This is a discussion on 12 g. bird shot for SD; meat test by gunblast.com/Jeff Quinn within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by tokerblue Bird shot doesn't even kill birds 100% of the time. I've seen enough evidence waterfowl hunting during the last 2 years. ...
wouldn't want to get hit with birdshot or buckshot for that matter...
Let not make birdshot something its not.
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
I like how he had to use pork because ha was "fresh out of cadavers".
Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
I hope his dog didn't get any chipped teeth from eating that meat!
'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi
A picture (or video) is worth a thousand words.
goober smoochers.... 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...
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
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.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
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.
"There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)
Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition
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.
Amazon.com: The 13th Valley : a novel (9780553050226): John M. Del Vecchio: Books
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!