But at what distance? His point is that at HD ranges it won't spread as fast as people think. Most of the time I am shooting at birds it is at much greater distance than 20 feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by tokerblue
Printable View
But at what distance? His point is that at HD ranges it won't spread as fast as people think. Most of the time I am shooting at birds it is at much greater distance than 20 feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by tokerblue
Let me preface by saying I have my 12 gauge loaded with buck shot for HD, but one of the things he points out is the fact bird shot is less likely to penetrate walls and kill those you are trying to protect. I agree that buck shot is the best choice if killing someone was my primary goal, but in a HD scenario my #1 priority is keeping my family alive... if I kill an intruder but kill a family member in the process I have still failed. I have to say that this video did at least make me think... although I'll probably keep the buck shot for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by sgb
wouldn't want to get hit with birdshot or buckshot for that matter...:scratchchin:
Let not make birdshot something its not.
I like how he had to use pork because ha was "fresh out of cadavers".
I hope his dog didn't get any chipped teeth from eating that meat! :rolleyes:
A picture (or video) is worth a thousand words.:icon_neutral:
goober smoochers....:35: i have no doubt that when it comes down to it "buck v.s. bird" there is a clear choice. one wouldn't shoot a deer with something that said bird on it or vice versa. however, if it really came down to it, i'm not stopping at one trigger pull to sit around and see what happened. so bird or buck i think matters little.
Just like my pistol ammo, I like the bigger holes.
OO buck for me...:yup:
The nasty thing about small shot as told to me by a trauma doc, is that it's impossible to find all the holes that penetrate the colon, and death by infection is almost a 50/50 certainty regardless of the best treatment.
Although it may not kill immediate, it's almost a poetic and deserving death for some people, lingering and suffering to give them time to really regret their actions. But that's just the sadistic side of me coming out.
Less penetration with lighter shot. Greater risk of going through barriers with deadly energy out the other side with heavier shot. Greater risk of a deadly attacker being able to continue an attack, the less effectively the attacker is stopped. No assurance of having a perfect, COM frontal strike on an attacker, as an attacker can turn, throw up an arm, have some sort of factory or make-shift armor on, or have just ducked through a doorway to attempt hiding behind a wall. That's the decision: whether to lean toward a more-effective stop, or whether to lean toward less down-range risk beyond the target at the expense of a percentage of stopping effectiveness. The decision we all make.
Google "Goober smoochers"Quote:
Originally Posted by RayBar
http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/i...31444649/l.jpg
I keep hearing 12" is thru and through, maybe on little thugs. I want to plan for the biggest, meanest SOB on the earth.
A friend of mine was in an incident and had an enraged 6'8" 350 lb man charging him with a chainsaw. That's what I think of anytime I wonder if its enough gun.
I get what he's saying, and if barrier penetration (or lack thereof) was my #1 concern, I guess I could see using birdshot and Glasers.
In my situation, stopping the threat is my #1 concern, so I'll stay with 00 and HSTs, since ATF denied my Claymore stamps.
FWIW years ago I read a Vietnam War novel, called The Thirteenth Valley, by a fellow named DelVecchio who was with the 101st. He stated that #6 in a short barreled trench gun did a great job of removing faces which pretty much took the fight right out of the enemy.
Thirteenth Valley
Amazon.com: The 13th Valley : a novel (9780553050226): John M. Del Vecchio: Books