Bird shot for home defence video

[Ronin38 2,117]

^ Caged- keep in mind the main focus of birdshot for HD is to prevent shots from endangering other civilians in neighboring apartments, houses, etc.

Even for trained LEO's, misses do happen in shooting situations. (Some might say "especially" for so-called "trained" LEO's...) *Not knocking officers or other agents here, just look at some of the reported shooting situations where 40 rnds. were fired and 5 hit the bad guy.

 

For me the main question here is: Can birdshot prevent injury to the innocent, while still providing enough of an injury to the bad guy to stop the attack?

 

In my view, "Yes" to both parts.

 

Second question: Is a 12 ga. Foster slug or a 230 gr. Ranger bullet a better man-killer?

 

With proper shot placement, especially at longer ranges like 50 yds... "YES"!

[lws43 1]

Id bet not many of us have there heart or lungs more then 4 inches from there hide. that said ill probably still stick my go to load. 4-00 pellets in the wad first and then i fill the rest with #3 buck in a AA hull. Pushed with 20 grains of redot or 27 grains of herco it takes care of bussiness.

Edited June 10, 2012 by lws43

[BigChongus 765]

I can't think of anywhere on my body I could take a 4" x 4" hole and still feel frisky

I can't think of anywhere on my body I could take a 4" x 4" hole and still feel frisky

Even with a vest on the bad guy aint getting up to fast.

It's hard to be a threat when your busted up ribs are poking into your tattered lungs.

3", I dont think a bad would get up at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._Miami_shootout

 

...and sometimes they do.

I'm sorry, the video posted is far from convincing. Yes, it is a nasty wound. And a shallow one. I like his videos too, but that one is anything but conclusive. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with getting by with the bare minimum on this subject. Buckshot = vital organs and CNS damage. Birdshot = messy, shallow wounds. Funny how nobody would even consider using birdshot on deer or other like-size game, but when it comes to self defense it's good enough for the job. To each their own I guess...

Edited June 10, 2012 by W8lifter

[Salmonking 149]

Home defense and deer generally have nothing in common... unless

 

 

But seriously, most don't judge their home defense caliber on if you'd go hunting with it.

[BigChongus 765]

This is true. Deer usually aren't returning fire.

[RED333 1,025]

I can't think of anywhere on my body I could take a 4" x 4" hole and still feel frisky

I can't think of anywhere on my body I could take a 4" x 4" hole and still feel frisky

Even with a vest on the bad guy aint getting up to fast.

It's hard to be a threat when your busted up ribs are poking into your tattered lungs.

3", I dont think a bad would get up at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._Miami_shootout

 

...and sometimes they do.

I'm sorry, the video posted is far from convincing. Yes, it is a nasty wound. And a shallow one. I like his videos too, but that one is anything but conclusive. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with getting by with the bare minimum on this subject. Buckshot = vital organs and CNS damage. Birdshot = messy, shallow wounds. Funny how nobody would even consider using birdshot on deer or other like-size game, but when it comes to self defense it's good enough for the job. To each their own I guess...

A quote from the link you posted

"In addition to the problems with their handguns, other issues were brought up in the aftermath of the shooting. Despite being on the lookout for two violent felons who were known to use firearms during their crimes, only two of the FBI vehicles contained shotguns (in addition to Mireles, McNeill had a shotgun in his car, but was unable to reach it before the shootout began)" The FBI guys never used a shot gun at close range.

Your point?

Edited June 11, 2012 by RED333

[SwissyJim 117]

interesting reads...I wonder how well birdshot would do with either 1) layers of cold weather gear - tshirt, sweatshirt, heavy wintercoat, minumum - altho the first vid was 4 denim layers or 2) the use of seemingly readily available body armour. I mean, look on ebay or even Amazon and you can find stuff with AR500 steel plates pretty damn cheap. It's not high end military grade, but it's still armour. Granted, some meth head or other scumbag may not have the foresight to get any, but there are other nefarious souls out there that may. Anyone ever test buck or slugs against those, at a close range HD distance?

[theorangeplanet 968]

I can't think of anywhere on my body I could take a 4" x 4" hole and still feel frisky

I can't think of anywhere on my body I could take a 4" x 4" hole and still feel frisky

Even with a vest on the bad guy aint getting up to fast.

It's hard to be a threat when your busted up ribs are poking into your tattered lungs.

3", I dont think a bad would get up at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._Miami_shootout

 

...and sometimes they do.

I'm sorry, the video posted is far from convincing. Yes, it is a nasty wound. And a shallow one. I like his videos too, but that one is anything but conclusive. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with getting by with the bare minimum on this subject. Buckshot = vital organs and CNS damage. Birdshot = messy, shallow wounds. Funny how nobody would even consider using birdshot on deer or other like-size game, but when it comes to self defense it's good enough for the job. To each their own I guess...

A quote from the link you posted

"In addition to the problems with their handguns, other issues were brought up in the aftermath of the shooting. Despite being on the lookout for two violent felons who were known to use firearms during their crimes, only two of the FBI vehicles contained shotguns (in addition to Mireles, McNeill had a shotgun in his car, but was unable to reach it before the shootout began)" The FBI guys never used a shot gun at close range.

Your point?

 

Matix (one of the perps) fired his shotgun with birdshot at one of the agents where it only superficially wounded one of the agents before he took a shot to the head and was knocked unconscious... but I think his posting of the incident was more to bring up the fact that Platt was severely injured by wounds that normally would 'take the fight out of' or otherwise grievously wound someone beyond the ability to fight back. You want to get to the heart, the lungs, the brain, the spine, and the large arteries with as much damage as you can as quickly as you can. Birdshot can't do that reliably while larger buckshot diameters can.

[csspecs 1,987]

There are also possible events where you would want to be able to shoot through several walls... Example: In the event that the home invader does not stand in the middle of the room waiting to be shot. But rather goes for cover behind several walls and fires at you... Being able to shoot through the obstacles to eliminate the threat would be safer for everyone than allowing him to fire dozens of wild shots at you (all of which will likely be pistol rounds, as statistically they are more common).

[Slayer-72 4]

Im not always a mall ninja, but when i am, I wear an Onion sack.

 

Great vid! I'd love to see some stuff on .410 shells now too!

[The_Caged_Bird 474]

You can call me wrong all you want, I moved out of an apartment and bought a nice, brick house. I will use my buck and .45 Ranger Talons and I will sleep well at night without a doubt in my mind... no testing or stupid videos on the internet needed to validate my decision, just decades of proven performance...

[RED333 1,025]

We can come up with all kinds of "if this and If that", but in the end we all use what we want

and will be the ones to do what is needed to stop a bad guy from hurting the ones we love.

We are all correct in what we use at the time it is needed.

[BigChongus 765]

I can't think of anywhere on my body I could take a 4" x 4" hole and still feel frisky

I can't think of anywhere on my body I could take a 4" x 4" hole and still feel frisky

Even with a vest on the bad guy aint getting up to fast.

It's hard to be a threat when your busted up ribs are poking into your tattered lungs.

3", I dont think a bad would get up at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._Miami_shootout

 

...and sometimes they do.

I'm sorry, the video posted is far from convincing. Yes, it is a nasty wound. And a shallow one. I like his videos too, but that one is anything but conclusive. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with getting by with the bare minimum on this subject. Buckshot = vital organs and CNS damage. Birdshot = messy, shallow wounds. Funny how nobody would even consider using birdshot on deer or other like-size game, but when it comes to self defense it's good enough for the job. To each their own I guess...

A quote from the link you posted

"In addition to the problems with their handguns, other issues were brought up in the aftermath of the shooting. Despite being on the lookout for two violent felons who were known to use firearms during their crimes, only two of the FBI vehicles contained shotguns (in addition to Mireles, McNeill had a shotgun in his car, but was unable to reach it before the shootout began)" The FBI guys never used a shot gun at close range.

Your point?

 

Matix (one of the perps) fired his shotgun with birdshot at one of the agents where it only superficially wounded one of the agents before he took a shot to the head and was knocked unconscious... but I think his posting of the incident was more to bring up the fact that Platt was severely injured by wounds that normally would 'take the fight out of' or otherwise grievously wound someone beyond the ability to fight back. You want to get to the heart, the lungs, the brain, the spine, and the large arteries with as much damage as you can as quickly as you can. Birdshot can't do that reliably while larger buckshot diameters can.

 

That's EXACTLY what I was getting at. Thanks.

[The_Caged_Bird 474]

Wow, birdshot to the human skull only knocked the agent unconscious... Yep! That's enough proof for me...

[U.S. Pratorean 1,234]

Edited June 11, 2012 by U.S Praetorian

[timy 1,185]

There are also possible events where you would want to be able to shoot through several walls... Example: In the event that the home invader does not stand in the middle of the room waiting to be shot. But rather goes for cover behind several walls and fires at you... Being able to shoot through the obstacles to eliminate the threat would be safer for everyone than allowing him to fire dozens of wild shots at you (all of which will likely be pistol rounds, as statistically they are more common).

 

Coolish! I've been looking for a good reason to press my 308 into HD use.

[corbin 621]

Having been shot with a smaller pellet 12 ga round at point blank range, I can attest that it hurts like hell. I had my right palm over the muzzle of the shotgun when it went off (trying to take it away from the guy, but it turned into a wrestling match). The pellets took out my wrist completely, along with the radial nerve and most everything else in the wrist. About 6 pellets made it past my radius with enough energy to barely enter the skin on my right upper chest. Only one made it into the lung, and that was just barely. If you wanna see what my hand looked like after that, here's the link: http://i493.photobuc...an/hand-1-1.jpg

 

 

The shot that hit me entered my hand "as a slug" of sorts. The wad and everything went into the palm, since it never had time to spread. I suppose it acted like a large glaser safety slug. I don't know what type of penetration it would have gotten had it had more meat to go through, but my radius bone slowed down 95% of it to a less than lethal velocity. Take that for what it's worth and draw your own conclusions.

 

I've never shot another human with a shotgun though, so I can't comment with much authority on how they respond to different sized shot. Like most everyone else, I can only speculate. However, I will say that shot placement is more important than caliber/shot size, especially in a life or death situation. As for my own 12 ga HD use, I won't use less than #4 buck, if I have a choice.

 

 

*edit* Am I the only one that winced a little at 6:32 when he had his hand over the muzzle of his shotgun? I know it was probably unloaded, but to me, that's like carrying a chainsaw by the blade.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Corbin

[XD45 7,124]

I'm still gonna use 1 buck.

[Sian 14]

Firstly 00 is just inapprorpiate for most home defense use. That said, I don't like the lack of penetration from birdshot, and would have words with anyone going smaller than #4, personally I like #1.

 

 

[Anathoth 4]

If overpenetration/endangerment of nearby civilians is a primary concern, a shotgun may not be the best choice. 4" of penetration through flesh is all well and good, but if the 4" you penetrate is the attacker's shoulder when shot from an angle, or part of an outstretched arm that is holding a gun that he is shooting at you with, it may result in a wound that does nothing to STOP him and take him out of the fight.

If a loading won't penetrate sufficiently to hit vitals when shot from weird angles, or through the bad guy's arm, or thick muscle, or through the heavy clothing he may be wearing, it's not good enough. A loading that is effective only if used under ideal circumstances (#6 birdshot in a clean, unobstructed chest shot, etc) is not a loading I'd use, for the above reasons.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Anathoth

[G O B 3,516]

If you live in a studio apartment, and every possible shot is under 10' then anything 12 ga would most likely be lethal, even bean bag rounds.

That said - if you want to take out a Buck, use buckshot! If someone is breaking in it is most likely a young Buck! Testosterone is a powerful drug, a Buck who has a brain pumped up on it may kill you even after taking a round that will be lethal. You need it to be lethal to them before they can get to you or yours!

 

It amazes me that people argue for using the wimpiest round possible to defend their family - but demand the most lethal round available for hunting.

[Eric Pate 478]

I think we're debating the difference between blowing someone's face off and blowing someone's head off. One is potentially lethal while the other is instantly lethal.

 

But I'd rather go for max stopping power anyway. Another vote for buckshot here.

[Anathoth 4]

Having been shot with a smaller pellet 12 ga round at point blank range, I can attest that it hurts like hell. I had my right palm over the muzzle of the shotgun when it went off (trying to take it away from the guy, but it turned into a wrestling match). The pellets took out my wrist completely, along with the radial nerve and most everything else in the wrist. About 6 pellets made it past my radius with enough energy to barely enter the skin on my right upper chest. Only one made it into the lung, and that was just barely. If you wanna see what my hand looked like after that, here's the link: http://i493.photobuc...an/hand-1-1.jpg

 

 

The shot that hit me entered my hand "as a slug" of sorts. The wad and everything went into the palm, since it never had time to spread. I suppose it acted like a large glaser safety slug. I don't know what type of penetration it would have gotten had it had more meat to go through, but my radius bone slowed down 95% of it to a less than lethal velocity. Take that for what it's worth and draw your own conclusions.

 

I've never shot another human with a shotgun though, so I can't comment with much authority on how they respond to different sized shot. Like most everyone else, I can only speculate. However, I will say that shot placement is more important than caliber/shot size, especially in a life or death situation. As for my own 12 ga HD use, I won't use less than #4 buck, if I have a choice.

 

 

*edit* Am I the only one that winced a little at 6:32 when he had his hand over the muzzle of his shotgun? I know it was probably unloaded, but to me, that's like carrying a chainsaw by the blade.

 

 

That is a nasty wound, Corbin. Glad it didn't hit somewhere worse. What was the long-term prognosis from the injury, if I may ask?

 

I kind of have that feeling whenever I see someone rest the muzzle of their shotgun or rifle on top of their foot..

[BigChongus 765]

It amazes me that people argue for using the wimpiest round possible to defend their family - but demand the most lethal round available for hunting.

 

AMEN.

[Jay in NC 1]

I like to load my home defense mossberg pump with (in firing order) Bird, bird, buck, buck, slug. Though I it unlikely that any intruder is still going to be aggressive after a chest/gut/face load of birdshot at 20 feet...

 

pfbz, beat me to it...that's what I keep in my pump.

 

I remember on the boat we kept 3 or 4 of the 870's with heavy 00 loads (heavy steel bulkheads don't care bout overpenetration)...but one was loaded with heavy (2oz?) load of #4...when I asked why the Senior Chief said that's the sweeper. "Sweeper?"....he poked his arm up the ladderwell and leveled the pump about 6" off the deck above "BOOM...now they have no legs" he said...apparently this was a no-no for the PC crowd but it was accepted practice in the 1980s. He said the 00 buck is still pretty tight at 15 feet or less...the #4 expanded just enough to scour the entire passageway and reduced recoil made it much easier to one hand it. Could have just been on my boat. One of our captains kept his personal .45 onboard. He took it to all the weapons proficency training days. He'd always make the weps bring extra ammo so once we all passed our quals we could do some full rock and roll with the M16's and M60's. Come to think of it...that was a LOT of fun for a 20 year old.

 

Don't know if that's 'allowed' anymore...probably don't even let the watchstanders carry more than one magazine. We usually had 3, one in the weapon (NOT cocked and locked) and two mags on the belt or shoulder rig. (yeah, we had shoulder rigs...black leather ones...never saw anyone else using those except us bubbleheards).

 

Jay

[washburnizer 8]

Appreciate the video. Some good info.

[Asmodeus 13]

I have the saiga loaded with #4. The recoil difference between that and target loads is negligible. After watching the woman rip off 10rds of that. It made sense. Hand her the auto loader, and she'll probably end up cutting someone in half. 27 x10... granted each ball may only have the energy of a .22LR. The volume with each pull of the trigger is enough to compensate. The closer you are the easier it is to miss with a shotgun. I like the idea of maybe a down the hall shot turning into a hail of pellets. Granted a similar shot with birdshot could easily kill someone ... or at least blind them permanently. I think the increased volume, with a 'slight' reduction in possible over penetration is a good choice for HD.

 

That said. Its as far as I go. I wont do birdshot. I don't doubt it can and will kill. I just want a little more weight behind each pellet.

 

I also like centurion's multi defense loads. Its a .65 caliber ball and 6 00BK. I haven't fired it in the saiga. But out of my 870 its effin' great. The shot makes a near perfect ring around the ball even out to 35-40 yds. I'd have NO qualms about making a 50yd shot with that load. Even under pressure.

 

He used meat, others use gel. I challenge you to shoot nearly ANYTHING with that and see if the results aren't spectacular. As a backup - the 870 is loaded with that. I think even at close range... the effects are going to be extremely effective if you land it anywhere COM.

[Farsanarian 0]

I would bet my Saiga that that guy still ate that meat

 

For me... this statement really got me! HA! Really made me laugh. My kind of humor.

 

I vote yes to Birdshot... in CQB... well... really mess ya up. Can be gruesome.

[ewoketeer 35]

people that thought that bird shot COULDN'T kill a human were idiots (especially at across-the-room distances), and shouldn't have been listened to in the first place. its clear that birdshot digs out and tears up flesh. there is going to be a lot of blood loss with really no way to fix it.

 

the difference with buck is that it can penetrate. bird will dig out a 4" well, buck will drill 9 holes much deeper.

 

if a baddie is in your house and you shoot them in the face from 3 feet away with bird or buck, they aren't coming back.

 

that being said, I prefer the options that buck provides. against soft, clothed targets, at close distances both will work. increase the distance or durability (read: really heave clothes or armor) and bird won't work. Buck might, it might not. but I'd take a 10% chance of it working over 0%. keep a couple slugs in your pocket just in case.

 

and really with HD, you need to have layered security. if there is a bad guy in your room and you have to resort to blasting willy-nilly risking everyone around, you've already failed. HD should be such that you are never surprised. they can get in (maybe) but you'll already be up and ready for them because the previous few layers of security have already alerted you to their presence and location.

I read an account where a hunter was attacked by a grizzly bear when he was hunting birds. He emptied both barrels at the bear and stopped it in it's tracks!

[preparehandbook 326]

Ok, I know this'll get some folks going but my first round in my HD pump gun is S&B rubber buckshot.

 

It gives me a first less than lethaloption, especially for my most likely foe where I live, a troublesome dog. At very close range it would likely be lethal, but I gaurantee the OO buck I have the rest of the magazine full of will do the job.

 

An additional bonus is that in court I can honestly say I tried to do it non lethally. Having been involved in a fatal defense incident my reccomendation is "plan from the court case backwards"