If you read my fackler/stockton post on the previous page (the long one) you will see that shotgun massacares were by far the worst.

Yes, but those were contact or near-contact shootings by those shotguns.  He was referring to wounds caused by accidental shootings, not combat situations.

-Troy

Quoted: The weight of shotgun ammunition doesn't really matter, I can't foresee that I would be traveling more than a few hundred feet with the shotgun.  As for armor, just aim for the arms or legs with birdshot, one shot to the arm will take it off in some instances.

My finger is hovering over the button here...

Quoted: My finger is hovering over the button here...

<Ren to Stimpy> "Don't touch the red, cannnndy-like button!" </Ren to Stimpy>

-Troy

Quoted: My view on shotguns is: for home defense, birdshot for the first shot will stop any sane person not on drugs.

If you are going to deploy lethal force, deploy lethal force.  Period.  If you fire you're already on the hook for lethal force, you better kill what you're shooting at.

#1 Buck to the face and arms after that.

You really have no idea do you?

Why would you EVER start picking small targets at close range instead of shooting center mass?  Are you trying to make up for the basic failing of shotguns (no armor penetration) by shooting headshots and at arms?  Have you ever really TRIED to make headshots on uncooperative targets?

And if you're going to use 7.62 or #00 buck you better know whats behind the wall you're looking at as well as outside and in the next house over.  God forbid you use slugs.  Ugh.

That brings me to this:

As for armor, just aim for the arms or legs with birdshot, one shot to the arm will take it off in some instances.

You mentioned the North Hollywood robbers earlier.

Matasareanu was hit dozens of times (mostly in the legs) before he finally surrendered and then lived for 22 more minutes.  I don't think aiming around the armor is a good bet for getting the job done.

For urban combat, slugs and/or 00 or 000 buck.

Use whatever you want, I just don't suggest dispensing this advice.  Someone might actually listen to you and get themselves or someone else killed.

I have an unrelated question.

Then put it in an unrelated thread, thanks.

Quoted: tatjana, I did not mean to start a pissing match here.  I was just trying to offer what I thought would make that part of the oracle more proffessional.  I have read enough of your stuff on terminal ballistics to know it is accurate and you are much more knowledgable than me on the subject. I believe the 11.5" gun with proper ammo offers excellent terminal ballistics for the ranges I will likely encounter, about 100 yards and in.  Not that I couldn't still engage beyond that I just know my terminal performance will drop off.   Terminal performance is quantifiable and not the debate here for me. What got me started is that you are questioning, very condescendingly, mine and other intelligent policeman's perceived need for this shorter gun.  This gets into technique and tactics and I refuse to get into a pissing match here about either.  We might as well start debating religion and politics.

It's not a tactics or techniques issue at all.  It's a terminal performance issue and the fact that ignorance of that science is putting someone in a position to be asking for the laws of physics to be bent to make up for length anxiety is a problem.  A widespread one.

My problem is with your, and other's, assumptions.  You want 11.5" for 100 yard engagements.  That's just folly.  Sure, it MAY work for you, but why risk it?  Hell, if you're going in that direction then why not use snub nose revolvers to reach out to 100 yards?  I'm sure there's a firm that will sell you a bullet they PROMISE will finish the job at that range.

SBRs are fun toys.  They may have a use somewhere, but not anything that a 14.5" won't do better, longer and more reliably at a cost of about .45 pounds and 3 inches.  I might add that because of the additional weight and length the balance of 16 or 14.5" weapon is BETTER than that of an 11.5" weapon.  This is easy to see, just see how close the CoG is to your support hand (where it should be) with each.

The ONLY time you'd need 11.5" or 10" is if you're trying to conceal those weapons.  Why in the world would you be doing that... exactly?

I've run multiple CQB and dynamic entry courses involving vehicle deployment and house clearing with by beloved (and now stolen) 16" HBAR carbine.  I placed second in the most recent class above, among others, 3 FBI HRT students with 14.5"ers.  (I lost out to a Marine).  Not only is it doable but its doable by a 105 pound GIRL.  If you are having problems using a 14.5" or 16" carbine in close quarters than the issue is training, not equipment.

See we dislike constantly repeating ourselves.  Every month or so someone with under 50 posts comes in sure that they 11.5" or 10" barrel is just the ticket.  Certain that shotguns with birdshot are going to do the job.  Convinced they should have rock salt in the first shell, just in case.  They think this for reasons that are beyond any common sense.  We can't figure out where this comes from.  Hollywood?  It certainly isn't from field experience.

Believe me, you're not the first.  I know the argument seems novel and cutting edge to you.  It is not.  Not even close.  Search the archives if you don't believe me.  We can't go 30 days without having it.  So we put those issues in the Oracle.  Think that helped?  Nope.  People either don't read it, ignore it, or cite some old war story from someone "I knew once" to refute it.

Who are these people?  They are convinced that a 10" barrel is REQUIRED for CQB.  (But then the same poster points out that Garands seemed to work for CQB in WWII).  Then they are going to get saddled with 55 grain SP by their department because some armorer cut a deal with the Federal guy over dinner and drinks.  Or maybe this time it's 60 grain TAP.  Disaster waiting to happen.  But hey, that 10" Colt Commando is gonna look really cool in a pool of your blood!

Then we hear that a shotgun with birdshot will blow off the arm of an attacker.  (But then the same poster says "but not always").  That we should have a non-lethal round chambered just in case (just in case the attacker was considerate enough to put a non-lethal round on top of his mag I guess?  Nice habitual offender.  Thank you for letting me get down to my real ammo!)

After that its that we should shoot for the arms and face with #00 buck when an attacker has armor.  (Because using a tool that would deal with the armor problem when you make center mass hits, like 5.56 maybe, isn't "cool" or something, I guess).  Since when do we let the tool define the target?  The mission?

Then we are told that 7.62 will penetrate 75" of gel and therefore is a better round.  

They think it's wise to have engagement out to and even beyond 100 yards with SBRs.  They think they can make up for the lack of velocity with magic bullets.  Then they ask us which are the best magic bullets to use.  

When we present them with the facts, then we are told we are closed minded.  We tell them that terminal performance and short barrels are often mutually exclusive.  That shotguns with birdshot will NOT stop attackers, dag nabbit, but they reply that we just aren't seeing things clearly because they KNOW it to be so and we must be old curmudgeons for pointing out the "old way of doing things." (Read: the PROVEN way of doing things).

Then we hear that the Ammo Oracle is "B.S." because it repeats the results of the FBI Firearms Training Unit (which has been over these exact issues many, many times) or Dr. Gary Roberts or Dr. Fackler.  As if somehow these new posters have knowledge better tested than the results that come from these authors.  Asking for the source of these we get something like "hunting lore."  Or "it's obvious" (this most often with the shotgun issue).

I have tried to find fragmentation thresholds here for the listed rounds out of an 11.5" gun but am unable.  Can anyone point me there?

And yet, in the absence of these you are confident of engagements out to 100 yards with an 11.5" rifle.    This is what I mean.

I swear, it's enough to make a girl chew the arm off her chair.

Yes we (I) are getting sarcastic and snide.  What choice to you leave us?  Sarcastic?  You're lucky I'm typing anything at all because, let me tell you, the "educating newbies" business is thankless, pays pretty low on the scale and is a job that never ends.

I have PERSONALLY spent five figures on the job.  This is my reward.

In the end use whatever you want.  You can lead the horses to water... and all that.

This forum, however, is for the imparting of knowledge as distinguished from MYTH.  MYTH gets law enforcement officers killed.  We don't allow it to go unchecked here.  People read these things seriously.  Rumors and Myth have a life of their own and must be strangled before they are permitted to go to far.  Hell, 40% of the forum still probably believes that 55 grain SP is a good man stopper because of what it does to Coyotes.  And if we have to call someone a "young fool" to get the point across, well, I'm willing to make the sacrifice.

Now where's my Midol?

Quoted: Thanks for that Oslow!  Excellent addition.

Cobray:

Every time you post you expose more and more that you don't understand terminal performance.  Really, I would suggest you just review this forum for awhile before continuing to post.  But then, you haven't taken my advice yet so I don't expect you to here.

Again, you can use whatever you want.  Just don't make unsupported claims here.

You paint all 5.56 rounds with the same brush in your last post.  That too is a mistake.

Let me show you why your postings drive people crazy:

Apparently you don't care who is behind the wall. I said birdshot because it will not penetrate walls and hit gaslines, and it will 100% distract the guy your shot if he is crazy enough to stay up, for you to pump a more lethal round into him

Do you have a reference for this proposition?

I said it [7.62mm] was more consistent.... Which it obviously is.

Do you have a reference for this proposition?  Consistent how?

Bird shot for the first and sometimes second shot has been a tradition for many years, I believe it is called the "Dutch load" or some such.

"Dutch Load" only means multiple kinds of rounds.  It has nothing to do with birdshot.  And since when is tradition a good tactics source?

Despite what you say, at 10 feet (home defense range) if someone gets hit with birdshot they are probably going to stop.

Do you have a reference for this proposition?  I have several examples (over 20) of stoppage failures with close range shots up to #4 buck.

Claims like this just brand you as a neophyte.  Sorry.

You know, in combat, you have this technique called "making sure".  It has given rise to such techniques as the double and triple tap.  You don't stop afer one round and survey the bag guy and ask him if he is sufficiently stopped.

And it applies to small arms of all calibers.  If I ever have to use my Winchester 1300 loaded with 00 buck, I will still double tap the tango because ammo is cheap and bein' sure is easy.  

Quoted: You know, in combat, you have this technique called "making sure".  It has given rise to such techniques as the double and triple tap.  You don't stop afer one round and survey the bag guy and ask him if he is sufficiently stopped. And it applies to small arms of all calibers.  If I ever have to use my Winchester 1300 loaded with 00 buck, I will still double tap the tango because ammo is cheap and bein' sure is easy.

I was originally taught to Mozambique everything if ammo wasn't an issue.

Quoted: The weight of shotgun ammunition doesn't really matter, I can't foresee that I would be traveling more than a few hundred feet with the shotgun.  As for armor, just aim for the arms or legs with birdshot, one shot to the arm will take it off in some instances.  At close range the AR-15 does not perform better than a shotgun in any way.  A shotgun can go out to 100 yards with slugs though. When it isn't close range, I will just use a 7.62 NATO And yes, I did mean consistent.  At least you know what to expect!

Are you 12?

Quoted: Quoted: You know, in combat, you have this technique called "making sure".  It has given rise to such techniques as the double and triple tap.  You don't stop afer one round and survey the bag guy and ask him if he is sufficiently stopped. And it applies to small arms of all calibers.  If I ever have to use my Winchester 1300 loaded with 00 buck, I will still double tap the tango because ammo is cheap and bein' sure is easy.   I was originally taught to Mozambique everything if ammo wasn't an issue.

Hell yes!

Quoted: If any of you have the special forces documentary from militaryphotos.net, go to time 13:20, is that a shotgun on his back?  The barrel looks huge, it may be some kind of giant 40mm grenade launcher, but ill be damned if it doesn't resemble a shotgun.

Proabally for use as a masterkey.

I don't know about you guys, but I *always* carry everything special forces carry, 'cuz they're ballistic GENIUSES!

Excuse me while I go kill lunch with my strider knife.

Wild boar anybody?  Rhino hock?