TexasCHLforum.com

It is a thought provoking question, but I have a few issues with the author's analysis.

The biggest bone I have to pick is that in an effort to promote a rifle's superiority over a shotgun for home defense, the author poses the following question:

I ask the hunters how well they know their pattern size and relationship between point of aim and pattern distribution at 7 yards with their home defense load, then ask if they’d be willing to put one of their children downrange and shoot around the child to hit a paper “shoot” target simulating a bad guy that’s in their house near their child.

Of course no sane person would put their child downrange and shoot a paper target. Not with a shotgun. Not with a carbine. Not with a scoped rifle. Refusal to use your child as a "no shoot" target for a shotgun doesn't imply a shotgun's inferiority... it implies sanity

I realize that the author doesn't actually suggest doing that... but it is an example of intellectual dishonesty used to prove a point. Another example from the article was complaining about having to change ammo (between birdshot, buckshot, and slugs) as distance to the target changes. Really? To quote a favorite TV show character, "I don't think so, Tim!" Birdshot shouldn't be in the self defense conversation. Buckshot is viable for the ranges at which any self defense scenario inside the home will take take place, and slugs are good anywhere from the end of the barrel out to over 100 yards. So put slugs or buckshot in that bad boy and you're done. No need to change ammo on the fly and in the middle of a shootout as the author implies.

I read the article hoping to get some good perspective about the pros and cons of different weapon choices. I was really disappointed to see the author use such illogical arguments to make his point. A carbine might actually be the nest choice... but the author does a disservice by making up silly arguments against the shotgun to skew the discussion. It is a question worth asking. But I found no answers there.

TxStar13 wrote:Thank y'all for the kind words on my article. :-)

- John C. "Hsoi" Daub

Thank you for the article.

Got me thinking.

XinTX wrote:I don't think there's any 'one size fits all' best HD weapon out there.

This is indeed true. For example, I live in Austin-proper, and given the layout of my house and property, a shotgun using something like Federal 00 Buck with FLITECONTROL wads could be alright (fairly tight patterns out to 25 yards). But for my rural in-laws with about 500 yards to their front gate, perhaps a rifle may be more generally applicable.

XinTX wrote: The article also talks about the advantage of a rifle being shorter to maneuver around furniture and corners in the house, then discusses the advantage of being able to mount a scope. I can't think of a scenario where I'd use a scope for a shot at an 'inside the house' distance.

Consider a red-dot scope, like an Aimpoint or EOTech.

XinTX wrote: At those distances, a shotgun using bird shot is devestating. But, if you have kids in the house I'd maybe re-think the shotgun. I don't, so I haven't thought that through. If I lived in the country where the dogs would wake me up before the BGs got within shotgun range of the house, I'd likely opt for a scoped rifle.

Birdshot is for birds and not necessarily effective at stopping much else. Just ask Dick Cheney's hunting partner.

Sangiovese wrote:It is a thought provoking question, but I have a few issues with the author's analysis.

I should note, while I am the author of the linked-to article, the quoted section comes from Karl Rehn of KR Training. The original article on KR Training's website is linked to in my write-up.

Sangiovese wrote: The biggest bone I have to pick is that in an effort to promote a rifle's superiority over a shotgun for home defense, the author poses the following question:

I ask the hunters how well they know their pattern size and relationship between point of aim and pattern distribution at 7 yards with their home defense load, then ask if they’d be willing to put one of their children downrange and shoot around the child to hit a paper “shoot” target simulating a bad guy that’s in their house near their child.

Of course no sane person would put their child downrange and shoot a paper target. Not with a shotgun. Not with a carbine. Not with a scoped rifle. Refusal to use your child as a "no shoot" target for a shotgun doesn't imply a shotgun's inferiority... it implies sanity

I realize that the author doesn't actually suggest doing that... but it is an example of intellectual dishonesty used to prove a point.

No one is actually asking anyone to put a child downrange.

The point of that line of reasoning (would you be willing to put your child downrange) is an attempt to get people to understand something about shotguns and patterning. Many people are unaware of their shotgun's pattern. If you have no idea if your equipment can perform as you expect, should you be using that equipment? perhaps should you get to know the limits and behaviors of your equipment? If your equipment doesn't perform as well as you need it to, maybe you need different equipment?

If your child was in a hostage situation and you had a rifle or a handgun, would you be willing to take the headshot on the VCA? Let's set skill aside and just look at equipment. If you don't know if your equipment can do that without harm to the child, would you take it? Look at these shotgun ammo trials. If you were shooting Federal Premium Buckshot with the FLITECONTROL wad, you might feel comfortable taking a tight shot like a headshot anywhere out to 15 yards... but if you were using something like the Remington or Winchester buckshot that was used in those tests, no you probably wouldn't. But do you KNOW this? And do you know how your shot patterns with your particular load in your particular gun? Many people do NOT, and that's the point of the line of questioning -- to encourage people to get to know this, because what if you did find yourself in that situation... what are you going to do. But even with something like FLITECONTROL, some may not feel comfortable taking a tighter shot, so perhaps a rifle would be a better choice. This is knowledge and decisions that needs to be worked out beforehand.

Sangiovese wrote:Another example from the article was complaining about having to change ammo (between birdshot, buckshot, and slugs) as distance to the target changes. Really? To quote a favorite TV show character, "I don't think so, Tim!" Birdshot shouldn't be in the self defense conversation. Buckshot is viable for the ranges at which any self defense scenario inside the home will take take place, and slugs are good anywhere from the end of the barrel out to over 100 yards. So put slugs or buckshot in that bad boy and you're done. No need to change ammo on the fly and in the middle of a shootout as the author implies.

No, birdshot shouldn't be used in a self-defense context... but just look at this very discussion thread here and people are suggesting using it. No, we don't suggest birdshot at all and actively discourage the use of birdshot for self-defense (recommend: Federal Premimum low-recoil 00 Buck with FLITECONTROL, 8 or 9 pellet), but people bring birdshot up and it enters into the context of this conversation enough that it needs to be addressed. Because people do think about different ammo for different ranges, because that's part of what the shotgun, as a platform, provides.

If you don't feel a need to change ammo, then by all means don't. It is complicated, difficult, and slow to do changeovers.

Sangiovese wrote: I read the article hoping to get some good perspective about the pros and cons of different weapon choices. I was really disappointed to see the author use such illogical arguments to make his point. A carbine might actually be the nest choice... but the author does a disservice by making up silly arguments against the shotgun to skew the discussion. It is a question worth asking. But I found no answers there.

I'm sorry you found such problems. Did you read the other 3 parts to my "On a home defense tool" series? Granted they still promote the use of something like an AR-15-patterned rifle, but maybe you'll find the data and reasoning there more to your liking. Or maybe not.

If you'd like, KR Training has a Defensive Long Gun class coming up on September 29, 2012. A unique feature of this class is it's about the use of a long gun, rifle or shotgun, doesn't matter because most principles as it relates to (home) defensive context are the same. In running the long gun and watching others run their guns you're able to see what works, what doesn't work, the pros and cons of each platform. If you do decide to come out, please let me know and I'll be sure to be there so we can discuss things further. I find face-to-face discussions far more enjoyable and useful.

Since authoring this piece 3 years ago, I've changed my stance a little bit and softened up on the shotgun... and I think what helped there was discovery and adoption of ammo like the Federal FLITECONTROL. I actually like running my shotgun and a couple are part of my home defense setup... but my Aimpoint-topped AR-15 is as well, because the facts of the 2 platforms do not change, regardless of the line of reasoning used to present those facts.

The problem is that a situation like a BG holding your child or spouse could happen. They might have a gun pointed at them or a knife up against them. Then you have a choice. Do you let them go with your child or do you take that shot? The probability of any one of us being in that situation is so remote that we shouldn't really worry about it or practice those head shots, should we? There's also some pretty slim chances of each one of us being in a violent crime or having to use our firearms to defend ourselves, yet we still have our guns and CHLs and carry as often as we can. So, if and when it happens, what will your choice be?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply TxStar13. I think you are absolutely correct that people should be very familiar with the behavior of whatever weapon they choose to use for home defense. And if that weapon is a shotgun loaded with buckshot, then understanding the typical pattern at various ranges is indeed important.

Heck, familiarity with the weapon is why my go to gun would be my .45 instead of an AR or shotgun. I've shot many thousands more rounds and had significantly more training with the handgun. I recognize that a long gun is probably the inherently superior weapon for the task, but I know that when adrenaline takes over and I am in full fight mode, the muscle memory is there with the .45, and not with my other guns.

At any rate, while I still think that you may have made some mountains out of shotgun molehills in the article, the tone of my critique was probably far more harsh than intended. As you mentioned, face to face discussions are so much better for hashing things like this out. I apologize if it came across as an attack. My critique was meant to challenge some of the points you made, not as a mean-spirited attack.

As I mentioned before, I think it is a great question to consider. I'll go back and read your other articles in the series to see what else you have to say on the point!

C-dub wrote:The problem is that a situation like a BG holding your child or spouse could happen. They might have a gun pointed at them or a knife up against them. Then you have a choice. Do you let them go with your child or do you take that shot? The probability of any one of us being in that situation is so remote that we shouldn't really worry about it or practice those head shots, should we? There's also some pretty slim chances of each one of us being in a violent crime or having to use our firearms to defend ourselves, yet we still have our guns and CHLs and carry as often as we can. So, if and when it happens, what will your choice be?

As you mention... the members of this forum all prepare to some degree for a very low probability event (a life threatening attack). I think that a bad guy using a friendly as a hostage is certainly a scenario we should consider. Sure, it's less likely than a car-jacking... but the stakes are so much higher! I can live with a bad guy driving off with my car. I can't live with a bad guy driving off with my kid.

I don't want to have to consider the problem for the first time in the middle of a crisis, so I've sent a lot of lead downrange with this exact situation in mind and I know the distances at which I would take that shot under various circumstances. Outside of those distances, my focus would be on closing the distance to a point where I could act.

I think birdshot makes fantastic defensive loads. All you have to do is cut open the shell, melt parafin wax, pour shot into wax, spoon shot with wax back into shell, enjoy. Goes in as a slug, destroys tissue like a grenade. I have a 12rd mag full of it for my saiga 12g. brutal

JeepGuy79 wrote:I think birdshot makes fantastic defensive loads. All you have to do is cut open the shell, melt parafin wax, pour shot into wax, spoon shot with wax back into shell, enjoy. Goes in as a slug, destroys tissue like a grenade. I have a 12rd mag full of it for my saiga 12g. brutal

Whaaaaaaaaat? This sounds .. nasty. As the wax runs through the hot barrel, will it start gumming up like I would expect? I'm sure I could run 10 or 20 rounds through with no serious buildup, but I'm curious about the long run.

That sounds like a nasty, nasty combination and I'm interested.

snatchel wrote:

JeepGuy79 wrote:I think birdshot makes fantastic defensive loads. All you have to do is cut open the shell, melt parafin wax, pour shot into wax, spoon shot with wax back into shell, enjoy. Goes in as a slug, destroys tissue like a grenade. I have a 12rd mag full of it for my saiga 12g. brutal

Whaaaaaaaaat? This sounds .. nasty. As the wax runs through the hot barrel, will it start gumming up like I would expect? I'm sure I could run 10 or 20 rounds through with no serious buildup, but I'm curious about the long run.

That sounds like a nasty, nasty combination and I'm interested.

Too bad bacon grease has a lower melting temperature than paraffin ... would smell goooood ... and be effective against Muslim zombies.

Sangiovese wrote:Thanks for the thoughtful reply TxStar13.

You're welcome, and thank you for your input as well. BTW, call me John (or Hsoi). TxStar13 is an old handle and I'd actually like to get it changed to "hsoi". Need to see if the mods can do that for me. I digress.

Sangiovese wrote: I think you are absolutely correct that people should be very familiar with the behavior of whatever weapon they choose to use for home defense. And if that weapon is a shotgun loaded with buckshot, then understanding the typical pattern at various ranges is indeed important.

Heck, familiarity with the weapon is why my go to gun would be my .45 instead of an AR or shotgun. I've shot many thousands more rounds and had significantly more training with the handgun. I recognize that a long gun is probably the inherently superior weapon for the task, but I know that when adrenaline takes over and I am in full fight mode, the muscle memory is there with the .45, and not with my other guns.

Indeed. If I had to pick which I was most familiar with, it'd be handgun (vs. rifle or shotgun). It's what I spend the vast majority of my time working with. Plus, it's always on my hip at hand, so it's going to be more accessible and likely the first thing I'd go for instead of running off to fetch a long gun. The long gun would likely come into play only in particular circumstances (e.g. I had a bit of time).

So certainly, one should opt for what you know best. When everything's on the line, it's not the time to pull out your C game.

Sangiovese wrote:At any rate, while I still think that you may have made some mountains out of shotgun molehills in the article, the tone of my critique was probably far more harsh than intended. As you mentioned, face to face discussions are so much better for hashing things like this out. I apologize if it came across as an attack. My critique was meant to challenge some of the points you made, not as a mean-spirited attack.

No worries. All good. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me, and if I tried to espouse an opinion that satisfied everyone then 1. I'd truly satisfy no one, 2. I'd be a politician. So long as people are willing to discuss, to question, to truly keep an open mind because we are seeking Truth and not holding fast to dogma, I'm good with it. If we didn't do such things, we'd all still think the world was flat.