Why isn't the shotgun the best weapon overall, period?

At close/zero range nothing is more impressive.  At long range, it's not self defense, it's murder.  

I've got a 18" baddie and a 20" 8 shot beast coming.

Really, other than my Glock 17, what else could be needed?  (not counting a .22 rimfire which, along with oxygen.)

(yes, I'm drinking)

That depends on what your definition of "long range" is. Shotguns are definitely the most versatile, and slugs make a really big hole. My main gripe about them is probably just the limited capacity due to the size of the shells.

You really can't think of a situation where you might need to shoot over a hundred yards to protect yourself or others ?

By the way the definition of murder is killing a innocent person that has shown no aggression to you. Range that is happens is not a consideration. same as defending yourself.

Face it if it's 100yd Or more engagement  a jury is going to be listening very closely to your explanation  (raised by cross examination questioning of course) as to why you chose to fight rather than un-ass yourself. And the courts have a few iterations of the definition of murder. My father always told me that if I was not a member of a rifle company, and I was not so obligated to stay and fight that anything outside of shotgun range was a good indicator to break contact and move out in the opposite direction. This from a man who had actually been shot at from some range in conflict and by poachers in civilian life both while armed himself.

well if you had to carry one on foot for some distance, with some ammo for it, it would be heavy

and you wouldn't have very much ammo

Rifles are better at getting game over 100 yards, Has better capacity, lighter weight, faster follow up shots, better armor penetration, etc


If you think that there is nothing a rifle can do that a shotgun can, you need to think a bit harder

if shotguns are so much better, how come more leos ditching them for rifles?

If you're not shooting you're feeding...

30 rounds of hit what you are aiming at, and only hitting what you are aiming at.  That's what.

A shotgun is much easier  to operate drunk.

When I am sober and running my dogs I sling an AR for wolf protection.  It's a bit more surgical then slugs.

1) we aren't  discussing hunting
2) a limited platform forces you TO think rather than just shoot. And you should be thinking harder and smarter.
3) a few more videos of police unleashing carbine rounds in crowded intersections at suspected vehicles will likely force departments to review decisions to allow the "patrol carbine" anyhow. Many agencies are already reviewing this in light of criticism of the "militarization"  of department  officers.
4) if you are facing armored opponents then the SHTF and you already have a carbine as backup right?

That's one way shotguns are generally inferior.




Some others are: capacity, poor performance against armored individuals, slower follow-up shots, [due to] increased recoil, and more difficult reloads (even comparing mag-feds).
A shotgun is best utilized at close range against unarmored targets that are few in number (no reload expected/necessary).
Obviously it works for other situations, and is extremely versatile, but it has many limitations.
You can, and still should, think harder and smarter with an unlimited platform.
Those agencies' administrations are silly. It shouldn't matter if stuff is used/done by the military. It's effectiveness (or lack thereof) is what should matter.
The shotgun should be the backup to a carbine, not the other way around. The only reason for a shotgun to be the primary is if you're a breacher in a team, or if you KNOW you're only facing unarmored targets, few in number, and at close range. Now we're back to that murder thing.
 
 
 
 

Very good points about the platform. I still believe the shotgun is best for both patrol (not saying tactical teams and such here)and home defense as both have societal constraints (and should) if we argued that every tool should be allowed to law enforcement with no limitations simply based on its effectiveness then we would assuredly wind up with authoritarian problem (and we may be headed there already).  No offense meant its just that public perceptions and politics do actually matter in consideration of use of force and exercise of granted authority not to mention agency liability which should never be waived in a free republic where individual rights matter.

I am not saying the tools should not be availiable to both subsets for dire emergency (terrorists, invasion, insurrection etc.) Just that some constraints are favorable to chaos. Maybe it's  personal bias, not sure...

To each their own. That reminds me of agencies (and individuals with that mindset) using Mini-14's because they believe the public perceives them as less intimidating, and being willing to sacrifice in performance as compared to an AR. I guess I just don't hold public opinion in that high a regard. I would refuse to trade scary-looking great equipment for friendlier-looking good equipment.



I don't think authoritarian problems come from highly effective tools and/or toys. I think they come from authoritarians.



Obviously I would prefer to have better tools/toys than anybody else (especially if we're not on the same side), but I refuse any attempts to limit the tool/toy selection of others in order to achieve that goal, because I love freedom.



Going back to police forces, I have seen that when people perceive the police to be "on their side" (usually because THEY called them, and the police have responded to solve THEIR problem) those people are absolutely accepting (sometimes even encouraging) of the police having the scariest-looking, most effective weapons money can buy. After all, they're on the same side right?



In different situations, people would prefer the police not be armed at all, because they're definitely not on the same side.



What people perceive can have much to do with the present-day situation, prior responses to previous events, and past performances both on-scene and administrative/TV/Facebook. I have found it has very little to do with the tools utilized in each case.



Liability is a concern, and should definitely play a factor in equipment selection and when comparing real-world performance and effectiveness.



Effectiveness in my opinion does not equal minimal collateral damage. That's for the military. Effectiveness to me is zero collateral damage to citizens.



For example (and to get back on-topic) :

A 5.56mm semi-auto carbine firing expanding bullets (let's say 3 bullets) can offer as much performance as a 12ga shotgun firing 00 buckshot, but penetrate less interior walls and thus offer more limited liability. It can do this 10 times (firing 3) as compared to a shotgun which generally can only do this 7 times. It also only generates one flight path per trigger pull, which is far more precise.



If you really want to brainstorm versatility, try comparing a compact select-fire carbine to a shotgun. Think of all the things it can do. Small game to fire-superiority/suppression.

If I had to worry about which weapon I was going to use depending on how drunk I was I think I would have bigger problems than just someone breaking in.
Use either one drunk and you are liable to kill an innocent.
Seriously, get in contact with AA. And I say this not to wound but out of brotherhood.

Dude, it's hard to argue with you, you make too much sense. Like I said it's probably a bias I have to work through. I too don't want to limit either subset from access to the best platform. I keep a reserve myself...
On the point of overpenetration, Ive not only seen 5.56 overpenetrate but also go wildly off trajectory in the process whereas other rounds tend to stay roughly on trajectory on overpenetration, what's  your take on that?
By compact select-fire you mean like a true PDW?

+1 on this. Wouldn't  want anyone to cause unnecessary problems for themselves or others.

We are talking about how "versatile" shotguns are, so yeah, bringing up hunting and armored targets is more than fair

"A limited platform forces you to think rather than just shoot" lol, not even close

To your point 3,

Why would i carry a shotgun any way, if i can carry a rifle that; has better capacity, lighter ammo, faster reloads, better performance past 100 yards, and is easier to keep ob target?


Why would i carry  2 long guns?

Nothin personal but I don't waste my time using purple.  I rarely drink and never drink when I go to the range, shoot clays, steel, hunt, kayak, canoe, boating, snowmobiling or other interests.  Where I live, dumb kills your ass fast.

I also can spot an addict of any kind in short order..........hence my comment.  The OP was drinking.  I can see 3 shotguns from my chair, all stuffed with slugs for bear, wolves, coyote, cougar, fishers and bad people.  Our open space is limited so if you can see it, it's in slug range.  Given the choice and time to react, I will pull the one AR we keep out.  Same goes for working dogs in winter.  With heavy clothing on, it's easier to sling a 5lb AR then a heavier shotgun or rig up a Glock.  Yesterday it was -30 here.  You have to plan how you will get your gun in play.  Even at 15 yards, the shotgun is not always the best choice.  Soon my first choice will be the 10" .300blk SBR.

The reference to alcohol is exactly why I didn't give a more detailed response.  It's fucking stupid.

Yeah you're right of course. I'm  just throwing up strawmen because I've never really liked AR's. Piston guns are ok but I've seen way too many DI guns choke on their own shit.

Wait a minute here. Are you saying you've seen too many AR's malfunction due to residue from shooting? You reference DI guns, I can only assume you mean AR's.

Look I like shotguns too, they have their place regardless of what the haters say. In reality it doesn't matter what a person chooses if they don't train with it. A chump with an AR will still get owned by a pro with a shotgun... Point is, you got to train with it regardless of what "it" is. A shotgun guy is gonna have to train harder IMO then the AR guy and the shotgun guy will always be at a disadvantage in most circumstances.

But to say AR's are choking is fucking stupid... Look up Pat Rogers and his dirty dozen or Vuuwarpen blog and read up on his test. AR's are very reliable and fairly self limiting in buildup inside the receiver.

I've shot AR's of all flavors. Full length, carbines, SBR's,  supressed, select- fire, H-bars (which is the only one I actually sorta liked)direct impingement,  delayed impingement  blah,  blah, but no firearm, aside from maybe 1911's (and I love them) have I seen malf more in my entire 40 some odd year history of shooting than the AR platform. My favorite was watching a former Navy SEAL and a Federal Agent struggling to get a RRA carbine running, till they were both just pissed and gave up
Ironically the SEAL wasn't  running an AR but an HK M121 semi auto 12ga, haha! I'm not saying it was because of fouling but even my dog knows not to shit where he eats!

A real life scenario where a shotgun fails at close range is a dog pack.  When you are on the ground and you have 2 dozen dogs moving near you, 4+1, even 7+1 does not give you a warm fuzzy about starting a fight you can't finish.  Even if your own dog is now in pieces.  You can't load another 7 rounds in the tube as fast as you can another 30 round mag.  You may not even need a second mag but you will run the shotgun empty in 2-3 seconds.  I would rather have a hi cap handgun and extra mags then a typical HD shotgun.

You can fabricate a shit ton of scenarios that prove your point, no matter what it is.  I have often used an 870 to best shooters using M4's, M2's, 1100's and others on steel, shooting against the clock.  I am more then comfortable with my shotgun skills and that is how I started life as a shooter.  The day I stepped in to that dog pack holding an 870, I also learned shotguns don't do it all.  I unassed myself from that situation and spent the entire winter, with a rifle, killing those dogs.

Shooting dogs is actually what the .223 was made for, it's  the reason the AR got the name "poodle shooter".  

I used to hunt with my Dad on his old military post. The area had feral dog packs running through it, the offspring of dogs abandoned by military families leaving post. Sometimes you could hear em stalking you but I never saw em. Good thing because me and the old man only had an Ithaca 37 and a single shot 20ga.The game warden was an older MP noncom and he hunted the packs with an military police 870 a USGI 1911A1 and his German Sheperds. Did pretty well too one time he showed up in the pickup with a bunch of dogs in the back, he showed us the pack leader it was a miniature  schnauzer. It ain't  the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog I guess.

Yeah that how it works. he's 99 yards away good to go. But if he steps back 2 yards. I better run and hope for the best. I'll remember that.

Yeah it's that literal....

Because its not.

The mask has slipped!

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about

DI AR15's? New to me. All my ar's have stoners internal piston (conveniently located in the bolt and carrier)

So wait, the SEAL was having trouble getting an ar to run, but was actually shooting an hk m121? Are you reta...

Not gonna go there, this isnt gd

Yet

Not true.


Shotguns take the AR to school when it comes to snakes and mice and bonding with Uncle Joe

You forgot non-lethal.  But that's about it.

No its bullshit. If your life is in danger, you pick the course of action that is most likely for you to survive. Your father should know better by his experience .

Give 'em some rubber buck next time you step on a Lego.

He did he unassed himself and called the authorities.

You mean the heavily plated bolt and carrier directly behind the chamber, where the rifle feeds ammunition,  below the gas impingement  tube and on the port side of the forward assist? That piston? Like a ljungman?

Not an HK M121 Rifle, an HK Benelli M121 Shotgun. Asked him how he liked it, he said "best combat shotgun ever made!" I told him I saw one for sale that morning for $900 and gave him directions to the store on his way back to Houston. I bet he picked it up.

My favorite shotgun tactic to show people is 3"magnum T shot through a open choke, firing on the move and approaching multiple targets at  a oblique angle. Multiple hits on multiple targets with each pull of the trigger. Just devastating...40-53 .20 cal steel balls!

really they are about the best bang for the  $$ buck you can get.

Shit those 8 Shot Maverick pumps can be had brand new for around $230.00 here. If you remember through the ammo shortage there was always 12 gauge available.

I really can't think of anything in North America that a few 12 gauge slugs won't stop. I don't think theres a man alive that would live with 2 center mass hits by 12 ga. sluShotguns always give me that warm fuzzy feeling.

The mob up in Chicago loved 12ga slugs to bump off people. Pull up to your house while you're  mowin'  the front yard on Saturday and Blam! 1oz of lead center mass. I dont think anybody survived that...ever.

yea. I've been meaning to try some of those DDupleks slugs. They look interesting by the youtube videos they make a few differant types. Brennekes always were about my top pick.

I think theseDDupleks monolits are bad ass stuff though

When he was alive my dad kept some Brenneke slugs for HD,  he said they used em for roadblockers, would crack an engine block, said they worked like a sabot but didnt need a rifled bore. He used standard Remington Sluggers for hunting. I should try some Brennekes too they sell em at Academy here in a few different flavors.

there some good videos on slugs on youtube. check out those DDupleks monolit 28 and 32. to much penetration for Home defense though. might be good on Elephant..LOL

OP has only 2 posts in over a year, and they're just inflammatory statements.


In before lock.

 

Took an LE shotgun instructor course with Bill Jeans about 5 years ago.   He sang praises of just how tough the Brenneke slugs were.   These had a permanent plastic wad attached to the backs of them which even though rifled the wads probably helped stabilize them.

As for this topic...

I can run a pump shotgun pretty damn well.  Fast enough to keep up with the range/swat instructors on rolling thunder drills.

4 day instructor course didnt really add much to the manipulation/speed/accuracy fundamentals.  Built on the fighting/tactics with a shotgun pretty heavily though.

For somebody extremely comfortable with a shotgun.  Hey go for it.   But for somebody who doesnt know how to keep one fed or have a mindset of fighting with that gun.   Nope.

Mindset is everything.   With that said I feel that semiauto rifles and handguns can be easier to manipulate once a person is trained.   Less to futz with.

But I am a whore for the AR.  Everything about the AR leaves me all happy-fuzzy-warm feeling when I have that rifle in my hands.

Less to worry about with the constant feeding of the shotgun.   4 to 6 rounds depending on config and if you topped off after racking a round.

No thanks.  20s or 30s with spares close by and the ability to hotknife cut through kevlar.  I take the AR every time if I can have my choice.

Just have to remember the roughly 2 inch sight offset for up close work.


/edit

and only 2 posts by a 14er in over a year since joining?   WTF kinda record is that?

This is a technical forum.
Your information is utterly incorrect in almost every instance.
Please stop posting here.

So...enlighten me. The Remington .222 magnum cartridge which was what the 556 NATO round was based off of was developed as a varmint cartridge. The military did not adopt Stoner's design immediately, in the interim the rifle became popular with ranchers since it chambered, basically, a varmint round and they killed varmints with it namely wolves and coyotes....dogs..."poodle shooter" is derived directly from that. It's also why Bill Ruger chose the .223  for the Ranch Rifle AKA mini 14. The military and various designers had been experimenting with sub caliber arms since before the development of the Garand but had not adopted any till Stoner's AR because of ballistic performance and the compact size of the ammo remember the .308 AR 10 came first.  The first unnofficial adoption of the AR-15 rifle was the first SEAL teams in Chesapeake  Va. When they drove to a Montgomery Wards in Baltimore Maryland and purchased AR 15 rifles over the counter along with Smith and Wesson Combat Masterpiece revolvers on the eave of the Cuban missle crisis. The SEAL commander Roy Boehm was brought up on inquiry over the incident but the issue was dropped when the SEAL teams were granted a presidential priority status.

 
Dude, he's from Wisconsin!  Check your privilege

If you mean in terms of only having one long gun to compliment your G17, I would say that an M4 carbine is a better choice.

1)  30 rounds that can be reloaded very quickly vs 8 that can't.
2)  More versatile in terms of range.  You will probably never be in a 100 yard self defense situation, but having options is good.
3)  5.56 is pretty devastating up close too and you can put a lot of rounds into a threat very quickly with a carbine.
4)  If you live with females or have smaller family members they will probably handle the M4 better than a 12 gauge shotgun if the need arises.
5)  A carbine length AR is very handy indoors.

The list goes on.  I have a Benelli M4, because everyone should have a shotgun, as long as they already have an AR

id take my 10.5" 300BLK over a shotgun any day of the week,

id take any AR over a shotgun for that matter.


i dont feel like swinging a 20" barreled shotgun around corners

i have a 13.5" SBS 870, its super maneuverable but still heavy and only holds 4+1..

i dont understand why people think the shotgun is the end all home defense weapon.

There was a case in Texas just a couple of years ago where a lone police officer was pinned down behind cover by a guy with a rifle IIRC.

A man with a .44 magnum revolver flanked the perp and ended the threat from over 100 yds away.

Plenty of situations you can find yourself in where 100+ yard shots might be necessary.