On not wanting to be shot with birdshot: You are correct, and I knew that when I wrote it. But someone stating that they know of a case or two of birdshot not stopping an assailant is not much better.Kommander wrote:Two items. First "Birdshot is effective against humans at close range". No it's not. It does not have enough energy to penetrate to the CNS and is therefore not a proper defensive round. Sure you'll make a messy wound and that may stop the aggressor. Or it may not.Bullspit wrote:Fact: Birdshot is effective against humans at close range. Not as effective as buckshot but do you want to volunteer to stand up to be shot with birdshot at 20 feet? I know I sure don't! For the record, I wouldn't use anything smaller than 7 1/2 shot and larger would be fine. Choose based on how likely you think it is that you can risk over-penetration.
Secondly the whole "I don't want to be shot with it" is a fallacious argument. It makes no sense. No one wants to be shot with anything. Using this logic thrown pudding cups are an effective stopper because people don't like getting hit by them. The proper question is what would you rather be shot with, birdshot or buckshot? I would much rather be shot by birdshot, and therefore will be loading buck.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree about birdshot being effective on humans for the moment. I'll stipulate that it is not ideal. It is not as effective as buckshot. I will still contend that it is effective *enough* at close range, the types of ranges you find in your typical apartment or home for me to choose it in light of the danger of over penetration of other more effective rounds.
Perhaps I'm too worried about lawsuits because I live in California. What are your thoughts about the hazards of over penetration? The Box 0 Truth (love the site, shooting stuff is fun) says that # 4 buck penetrates 6 layers of drywall. In apartments where I lived there were two layers of drywall between my hallway and the neighbors, four layers between my master bedroom and the neighbors kid's bedroom. Would you be willing to own the liability of using buckshot if you lived in such a situation? Or would you have to make a tactical decision not to shoot under some circumstances because the probability of your shot over penetrating was too high?
As for the thread being about home defense or urban unrest? I thought both. I emphasized home defense but also addressed post SHTF in which case I would definitely choose the rifle. Which scenario is more likely? I think home defense.