Birdshot as self defense load

That video seems to just show pattern. For more analysis, check out the Box O Truth.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm

Granted, they're discussing .410 birdshot out of a tiny barrel, but there's still useful data there, I think.

We are showing patterns at close range to show that the bird shot can be somewhat useful at close range, we pulled our penetration data from cadavers and so we opted out of using the photos since even gun people are offended and, we have a wide audience that includes children. We are just being careful In the box o truth they used drywall for their test, not a good medium when testing rounds, unless you are seeing if it will go through walls.

Looking at the fact that bird shot can easily be lethal is a red hearing. In a self defense situation your purpose has nothing to do with killing your assailant, but in stopping the attack. .22 shorts can also be quite lethal, but they're hardly a sensible choice for self defense. However, at close ranges bird shot can be extremely effective. The key is that when the shot pattern is tightly confined ac close ranges, it behaves much as a single slug and its penetration has little to do with shot size. (This shows up in ballistic gelatin tests, but I've got a Belgian Browning with a relatively clean hole through both barrels, accidentally made by another shooters #8 bird shot.) The downside is the gruesome wounds mentioned. Buckshot loads will have similar penetration but not only will perform better at longer distances, but will result in cleaner, more survivable wounds at closer range. Still, if that's what you've got in your gun, I wouldn't worry about its not working.

This is a very bad idea, while it can discourage, it will not ensure a stop of criminal or violent activity.

I will use birdshot, or target load for training, but number four-buck shot for self defense.

Birdshot is unlikely to kill, but it should not be underestimated as a stopper. How many people could maintain an attack if they caught a load in the face that would probably demolish their eyes?

Current doctrine breaks down shotgun kill zones into A, B and C zones. Where they start depends on the gun, the load and the shooter. C starts where 00 buckshot drops off, somewhere between 15-25yds. and is the zone for slugs. But beyond 50yds, a shotgun is an inaccurate rifle.

The A zone is out to maybe 10 yds, and is typical for a hostage rescue shot with buckshot. You need to know your pattern and should think about a select slug drill for more precision, but inside a house, buckshot is probably best.

Inside of 10yds, like that man said in his video, birdshot works, but so does buckshot. And like he said, if you're recoil sensitive or infirm, birdshot is better than nuthin'!

An AR might be best all round, but those darn things are hard to conceal when you're just going out for a sandwich.

Birdshot does not have the stopping power past point blank range. It will not "stop" someone. It may give them a mortal wound, but they can do a lot of damage as they are dying. And shotguns don't "clear alleys". They must be AIMED. Learn to use rifles, shotguns and handguns. There is no ONE gun that will fix every situation.

If you wound somebody justifiably in Texas, by standing case law and rulings, they still have recourse to civil law. I'd rather shoot somebody point blank in the face with something that would kill them as it would be one less witness against me in a civil trial if things came down to brass tacks. If you like bigger legal bills: WOUND AWAY, IT'S YOUR MONEY!

Thomas wanders off scratching his head at people that shoot to wound...using birdshot. Thomas doesn't shoot birds to "shoot to wound" with birdshot...If it's worth shooting it's worth killin'.

I don't know why anyone would choose bird shot for self defense unless they're anticipating being attacked by birds.