Renewed interest in firearms, and seemingly never ending federal government scandals, have sparked an unprecedented increase in gun ownership. A recent poll revealed that about 1/3 of the public believes that armed revolt against the federal government may be necessary, and the continuing purchase, by the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies of billions of rounds of ammunition, automatic weapons and armored vehicles remains essentially unexplained and unexplainable.
Those seeking a firearm for home defense have been subjected to the usual bad advice, ably assisted by Vice President Joe “Double Barreled Shotgun” Biden, whose advice to buy a double barreled shotgun—late 1800’s technology—and shoot it into the air, or blindly through doors, has, thankfully, been mostly discounted, probably because most people understand the utter lack of credibility of the source. But sadly, far too many misconceptions about shotguns and their capabilities seem never to die.
Common “wisdom” giddily asserts that shotguns are all-powerful death devices that need not be aimed. Merely point them in the general direction of a deadly threat, pull the trigger and everything before their muzzles will be swept away. Those that know a bit more sagely add that shotguns are highly flexible because they fire a variety of kinds of ammunition. Many are blithely recommending shotguns as the perfect firearm for those that have never owned or fired a gun, particularly women. While there is a little truth behind the various misconceptions this terrible advice embodies, reality, which could determine the difference between life and death, is quite different.
This video comically illustrates just how out of touch Mr. Biden is. Keep in mind that even these women can be taught to shoot shotguns without the consequences depicted here. In fact, I suspect that those filming these ladies either didn’t know proper techniques, or withheld them to film these mishaps at the expense of their female friends. It’s not possible to adequately explain what dangerous idiocy this represents. In addition, it’s not the way to treat women.
Professionals, such as SWAT teams and military special forces teams relegate shotguns to very specific duties such as destroying door hinges or locks with highly specialized, frangible ammunition. What do they use for close quarters battle—indoor close combat situations? Submachine guns and AR-15 type carbines with barrels of 16” or less. For many situations, handguns are also commonly employed. This is so because the closer the quarters, the more difficult it is to maneuver and employ long barreled firearms.
Shotguns are somewhat flexible in terms of ammunition, but less so than one might imagine. It’s true that there are a variety of types of ammunition suitable for hunting. The different cartridges hold varying amounts and sizes of lead or steel pellets. Shotguns work well for bird hunting because they can propel a great many pellets that have limited range and penetration. They provide a greater chance of downing a swiftly flying target while simultaneously limiting the damage to the meat. Obviously, the larger the number of pellets, the smaller they must be to fit into cartridge casings of the same size. Many very small pellets are used for hunting small birds, and fewer, but larger and heavier pellets are used for larger birds, or where greater range is required.
Effectiveness on human targets is another matter. Only ammunition such as 00 buckshot—which consists of nine .33 caliber round lead balls—is actually effective, but only so long as the pellets remain together in a unified shot column of about the same size as the bore of the barrel. This is not easy to do.
Keep in mind that shotguns are smoothbore weapons. They have no spiral grooves–rifling–cut or cast into their barrels to impart stabilizing spin to a single projectile. It is this stabilizing spin that gives rifle cartridges their inherent range and accuracy. A column of shot, however, has no such advantage. The moment it leaves the muzzle, it begins to spread and dramatically lose velocity. Round lead pellets are not nearly as aerodynamically efficient as rifle bullets. Upon being fired, any projectile begins to lose velocity, which equates to less effectiveness on the target. The greater the velocity loss, the less effective the projectiles will be.
When fired, shotgun pellets actually collide with and bounce off the interior walls of the barrel, and also off each other. This can be tempered to some degree by enclosing the shot in a plastic buffer made of much smaller pellets (it is combined with the shot, but is not illustrated below). When the shot leaves the barrel, imperfections in each pellet catch the atmosphere, imparting varying motions to each pellet, causing the shot column to spread apart. The degree of this spread depends on the length of the barrel, the ammunition, and a variety of related conditions, but generally, the farther the target, the greater the degree of spread and the greater the drop in velocity.
The photos that follow are the results of patterning tests I conducted on standard sized silhouette targets using a modified Remington 870 pump action shotgun. I had this particular weapon modified for me many years ago by Scattergun Technologies, a company now affiliated with Wilson Combat. It has an extended magazine, oversized safety button, ghost ring rifle sights, and 18” barrel and a variety of other enhancements. The ammunition used was Winchester Super X 00 buckshot. The aim point for all targets was the exact center of the large vital zone.
This target was engaged from 3 yards. The black circle at the left of the impact point represents the bore size of the shotgun. This is the size of the shot column of nine .33 caliber round lead pellets as they left the muzzle. Notice that even at the distance of only 9 feet, the shot column has already expanded to approximately twice its size at the muzzle. This would, obviously, produce a devastating wound, but only if carefully aimed. At this range, particles of unburned powder and the white plastic buffer material included to minimize damage to the projectiles are stuck in the face of the cardboard target, though they may not be clearly visible in this photo.
These targets were engaged at 7 and 15 yards respectively. At 7 yards, the 9 pellets are still relatively closely spaced, but notice that the pattern has spread substantially. The large hole to the right of the pattern was caused by the plastic wad, which is sitting at the base of the target. These plastic devices encapsule the shot, helping to protect it and maintain maximum accuracy. They do not have the mass to cause any real injury to a human being, but will penetrate cardboard and paper targets at close range. At longer ranges, they drop harmlessly to the ground long before they reach the target. At 15 yards, all 9 of the pellets are still on the target, though two have struck non-vital areas and the pattern is dramatically widening.
These targets were engaged at 25 and 35 yards respectively. Notice that only 8 of 9 pellets have struck the 25 yard target, and only two have struck in the vital zone. Only 7 of 9 pellets struck the 35 yard target, and again, only two struck the vital zone. At these distances, any rifle, even a .22LR, would easily produce highly accurate results. Even with a custom shotgun, the effectiveness of the most common buckshot loads becomes a matter of chance. A target engaged at 50 or more yards might be missed entirely, or produce a few non-debilitating wounds at best. And of course there is no way to know where any errant pellets might end up.
It’s important to understand that identical rounds fired from the same shotgun at the same range can produce substantially different patterns. Even at 7 yards I’ve seen patterns with several “flyers,” or pellets that nearly missed, or entirely missed the target. There are some specialized shotgun shells that do have enhanced accuracy, but they are expensive, and even they cannot overcome the laws of physics and the physical characteristics of shotgun design.
I have actually seen some instructors advocate using shotguns with enhanced ammunition to take close range shots at the heads of hostage takers using hostages as human shields. For all of the reasons I’ve listed here, that’s an extraordinarily bad idea. Even the most advanced buckshot rounds can easily experience flyers–errant pellets.
It’s important to realize that shotguns, like all other firearms, must be carefully and accurately aimed at any range. I’ve actually seen some people hoping to buy their first firearm say that they want a weapon they won’t really have to aim very much or practice with very much–or at all! Some, trying to be helpful, often suggest that shotguns will fit that particular bill. Such thinking is, to put it mildly, dangerous.
Anyone firing a firearm is absolutely responsible, legally and morally, for every bullet—or pellet—they fire. That’s why more and more police agencies are replacing their shotguns in their patrol vehicles with AR-15 pattern carbines. The smarter agencies allow their officers to carry their own weapons, or issue a carbine to each officer just as they issue handguns.
It should frighten citizens to learn that any officer pulling a shotgun from their cruiser has probably never fired that weapon before and has no idea exactly how it patterns with the ammunition in it, which might have been loaded by some other officer years ago! When they fire that weapon, they have only a general idea where those nine .33 caliber pellets are going. How far will the shot column travel as a unit? At which range will every pellet be likely to entirely miss a man-sized target? At which range will those pellets be unlikely to penetrate heavy winter clothing? They don’t have a clue.
This is so because while most police agencies require their officers to qualify with shotguns, they simply supply a few shotguns of the same model from the armory and require the firing of only a handful of cartridges, usually no more than 10 shot and two or three slugs. Therefore, individual officers have commonly never fired the shotgun in their usual patrol vehicle. Greater awareness of this issue, and the much greater ease with which AR-15 pattern carbines can be accurately fired at any range, as well as the fact that there is only one, highly accurate bullet at a time to worry about, is behind this relatively recent trend.
Police officers commonly fire shotguns so seldom to save money on ammunition–buckshot and slugs are expensive (they normally come packaged in groups of five rounds)–and because shooting short barreled shotguns can actually be painful. Recoil, report and muzzle blast are daunting for many, even men. In my police experience, female officers weren’t the only cops who hated shooting shotguns, and very few wanted to shoot any more rounds than were absolutely required to qualify.
Recognizing this painful reality, some suggest that .20 gauge or .410 gauge shotguns are a better choice for beginning shooters. While they do have less recoil, report and muzzle flash, they also shoot much less powerful and effective ammunition. There is, particularly with firearms, no such thing as a free lunch.
The practical effective range of a shotgun for self-defense is roughly 25 yards, which is, coincidentally, about the maximum effective handgun range for most people. Indeed, some handgun shooters are accurate to greater ranges, but they’re the exception rather than the rule. Various types of shotgun slugs can extend effective shotgun range, particularly with rifle or optical sights, but few people have the time, inclination or money to practice sufficiently with them to be truly proficient. And again, rifles are far more accurate at greater ranges with far less effort.
Shotguns also have limited ammunition capacity. Standard shotguns without extended magazines commonly hold only 3-4 cartridges. Extended magazines usually add only 3-4 more–the Remington 870 depicted in this article has a 6 round magazine, for a total of seven rounds–though there are now some expensive, purpose-built alternatives such as the Kel-Tec KSG.
Virtually all shotguns are also slow to load. In addition, adding extended magazines substantially increases the weight of the weapon and alters the balance. These are issues of some importance to many shooters, particularly women.
Longer barrels do tend to keep the shot column together for slightly greater distances, but for police, military and self-defense purposes, anything longer than about 18” is very unwieldy. Shotguns remain, for most, short-range weapons that must be carefully aimed and used only within the effective parameters of the individual weapon and ammunition.
I do not contend that shotguns are useless. A very wide variety of firearm types, with many sub-groups within those categories, are necessary because firearms fulfill a wide variety of needs. Shotguns have their uses, primarily for hunting, but also tactically. However, they are generally a poor choice for personal defense, particularly for the inexperienced shooter.
Shotguns lacking a shoulder stock are a particularly bad idea. Leave that sort of silliness to Hollywood. Suffice it to say that such weapons are ludicrously difficult to aim–shooting anything from the hip, including machine guns, is the mark of the neophyte–and exacerbates every inherent shotgun problem.
A personal defense weapon, even one intended to be kept only at home, must be a weapon that is easily and safely stored, quickly and easily employed, and with which the user is confident. Confidence comes only with practice, repeated, correct practice. For most people, this means a quality handgun.
Ultimately, citizens should recognize that there is at least one bit of wisdom available from the denizens of Washington DC: whatever Vice President Biden recommends, do the opposite. This is particularly true where firearm choice and the use of force are concerned.
I don’t think the practical effective range of a shotgun is even as great as 25 yards. It really depends on your loading. With a slug, it could easily be double that, but with plain old 00 buck, I wouldn’t want to use it at more than 13-15 yards. Not because it wouldn’t be effective on the target, but because of the potential for collateral damage from the pattern spread.
Not that it really matters for home defense, because at that point you’re talking about
40-45 feet, and the longest sight line in most homes is probably only 25-30 feet. In that case, I’d be much more concerned about overpenetration than the size of the pattern. (Although, they are sorta linked. The bigger your pattern, the more chance for a flyer to get away and overpenetrate.)
Mine is loaded with Winchester PDX1 12 Defender, which is a 1 oz slug with 3 00 pellets stacked on top. (Video review here) This shell shows a (to me) somewhat astonishing ability for those three .33 caliber pellets to consistently form a perfect triangle pattern around the central slug impact. Pattern spread as claimed by Winchester is about 4″ at 15 feet, and I have verified that to be accurate for myself on several occasions. They also claim a 15″ spread at about 40 yards, but I have not verified that for myself. I will say that the longest sight line in my home is only about 20 feet, so that spread is quite acceptable to me. That said, I live in an apartment, with people above, below, and on three sides of me, so a slug-loaded shotgun is far less than ideal, and is my absolute last resort. It’s there if I need it, but I have much better options to hit first.
Dear floridagatorfan:
Thanks for your comments! You’re absolutely right: shotgun slugs are very dangerous in the home defense role due to potential over-penetration issues. Apartment defense requires, above all, the kind of accuracy one develops only through constant and correct practice with a single weapon, including dry and live fire. Nothing else will ensure effectiveness, and prevent misses.
Do you realise that that wording will make some readers think that rifling makes cartridges spin?
I’m not sure what percentage of ordinary people would need to defend themselves from someone who is not at close quarters.
A shotgun is not optimal chiefly because it’s awkward. That aside (and it’s a BIG aside), it’s probably accurate enough for the common requirement.
Your 7 yard grouping looks like it would inconvenience an attacker…
I have a feeling that if I were *stopping* someone, they would be closer to me than 21 feet. If I were just scaring the cr*p out of them, they can be as far away as they like.
It might be that the actual requirement in most situations might be for a big bang – which would be way more effective that just shouting “Get the f**K off my lawn” in a deep growly voice. I think that this is the approach that Biden is taking.
.
Mike, the bit about your article that really caught my attention was
I always fall about laughing/crying anytime I see ‘right to bear arms’ talking about ‘opposing an oppressive government’.
Any significant armed revolt would not have a hope in hell. This is for reasons that most Americans seem determined to ignore.
Senator Frank Church – he of the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities ( The Church Committee ) – wrote in 1975..
That was way back in 1975, before the Patriot Act tore up the Constitution and the Intelligence industry /spending went into afterburner mode.
Right now, if any upstanding free American citizen makes the wrong noises, any one of many thousands of contractors can call up their history of communications – who they spoke to – who those people spoke to – for how long. Mobile? They see your locations at the time. They see your locations in between. Internet activity? Full text – including emails. General or specific location too, because of the IP info. It’s easy *because* it’s indiscrimate – or as Clapper said when he lied ( aka “gave the least dishonest answer”) to Congress – sort of inadvertant/unwitting.
Plus all your credit card transactions, travel, you name it.
It’s not just for suspicious people. It’s for everyone. It’s all perfectly legal because a secret court operating under secret interpretations of law has OKed it.
You seem interesting? Button-click and all calls including Net-based begin to be recorded in full. They might well have been automatically recorded without human intervention before this due to keyword or activity profile.
.
You start to organize “armed revolt”? You’re scr*wed.
Someone you meet – or even a friend – starts to talk to you about resisting an oppressive goverment? He could well be someone that the Feds have threatened with serious charges unless he works for them. This is standard operating procedure. “Work” includes entrapping people into words and/or actions that will get them into trouble. It’s not actually entrapment – because you would not have gone along with whatever it was unless you were predisposed to doing it anyway.
That ‘terrorist’ that the Feds stopped from blowing up the Capitol? They recruited and trained him. Having dropped him off near the target, they then sucessfully stopped him.
The ‘terrorist’ who was stopped from flying explosive-laden radio-controlled planes into Washinton building? The Feds encouraged his vague idea, helped him and gave him the money to buy the equipment. Then they sucessfuly foiled his plan. He was predisposed to doing that sort of thing.
You want to even whisper about “armed revolt against the federal government”?
1/3 of public think that such might be necessary?
Insane.
For starters, turn off your mobile – AND take the battery out. Then leave it behind.
Also – don’t talk to anybody about your plans.
The downside would be that this sudden “going dark” would be a flag to a very powerful automated system that unless your death has been recorded you are very probably up to something that the rulers would be interested in knowing about.
.
The leaders and coordinators of any planned armed revolt would have disappeared without trial into indefinite miliary detention in undisclosed locations in advance of any serious action. It’s all legal – NDAA.
The rulers would probably still need firepower to put down any leaderless, uncoordinated mobs left behind.
The main reason for all the buying is probably a lot simpler.
It’s worth billions to the arms industry. It’s an easy sale “because terrorism” in The United States of Fear.
What are people who go about planning “an armed revolt against the federal government”?
Terrorists. Yup!
Like that line from the movie Falling Down.
“I’m the bad guy? How did that happen?”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106856/quotes
.
At least the character in the movie didn’t use shotguns – demonstrating that he wasn’t completely stupid.
.
Yeah. I know. Long. ‘Attention to detail’ of “armed revolt”.
Sorry :(
;)
This is the main problem with your statement. Who in the military will follow such orders? It runs in parallel with the argument that opposing the government is foolish because the Army could easily dispose of rabble armed with nothing but semi-auto rifles..
The answer: a citizen army would refuse such orders. True, you could find some sycophants willing to do anything for personal advancement, but the vast majority would rebel themselves.
If you seriously think that, you’ve got a lot to learn from history. Yours is the wishful thinking theory adopted by the French revolutionary armies, that didn’t save the regime from being taken over by Napoleon within a decade. Not only have there been many coups carried out using citizen armies, there has been at least one civil war (the Spanish one). This has all been carried out on the back of a number of disciplinary techniques, including but not limited to using soldiers in other areas than the ones they were from (which is also how the French could use their existing conscripts to enforce conscription in recalcitrant areas, despite their own lack of consent) and applying what Montaigne (echoed by Frederick the Great) recorded, though they actually wrote “officers” rather than “sergeants” as that term includes N.C.O.s in continental European languages: the secret of military discipline is that the soldiers should be more scared of their sergeants than of the enemy, with the sergeants of course being professional soldiers rather than citizen soldiers by that stage in their careers. See also how and where colonial troops were used, including how heavy and/or rapid fire weapons and special units weren’t drawn from and used among them, e.g. no artillery in the Indian Army after the Sepoy Mutiny was put down.
So, no, citizen soldiers would either be willing to shoot the people in front of them they didn’t know, or they would get shot themselves by their better armed and equipped superiors whom they did know and who did know them – and who they knew would do that. Usually, enough shoot, and any hold outs don’t last long enough to spread their mutiny.
Dear PM Lawrence:
Ah, but I have learned from history, as I suspect Casey Tompkins has. The circumstances you describe from the past are are true enough in their own contexts, but you’re talking about Americans. The American military has a tradition of refusing to follow illegal, unconstitutional orders. In fact, that tradition is part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If ordered to imprison or fire on fellow Americans, the overwhelming majority of officers and men would not only refuse, but would take their weapons, training and knowledge and oppose the lunatic politicians and corrupt military members issuing such orders. There would indeed be some who would turn on their fellow Americans, but they wouldn’t last long, and if necessary, Washington DC or any other place where junior despots make their last stand can be easily surrounded and brought into submission.
America isn’t the Soviet union when you can send troops from South Dakota to Texas where they speak a different language, worship another God or no god, and are willing to shoot the different Texans. I pray things never come to that, but if they do, it won’t take long before a new and constitutionally based government emerges, and there will be no wannbe tyrants left. Unfortunately, I think there are enough stupid politicians in DC–yes, even republicans–who don’t understand history or Americans to actually go along with a tyrant. That why people fear armed resistance might be necessary. That’s why Americans are armed as never before.
Ah, but you’re now proposing something else than the mechanism and circumstances CT did, a mechanism that has been thoroughly refuted by historical precedent. Yours is matched by De Gaulle’s efforts in arranging things so a military coup would not work from lack of support in the wake of Algerian withdrawal.
But the point is, who is doing the arranging? Give or allow the repressors control, and they can use even citizen soldiers as they wish. Would you really like to bet what you can’t afford to lose on it?
By the way, a sizeable proportion of U.S. forces, often concentrated in special units that can be used separately, aren’t even citizen soldiers anyway but rather outsiders pursuing a pathway to veteran status that sometimes includes citizen status – a patron-client connection to their superiors.
Casey,
The armed forces can be seen – in the Middle East and Guantanamo for example – to partake in or cooperate in crimes. They obey orders or observe illegal activites and do not report these as they are bound to under Uniform Code of Military Justice.
This seems to rationalized as the victims are not American citizens.
They might also find that any attempts to object using ‘proper channels’ fall on deaf ears. “Get the sand out of your p*ssy , soldier”.
What about Kent State University?
The National Guard opened fire on unarmed students, killing four and wounding nine.
Why would they do that?
The students might have been American, but they were Un-American. They (or rather some of them) were protesting the Asian wars.
Why would a fine upstanding campus cop walk along a line of students sitting peacefully on the ground – while directing a continuous stream of pepper spray into their faces?
They were being Un-American, participating in the Occupy protest movement.
“All men are created equal” – unless they are not American or are Un-American.
.
Beware of learning from history here.
In the America that exists today, all electronic communications, including phone, are collected by the rulers. The positon of anyone with a mobile phone is known and can be tracked continuously. The leaders/coordinators of anything that looks like a genuine threat will simply be picked up. It’s already signed into law.
There won’t be military forces lined up against each other.
Some SUVs or helicopters will arrrive suddenly at the most strategic places.
Your strategic place is well-guarded? You are ready for battle? What’s that buzzing noise? Look up and wave. Drone. Hellfire. Thank you and good night.
The small number of people in helicopters or operating drones see you as an existential threat to the security of the US. Your revolt is going to bring the whole thing crashing down. You are Un-American. You are no different to some tribesmen (and their families) in some Pakistani valley.
The people who will take you won’t be from next-door. They will be from some place where they tell cruel jokes about people in your location.
.
In any violent revolt, your first target has to be the NSA databases and the entire communications infrastructure. Communications are no use to you. You might as well make a call to the ‘enemy’ and tell them your plans. There’s a huge facility in Utah for example that will have recordings of you talking to your lover/leader/comrade – years of them.
Your problem will be getting enough carrier pigeons to handle the planning and mission communications.
Your other problem is that they already had you and every contact that you ever had under a microscope
This photo is very funny, but it speaks to something that is not a joke.
That’s Obama talking to the kid, but it could be any member of any administration. There is no difference. It’s the administration – not the party, not the person.
.
Forget about history for the moment.
Learn from the present.
The next revolution has to be political. The planning has to be out in the open – so that people other than the people that you are trying to overthrow will know about it. Good luck with the main-stream media.
Pull a gun and you’re scr*wed.
” If ordered to imprison or fire on fellow Americans, the overwhelming majority of officers and men would not only refuse, but would take their weapons, training and knowledge and oppose the lunatic politicians and corrupt military members issuing such orders.”
We’re talking about the Civil War here – ammirite?
Mike,
While all of your premises are absolutely true, I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Shotguns are certainly not an instant death ray, but no firearm is. Shotguns are also not the final word in home protection, but they certainly have their place. I think that you have neglected a few points:
Yes, a short barreled rifle (SBR) is the preferred weapon for Special Operations units doing room clearing or urban operations. It is also my preferred weapon for home defense. However, there are two limiting factors when suggesting SBRs for home defense to the general public, costs and training. The costs and time associated with obtaining an SBR for civilian use (typically more than 6 months and in excess of $2000) are too excessive for the average gun owner, even more so for the first-time gun owner. Also, to effectively use an SBR to “clear” rooms in the same manner as Special Operations requires a level of training that is well beyond the time, finances, and interest of 99% of the population. It is also unnecessary. The majority of the population should never attempt to clear their own home, unless to retrieve children. Special Operations members do not do one-man clears, why would civilians? Home owners are also not taking HR or low-percentage shots. For the majority of the population, pointing a weapon at the bedroom door and calling the police is a pretty good idea, and a shotgun fills this role adequately.
The next best option is a “normal length,” (16”) AR-15. However, the same problems that exist for the SBR are in place for the AR. A base level AR costs around $600, not counting optics, sling, upgrades, and magazines. This is just not practicable for many households that need home defense NOW! In addition, the Toyota Corolla of AR’s takes the same amount of time and training to run correctly as a Noveske or La Rue. You have to get trigger time to bet your life on them. Trigger time costs money. Really, what is the difference between an AR with a 16” barrel and a shotgun with an 18” barrel? The answer is not much, especially if one is not clearing rooms or bailing out of a moving vehicle.
Pistols are the best “do it all,” weapon available to someone that can only afford to own one gun. However, a pistol is never going to be a better option than a weapon with a stock, especially for new shooters, and especially at close quarters. A stocked weapon is always faster, more accurate, and repeatable than a weapon without a stock. Pistols are OK for home defense, if one can only afford one gun. If you can afford two guns, then a pistol becomes what it really is, a secondary weapon.
Many people cannot afford, or cannot legally own, an effective carbine. As someone getting ready to move to California, I can attest that local gun laws and finances have an effect on defensive tactics. Shotguns can fill a definite niche as a home defense weapon. Base model, but combat proven and reliable, shotguns can be purchased new for a little over $200. No one can truly discount the effectiveness of a Mossberg 500 or Remington 870. (If one’s decision comes down to these two options, there are literally millions of internet pages devoted to the subject. The only thing that can raise more ire in the gun -world is the Glock vs. 1911 debate)
While you correctly stated that slugs and buckshot can be expensive, and painful to shoot for long periods of time, birdshot is cheap and fun. An inexpensive skeet or trap range is easy to manufacture and is the method that I have used to get many women and children hooked on shooting. Once someone can hit a traversing clay pigeon, slower moving, human targets, become easy. The only piece left to add for home defense, is the recoil management induced by slugs or buck. Once the fundamentals are in place, recoil management is not that difficult. A shotgun is also much more amenable to the occasional shooter. The lack of rear sight on most shotguns means that the shooter need only align the front bead with the intended target and squeeze the trigger. While this is certainly aiming, it is aiming in a more simplified form than the iron sights on a pistol or rifle and does not take as much trigger time to perfect or practice to maintain.
You also mentioned, correctly, that there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to physics. However, I would challenge anyone hit with a 3”- 00 buckshot round, fired from a youth-model 20 Gauge, at inside of the house range, to contend with physics. While I would not drop below a 20GA, with appropriate ammunition, for home defense. It is a gun that can be trained with and deployed with equal effectiveness by older children, women, the elderly, and heads of household.
In closing, I truly appreciate your professional opinion. It is as professional as it can be, as anyone who has bet their life on their guns knows. However, I believe that there is definitely a place for the shotgun in the home of the budget conscious, occasional shooter that would like to protect their family from intrusion.
Dear blacksheperd:
Thanks so much for your comments! Your points are valid, however the article was primarily designed to address common misconceptions about shotguns, and as I noted, they surely have their uses. And as you noted, one can generally buy a basic pump shotgun such as the Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 for $250.00 to $300.00.
Just a few quick things: Glock now makes many models, from compact to full-sized, in .45 ACP, and even the baby Glocks have the magazine capacity of a full-sized 1911. I’ve owned and fired many 1911s and they are without question fine handguns–John Browning was an authentic American genius–but now exclusively carry Glocks for self-defense. Even Chuck Taylor, who once exclusively carried 1911s, has carried Glocks for many years.
You’re moving to California? Gad. I’m sorry. I can’t imagine living anywhere that purposely treats gun owners as criminals. Good luck.
Thanks again!
Chuck Taylor “helped me along,” the path to the glock conversion several years ago. I still shoot a variety of pistols but mostly carry Glocks, in one form another, these days. There are still a few situations where i will carry a 1911 but those are rare and far between.
“A recent poll revealed that about 1/3 of the public believes that armed revolt against the federal government may be necessary, and the continuing purchase, by the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies of billions of rounds of ammunition, automatic weapons and armored vehicles remains essentially unexplained and unexplainable.”
Devil’s advocate, here, but didn’t you just answer the why in the first sentence? Why is any arms race ever ran? Why are they doing it? Because we are. Why are we doing it? Because they are.
Dear RuleofOrder:
People fear a tyrannical government because the government of Barack Obama is doing unconstitutional, tyrannical things. That’s why the run on guns and ammunition, that’s why they fear it may be necessary to resist with force. Can you recall similar worries from the populace under any other president? You’re putting the effect before the cause.
Clinton, when the Brady bill came into being, Bush Jr, when the Patriot Act came into being, before my time, but the Red Scare…
There is always a boogey man. Its interesting that you pin it on just one guy, but since the technology to do the stuff most people find disagreeable came about, those in power voted to do bad things with it, dare I say “overwhelmingly”. Mostly the ability to do what they are doing came about in the name of “security”. As I recall from a previous thread, that was tantamount to all other things.
And “effect before the cause” is exactly what inspires and arms race, Mike. A solution with the problem being some one else’s solution.
Speaking REAL generally here, what unconstitutional tyrannical things have been done thus far would be solved by a firearm and ammo stockpiles?
Dear RuleofOrder:
Perhaps I should have been a bit more precise. While there was some outcry from those that support the Constitution with the Brady Bill, and even when George H. W. Bush banned imports of many popular semiautomatic rifles, those concerns were nothing like the responses to Barack Obama’s two elections and his blatant attempt to damage the Second Amendment. There is no question that the response to President Obama, who is the most anti-gun, anti-personal freedom president in American history (remember that as a senator, he was noted as the most leftist senator, even more so than the single professed socialist in the Senate) dramatically exceeds–in numbers and intensity–the response to even Bill Clinton or any other presidential gun grabber.
In the 40 or so years I’ve been closely following politics, I’ve never seen anything like this. Never before have there been firearm and ammunition shortages, etc. like those we’ve experienced under Mr. Obama. Never before have I, and millions of other reasonable, law-abiding Americans believed that armed resistance is a real possibility.
As to what might transpire, the primary reason leftists wish to disarm the law abiding is because they know that until they do, they can’t work their will on the populace. That’s why we have the Second Amendment, to resist a tyrannical government. The founders understood this well, and so must we. And those who suggest that Americans could never successfully resist our military apparently have little appreciation of history. Leftists fear that resistance, as well they should. Mr. Obama’s utterly lawless record speaks to your final question. Do I really need to provide a list?
Very well. Begin with my “Saving the Republic” series, beginning here. It’s all in the SMM “politics” archive.
Pingback: Why Would Anyone Need An AR-15? | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Speak Smartly and Swing a Big Di…Er, Stick | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Bad Advice And Tactics | The Truth About Guns
Pingback: Plain Old Gropin Joe: Democrat Saviour? | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Gropin’ Joe Biden: He’ll Pay Attention | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns: Now You Know | Stately McDaniel Manor