20 Gauge Defense Loads

[Biggfoot44]

Yes , I like and frequently advocate Shotguns ....... But NOT with Birdshot thank you very much .

Properly calibrated gelatin is a useful tool , particularly when comparing Apple- ish to Apple- ish . Human torsos vary greatly , and no test medium can duplicate them all , or any specific one . Gel was developed to replicate the leg muscle of a hog , which it does fairly well .

There IS something to the cumulative effect of multiple simultaneous multiple projectiles , albeit the Birdshot advocates greatly over- extrapolate it . Sorry , I have no formula to quantify , but it's obvious with tight patterns of Buckshot that all impact the torso .

4 Buck has had shortcomings in the real world , but usually when at the farther end of plausible buckshot distances , with multiple layers of heavy winter garments , or both . For this thread specifically for in the home , mostly not an issue at those distances .

12 inches ? I would be plenty confident armed with .45acp 185 JHP , .45acp 200 gr Flying Ashtray , .357 Mag 110 JHP , o r .44 Spl Silvertip , all of which penetrate 10- 12 inches , and worked well in the real world .

 

[jcutonilli]

In focusing only on penetration you are missing a LOT.

I am not focused only on penetration. I am evaluating potential scenarios so that I do not have to think about them in a real situation. Eliminating the need to think about them means things are less likely to go wrong. I seems someone would be more likely to miss if you had to worry about missing something.

 

[Pale Ryder]

Toasters kill people too. Especially "florida man"

??? Not familiar with him or concerned.

No one gets out alive.

 

[teratos]

I am not focused only on penetration. I am evaluating potential scenarios so that I do not have to think about them in a real situation. Eliminating the need to think about them means things are less likely to go wrong. I seems someone would be more likely to miss if you had to worry about missing something.

I would think you are correct. Missing under stress is very likely, and seen again and again in police shoot-outs. That's why those who are knowledgeable stress training. Muscle memory will take over. It's why I have a carbine for HD and not a handgun. I'm just more competent with an AR.

It's hard to make real world assessments of the efficacy of shot in ballistic gelatin. When one has a solid projectile, it is much easier. My personal feeling, having a little knowledge of the human body, is the wound cavity and in particular, the temporary wound channel, are what you want to look at. The temporary wound channel is a good indicator of how much energy you are dumping into the tissues. The thing that makes an attacker drop is CNS over stimulation, or obliteration of the brain. Otherwise, you may inflict a fatal wound, but your adversary may have plenty of time to still kill you. Birdshot just plain sucks.

 

[Uncle Duke]

Everyone is going to have a preference. None of those preferences are going to represent the "best" choice in every situation. Pay the man. Take your chances. Greater and lesser odds. Every situation is different.

For me, nothing beats a handgun for immediate accessability. In a HD situation, may God and that handgun allow me to get my hands on a long gun.

In a home defense situation, I ideally want to defend a fatal tunnel. And if again by the grace of God I got my hands on a long gun, give me that shotgun and buckshot. There is nowhere in my house that will present anywhere near a 25 yard shot. And since I've shot a number of deer with buckshot, at and inside and well inside of that range, I know just how devastating that round truly is, within these tighter limitations. It's akin to being shot 8 or more times, all at the very same time. Properly placed, it is instantaneous "out go the lights." Field dress that downed animal, and what you see inside that rib cage will forever explain why it looked much akin to a house falling on that deer.

If more than 7 home invaders are coming down that fatal tunnel, well.....see you good fellas later. Hopefully God has a sense of humor, and the meeting place will be the one with the more temperate climate. But either way, if I do my part, I'll have done my best to bring along some company for the good Lord's judgement.

A fight could be longer than 25 yards? AR please. All day every day. And I'll trade every shotgun I ever owned for just one AR, and a standard capacity magazine.

Been a good discussion. Make the choice that's best for you. Nobody here will be there with you.

Choose accordingly.

 

[Worsley]

-*-*
At 10 minutes into this video there is a very interesting test of 20 gauge #3 buck and #4 birdshot against a human like target. Paul Harrell is one of the few guys who I think totally knows his sh_t.

https://youtu.be/f8EL9MXY2S4

 

[jcutonilli]

Yes , I like and frequently advocate Shotguns ....... But NOT with Birdshot thank you very much .

Properly calibrated gelatin is a useful tool , particularly when comparing Apple- ish to Apple- ish . Human torsos vary greatly , and no test medium can duplicate them all , or any specific one . Gel was developed to replicate the leg muscle of a hog , which it does fairly well .

There IS something to the cumulative effect of multiple simultaneous multiple projectiles , albeit the Birdshot advocates greatly over- extrapolate it . Sorry , I have no formula to quantify , but it's obvious with tight patterns of Buckshot that all impact the torso .

4 Buck has had shortcomings in the real world , but usually when at the farther end of plausible buckshot distances , with multiple layers of heavy winter garments , or both . For this thread specifically for in the home , mostly not an issue at those distances .

12 inches ? I would be plenty confident armed with .45acp 185 JHP , .45acp 200 gr Flying Ashtray , .357 Mag 110 JHP , o r .44 Spl Silvertip , all of which penetrate 10- 12 inches , and worked well in the real world .

My problem is people baselessly denegrating birdshot. It certainly has its limitations and those limitations are worth discussing.

If there is a cumulative effect, why is it being greatly over-extrapolated just for birdshot.

 

[jcutonilli]

I would think you are correct. Missing under stress is very likely, and seen again and again in police shoot-outs. That's why those who are knowledgeable stress training. Muscle memory will take over. It's why I have a carbine for HD and not a handgun. I'm just more competent with an AR.

It's hard to make real world assessments of the efficacy of shot in ballistic gelatin. When one has a solid projectile, it is much easier. My personal feeling, having a little knowledge of the human body, is the wound cavity and in particular, the temporary wound channel, are what you want to look at. The temporary wound channel is a good indicator of how much energy you are dumping into the tissues. The thing that makes an attacker drop is CNS over stimulation, or obliteration of the brain. Otherwise, you may inflict a fatal wound, but your adversary may have plenty of time to still kill you. Birdshot just plain sucks.

It may be easier to compare solid projectiles in gelatin, but it does not mean there is nothing to be learned. There certainly is not a 1 for 1 correlation, but it can be used to understand likely dynamics. Individual small pellets do not travel far in gel and real world experience is that they don't travel far in the body either. Get testing does show that much deeper penetration is possible with the pellets acting as a mass.

The other factor you are not considering is the permanent wound cavity. With a single projectile, the permanent wound cavity is limited and the temporary cavity may play an important role. With shot, the permanent cavity would be much larger due to multiple projectiles. Comparing the amount of permanent cavity damage between a single projectile and shot in gel is not even close.

 

[teratos]

It may be easier to compare solid projectiles in gelatin, but it does not mean there is nothing to be learned. There certainly is not a 1 for 1 correlation, but it can be used to understand likely dynamics. Individual small pellets do not travel far in gel and real world experience is that they don't travel far in the body either. Get testing does show that much deeper penetration is possible with the pellets acting as a mass.

The other factor you are not considering is the permanent wound cavity. With a single projectile, the permanent wound cavity is limited and the temporary cavity may play an important role. With shot, the permanent cavity would be much larger due to multiple projectiles. Comparing the amount of permanent cavity damage between a single projectile and shot in gel is not even close.

No.

This is plain physics. Birdshot MAY behave as a single projectile very early. Within a very short distance from the muzzle, this becomes a distributed rather than concentrated area of force. Instead of 1.125 ounces of lead moving at 1100 FPS, which carries tremendous energy, you are now dealing with 400 or so very small projectiles. They carry very little energy. The wet-ware of the body sucks that small amount of energy up locally. The desired effect just isn’t there.


I already explained my logic in looking at temporary wound channels. It’s been substantiated in research. Read “Courtney and Courtney” studies. They did a ton of research on this for the military.

Birdshot sucks. Science. There is no big, deep wound channel beyond a few feet from the muzzle.

 

[pbharvey]

No.

This is plain physics. There is no Birdshot MAY behave as a single projectile very early. Within a very short distance from the muzzle, this becomes a distributed rather than concentrated area of force. Instead of 1.125 ounces of lead moving at 1100 FPS, which carries tremendous energy, you are now dealing with 400 or so very small projectiles. They carry very little energy. The wet-ware of the body sucks that small amount of energy up locally. The desired effect just isn’t there.


I already explained my logic in looking at temporary wound channels. It’s been substantiated in research. Read “Courtney and Courtney” studies. They did a ton of research on this for the military.

Birdshot sucks. Science. There is no big, deep wound channel beyond a few feet from the muzzle.

This
Kinetic Energy = mass times the square of the velocity.
The tiny mass of birdshot makes it a loser round.
Shoot I cleaned a goose this season with a BB pellet in its feathers…zero penetration.

 

[alucard0822]

Meet Mr Nobody

 

[outrider58]

No.

This is plain physics. Birdshot MAY behave as a single projectile very early. Within a very short distance from the muzzle, this becomes a distributed rather than concentrated area of force. Instead of 1.125 ounces of lead moving at 1100 FPS, which carries tremendous energy, you are now dealing with 400 or so very small projectiles. They carry very little energy. The wet-ware of the body sucks that small amount of energy up locally. The desired effect just isn’t there.


I already explained my logic in looking at temporary wound channels. It’s been substantiated in research. Read “Courtney and Courtney” studies. They did a ton of research on this for the military.

Birdshot sucks. Science. There is no big, deep wound channel beyond a few feet from the muzzle.

Harry Whittington approves of this post...

 

[vskluth]

Mix it up

I also have a 20-ga Remington youth express (short barrel) shotgun for home defense. We have children in the home, piano, other nice furniture. From what I've seen and read over the years, the main concern isn't "will the load stop the perp", but "how much over-penetration can I live with?"

After analyzing my likely shooting lanes, I use a #4 bird shot (Federal 2-3/4") in the chamber, followed by buckshot loads (S&B 2-3/4" #4 buck, 21 pellet). I remove the duck-limit tube and use 2-3/4" shells to load max amount for multiple intruders. At under 20 feet, that bird shot will still be in the wad. I've filmed it in the field; it doesn't separate until around 30 feet.

Why start with bird shot? I also am concerned about "the fight after the fight". The point of shooting is to change behavior, not terminate life. The possibility of being set up on murder charges is pretty likely these days. Physics says "all buckshot". Lawyer says "think legal defense". I can demonstrably prove my intent to not kill by showing that I use a mixed load just for the purpose of not killing someone (in case I 'accidentally' kill the stinking perp the first time).

ALSO, make sure your folks have a plan. Have a phone nearby their hidey-hole, call 911, have them yell "get out of the house, I have a gun", and fire when intruder is seen. Have a spare set of keys to toss out the window to the cops, let them check-n-clear the house. All will be well.

"Most people don't plan to fail. They fail to plan."

 

[alucard0822]

I also have a 20-ga Remington youth express (short barrel) shotgun for home defense. We have children in the home, piano, other nice furniture. From what I've seen and read over the years, the main concern isn't "will the load stop the perp", but "how much over-penetration can I live with?"

After analyzing my likely shooting lanes, I use a #4 bird shot (Federal 2-3/4") in the chamber, followed by buckshot loads (S&B 2-3/4" #4 buck, 21 pellet). I remove the duck-limit tube and use 2-3/4" shells to load max amount for multiple intruders. At under 20 feet, that bird shot will still be in the wad. I've filmed it in the field; it doesn't separate until around 30 feet.

Why start with bird shot? I also am concerned about "the fight after the fight". The point of shooting is to change behavior, not terminate life. The possibility of being set up on murder charges is pretty likely these days. Physics says "all buckshot". Lawyer says "think legal defense". I can demonstrably prove my intent to not kill by showing that I use a mixed load just for the purpose of not killing someone (in case I 'accidentally' kill the stinking perp the first time).

ALSO, make sure your folks have a plan. Have a phone nearby their hidey-hole, call 911, have them yell "get out of the house, I have a gun", and fire when intruder is seen. Have a spare set of keys to toss out the window to the cops, let them check-n-clear the house. All will be well.

"Most people don't plan to fail. They fail to plan."

Of course defense against people isn't the only consideration, and makes complete sense to have a weapon available if something is going after livestock. Have family in a remote area of Alaska, and a magnum rifle is a good choice as a bear is more likely to cause trouble than a person.
Penetration or "overpenetration" is over hyped to a ridiculous level, as missing a target, or an attacker returning fire is a distinct possibility, although in most cases a high velocity rifle round is more likely to fragment and less likely to retain energy through a couple layers of drywall than buckshot or even many handgun rounds. Still before many modern heavy weight 5.56 loads, #4 buckshot was considered about the minimum effective shot size, and in turn had the least amount of penetration through barriers.

As for purposely loading a less lethal or less effective round to show you were "not looking to kill", it can backfire. ANY shotgun load, even beanbags or batons are considered use of lethal force in a civilian self defense scenario, they carry the same legal Burdon as buckshot. There are several cases where the prosecutor argued this point as the defendant was not in fear for their life, and used lethal force by way of a less lethal load when not warranted. Usually doesn't succeed, but it will probably be brought up. Using the most effective load available that has the ability to stop a threat as quickly as possible, including killing the threat is definitely the best defense tactically. With a self defense claim, it also can be the "safest" choice legally too.

 

[Ray Savage]

For home defense 00 buck is the best

 

[pbharvey]

We have children in the home, piano, other nice furniture.

I've never seen anyone select ammo based on their furniture but to each his own I guess.

 

[jcutonilli]

No.

This is plain physics. Birdshot MAY behave as a single projectile very early. Within a very short distance from the muzzle, this becomes a distributed rather than concentrated area of force. Instead of 1.125 ounces of lead moving at 1100 FPS, which carries tremendous energy, you are now dealing with 400 or so very small projectiles. They carry very little energy. The wet-ware of the body sucks that small amount of energy up locally. The desired effect just isn’t there.


I already explained my logic in looking at temporary wound channels. It’s been substantiated in research. Read “Courtney and Courtney” studies. They did a ton of research on this for the military.

Birdshot sucks. Science. There is no big, deep wound channel beyond a few feet from the muzzle.

You say no, yet the actual science says yes. This Courtney and Courtney study https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA526059.pdf indicates that there is a minimum 500 ft-lb energy requirement for this temporary cavity to form. Each pellet has very little energy, but there is a significant number of them. The typical 12 ga birdshot load has three times that amount of energy and more energy than the typical AR load. This article https://www.police1.com/police-prod...of-high-velocity-cartridges-3X2LZRf2FslJbLsF/ indicates that fragmentation enhances the temporary cavity.

I get that you think birdshot suck and nobody is forcing you to use it. Just don't bastardize science to get your point across.

 

[teratos]

You say no, yet the actual science says yes. This Courtney and Courtney study https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA526059.pdf indicates that there is a minimum 500 ft-lb energy requirement for this temporary cavity to form. Each pellet has very little energy, but there is a significant number of them. The typical 12 ga birdshot load has three times that amount of energy and more energy than the typical AR load. This article https://www.police1.com/police-prod...of-high-velocity-cartridges-3X2LZRf2FslJbLsF/ indicates that fragmentation enhances the temporary cavity.

I get that you think birdshot suck and nobody is forcing you to use it. Just don't bastardize science to get your point across.

Not only are you wrong, but you are smugly wrong.

Once the pellets aren't all lumped together, they no longer act as a 1.25 ounce projectile. Your argument falls apart about 5 feet from the muzzle. There are no temporary wound channels around a piece of bird shot.

 

[jcutonilli]

This
Kinetic Energy = mass times the square of the velocity.
The tiny mass of birdshot makes it a loser round.
Shoot I cleaned a goose this season with a BB pellet in its feathers…zero penetration.

Birdshot typically has 1 to 1-1/4 oz (437-547 gr) of shot going ~1100-1200 ft/s (1200-1750 ft-lbs). The typical AR round is 55 or 62 gr going somewhere between 2600-3000 (1100-1200 ft-lbs) depending on barrel length and bullet weight. The numbers indicate birdshot has the advantage with respect to energy. Nobody is suggesting that individual birdshot pellets are lethal or incapacitating.

 

[teratos]

Birdshot typically has 1 to 1-1/4 oz (437-547 gr) of shot going ~1100-1200 ft/s (1200-1750 ft-lbs). The typical AR round is 55 or 62 gr going somewhere between 2600-3000 (1100-1200 ft-lbs) depending on barrel length and bullet weight. The numbers indicate birdshot has the advantage with respect to energy. Nobody is suggesting that individual birdshot pellets are lethal or incapacitating.

Sigh.

Again, physics.

When the pellets are very close together, they act as a cohesive projectile. 1.25 ounces at 1100 fps. Almost like a slug. This dumps energy into the target in a very concentrated area. It will create large temporary and permanent wound channels with this behavior. We agree on this point.

Here is where the problem lies. As they spread out, they behave as individual pellets. This does not take long to occur. By 20 feet, the pellets are doing less than 2 inches of penetration into ballistic gelatin. This indicates a very low amount of energy. This your last statement is also inadvertently the correct answer beyond 10-15 feet.

As they spread out, they then behave as the individual pellets that they are. That's all I'm going to say on it. I know my weenie is little, no need for me to get in measuring contests.