12 ga SD Loads

[HiredHand]

Penetrates enough what? Im looking at things from a defense situation not a duty or assault situation. Not shooting through walls or cars. Mostly be "in the same room" distances. In which, the was will still be on the package. I've killed enough 200lb pigs with 00 that I really wouldnt worry too much about penetration.

Duty or defense your ammunition choice should be the same. Unless, you believe your attacker will be facing you belt buckle to belt buckle while standing still, in the open and nothing precious behind them.

YG posted this and it's worth a listen or two. http://www.okshooters.com/threads/ballistics-discussion.229476/

 

[beastep]

Interesting. What is the depth of penetration with the #4? And were not talking about the penetration of only one projectile here. As stated above, the cumulative effect of 27 or however many there are is hard to compare to say a .22 or .380. If I had to be in a kill or be killed situation inside a building or a house with a bad guy, and I could pick what his weapon is, I would choose for him to have a .380 in his hands over a shotgun with #4 any day. I'd take the shotgun. But Im here to learn.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Here's another way to think about it. An individual #1 Buck pellet carries 73% more energy than an individual #4 pellet does (in standard loads). This can significantly affect penetration, and it's not worth the (additional) risk for me.

 

[MadDogs]

Way back in my single days, I had a fling one night with a really hot lesbian who told me she likes girls but “penetration is where it is at”. She has a point. That said, so does pellet density. 27 pellets (or 41 in a 3” load) have a lot density/mass that packs a lot of punch inside the distances one would use a shotgun to fight with. Two quick rounds of #4 is no different than getting hit 54 times with a 22.

Is 0 buck or 00 buck better? Sure. They those loads will penetrate better even if one is not a hot lesbian (think Hillary Clinton). Is it going to make a difference on some shitbird coming into my house to rape my dog? Probably not. Inside typical distances one would use a shotgun (where birdshot works as well) a load of #4 will take someone out of a fight.

 

[Shadowrider]

What cumulative effect? There is no such thing. A #1 buck pellet doesn't become a 00 because it has another one beside it. They each have a finite and equal mass. If you really believe this, why aren't you using #12 birdshot for HD? It has hundreds of pellets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MadDogs]

IF over penetration is a problem ... birdshot works. To say that 1, 0 or 00 would kill someone than #4 at close HD range is really pretty silly.

 

[beastep]

This is getting fun. I believe that having 3x the number of pellets accounts for something. Is it 3x as effective as only say 9 pellets of the same size and velocity? Probably not, but definitely more effective than the 9 pellets. So there is some sort of cumulative effect.

 

[YukonGlocker]

IF over penetration is a problem ... birdshot works. To say that 1, 0 or 00 would kill someone than #4 at close HD range is really pretty silly.

I'm sure the actual shootings where #4 failed at close range were anything but silly, especially the cases where the perp continued to kill and injure people. Will birdshot work?...maybe. Will #4 Buck work?...probably. But if #1 Buck works better (in actual shootings, and in various scientific tests), why would you not use it?

 

[Old rookie]

I've (perhaps wrongly) always felt that more of something bigger hitting something you want to stop is better. Ex: Carpet bombing....WW2... B29's carried lots more and larger bombs than the B-17's, so...they were pretty much exclusively used when they became available in theatre. Some will say it's an apples/oranges comparison, but I think the principle is true, even in shotgun loads.
The differences that have been discussed are pretty significant, because we're talking about a finite amount of force moving the pellets....with lots of variables. Those things being considered, the evidence of concentration of mass/impact area with the #1 shot is pretty impressive. The analogy that came to my feeble mind about it was "do you want to get hit with a 90 mph billiard ball or a 90 mph marble?"

Great discussion, folks, and I appreciate all the perspectives.

 

[MadDogs]

I'm sure the actual shootings where #4 failed at close range were anything but silly, especially the cases where the perp continued to kill and injure people. Will birdshot work?...maybe. Will #4 Buck work?...probably. But if #1 Buck works better (in actual shootings, and in various scientific tests), why would you not use it?

Why I would not use it (now) is because I don't have any. Lots of 00 and #4 but no #1 or even 0 buck. Never said that there may be better loads (I previously agreed that #1 was really impressive and that I never gave it much thought).

Just saying that #4 at living room range will drop someone just as well as a 22 if the shot is placed where it needs to go.