Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 144

Thread: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

  1. #71
    Sharp Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    663

    Re: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Steyr Shooter
    Quote Originally Posted by Afecks
    The issue is that 00, while effective also carries some risks. If a load can be identified that is similar in effectiveness, but mitigates the risks, what's YOUR excuse?
    Exactly.
    :lol:

    Disclaimer: I hope you guys buy all the birdshot in the world and kill every bad guy in the entire world with it.



    That said, It seems like logic would dictate "similar" doesnt allow for "mitigation". Either its the same or it isnt. Its lkike you guys want to stop being resistant and admit birdshot is not the same as buckshot.

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lacey
    Posts
    4,685

    Re: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

    It's not the same and we are not trying to say its the same. I contend that you can get similar results. The end state is to neutralize the target.

    A .300 and a .243 are different, but both can kill a deer. That is similar. They both have benefits and drawbacks. So is one the end all be all of hunting? No, either one is sufficient to accomplish the task. That is what this is all about.

    00 buck has a drawback in that it can over penetrate. So if there is a round that can still effectively neutralize the target, but mitigate the risk of over penetration, then that means that it is a viable option as a home defense round.

  3. #73
    Sharp Shooter Zwitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Puyallup WA
    Posts
    806

    Re: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Steyr Shooter
    It's not the same and we are not trying to say its the same. I contend that you can get similar results. The end state is to neutralize the target.

    A .300 and a .243 are different, but both can kill a deer. That is similar. They both have benefits and drawbacks. So is one the end all be all of hunting? No, either one is sufficient to accomplish the task. That is what this is all about.

    00 buck has a drawback in that it can over penetrate. So if there is a round that can still effectively neutralize the target, but mitigate the risk of over penetration, then that means that it is a viable option as a home defense round.

    I bet your carry piece is a .22 too. It will stop the threat of an attacker and won't over penetrate...thus getting similar results to "normal" carry guns.
    Guide to Posting Photos on SGN- Thanks for the Gold
    http://seattleguns.net/showthread.ph...t-into-your-ad

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lacey
    Posts
    4,685

    Re: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zwitter
    Quote Originally Posted by Steyr Shooter
    It's not the same and we are not trying to say its the same. I contend that you can get similar results. The end state is to neutralize the target.

    A .300 and a .243 are different, but both can kill a deer. That is similar. They both have benefits and drawbacks. So is one the end all be all of hunting? No, either one is sufficient to accomplish the task. That is what this is all about.

    00 buck has a drawback in that it can over penetrate. So if there is a round that can still effectively neutralize the target, but mitigate the risk of over penetration, then that means that it is a viable option as a home defense round.

    I bet your carry piece is a .22 too. It will stop the threat of an attacker and won't over penetrate...thus getting similar results to "normal" carry guns.
    I carry a .40, but that is not to say that some people prefer to carry a .22 or 9mm or .45. I simply prefer a .40, could I carry a 9mm, yes, could I carry a .22 you bet. There are plently of small concealable pocket guns in small calibers. A .22 can be effective against an attacker.

    I forget who it was, but someone had posted a link back here a while ago that showed across the board, be it .22, 9mm, or .44mag, the one shot stop percentage was 30% across the borad. That means that a .22 had a one shot stop 30% of the time, a 9mm had a one shot stop 30% of the time, and a .44 mag had a one shot stop 30% of the time. It really doesnt matter all that much what you carry, the important thing is to have something.

  5. #75
    Ranger
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,410

    Re: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

    Quote Originally Posted by CavVet
    That said, It seems like logic would dictate "similar" doesnt allow for "mitigation". Either its the same or it isnt. Its lkike you guys want to stop being resistant and admit birdshot is not the same as buckshot.
    Your conclusion is invalid. Here's why:
    A 9mm round fired point blank at your spine at the neck will kill you. A .50 cal sniper round fired point blank at your spine at the neck will also kill you, but the round will continue for another several hundred yards afterward. Thus, if the context for comparison is the effectiveness of "spine at the neck shots from point blank range", the two rounds are similar, while one unarguably presents greater risk.

    Likewise, a motorcycle with bald tires and a sedan with full tread are both effective at getting me to work, yet one is more risky.

    Context is everything.

    Is this particular situation, loads are evaluated on two different scales:
    1) Is the load effective at stopping an intruder?
    2) What is the severity of other risks?

    Is a 00 buck load effective at stopping an intruder? Yes.
    Is a #4 buck load effective at stopping an intruder? Yes.
    What is the severity of other risks when using 00 buck? The load is more likely to overpenetrate the target, and in the event of a miss, the shot, having comparatively greater kinetic energy poses a risk to a larger area.
    What is the severity of other risks when using #4 buck? The load Is less likely to overpenetrate the target, and in the event of a miss, the shot, having comparatively lesser kinetic energy poses a risk to a smaller area.

    You may note that I haven't reference any birdshot here. That's because I don't like the idea of using birdshot in a home defense gun. I just don't feel like the shot will have the kinetic energy to reach the vital systems in the target's body.

    My point isn't that birdshot is good. My point is that a lot of the rhetoric being passed around is "00 is effective - why consider anything else?" and this rhetoric is inherently flawed, since while it claims the effectiveness of 00 buck (which no one is arguing is ineffective), it does nothing to establish the ineffectiveness of any other load. Simply put, the folks that are saying, more or less, "00 is the only effective load" may very well be correct, but nothing they've said here establishes that.

  6. #76
    Patrolman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,197

    Re: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

    The Box of Truth already tackled this question, and I think you can find a further analysis at Firearms Tactical.

    End result - Your neighbors are safe with #01 buckshot, and no man will survive #01 buckshot. #00 buckshot seemed to penetrate so much that your neighbors are in danger, so you want to avoid this. Surprisingly enough, your neighbors are in even more danger from a .45 230 gr.

    I think that case is closed on this between those two sites.

    -X

  7. #77
    Sharp Shooter Zwitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Puyallup WA
    Posts
    806

    Re: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Afecks
    Quote Originally Posted by CavVet
    That said, It seems like logic would dictate "similar" doesnt allow for "mitigation". Either its the same or it isnt. Its lkike you guys want to stop being resistant and admit birdshot is not the same as buckshot.
    Your conclusion is invalid. Here's why:
    A 9mm round fired point blank at your spine at the neck will kill you. A .50 cal sniper round fired point blank at your spine at the neck will also kill you, but the round will continue for another several hundred yards afterward. Thus, if the context for comparison is the effectiveness of "spine at the neck shots from point blank range", the two rounds are similar, while one unarguably presents greater risk.

    Likewise, a motorcycle with bald tires and a sedan with full tread are both effective at getting me to work, yet one is more risky.

    Context is everything.

    Is this particular situation, loads are evaluated on two different scales:
    1) Is the load effective at stopping an intruder?
    2) What is the severity of other risks?

    Is a 00 buck load effective at stopping an intruder? Yes.
    Is a #4 buck load effective at stopping an intruder? Yes.
    What is the severity of other risks when using 00 buck? The load is more likely to overpenetrate the target, and in the event of a miss, the shot, having comparatively greater kinetic energy poses a risk to a larger area.
    What is the severity of other risks when using #4 buck? The load Is less likely to overpenetrate the target, and in the event of a miss, the shot, having comparatively lesser kinetic energy poses a risk to a smaller area.

    You may note that I haven't reference any birdshot here. That's because I don't like the idea of using birdshot in a home defense gun. I just don't feel like the shot will have the kinetic energy to reach the vital systems in the target's body.

    My point isn't that birdshot is good. My point is that a lot of the rhetoric being passed around is "00 is effective - why consider anything else?" and this rhetoric is inherently flawed, since while it claims the effectiveness of 00 buck (which no one is arguing is ineffective), it does nothing to establish the ineffectiveness of any other load. Simply put, the folks that are saying, more or less, "00 is the only effective load" may very well be correct, but nothing they've said here establishes that.
    Good post,
    I like 00 buck, but I wouldn't feel "under gunned" with #4 buck either (now that is a common HD loading). I just stock 00 as for KISS reasons. Sure I have birdshot but its the last thing I'd load for any sort of defense.
    The only reason I brought up the military/police is that you don't see them using birdshot for anything...

    Nice sig line styer loozer I also find it funny that you said you where "peppered" with birdshot at 30ft, with 00 or even 4 buck you'd be down...must be a effective load for salads or birds. Now I know 30ft as quite a distance and no one has that in their home, but if that happened to me it would be the last thing I'd want in my shotgun for bumps in the night.
    Guide to Posting Photos on SGN- Thanks for the Gold
    http://seattleguns.net/showthread.ph...t-into-your-ad

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lacey
    Posts
    4,685

    Re: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

    I was peppered at 30 YARDS go back an reread.

  9. #79
    Sharp Shooter Zwitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Puyallup WA
    Posts
    806

    Re: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Steyr Shooter
    I was peppered at 30 YARDS go back an reread.
    Pardon me, you'd still be more than peppered. The federal tactical 00 buck groups 6 inches at 25 yards.

    and before you whine about proof or anything. Shows 20 and 30 yard groups
    http://le.atk.com/pdf/Shotshell_Data_Book.pdf
    and since its hard for you to search anything, its on page 6 of the pdf
    Guide to Posting Photos on SGN- Thanks for the Gold
    http://seattleguns.net/showthread.ph...t-into-your-ad

  10. #80
    Sharp Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    7th layer of hell (Western Washington)
    Posts
    651

    Re: BIRDSHOT for Home Defense?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zwitter
    Quote Originally Posted by Steyr Shooter
    I was peppered at 30 YARDS go back an reread.
    Pardon me, you'd still be more than peppered. The federal tactical 00 buck groups 6 inches at 25 yards.

    and before you whine about proof or anything. Shows 20 and 30 yard groups
    http://le.atk.com/pdf/Shotshell_Data_Book.pdf
    and since its hard for you to search anything, its on page 6 of the pdf
    that tight of grouping is why I moved away from the federal tactical with flight control wad for home use, at the distances I'd be using it at might as well be shooting a slug - the shot isn't going to spread at all. going to Winchester Ranger 00-buck produces a much larger shot pattern, I want to say about 10X as much spread at 30 feet coming out of my 20" 870.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •