Page 2 of 2

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2016 6:32 am
by jreinke
Buy one of these diverter chokes. This guy sells them for less than $40 plus shipping, which is one hell of a deal. The only fly in the ointment is that they'll only work with Winchokes. On the bright side, the choke tube adapter is attached by a single screw and a competent machinist could easily fabricate one for any other choke tube style, i.e. Remchoke or Beretta/Benelli. These chokes will give you a 1 to 4 rectangular pattern which will maximize the shot placement when clearing a room or taking out multiple personnel in a mob. They work really good with buckshot.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SHUR-HIT-SHOTGU ... xyeR9THmFa

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:15 am
by mbogo
whiterussian1974 wrote:
mbogo wrote:I like #4 buckshot, but I really like BB and #2 turkey loads. Lots of lead in the air!
Minimal penetration and threat of overspray. A real concern for "after the shoot" when you are charged with Voluntary Manslaughter for killing a Secondary Bystander because they bled out from a neck wound.
I completely disagree.

My shotgun has a turkey choke in it so the pattern is tight, unlike your typical "home defense" shotgun which has a cylinder (open) choke.

mbogo

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 1:05 pm
by TROOPER
Regarding penetration and sheetrock, the "Box O Truth" website sums it up in the most succinct way possible: anything capable of making FBI recommended penetration in a human or ballistic gel, will also penetrate a wall.

Point in fact, the "Box O Truth" got its name due to the home defense topic of "caliber-X-is-good-because-it-won't-over-penetrate-your-walls-and-kill-an-innocent" topic. The makers of the website made a 'wall' out of sheetrock, studs, insulation, etc. and shot it with various calibers. The punch-line is exactly as stated above: anything that's good on a human is bad on a wall.

I urge you to go to the website, because it's pic-heavy, and they've tested a number of firearms on a number of objects - to include shooting locks, cars, ballistic helmets, etc. While the foundation of the website was testing against a 'wall', the over-arching principle of the website is to test a theory and post the pictures instead of simply speculating or going with "common knowledge".

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 1:20 pm
by whiterussian1974
My statement on p1 was that anything larger than #6 Bird shot would penetrate Sheetrock, and that anything smaller than 00 Buck had reduced penetration in the attacker's body (compared to 00, 000 or slugs.)

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 6:22 pm
by TROOPER
I'm not arguing with you... or with anyone, really. I was just excited to see a website such as that and wanted to share it.

Anyway, I think the point of #4 Buck is to maximize wound size while still achieving recommended penetration. The whole thing is a balancing act, and while smaller pellets will give a larger wounding surface, they may not penetrate enough. I get that.

If I had a specific comment to argue with, it would be against the notion that there's a "sheetrock safe" load for a shotgun. Well heck... there may well be, but it won't be reliably adequate on a human.... and I don't remember if anyone specifically said otherwise.

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 6:34 pm
by doubloon
BoT has been around a while. A lot of people like to argue with their methods but I believe a lot of those people spend a lot of their spare time arguing with goats.

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:02 pm
by TROOPER
My only nitpick with them is the method of filling milk-jugs with water and shooting them. I don't think this is really valid for anything except to compare one cartridge against another. Predictably, fast, light calibers are harder on the jugs than big, heavy, slow. But does that really give a real-world indication of a caliber's effectiveness?

That said, what have *I* done to refute any of it? Nothing. I've shot no ballistic gel, no humans, no milk jugs. I've shot paper and soda cans. I am an internet expert at best.

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:28 am
by whiterussian1974
Trooper- my last post was in response to mbogo. I'm using a Tablet and so don't quote as much, nor type as well when using it.

I just wanted to clarify my p1 post, as I felt that it was somewhat unclear upon review.
---
Rock salt and plastic pellets are Sheetrock safe. #8 and #7.5 Bird shot as well when it's wallpapered w adhesive or painted with a latex paint. The elastic binders act like skin to envelope and cling to the pellet's surface and increase drag/friction to slow it.
---
I've shot both water and sand filled milk jugs. Plus I could post Autopsy Findings from various shootings. In fact, that's what Cpl Ed Sanow did in his seminal works. Collected and published many AARs and Autopsy reports.

This method of Real world reporting is better than gel experiments, which can reliably simulate Human Flesh, but only Boar bodies, etc can replicate the Human Torso to a great degree. Which he also did to explain ballistic results. Including why a rib strike improves bullet performance by creating multiple secondary wound channels.

And w smaller Buchshot, the ribs can deflect pellets instead of allowing them to shatter the ribs and create secondary projectiles. :mrgreen:

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:43 am
by whiterussian1974
doubloon wrote:BoT has been around a while. A lot of people like to argue with their methods but I believe a lot of those people spend a lot of their spare time arguing with goats.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vWMnT_eIxFQ
The men who state at Goats. A documentary on the real story. How media fed the Narrative and spread Propaganda.
Minute 10:34 and 13:50 - The Willing Fool.

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:11 am
by Siskiyous
I carried OO Buck as LEO for 20 years, and have seen what it does to mammals, I could care less about "tests". Real life has shown me it works well. My Ithica 37 is always filled with OO, and the side saddle has 3 more of them and 2 slugs.

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:51 pm
by fishman
Siskiyous wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:11 am
I carried OO Buck as LEO for 20 years, and have seen what it does to mammals, I could care less about "tests". Real life has shown me it works well. My Ithica 37 is always filled with OO, and the side saddle has 3 more of them and 2 slugs.
Nobody is denying that 00 will mess up tissue. This anecdotal evidence is useless in determining which size is better. This is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

Re: #4 Buckshot is 'best'?

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:33 pm
by 0101silent
fishman wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:51 pm
Siskiyous wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:11 am
I carried OO Buck as LEO for 20 years, and have seen what it does to mammals, I could care less about "tests". Real life has shown me it works well. My Ithica 37 is always filled with OO, and the side saddle has 3 more of them and 2 slugs.
Nobody is denying that 00 will mess up tissue. This anecdotal evidence is useless in determining which size is better. This is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
I don't believe Siskiyous ever made an argument that 00 is better, only that it works so well he was never compelled to try anything else. BTW, for Siskiyous the isn't anecdotal, its his personal first hand account.

Fishman, 20 years of undeniable anecdotal evidence is useless?

On topic I like the even pattern of 4 buck better than the random distribution of cheap unbuffered 00 buckshot. 00 buck is probably better with buffering or a different wad.