If I could only have 1 gun it would be a shotgun. Granted they dont have the long range capabilities of a good in line modern rifle. But for my region (northeast) rarely will there be a shot much over 50 yards. In close range a charge of shot will destroy almost anything. A slug will do incredible damage to about 50 yards. And for home-defense, nothing beats a shotgun. <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Although I understand your point, there are a few tradeoffs... shotguns are generally large and the ammunition for them is even larger. This limits the amount of ammo you can carry. Also, rifled slugs out of a shotgun aren't exactly the most accurate projectile out there... I've always preferred accuracy to "knock-down" power.

Part of my prejudice comes from encountering too many "good ol' boys" with shotguns following a "blood trail" because they didn't take the deer cleanly in the first place. That's no way to hunt as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a problem with actively tracking game instead of sitting in a stand all day. But once it comes down to taking the shot, that should be the end of the game.

If I could only have one weapon, I think it would be a .223 carbine (I'm fond of the Bushmaster brand, but just about any would do). These are lighter, highly accurate out to 100 yards or more, and high capacity in terms of ammo. Plus the ammo is fairly cheap and abundant (so that you can hunt small game with it), yet powerful enough to take larger game. I'm also fond of .22 caliber for many of the same reasons, but in a defensive capacity I wouldn't wanna bet my life on a rimfire cartridge.

Food for thought, JMHO... <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ben

What part does alcohol play in the "chasing the blood trail"!!?? <img src="images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

LOL!

Probably much more than anyone would care to admit. I think you've just reminded me why I stopped hunting on public land.

Benny F. Davis, Ph.D.

Yes your right about the rifled slugs, but have you tried the sbots yet? Those alot more accurate, and devestating. (To your your shoulder to, ouch!) Also, can a .223 take out a bird in flight? If you can your a good marksman, but you may be launching bullets for miles in every direction. <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I did occasionally shoot birds on the wing with my scoped Marlin .22 when I was young and stupid and waaaaaayy out in the country. Its hard to find anywhere so remote now that I would even try it. But no, flying birds is where the shotgun reigns supreme.

I haven't tried the new sbots, although I did read about them in the American Rifleman (I think) a few months back. I'll have to give 'em a try the next time I go bird hunting. Are they resonable in terms of price?

Ben

The sabots require a rifled shotgun barrel which is unsuited for birdshot. Perhaps a rifled choke tube would work in place of carrying two barrels, one rifled and one smoothbore. I never had much problem shooting 5 inch groups or less at one hundred yards using the old fashioned slugs and a smoothbore - certainly adequate for deer size game ( scope or rifle sights used ).

I'll agree that the shotgun is a very versitile tool. As to the slug accuracy debate, the combination of a rifled slug barrel and a "regular" barrel with chokes would solve a lot of problems. The rifled barrel and modern slugs can make for a very accurate hunting arm out to 100 yards. The "regular" barrel is wonderful for all the short range stuff.

Looks like I'm out-voted... I'm still partial to my carbine, but I guess its good I have a shotgun too! <img src="images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Not really out voted. I'm like a bar door...I can swing either way on this one. It really depends on where I am and what the situation is before I would make a final decision. I think an argument for a good carbine in a fairly lightweight caliber could be made. If defense against man was not an issue, to me the shotgun with extra barrel would be a little more versitile (of course there's always the ammo weight argument if in a move around situation!) <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Some good points by all involved in the "Great Gun Debate". The shotgun argument is a good one with todays ammo technology. The sabot round is impressive and is highly accurate to 200+ yards. The sabot is basically a smaller caliber projectile inside a sleave that is the same diameter as the bore. When the projectile leaves the barrel, the sleeve detaches immediately and the projectile maintains the spin provided by the sleeve. I've never been a big fan of the shotgun because of my interest in precision marksmanship, but it is the hands down champion at home defense. I have 3 custom built AR-15's (.223), two with open sights, one with a scope/bipod that are designed to shoot accurately out to 1,000 yards and I would not choose them for home defense because of all the walls they would go through before or after they took out the intruder. Nobody wants to shoot a member of their own family while trying to protect them. As for the .223 for deer and other medium game, they are capable of the job, but not a very good choice; not to mention they are illegal to hunt deer with in all but a handful of states because they lack the required energy at the target. They are also too damaging to small game to be a decent choice. I hate to dog the .223 because I have more invested in them than all my other guns combined, but facts are facts. My AR-15's only purposes in life are to win High Power Rifle matches, or rid the world of varmits... and they do that as well or better than any gun made. Guns are like tools; it would be nice to have one do it all, but that's not reality. I don't even own a shotgun, but I'd have to side with the shotgun guys when talking about them being an all-around weapon... I hope my other guns don't read this!
George

Im not certain how much sabots co$t but they are probably more expensive than standard slugs and less expensive then high powered rifle fodder. You could reload them to make it cheaper. <img src="images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Looks like I owe benman an apology. Im not sure of the terrain in California but in central New York the shotgun reigns supreme. That has some help in that only shotguns are allowed for deer season. But when shooting long distances with sharp eyed game, thats where the rifle comes into its own. Of coarse, with good stalking skills one could even (shorten actually <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />) the playing f eild and bring into shotgun range. I wish they still made 8, 6,2 and 0 gauges. Those look fun! <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Central New York? As in Brooklyn? <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Matt

Discarding sabot rounds for the moment, what I haven't seen here yet is a discussion of "less than lethal" or LTL rounds for shotguns, specifically for home defense situations. In our current legal climate, where you can get sued for killing someone who was just a microsecond away from pulling the trigger on you, LTL rounds gain some credibility as the first round in the shotgun barrel. I'm referring here to the "beanbag" or rubber ball rounds, which can be found on the Internet for about $4-6 U.S. each. Is that a lot of money? Sure. But hit an intruder with any of these at close range and he/she's not going to get up any time soon, which gives you time to chamber your very lethal 12-gauge buckshot round and politely tell them they have a choice - lay there until the police arrive or try their luck again.

No find New York (State) and put your finger on the center of it and Im somewhere in there. Dont use black magic and try crushing me though!

I dunno. I have heard its just better to blow them away the first time, otherwise they sue you. Sued if ya dont, sued if ya do. Plus they could grab their gun and get you if you arnt careful. If you want a cheaper LTL get some dust or #9 or higher shot. That ought to do the trick, and wont go through any walls.

If I crushed you where would I kayak?

Matt

Or just get a Tazer and mount it to the forearm...

Less than lethat? We're not that "enlightened" down here... if someone breaks into my house and I'm lucid enough to know what's happening, then they are going to have a very bad day.

A couple of years back, our Attorney General even wrote an open letter to SC Law Enforcement stating that they were NOT to charge anyone who had shot someone while defending their own home.

I love the South! <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I agree. If someone is in your house with a gun with bad intents (dont turn on your hunting buddy for coming in for some hot coffea after a freezeing hunting trip, I mean coffea aint that expensive!) certainly blow em away. Most criminals will flee when found out, the best thing to do there wold be to send a few reminders to fall all around them once they get out far enough.

You have an enlightened Attorney General, then. I was thinking specifically of a case in Texas where a storage facility owner boobytrapped his place with a 12-gauge shotgun because the druggies were breaking into it on a regular basis. The next kid that did so died instantly. The owner was charged with murder, acquitted after a jury trial, but then the kid's family sued him for wrongful death, and won! That's a case where a Less Than Lethal round would have saved the property owner a lot of grief.

Yes, but it probably wouldn't have deterred them either. They would have just carried off their unconcious friend and come back on the next night... remembering to duck when they opened the door!

Its a wonder he got off in criminal court (gotta love those Texans!)... The law seems to frown on booby traps of any kind. My dad used to tell me that "in the old days", they used to put up a false wall with a peep hole behind the counter in liquor stores. They would pay some guy to sit back there with a shotgun and if someone tried to rob the store, the guy in the back would just blow him away. The courts quickly made that practice illegal. I guess they didn't think it was very sporting for the criminal.

Funny! The crime rate seemed to be much lower back then... you know, before everybody started worrying about the "rights" of the criminals. <img src="images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Thats why I say shotguns are wonderful. They have the deterance factor. They can back the deterence factor up with power. They can hunt any game. And ammo isnt a big problem if one is prepared to carry it. They are easy to reload, and shells can be tailored to fit anyones needs. Remington has introduced a new sabot round that utilizes their Core-lokt bullets.

Hi all,



Am I in the wrong forum??? Is this a place for anybody
to discuss his / her personal fetishes??? You talk about
weapons as they are some kind of daisies... Ouch!!!!



What's next? A cruise missile in the garden to prevent the
neighbours's son stealing some apples????

Ok, maybe I'm nuts, but in the past I knew this forum to be a
place for everybody to discuss 'normal' and 'peaceful'
survival topics...<img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Sir Vivor

OK, so you are not interested in discussing firearms as survival tools. That is certainly a point of view. You might find it a less than useful point of view in some scenarios. Depending upon your estimation of the likelyhood of ever having to face these scenarios your view of the need for firearms will be different. Let's run through some of these scenarios.

1) Dropped in the wilderness and need to collect food since you will not be getting out this week. Yes, you can use snares until they run out. Yes, you can eat nuts, berries and mushrooms until you poison yourself accidentally. Yes, the firearm will only help until the ammo runs out. Nonetheless, the firearm is moderately helpful here. Which you choose is a matter of quite interesting discussion after you accept the utility of the tool. Many think that the shotgun is a decent tool for gathering small game and large game with the same tool.

2) Large scale disaster (terrorist attack, severe storm, volcanic activity, tsunami, asteroid impact, anti-war protests) results in breakdown in the rule of law and you can no-longer depend upon the law enforcement individuals to protect you with their weapons. This might be due to damage to roads or to the general lawlessness of riots. In this situation a firearm is a tool that some would consider useful in protecting the preparations that they have from the appropriation of others. If you accept the utility of the tool then discussing whether the shotgun is better than the .45 handgun is appropriate.

3) Intruders from burglars to those with personal homicidal intent. These situations can not be met without some sort of defensive plan. Giving up you stuff may satisfy the common burglar but will do nothing to defend you from someone with true maliscious intent. The police will attempt to find and bring to justice the criminal after - AFTER - they commit the crime. This does nothing to prevent the crime other than engendering a general sense of danger to the profession of the criminal. Unfortunately criminals continue to exist in all societies in spite of this danger of being brought to justice. Again, if you accept the utility of a firearm in such a scenario the discussing whether a shotgun is better than a .45 handgun is appropriate.

These are not an issue of this policy of this site but rather more related to this statement on urban preparedness.

Sorry dude. Guess we got a little side tracked. I hope it wont happen again. Now then, on to mountain lion attacks and thier ravaging psycological and physical effects! <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

And anyway it is not uncommon for the shooter to make a special relationship with thier gun, some gun/outdoor writers refer to guns as wives and lawyers. Old 1700 British soldiers and I'm sure many others even spent time thinking up names for their guns, like betsy. Hey, if you sleep with it, at least know its name! <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

So does anybody know where I can get a "garden variety" cruise missile?

That would be cooooool, heh heh heh! <img src="images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

It's a good close quarter firearm. Especially if you're using the right "shot" size. I'd go with at least "double-ought" or 00 shot size.

It's forgiving weapon, which means within 30 yards, you won't have to be right on the target. I've got rifles sighted beyond 100 yards, but if my family is involved... the last thing I want to do is find long range targets...especially having responsibilities to my family. My family will be priority... So I'll be hiding with an old 12 gauge double barrel with my wife and kids. At least it's very simple to operate and my wife can use and operate a double barrel without difficultly.

In reference to South Carolina, here's Kentucky's long standing opinion:

"It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to…he is not obligated to retreat, nor to consider whether he can safely retreat, but is entitled to stand his ground, and meet any (life-threatening) attack made upon him with a deadly weapon…." Kentucky Court of Appeals. Gibson v. Commonwealth, 34 SW 936 (Ky. 1931).

If I would carry a shotgun into the wilderness it would be a rifle/shotgun combo.You will have two weapons in one.