Shotguns not for COMBAT use

[RogerinTPA]

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

[FJB]

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

There are several inaccuracies in the first post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S/F

[RWK]

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

There are several inaccuracies in the first post:

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

...

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

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

Freddie:

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

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

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

[Failure2Stop]

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

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

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

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

[Gutshot John]

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



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

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

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

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

[sff70]

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

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



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



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

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

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

A shotgun, not so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any deviation from the above, we got problems.

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



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

We have 2 very well known examples.

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

What were the results?

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



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

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

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

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



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

[LouDiamond]

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

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

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

[Slater]

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


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

[RWK]

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

Well said.

[RWK]

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

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

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

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

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