#4 Buckshot...not so bad?

[WS6]

It looks to me like it penetrates 11-14" pretty reliably, even when the pellets form their "own" tract instead of just "drafting" behind each other.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/12%20gau...20buckshot.pdf

Is this not a reliable test, or is the data somehow flawed?

If not, why is #4 buckshot "bad" across the room while pistol rounds that penetrate the same are "good"?

Or do I have it wrong? I always thought the general consensus was "#4 is too small". Maybe I have misunderstood?

[tpd223]

#4 is rather easily deflected, by either bone, heavy clothing or light barriers.

We had an OIS here years ago when we issued #4 buck, and the bad guy escaped serious injury due to being behind a screen/storm door.

On unobstructed shots it can be very effective. The only guy I ever saw drop in his tracks caught 25 out of 27 #4 buck pellets from a Remington high brass round out of an 18" 870 at about 15 yards.
Bad guy was DIRT.

[WS6]

#4 is rather easily deflected, by either bone, heavy clothing or light barriers.

We had an OIS here years ago when we issued #4 buck, and the bad guy escaped serious injury due to being behind a screen/storm door.

On unobstructed shots it can be very effective. The only guy I ever saw drop in his tracks caught 25 out of 27 #4 buck pellets from a Remington high brass round out of an 18" 870 at about 15 yards.
Bad guy was DIRT.

Buckshot as a whole, regardless of size, sucks when barriers are involved. Even 000. 000 barely goes through a 2x4. However, the #4 looks DEFINITELY G2G for home-defence based on the testing I liked. I am just curious why some people disagree with that assessment, or if the testing I linked is not valid.

Also of note, it appears (at least on sheetrock) that the much vaunted #1 buck penetrates no more than #4.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

[tpd223]

Personally, for strictly home defense I'm OK with anything from a heavy turkey or goose load on up. I think #4 buck is fine for FISHing.

[Glock17JHP]

Does anyone have access to any forensic data actually showing/proving #4 Buck penetration depths on humans?

[KCabbage]

I've read of so many instances where it failed to do the job even at close range leaving bad guys with nothing more than nasty surface wounds. I beleive its been noted by professionals that #4 buckshot fails to reliably penetrate 12" of balistic gelatin. I wouldn't feel comfortable using 4 buck at anything farther than bad breath distance. If you insist on #4 consider some plated or hardened #4 for added penetration.



WS6, at what range are you talking about in regards to 000 buck failing to penetrate a 2x4? That seems really odd to me considering my low recoil 00 Buck blows through tree stumps at close range.

[WS6]

I've read of so many instances where it failed to do the job even at close range leaving bad guys with nothing more than nasty surface wounds. I beleive its been noted by professionals that #4 buckshot fails to reliably penetrate 12" of balistic gelatin. I wouldn't feel comfortable using 4 buck at anything farther than bad breath distance. If you insist on #4 consider some plated or hardened #4 for added penetration.



WS6, at what range are you talking about in regards to 000 buck failing to penetrate a 2x4? That seems really odd to me considering my low recoil 00 Buck blows through tree stumps at close range.

I tested it as close as I could get without the pellets "clumping" behind each other upon impact. 000 would reliably penetrate ONE 2x6 and imbed about 1/3" into the one behind it. 00 Would penetrate ONE 2x6 (sometimes) and dent/imbed about flush in the surface of the one behind it.

[Glock17JHP]

I just reviewed a wound profile for #4 Buckshot that was done originally by Dr. Martin L. Fackler...

There are 27 pellets in this load, and it has a velocity of over 1,300 FPS. The deepest penetrating pellet only made it to about 10 1/2 inches, the shallowest only made it to about 5 inches. This gives an average pellet penetration of about 7 3/4 inches. Keeping in mind that this was in HOMOGENOUS (properly prepared and calibrated, however) ballistic gelatin, imagine how poor the performance might actually be if hitting a bone or the skull...

If I were forced to use this load, I would aim for the face or throat... I would much rather have 00 Buckshot as a choice!!!

[WS6]

I just reviewed a wound profile for #4 Buckshot that was done originally by Dr. Martin L. Fackler...

There are 27 pellets in this load, and it has a velocity of over 1,300 FPS. The deepest penetrating pellet only made it to about 10 1/2 inches, the shallowest only made it to about 5 inches. This gives an average pellet penetration of about 7 3/4 inches. Keeping in mind that this was in HOMOGENOUS (properly prepared and calibrated, however) ballistic gelatin, imagine how poor the performance might actually be if hitting a bone or the skull...

If I were forced to use this load, I would aim for the face or throat... I would much rather have 00 Buckshot as a choice!!!

Yet I have posted gel that was calibrated properly, also, showing deeper penetration, averaging around 12".

I am guessing the illustration you saw was from a while back. The loading I posted was 1325fps. Perhapse it also used harder shot, which explains why the pellets penetrated 11-14" rather than the HUGE spread that you are referencing. There is no way individually tracking pellets should have such a huge difference in distance penetrated unless some were deforming BADLY.

_________________________________________

Further, explain why a load of #4 that still has 1 20gr pellet reaching 14" or so of depth is ANY different that a 75gr OTM of which a 20gr sliver reaches 14" while the bulk of this bullet remains at the 3-9" mark? Sounds like what's good for the goose should be good for the gander, but I'm not an expert.

[Glock17JHP]

If you understand the mechanics that go on during the firing of a shotshell, deformation always occurs to the pellets to some degree. The hardness of the pellets can influence this... as can the weight of the pellet payload, the velocity, the shotcup/wad design and the buffering compound (if the load has any). #4 Buckshot is not usually included in LE type loads who have these innovations, so #4 Buckshot typically deforms quite a bit... especially at the velocities we are talking about... which is also typical.

If you have in fact posted gel that was calibrated properly, showing deeper penetration averaging around 12", please post it here again. I would like to see proof of that claim.

As for the question about a 20 grain pellet vs. a 20 grain 5.56 mm bullet... the pellet is round, the sliver would likely be sharp on at least one edge. So... the latter object should not penetrate as far as the pellet, but it is more liely to slice tissue. Not sure why you wanted to ask this, however.

BTW, you seem unsure as to whether or not your #4 Buckshot was hardened. I would guess it was not, but I don't know what specific load you had... do you?