Shotguns for defense: Why bother or why would you overlook them!?

[breakingcontact]

Shotguns aren't magic. So long as youre still on target, I believe in shooting until the threat ends.

Trusting a shotgun to deliver a one stop shot is dangerous.

 

[Andy]

You're moving the goalposts - nobody claimed otherwise.

 

[Charlie]

Hell, everything is dangerous in the situations you folks are talking about!

 

[Vaquero]

Hell, everything is dangerous in the situations you folks are talking about!

Win!

 

[breakingcontact]

Given that you have to justify each time you pulled the trigger to a grand jury, I guarantee you that someone's single trigger-pull of a 12-ga (which happened to put 15 30-cal #1 buck deep into someone's torso) is not only faster than your (or even Jerry Miculek's) 15 trigger-pulls of an AR15 any day of the week - it's legally far more defensible. If all a guy has are AR-15 skills, it might be all tacticool hot-shit, but it's not enough for our civilian legal environment.

VERY interesting. While posting this to show that you are making it sound like 1 shotgun blast is all it takes, I caught the end of what you said..."not enough for our civilian legal environment".

Please, do, go on!

 

[Younggun]

 

[cajunautoxer]

Didn't have a chance to read whole thread but AR>12g
I keep mine loaded with 60 rounds of 75 grain goodness by my bed side

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Andy]

VERY interesting. While posting this to show that you are making it sound like 1 shotgun blast is all it takes, I caught the end of what you said..."not enough for our civilian legal environment". Please, do, go on!

No, you're reading into that what you want to read; kindly don't twist my words or take them out of context - thank you.

I was answering the other feller's assertion that he's so fast, he can do more damage in the same amount of time (which I disbelieve, but YMMV). My point is very simple: would you rather be in front of a grand jury having fired a single shot from a 12-ga using #1 buck or explaining why you shot the intruder 15 times with an AR-15?

 

[breakingcontact]

Interesting direction to take the thread. Not entirely sure how much I worry about how things look to a jury if it helps me stay alive. I mean, its a spectrum isnt it. From on one end putting up no defense to on the other using a machine gun.

I know some use the same argument with not modifying your carry gun. But if it lets me do what I need to faster and more accurately...then it is a better tool to use for defense.

Andy, so in this internet jury's eyes, how many shots from an AR are OK? Are ARs OK at all for home defense? I mean...they look scary.

With a shotgun, should we use a wood and blue gun with a 3 shot tube?

I suppose everyone has to figure out where they draw the line on the defense spectrum. In general, if a tool or modification is legal and lets me defend myself better then it is better.

I really dont worry about lawyers and judges and juries. I respect that after the fact, especially if you get put in front of a worthless court that you might regret having shot at all. I get that. Its a decision we each have to make. Same with what tools we are willing to use.

 

[Andy]

Oh, I'm simply worried about efficiency - as you yourself just said "But if it lets me do what I need to faster and more accurately...".

A single shot of 12-ga #1 buck will let you put fifteen 30-cal holes at 1,250 fps into a man at the speed of a single trigger-pull - bang.

As a combat vet, I like that - as a husband and homeowner who enjoys freedom, I like that. Most efficient tool for the job - that's my kinda tool. ARs, AKs, FALs, 1911s - I have those and love them all, but I'm not so in love with them that I think they're necessarily the most efficient.

Andy, so in this internet jury's eyes, how many shots from an AR are OK? Are ARs OK at all for home defense? I mean...they look scary.

With a shotgun, should we use a wood and blue gun with a 3 shot tube?

Muzzle that puppy, son, because that's the third time you've let it growl at me - a friendly discussion between fellow gun-owners and 2A supporters is no reason for ill manners.

 

[Younggun]

No, you're reading into that what you want to read; kindly don't twist my words or take them out of context - thank you.

I was answering the other feller's assertion that he's so fast, he can do more damage in the same amount of time (which I disbelieve, but YMMV). My point is very simple: would you rather be in front of a grand jury having fired a single shot from a 12-ga using #1 buck or explaining why you shot the intruder 15 times with an AR-15?

What kind of choke are you using that will keep 15 pellets of #1 buck on target at 50 yards? 100yrds?

You also assume that the one shot will cause extensive damage to the brain or brain stem. If not, you could dump a 10ga in the guys chest at point blank and if he wants you dead he will still have a out 15 seconds to make it happen.

What if there are two bad guys?

Follow up shots matter. Find someone that can shoot and transition to another target with a shotgun faster than a carbine who has equal experience with both.

It's a matter of physics. A shotgun requires more energy to manage the recoil whereas a carbine allows that energy to be put in to transitioning to another target, or staying on target to deliver follow up shots.

As far as the legal system goes, it does not specify what tool is used when it covers use of force. If you kill a man and it goes to trial, you will have to justify your actions with the jury whether you put a load of buckshot in his chest, 3 rounds of 5.56, or bashed his skull in with a 7 iron.

Your legally justified to stop the threat, nothing more.

 

[breakingcontact]

Im tracking. Interesting point.

 

[NOLA Jack]

I don't see anyone saying that a shotgun is the ideal long-range weapon, but it would be interesting seeing you justify a long-distance shooting in court. Totally agree with you there; he was out-of-bounds. Even though you weren't talking to me, I'd sure like to see you prove that - but you're missing the point; this isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. Given that you have to justify each time you pulled the trigger to a grand jury, I guarantee you that someone's single trigger-pull of a 12-ga (which happened to put 15 30-cal #1 buck deep into someone's torso) is not only faster than your (or even Jerry Miculek's) 15 trigger-pulls of an AR15 any day of the week - it's legally far more defensible. If all a guy has are AR-15 skills, it might be all tacticool hot-shit, but it's not enough for our civilian legal environment.

You're right about it being 15 pellets, unfortunately, people sometimes miss, aren't stopped by one shot, and criminals work in groups. Beyond that, you aren't picking up much lethality by going to #1 buck. Shot placement is still key.

 

[Andy]

What kind of choke are you using that will keep 15 pellets of #1 buck on target at 50 yards? 100yrds?

You also assume that the one shot will cause extensive damage to the brain or brain stem. If not, you could dump a 10ga in the guys chest at point blank and if he wants you dead he will still have a out 15 seconds to make it happen.

What if there are two bad guys?

Follow up shots matter. Find someone that can shoot and transition to another target with a shotgun faster than a carbine who has equal experience with both.

It's a matter of physics. A shotgun requires more energy to manage the recoil whereas a carbine allows that energy to be put in to transitioning to another target, or staying on target to deliver follow up shots.

As far as the legal system goes, it does not specify what tool is used when it covers use of force. If you kill a man and it goes to trial, you will have to justify your actions with the jury whether you put a load of buckshot in his chest, 3 rounds of 5.56, or bashed his skull in with a 7 iron.

Your legally justified to stop the threat, nothing more.

Your whole post misses the point completely. Try again.

You're right about it being 15 pellets, unfortunately, people sometimes miss, aren't stopped by one shot, and criminals work in groups. Beyond that, you aren't picking up much lethality by going to #1 buck. Shot placement is still key.

Nobody said it wasn't; you missed the point as well.

 

[NOLA Jack]

No, you're reading into that what you want to read; kindly don't twist my words or take them out of context - thank you.

I was answering the other feller's assertion that he's so fast, he can do more damage in the same amount of time (which I disbelieve, but YMMV). My point is very simple: would you rather be in front of a grand jury having fired a single shot from a 12-ga using #1 buck or explaining why you shot the intruder 15 times with an AR-15?

Im trying to figure out what kind of strange crackheads roam around Dallas that take 15 rounds of 5.56 to drop, but only one shot shell.

 

[NOLA Jack]

Your whole post misses the point completely. Try again.


Nobody said it wasn't; you missed the point as well.

Then run it by me again, what is the point?

 

[Andy]

Im trying to figure out what kind of strange crackheads roam around Dallas that take 15 rounds of 5.56 to drop, but only one shot shell.

Better ask this dude:

Although, I'm pretty sure I can put more rounds down range, with more accuracy, in less time, with a pistol or rifle caliber carbine than you could with your shotgun in even your wettest of wet dreams.

He seems to believe he can put 15 bullets in the air faster than a single shot from a 12-gauge

 

[Andy]

Then run it by me again, what is the point?

You've never been in combat, have you?

 

[Younggun]

I don't see anyone saying that a shotgun is the ideal long-range weapon, but it would be interesting seeing you justify a long-distance shooting in court.

See the post made by reddog regarding shotguns as the end all game chanja, the one I replied to which you ignore the context if in your rebuttals.

 

[Younggun]

You've never been in combat, have you?

I have.

What's your point?