Since it doesn't penetrate organs a person who doesn't respond to pain would have to bleed to death before being incapacitated. "Useless" was probably the wrong word but based on research I wouldn't expect birdshot to do much. Makes perfect sense, thanks for your reply. I'm not saying that's what you should use, but it's not completely useless if it's all you have. ![]() The shock of a load like that in close would certainly be enough to stop anyone for a split second. I've seen squirells that were completely torn to pieces. To adress what you said about birdshot being useless even at short range, you've obviously never seen anything that was shot with #8's at very close range (under ten yards). I'm sure there's quite a few who would disagree, but if penatration is equal, then the two loads will kill equally well. #4's would kill just as well and you would get better patterns due to the larger number of pellets. Wow, I know that was kind of long and confusing, but I'm trying to prove my point. In all my years of hunting, I've never seen an animal no matter how big get actually pushed back or rolled from the impact of a bullet. The heart getting shot stops the flow of blood, thus stopping the flow of oxygen, a lung getting hit stops oxygen flow for obvious reasons, and finally a loss of blood stops flow of oxygen. What kills an animal (or human) is lack of oxygen to the brain. Lott, the animal will run just about the same distance. However, stopping power is nothing more than a myth. Personally I would choose #4's, but either would work well. I'm under the impression that any reasonably conservative shot like #1 buck would be significantly deformed and traveling at a relatively non-lethal velocity by the time it has passed through four or six sheets of drywall. If something will pass through three interior walls without being lethal on the other side, I'm okay with that. If I'm forced to shoot an intruder then I'm willing to injure an innocent person in that situation, but I'm not willing to kill them. In my case a certain degree of wall penetration is acceptable - the units here do share walls but because of the floorplans my neighbors themselves are separated from me by three walls in most places, or two exterior walls with hardwood siding. I know I'm a n00b on this forum and I don't want to ruffle any feathers but as far as I'm concerned if you're not willing to take the risk of shooting through walls then you shouldn't be using a gun in that situation. I'm convinced that birdshot is useless for this purpose and clearly anything powerful enough to stop a human is going to penetrate walls. Everyone here seems to be very knowledgeable, so I'd like to pick your brains. ![]() ![]() Right now I think #1 is my best choice, but this isn't entirely conclusive to me. ![]() If I'm to believe these, then #1 is the obvious choice since it has more stopping power but does not penetrate much more than the #4 based on that limited test. I also found these, which seem to indicate that they have a similar penetration in ballistics gel: At the same time, I found this, which seems to indicate the two are nearly identical for wall penetration: Specifics aside (magnum rounds, low recoil, etc), does anyone have any opinion on which would be better? I have heard that #4 has a marginal stopping power and is not 100% reliable for lethality. I've decided to go with either a #4 or a #1 buckshot, and I'm leaning toward the #1. I'm debating what kind of ammo I should be using for home defense, considering I have neighbors within close proximity. I live in an apartment and I'm getting a 12 ga.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |