shotguns, sure... but I also do the same with any familiar carbine and an Aimpoint.

There's more to it than just the sights, too. In shotguns, it's the fit that makes it so instinctive. It has to fit the shooter, become one with the shooter.

Problem is, "fit" goes out the window in a situation where you're shooting from cover, on the move, with one hand, or from your back after you've fallen or even been shot yourself.

There's nothing wrong at all with being more comfortable with a particular gun and using it, but there's a massive difference both in weapon tactics and mindset between shooting game and defending your home and family, or employing a shotgun in the role of law enforcement. Untrained people with shotguns have kept themselves alive for years, no one can or should argue that. But that doesn't mean it's ideal. And when people are now looking for defensive long guns, or in the case of LE, offensive, they are looking at what is the most ideal for that purpose.

 

[AI&P Tactical]

And then there are the guys that use the M4 because they can't handle the recoil of a shotgun and instead of admit it they come to forums to tout the superiority of their varmint gun.

So yes, the shotgun is loosing it to those types but for most of us here it is still our go to fighting gun.

 

[Inebriated]

And then there are the guys that use the M4 because they can't handle the recoil of a shotgun and instead of admit it they come to forums to tout the superiority of their varmint gun.

Being able to handle recoil has nothing to do with the move from the shotgun to the carbine.

Commentary like that is unnecessary. And as someone who has recommended your own builds to many people, it's also just plain disrespectful.

 

[HGM22]

I find it funny that things that are obviously of a subjective nature get so often talked about as defacto.