12 Gauge Home Defense Video Field Test: Effects On Walls and Simulated Bodies

Lightyear68 said:

A good discussion for the most part.

Here's an alternative view from a home defense instructor who makes a case against shotguns for home defense altogether. His view of wall penetration is sh*t happens.

Click to expand...

I think he is one of the reasons why Clint said the biggest problem with the shotgun is that most people don't understand it.

While the instructor correctly points out that bird shot, like other rounds, will penetrate a wall, he does not make any distinction of the lethality after it penetrates the wall. Other rounds are capable of penetrating additional wall, while bird shot is not. This suggest bird shot is not likely to be lethal once it penetrates a wall, while other rounds are still likely to be lethal.

Shot (buck or bird) is not a precision round. If you want precision with a shotgun use a slug.

60 ft is farther than any house I have lived in. It is too far to reliably use bird shot, but it is also unclear if the results are valid. It looked like he may have shot the bird shot low and fired two shots to knock over the target.

PowPow said:

I think it's important to remember what Paul actually said @11:54 (emphasis mine): "So, the bottom-line question - is bird shot a viable option in your home defense shotgun? And I would say again: If you use a fairly powerful bird shot load, absolutely yes it is".

He's not advocating that folks use bird shot over better options. He's simply saying that he believes a "fairly powerful bird shot load" is an option. I've got 00 Buck in mine. I don't think he would argue that AT ALL. I'm not an expert.

Click to expand...

I never he said he was advocating birds shot, but testing against tissue simulations, and showing the bird shot appearing to cause substantial damage, can lead bird shot defenders to say, "See, it can be an effective defensive round at close ranges."

I just said there were only 2 situation where I might possibly use it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_F_KuFzjOGA

In this video, an unsuspecting, head-in-the-clouds co-ed takes a blast of birdshot from a distance of about two yards to the center of her chest. Her reaction? A casual look down and then stroll away.

Still want to use birdshot against a possible determined attacker?

I don’t have the training some of you do.
My perspective is different. I have treated people who have been on the receiving end of handgun, rifle, and shotgun blasts.

I will not use any type of birdshot to defend my home or family. Most normal humans can keep going after a blast, people under the influence are unlikely to stop. Shot placement with an effective round and many shots with an effective round placed well are what is needed.


If you want to quote police department data, remember the average officer in Maryland is issued 50 rounds or less per year to train after they graduate from their academy. The only officers who actually shoot for training or fun are into shooting sports or assigned to special duty. Go visit a police range and see how many bullet holes are in the walls and ceilings. Watch many of them handle their weapons and you will be appalled.

hogarth said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_F_KuFzjOGA

In this video, an unsuspecting, head-in-the-clouds co-ed takes a blast of birdshot from a distance of about two yards to the center of her chest. Her reaction? A casual look down and then stroll away.

Still want to use birdshot against a possible determined attacker?

Click to expand...

Possibly. No round is 100% effective. According to this news story https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...about-shooting-at-seattle-pacific-university/ the situation was a little different than was explained. He shot her on her right side puncturing an artery and collapsing her right lung. The student could not move her right arm after being shot and collapsed soon afterward.

According to https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power you are more likely to need a second shot if you use a handgun caliber. Torso shots were only 41% effective at immediate incapacitation across all calibers.

jcutonilli said:

Possibly. No round is 100% effective. According to this news story https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...about-shooting-at-seattle-pacific-university/ the situation was a little different than was explained. He shot her on her right side puncturing an artery and collapsing her right lung. The student could not move her right arm after being shot and collapsed soon afterward.

According to https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power you are more likely to need a second shot if you use a handgun caliber. Torso shots were only 41% effective at immediate incapacitation across all calibers.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but...
"Even after being hit with a shotgun blast, Sarah Williams said that it took a few moments to fully comprehend that she had been wounded during a gunman’s rampage at Seattle Pacific University."

What can a DETERMINED bad guy do to you with an extra few moments???? Even with only one functioning arm. She was someone who was not adrenaline or presumably drug-fueled, and yet was able to walk away.

Not sure why you bring up handgun cartridges. Didn't think we were talking about those, and if your defensive handgun training includes "shoot once and see what happens" tactics and techniques, then I'd implore you to go get yourself some decent training.

hogarth said:

Yeah, but...
"Even after being hit with a shotgun blast, Sarah Williams said that it took a few moments to fully comprehend that she had been wounded during a gunman’s rampage at Seattle Pacific University."

What can a DETERMINED bad guy do to you with an extra few moments???? Even with only one functioning arm. She was someone who was not adrenaline or presumably drug-fueled, and yet was able to walk away.

Not sure why you bring up handgun cartridges. Didn't think we were talking about those, and if your defensive handgun training includes "shoot once and see what happens" tactics and techniques, then I'd implore you to go get yourself some decent training.

Click to expand...

There was not an immediate incapacitation, but it did eventually incapacitate her. Is that the fault of the bird shot or is that the fault of the aim of the shooter. Based on the data, location of the shot matters a lot. No matter what the ammo, torso shots don't necessarily immediately incapacitate someone. I doubt any caliber would be immediately incapacitate if they were shot in the shoulder, which seems where the majority of the injury occurred in this case.

You need to put this situation into context of how other ammunition performed to see if that other ammunition may be more effective. Other people have suggested that a pistol caliber may be appropriate for home defense, so its performance maybe important to other people.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you should only shoot once and see what happens. You should shoot until they are incapacitated. This often requires more than one shot. There was only one shot in this situation. I am not sure you can really judge the effectiveness of bird shot from this one shot given the fact that most calibers would need a second shot to immediately incapacitate someone.

hogarth said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_F_KuFzjOGA

In this video, an unsuspecting, head-in-the-clouds co-ed takes a blast of birdshot from a distance of about two yards to the center of her chest. Her reaction? A casual look down and then stroll away.

Still want to use birdshot against a possible determined attacker?

Click to expand...

That's some helluva bra stuffing.