Shotguns not for COMBAT use

[GodCountryCorps]

The goal of this thread is to put forth and support the assertion that shotguns are not to be fielded in combat. I did not say home defense within ranges of 0-35yds, I am making the claim for combat scenarios only.

I realize this subject matter may conjure certain uncomfortable feelings in some folks, and it is not my intention to insult anyone's choice of firearm or opinion on the matter, but I think this is a good subject to raise in the spirit of learning more about firearms.

One last note: this posting geared to be a moderately technical/very technical thread, please post accordingly.
_____________________________________________________________

Training and reality sometimes conflict. While the so-called “modern school” of the shotgun seeks to equip the weapon like a rifle (sights, slugs and choking), and promote its theoretical versatility due to ammunition types available, these notions are foolish. I will show you why. The shotgun comes into its niche in "expected" very close range fights, often in reduced light where the tempo of events does not favor traditional rifle marksmanship principles, and where devastating damage needs to be inflicted in as short a time as possible with minimum number of shots. An additional asset of the shotgun is that the nature of buckshot, and its pattern of impact, lends to hitting adversaries in time frames and in situations that might otherwise not allow hitting with a single projectile weapon such as a rifle. The rapidly decreasing velocity and low penetrative characteristics of the ammo tends to minimize collateral damage that may result from rifle fire. This above is what the shotgun is for, and what it has been used for since the first shotgunner picked up his smoothbore to go kill other men and it is what it will always be used for.

The current trend has been to say the shotgun is a versatile weapon. In truth, in combat and most situations it is not versatile at all. The fact that you can load it with a myriad of ammunition types is uninteresting since for shooting human adversaries there are really only two choices – buckshot or slugs. We have all heard the issue of using birdshot for home defense at some point. That may be an option for those who live in thickly populated apartments surrounded top to bottom with neighbors (but even in this scenario a fragmenting rifle projectile like M193 would be better suited for minimizing rounds entering a neighbor's apartment), or for use on the training range so target systems are better preserved. But bird shot is an extremely horrible choice for anything else and produces shallow flesh wounds even at close ranges, bird shot is designed to kill birds, not humans.

Similarly, the police issue of using less-than-lethal or gas rounds has little to do with anything outside that special purpose. Agencies that use such munitions now have specialized dedicated shotguns for them. For the private citizen gas rounds, breeching rounds, and/or less lethal rounds are typically useless. Why would you “bean bag” a man who is trying to shoot you? Even the police only use this sort of thing because of forced policy changes…and even then, only when accompanied by another officer armed with a real firearm. Few people will need to rely on door breeching rounds as I cannot think of a single self defense shooting that has required such a round. In the extreme case where you would need to breech a door, a rifle or a handgun can breech locks as effectively as a shotgun, the only reason the military uses the shotgun in Iraq/Afghanistan for breeching is due to restrictive policies intended to minimize collateral damage.

The specifics of using a shotgun in combat is problematic at best. The use of a shotgun in combat is a violation of the Hague Convention / Geneva Protocols (Convention), if you care about that sort of issue. Additionally, buckshot and slugs can be defeated by even the oldest of body armor, which is a problem as even the poorest countries equip their fighting forces with body armor (as well as a large number of criminals nowadays). Most combat shootings will be beyond 35 yards, outside of the reach of buckshot, according to the USMC M16 training manual the average infantry engagement is 120 to 230 meters --- which is well outside of the range of a shotgun. All these factors combine to tell you a shotgun is not a weapon of choice for combat duty, this is obviously why every military in the world goes to combat with rifles and only a very small handful of countries (most of them NATO members) allow shotguns on the battlefield for extremely limited roles. My biggest point of contention is the over-choking of the shotgun barrel. This is usually done in hopes of tightening the pattern’s impact at longer distances. The trade-off is that one will have in essence the same problem as if he was firing single projectiles. Rather than a fist-sized pattern impact at 15 yards, what we need is uniformity of pattern, and that does not require over-choking the barrel. It can obtained with the purchase of high quality ammunition.

Another point is the use of slugs. When Jeff Cooper began promoting the shotgun at his school in Paulden, AZ, he sought to convert the “erratic” shotgun into a weapon he understood better, the rifle. On came the ghost ring sights, in went the slugs and the chokes…even a shotgun shooting sling, all in the hope of reaching farther and hitting with greater precision…like a rifle. But no matter how you seek to equip a shotgun, it will never do as well at the mission of a rifle, as a real rifle. Eventually someone will ask the very pertinent question – “Why not just forget all of this and simply use a rifle?”

Why not indeed?!

Any attempt to make a shotgun do the rifle’s job makes for a poor rifle and a useless shotgun. Even the poorest rifleman can outshoot the best shotgunner in a rifle problem, and any off the rack shotgun can match the “modern technique” shotgun for true close range shotgun problems. So again…what is the point?

The only viable reason for this forced metamorphism would be for the poor cop whose agency has denied him the ability to have a rifle and must make do with the only long gun permitted: the shotgun. Or the similar situation of some oppressed subject living in a nation or state where rifles are prohibited, but shotguns are allowed. But I would say that those two situations are rather special cases. Unless they are the only folks interested in shotguns, we have left a great number of interested parties out of the discussion. For those with access to rifles, there is no need to so modify the shotgun trying to build a rifle. Doing so is akin to putting a Ferrari body on a Geo Metro chassis.

The natural choice in ammo for the shotgun is buckshot. Buckshot’s pattern impact allows you to hit adversaries in time frames and situations where you would probably miss with any other weapon. Rather than seeking to customize the shotgun to fulfill an impossible demand, we should focus instead on how to use it well and center the bad guy in the pattern of buckshot. Again, this allows you to hit him when you would otherwise miss. That, my friends, is what the shotgun is for. Can you do that with slugs? No.

Please feel free to post your facts, comments, opines, etc. There is more to come...

[Failure2Stop]

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but have issue with some tidbits-

I am not aware of how the shotgun violates the Hague Convention, as their use was defended against the Germans during WWI. A neat little article of the matter here.
If you don't want to bother to click the link, it ends like this from a recent review on the matter:
"The combat shotgun and its lead-and-antimony buckshot (or shot) ammunition are consistent with the law of war obligations of the United States."

M193 does not fragment reliably enough to be considered "safe from over-penetration". Not much in the "serious" category can be claimed to be safe from overpenetration. Rule #5 applies- Be sure of your target and what lies beyond. This is departing from the overall theme of your topic (use in combat), so no need for me to go on a tagent with that.

Rifles and handguns do not breach doors as effectively as shotguns with dedicated breaching rounds. While shooting into a door (regardless of ammunition) will present a hazard to whomever may be occupying space behind that shot, breaching rounds will reduce the probability of ventilating non-combatants. Even absent that concern, a 5.56 does not reliably (or even frequently) cause failure of a door latch with 2 shots (as does a 12 ga), and is definately inadequate if attacking the hinges. While a shotgun is no treat to lug around, it is easier to carry than a hooligan (halligan) tool or sledge, and can be used in extremis as an effective weapon outside arm's reach.

I have voiced my opinion about the M1014 (not a fan), and I am no great fan of shotguns in general as a combat weapon, but there are applications for the tool.

[warpigM-4]

I think in building clearing a shotgun has many uses in combat.ie blasting locks and blasting whoever steps in front that is not a friendly.I use 3 in oo buck it will stop the threat. That weapon will ALWAYS be around it fits many roles in defense situations

[Renegade]

Originally Posted by GodCountryCorps

The goal of this thread is to put forth and support the assertion that shotguns are not to be fielded in combat. I did not say home defense within ranges of 0-35yds, I am making the claim for combat scenarios only.

What weapon is best for a given combat scenario should be decided by the professionals in the field, not bureaucrats on the home front. Give the professionals a full tool chest, let them decide what tool is best for the job at hand.

Originally Posted by GodCountryCorps

The use of a shotgun in combat is a violation of the Hague Convention / Geneva Protocols (Convention), if you care about that sort of issue.

Do you have a source that shotguns are a violation, and that the US has signed off on this? I am unaware, and know shotguns have been used in just about every engagement the US has been a part of.

[warpigM-4]

Originally Posted by Renegade

What weapon is best for a given combat scenario should be decided by the professionals in the field, not bureaucrats on the home front. Give the professionals a full tool chest, let them decide what tool is best for the job at hand.

well put A++++++

[GodCountryCorps]

Originally Posted by warpigM-4

I think in building clearing a shotgun has many uses in combat.ie blasting locks and blasting whoever steps in front that is not a friendly.I use 3 in oo buck it will stop the threat. That weapon will ALWAYS be around it fits many roles in defense situations

Agreed: I am not arguing against home/self defense, simply combat scenarios.

Also, I understand the shotgun has specialized breaching munitions, such as "lockbusters" we've used in Iraq/Afghanistan, which are specialty rounds for a specific purpose; having first hand experience in the USMC and civilian capacities, and second hand knowledge also (my brother, also USMC), they still don't use the shotgun to clear the buildings...they use their M16s. I am mainly arguing for the engagement of human targets and the efficacy of such with shotguns vs. rifles.

I love my Mossberg 500A, and I plan to procure a Mossberg 590 like we used in the Corps. I just keep hearing people at guns shows and gun shops make inaccurate statements about shotguns in combat, I just decided to make a thread about it and see what everyone on M4 had to say.

[PALADIN-hgwt]

xxxxx

[warpigM-4]

Originally Posted by GodCountryCorps

Agreed: I am not arguing against home/self defense, simply combat scenarios.

Also, I understand the shotgun has specialized breaching munitions, such as "lockbusters" we've used in Iraq/Afghanistan, which are specialty rounds for a specific purpose; having first hand experience in the USMC and civilian capacities, and second hand knowledge also (my brother, also USMC), they still don't use the shotgun to clear the buildings...they use their M16s. I am mainly arguing for the engagement of human targets and the efficacy of such with shotguns vs. rifles.

I love my Mossberg 500A, and I plan to procure a Mossberg 590 like we used in the Corps. I just keep hearing people at guns shows and gun shops make inaccurate statements about shotguns in combat, I just decided to make a thread about it and see what everyone on M4 had to say.

some of my Army brothers in iraq have told me you didn't see to many Shotguns in building.but they said they started coming on the scene as more cities and urban areas were being controlled

Now as far as a "Hollywood take someone out at 200 meters shot" Now that weapon is no way made for that thats the rifles job .I did read in WW1 there was a big "you are not following the code of good combat "but the US never signed off and continued to field the weapon in the trenches.A friend that was 88M told me that the shotguns scared the hell out of the iraqis.also in vietnam many point guys carried shotguns .I talk to my uncle that was in the shit.

I would think if someone was to carry a shotgun into combat it would be a secondary weapon .in no way would I make it my main weapon.so I agree with that, but look at the new full auto shotgun that the army is starting fielding in small numbers.I own a saiga-12 and would use it for some urban setting and ZOMBIE attacks .
But with the new rounds they are developing,small genade types ,bean bags you name it they got, it will forever be on battlefields .there is just something about that weapon, its a comfort weapon for some, any boob can use a shotgun.Not all can pick up a M-4 and make it do the task at hand
but this is a great point and a good read

[m24shooter]

Originally Posted by PALADIN-hgwt

In all fairness the OP should have given Gabe Suarez credit, as that long post was in his last "newsletter".

Paladin

Actually, it looks like the OP blends his own commentary/thoughts in with Suarez, without any credit to Suarez or distinction between the two.
As for Hague/Geneva Accords those are two different things. Once is the Laws of War and the other is basically treatment of prisoners. And even in trying to raise that issue, it's been decided and it didn't go the way the OP thinks it did.
AFAIK, that part was NOT in Suarez's article.

[Oscar 319]

If I ever expect to engage someone at "across the room" distances, I will always choose a 12 gauge with 00 buck over any carbine/subgun/handgun. If ranges will go beyond 50' (yes feet) the M4 is the tool. The trusty shotgun still has its place in very close quarters applications and should always be part of ones tool kit.

As Dirty Harry once said, "a mans gotta know his limitations", a man should also know his weapons limitations.

[RogerinTPA]

As stated above, a weapon is a tool in a tool box. The more weapons selection, the better to select the right tool for the mission or application. Individual application of a particular type of weapon is like opinions and assholes. We should provide our war fighters with as many tools as possible. My opinion of M-4 vs Shotgun for house clearing, M-4 hands down, but only because of the mag cap, you can carry more ammo, rapid mag reloads, way less recoil. But that doesn't mean the shotgun isn't a viable option. Shotguns are tremendously effective weapons for street fighting, house to house and jungle warfare. But it is only a tool. Just don't be one.

[FJB]

Given one foray in Panama and two in Iraq as a Marine I can comment on this subject based only on my experiences. Mossberg 590 in Panama and M1014 in Iraq.

There are several inaccuracies in the first post:

1st) The shotgun is not prohibited by either Geneva or Haque. The Germans tried to prohibit it after U.S. troops started using Winchester M97s in the trenches during WWI. Germany is of course the same country that started using chemical weapons during WWI.

2d) The use of 99% of combat engagements occur inside 300meters with 95% of them inside 70meters. This is from a recent Center for Naval Analysis study done for DOD.

A properly configured shotgun can shoot slugs out to 125 yards well within "minute of terrorist." A .75" diameter (12ga) 1 ounce (437gr) slug moving at 1600 to1800 fps will do significant damage. Even to those wearing body armor with SAPI plates. If you don't think so please volunteer to allow me to test this "theory." May not penetrate, but it will cause significant soft tissue and internal injuries that will definitely get their attention. Of course with a quality combat 12ga with an Aimpoint Micro T-1 and good slugs it is pretty easy to turn someones head in to a canoe at 50yards.

00B inside 25 yards (i.e. CQB distances) will provides 9 .32 pellets at 1600fps, basically nine 9mm rounds impacting the threat simultaneously. If threats wearing body armor at CQB distances is a concern then high centered/lower neck area placed shots with a tight patterned shotgun will help solve that problem quickly.

Ability and flexibility to breach doors has already been addressed. It is not the complete solution but is still the best ballistic breaching system going.

The combat shotgun is definitely not a general issue weapon system, but to dismiss it entirely is to use the author's own words "foolish." I think that issuing combat shotguns should only be done after proper training and the B.S. USMC 25 round "familiarization fire" doesn't count. I saw way too many SNCOs and Officers running around during OIF I with M1014s and very little if any knowledge of how to properly manipulate it. The Marine Corps Security Forces adopted the Gunsite 260 class back in the late 80's and it should be the standard for the rest of the Marine Corps, if not the military, although the MCSF course didn't emphasize the use of slugs at longer distances as much as it could have.

Before any one dismisses the shotgun as a viable combat instrument I recommend they take a shotgun class at Gunsite or from Louis Awerbuck, Yavapai Firearms Academy, Bill Jeans, Morrigan Consulting, Scott Reitz, ITTS, and Rob Haught, Haught Tactical Shotgun. After learning how to properly use the "hammer of God" as Rob Haught calls it, I think their opinion will be far different.

Finally, IMHO a proper combat shotgun is a VangComp 870 or 590. I am not a fan of the M1014, but it is viable. Although the Saiga does interest me, I still prefer the versatility that the 870 or 590 platforms provide when needing to select different rounds based on METT-TSL. My preference is for a VC 870 with a Micro T-1, but then again I am biased towards the Micro T-1.

S/F

[RWK]

Originally Posted by FJB

Given one foray in Panama and two in Iraq as a Marine I can comment on this subject based only on my experiences. Mossberg 590 in Panama and M1014 in Iraq.

There are several inaccuracies in the first post:

1st) The shotgun is not prohibited by either Geneva or Haque. The Germans tried to prohibit it after U.S. troops started using Winchester M97s in the trenches during WWI. Germany is of course the same country that started using chemical weapons during WWI.

...

The combat shotgun is definitely not a general issue weapon system, but to dismiss it entirely is to use the author's own words "foolish." I think that issuing combat shotguns should only be done after proper training and the B.S. USMC 25 round "familiarization fire" doesn't count. I saw way too many SNCOs and Officers running around during OIF I with M1014s and very little if any knowledge of how to properly manipulate it. The Marine Corps Security Forces adopted the Gunsite 260 class back in the late 80's and it should be the standard for the rest of the Marine Corps, if not the military, although the MCSF course didn't emphasize the use of slugs at longer distances as much as it could have.

Before any one dismisses the shotgun as a viable combat instrument I recommend they take a shotgun class at Gunsite or from Louis Awerbuck, Yavapai Firearms Academy, Bill Jeans, Morrigan Consulting, Scott Reitz, ITTS, and Rob Haught, Haught Tactical Shotgun. After learning how to properly use the "hammer of God" as Rob Haught calls it, I think their opinion will be far different.

Freddie:

Roger that. I too had a foray in Panama with FAST and we put our 590's to good use. I think that some people get caught up in the fallacy of "if it's not applicable to my particular circumstances right now, then it's no good at all". I wonder how many Marines and soldiers consider Iraqi desert and Afghani mountains as the only two combat environments? I'm sure there are many who've never experienced triple-canopy, mountainous jungle; or African bushveldt.

I've been out of the game for a while so, are you saying that the MCSF Combat Shotgun Course never made it to the fleet? That would be highly disappointing.

"The use of a shotgun in combat is a violation of the Hague Convention / Geneva Protocols (Convention)". Sea lawyers...

[Failure2Stop]

Originally Posted by RWK

I've been out of the game for a while so, are you saying that the MCSF Combat Shotgun Course never made it to the fleet? That would be highly disappointing.

No it didn't. There have been at least two attempts I know of to stand up a Shotgun Course for the USMC. There are good people working on it right now, and results should be out at some point.

"The use of a shotgun in combat is a violation of the Hague Convention / Geneva Protocols (Convention)". Sea lawyers...

I still hear this about .50 BMG use against personnel as well. Is BS, was BS, always will be BS.

[Gutshot John]

Originally Posted by Failure2Stop

No it didn't. There have been at least two attempts I know of to stand up a Shotgun Course for the USMC. There are good people working on it right now, and results should be out at some point.



I still hear this about .50 BMG use against personnel as well. Is BS, was BS, always will be BS.

It's kind of a technicality type of situation. Most don't realize that the Geneva Conventions bear no force of law, they are just standards to which nations adhere to varying degrees. This only becomes any sort of issue if you get brought up before the Hague on war crimes and even then they're not going to waste time with shotgun/BMG nonsense.

Yes shotguns/BMG are contrary to the Geneva Conventions to some degree, but so is shooting medics or detaining them as POWs (who are issued Geneva convention cards labeling them as non-combattants)...yet they still get shot and taken POW.

In terms of shotguns being not authorized for military usage... that's a joke. Everyone uses them, even signatories.

[sff70]

As with most things, shotguns have things they do particularly well, and things they don't.

Pro
+They excel at delivering terminally effective payloads at relatively short
distances.



Cons
-Limited magazine capacity
-Slow reloading times
-Easy to fumble the rounds as you are trying to load into the magazine
-Easy to load a round in backwards under stress, esp. in low light
-Very susceptible to user induced stoppages
-In most commonly seen/used form (18 1/4 to 20 inch barrels with full stocks), a most ungainly weapon
-Ergonomics (Rem 870) not well done
-For precision shooting (innocents in close proximity to threat), not the best weapon system, esp. if all you have available to you is buckshot
-Even with slugs, you have a 2d projectile to manage: the wad. It goes whereever it wants, and it can cause significant injury



Most of us who work as either individuals or in small teams will only be able to have only 1 handgun and 1 long-gun available to use when we check into service, leave the wire, or check out that thing that goes bump in the night.

Meaning, no crew served weapons, no indirect fire weapons we can call on, etc.

So, when you obtain that long gun, not knowing exactly what you'll be faced with, a rifle is the better jack of all trades, and even the master of several.

A shotgun, not so much.

Sure, you could use a shotgun with ferret, hatton, wood baton, beanbag, and other rounds, but how many people ever actually do so?

Furthermore, less lethal shotguns are dedicated weapons. They aren't used with lethal munitions, so once you dedicate a shotgun for that purpose, you've removed it from the table, so to speak. You've reduced the flexibility of the system.

This derails the argument that the shotgun is a more flexible system.

Breaching shotguns are also typically dedicated guns. Pistol grips, short barrels, bungee cord stocks, and carried in cond 3. Again, you've created a less flexible weapon system.

Could you use a breaching round as a lethal munition? In a pinch, sure.

Could you use bird, buck, or slug to breach? Sure. There are some big time dangers to the shooter and any non-threats inside the building, though.

Are there exception to the above, such as NFA shotguns, shotguns with short stocks, semi-auto shotguns, shotguns with optical sights, shotguns with rifled barrels.

How about when one of your arms gets torn apart by a bad guy's bullet, and is no longer useful? Kinda hard to operate a shotgun. Real hard to reload it. Ed Mireles showed us how to do that, but it wasn't effective, nor timely. He had to peform head shots with his revolver at the driver's window to stop those threats.

If you can guarantee that all my fights will be from 1 yds to 15 yds, on lone bad guys not wearing body armor, with no innocents in close proximity,,when I have both my hands uninjured, an 870 with buck is the pefect weapon.

Any deviation from the above, we got problems.

FWIW, when I need a long gun (and I have one with me every day I'm at work), I take a 16" 5.56 carbine.



What happens with guys with shotguns go up against guys with rifles?

We have 2 very well known examples.

Anyone remember the N. Hollywood Bank Robbery? 2 bad guys, dozens of LAPD officers, who employed shotguns with buck, and handguns.

What were the results?

What would the result have been had even only 1 officer been on scene with a 5.56mm carbine?



How about Miami in 86? 2 bad guys, 6 agents (2 more arrived late in the fight). Matix was rendered inneffective right away. So now it's 6 v 1.

45 seconds into the fight, 2 more agents arrived so the odds are in the agents' favor, right? There were:

1 bad guy with a rifle
1 agent with a shotgun
7 agents with handguns

Platt, despite taking several rounds (including at least 1 to the arm), killed 2 agents, and wounded 3 more. He



As for me, I'm pick a 5.56mm carbine.

[LouDiamond]

These types of posts make me glad that those who DO have to go into combat and those who DO influence and decide what weapon systems we have in inventory don't subscribe to the mentality outlined in the original post. Using the same logic, replace the word shotgun with handgun/pistol in the thread. With that said, using the OP's logic, we should get rid of handguns/pistols too because they are not effective at engaging targets at longer distances,etc,etc. Either way, the point being made is that its absurd to think that there is one magic weapon for an environment as fluid as combat and or that the shotgun has no place in combat.

A shotgun is a tool, like any other weapon or piece of equipment that I employ to accomplish my mission. Other users have given some good input on why and how shotguns have a place in combat. What I find laughable is that someone who isn't a Joe, regardless of "who" they are in the shooting community or who they have "trained" thinks they can tell the guy on the ground what works best for him or what will/will not work in combat.

The shotgun is a misunderstood and often misused tool in the regular Army/Navy/Air Force and Marines and this is simply a training issue. Within SOF however, it has it's place along with other tools. Which is why I carry a shotgun along with an M4 and pistol when the situation dictates. Use the right tool for the job and let those who are doing the job decide which tools to use to get the job done. The times I have been called on to use a shotgun in combat there have been no complaints about it being "ineffective". YMMV.

[Slater]

It's interesting to read about the shotgun in World War I, as the circumstances there probably made the shotgun more effective than it would have been normally. From Global Security.org:


An infantryman breaking into a trench could sweep both sides of it (to the depth of a passageway) with multiple buckshot rounds. Once leaders understood the 50-meter range of this weapon, it was employed with skill. A soldier with a shotgun, fast to pump and fire, could quickly suppress German trench assaults and clear dugouts with devastating effectiveness. Out of the trenches, the Model 97 cleared Germans out of farmhouses and buildings in French villages with equal effectiveness. On 27 September 1918, Sergeant Fred Lloyd, using a Model 97, advanced alone into a German-held village and began methodically clearing it, pumping and firing the shotgun as he moved. He finally collapsed with exhaustion after routing thirty German soldiers. The combat shotgun had earned its place as an Army secondary weapon.

[RWK]

Originally Posted by LouDiamond

These types of posts make me glad that those who DO have to go into combat and those who DO influence and decide what weapon systems we have in inventory don't subscribe to the mentality outlined in the original post. Using the same logic, replace the word shotgun with handgun/pistol in the thread. With that said, using the OP's logic, we should get rid of handguns/pistols too because they are not effective at engaging targets at longer distances,etc,etc. Either way, the point being made is that its absurd to think that there is one magic weapon for an environment as fluid as combat and or that the shotgun has no place in combat.

Well said.

[RWK]

Originally Posted by sff70

-Easy to fumble the rounds as you are trying to load into the magazine
-Easy to load a round in backwards under stress, esp. in low light
-Very susceptible to user induced stoppages

All of the above are training issues. Properly trained users tend not to do stupid things like load shells backwards; much like properly trained users don't often try to load M16 magazines or linked belts or M203 grenades backwards.

Originally Posted by sff70

Anyone remember the N. Hollywood Bank Robbery? 2 bad guys, dozens of LAPD officers, who employed shotguns with buck, and handguns...

What would the result have been had even only 1 officer been on scene with a 5.56mm carbine?

Probably the same result as if they would have had a few 1-oz. slugs.