View Full Version : Shotgun wall penetration.
Whiskey_Bravo
02-12-11, 16:44
I am sure this has been gone over many times here, but thought this was a good video showing both bird shot and 00 buck through several interior walls.
If it has been posted before I am sorry.
Just walls - bird shot and 00 buck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOUyLz8Rsr8&feature=related
Walls with a pumpkin used as a simulated head - bird shot and 00 buck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSOWpy5OKSc&feature=relmfu
$CashMoney$
02-12-11, 20:23
This is eye-opening, as are the other videos associated with it. I'm going to run a test with the #4 Buck 12g and #3 Buck 20g that I use for HD as soon as I can. I'll be sure to video and post the results.
Whiskey_Bravo
02-12-11, 23:42
This is eye-opening, as are the other videos associated with it. I'm going to run a test with the #4 Buck 12g and #3 Buck 20g that I use for HD as soon as I can. I'll be sure to video and post the results.
Yeah it was a little surprising to me as well. It is really making me want to go out and run a few test myself. I didn't expect that much penetration from the bird shot. Hell, even the 00 buck penetrated more than I thought it would as it went through all 3 walls and still damaged the tree behind the test set up.
m24shooter
02-13-11, 12:36
What exactly is surprising about this?
Birdshot and buckshot go through walls. Anything that will reliably stop a bad guy is going to go through walls, sometimes several of them. Going through drywall is not that special. You can punch through drywall. I have several of those 5" plastic discs on my walls because my kids opening a door too hard punched a hole in a wall.
And I wouldn't say that pumpkins are representative of the human skull in anything other than the general shape.
What exactly is surprising about this?
Didn't find it particularly eye-opening either.
Drywall isn't a bullet stopper. Period.
Whiskey_Bravo
02-13-11, 14:37
The bird shot is what I thought was a little surprising. I had no doubt it would go through walls, I just didn't think it would make it through all of those is all. I had no doubt about the buck shot.
m24shooter
02-13-11, 15:15
Understood, but again I wouldn't get too worked up about it.
You can push and punch through drywall. Doorknobs go through drywall. I've seen a .22 go through three walls, a jacket sleeve, and then fall into the pocket.
If you're simply looking at the effects of birdshot and buckshot on construction materials and a squash, I guess this video fits. That's about the complete utility of the videos.
m24shooter is absolutely correct, there is NOTHING at all surprising about what is shown on these video's for anyone who has spent even a small amount of time studying a portion of the valid wound ballistic literature that has been published in the past 30 years...
I'd be more interested in seeing the results of different ammo hitting two layers of dry wall and a brick exterior.
I don't want rounds exiting my brick house and hitting the neighbors house.
DiabhailGadhar
02-13-11, 18:33
Well I'll say that I had assumed that bird shot was def the way to go in a home, its currently loaded in my 870, and not being one to study bird shot ballistics. I'm glad the video was posted cuz I just had a daughter ten days ago and if the unlikely situation arises where I'm shooting with others in the house I'm going to be more aware, not that I would have neglected it, then I would have previously. Thanks for the post...and great forum!!!!
edit..
I do however wish they would have done one with the pumpkin, then the walls as I don't much intend on shooting inside my house and missing...
If your shotgun is loaded with birdshot as a "home defense" round you might as well put it in the safe and get a bat.
It's worthless as a man stopper.
Well I'll say that I had assumed that bird shot was def the way to go in a home, its currently loaded in my 870, and not being one to study bird shot ballistics. I'm glad the video was posted cuz I just had a daughter ten days ago and if the unlikely situation arises where I'm shooting with others in the house I'm going to be more aware, not that I would have neglected it, then I would have previously. Thanks for the post...and great forum!!!!
edit..
I do however wish they would have done one with the pumpkin, then the walls as I don't much intend on shooting inside my house and missing...
m24shooter
02-13-11, 18:52
You may want to look at the terminal ballistics on birdshot; I would not use it in a defensive gun.
I have two kids in my house as well, but birdshot is just not a solid fight stopper. It is even moreso because I have kids in my house that I want to remove as much chance from the equation as I can and stop a threat to them as quickly and reliably as possible. For that reason, I use buckshot in my shotguns at home.
With proper load selection, you can get 5.56 loads that will retain terminal ballistics without the danger to unintended targets that shotgun loads will have.
However, the best way to reduce that possiblity is to hit your target in the first place.
DocGKR has a lot of information on both terminal and intermediate ballistics on this site. They should be read by both the home defender and the professional. There is a lot of very good info for both.
DiabhailGadhar
02-13-11, 18:52
6ft tall, 210 lbs, black belt, Marine, dabbled in knife fighting, I dont want to stop them silly, I just want them stunned so I can take a Ka-Bar to them....:D
DiabhailGadhar
02-13-11, 18:59
You may want to look at the terminal ballistics on birdshot; I would not use it in a defensive gun.
I have two kids in my house as well, but birdshot is just not a solid fight stopper. It is even moreso because I have kids in my house that I want to remove as much chance from the equation as I can and stop a threat to them as quickly and reliably as possible. For that reason, I use buckshot in my shotguns at home.
With proper load selection, you can get 5.56 loads that will retain terminal ballistics without the danger to unintended targets that shotgun loads will have.
However, the best way to reduce that possiblity is to hit your target in the first place.
DocGKR has a lot of information on both terminal and intermediate ballistics on this site. They should be read by both the home defender and the professional. There is a lot of very good info for both.
Not to change subjects but I was wondering about using the 5.56 in a home defense, where could I read up on that? I've always been kind of weary of using that weapon system inside my own house. Since I cant exactly afford a mansion, I just always figured the way to go, assuming your dealing with 2-3 targets MAX, that cqb wise you couldnt beat a 12 ga.
m24shooter
02-13-11, 19:10
To paraphrase: in dealing with an unarmored target at close range the shotgun is capable of dealing damage beyond other weapons.
If you want to read up on the 5.56 performance, look through the tacked threads here. Lots of info there.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56486
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=44869
I believe that there is some info in the Terminal Ballistics section. In addition, if you are facing a multiple threat, unless you are very proficient with the pump shotgun you stand a better chance with a semi auto rifle.
YMMV.
Not to change subjects but I was wondering about using the 5.56 in a home defense, where could I read up on that? I've always been kind of weary of using that weapon system inside my own house. Since I cant exactly afford a mansion, I just always figured the way to go, assuming your dealing with 2-3 targets MAX, that cqb wise you couldnt beat a 12 ga.
DiabhailGadhar
02-13-11, 19:23
I believe that there is some info in the Terminal Ballistics section. In addition, if you are facing a multiple threat, unless you are very proficient with the pump shotgun you stand a better chance with a semi auto rifle.
YMMV.
NO doubt there...and I'm glad you brought up that point. I wouldnt go so far as to say I'm a dragon slayer with my 870...I'm not bad. I do think you just gave me an amazing excuse to hit up Adair range with the 870 as I have a spent a fair amount of time transfering from a dry shotty to a sidearm, I've only spent a limited amount of time hitting skattered multiple targets with the 870. Thanks...
If you are ever up for a road trip to Phoenix let me know. There is a small cabal of us here. :D
NO doubt there...and I'm glad you brought up that point. I wouldnt go so far as to say I'm a dragon slayer with my 870...I'm not bad. I do think you just gave me an amazing excuse to hit up Adair range with the 870 as I have a spent a fair amount of time transfering from a dry shotty to a sidearm, I've only spent a limited amount of time hitting skattered multiple targets with the 870. Thanks...
Could always look at good ole boxoftruth.com
Also don't forget that if a bad guy ever took your wife or kid hostage, I would MUCH rather have an AR than a 12 ga. in my hands IF I ABSOLUTELY HAD TO take that hostage shot.
Obviously this situation is very much less than ideal, and the possibility if it happening is slim, but it's just food for thought.
But that's why we train right? For those "less than ideal" situations that we might have to act upon if there's no other way out.
Not to change subjects but I was wondering about using the 5.56 in a home defense, where could I read up on that? I've always been kind of weary of using that weapon system inside my own house. Since I cant exactly afford a mansion, I just always figured the way to go, assuming your dealing with 2-3 targets MAX, that cqb wise you couldnt beat a 12 ga.
Your logic is backwards. The carbine is the better choice.
C4
I think the correct answer is to learn to forget about fears of overpenetration and learn how to hit your target, using the most effective ammunition available.
DiabhailGadhar
02-13-11, 20:13
Your logic is backwards. The carbine is the better choice.
C4
I'm not tracking that....maybe I'm fundamentally challenged but ideally you'd have an accurized as possbile M1014 with slugs, I mean I dont know specifics but last time I checked the 5.56 round wasnt the the best at one shot wonders at close range..head shots aside. I was taught the whole tactic behind the 5.56 was to essentially take two people out of combat...the first, who was shot, wasnt meant to die initially but just get royally F'd up on the inside, the second was taken out due to the necessary care of the first. Please enlighten...
$CashMoney$
02-13-11, 20:52
I'm not tracking that....maybe I'm fundamentally challenged but ideally you'd have an accurized as possbile M1014 with slugs, I mean I dont know specifics but last time I checked the 5.56 round wasnt the the best at one shot wonders at close range..head shots aside. I was taught the whole tactic behind the 5.56 was to essentially take two people out of combat...the first, who was shot, wasnt meant to die initially but just get royally F'd up on the inside, the second was taken out due to the necessary care of the first. Please enlighten...
I can't speak for the initial tactic behind the 5.56, but I do know that there are no one shot wonders in a CQB gun fight.
For the home, I like 55 gr soft point.
DiabhailGadhar
02-13-11, 21:06
I can't speak for the initial tactic behind the 5.56, but I do know that there are no one shot wonders in a CQB gun fight.
For the home, I like 55 gr soft point.
I disagree, even in body armor a shotgun round will drop some one, they may not be out of the fight but the will wish they were and a deer slug/00...not that I would use that, can cause enough hydrostatic shock/trauma to eliminate a person from the fight with one hit...please advise if that is not the case but I would def take the bet that if some one takes a center mass hit from a 12 ga. inside of 7-10 yards (thats what I am assuming you are considering CQB) you're not exactly walking away from it...
I'm not tracking that....maybe I'm fundamentally challenged but ideally you'd have an accurized as possbile M1014 with slugs, I mean I dont know specifics but last time I checked the 5.56 round wasnt the the best at one shot wonders at close range..head shots aside. I was taught the whole tactic behind the 5.56 was to essentially take two people out of combat...the first, who was shot, wasnt meant to die initially but just get royally F'd up on the inside, the second was taken out due to the necessary care of the first. Please enlighten...
First, the wound instead of kill thing is a myth. There is no data to support that.
Second, 5.56 is extremely effective at short range. It's at longer ranges, where velocity bleeds off that some loads have with problems with lethality.
Third, shotgun slugs penetrate like nothing else. If you are afraid of so-called "overpenetration" you sure as heck do not want slugs.
$CashMoney$
02-13-11, 21:18
I disagree, even in body armor a shotgun round will drop some one, they may not be out of the fight but the will wish they were and a deer slug/00...not that I would use that, can cause enough hydrostatic shock/trauma to eliminate a person from the fight with one hit...please advise if that is not the case but I would def take the bet that if some one takes a center mass hit from a 12 ga. inside of 7-10 yards (thats what I am assuming you are considering CQB) you're not exactly walking away from it...
Sure, use a SG, or a hand grenade, or a nuke if you're looking for certain death in one shot.;)
I was referring to the shooter. I've never fired just once, or just twice for that matter, in a real CQB fight.
m24shooter
02-13-11, 21:21
I was taught the whole tactic behind the 5.56 was to essentially take two people out of combat...the first, who was shot, wasnt meant to die initially but just get royally F'd up on the inside, the second was taken out due to the necessary care of the first. Please enlighten...
This is akin to the old myth of the .50 being illegal to use against personnel so shoot at their equipment.
We have not faced an enemy that has really given a crap about battlefield casevac in a long time. For there to have been some kind of rationale that we needed a round to wound rather than kill so that the injured person becomes a drain on battlefield personnel would require that.
I've never seen a single reference to this in any of the history of the develpment of the round or the rifle. The record is there if you want to go read it. Lots of stuff about puncturing such and such thickness of a plate of steel at X range. Lots of real world metrics. Nothing about any kind of wounding or diminished effects or desired drain of enemy support services.
If the wound theory WERE the reasoning behind the 5.56, then all of the complaints about the round not actually stopping someone should be met with "Duh, that's the idea." However, I haven't heard that response ever. I generally hear that the desired effect is for the individual that somebody is shooting to lay down RFN, bleed, and assume ambient temperature.
I do NOT want him to take a few minutes to call a friend over and get help.
I've probably gone far enough off the res here with this subthread. If you want to go look at the real history of the round, there is a lot of info on this site.
I disagree, even in body armor a shotgun round will drop some one, they may not be out of the fight but the will wish they were and a deer slug/00...not that I would use that, can cause enough hydrostatic shock/trauma to eliminate a person from the fight with one hit...please advise if that is not the case but I would def take the bet that if some one takes a center mass hit from a 12 ga. inside of 7-10 yards (thats what I am assuming you are considering CQB) you're not exactly walking away from it...
I had a friend who walked away from 3 rounds of #7 to the chest at near contact range. The wads did more damage than the shot did.
He was treated and released. Birdshot is worthless for self-defense.
DiabhailGadhar
02-13-11, 21:37
He was treated and released.
Ok this isnt making any since to me...was the shell only loaded with (3) 7.5 pellets? How do you get "near contact hit" and only get three pellets and if he was treated and released how is it that he " walked away"?
m24shooter
02-13-11, 22:07
3 rounds, not pellets.
The number of pellets that hit was not given. I would say it was more than 3.
DiabhailGadhar
02-13-11, 22:19
3 rounds, not pellets.
The number of pellets that hit was not given. I would say it was more than 3.
ohhh...how the F@ck do you walk away from that..?
DiabhailGadhar
02-13-11, 22:29
if that is the case....then I admit defeat here and my knowledge has increased...and I need UPS to hurry the hell up with the last of my AR pieces...and I knew there was a reason I have the sig, next to the shotgun, next to the bed.....:help:
m24shooter
02-13-11, 22:37
People are strange.
I've seen one guy that had been shot in the ribs and the wrist with a 9mm. The round to the ribs went under the skin all the way around the ribcage to his back, lodged under the skin. The shot to the wrist looked like something blew his wrist apart. He was sitting on the curb smoking when I got there.
Saw a guy fired at 5 times at less than arm's length with a .22. He was hit twice: once in the forearm and once in the hip. Both went through meat, no bone. He dropped like a rock and laid on the ground crying until medics got there.
Saw two kids hit by a shotgun at about 12 feet. All surface wounds, all ran out of the house and were later found running away in the area of the shooting. They were dotted with iodine when I saw them, and they all went immediately to detention after being released from the ER.
In the first county I worked at there was a guy that walked up to an ex'es house. Her new boyfriend shot him from several feet inside the house while he was still several feet away and walking up the steps to the house. 12 gauge, buckshot, whole load hit the torso. Guy ran back to his truck and tried to drive himself to the hospital. Didn't make it.
Look at any number of the citations for valor. Many, many of them will have some mention of the individual having been wounded.
DiabhailGadhar
02-13-11, 23:19
I didnt think about that I mean I cant think of a old Corps medal of honor, save pilots, that didnt get Medal of Honor without the oops award...there has been alot of info passed to me today and I'm thankful for everyones input...stuff I would have taken for granted earlier...I just assumed that the force of a 12 ga within ten yards may not necassarily kill some one but it would put them on their ass and to me that would have given me all the advantage in the situation I would need but that's only good for a single target with multiples that becomes a serious problem quickly...def reconsidering having the #8's in the gauge even with the .45 and x400 (its cheating I know) next to it....thanks again....:)
I'd like to see this test with No. 3 buck and frangible slugs ... That's what I've got at home (although my shotgun isn't my go-to defensive weapon).
m24shooter
02-14-11, 17:58
N4B is marginal in terms of meeting the penetration minimum. N1B does it. Not sure where N3B would be.
Why frangible slugs?
N4B is marginal in terms of meeting the penetration minimum. N1B does it. Not sure where N3B would be.
Why frangible slugs?
I got a bunch of frangible slugs on sale a couple years ago from the local store. Real cheap. Down where the shotgun is (basement) we've got concrete walls, so I figured I'll get the knockdown power of a slug with reduced chance of riccochet. I'm not certain how hard the barrier must be to start breaking up the frangibles, so I'm curious to know how many walls it will go through before it turns to dust.
I got the No. 3 Buck because I didn't really want 00 buck in my situation--houses are close together and we've all got little ones. I knew that bird shot wasn't going to cut it--again, we've got kids in the area, so dropping a violent assailant quickly is a must--so I bought the No. 3 as a compromise. At the store I was in, it was 00, N.3, slugs, or bird shot; so I had limited options, but I didn't want to be sans buckshot in case I needed it ...
m24shooter
02-14-11, 20:34
Let me start by saying I'm not trying to beat you down or anything, and I'm offering this in the interest of providing you with better info than you may have at hand.
I recommend you look through the terminal ballistics board, and go through the stickied posts. There are lots of good items in there. It will help you get some basics down, including the conventional terminology. From your use of the "knockdown power" phrase, you may benefit from reading through those. If I am wrong, apologies.
There is a thread there on frangibles, although it is not specifically geared towards shotguns.
However, frangibles are not intended to penetrate at all. Even the intentionally designed frangible shotgun slugs for LE/.mil use don't penetrate the 12" minimum, so I have no idea what your examples might do. However, given that you said they were cheap I would be suspicious of them. Do you have any information as far as actual tests of the rounds or usage and effectiveness? If it were something that I were to use on duty or in defense of my home I would want to know that it actually worked, and to what extent and under what conditions.
Let me start by saying I'm not trying to beat you down or anything, and I'm offering this in the interest of providing you with better info than you may have at hand.
I recommend you look through the terminal ballistics board, and go through the stickied posts. There are lots of good items in there. It will help you get some basics down, including the conventional terminology. From your use of the "knockdown power" phrase, you may benefit from reading through those. If I am wrong, apologies.
There is a thread there on frangibles, although it is not specifically geared towards shotguns.
However, frangibles are not intended to penetrate at all. Even the intentionally designed frangible shotgun slugs for LE/.mil use don't penetrate the 12" minimum, so I have no idea what your examples might do. However, given that you said they were cheap I would be suspicious of them. Do you have any information as far as actual tests of the rounds or usage and effectiveness? If it were something that I were to use on duty or in defense of my home I would want to know that it actually worked, and to what extent and under what conditions.
Constructive criticism is ... Constructive. No harm in trying to give a guy honest advice. I'm not a contributor to these boards, but I've been lurking for years. I'm also a Marine and a professional research monkey, so I've got that going for me. :D I'll try digging through the older threads to get more info when I have time. In the mean time, here's where I'm coming from on the issue of my frangible slugs:
When I said they were "cheap", I meant that regarding price only. No worries about reliability. They are a brand I have used before and trust: Winchester Ranger frangibles. 375 grain projectile at 1350 fps. They're not particularly accurate past 25 yards, but they are reliable and pack a punch.
Aside from shot placement, the effectiveness of frangible ammunition on living targets is primarily dependant on the barriers between the projectile and the target iteself (i.e., clothing/armor). In some cases, frangible projectiles can deliver more energy to a target than standard "solid" projectiles, given the same mass and velocity. Standard projectiles can pass through targets, wasting much of their energies beyond the intended targets. Frangibles transfer a higher percentage of their energies into their targets, as all forward momentum is unloaded on the target. (No, not all kinetic energy makes it into the target--particulate is dispursed rearward and outward--but more of it does.) If I were to hit a bare torso with one of these frangible slugs, there is still an extremely high likelihood of instant incapacitation and eventual death resulting from the injury. And even with clothing, there is a high likelihood that the target is going to hit the ground. (And if not, my Benelli will have seven more rounds of slugs or buckshot ready for an encore.)
With a 375gr. shotgun slug travelling at 1350 fps, you're going to transfer a lot of energy to a target. Even if it doesn't get 12" of penetration--of course, it's not supposed to--you're going to do a significant amount of trauma by impact alone. (This is why I used the term "knockdown power" opposed to a term referring to penetration or lethality.) It'll certainly do more damage to what it hits than "less lethal" rounds that somehow started popping up on the "home defense" market. I personally think that you'll get some penetration on targets with light or mid-weight clothing--Winchester says "neglibible penetration"--but I would like to see some actual tests on that. I'm not about to go shooting pig carcasses myself to find out, but I'm also sure enough of its potential lethality that I'm going to roll with it until its proven to be unreliable.
When you're picking a home defense round/load, you've got to weigh the potential collateral damage versus the "stopping power" of the round/load. Some folks swing more to the "lethal" side, some more towards the "less lethal" side. I'm somewhere in the middle leaning towards the lethal.
Frangibles give me certain advantages including reduced chance of riccochet, highly reduced chance of over-penetration, added versatility with minimal collateral damage (door breach) and, potentially, more energy delivered to the target. The disadvantages are that reduced penetration means less soft-tissue disruption (hydrostatic shock) giving a higher likelihood that one shot won't be a show-stopper, and accuracy is somewhat diminished by the geometry of the slug itself. All things considered, I like the frangible slug as a home defense load.
Of course, this is all academic, as my shotgun generally sits in the safe. The 6.8 SPC gets first dibs on baddies.
I'm not tracking that....maybe I'm fundamentally challenged but ideally you'd have an accurized as possbile M1014 with slugs, I mean I dont know specifics but last time I checked the 5.56 round wasnt the the best at one shot wonders at close range..head shots aside. I was taught the whole tactic behind the 5.56 was to essentially take two people out of combat...the first, who was shot, wasnt meant to die initially but just get royally F'd up on the inside, the second was taken out due to the necessary care of the first. Please enlighten...
Incorrect. Others have set you straight so I won't bother.
Short answer is though, that there is NO MAGIC bullet. I have police reports of guys take a slug center mass and running out of the building and down a block before passing out.
C4
Short answer is though, that there is NO MAGIC bullet. I have police reports of guys take a slug center mass and running out of the building and down a block before passing out.
And, conversely, there are also reports of guys taking small caliber rounds (like .223) in the chest and dropping immediately because the hydrostatic shock disrupted their nervous systems.
There are no guarantees one way or the other. Naturally, you want to have the biggest and hardest hitting round you can, but magazine capacity and quickness are factors as well. My Benelli M4 (M1014) can hold eight rounds. My Rec7 in 6.8 can hold 30, and I can reload, maneuver, and get back on target faster with it. Would I love to have a .74 caliber round coming out of my light little AR? Sure. That would be cool. But it isn't possible.
There are many choices that one has to make when picking a defensive weapon, and the right answer is dependant on the skill of the shooter and the situation. As C4 said, there is no "magic bullet." Nor is there an "ultimate weapon" for home defense.
DiabhailGadhar
02-15-11, 23:51
Incorrect. Others have set you straight so I won't bother.
Short answer is though, that there is NO MAGIC bullet. I have police reports of guys take a slug center mass and running out of the building and down a block before passing out.
C4
You just did and had you bothered to keep reading instead of ...I GOT IT :stop:
DiabhailGadhar
02-16-11, 01:01
Ok just to throw this out there what about a .50 beuwolf....? I'm not super familiar with the ballistics...but it would seem to be the best of both worlds....since we've gone....way off topic... does it drop way off like the 5.56? Since I'm using my phone I couldn't search in the forum for an answer...
We have seen a lot of "frangible" rounds, including slugs, punch all the way through people, while causing only minimal damage to tissue. Frangibles also do NOT generally break apart in walls: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=57072.
Let's all cut out the grossly inappropriate misuse of the term "hydrostatic shock" and focus on valid wounding and incapacitation mechanisms: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714.
Thanks to DocGKR and others, there is a wealth of information in the terminal ballistics forum here. For those willing to take the time to read the posts over there, you will discover that much of what you will read on other forums is just internet myth.
DiabhailGadhar
02-16-11, 10:04
I just read what the Doc posted and it is very interesting information. Very well thought out and thoroughly written. I have a question what is CNS, I'm assuming central nervous system. The information also leads me to believe that time spent on shot accuracy is well worth it's weight in lead...more so then money spent on fancy ammunition.
I just read what the Doc posted and it is very interesting information. Very well thought out and thoroughly written. I have a question what is CNS, I'm assuming central nervous system. The information also leads me to believe that time spent on shot accuracy is well worth it's weight in lead...more so then money spent on fancy ammunition.
Shot location is EVERYTHING and the more bullets in critical areas the better.
C4
Kentucky Cop
02-16-11, 15:20
Shot location is EVERYTHING and the more bullets in critical areas the better.
C4
Grant or DocGKR,
Curious what type of loads you have or would use in a shotgun that is strictly used for Home Defense and bump in the night runs. Just wanted to hear your thoughts......? Would you change you loads depending on the shotgun, IE: FN SLP semi and a 870.
KC
Grant or DocGKR,
Curious what type of loads you have or would use in a shotgun that is strictly used for Home Defense and bump in the night runs. Just wanted to hear your thoughts......? Would you change you loads depending on the shotgun, IE: FN SLP semi and a 870.
KC
I am not really a big SG fan and view it as my THIRD option (behind a carbine and a pistol).
With that said, I would run the Federal Flight Control 00 in my M4.
Most semi-auto guns do not run with under powered loads well. So low recoil rounds for your 870 MIGHT not work well in your SLP. This is something that you would have to find out.
C4
Kentucky Cop
02-16-11, 19:17
Thanks you sir,
.....and I keep eyeing that 870 PMAX you have on your site. Hmmmm
KC
I like #1 buckshot; the rumored new Federal Flight Control #1 buckshot loading has the potential to be the best LE/civilian home defense shotgun load ever produced.
I like #1 buckshot; the rumored new Federal Flight Control #1 buckshot loading has the potential to be the best LE/civilian home defense shotgun load ever produced.
I'm using Remington #1 in my well worn duty 870P. I just wish that #1 was more readily available in my AO. I've had to buy my supply online and it's not always easy to find there either. I'm also awaiting the new Flight Control from Federal. I heard grumbling that ATK was not very gung ho about making it, but they were swayed by the requests that they received for it. You have anything to do with that Doc? :)
I like #1 buckshot; the rumored new Federal Flight Control #1 buckshot loading has the potential to be the best LE/civilian home defense shotgun load ever produced.
Doc,
Can you add any specifics as to why you like the #1 Buck loading.
I am looking for a good home defense load, and would be interested to learn more about that load.
With the specific layout of the bedrooms in out house I am very concerned about pattern and penetration with anything I pick up. Not that I wouldn't ever be, but this particular lay out is a concern.
Doc,
Can you add any specifics as to why you like the #1 Buck loading.
I am looking for a good home defense load, and would be interested to learn more about that load.
With the specific layout of the bedrooms in out house I am very concerned about pattern and penetration with anything I pick up. Not that I wouldn't ever be, but this particular lay out is a concern.
Doc can surely elaborate on this but here it is in a nutshell.
Reprinted from FirearmsTactical.com:
"For personal defense and law enforcement applications, the International Wound Ballistics Association advocates number 1 buckshot as being superior to all other buckshot sizes.
Number 1 buck is the smallest diameter shot that reliably and consistently penetrates more than 12 inches of standard ordnance gelatin when fired at typical shotgun engagement distances. A standard 2 ¾-inch 12 gauge shotshell contains 16 pellets of #1 buck. The total combined cross sectional area of the 16 pellets is 1.13 square inches. Compared to the total combined cross sectional area of the nine pellets in a standard #00 (double-aught) buck shotshell (0.77 square inches), the # 1 buck shotshell has the capacity to produce over 30 percent more potentially effective wound trauma."
m24shooter
02-17-11, 12:11
In addition to the above with regard to the 1B Federal/ATK load, it may be possible to have better penetration that what was shown then. If I remember correctly that info was from the 90s. I don't know that the test covered relatively soft non-plated shot or what the buffer was.
With a load based on current technology with hardened, plated, buffered shot the projos may retain more spherical shape and not deform, thus allowing potentially better penetration than was the case previous with old technology even with a RR load.
Glock17JHP
02-17-11, 13:30
I think the correct answer is to learn to forget about fears of overpenetration and learn how to hit your target, using the most effective ammunition available.
I totally 100% agree with this... this is the right way to look at this subject. Too little penetration kills more people than too much...
Glock17JHP
02-17-11, 13:32
Doc can surely elaborate on this but here it is in a nutshell.
Reprinted from FirearmsTactical.com:
"For personal defense and law enforcement applications, the International Wound Ballistics Association advocates number 1 buckshot as being superior to all other buckshot sizes.
Number 1 buck is the smallest diameter shot that reliably and consistently penetrates more than 12 inches of standard ordnance gelatin when fired at typical shotgun engagement distances. A standard 2 ¾-inch 12 gauge shotshell contains 16 pellets of #1 buck. The total combined cross sectional area of the 16 pellets is 1.13 square inches. Compared to the total combined cross sectional area of the nine pellets in a standard #00 (double-aught) buck shotshell (0.77 square inches), the # 1 buck shotshell has the capacity to produce over 30 percent more potentially effective wound trauma."
Folks who quote this need to remember that this is based on #1 Buck made in a way that it is not yet made... 00 Buck is a better choice until there are better #1 Buck loads.
Folks who quote this need to remember that this is based on #1 Buck made in a way that it is not yet made... 00 Buck is a better choice until there are better #1 Buck loads.
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? The Remington #1 Buck 2-3/4 that I'm currently using is a 16 pellet payload using a granulated buffer. It's been commercially available for over a decade.
We have seen a lot of "frangible" rounds, including slugs, punch all the way through people, while causing only minimal damage to tissue. Frangibles also do NOT generally break apart in walls: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=57072.
Let's all cut out the grossly inappropriate misuse of the term "hydrostatic shock" and focus on valid wounding and incapacitation mechanisms: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714.
Very good write-ups. Thank you for your contributions to the discussion. I don't know if you were referring to my use of the term; but I will argue that I did not misue the term "hydrostatic shock" when I used it earlier, as I was referring to incapacitating trauma from ballistic pressure waves, that can sometimes happen (but which cannot be counted upon) which is precisely what the term refers to. So I believe I used it correctly ... Unless you're in the "hydrostatic shock is a myth" camp, in which case I cannot possibly have used the term to your satisfaction. But that's neither here nor there; I'm sure the term is misused more than its fair share. And again, thank you for your contributions. These two write-ups are well worth the time taken to read them. :thank_you2:
Glock17JHP
02-17-11, 19:50
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? The Remington #1 Buck 2-3/4 that I'm currently using is a 16 pellet payload using a granulated buffer. It's been commercially available for over a decade.
If you read Doc's reply just up a few posts, he said:
"I like #1 buckshot; the rumored new Federal Flight Control #1 buckshot loading has the potential to be the best LE/civilian home defense shotgun load ever produced."
So it should be clear that the load he is discussing is not yet here. If the entire IWBA/WBR article is read that was quoted on FirearmsTactical (Shawn Dodson), it becomes crystal clear that the article comes to the conclusion that #1 Buck 'could be' #1/best if certain things were done to existing #1 Buck loads to IMPROVE them. This may be in the works, but it is not yet available so far as I know. The article was from probably 10 years ago if memory serves, so if this new load Doc is eluding to does become available, it is a long time in coming for sure!!!
That said... I will answer your actual question on the Remington load. For a #1 Buck load to fit the recommendations that were given approximately 10 years ago in the IWBA/WBR article, they would have to include: 1) hardened shot (like the Winchester Ranger or Federal FlightControl LE Buck loads), 2) buffering material, and 3) a good shotcup design (again, like the Winchester Ranger or Federal FlightControl LE Buck loads). Your Remington load only has the buffering, like a lot of sporting loads already have had for a long, long time.
This rumored load sounds like it has a lot of promise.
If you read Doc's reply just up a few posts, he said:
"I like #1 buckshot; the rumored new Federal Flight Control #1 buckshot loading has the potential to be the best LE/civilian home defense shotgun load ever produced."
So it should be clear that the load he is discussing is not yet here. If the entire IWBA/WBR article is read that was quoted on FirearmsTactical (Shawn Dodson), it becomes crystal clear that the article comes to the conclusion that #1 Buck 'could be' #1/best if certain things were done to existing #1 Buck loads to IMPROVE them. This may be in the works, but it is not yet available so far as I know. The article was from probably 10 years ago if memory serves, so if this new load Doc is eluding to does become available, it is a long time in coming for sure!!!
That said... I will answer your actual question on the Remington load. For a #1 Buck load to fit the recommendations that were given approximately 10 years ago in the IWBA/WBR article, they would have to include: 1) hardened shot (like the Winchester Ranger or Federal FlightControl LE Buck loads), 2) buffering material, and 3) a good shotcup design (again, like the Winchester Ranger or Federal FlightControl LE Buck loads). Your Remington load only has the buffering, like a lot of sporting loads already have had for a long, long time.
This rumored load sounds like it has a lot of promise.
The Remington #1 Buck that we used is the Remington Express 12B1 (20624). It uses Remington's "Power Piston" wad column. Their proprietary alternative to a traditional shot cup. We found that the Remington patterned consistently. We've had good results with this ammo in OIS incidents, despite it not being hardened. Our policies state that, in general, officers should refrain from using buckshot at ranges greater than 20 yards and the Remington patterns adequately at that distance. The vast majority of our shotgun shootings occur at ranges significantly shorter than that. We have slugs and ARs if we need to address something at longer range. If Federal makes the Flight Control #1 available it will likely outperform this load and I'm sure there will be more tests.
Glock17JHP
02-18-11, 13:16
Do you have any idea of the pattern size that Remington #1 Buck load is giving at the 20 yard maximum range? Do you know what penetration depth that load gives?
I am just curious, but I know that 1 Buck 'can' have adequate penetration, although sometimes it does not. This is one of the reasons that I prefer 00 Buck. Another reason (my experience) is that in all of the testing I have done (everything else being equal) smaller pellets give larger patterns. The last reason I prefer 00 Buck over #1 Buck is that (again, my experience) the smaller pellets have less air spaces between them, so the recoil can be greater with 1 Buck as compared to 00 Buck... this is well documented if you compare the typical 12-pellet 00 Buck loads to the typical 20-pellet #1 Buck loads. I would expect that this might be the same story comparing 9-pellet 00 Buck 'Low Recoil' loads to the rumored 16-pellet #1 Buck load (which I am assuming is a similar velocity, if not a bit higher).
Jut food for thought, OK?
Do you have any idea of the pattern size that Remington #1 Buck load is giving at the 20 yard maximum range? Do you know what penetration depth that load gives?
I am just curious, but I know that 1 Buck 'can' have adequate penetration, although sometimes it does not. This is one of the reasons that I prefer 00 Buck. Another reason (my experience) is that in all of the testing I have done (everything else being equal) smaller pellets give larger patterns. The last reason I prefer 00 Buck over #1 Buck is that (again, my experience) the smaller pellets have less air spaces between them, so the recoil can be greater with 1 Buck as compared to 00 Buck... this is well documented if you compare the typical 12-pellet 00 Buck loads to the typical 20-pellet #1 Buck loads. I would expect that this might be the same story comparing 9-pellet 00 Buck 'Low Recoil' loads to the rumored 16-pellet #1 Buck load (which I am assuming is a similar velocity, if not a bit higher).
Jut food for thought, OK?
I believe that the average pattern was 20 inches at 20 yards. At 25 yards it was about 25 inches. These are from 20 inch 870P's Probably not ideal, but this is the load that was chosen and patrol officers were issued 10 rounds of it. In SWAT, we had both #1 and 00. Use of either was at the discretion of the individual. Many of the administrators in a large police agency are not gun savvy. Good ones will listen to the people who are knowledgeable and make decisions based on the facts presented. Others make decisions based on budget or ego (their perceived firearms knowledge). After I left, some administration changes occurred and there will be some gear changes coming. SWAT was always a sacred cow that the suits didn't interfere with all that much. It's a strange situation when the SWAT unit researches and tests ammo, finds it superior and equips it, but the patrol officers are stuck with "what they have for now". Silly, but that's bureaucracy.
Glock17JHP
02-19-11, 14:31
I feel you pain as far as having others above you who are not actively in the situation you are in making decisions that affect you directly in that same situation you actually have to deal with. For me the ourcome is not a danger to me, but for you it could be for sure.
I wish the higher-ups there understood that a 20 inch pattern is not good. Sure, it can be very leathal, but would they want you to group your handgun shots into a 20 inch circle at 20 yards, too? I think not!!!
I have chosen the Winchester Ranger RA1200 load for my shotgun, and it patterns about 1/2 that size. The Federal FlightControl patterns about 1/2 of that. I am happy with the pattern size I have from the Ranger load for HD use (roughly 10 inches at 20 yards), but for LE I think the Federal FlightControl load is a better choice, at roughly 5 inches at 20 yards. These are rough amounts to get a point across... but they are close.
Bottom line... a tighter pattern with a shotgun is desireable in the same way that a tighter pattern with a handgun is.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.