Bird Shot in your Home Defense Shotgun
- Thread starter Big Bad
- Start date
I've never heard anyone suggest that birdshot would not penetrate to layers of 1/2" drywall, I think the same concept that has people saying it's not enough to be a guaranteed first shot incapacitating load against a motivated threat, would suggest that after going through a thin wall, it likely won't kill anyone on the other side.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Depends entirely on what your target is. Against steel yes. People and interior walls are generally not made of steel.
If you've watched any of the videos posted, then it should be readily apparent that shot size matters.
Yes, any of the rounds mentioned will win you a gun fight.
Virtually every defensive firearm instructor will tell, and every anecdotal use of DGU I've ever seen shows that the first person to score a good hit on target will almost always win.
There are two ways to win. Kill the attacker. Degrade their combat effectiveness to such extent that they determining they need to quit in order to survive.
Any shotgun blast at close range, even with rock salt, will degrade the combat effectiveness of any person. Even a blank at close range throwing nothing but burning powder can neutralize a threat.
Most of these videos seem obsessed with stopping power, as if that is the only factor that matters. You are discharging a firearm inside your house with no ear protection. Firing a 3.5" 00 buck shell, as some recommend, is about guaranteed to deafen you, which is not going to help you shoot move and communicate with other defenders.
Bill Burr did a great sketch on why .22 lr for home defense is perfectly reasonable, and while he is a comedian, most of his points are equally relevant to choosing a very soft shooting #9 birdshot over a heavier load.
Ultimately the question here for everyone to answer, is what is your preference, and what is your risk tolerance.
You have two main directions you can go.
1) choosing a single ammunition that you intend to use for all applications. Close, long, inside, outside, Aimed shot, instinctive shot, clean shot, high traffic shot, etc. In chosing a single ammo, you are necessarily accepting that you may find yourself in situations where you may have the wrong ammo, and may need to affect your decision making accordingly. There may be some shots that you just can't take due to fear of collateral damage.
2) Choose multiple ammunitions for different applications. In choosing multiple ammunitions, you are giving yourself a greater range of options and probably better ballistic performance for a specific application, but you are adding complexity to your response, and also adding a measure of risk that you could use the wrong ammo on the wrong shot.
You can train for option two, and significant reduce your risk of making an ammunition error, and to decrease the time associated with pre-emptively changing ammo type in the chamber.
Not much to do with option 1 other than to hope that it all works out.
Each course of action is a perfectly reasonable option, and will depend on a variety of specific factors.
Personally, I choose option 2. I don't have long shots in my house. #9 birdshot will significantly degrade the combat ability of anything that takes a direct hit, and used in conjunction with a 14" barrel will not penetrate into any adjacent room. If for whatever reason my fight goes outside, I have 00 buck and slugs available. The idea being as soon as i am outside there are no walls to concern myself with, and as such before going outside, I know to change ammo selection. Since I don't forsee any reasonable scenario where I would be in hot pursuit of an attacker from inside to outside, the risk of forgetting to change over is low.
"birdshot" is a marketing term. Who exactly gets to decide what something's intended purpose is?
personally I advocate for using #9 lead birdshot indoors in home defense applications because of science.
I would argue that the firearms act is probably more reasonable for advocating poor planning than anything else, but I digress.
Thats some house you got there. Longest straight shot in my house is 35 feet, and that is through two open doorways that aren't normally open, and are made of solid wood when closed.
As for the second point, I'd prefer to have an AR if I was worried about a hostage situation, but at least if the attacker has my kid, I know where my kid is and i am far less likely about them being on the other side of a wall without my knowledge.
Another big factor in this whole penetration thing is the layout of your house, the probability of over penetration even mattering, who else you live with and where they sleep, and lastly, how much you love fixing drywall.
This is why there is no one perfect answer that fits everyone. It shouldn't be a job to tell people what the best is. We should be looking for factors that should be considered and understanding the variables influence the right choice based on those factors.
- Location
- Steel Town and The Peg
#4 buck is pretty well guaranteed to completely neutralize any living creature that walks in your house within 20 feet. Yes, and you will be deaf. #2 Birdshot is fine if that is all you have, but you also need to feel confident--and those puny little holes don't instill too much confidence for me. A 22 would be the last thing I pull.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Sometimes in home defense guaranteeing to completely neutralize any living creature is what you are trying to avoid. I personally live with 4 living creatures that I'd like to NOT see completely neutralized.
Confidence comes proficiency in training and experience. I am quite confident that landing a shot with 600 or so tightly spaced puny little holes in center of mass before the other guy gets a shot off will win you the gun fight.
I am also quite confident that a well placed .22 is just as lethal.
But like I said, to each their own.
When you are in a fight for your life, you have the rest of your life to win it, and if you do, you have the rest of your life to live with the consequences.
Having studied hundreds of documented DGUs, fortunately, the rate of innocent bystanders getting injured is incredibly low. So while its good to have this discussion and to explore the variables, its largely an academic discussion .
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
There's science that proves the adrenal gland reacts by triggering something inside the brain trigger corticotrphin releasing factor. This CRF for short in turn from the brain caused the cochlea to act. This little organ protects our hearing system. You don't think about it. It's a natural body reactive process.
Probably not so much extended gunfight but certainly one maybe two reports in short period of time.
Human evolution at its finest.
I’ll bet he wished it was buckshot and just put him out of his misery. That sounds like an agonizing torture.
Surprised wax slugs haven’t come up yet...
#9 shot wax slug. A single projectile before it hits the scumbag, and 585 projectiles after it hits the scumbag.
Miss and hit a wall, it shatters and becomes less lethal as it enters the next room.
Best of both worlds.
#9 shot wax slug. A single projectile before it hits the scumbag, and 585 projectiles after it hits the scumbag.
Miss and hit a wall, it shatters and becomes less lethal as it enters the next room.
Best of both worlds.
I expect a flight control wad would act like a wax slug out to 10m. I've never seen a gelatin test for close range flite control. Wax slug in gelatin (yummy) here: https://youtu.be/WbByTqjdGnI?t=42
Edit: Harrell meat target vs flight control wad: https://youtu.be/v0kLVBDThog
I love home defence threads for some reason
.
Edit: Harrell meat target vs flight control wad: https://youtu.be/v0kLVBDThog
I love home defence threads for some reason
.
Last edited:
