Shotguns

Posted by: GeorgeM

Shotguns - 06/26/05 07:28 PM

What do y'all think of the Winchester Defender, Model 1300? It is a 12 gauge pump shotgun with an 18'' barrel, and holds eight shells.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 06/26/05 08:19 PM

My Dad had one, I shot it a few times, and he sold it.
Did not feel as solid as my 870, IMHO.
I would rather have the Remington, or a Mossberg 590.
Posted by: duckear

Re: Shotguns - 06/26/05 10:19 PM

It is fine. But IMHO the 870 is better. But that's just me. Ford vs Chevy.

Go look at the Benelli Nova. I went from 870 to the Nova for ducks about 6 years ago and really like my Nova.

They make a marine version and a shorter defense barrel.
Posted by: Stu

Re: Shotguns - 06/26/05 10:29 PM

A wise man once said "No home security system is complete without a 12 gauge shotgun!"
Posted by: brian

Re: Shotguns - 06/26/05 11:13 PM

I have to agree. I have owned an 870 (long barrel sporting model) and well as a Defender and a 500 series Mossberg. I prefer the mossberg but I am a southpaw so that is really the deciding factor for me. My 870 was a great field gun though so I imagine that defense version is just as good. I dont think I would ever own another Defender.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 06/26/05 11:51 PM

George, the 1300, the 870 and teh 500 are all quality rigs, widely used by police around the world.( I guess a lot of agencies and units in Europe are picking up the 1300- Winchester is owned by FN, which is owned by GIAT, and they are dressing up some 1300 varients for military or police sales in the FN catalog.) And the Nova is a Benelli product- saying Benelli is like saying BMW, you know it is quality. LAPD SWAT, the SAS, the SEALs and a lot of other name droppable units use their autoloaders.

Go to a couple of shops, see what you can get a feel for. Work the actions, see how it feels when you dry fire and how the slide feels. Try to find the controls with your eyes closed. As the guy behind the counter if he has some snap caps- odds are good he might. You use those to get a feel for how it loads and feeds. Pick the two you like the best, and THEN look at price tags. :P Remember to buy a bunch of ammo, so you can get use to it.

It isn't easier than asking us, but it is more effective. We can't tell you what will feel right in your hands. And that is what is going to matter in the long run. What feels best might be a WWII surplus model 12 with half the finish worn away, or a budget model from the Phillipeans (Armscorp is a little rough in thier finish, but thier stuff is supposed to be used by the Phillipino internal sercurity guys in the jungle- they've been doing anti-guerilla work for a century in that jungle, they won't settle for junk), or maybe a big name, brand new "boomsitck" from a custom shop.

Never by guns, knives or shoes for someone else, becuase you can't predict what will feel really good for them.
Posted by: GeorgeM

Re: Shotguns - 06/27/05 02:30 AM

Thanks for the tips. I agree that the Remington, Mosberg, and Winchester are all quality shotguns. I have used a Remington 870 in the past, but I like the feel of the Winchester and Mosberg. I will look at them all more closely.
Posted by: Alejandro

Re: Shotguns - 06/27/05 02:08 PM

Hi George,
In this field I have a little experience. My recommendation, as far a defense, is to stay with the 870 and 590. Neither the extractor nor the quality of the barrels of the 1300 have ever satisfied me.
You can not go wrong with an 870, very smooth system and great accuracy, and a 590 will offer you a very good trigger and a drilled box which will allowed you to install different kind o sights.
Also think in two accessories for your defensive shotgun, a Surefire forearm tactical light and ghost rings. Other stuff is just adding to much weigh, at least form my stand point.
Hope this helps.
Posted by: anotherinkling

Re: Shotguns - 06/27/05 04:38 PM

The Win 1300 Defender is great, especially for the money. 18" barrel, fiber optic front sight, 8 shell capacity, parkerized, with the option of using a pistol grip. Mine's been very accurate and reliable with a fast action. I have mine in urban apartment defense mode with a pistol grip and birdshot. With the full stock I've also done skeet shooting (informal, of course) with it and have been surprised by it's accuracy. The Mossbergs have a looser feel. The Remington 870 is solid and smooth, but I couldn't find one configured like the 1300.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 06/27/05 04:53 PM

I've had a 870 for the past two years and the best thing about it is that everything is interchangable with lots of aftermarket items. Gives you other options if you'd like to use it more for just home defense.
Posted by: anotherinkling

Re: Shotguns - 06/27/05 06:38 PM

Good note. Both the Mossbergs and Remingtons have more after-market options. Something to consider if you're wanting to customize a whole lot.
Posted by: duckear

Re: Shotguns - 06/27/05 08:12 PM

The 870 is the basic platform for 95% of all custom "tactical" pump shotguns. If that is the route you want to go, 870 is the way to go.



Posted by: brian

Re: Shotguns - 06/27/05 10:32 PM

That is a very good point and I tend to agree. Now if only I wasnt left-handed. Maybe one day I will just spring for a left-handed shotgun. Then the silly thing will actually eject on the proper side. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: GeorgeM

Re: Shotguns - 06/28/05 12:52 AM

Thanks for all the useful information. I appreciate it. George
Posted by: Stu

Re: Shotguns - 06/28/05 12:58 AM

While you still can, get a Ithaca Model 37 pump. Bottom eject. I'm a lefty and I use several, works fine for me. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: brian

Re: Shotguns - 06/28/05 01:55 AM

Reminds me of a Wilson Combat scattergun.
Posted by: brian

Re: Shotguns - 06/28/05 01:55 AM

Browning used to make a bottom ejector too didn't they? I wonder if they still do.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 06/28/05 02:12 AM

The BPS. I saw one that marked as a police model once, 20 inch barrel, improved cylinder, rifle sights. Good work, but not terribly common. If you want to trick it out, you are out of luck.
Posted by: johnbaker

Re: Shotguns - 06/28/05 09:29 AM

George,

Hi!

Ironsraven has provided a very good summary comparison.

On a more subjective note, I have used and owned both. The Mossberg 500 was my first real shotgun; the Remington 870 was my second (acquired as a steal of a deal for a 15 yo a year and a half later). I much preferred the looks and feel of the Remington. I traded away the Mossberg ; I still have the Remington 40 years later. The last 2 guns I bought were Remington 870 Express model for my sons.

Let me to give you an idea of the reliability of a good pump gun: I reload my own ammo. Occasionally some of it will not readily chamber in the mostly gas operated semi-automatics that I tend to shoot nowadays. When I have accumulated enough of those rejects, I shoot a round of skeet with my Rem. 870 police model and the semi-automatics' rejects. Nearly all of the ammo, which was rejected by a semi-auto for sizing reasons can be made to function through my Rem 870. And the functioning is adequated for skeet shooting purposes. Guess what I rely on for defensive purposes. Incidentally, I have no reason to believe that the Mossberg 500 would be any less reliable than the Rem. 870 for defensive purposes. My trade of the M500 was due only for reasons of esthetics and economics for a poor farm boy.

Good luck,

John
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 06/29/05 12:43 PM

Think about a 20 Gauge. Would you rather be hit by a 12 GA or a 20 GA? I'd say neither, they'll both do me in. The 20 is a bit lighter and handier, less muzzle flash and recoil at 3 AM, shells are lighter to carry (if need be), and it covers a doorway, at normal CQC ranges, just as well as the 12. Testosterone not included.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 06/29/05 09:07 PM

20 ga is very good for people who are recoil sensative. Unfortunately, that means that the guns are usually lighter, so you loose some of the advantage there, but you still have most of it.

As far as weight per shell and muzzle flash, it will be negligable.

Two big draw-backs to 20ga.:

-It isn't as common. As a result, there is no were near the range of options for ammo as you find in 12ga, and nothing that I've ever seen in terms of reduced-lethality rounds (beanbags, etc). On that point, not much that can be done with a 20ga that can't be done with a 12-ga loaded with lower pressure loads. There are number of low-recoil loadings out there, but they are either sporting rounds (small bird shot at low speed, but not inconsiquential), or targetted to law enforcement (hard to find, expensive).

-20ga is a funny size, mechanically. I personally suggest NEVER owning both a 20ga and a 12ga, as a 20ga shell can slip down the barrel of a 12ga pretty easily. If you don't notice that a 20 has gotten mixed in, you could load it, have it go into the chamber, not go off, and you assume it is a dud. In a stressful situation, you load a fresh shell, and fire, blowing the barrel on the shotgun and probably making you a casuality.

Neither of those are enough to remove the 20ga from consideration, but are factors that need to be considered.

Posted by: MGF

Re: Shotguns - 06/30/05 03:34 AM

Ironsraven,

NEVER, as not even for a very experienced shotgunner?

Dude, I'd have to disagree. I've got a SigArms TR20U (made by B. Rizzini) in 20 ga. that's a pretty delightful bird gun. Every time I think about sellin' it, I take it for one last hunt and it handles so sweetly and shoots so well I can't part with it.

In the lighter gauges, I actually favor the 28, but have to admit its loads are a bit light for wild pheasants (though OK on game preserve or state-stocked birds).

I preload my bag and vest the night before, and I've never had a problem. If I do carry a box of different gauge shells (for brother or nephew), I separate it from my gear and leave it in the Contico truck box.

I dunno, dude...hate to disagree a man with your gun knowledge, but I kind of have to on this one.

IIf you've got the experience, training, the craving and the bucks, IMHO it's OK to own shotguns in several gauges.

...And my next one's going to be a 16 ga. ... unless I keep buyin' survival gear. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: brian

Re: Shotguns - 06/30/05 04:29 AM

Less noise too and in a small room that may be significant as far as it's effects on you hearing..
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 06/30/05 06:17 AM

Here here. IIRC, a 28 in a 16 is just like a 20 in 12. So what? This is like saying never, ever speed because it increases your chances of a wreck.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/01/05 12:24 PM

MGF, I have to agree. I've been hunting/shooting since I was 10 and now my son is 13. I never, and I mean NEVER, reached for the wrong ammo. If you can't keep that straight, you shouldn't own or be around firearms. Period.

If TSHTF, the only gun/ammo that should be handy is the ammo intended for that purpose. If there's a 20 ga under the bed, about the only ammo I could reach for by mistake is my 45 ammo or 357, but that's on the Mrs side : )

Can't keep it straight? Buy a nice Louisville!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/01/05 12:36 PM




Ironsaven,

I'll agree that the 12 can be loaded down, and if that's an option for the user, it could be the way to go. Of course, if the user can load their own, then they can creat just about any 20 gauge they prefer as well. And any reduction in noise, recoil, flash, etc. in a closed room is beneficial. Either way, make it a pump. While performing research some years ago for a crime thesis, I found that the racking of the slide was the deterrant. Not the gauge, etc.

Also, I'm a little concrened with your comments regarding non-lethal force. For LE, that could be relevant, but for private citizens it can get you into a world of trouble. In PA, you'd better not draw your weapon unless lethal force is required.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Shotguns - 07/01/05 06:39 PM

I've always wondered about this, and the guys that I know that hunt just give me a look and start talking about something else.

Question: why do people hunt game with shotguns? Doesn't it shred the (small game) meat into oblivion, and isn't what meat is left embedded with bits of shot?

My uncle used to use a rifle and shoot a duck or whatever in the head. That way, the meat was intact and uncontaminated. Am I missing something obvious here?

Sue
Posted by: NAro

Re: Shotguns - 07/01/05 06:52 PM

Susan, in most circumstances it is illegal, or at lease considered unsporting to shoot a bird unless it is on-the-wing. So a shotgun gives you a chance, though it is not by any means as easy as you might think. Rabbits and other small mammals are fair game with most firearms.
Of course in a survival situation, who cares about being sportsmanly.. use whatever you have!

Yes, if you're too close with a shotgun you can make a mess. And yes, there may well be shot in the meat (with all the dental implications). I have a friend who duck hunts, and X-rays his kill to find any stray shot.But he's a Vet. and has the machine to do this at little cost.
Posted by: duckear

Re: Shotguns - 07/01/05 10:19 PM

Susan,
It is illegal to hunt ducks with a rifle.
It is considered by most to shoot ducks off the water as unsporting. This is mostly by family or local tradition. I won't do it,but won't condemn someone else if it is legal where they hunt.
Pellets in the meat is not as much of a problem as Hollywood and Ahnud & Co. would have you think. Most ducks I kill have 0-1 pellets in the breast, and I find 99% while cleaning. Can't remember the last pellet I bit into. Afterall, you should be pointing for the head. Most beginning duck hunters see this big ol bird and shoot for the body. More cripples that way.
X-raying dead ducks? He has too much time on his hands or doesn't hunt very much. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

BTW, I hunt a lot of ducks.

duckear
Posted by: Hutch4545

Re: Shotguns - 07/01/05 10:38 PM

My two cents:

Semi-auto - Benelli M1 Super 90
Pump - Remington 870






Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/01/05 10:56 PM

I say it becuase the next person I meet who can tell a 20 from a 12 by touch, in the dark, will be the first. We are talking home defense- if you don't store it loaded, as many jurisdictions require, that is what you will be doing. If you want to do something like stash your 20ga fodder on another shelf, that's great. I don't have that option, based on space, a lot of people don't. If the two are near eachother, the risk is there. And in my opinion, an unnessesary one. You compaired it to speeding, I'd compair it to Russian roullette.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/01/05 11:24 PM

Well, Josey, I'm not aware of any jursidiction where the use of reduced lethalityloads is illegal. I've also never heard of it being frowned on.

I suggest it because most people who use a shotgun do so in a suburban enviroment. A pellet of 00-buck can pass thought a lot of dry rock and plywood before it stops; rubber shot or bean bags, not very many layers. If you are thinking in terms of the slime's litigation, you will have a better chance with the jury becuase you can demonstrate that you were taking extra steps to not inflict perminant injury if possible.

And I challange anyone to take bean bag to the chest and stay standing. I am fully aware of the minimum employment range, and if I lived someplace were that wasn't possible, I wouldn't use a shotgun, it would be too bulky. Yes, you want 10-15 feet from the muzzle to the target with reduced-lethality kinetics, because closer than that, you frequently might as well be using lead. BUT, that does NOT change that you are taking the extra step. When you face the jury, you make utterly sure your lawyer asks you the range question. And you answer it honestly, and state that even with reduced lethality rounds, you would only fire if you were in fear of your life or those of others, the same as you would with regular ammo. You use exactly the same rules of engagement.

Law enforcement has different ROE in a riot, but if they shoot with a low lethality munition, it is becuase in thier personal opinion, enhnaced by thier training, that they or another are in imminent danger. And only then, or it is assault, as in no job, before the judge, found guilty, and thier new roommates know they were a cop.

I don't see that much of a difference. If others want to, I'd ask them about pepper spray and tasers. It greatly reduces any doubt of criminal liability, and the civil one is always there. But in that case, as I said, you have an edge. The 12 idiots on the jury are less likely to find against you if you can show you didn't want this drug fiend/rapist/murderer who broke into your house waving a machete at 3am to NOT have a chance to make a better life for himself.

And I never suggested that people use reloads, especially anything custom. Reload for hunting and target practice. If you get dragged into a court room, and plaintiff's exhibit B is your reloading bench, they will make it sound like you hand crafted the ultimate, high explosive, armour peircing, heat seaking, blood drinking, manslayer round, and the poor victem of your vigilante commando complex is alive only by miracle and buck fever on your part.

That isn't a theoretical, that is a real world situation. It has happened, and it will happen again.

However, you can buy, through a well stocked gun store, reduced recoil loads that were origionally developed for law enforcement. They have the recoil of a 20ga, and the payload of a 12ga. And they usually use a lower flash powder, so they don't dazzle you as badly. That kind of shop will usually have a lot of noise about police supplies, and cater mostly to law enforement, but if you ask for low recoil buckshot for home defense, they will very happily sell it to you. And you have a good person to ask questions of behind the counter.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 12:45 AM

Gee, duckear, hunts ducks...who'da thunk? But seriously, I've got to agree, my personal experience on birds and small game has been very few pellets in the part of the animal I'm gonna eat. If there were, I'd probably seriously consider a .22, but then, you might as well shoot over a spot-light from your car.

Troy
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 12:58 AM

Where do you have to keep home defense guns unloaded in your HOME??? I want to know where NOT to move to.

Troy
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 01:06 AM

I don't know about anywhere else, but the Guv recently let legislation pass through that says the authorities can't come after you for defending your home, in your home (Richie Daley nearly had a stroke, good for him)... whoever I need to deal with isn't going to survive to sue me.

Long live the N.R.A.

Troy
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 01:33 AM

Yes, Susan, you are. I seriously doubt your uncle shot ducks on the wing with a rifle. And no, unless you are too close, a shotgun does not shread meat. As for imbedded pellets, eat carefully.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 01:37 AM

I assure you, most experienced gun people can tell the difference between a 12 and a 20 by feel, if they have any experience at all with both. For example, my thumb will go into the barrel of a 12; it won't go into a 20.
Posted by: norad45

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 01:57 AM

As others have said, it is usually illegal, not to mention unsportsmanlike, to hunt ducks with anything but a shotgun, and to hunt them any other way but on the wing (survival scenarios excepted of course.) As far as shot damage goes, in the old days of lead shot, you'd mostly get pass-thru. For about 20 years however the FWS has mandated steel (non-toxic) shot. Since steel is only about 75% as dense as lead, it penetrates comparatively poorly. I quit hunting ducks partly because of that.

But now there are new types of non-toxic shot which are denser than steel (Bismuth and tungsten.) I may have to take it up again.

Of course this only really concerns the hunting of waterfowl. None of this has anything directly to do with hunting pheasant, chucker, or other upland game. For the most part you can still use lead shot on these tasty critters, at least where I live.

Regards, Vince
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 02:33 AM

Depends on where you are. Here in Vermont, it can happen, but I'll take a jury of old Vermonters over a bit of legislation any day. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 02:36 AM

LOL, I know the feeling. That's why I didn't take a job in Mass. There are a number of city and county-level jurisdictions that have stated that all firearms must be stored unloaded. And since it is illegal to discharge a firearm in those limits, unless you are on the range, on the line, it is illegal to have a shell in the chamber. DC, of course, some places in Maryland and Mass, probably others. Maybe Chicago and the greater New York City area, I don't know.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 02:46 AM

"I seriously doubt your uncle shot ducks on the wing with a rifle."

Umm... yes, he did. I was just a young kid, but his friends seemed to think it was some kind of a joke, because they were always razzing him about it. One guy asked if he did any competition target shooting, and another guy laughed and said my uncle didn't, because there was no fun in hitting a target that didn't move.

This was in the old days when uncles could "babysit" in a bar as long as the kid didn't have beer in the bottle.

It's all I can do to keep the car between the lines on the road. I guess all my eye/hand coordination came from the other side of the family. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Sue
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 02:58 AM

20 years experince, thank you for asking.

Oh, I assure you, my thumb fits in the chamber of either, and I can't tell the shells apart by feel when I'm fully awake. If we are talking about a defensive firearm, you might want to be able to do whatever you need to by touch if you have to. I don't expect people to be able to clean and strip blind folded, but able to find the right ammo and get them in is something I'd consider worthwhile.



Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 03:06 AM

Well, rand, I wouldn't speak too soon. It used to be a pretty common bit of the trick shooter's shtick in wild west shows to shoot doves or clays with a pistol or a carbine.



This message has been edited. The origional posting contained a most unseemly display of temper, and I apologise to anyone who saw it. Congrats, rand, you got my goat.
Posted by: MGF

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 03:16 AM

Re taking bird on the ground: Where I live, it is actually illegal to take sporting birds (pheasant, quail, etc.) on the ground. As well it should be.

Do shotguns tear up the fowl? For the most part, no. Once in a while, yes, but experienced gunners learn not to take those shots. Even on a shot that does tear up some meat, you can salvage 3/4 of the meat on a given bird with a pair of game shears and a filet knife.

Re using a rifle on flying birds: It can be done. I've seen a couple guys good enough that they could do it with some consistency if they wanted to. Could probably do it myself on some shots (a flaring bird in close isn't actually a very tough shot). Still, it is ill-advised and dangerous ... a lowly .22-caliber long-rifle shell can travel 1.5 miles in the air, and they gotta come down somewhere. Also, a warden catches you with rifle shells in the blind, you may have some big trouble, as waterfowl hunting is both state and federally regulated.

Re defense: I can see ironsraven's points about shells in the dark, storage etc. I never looked at it that way because I haven't had to. My sporting guns are locked away unloaded; my defense gun is not not locked away and is loaded (no kids at the house). I agree: I would not keep shotguns of two different gauges at hand for defensive purposes.

Sorry about all the "re"s and the definitive statements; i'm no expert; just trying to share my opinions on several topics quickly.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 04:22 AM

Yeah, but you gotta admit it is rare, rare.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 04:44 AM

Raven,

I don't want to get into some sort of pissing match over a silly subject. but as of last month I've been doing this for 41 years, 20 or so of that time with EDC. All I can say is that everydoby's level of skill, dexterity, and manual sensitivity is different.

It's all a matter of practice and familiarity. At one time I could tell the difference between a low-power .38 sub-load and a hot .357 by feel in the loops in the back of my belt - but I wouldn't want to depend on it any more because I'm out of practice.

Folks need to try to get over their testosterone load when it comes to weapons and truly evaluate their skill set. Then, either enlarge their skills, or limit themselves accordingly.
Posted by: Burncycle

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 06:12 AM

Quote:
But now there are new types of non-toxic shot which are denser than steel (Bismuth and tungsten.) I may have to take it up again.


Isn't tungsten a heavy metal?
Posted by: norad45

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 12:15 PM

The various types of non-toxic shot approved for waterfowl are listed here, including tungsten:

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/nontoxic_shot/nontoxic.htm

The article I read regarding tungsten shot was interesting and I wish I could remember the writer. His opinion was that the FWS mandating steel shot was a blessing in disguise for waterfowlers. It forced ammo companies to develop new and improved shot wads, buffers, and propellants in order to make steel shot perform at an acceptable level. Now that bismuth and tungsten have been developed, which are much denser than steel (although still not as dense as lead), the result is a much better overall package than what was available 20 years ago with the old-fashioned lead shot.

Regards, Vince
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 05:16 PM

I can't speak for your uncle, don't know him, but I don't doubt it one bit, I knew two different farmers (long gone on to better hunting grounds now) that regularly took low flying geese with a .22... it might not have been legal, but they kept their families fed, and sporting or not, I won't judge a fellow for putting food on the plate.

Troy
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/02/05 10:02 PM

Raven, as randjack said, I, too, do not want to get into a pissing match. It's not necessarily a question of the non-lethal load being illegal, but a question of litigious liability. In today's world, you can be sued for yelling at a burgular. No, they might not win, but you might spend about $70,000 defending yourself (which happens to be a current estimate for defending yourself in a righteous shooting).

People should think twice before pulling the trigger and it's always best to run when you can. But if you must make a stand, IMHO and the NRA instructors who lead our course in home defense, if you draw your gun, you'd better shoot to kill. If you didn't want to kill him/her, then your life was not in danger. It is much more difficult to defend an attempt at wounding someone, than it is to defend your actions in an attempt to kill them, or in fact, killing them. If you attempt to wound, then your life must not have been in danger...and they'll eat you alive!

If you draw your gun, your life, or the life of someone in proximity to you, had better be in danger. Or you have no business drawing that gun. A non-lethal response, to the jurors (12 people too stupid to find a way out of jury duty), could come across as you were pissed, but not in fear for your life. And remember, a non-lethal response can be interpreted as attempted homicide. As the leutenant who ran that portion of the course explained, "When cops show up at your house, at 3AM, and there's a body on the floor, they're looking for a murderer and you're it. And they'll do everything they can to prove you did it and send you to jail, because that's their job." Scary, isn't it?

Reason: is there a non-lethal weapon that if used incorrectly could not in fact inflict a fatal wound? Your sand bags to the chest could strike a temple and cause brain injury, leading to death, or worse a coma! This of course depends on the condition of the attacker. But if a young child can die on an amusement ride, anything is possible. If that weapon has the potential to kill, then you are screwed anyway. What's important is using a force that is equal to or justifiably greater than your assailant. But again, if your life is not in danger, you shouldn't pull the gun. And if you pull the gun, you'd better mean to kill someone. Again, IMHO, run like hell if you can! Lock yourself and family in a room, face the door, and call 911.

I was not advocating reloads for self-defense either, as you are correct they'll hang you for sure. Hell, just using a Colt Python could hurt becuase that's a "killer" snake. Thank you for clarifyin that, because I wouldn't want anyone using reloads.

Last piece of friendly advice to everyone. Practice!!! Get to the range as often as you can. Sign and date the targets and have a range officer sign them as well. Thiss, too, will come in handy at trial. It shows you were responsible as a gun owner. However, this can backfire. Citizens certified in the use of firearms are held to a higher standard in the use of firearms, than are those who have no formal training. Basically, the more you know, the better your legal and physical judgement and abilities are expected to be.

We're on the wrong side of this whole mess. The bottom line is would you prefer to be carried by 6 or judged by 12?
Posted by: MGF

Re: Shotguns - 07/03/05 03:25 AM

Susan,

One of the main reasons society prefers that people hunt fowl with shotguns is that it's safer for people, property and those animals (including hunting dogs) that are not the objects of the hunt.

Shotgun pellets (compared to rifle bullets) are relatively small, not terribly aerodynamic projectiles. After a short distance, say a 100 yards or so for upland birdshot, they loose their speed and most of their capability to do harm. (Ask any experienced shotgunner if he's ever been "rained on" at a dove field or a public hunting grounds.)

Conversely, imagine a duck pond or lake, or a dove field, with hunters around the perimeter firing rifles at flying birds. How'd you like own property near that one? Or be within a couple miles? All those bullets gotta come down!

Also, it's comparatively earier to take a flying object out of the air with pattern of small projectiles than with a single projectile.

None of which makes wingshooting or "shooting flying" exactly easy. It is, IMHO, every bit as fun as handgun or rifle shooting, but an entirely different game based on nearly entirely different gunning skills.

Mark
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/04/05 07:14 PM

Oh, I think people are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

IF I'm using a 12ga, there will be less lethal in the tube, yes. And I can pull buckshot out of the sidesaddle PDQ. IMHO, there is no reason to use a shotgun if you aren't going to take advantage of the versatility. Buckshot? Slug? A good carbine will stop someone just as well, and with less danger to others. If you miss with shot, even one pellet (and that is pretty easy), who knows where it will go. And slugs can measure thier penetration in the number of houses, not walls.

If people had read all my posts, they would know I accept the fact that if I shoot someone, I will be sued. It is a given for me. And I take it on very safe odds I will be charged with manslaughter, even if the judge tosses it out.

Also, if they had been reading them all, they would have noticed what I use- a mini-14 with ulta-light varmit bulltets. They expand all they can expand in 3-4 inches, and by that point they are moslty just slivers and bits. Do you really think I'm going to risk my neck for thiers? When I lived in my one room "efficency" (officailly, Vermont doesn't have slums) that was 15x20, I slept with a SHARP broadsword at my bedside.

Maybe I over estimate the legal ammunition that might be gleaned from using rubber shot by the private individual. But I know it helps covers cops backsides a couple of times a year; if my system can handle something like that, I use it. Every tool, every chance, every thing helps you survive if you use it.

It doesn't me squat if you don't.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Shotguns - 07/04/05 07:28 PM

That was what I was trying to do. But I won't bother to try to argue about who started the arguement, becuase it takes to dance.

And in any case, as I said, you are the first person in a while to really get my goat. Should have known you were a lawyer. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It's all good, man. And I want to figure out that trick, of telling loads that close by weight.
Posted by: Paul810

Re: Shotguns - 07/04/05 09:57 PM

Years ago my grandfather slept with a police riot shotgun under his bed loaded with rock salt shot (laced with Cayenne pepper) shells made by a buddy of his. That was considered "less than lethal" 30 years ago. Now they put you behind bars for even owning shells like that. Now instead you can buy rubber bullets, bean bags, slugs,flechette rounds, flares, buck shot, bird shot, steel shot, tungston shot, basically, anything you want in varying degrees of lethality and legality. That is the one reason why you can't beat a shotgun, it can do a bit of everything, nothing perfectly I guess, but it can do way more then any other firearm.

Anyway, I guess what I am saying is no matter what, if you use a shotgun (or any firearm for that matter) on another human you better be prepared to take a life, both for the mental aspect and the legal aspect. It doesn't matter if you are loaded with rubber bullets or depleted uranium rounds, if you fire the weapon for defense you are shooting to kill and you have a good reason to do that. Whether or not the person you shot lives, is an after thought to be sorted out after the threat is gone.
Posted by: OrangeJoe

Re: Shotguns - 07/08/05 01:40 AM

I hate to hijack this, still. Josey when you say:

"... But if you must make a stand, IMHO and the NRA instructors who lead our course in home defense, if you draw your gun, you'd better shoot to kill. If you didn't want to kill him/her, then your life was not in danger. It is much more difficult to defend an attempt at wounding someone, than it is to defend your actions in an attempt to kill them, or in fact, killing them. If you attempt to wound, then your life must not have been in danger...and they'll eat you alive!"

Don't you mean that you must shoot Center Of Mass to STOP assailant. That you knew death or serious bodily injury would be the result of your actions, but the situation required you to attack in such a way. STILL your intent was to STOP not to KILL. If a cop hears you say -at 3AM- that you wanted to KILL your assaillant I would think that would trigger the 'nod and wink' between the cops present, who would then promptly escort you to the local lockup.

If you say you shot the perp because you wanted to STOP him, that would seem more reasonable.

1 Deadly force was justified
2 You chose to use it.

If you say you wanted to KILL.

1 Deadly force was justified
2 You wanted to KIlLL
3 Maybe deadly force was NOT justified (cops shakes his head as he can't beleive you just said out loud that you wanted to KILL perp). As situation is not crystal clear he has to take the case to local DA (and you to jail).

The way I hear it from Masaab Ayoob, (and my firearms instructor and a local state judge who attended my last class) is closer to the above than yours; he is often part of that afore-mentioned $70,000 legal defense team, as he testifies as an expert witness in justifiable shooting cases.

What do you say.

[color:"purple"] And to get back to the local program..I own a 590. Would buy another one! [/color]
Posted by: MGF

Re: Shotguns - 07/08/05 05:03 AM

Orange Joe is correct.

(1) A lawful shooter employs deadly force to put an end to the attacker's deadly force. At the point one is forced to employ deadly force, the outcome (wound or death) is a concern for later. Seconds or minutes later, perhaps, but later.

(2) You shoot for center mass because that (A) is where you have the best chance of hitting an individual in the hyper-stressed moment and (Aa) center mass has the best collection of vital organs/nervous system components likely to incapacitate the attacker and end the actions that forced one to employ deadly force in the first place.

(3) In many locales, deadly force can only legally be applied to protect life, not property.

Where did I learn these tidbits? From reading (including Ayoob) and from police instructors, at least one of them a survivor of a gunfight.

Finally, appreicate the low-cost, sincere, well-intended and generally useful training available from NRA instructors, but don't confuse them as a group with full-time professionals ... either in law or weapon handling.

I can tell you that you don't have to be a lawyer, a cop, a crack shot or a mental giant to become an NRA instructor. Heck, I took all the training and was certified at one time to be an NRA instructor (pistol, rifle, safety). Enjoyed it, learned a lot and glad I did it, but the simple truth is, it really doesn't make me an expert on much.