• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gun thread: Using birdshot for home defense shotgun?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HeXen said:
What's wrong with rubber bullets for home defense? i mean it's supposedly enough to stop an attacker, more likely scare any intruder to run. it won't likely kill them leaving you out of some potential legal issue depending on what kind of fcked up situation you ended up in and Clint Eastwood style shootout's in the home between burglar and homeowner isn't exactly a common issue.

I mean at night, with adrenaline going, no one could guarantee they wouldn't accidentally kill an intruder from the back or whatever leaving you vulnerable to some kind of charges...shit happens, it's in the news often where charges against HO were filed, so i was just curious why not rubber bullets for home defense? It's just something i see available for sale, but you never hear about them, or at least i don't.
Click to expand...

because they are worthless for self defense
 
Vic Vega said:
I don't know any practical shooting school for civilians (that includes police, they're civilians too) that advocates a shoot to kill policy because, honestly, you don't know WHAT will kill them and what won't and realistically you shouldn't care. You're shooting to stop plain and simple.

You need to put GOOD rounds on target and keep shooting until they stop attacking you. End of story. They may die, but that is not our intent - our intent is for them to stop. And you would be lucky to remember that if you are ever in a shooting.
Click to expand...

Vic, in all due respect... I get exactly what you are saying. Keep in mind some of us come from different backgrounds and training with firearms. The bottom line for me and my training is you are wielding a deadly instrument - the intent to stop the attack is certainly there, but you are indeed wielding a deadly instrument and when you pull the trigger you are assuming you are indeed delivering death.
 
drebo said:
Castle doctrine provides you with criminal protection, but not civil protection.

The criminal could (and probably will) sue you for medical bills and damages.

He'll probably also claim excessive force was used and depending on the DA in your area, he may try to bring criminal charges before you even despite established castle doctrine.

The point is that my time and money is more important than that, so I will not take the chance by allowing him to live.
Click to expand...

Depends on the state. Florida for example passed CD law with liability protection from the perp or survivors if you were indeed found acting in defense.
 
phucheneh said:
Because refusing to talk to the police and hiring a lawyer without having any pending charges against you isn't suspicious at all...

I think this just goes back to a more basic rule: don't own firearms if you're mentally unfit.
Click to expand...

It is actually the recommended process you should follow. It gives you time to get over the shock of what happened and think clearly and recount the events in a controlled supervised environment.
 
WackyDan said:
It is actually the recommended process you should follow. It gives you time to get over the shock of what happened and think clearly and recount the events in a controlled supervised environment.
Click to expand...

This. Keep your mouth shut. Give very basic information if necessary for the security of the scene and responding officers, then request a lawyer. Not going to be cheap either.
 
phucheneh said:
Because refusing to talk to the police and hiring a lawyer without having any pending charges against you isn't suspicious at all...

I think this just goes back to a more basic rule: don't own firearms if you're mentally unfit.
Click to expand...

"He forced his way into my home, it was him or me, there was no duty/option to retreat (if applicable in your state), I was afraid for my life and fired in self defense. If you desire any more details from me, I will require a lawyer."

Also here's a law professor quoting a Supreme Court Justice, they both say you're wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
 
Wow, what's that? +4 for 'I can't fucking read'?

me said:
Again...you're reinforcing what the people you're 'arguing' with have already said.

'DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE!'

'so, okay, here's what you should say to the police...'

You're basically just using a catchphrase and ignoring its literal meaning.
Click to expand...

If you do as the original poster of the 'don't talk to the police' comment said (volunteer no information), congrats, you win the 'how to spend some time in jail' game. It's a lot easier to speak with your attorney when you're not locked in a cell.

Also, you totally want to make sure the responding officers are not on your side. Those guys are dicks, anyway. 🙄

'Say little' or 'be vague' is not the same as 'say nothing.' English is complicated, I know.
 
TheNinja said:
Ya, I am absolutely all for becoming trained on your weapon before you use it in a life or death situation. My original point was that for the longest time everyone used to say "get a pump, they never fail"....implying that an auto might jam on you in your time of need. I'm saying that today's auto shotguns are probably less likely to fail on the 2nd shot than a normal human on a pump in that situation. 99% of people don't spend everyone other weekend at the range. They might train once and sort of forget it. Also, you cannot simulate the stress of a home invasion, which does speak to your point or muscle reflex.

I went with a pump for $$ reasons and the fact that I feel very comfortable on my Mossberg (have always hunted with them growing up). I would not hesitate to recommend an auto though, but I'd always suggest a pump just for ease of cleaning and $$. Let's face it, 99.99% (however man 9s you want to add) will never be used in a home invasion scenario. But you want one there if you need it.
Click to expand...
I guess we do agree then. As far as practice goes, I can say with experience that after using my 870 with the longer barrel for hunting squirrels and grouse, if a deer popped up, I was on target nearly instantly. But, after switching to lighter shotgun for small game, else a .22, the time to put the sights on my target with the 870 is much longer. Not that I'm going to aim that closely - with a deer, I'm trying to hit a saucer sized area - often at 50 yards or more with the shotgun. For a home intruder, I'm trying to hit anywhere near the center of mass - the intent isn't a quick kill, it's to stop - and that's a bit quicker than carefully aiming with the intention to guarantee a kill.



oldsmoboat said:
You are such a trolling idiot. Next you'll advocate warning shots.
Click to expand...
Why was his response trolling? If I needed to use my shotgun for home defense, that's exactly what I'd grab. If it'll stop a bear, it'll stop an intruder who intends to harm me.
 
I love threads like this. A bunch of morons arguing over the best shotgun load for home defense... even though none of them has ever fired a round at a human being in her lifetime.
 
JulesMaximus said:
I love threads like this. A bunch of morons arguing over the best shotgun load for home defense... even though none of them has ever fired a round at a human being in her lifetime.
Click to expand...

There's actually been pretty much no talk of shotgun loads. All of it has pretty much been agreement: Birdshot = bad, buckshot = good. #4 gives the most coverage, #00 gives you about a third as many pellets but they hit a lot harder (IIRC ~20 grains vs ~50). Pretty much any buckshot load is deadly at the ranges seen inside a typical home.

Your logic is flawless, though. You've never been murdered, or even severely beaten, I'm willing to bet. Therefore, it will never happen. So please go walk through a predominantly black ghetto (specifying; not implying they all are) yelling '******' at the top of your lungs. Report back and let us know if your logic held fast.

edit: LOL, the board blocks the 'n-word' no matter what. Ah, I love anti-racist racism, you honkey cracker fucks.
 
Last edited:
Hehe I founded theboxoftruth.com back when I was in Afghanistan before it turned into an ad fest.

I just registered and ran the site, was fun.
 
12002764.jpg


would you get the same amount of spread from a quad barrel stubbie?
 
Founded. Old Painless posted his stuff on another forum. I suggested to put it online. The rest was history. Like i said, no ads back then. We accepted a few donations but didnt ask for any. Was fun.
 
phucheneh said:
There's actually been pretty much no talk of shotgun loads. All of it has pretty much been agreement: Birdshot = bad, buckshot = good. #4 gives the most coverage, #00 gives you about a third as many pellets but they hit a lot harder (IIRC ~20 grains vs ~50). Pretty much any buckshot load is deadly at the ranges seen inside a typical home.

Your logic is flawless, though. You've never been murdered, or even severely beaten, I'm willing to bet. Therefore, it will never happen. So please go walk through a predominantly black ghetto (specifying; not implying they all are) yelling '******' at the top of your lungs. Report back and let us know if your logic held fast.

edit: LOL, the board blocks the 'n-word' no matter what. Ah, I love anti-racist racism, you honkey cracker fucks.
Click to expand...

I nominate you as head moron. Congrats.
 
Most invaders will get the hell out of there at the first warning of an armed occupant.
Be it an announcement ("I have a gun"), a cycling of the chamber, a gun pointed in their direction, or any firing of the gun, regardless of ammunition.

Birdshot would deter most burglars.

If you are interested in stopping the other small percentage of burglars who are also hopped up on meth and do not have normal brain function, stick with any other deadly round.
 
edro said:
Most invaders will get the hell out of there at the first warning of an armed occupant.
Be it an announcement ("I have a gun"), a cycling of the chamber, a gun pointed in their direction, or any firing of the gun, regardless of ammunition.

Birdshot would deter most burglars.

If you are interested in stopping the other small percentage of burglars who are also hopped up on meth and do not have normal brain function, stick with any other deadly round.
Click to expand...

"Most"? Other than those pulled out of your ass, do you have any statistics or real life experience to back that up? The whole "everyone recognizes the sound of a shotgun racking and simultaneously shits themselves" is an idiotic argument that likely exists solely on internet forums.

If there is some real statistic that announcing your location to an armed intruder will, in MOST cases, end the situation... please share.
 
TallBill said:
Founded. Old Painless posted his stuff on another forum. I suggested to put it online. The rest was history. Like i said, no ads back then. We accepted a few donations but didnt ask for any. Was fun.
Click to expand...

Adblock plus...I don't see any ads...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top