View Full Version : Bad info that just won't go away
Not only will it not go away, it keeps being perpetuated!
Yesterday I happened to watch a little bit of an episode of "The Best Defense" on the Outdoor Channel. Rob Pincus advocated birdshot for use in a defensive shotgun and Larry Potterfield talked about the "knockdown power" of the .357 Magnum. :rolleyes:
Between this and "Personal Defense TV", I sometimes find myself wondering why I torture myself by watching those shows... :confused:
Unless Im being attacked by Birds, Im using bigger shot, like 00 or 000
My other favorite myth is that .223 and 5.56 are the same round
My all time one is that crap about a "Gun in the home is 43% more likely to be used to harm you or a family member than protect you"
Jim from Houston
03-26-09, 12:26
As in many things, the truth about these matters is, I guess, too mundane and wouldn't make good TV.
Still, amazing that people will still do the "knockdown power" stuff, since that's even been debunked in the very public context of "Mythbusters", where they tried to make a crash test dummy of human size and weight "move" by shooting it, and could not do so even with bursts of full auto from an MP5, 12 gauge slugs, and finally, shots from a Barrett .50 rifle. That dummy wasn't movin' anywhere.
My other favorite myth is that .223 and 5.56 are the same round
What is the difference? I understand that 5.56 is typicall loaded hotter and has a higher velocity, also that the 5.56 is a couple mills fatter on the case. Is the velocity a bunch higher or is it a small and slight advantage?
John_Wayne777
03-26-09, 12:33
Not only will it not go away, it keeps getting perpetuated!
Yesterday I happened to watch a little bit of an episode of "The Best Defense" on the Outdoor Channel. Rob Pincus advocated birdshot for use in a defensive shotgun and Larry Potterfield talked about the "knockdown power" of the .357 Magnum. :rolleyes:
Between this and "Personal Defense TV", I sometimes find myself wondering why I torture myself by watching those shows... :confused:
Sometimes they present decent stuff. Sometimes they present stuff so bad it makes my hair hurt. I distinctly recall one episode of one of the shows where a couple of guys were debating what made the best long gun for home defense. One spoke of adding lights and lasers to the Ruger Mini-14 for the "intimidation factor"....
I watched most of that stuff last night and Bane's show did a whole episode with Pincus. It was...interesting.
As in many things, the truth about these matters is, I guess, too mundane and wouldn't make good TV.
Still, amazing that people will still do the "knockdown power" stuff, since that's even been debunked in the very public context of "Mythbusters", where they tried to make a crash test dummy of human size and weight "move" by shooting it, and could not do so even with bursts of full auto from an MP5, 12 gauge slugs, and finally, shots from a Barrett .50 rifle. That dummy wasn't movin' anywhere.
Wait just a minute!!! You mean to tell me 12 guage slugs won't pick a man up off his feet and throw him back 10 feet?????
I think Chuck Norris, Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme would beg to differ.
Littlelebowski
03-26-09, 12:37
What is the difference? I understand that 5.56 is typicall loaded hotter and has a higher velocity, also that the 5.56 is a couple mills fatter on the case. Is the velocity a bunch higher or is it a small and slight advantage?
Dude, just look it up. Not trying to be a pain here but that's been covered several times in many places.
Jim from Houston
03-26-09, 12:50
Wait just a minute!!! You mean to tell me 12 guage slugs won't pick a man up off his feet and throw him back 10 feet?????
I think Chuck Norris, Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme would beg to differ.
Yeah, you know, what I've always REALLY hated is, ya know, when you're hunting, and you shoot a deer with a 12 gauge slug, and they go flying through the air in slow motion, tumbling end-over-end, and then end up stuck-up in the branches of some tree 20 feet away...damn, such a bitch to get'em out of those trees...really should use a less poweful weapon with less "knockdown" power to save the recovery work. :D
Seriously though...I can't understand how anyone who's ever been hunting can believe half of this firearms bull-puckey that's floating around out there...
LittleRedToyota
03-26-09, 15:14
Seriously though...I can't understand how anyone who's ever been hunting can believe half of this firearms bull-puckey that's floating around out there...
only thing i can figure is they never actually hit a deer...
shot at one, yep. hit it, apparently not.
;) :D
I like gun myths like these, I am always telling non gun people I carry a .45 that even if I hit a BG in the pinky finger all his arms and legs will be blown off.
Cameron
HiggsBoson
03-26-09, 15:53
Wait just a minute!!! You mean to tell me 12 guage slugs won't pick a man up off his feet and throw him back 10 feet?????
I think Chuck Norris, Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme would beg to differ.
Well... Chuck Norris once shot a man in the big toe with a shotgun slug and it hit him so hard he was the first man on the moon. You may have heard of him, his name was Neil Armstrong.
One of the issues at hand would be that Rob Pincus was involved.
Rob Pincus
03-27-09, 06:49
Hey guys.....
First, thanks for watching TBD (http://www.downrange.tv/bestdefense).... this week was the last show of the season and the show has done very well. The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Next week, in fact, we'll be at BWTC taping firearms segments for a spin-off "TBD: Survival". The regular show goes into re-runs next week on Outdoor Channel.
As for the birdshot issue, this mis-understanding comes up on the almost internet every time an episode discussing drywall penetration airs..... and is perpetuated all too frequently, so I want to make a correction. What the segment did was show the viewers an empirical comparison between different types of typical rounds in regard to penetration of sections of drywall. In this case, it was Phil Strader and I doing the demo at USSA. One of the rounds used was birdshot. The birdshot (not surprisingly) showed less penetration than the slug, .223 or any of the pistol rounds. One of the observations made was that if avoiding penetration through walls is your primary concern for whatever reason, birdshot was the "best" choice.... obviously, the observations that neither of us would've wanted to be shot by the load of 12g birdshot inside of a room and that it would've "significantly effected" the ability of a bad guy to hurt someone were also made. The OP sorta makes it sound like I jumped on the screen and, quote, "Rob Pincus advocated birdshot for use in a defensive shotgun "... which was not the case. There are certainly plenty of times throughout the first season of TBD that I and the other hosts did advocate things, but this wasn't one of them.
As for Mr. Potterfield and his "knockdown power", Midway is the primary sponsor of the show and part of that sponsorship includes a 90 second spot in each show for Larry to offer whatever information he wants. It is not part of the content of the show and has been discussed at length here (http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php/topic,4645.0.html).
The segment was available online, but a contract issue with one of the cable companies forced us to pull them... at least temporarily.... if/when we get it back up, I'll be sure to post a link. Meanwhile, for those interested in seeing the clip in its entirety to put context on the issue, it will be re-run in two weeks on Wednesday on the Outdoor Channel.
-RJP
One of the observations made was that if avoiding penetration through walls is your primary concern for whatever reason, birdshot was the "best" choice.... obviously, the observations that neither of us would've wanted to be shot by the load of 12g birdshot inside of a room and that it would've "significantly effected" the ability of a bad guy to hurt someone were also made. The OP sorta makes it sound like I jumped on the screen and, quote, "Rob Pincus advocated birdshot for use in a defensive shotgun "... which was not the case. There are certainly plenty of times throughout the first season of TBD that I and the other hosts did advocate things, but this wasn't one of them.
Well, I don't recall any caveats regarding the use of birdshot being mentioned by either of you. When you laud the lack of drywall penetration, point out the "significant wound" [my words, not yours] produced on a mannequin, and make comments about how "neither of us would've wanted to be shot by the load of 12g birdshot inside of a room and that it would've "significantly effected [sic]" the ability of a bad guy to hurt someone", without providing any other context or caveats about the use of birdshot, it sure sounds like advocacy to me. While you say it wasn't your intent to advocate the use of birdshot, it sure came across that way. In all fairness, I'll try to catch a re-run and post the exact verbiage here. Regardless, perhaps it might have been more responsible/informative to mention that although birdshot may not penetrate drywall, it's also a poor choice for defensive use and that buckshot should be the choice of shot?
As for Mr. Potterfield and his "knockdown power", Midway is the primary sponsor of the show and part of that sponsorship includes a 90 second spot in each show for Larry to offer whatever information he wants. It is not part of the content of the show and has been discussed at length here (http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php/topic,4645.0.html).
You are judged also by the company you keep (and in this case, your sponsors). The producers of the show pass the show off as a source for good information. I say that the show has a responsibility to ensure that its content is solid. That includes the content of your sponsors. Taking the position that a sponsor can pay their money and then say whatever they want, even if it's stupid, is irresponsible and stupid in itself. A similarly ridiculous argument would be something along the lines of "we allow our sponsors to put out bad info because we balance it with good info".
Maybe someone needs to have a heart-to-heart with Larry about his "knockdown power" and get it nixed from any future shows. I understand the economics of producing a TV show so, I know the ramifications of alienating/losing sponsors and I don't say this lightly. But, stupid is stupid and if he would refuse to come around, I think you'd be better off without a show than with one that sends mixed signals because it does reflect on you.
Rob Pincus
03-27-09, 09:44
Maybe someone needs to have a heart-to-heart with Larry about his "knockdown power" and get it nixed from any future shows. I understand the economics of producing a TV show so, I know the ramifications of alienating/losing sponsors and I don't say this lightly..
If you check out that thread I linked, you'll see that this has been done.... Those segments were added after the fact and we (Janich and I, at least) weren't aware that they were going to be included. Everyone on our side has offered to be involved in future such segments. While we don't expect everyone to agree with everything we put out, we do expect to be able to stand behind everything associated with the show and be able to explain it....
FWIW, I came to the conclusion/resolution that, if nothing else, Potterfield's opinions and personal performance provide a body of subjective comparisons that people can put as much weight as they want into. While his ability to pick up a gun off the table and shoot a pie plate has nothing to do with mine or yours.... someone who is truly new to to firearms does get some idea of how some radically different guns ( a GP100 and a Browning HP, for example) might perform relative to one another.
In all fairness, I'll try to catch a re-run and post the exact verbiage here
I appreciate that. The fact is that trying to cover a topic like this in any amount of thoroughness in 5-7 minutes is tough. The original content was almost 20 minutes long and lot gets lost in the editing process. As I've said, this segment always gets attention... I've been involved in 3 different productions of it and I think it gets better every time. As with everything else, presenting information in this format is an evolving process. Some of the comments in this thread will help us to make the next one better.
Thanks again for watching.
-RJP
Looks like all the folks at downrange.tv forum think Larry Potterfields chart is the best thing since sliced bread. They are taking it as gospel.
Rob Pincus advocated birdshot Of course he did. I've often wondered what he did before he became a firearms training guru. Though Clint Smith recently advocated using bird shot in an article not long ago. Then again I've never wanted to train with Pincus or Smith for that matter. For shotgun Awerbuck and Rob Haught are who I believe are masters of the scattergun. I know Awerbuck has nothing good to say about bird shot.
I cant see running anything smaller than 00 for a bipedal target, unless its a bird man then maybe Bird Shot will be ok :D
Heres another one of mine-
WOLF ammo will rape your sister, break your extractor and melt in the chamber! etc LOL
Rob Pincus advocated birdshot Of course he did. I've often wondered what he did before he became a firearms training guru.
Last I asked, he had been a cop for a while. Rob is pretty straightforward about his past and resume. So you'll excuse me if I'm not exactly swayed by the arguments or resume of an anonymous 'user name'.
Carne Frio
03-29-09, 12:58
If you want a good demonstration of what various types of shotshell ammo
does to things, go to theboxotruth.com. It is results oriented. It is also fun.
:D
Rob Pincus
03-31-09, 16:26
(Some of) You guys are going to hate this, but Ken Hackathorn just recommended birdshot for home defense if you're worried about penetration on our next season... When it airs in August or so, feel free to revive the thread.
The fact is that, the information we (any instructor) puts out has a background.... it may from our personal experience or something like "boxotruth"... again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue here. One of the dangers is taking advice (or dismissing it) without actually understanding it based in a subjective judgement.
Getting back to the OP: RWK, at least by watching the shows, you get to exercise your brain thinking about he issues and exploring various concepts.
-RJP
John_Wayne777
03-31-09, 18:49
(Some of) You guys are going to hate this, but Ken Hackathorn just recommended birdshot for home defense if you're worried about penetration on our next season...
It's that "if you're worried about penetration" part that is the key. It's a lot like the Ruger LCP....there are some people who may be in circumstances where that is legitimately the best they can do for a concealed carry piece. For those people a Glock 19 isn't a realistic option, and something is better than nothing, so they make the decision to carry the LCP.
When someone rationally examines everything on the table, all the relevant information, and thoughtfully picks an option that they know is sub-optimal because of rational consideration of other overriding factors, that's A OK. They know what they are getting into.
The problem is that so few actually go through that process because they don't have all the information, don't know where to go to get the information, and can't escape the....well....bad information that never goes away. The besetting sin of the firearms community as a whole is a complete lack of rationality when it comes to equipment choices. People show up to a CHP class with a Desert Eagle .44 and a shoulder holster. I've seen guys behind gunstore counters telling women trying to buy a firearm to protect themselves from an abusive boyfriend that they have a protection order out on that when loaded with "this here boolet" a .32 auto hits like a "three-fiddy-seben magnum!". Too much lube on an AR causes it to jam. When you're shooting a shotgun, you don't aim...you just point in the general direction and let 'er rip! We're not going to be the last PD in X state to issue 9mm! We can get these .45 GAP pistols real cheap, so let's abandon a proven platform for them! Everything Glock makes is indescribably awesome and is completely incapable of having a breakage or malfunction!
Etc. Sometimes famous names end up dragged into this as people get bits and pieces of information rather than the whole story. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen Larry Vickers' name used to back up an idea that is nowhere near anything the man has ever said, I'd be able to buy a case of ammo. (Well, at today's prices perhaps a box.) Did you know he "endorsed" the 5.7 and said it was better than the M4? According to some in TOS GD that's what the Tactical Impact segment on PDW's was. I was, of course, puzzled by this since I A.) actually knew what the linked video clip was a part of a TV show discussing the evolution of the PDW whereas others thought it was a commercial and B.) at no time in the episode did Mr. Vickers say anything remotely like that and C.) was quite sure about my conclusions since I have the episode on a DVD that was given to me by Mr. Vickers personally. None of that mattered, of course....
When Mr. Hackathorn's segment appears on your show there will doubtless be a number of people who will observe that to be a ringing endorsement of birdshot and they'll show up in the forums the next time the topic comes up and will holler long and loud about how Ken said X or Y. The context of the discussion will be lost, as will the understanding that if Mr. Hackathorn was preparing to go deal with a bad dude using a shotgun as his primary, it probably wouldn't be loaded with birdshot. ;) When a discussion of lasers comes up every now and then I hear a Luddite mention Ken's reservations about lasers from X years ago, apparently unaware that Mr. Hackathorn's views have evolved a bit since then.
Compromise based on a rational consideration of all the factors at work is fine. It's just a rare thing to find somebody who has actually made the decision that way here on the internet or in most gunstores.
Jim from Houston
03-31-09, 19:24
When people talk about compromising the effectiveness of their weapon in order to avoid the "dreaded" overpenetration my usual retort is the following: if a bad guy is trying to kill you, your first and foremost problem is putting him out of the fight...if you hit him with, say, a load of birdshot, and it FAILS to stop him, what's he gonna do? Probably start spraying back at you with his weapon, which, as with lots of crooks, will most likely be loaded with cheap FMJ rounds that will rip right through every wall in your house...the bad guy doesn't give a crap about overpenetration, and the longer you allow him to remain in the fight, the more risk you create for your family and neighbors...
(Some of) You guys are going to hate this, but Ken Hackathorn just recommended birdshot for home defense if you're worried about penetration on our next season... When it airs in August or so, feel free to revive the thread.
I'll withhold judgment until (if) I see the show. I really hope that there's some context and caveats to any such recommendation, though. I met Ken almost 20 years ago and I like him so, it would pain me to have to talk trash about him... ;)
The fact is that, the information we (any instructor) puts out has a background.... it may from our personal experience or something like "boxotruth"... again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue here. One of the dangers is taking advice (or dismissing it) without actually understanding it based in a subjective judgement.
Getting back to the OP: RWK, at least by watching the shows, you get to exercise your brain thinking about he issues and exploring various concepts.
All true. In this case, my position is based upon personal, practical experience as to what buckshot does and birdshot does not do to people. Frankly, there isn't anything left for me to explore on this particular issue.
It's that "if you're worried about penetration" part that is the key.
Correctamundo! And I opine that placing worries about (over)penetration above terminal performance is ass backwards. Somehow I don't think I'm alone in my opinion.
When someone rationally examines everything on the table, all the relevant information, and thoughtfully picks an option that they know is sub-optimal because of rational consideration of other overriding factors, that's A OK. They know what they are getting into.
On the other hand, one can rationalize too much and move too far towards the "sub-optimal", even if it's only by a measure of a few degrees. Especially when one doesn't have practical knowledge or experience of the subject matter because...
...they don't have all the information, don't know where to go to get the information, and can't escape the.... bad information that never goes away.
If I had a nickel for every time I've seen Larry Vickers' name used to back up an idea that is nowhere near anything the man has ever said, I'd be able to buy a case of ammo. (Well, at today's prices perhaps a box.) Did you know he "endorsed" the 5.7 and said it was better than the M4? According to some in TOS GD that's what the Tactical Impact segment on PDW's was. I was, of course, puzzled by this since I A.) actually knew what the linked video clip was a part of a TV show discussing the evolution of the PDW whereas others thought it was a commercial and B.) at no time in the episode did Mr. Vickers say anything remotely like that and C.) was quite sure about my conclusions since I have the episode on a DVD that was given to me by Mr. Vickers personally. None of that mattered, of course....
I heard he invented the Internet.
Compromise based on a rational consideration of all the factors at work is fine. It's just a rare thing to find somebody who has actually made the decision that way here on the internet or in most gunstores.
It's a rare thing anywhere.
Rob Pincus
04-01-09, 18:26
Lots of good stuff, Guys... again, I think the conversation and contemplation is all valuable.
We just spent 3 days taping for the next season and a LOT of it is very context based information. The show is going to deal with preparation for dealing with disasters (natural and man made) and their potential aftermath... everything from range cards for your front yard to shooting from a moving vehicle are going to be addressed in the gun segments... not your normal self-defense fare and I'm sure they will get people talking.. hopefully, it will also get them thinking!
-RJP
Unbelievable! I dont see how anyone could rely on Bird-Shot when their life is on the line
Thats like(IMO) saying a BB-Gun is good self defense because a .380 is too much(IE)
Let me preface I have not shot birdshot or 00 side by side at something to see what happens (although now I want to) that being said I have heard a couple guys talk about using birdshot in houses. I am not in any way saying Rob Pincus is 100% correct. What I am saying is I have heard this from other places. Now since like I said I have not done oober techinical experiments I can be the oracle of truth & wisdom. However it seems to me that with any gear you look at what is important to you, what you can afford & what you want to do with it. For example if I do not want to go through some hassle then I may not want to buy a 10.5" M4 even though it would really handy to have I'll deal with a 16". Also maybe some guy lives in a house with 4 kids & only owns an old shotty & a deer rifle & he as been noticing so baddies haning around but fears 00 may hit the babies room. People deal with things. Like wise I can understand the anger of seeing crap info. The fact is sometimes it happens, & there are several reasons why. If anything this thread will spark conversations with friends & probably some blasting at things with some shottys. That's why I like this site it always keeps you thinking
MarshallDodge
04-01-09, 22:28
... everything from range cards for your front yard to shooting from a moving vehicle are going to be addressed in the gun segments...
-RJP
What are range cards for the front yard?
Rob Pincus
04-02-09, 09:24
What are range cards for the front yard?
TV Guy Answer: "Tune in to find out!" :)
A "range card" is a drawing of an area in front of a fixed defensive position that indicates visible landmarks and the distances to them. If you have a large viewable area from some point of your house from which you may be threatened in the aftermath of a large scale disaster (roving bands looking for resources, etc...) and the training/skill/gear to use the knowledge of range to shoot precisely at long distances if you need to, a range card can make the process more efficient in the heat of the moment. "Bad guy's next to the church sign, range card says church sign is 200 yards away, 6 clicks on the elevation, shoot bad guy."
Again, the context of the explanation and the whole feel of the show is important. TBD: Survival is talking about times when the regular rules (like: there is no self-defense at 200 yards) may not apply.
-RJP
MarshallDodge
04-02-09, 09:35
TV Guy Answer: "Tune in to find out!" :) I knew you would say something like that. Unfortunately your show is not shown on the stations that I subscribe too. :(
A "range card" is a drawing of an area in front of a fixed defensive position that indicates visible landmarks and the distances to them. -RJP
Got it. I was thinking more along the lines of having to put little gnomes holding a small placard with distances written on them in my front yard. :D
psdiver102
04-02-09, 18:34
Hello all. This is the first thread I have read since signing up and its a doozy. i would like to add my own opinion. In my LEO and fire/ems experiance i can tell you what will do the job. The answer: Almost everything if you know what you are doing with that firearm. I have seen birdshot kill. And with the ranges you would fire it in most homes, it will do the job. I personally load 00, but hey, I will use birdshot if that is what i have.
Also, you dont need a .357 to kill. Not long ago, i went to a call where a man was shooting at another man with a 7mm. He fired 3 shot's while the intended victim took his time and placed 1 fatal shot to the cranium with a .22. Which was the second fatal shooting i went to where the killing caliber was a .22.
Point being. Make your shots count and know how to handle your firearm, and just about anything will work.
Looks i am going to like this forum. Not as juvenille as some others.
Rob Pincus
04-02-09, 18:53
Welcome, PSDiver....
YEah, M4 is generally a lot tighter ship that many "discussion forums"... that word actually plays out most of the time here!
Thanks for your thoughts on the topic...
-RJP
Can you frame a house with 12 penny nails and a 10lb. sledge hammer? I am sure that you could, but why do so UNLESS you had no other option.
Same applies to this sillyness with birdshot. If I had no other choice I would use it. If I had other options I would exercise them first. It reminds me of the some of the bashing that I have heard about 5.56/.223 55gr ammo. I personally witnessed a shooting where a perp was hit with 2 rounds of 55gr FMJ in the chest and he died. Does it happen all the time? No, but then again what round does?
vicious_cb
04-02-09, 20:56
Some bad info that made me laugh on TOS today
Originally Posted By coldair:
I like the 6.8 over the 5.56 because instead of shooting something four or five times to kill it, I can do it with one round. it is simple math 50 rounds of 6.8 is like having 200 rounds of 5.56 so the not only is the 6.8 a better killer it is a ammo multiplier
Hello all. This is the first thread I have read since signing up and its a doozy. i would like to add my own opinion. In my LEO and fire/ems experiance i can tell you what will do the job. The answer: Almost everything if you know what you are doing with that firearm. I have seen birdshot kill. And with the ranges you would fire it in most homes, it will do the job. I personally load 00, but hey, I will use birdshot if that is what i have.
...
Point being. Make your shots count and know how to handle your firearm, and just about anything will work.
Time out. You state that birdshot will do the job and I presume that you consider yourself someone who knows what they're doing yet, you load buckshot, not birdshot. Why is that...?
psdiver102
04-03-09, 04:39
Time out. You state that birdshot will do the job and I presume that you consider yourself someone who knows what they're doing yet, you load buckshot, not birdshot. Why is that...?
Because buckshot will do it better. I dont have to worry about penetrating walls. And because i probably wont be the one with the shotgun. My first choice is the 1911 in the nightstand.
My point is, If you know your equipment. And know how to use your equipment to it, and your fullest potential. Then, birdshot will work.
For that matter, a bow and arrow would work to. People tend to overcompensate by getting the largest, highest velocity caliber they can find instead of training with what they have.
Not only will it not go away, it keeps being perpetuated!
Yesterday I happened to watch a little bit of an episode of "The Best Defense" on the Outdoor Channel. Rob Pincus advocated birdshot for use in a defensive shotgun and Larry Potterfield talked about the "knockdown power" of the .357 Magnum. :rolleyes:
Between this and "Personal Defense TV", I sometimes find myself wondering why I torture myself by watching those shows... :confused:
I have seen what you are talking about. He seems to talk about it every show that I have seen. You would think that he would know better
(Some of) You guys are going to hate this, but Ken Hackathorn just recommended birdshot for home defense if you're worried about penetration on our next season... When it airs in August or so, feel free to revive the thread.
The fact is that, the information we (any instructor) puts out has a background.... it may from our personal experience or something like "boxotruth"... again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue here. One of the dangers is taking advice (or dismissing it) without actually understanding it based in a subjective judgement.
Getting back to the OP: RWK, at least by watching the shows, you get to exercise your brain thinking about he issues and exploring various concepts.
-RJP
I am just glad to have shows on TV that don't demonize guns.
It seems to me that worrying about penetration first is putting the cart before the horse.
Anytime someone suggests using birdshot for home defense I always follow up with the question "have you ever shot someone with it?" I've never gotten an affirmative answer yet.
Throwing a fist full of rocks at a person is less likely to penetrate a drywall partition than even birdshot, but it doesn't mean I'm keeping a cup full of pebbles in a cup next to my bed.
John_Wayne777
04-03-09, 08:01
My point is, If you know your equipment. And know how to use your equipment to it, and your fullest potential. Then, birdshot will work.
Here's the problem with that conclusion: There are numerous cases out there where a well trained individual used their issued weapon to try and stop a lethal threat and FAILED....this despite training and despite good shot placement.
Birdshot *MAY* work. Yes, it is more likely to get the job done in the hands of someone who is competent with the platform...
...but the guy behind the gun does not change the laws of physics.
Training is the single most critical factor in preparing someone to do what is necessary in a fight....but part of the training process is creating the mindset necessary to make equipment choices that maximizes the potential for success.
Yes, there have been lots of people killed with .22LR, .32ACP, and I'm sure even birdshot...but that's not the point. The goal here is the capacity to stop the hostile actions of a lethal threat as quickly as possible. Platt and Matix both eventually died....but only after Platt had managed to kill FBI agents and seriously wound a bunch more.
I constantly hear people talk about shot placement in discussions about rounds that offer sub-standard performance, but that too is often completely divorced from any sort of sanity check. The reality is:
1. Under gunfight conditions shot placement is FAR from an easy task
2. Even well placed shots can be deflected/neutered by obstructions or cover or even parts of the bad guy's anatomy (or thick clothing if we're talking birdshot)
3. Bad guys don't stand still when you shoot at them
4. The aspect of an intended target can change between the time you break the shot and the time the bullet gets there.
Etc.
In other words, gunfights are highly dynamic and unpredictable situations. Assuming you'll be presented with the dumbest bad guy on earth who will square up to you, stand still, and let you keep blasting him until he drops is a pretty bad strategy. Yes, it's entirely possible you'll get the dumbest MF'er on earth who will poop himself and pass out at the mere sight of a gun....it's also possible that you'll end up faced with a genuine HCMF who won't quit until one of you is dead.
Which is it more prudent to prepare for?
Mindset, training, and shot placement are all invaluable. It makes no sense, however, to turn off the warrior mindset when it comes to making an ammo choice or equipment selection. PART of the warrior mindset is making equipment choices that maximize your potential for success. I'm not a gunfighter, but it seems to me that in a real life critical situation the only advantages you can count on are the ones you give yourself ahead of time.
Yes, train. Yes, exercise good shot placement whenever possible....but why do we routinely fail to hold equipment choices to those same high standards? Why go "eh....it'll probably work."???
Guys,
Speaking from personal experience with filming segments for televisions shows and as Rob mentioned, it is very hard to condense detailed information into 5-7 minute segments. Try fitting 3 day rifle course into 22 minutes! The episode I filmed generated over 6 six hours of film that was edited down to a 22 minute segment. Unfortunately, we are not involved in the editing process (even though I think we should be) and as a result, crucial bits of information regarding all manners of techniques, ideas, and concepts end up on the cutting room floor. After my experience, I can certainly appreciate when some politician says that his statements were "taken out of context." I am sure that Rob properly framed the context in which birdshot would be a viable choice during the full segment of filming. Editing the information probably caused some unintentional or incomplete concepts to be raised.
The training community as a whole is relatively small. If an instructor shows a repeated pattern of subscibing to dated information, or uninformed myth driven concepts, then you can make an informed decision as to whether or not you are going to train with that instructor. When is comes to television programs, I would simply ask that you consider that what you're seeing may not be the entire story and it might be premature to kick someone under the bus. Me personally? I would give the presenter the benefit of the doubt and do some more research into that particular instructor and the concepts they support before I would make any decision to train under that instructor.
OUCH! Damm, fell off my soapbox....
USSA-1
Conversely, one could use the very fact that a person chooses to involve themselves in a public medium wherein they have no control as to how they are represented as an indicator of their ability to make rational judgements as well, which could in turn have an impact on a decision to train, or not, with a given person.
John_Wayne777
04-03-09, 10:12
When is comes to television programs, I would simply ask that you consider that what you're seeing may not be the entire story and it might be premature to kick someone under the bus.
I agree wholeheartedly. TV at best gives you bits and pieces of information. Often you have to do a lot more research to get [Paul Harvey] ...the rest of the story.[/Paul Harvey]
You're not going to see a 2 hour discussion about the terminal effectiveness of various shotgun loads with IWBA experts, genuine SME's, and intelligent questions from the audience on the Outdoor channel.
Producing TV shows is not my "lane". You can fit what I know into a thimble. What I can point to as a viewer, however, is that sometimes the tactical guys do manage to get good information across in a concise TV friendly way. Examples of this would be the "Training Scars" segments on Tactical Impact or the episode of The Best Defense where an instructor went over a simple and effective way to have an emergency response kit readily accessible in a bedroom. With that in mind it might be possible to pull one off about shotgun ammo using some demonstrations.
Saw another episode and Potterfield is still pushing this "Bullet Knockdown" chart.:(
Conversely, one could use the very fact that a person chooses to involve themselves in a public medium wherein they have no control as to how they are represented as an indicator of their ability to make rational judgements as well, which could in turn have an impact on a decision to train, or not, with a given person.
Yep, that's the risk you take. While training is a serious subject, it is still a business. The opportunity to put your product (Instructor skills, methods, concepts, etc.) out to the masses in a video/TV format is very difficult to pass up from a business point of view. It's a risk that most Instructors are willing to take as the business rewards from a successful television appearance are well worth the risks.
Saw another episode and Potterfield is still pushing this "Bullet Knockdown" chart.
If you don't have anything nice to say.....and I don't.;)
USSA-1
Wow, this has really gotten rather silly. All of those in favor of loading their home defense scattergun with birdshot please do so. Hopefully, you will never need it.
What's even more surprising about this is that WE ALL KNOW BETTER. We have seen and heard time and time again how a round that is supposed to be THE ONE has failed to do its' magic trick and yet there are those who would advocate using something less than stellar. Not, by necessity mind you, but by choice.
Does this make any sense?
Saw another episode and Potterfield is still pushing this "Bullet Knockdown" chart.:(
Midway USA is the show sponsor. They can do what they want.
For the time being, the commercials they filmed are what we will see.
Mark
psdiver102
04-03-09, 19:17
Wow, this has really gotten rather silly. All of those in favor of loading their home defense scattergun with birdshot please do so. Hopefully, you will never need it.
What's even more surprising about this is that WE ALL KNOW BETTER. We have seen and heard time and time again how a round that is supposed to be THE ONE has failed to do its' magic trick and yet there are those who would advocate using something less than stellar. Not, by necessity mind you, but by choice.
Does this make any sense?
I think i failed to convey my point. Yes, we know better than to load our home defense scatterguns with birdshot. But, when i see these tv shows i dont think about the home viewers being trained, qualified professionals. I think about the average duck hunter that has birdshot in his shotgun. He probably isnt going to go invest thousands into new weapons and ammo like we would. He is going to use what he has.
I am just thinking of average joe who would use what he has.
Because buckshot will do it better.
That's what I expected your answer would be.
For that matter, a bow and arrow would work to.
That's pure hyperbole.
Speaking from personal experience with filming segments for televisions shows and as Rob mentioned, it is very hard to condense detailed information into 5-7 minute segments. Try fitting 3 day rifle course into 22 minutes! The episode I filmed generated over 6 six hours of film that was edited down to a 22 minute segment.
That's why it's vital to have a storyboard and predetermine what essential elements of information must be included in the time allotted. It's your name and reputation on the line, after all.
Unfortunately, we are not involved in the editing process (even though I think we should be) and as a result, crucial bits of information regarding all manners of techniques, ideas, and concepts end up on the cutting room floor.
So, you have no creative control over the content of the final cut? That's not good at all. You're putting your name and reputation in the hands of someone else. Someone who walks around wearing a vest and shooting glasses -- in public. Think about that for a minute... :p
Conversely, one could use the very fact that a person chooses to involve themselves in a public medium wherein they have no control as to how they are represented as an indicator of their ability to make rational judgements as well, which could in turn have an impact on a decision to train, or not, with a given person.
I'll take the opportunity here to segue into the story of my brief involvement with a "reality" TV program. This was a program based on my profession and had an executive producer who had already been involved in several successful programs. During filming of the teaser material for the studio, the producer started to get "camera drunk" after a while and wanted to sexy things up and have us do some things that were "good TV" (translation: stupid things). We first tried the diplomatic route ("that's not really the way we do things") but, eventually had to go the direct route ("that's f***ing stupid and we're not doing that"). He persisted and we finally told him that we didn't care if his "good TV" would get us stars on Hollywood Boulevard, we weren't going to allow him to put us on film doing that stupid stuff. The point being: we walked away from the show rather than allow ourselves to be made into assclowns in front of our peers and clients.
The opportunity to put your product (Instructor skills, methods, concepts, etc.) out to the masses in a video/TV format is very difficult to pass up from a business point of view. It's a risk that most Instructors are willing to take as the business rewards from a successful television appearance are well worth the risks.
Key word being "successful". However, there's a term for compromising quality for the sake of exposure. It's called selling out.
Yes, we know better than to load our home defense scatterguns with birdshot. But, when i see these tv shows i dont think about the home viewers being trained, qualified professionals. I think about the average duck hunter that has birdshot in his shotgun. He probably isnt going to go invest thousands into new weapons and ammo like we would. He is going to use what he has.
I think the context is getting twisted there. Buckshot = good; birdshot = bad. It makes no difference if the end user is "Average Joe" or "Uber Ninja". Likewise, it makes no difference if the shotgun being used is someone's duck gun or a tricked-out fighting shotgun. If the correct information is presented to them, I'm sure "Average Joe" can afford to drop a few dollars on some buckshot and save the birdshot for the birds.
vicious_cb
04-03-09, 23:57
How about this, let people load whatever they want in their guns. We can point them to the right info and data all we want but if they dont listen let them find out on their own how well an effective fight stopper bird shot is.
Failure2Stop
04-04-09, 01:09
How about this, let people load whatever they want in their guns.
I have yet to seek out anyone and surreptitutiously swap their ammo. Sounds like a coffee commercial gone awry.
To me, the biggest issue is that for some the internet is their sole-source of information, and when some chuckle-head comes in making ridiculous claims or recommendations without refute, somewhere someone will actually listen to him and put their life at risk.
True, the internet is a poor source of vetted information, but that doesn't change the reality of information gathering.
Yeah, I guess you lost me. But, here's the deal. It only costs about 20.00 to buy some 00 buckshot to load in your HD shotgun. No one said anything about spending thousands of dollars on anything. Think outside the box.
I think i failed to convey my point. Yes, we know better than to load our home defense scatterguns with birdshot. But, when i see these tv shows i dont think about the home viewers being trained, qualified professionals. I think about the average duck hunter that has birdshot in his shotgun. He probably isnt going to go invest thousands into new weapons and ammo like we would. He is going to use what he has.
I am just thinking of average joe who would use what he has.
Beat Trash
04-04-09, 08:20
About the ONLY ammo my local Wal Mart has in stock is Winchester 15 round value packs of 12 ga OO Buck. Price is $9.95.
This is perfect for those bird hunters who don't want to "invest thousands of dollars in new guns and ammo".
To me, the biggest issue is that for some the internet is their sole-source of information, and when some chuckle-head comes in making ridiculous claims or recommendations without refute, somewhere someone will actually listen to him and put their life at risk.
OMG, so glad to see someone else post this! I run into newbies at the range who have based their decisions on their choice of equipment/ammunition/tactics on posts they have read in forums like this. Unfortunately, they don't know enough to discern fact from fiction yet. When some moron posts his BS opinion in a technical forum as if it were fact and no one contests it, the newbie believes the bad information must be correct and as you've stated may be putting his life at risk because of it. (It must be true, I read it on killercarbines.net!)
It's also bad for the website to allow incorrect information to be posted in their technical forums. When some newbie spouts some of the nonsense that he has "learned" from the website in front of more knowledgeable persons in the real world, he gets shut down real quick and the website earns a reputation as being a joke for a source of accurate information.
OMG, so glad to see someone else post this! I run into newbies at the range who have based their decisions on their choice of equipment/ammunition/tactics on posts they have read in forums like this. Unfortunately, they don't know enough to discern fact from fiction yet. When some moron posts his BS opinion in a technical forum as if it were fact and no one contests it, the newbie believes the bad information must be correct and as you've stated may be putting his life at risk because of it. (It must be true, I read it on killercarbines.net!)
It's also bad for the website to allow incorrect information to be posted in their technical forums. When some newbie spouts some of the nonsense that he has "learned" from the website in front of more knowledgeable persons in the real world, he gets shut down real quick and the website earns a reputation as being a joke for a source of accurate information.
In just as many cases they may have something that is fact but lack the knowledge that it might not apply to their application.
A related note is people who believe using birdshot will look better in court, whereas if they shoot anyone with buck shot or an effective hollowpoint they will be prosecuted. I actually saw someone claim that they planned to say, "Gee your Honor, I only shot him with birdshot."
Or a related note is people who think if you defend your home with anything more than a double barrelled shotgun or .22 rifle you will be charged with murder, while using lesser weapons lets you skate free.
A few years back, locally, we had a guy charged with murder on a self defense shooting because he used an SKS, which the DA at the time thought was an evil assault weapon, so she thought this showed intent on the shooter's part.
Just sayin.
First, where did this occur? If you are talking about places like parts of California, NJ, MA, or NY, etc, it may be different.
But usually it's the circumstances of the shooting that determine whether the defender is charged. Often the defender did something that the DA thought was questionable that weakens the case for home defense or self defense.
An example of this is someone who opened a door with a gun to confront someone outside their house. I remember reading about someone who did this with an SKS. It was a neighbor in an apartment complex who threatened his life in the hall or some common area, so he went to his apartment, got an SKS and confronted him. This hardly makes the shooting unavoidable--so it could be interpreted as either excalating the conflict or simply getting pissed off and getting a gun and shooting him.
It's kinda hard to argue you were in fear of your life when you left the safety of a locked home to confront someone--unless that person was engaged in arson or something. There are some places where you can legally do this if someone is stealling your car or carrying on some similar activity. Even still, be careful, because if you do this you actualy cause the confrontation that leads to the shooting--another reason people may be charged.
Another common reason is that the homeowner shoots someone that they know--like a daughter's abusive spouse--so it raises the question did they really shoot them in self defense or were they claiming self defense to shoot someone that they wanted to shoot.
If you look at the SKS, all you need to do is show how many were imported into the US to show that it is a commonly owned gun and nothing sinister or perhaps that was the only gun or most suitable defensive gun that the homeowner had.
I have a whole bunch of links to accounts of people using AKs for home defense without getting charged, including someone in NY State.
Still, I would try to avoid using a firearm that has an extreme negative stigma, like an AK or a Desert Eagle (which I don't even own) if another reasonably effective firearm was available.
A few years back, locally, we had a guy charged with murder on a self defense shooting because he used an SKS, which the DA at the time thought was an evil assault weapon, so she thought this showed intent on the shooter's part.
Just sayin.
What was the outcome?
Beat Trash
04-15-09, 16:08
Being charged and being indicted, and becoming convicted are not always a given, just because of the use of "politically incorrect" choice of firearms. (Illegal Class III not withstanding).
The bottom line is that a good shooting is a good shooting, and a bad shooting will still be a bad shooting. The type of equipment used will not change this fact.
Here in Topeka.
The good guy stepped out onto his porch and was attacked by the bad guy, who was indeed a very bad guy.
The DA at the time was a gal who really didn't think folks should own guns, at least these evil kind of guns anyway.
Good guy was convicted, I don't remember if it was a plea or not, but I think he took a very reduced charge to avoid a trial for whatever reason.
Jim from Houston
04-15-09, 17:16
Legally speaking, stepping out of the house to confront someone with a weapon creates a big problem...I believe that Kansas has Castle doctrine and no duty to retreat, but "no duty to retreat" does not mean that you can put yourself into a deadly force situation with someone by stepping outside your house and confronting them...I'd bet that if the SKS fellow in Topeka had waited behind his locked front door and shot the bad guy AFTER he'd broken into the house, this would've been ruled a good shoot...to my eye the "stepping out onto the porch to confront the bad guy" is the big red flag in that story. I'm sure that once that was established, the "he had an assault rifle" argument was then used as the icing on the cake by the prosecutor to try and sway the jury and/or muscle the guy into a plea...
psdiver102
04-15-09, 19:37
In any situation. Right or wrong. You have to do what the 12 people in a jury would do.
In any situation. Right or wrong. You have to do what the 12 people in a jury would do.
Well said, the sad thing is more often then not those 12 people do not think like you & get to make a decision of what to you should have done over several days what you had seconds to do in a heated situation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.