TexasCHLforum.com

jmorris wrote:I think it's been awhile since we've had this debate.

Fun debate. Reading articles is fun. Watching sheet rock and stacks of meat get shot is more fun. Paul Harrell's opinion was that fairly powerful bird shot is required for effective target damage and reducing the likelihood of leaving the house. He first addressed sheet rock penetration and then addressed meat targets. Conclusion at 11:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaR1EVybUgc

acronym 4/17/2017 12:20 PM

Something I don't see addressed is human penetration AFTER sheet rock. Yes, it will penetrate the sheet rock. Will it penetrate flesh after that though? Does the sheet rock reduce the velocity enough to reduce harm?
That being said, I still prefer my M&P with Federal HST because my aim and response time with a pistol is far superior. I've always been clumsy and random with a shotgun. Now if I could get a functioning lightsaber...

apvonkanel wrote:Something I don't see addressed is human penetration AFTER sheet rock. Yes, it will penetrate the sheet rock. Will it penetrate flesh after that though? Does the sheet rock reduce the velocity enough to reduce harm?
That being said, I still prefer my M&P with Federal HST because my aim and response time with a pistol is far superior. I've always been clumsy and random with a shotgun. Now if I could get a functioning lightsaber...

Any shotgun has it's limitations. Low round count being one, the fact that it is much harder to maneuver through tight hallways, doorways etc, and that it is difficult to use you hands for anything else while holding one. I don't recommend anyone attempt to use a shotgun for HD, if they have not received some training, and done a lot of practice.

I trained with the shotgun when I was a LEO, and just recently took a defensive shotgun course, which showed me how much more practice I need. I feel comfortable with a shotgun just as I do with my handgun. My AR on the other hand, I have only had for a little over a year, and I don't feel competent enough with it yet, to use it for HD, unless everything else was unavailable.

Everyone will have to determine what they want to use, and what they feel most confident with, and I won't argue with their decision at all.

apvonkanel wrote:Something I don't see addressed is human penetration AFTER sheet rock. Yes, it will penetrate the sheet rock. Will it penetrate flesh after that though? Does the sheet rock reduce the velocity enough to reduce harm?

I would be even more interested in seeing a test where walls are shot at a 45° angle instead of 90 ° There is a very slim chance you'll be shooting at a bad guy square on to your interior walls.

It might not have very much effect on buckshot or a pistol bullet, but I bet it would have a dramatic effect on a 55 gr. .223.

Hat tip to AndyC for this video about a month ago:

https://youtu.be/PbdmQ5IN2j0

I don't think they included shotguns, but they did include rifles in .223/5.56, 7.62x39, and .308 Winchester, using several different loads in the ARs and AKs (the .308 might as well have been a saboted tungsten penetrator), and then handguns in 9mm and .45 ACP, to see how different calibers and bullets did for penetration of walls inside of a house. 55 grain .223 FMJ was basically no worse than handguns for penetration of wallboard.

Pawpaw wrote:

apvonkanel wrote:Something I don't see addressed is human penetration AFTER sheet rock. Yes, it will penetrate the sheet rock. Will it penetrate flesh after that though? Does the sheet rock reduce the velocity enough to reduce harm?

I would be even more interested in seeing a test where walls are shot at a 45° angle instead of 90 ° There is a very slim chance you'll be shooting at a bad guy square on to your interior walls.

It might not have very much effect on buckshot or a pistol bullet, but I bet it would have a dramatic effect on a 55 gr. .223.

I think it would have a great effect on anything. Think about it like this, you can punch through a 1/2" piece of drywall straight on, but try to punch the same piece on the edge. While the mechanics are slightly different, any projectile striking the drywall at an angle, will meet much more resistance from the drywall, because it will have to traverse further through it. The projectile will then have to penetrate another piece of drywall at the same angle, or be deflected back into the interior of the wall. Even if it penetrates the second sheet it's expended energy will cause it slow much more rapidly. Additionally, the odds are much better that the projectile will strike a wall stud when fired at an angle.

This is strictly speculation, since I haven't actually tested it, nor have I seen any test performed in this manner.

Jusme wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

apvonkanel wrote:Something I don't see addressed is human penetration AFTER sheet rock. Yes, it will penetrate the sheet rock. Will it penetrate flesh after that though? Does the sheet rock reduce the velocity enough to reduce harm?

I would be even more interested in seeing a test where walls are shot at a 45° angle instead of 90 ° There is a very slim chance you'll be shooting at a bad guy square on to your interior walls.

It might not have very much effect on buckshot or a pistol bullet, but I bet it would have a dramatic effect on a 55 gr. .223.

I think it would have a great effect on anything. Think about it like this, you can punch through a 1/2" piece of drywall straight on, but try to punch the same piece on the edge. While the mechanics are slightly different, any projectile striking the drywall at an angle, will meet much more resistance from the drywall, because it will have to traverse further through it. The projectile will then have to penetrate another piece of drywall at the same angle, or be deflected back into the interior of the wall. Even if it penetrates the second sheet it's expended energy will cause it slow much more rapidly. Additionally, the odds are much better that the projectile will strike a wall stud when fired at an angle.

This is strictly speculation, since I haven't actually tested it, nor have I seen any test performed in this manner.

Not just because of the amount of materiel to go through, but we also have to look at the simple aspect of angle-of-impact. Transference of power, deflecting vs. stopping, or in this case even stopping something that's been deflected. It's the same principal of stopping power in a JHP vs. FMJ. It's not just the JHP creates a bigger wound cavity, it's that the JHP transfers a greater amount of velocity to the object (pushing the person back more), where a FMJ might fully penetrate, passing through (leaving the person with a in and out tunnel, keeping them in the same place) and keep some of its velocity.

Here is a video from some of the guys over at Primary and Secondary discussing weapons for home defense. They talk briefly about pistols, ARs, and shotguns, to include birdshot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrGL8we ... e=youtu.be

A few years back my neighbor had a breakin, Spanish male late 20's, illegal. After enduring a beating, broken jaw, broken ribs and raped, he went to steal her purse which made her mad, she was 83 at the time, being good and mad and possibly left for dead she managed to retrieve her weapon a Winchester 37 16 GA single shot, (not typo) 1 round of Rem ShurShot rolled crimp paper hull #6, she hit center chest at 20' he did not make it to trial, dead in yard as it blew him out the screen door! Asked why did you shoot just 1 time "all the shells I had!" He was taking my purse! Neighbors bought her a Ruger revolver and new ammo! Gunclub gave her a safety course & lifetime membership and she earned a LTC.

She also has a beautiful SA Colt in 44 spl and a mint 73 Win 38-40 I would love to own!

AndyC wrote:

apvonkanel wrote:It's not just the JHP creates a bigger wound cavity, it's that the JHP transfers a greater amount of velocity to the object (pushing the person back more)

Sorry, but that's nonsense, even if you were referring to energy and not velocity. Why do you even care how much velocity is left? If I hit you with a cannonball and it goes right through you, am I really going to complain that most of its energy was wasted? As much as I'm a Scot and we're notoriously cheap, we're talking about effectiveness - not efficiency.

Many people get confused about bullets pushing people back. Too many movies and TV shows IMO.

Airsoft overpenetrates even less.

AndyC wrote:

twomillenium wrote:birdshot inside the home is macho enough for defense and it is the intelligent choice for home defense....birdshot has proven to be more than efficient to stop a threat inside the home.

It isn't and hasn't, but carry on.

I believe that people who use birdshot aren't concerned with over-penetration as much as they might protest otherwise (or they'd simply refuse to use any of their handguns inside, too) but can't stand the fact that someone might die from being shot so they use birdshot because "I just wanna pepper him a little bit and scare him away".

That article had zero to do with terminal ballistics and focused merely on the penetration of sheet-rock - I'm hardly convinced. While people have died from being shot with birdshot, to my mind dying is irrelevant: my questions are "How many cases are there and what percentage of them stopped. Of those stopped, how fast did they stop after being shot and how far away were they?". Other than close-up assassinations, I'm sure there are very few.

It is, it has and that is proven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM5U2kGQCc

One particularly unfruitful day of dove hunting, I took a shot at a rabbit with dove shot. I was glad I aimed at the head, because there would have been no rabbit otherwise. As it was, the head was gone.

I think that translates into a nasty hole in somebody. The severity of the wound depends on how far away you are. At most interior distances, I suspect bird shot is quite lethal.

Personally , I use #1Buck. However, I have used birdshot in the past. A trama surgeon once told a LEO I knew, it is easier to put 9 00 buck holes back together than it is hamburger meat. After my testing in an old mobile home, I'm confident that birdshot is deadly at close range.