Author Topic: Bird/rat shot as first round for SD? (Read 18580 times)

OV-1D · « **Reply #35 on:** 18 »

Dang what beautiful piece of God's work , shame most people don't look as good for their species .

cfsharry · « **Reply #36 on:** 19 »

Dinadan,

Great pic. Telephoto or were you as close as it appears?

Dinadan · « **Reply #37 on:** 20 »

Quote from: cfsharry on 19

Dinadan,

Great pic. Telephoto or were you as close as it appears?

I was about three or four feet away, but that snake was only eighteen or twenty inches long. My camera did have a zoom function.

Quote from: OV-1D on 18

Dang what beautiful piece of God's work , shame most people don't look as good for their species .

I represent that!

grayelky · « **Reply #38 on:** 07 »

I can't fathom an officer being in trouble for a suspect not dying!

It is a small difference, but I would never shoot to kill. I only shoot to stay alive. My philosophy may be a little different, BUT, if God wants him alive, I can't kill him. If God wants him dead, I can't keep him alive. You have no concept of the adrenaline rush you will be under. Several times a day, I say to myself, "I was in fear of my life and I defended myself. I would like to speak with my attorney." I want that to be the words out of my mouth when the nice police officer asks me what happened. I hope I can avoid saying, "THAT LOW LIFE POND SCUM SUCKING PRIME EXCUSE OF WHY SOME SPECIES EAT THEIR YOUNG, WASTE OF WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE PASSED FOR HUMAN FLESH, TRIED TO KILL ME, AND I LIT THE USELESS (illegitimate male child) UP! (heck) YEAH I SHOT THE WORTHLESS PIECE OF (excrement), AND IF YOU WILL GIVE ME MY GUN AND AMMO BACK, I'LL SHOOT HIS WORTHLESS (backside) SOME MORE!!! (This is after all, a "G" rated version.

Now, which of those 2 will sound better to the:
A) Six o'clock news
B) Grand Jury
C) Prosecutor
D) "poor, misunderstood, misguided, youth who fell in with the wrong crowd" family's attorney who is handling their civil case against you
E) Trial judge
F) Jury

The shoot to stay alive will come off better, for you, to all but "D". The family's civil attorney would prefer you answer, "THAT LOW LIFE......"

Any questions?

top dog · « **Reply #39 on:** 10 »

Doc,
I see where you are coming from but that type of test has mostly negatives and scant few positives.

Aside from the risk and dangers,now the person tested will not really know if the next person that approaches them is for real or not.

Under stress,a person reverts to their training and the thought will always be in their mind that maybe this is yet another test.

Even blanks,at close range,pose a serious hazard and there is always the possibility a live round might get back in the mix.

There are a number of police training incidents where a live round got back into the mix with tragic results.

IMHO,I would not try this type of senerio,too much at risk with really not much gain,but that is IMHO.

Top Dog

bleak_window · « **Reply #40 on:** 11 »

I strongly considered the merits of .22 magnum shot when I got the 7-shot S&W 351c. Those extra 2 shots seemed like such a luxury, and I wondered, on a strictly STRATEGIC level, if having 1 or 2 chambers loaded with shotshells might be wise.

First, I believe I am more likely to draw on a snake or a dog than a human. If it's a snake or dog, I'd definitely want the birdshot. Yes, even for a charging Rotty. I don't wanna kill a dog, and if I could turn him away him with a loud bang and some stinging pellets, that would be better than putting a hollow point in him. The shotshell also gives me a much better chance of hitting him before he closes on me.

As for a human attacker, the CCI .22 mag shotshell patterns to about softball size at 12 feet. That's a lot of lead to the face! Even if each pellet is a tiny bee sting, catching a few dozen of them in the face would be disconcerting even if he wasn't blinded. Yes, a hollow point to the face might end the threat completely, but if it's a near miss, the shotshell would at least have some effect; the hollow point wouldn't. In fact, the hollow point could injure or kill an innocent. That's much less likely with the shotshell.

As for the LEGAL issue of using a shotshell in a defensive encounter, as noted above, the short-range and minimal penetration of the shotshell could help you completely AVOID a trial if a miss with a hollow point would have injured or killed an innocent, or damaged property. Then there's the argument you could make that the shotshell was an attempt to end the attack without killing the attacker, not much different than using pepper spray or a taser. You could also explain that the shotshell strategy was strictly because of its usefulness against wild or feral animals, and because you are statistically more likely to encounter an animal attack. Should be no different than carrying bear spray in a wilderness area and having to use it on a human attacker.

Still, the 351c stays loaded with 7 Speer Gold Dots, so you might say I haven't completely convinced myself of the above. I would load 2 or 3 shotshells if carrying in the swamps, though.

bill_deshivs · « **Reply #41 on:** 12 »

Using bird/rat shot for defense is definitely not recommended. It is still considered use of deadly force. Shot has almost no penetration qualities.
As far as having someone shoot blanks at someone else- this is a stupid statement! Sorry, but it is! Blanks can kill or maim. Many people have been killed or injured thinking blanks can't hurt them.

OV-1D · « **Reply #42 on:** 13 »

Quote from: grayelky on 07

I can't fathom an officer being in trouble for a suspect not dying!

It is a small difference, but I would never shoot to kill. I only shoot to stay alive. My philosophy may be a little different, BUT, if God wants him alive, I can't kill him. If God wants him dead, I can't keep him alive. You have no concept of the adrenaline rush you will be under. Several times a day, I say to myself, "I was in fear of my life and I defended myself. I would like to speak with my attorney." I want that to be the words out of my mouth when the nice police officer asks me what happened. I hope I can avoid saying, "THAT LOW LIFE POND SCUM SUCKING PRIME EXCUSE OF WHY SOME SPECIES EAT THEIR YOUNG, WASTE OF WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE PASSED FOR HUMAN FLESH, TRIED TO KILL ME, AND I LIT THE USELESS (illegitimate male child) UP! (heck) YEAH I SHOT THE WORTHLESS PIECE OF (excrement), AND IF YOU WILL GIVE ME MY GUN AND AMMO BACK, I'LL SHOOT HIS WORTHLESS (backside) SOME MORE!!! (This is after all, a "G" rated version.

Now, which of those 2 will sound better to the:
A) Six o'clock news
B) Grand Jury
C) Prosecutor
D) "poor, misunderstood, misguided, youth who fell in with the wrong crowd" family's attorney who is handling their civil case against you
E) Trial judge
F) Jury

The shoot to stay alive will come off better, for you, to all but "D". The family's civil attorney would prefer you answer, "THAT LOW LIFE......"

Any questions?

You took the words right out of my mouth HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!! HA .

Dinadan · « **Reply #43 on:** 17 »

Quote from: grayelky on 07

I can't fathom an officer being in trouble for a suspect not dying!
SNIP

I agree Gray. But I get the feeling that a lot of LEOs are trained to treat any suspect like he is a fanatic terrorist. I do not know if the LEOs have become more militaristic or if it is just a matter of the bad apples getting more press when they kill someone who did not need killing. I have read that the CIA is training some domestic police here in the USA. That would fit with some of the worse excesses that we see.

swolf · « **Reply #44 on:** 19 »

Info I have been given says a real firearm loaded with ANYTHING (bird shot, red pepper, marshmallows, etc,) and fired at a person constitutes deadly force. The question comes up with the empty capsules available for larger caliber pistols that can be loaded with whatever you want--the main idea being anti-dog loads of pepper, salt, and other irritants.

In the '90's I was in South Africa a couple years and was granted a carry permit as I worked in game parks and frequented the townships of Johannesburg. They required that in a self-defense situation one would fire a "warning shot" before firing for effect. Most people I knew loaded their pistols with bird shot for that first "warning shot" as concerns over where your intentionally missed shot went was a serious issue. I carried a Taurus .357 revolver and 2 speed loaders. Armor piercing rounds were legal to own, so my first round was a load of bird shot, but my reload was armor piercing rounds that could penetrate the cinder blocks used for most construction.

doc_stadig · « **Reply #45 on:** 19 »

I'm not advocating this kind of trial for everyone, in fact, I would not recommend it, but it will help give her confidence in a desperate situation. NOT FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: bill_deshivs on 12

Using bird/rat shot for defense is definitely not recommended. It is still considered use of deadly force. Shot has almost no penetration qualities.
As far as having someone shoot blanks at someone else- this is a stupid statement! Sorry, but it is! Blanks can kill or maim. Many people have been killed or injured thinking blanks can't hurt them.

They were instructed to stay 20 feet away, I had not used this as a first line test, she was trained for several months in a progressive, gradually intensifying course of training. I spent 20 years in the military, and trained in various capacities. The sentence I started this post with was the last sentence on the questioned post, I said that I did not recommend it. I've also been involved in several cowboy reenactments, and we used blanks all the time, the friend I used, worked with me in my reenacting scenarios, I didn't just give her a gun and let her shoot at someone, she was, after all, my daughter. We both knew the ramifications involved, and weighed them out prior to creating the environment. I should not have had to explain how this was enacted, I would have thought that it should have been self-evident that there was no real danger involved. I knew the poster was talking about his wife, even if there weren't any disclaimer.

Doc

OV-1D · « **Reply #46 on:** 20 »

Quote from: Dinadan on 20

Quote from: cfsharry on 19
Dinadan,

Great pic. Telephoto or were you as close as it appears?
I was about three or four feet away, but that snake was only eighteen or twenty inches long. My camera did have a zoom function.

Quote from: OV-1D on 18
Dang what beautiful piece of God's work , shame most people don't look as good for their species .
I represent that!

My mind sees one thing and the mirror sees another , so I figure I'm something in between . This saying figures in here somewhere " Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see " , haha .

grayelky · « **Reply #47 on:** 21 »

bleak
Is that Smith as nice, easy to carry as it seems?

grayelky · « **Reply #48 on:** 21 »

dinadan

I have been retired for 11 years, and have made no effort to keep up with current training trends. We were taught to shoot until the threat was neutralized. It is a well known fact no one can tell how many rounds they fired in an event. Most will say 2, or maybe 3. They are truly surprised to find they fired 6 or more rounds, or even emptied a magazine and inserted a fresh one.

What kind of training by the CIA? There are other agencies who would be in better position to train in use of firearms. I would expect the CIA to offer training n other areas, such as what to look for or what type of activity to look for.

Goatpacker · « **Reply #49 on:** 09 »

I carry 3 minis!!! A BW loaded with Gold Dots, for bad guys!!! A 1 5/8 conversion loaded with 2 rats first and three maxi mag +V's for snakes and rats!!! And a shorty for just anything that I happen to see that needs shot!!! The rat shot is very effective on snakes and such!!! Will defiantly make them flee, or stop them for a good head shot with the HP rounds!!!

stantheman86 · « **Reply #50 on:** 01 »

Just make sure she isn't savvy enough to find those blanks and put live rounds in the gun.....

Birdshot is a waste for defense, I doubt it would even penetrate a BG's eyelids if he closes his eyes in reaction to the gun shot.....

With a .22 LR you're already carrying a gun of marginal stopping power, why handicap the gun even further?

redhawk4 · « **Reply #51 on:** 09 »

I was going to the range the other day with my 44 magnums. While digging out some ammo, I realized I had several boxes of shot shells. I'd forgotten that when I bought some ammo from a guy locally, who'd sold his gun, I'd got these as part of the deal and that with the box I already had, I had more than I'd ever likely use in a lifetime. So I decided to take them with me and see what they would do on paper.

I only ended up firing 3 at a target, at three different distances, 10 yards max. - I'd seen what I needed to by that point. While they would undoubtedly work on a snake, small animal, or bird at close range, I have to say I was left somewhat unimpressed. At ten yards the spread is huge, at 3 yards it's still pretty big and it seems that if an attacker where to flinch and put an arm across their face in reaction to you whipping out a gun and firing little damage could occur, and that's with a 44. It seemed to me the plastic cap would do the most damage, that punched a pretty good hole at close range. Out of a 22, I can see how it could still have some effect at very close range, but that close it seems a normal bullet in or between the eyes would be far more effective and reasonably easy to deliver as we are talking an almost contact shot. Even if the bullet contacted a protecting arm. I'm sure it would be pretty painful still and in the very least cause hesitation which would give you time to get the next shot ready, where as with shot if the guy had something like a Carhart coat or leather motorcycle jacket on, I don't think the pellets would even contact the skin.

With a 44 Magnum, obviously the contrast between the two types of ammo is massive, you go from something that could kill a bear to something that probably wouldn't kill a rabbit at any distance, but then I got to thinking that the relative difference in 22 is still pretty big too.

Rapalyea · « **Reply #52 on:** 10 »

The first line of home defense after hours is a door block up against access door knobs. Critical seconds to get the .45

I carry 1st round bird shot in Black Widow for dogs, and to make a loud noise. Presentation and a loud bang will concentrate the minds of most BGs we might find ourselves able to engage. For home defense by a person without much gun experience a .38 revolver is probably best. A shotgun might not be the best choice for a novice. There is no such thing as a double action shotgun.

Rapalyea · « **Reply #53 on:** 12 »

Experimental Photo Posting

Browning .25 & Black Widow

redhawk4 · « **Reply #54 on:** 09 »

Turn your sound off, or you'll regret hearing the music. The fact the pellets can't shoot through a plastic bottle tells me what I need to know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l0GryRQnak

TwoGunJayne · « **Reply #55 on:** 11 »

Quote from: Rapalyea on 10

The first line of home defense after hours is a door block up against access door knobs. Critical seconds to get the .45

I carry 1st round bird shot in Black Widow for dogs, and to make a loud noise. Presentation and a loud bang will concentrate the minds of most BGs we might find ourselves able to engage. For home defense by a person without much gun experience a .38 revolver is probably best. A shotgun might not be the best choice for a novice. There is no such thing as a double action shotgun.

Well, there ARE, but the ATFE has been kind enough to basically regulate them out of existence. The "Street Sweeper" is a double-action design, but it's considered a "Destructive Device" for some strange reason.

There are also some Russian revolver designs that are double action.

I think the only double action shotgun you can get in the US is that Trail Judge .410 revolving "rifle." I don't really count the Judge pistol as a shotgun...

redhawk4 · « **Reply #56 on:** 12 »

I think it would be hard to find anything much simpler to operate than a double barrel shotgun, taking in to account the need to fire and find your target With external hammers, very little training would be required to get someone to understand cocking the hammers, if the chambers are kept loaded, compared to the time it takes to teach someone to shoot a handgun effectively, in terms of adequate control to hit their target consistently. On an internal hammered one, keeping rounds in the chamber and the action broken, makes it simple for someone to just close it and be ready to fire (assuming none of those pesky auto setting safeties). A double action revolver is probably the most "idiot proof" set up in terms of someone with no idea at all being able to make it go bang, but hitting your target requires some skills and practice. Any long gun points more intuitively than a hand gun, and just bringing it to your shoulder while looking at your target usually has it close enough to score a solid hit at the ranges involved inside a house. You only have two shots with your double barrel gun, but there's a good argument that if someone is really inexperienced, if they don't get it done with those two, they're pretty much done for anyway.