Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Looking for home defense pistol, Glock???

I haven't tried it in years, but I was never too impressed by the amount of #6 shot that was always left behind in 80's/90's era 2 liter soft drink bottles, water filled and not, at short distances.

I can tell you straight up that 95%+ of the people espousing one thing or another haven't been shot. Get shot with #6 and tell me it doesn't put you on your ass, or at least make you stop wanting to fight.

RJM....Perhaps 30+ years ago those LEO's didn't know as much as they thought or wished they did but to say that LEO's today don't know what they are talking about is a foolish and untrue statement period. One of those gentlemen worked on the "major case squad" for the last 15 years and I can assure you or anybody else, he certainly knows more about ballistics than any 3 people on this network.

Now for those who have never hunted wild turkey, I can tell you right up front that a #6 pellet from a 12ga turkey load will travel clean through the head of a TOM bird at 32 yards, NOT feet understand. So at 30-FEET I doubt that any invader is going to cause a lot of problems being hit twice in the head from my 590 MOSSBERG PUMPGUN..... Now you can take that to the bank sir!!!

Tonk...I just got out of LE a few years ago..not 30...and I stand by my statement. Your friend may be the exception but anyone who would recommend #6 birdshot for home defense, I wish you luck.

I sent that link to my ex-shooting partner on Dallas PD who was on the TAC Squad for 22 of his 30 years...he was in just a "few" confrontations over the years. He sent back this:

"That was a good read.

It agrees pretty much with what I think about shotguns.
I would never use birdshot for defense, unless that is the only thing I had.

Likewise I do not like #4 Buck for defense, I do like it for a varmint load.

Tac did a buckshot study for the Dept after some rounds of OO buck failed to get enough hits in the body. At first #1 was used, but sometimes penetration was lacking.

Then Single Ought was used. That worked real good. Later they went back to OO, and went with Federal Tactical 00. That stuff had less recoil and grouped very good."

Take it for what it is worth...Bob

I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating. The couple-dozen security folks I worked around after Katrina preferred shotguns loaded with slugs for clearing buildings and some type of AR platform for street work.

I asked them about it and they all said they wanted more penetration than shot shells provided. They wanted to be able to shoot through cover that a bad guy is hiding behind, such as chairs, couches, walls, etc. At the time I thought that was a little extreme, but after looking at the link Rufus put up it turns out I was wrong.

For what it's worth, these guys were ex-military and most were active LEO working under temporary contract for one of the big security outfits. A couple were ex-Seals, including the black guy in the photo.

I noticed that handloading came up. Things may have changed, but the consensus used to be to NOT use handloads in a self-defense pistol; not because of reliability, but in the interests of presenting the best case of non-liability. Off-the-shelf ammo doesn't provide the poor, grieving family of the dead burglar with the ability to argue that the shooter is some type of "gun nut," who "even makes his own bullets" because he's so eager to kill. It's America... anyone can sue anyone, anytime, for any reason... even if they won't win. Don't make it easier.

My place... large lab with a barking disorder... followed by a Ithaca 37 with buck ...then a Sig 220 with Trijcon nightsights, and .45 Hydrashock.

That's a myth invented by people who don't understand the law. Part of the law in the United States are the rules of evidence. One rule of evidence is that no testimony, evidence, or argumentation in summation, is permitted to be heard that does not relate to a question legitimately at issue.

In a self defense, or a defense of third parties, claim of lawful justification (where the shooting was intentional, and claimed to be justified), the only question at issue is justification. Evidence tending to show that the defendant was a gun enthusiast doesn't tend to refute a claim of justification, therefore no evidence designed to demonstrate that the defendant was a gun enthusiast would be admissible (Even if, for example, you had a witness who would testify that the defendant enjoyed torturing puppies, and therefore was likely to commit murder, would be inadmissible). You have to restrict your evidence, testimony, argumentation, to facts tending to disprove that the "victim" presented to the defendant what that ordinary prudent person would perceive as an immanent threat to life or limb. You may not deviate from that, or attempt to show that the defendant had murderer-like character in any way.

JOG....I can understand the reason behind using a slug-gun for clearing a house or building with "bad guys" and those slugs will penetrate a whole lot more than 000 or 00 Buck shot.

However, in one's on home, with members of your family in other rooms, it just is NOT wise to use a shotgun with Buck-Shot or Slugs period. I don't give a Tinkers DAMN if I knock down the bad guy or guys and end up shooting through a wall and killing my own grandkids OK. Now just think about that before anyone posts a reply!!!

I know Dog Gone Well, that #6 shot will knock an invader down for the count at 30 feet or less, especially if they are hit twice. You take a watermellon and place it on a table, back off 10 yards and put two #6 shot rounds from a 12 ga pump gun into that mellon and then tell me it is not good enough for home defense.

Tonk - take your watermelon and smack it real hard with a 16oz hammer. Makes a big hole in it, right? now have someone do the same to your rib cage (just pretend, if you like). No hole - just a big bruise. Yeah, it hurts (take my word for it) but it doesn't kill you or stop you from doing anything you're determined to do. Point is - you ain't a watermelon, and neither is the guy breaking into your house.

Bad comparison, bro.


I think I'll rely on my ability to apply lead to where I want it and avoid where I don't - with the assurance of good penetration on the intended target. You can't defend your family or even worry about accidentally hitting them if the BG already got you (or them) because you thought you put him down with a shallow flesh wound.

My friend, take it from one who has been there and seen it. In 16 years of being a Paramedic, not once have I treated a patient who was shot with buckshot or slugs, every last one was delcared dead at the scene. However, I have never, not once, declared one DOA who was shot with birdshot. And surprisingly, most still had a good deal of fight left in them.

You really need a minimum of 8" of penetration from a sizable projectile, and there is no birdshot that is capable of doing that. #4 buck will do it but the projectile sizes is only .24 which is not what anyone would call sizable; but in my experience, #4 gets the job done if ranges are under 20 yards.

Think about it, #6 has enough energy to kill a 5 lb bird at 20-40 yards; just think on that one.

I agree with you in a criminal prosecution scenario; that's why I was discussing civil liability. Self-Defense would be an affirmative defense on which the homeowner has the burden of proof. But a Plaintiff's lawyer would be seeking to to show the homeowner's acts were (1) not reasonable; and (2) that he homeowner did not reasonably fear for his safety. Depending on the law of the state (i.e., Castle Doctrine, Retreat, etc.), and the underlying facts, that might make it to a jury. While the Rules of Evidence exist, the trial judge makes the ruling. Most judges are former DA's, and just about all evidence comes in. The Plaintiff's lawyer would have subpoenaed all your 24HourCampfire postings, and would be able to present those as evidence; hopefully those wouldn't include some of the more "shoot first/ask questions later" thoughts, or the "bring em on, can't wait" postings." Then they introduce into evidence the hand-loading of special rounds. Then they trot out an expert to opine on statistics, point out that even Police don't handload, and another expert to talk about sociopaths who want to kill. If it gets to a jury, then the lawyer gets to argue the "inferences" that arise from the evidence. Then the twelve people who weren't able to get out of jury duty decide whether you owe millions (hopefully, your homeowners insurance is at least paying for your defense; but maybe not, since the shooting was "a result intended by the insured..."

So you get to put on your case; figure $100,000-$150,000 in legal fees, another $20,000-$50,000 for expert witnesses.

Not to be ironic, but you don't want to hand the other side a possible piece of ammunition. One brick is just bick; once they start stacking bricks, it becomes a wall.

Hey Hawk, care to join me in a mock cross examination to see how your hand loaded ammunition holds up in a civil case?

The ammunition will be allowed because the plaintiff wants to prove malicious intent.

I haven't been posting here because I wanted to see where this would go.
A couple of things.
First of all, this whole thing started about defending against home invasions, attacks by BG's, etc.
I've met lots of bad guys. They fall into two groups. Those that don't want to get caught and run the minute they suspect they might be seen or arrested and those that know they are up against people who will see them and are prepared to deal with them.
The first are the ones that just showing them a gun will do fine. The latter are those that are prepared to deal with you and whatever you try to do that will stop them.
The ones in the last group can be burgulars who specialize in hitting occupied homes, rapists, home invaders and stick up men.
Most of them. perhaps as many as 80%, will be at least a little high on something. Most of them will be armed with something. There seems to be a new trend to wear body armor these days. Often they are not alone.
This class of threat is a long way from "waking up in the middle of the night to a burgular" whose got to be very new at it not to know you are home. It's more like they followed you home from shopping and decided to take you down. Or they kicked the door in and in they, not one, comes. In that case, they have some idea that you have something they really want and they picked this time to hit you.
All of this indicates to me that owning a handgun to keep you company at night, especially if you hardly know how to use it, isn't going to do the job. Getting a CCW permit and carrying one, one that you are very familar with, is much more like it. BTW, I dunno about your state, but in liberal Kalifornia there are circumstances where at least you can't be successfully prosecuted even if you carry w/o a permit. Check with your lawyer if this is your situation.
Worrying about civil actions afterwards is something to look forward to. That means you survived. BTW, if you get thrown a bunch of BS by the other side, again, here in liberal old Kalifornia, you can file a counter suit, or cross complaint about the vicious actions of the BG's survivors. If more people did this instead of worrying about using handloads, we'd have to put up with alot less of this.
What I'm suggesting is that if this is a real threat to you, a simple handgun by the bed stand isn't all you need. More like a very comprehensive plan of action to see this threat coming, and deal with them. Or do something else so that you and your's survive. Laugh if you wish. But iron bars on the door at night does work. So do dogs, sensor lights and, of course, guns in the hands of willing, competent people. E

I worked with a guy who had to kill a fool in his home who had a fatal attraction to the guy's wife. I also worked with his brother, sister, and dad and had gone to school with all of the kids. He shot the would-be suitor in the head with a load of 6 shot at about 15-20 feet. I never talked to the kid who killed the guy about it in any depth, as he was pretty shaken up and weirded out about the whole deal. His dad, who did most of the cleanup, told me it was an unforgetable mess and they were finding little pieces of head and brain for months afterwards.

Well I have to say this has been an interesting read.

I am dirty and tired from a long day here and feel like smacking the keys on my computer with somewhat of a rant in regards to what I have just read. So here we go.

There seems to be some folks here who are absolutely convinced that nothing is better than XXX and anyone who disagrees is a fool.

I find that amusing, especially since the most adamant seem to have zero experience in the actual application.

One of the realities in the buisness of shooting people is that sometimes stuff works, sometimes it doesn't. The term "situational dependant" comes up a lot.

On another note. One guy who did one thing, one time in his leo career is not much for an authoritave example. Nor is one homeowner.

Another point: Personally I am not much of a fan of sending neophytes to local gun ranges for instruction for anything beyond the fundamentals of marksmanship. There always seems to be too many guys who want to be important or an "authority", so they take an NRA instructor course and hang out a shingle as a subject matter expert. The VAST majority of NRA certified instructors have no buisness at all teaching anything beyond subjects such as sight picture and trigger control.

I have listened to these guys tell some very interesting stories and proceed to inform me that what they carry is what real seal/ranger/ninja raiders carry and that they have their finger on the pulse of the "spec op" shooting community. A couple of times I have been at trade/industry shows in the states, or in some local shop at home when I have been cornered by one of these adamant "#6 birdshot/1911/revolver shooting wadcutters" experts.

My friends get frustrated with me for not calling people out as completely full of crap, but frankly most of the times it is not worth it. It has been my experience that sometimes it is best to just grin and nod and walk away.

Here is a compilation of "No Kidding there I was" first hand, after action reviews all rolled up into one.

9MMs always work, except when it did not.
.45s always work, except when it did not.
M4s using green tip always work, except when it did not.
M249 SAWs always work....

I hope by now you are sensing a trend.

Perhaps some should go back and spend some time reflecting on what the OP was initially asking.

It is 11pm here so I am hitting the rack.

Good night guys.

For six years I investigated hunting accidents in southern wv. Most involved shotguns with hunting loads. Read #5 or #6 shot. I have seen a man killed graveyard dead with #5s. No huge gaping wound, just peppered from clavacle to pelvis. Plus several others who survived but, trust me , had little fight but a lot of misery, left in them. At close range the wounds are horrific, regardless of shot size.

I do not want to shot with a shotgun loaded with jelly beans and you don't either.

O

Sheesh, Mac, I hope you're not talking about me - I really try to keep my inner ninja in check.

Free-ME! Now that you mentioned getting hit in the rib cage my good man, I'll let you know that I spent several years doing just that, playing Dixie on the other guys rib cage. I guess you could say I have plenty of experience in the subject.

Now yes a hammer will make a whole in a watermellon if one was to hit it hard enough. I don't know what that has to do with the effects of #6 shot on a watermellon but I do know that if your head gets hit square with 2 shots of a 12ga 3 inch shell, your NOT going to do anything but hit the ground 95% DEAD savvy.

So please don't hand this BS about #6 shot is NO GOOD for home protection at 30 feet or less. I actually have my pump gun loaded with 6's for the first 3 shots and #5's there after. I once saw a guy shoot a crippled horse that broke it's leg. Now his weapon was a double barrel shotgun at 20 feet away and that horse hit the ground like the Hammer Of Thor. I rest my casee and don't need a Navy Seal to tell me what a pump 12 ga can do or can't do, hell I carried one.

much ado about nada ime


I was waaaaay overdue on handgun training


took a Glock 23 and a Kimber version of Combat Commander to the range this a.m.

at handgun ranges defensible in a court of law you wouldn't have wanted to be a thang, pop can, shotshell box or milk jug, they all danced.

it was fun, hadn't visited the handgun range in a long while, extra bonus of finding about double of the amount of brass I shot up in .45 and .40

the main thing I noticed was I didn't seem as fast as when I shot a lot and often.

I think everyone's first handgun should be a revolver, but quickly move to a Glock afterwards. Save the 1911's for the folks that are serious about handgunning ime.

I'm also a fan of tritium night sights and lasers, have both on most of momma's shooting irons and at least one or the other on most everything else, but not all.

for a woman that you can't get to shoot as often as you'd like I'm a fan of the Glock 22 as I prefer .40 over 9mm, get her a surefire to go in the box with it, equip it with tritium and a laser, I can like cheating when I'm out to win.

Ha ha,

Good morning.

Nope JOG,

I was just letting off a bit of steam about some of the sillyness that comes out when subjects like this are posted.