Your "Go to home defense SHTF firearm!

[TFOGGER]

Regarding shotgun wounding:

1 ounce of shot at a given velocity will have a given amount of kinetic energy. Birdshot will tend to dissipate more of that energy in the bad guy at 15 feet than buckshot,simply because there is less chance of the pellets exiting with any remaining energy, because the bird shot has a larger frontal area. But if you hit him in the chest, both are likely to kill him dead in very short order.The same is true of a handgun(of adequate caliber), or rifle. That same differential in surface area at impact reduces both the effectiveness on hardened targets, and the overpenetration risk in the event of a miss when using smaller shot. IMO (worth exactly what you're paying for it), 7 shot makes more sense in a home defense situation than 00 buckshot, simply because of the reduced distances involved. As far as shotgun vs. handgun, a 1 oz standard 12 guage load packs about 5 times as much energy at the muzzle as a 230gr .45 acp load. Add to that the longer sight radius, and for *most* folks, a shotgun is a more effective weapon under stress. Granted, some here have trained extensively with their handguns, and their mileage may vary.

[275RLTW]

You are corrrrect in that buckshot is more effective than birdshot (heavier projectile at higher speeds). I have never said otherwise. I advocate birdshot as it does not OVERPENETRATE. The studies and tests are there. Thanks for the link to the 20 year old medical info. I hope you realize that medicine has changed over the years! When doing your research, please look at the date and find something in this century! Perhaps take a class in terminal ballistics. Why do you think that when ballistic gelatin is shot the hole isn't the exact size of the bullet? This is common sense stuff here. If you have not even seen a gun shot wound, let alone tried to fix one, then spend more time educating yourself instead of wasting time arguing.

[TriggerHappy]

Benelli M4 or Rem 870, depends on the room, w/ tac lights and ext tubes alternating slug, double-odd. Also the 1911 with social rounds in condition 1. It sucks when you are killed with your own gun..

[MarkCO]

The reality is that under the right circumstances bird shot can be an effective at stopping a human aggressor, so it buck shot and slugs too. Handguns trump harsh language, shotguns trump handguns and there is a reason troops are all issued rifles rather than shotguns loaded with #6 bird shot.

This is 2010 guys if you consider a firearm as part of your personal security then having a basic understanding of internal, external and terminal ballistics makes a lot of sense. It is disappointing to see people still bandying about "shock" theories and passing around completely erroneous information, especially if they pass themselves off as a "professional" or an "expert". Next thing you know someone will be advocating "blended metal" bullets and discussing "hydrostatic shock".

Cameron

Cameron, while you are 90% correct, Hydrostatic shock is a real physical principle and existed long before it was injected into the wound theory discussion. I was totally with you until you made that one mistake.

Here is a recent use in a pure scientific sense (line 99): http://www.shock.eps.harvard.edu/pre...20preprint.pdf

Most people dismissing hydrostatic shock use this: http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...s/methods.html which frankly is mostly correct, except his highly ignorant diatribe on hydrostatic shock. The Wiki Hydrostatic shock definition explains some of the contrasting theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

With handguns (vast majority) and shotguns, the creation of a shock wave that is capable of producing any significant effect to a human is largely impossible. They rely principally on air in and blood out. Disrupt the partial pressure balance of air or drop the blood pressure fast enough and humans go down, while not immediately dead. The Federal marketing of the "Hydroshock" did more damage to the understanding of the term "Hydrostatic" than good.

I have personally re-researched these theories and spoken with Marshall, Fackler and many of the foremost medical researchers in this area as well. In a professional capacity, as well as studying projectile wounds, I have worked on several cases where "Hydrostatic Shock" was the cause of death. In an explosion, chemical or physical, the creation of a 4 psi pressure wave to the front face of a human body is the 50% fataility threshold. I worked an explosion where a deceased woman had no impact trauma, no burns, but yet died. The damage was on a cellular level where the pressure wave caused rupture of capilaries and cell walls to such a degree that the blood pressure dropped so low she basically bleed out "microscopically." While this is extremely rare with slug impacts below about 2200 fps (and the associated mass and frontal area to set up a significant shock wave in the tissue), there are cases where brain trauma was observed during autopsy and related to chest cavity handgun bullet impacts.

A lot of the 20 plus year wound theories have gross inaccuracies, including hydrostatic shcok. However, just because ignorant non-scientists proferred explanation of theories that could not be scientifically supported does not mean the theories themselves are wrong, just their explanations thereof.

However, I do agree with you on the basic premise of BS related to hydrostatic shock and the other issues you called out with this one exception: When it comes to slugs with suficient volume and velocity, hydrostatic shock is one component of incapacitation of a living target that may have an effect whether it be primary, secondary or even tertiary.

[FortyTwo]

Wireless phone in every room with 911 on speed dial. Analog PoTS backup in case they jam the wireless.

[SA Friday]

Cameron, while you are 90% correct, Hydrostatic shock is a real physical principle and existed long before it was injected into the wound theory discussion. I was totally with you until you made that one mistake.

Here is a recent use in a pure scientific sense (line 99): http://www.shock.eps.harvard.edu/pre...20preprint.pdf

Most people dismissing hydrostatic shock use this: http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...s/methods.html which frankly is mostly correct, except his highly ignorant diatribe on hydrostatic shock. The Wiki Hydrostatic shock definition explains some of the contrasting theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

With handguns (vast majority) and shotguns, the creation of a shock wave that is capable of producing any significant effect to a human is largely impossible. They rely principally on air in and blood out. Disrupt the partial pressure balance of air or drop the blood pressure fast enough and humans go down, while not immediately dead. The Federal marketing of the "Hydroshock" did more damage to the understanding of the term "Hydrostatic" than good.

I have personally re-researched these theories and spoken with Marshall, Fackler and many of the foremost medical researchers in this area as well. In a professional capacity, as well as studying projectile wounds, I have worked on several cases where "Hydrostatic Shock" was the cause of death. In an explosion, chemical or physical, the creation of a 4 psi pressure wave to the front face of a human body is the 50% fataility threshold. I worked an explosion where a deceased woman had no impact trauma, no burns, but yet died. The damage was on a cellular level where the pressure wave caused rupture of capilaries and cell walls to such a degree that the blood pressure dropped so low she basically bleed out "microscopically." While this is extremely rare with slug impacts below about 2200 fps (and the associated mass and frontal area to set up a significant shock wave in the tissue), there are cases where brain trauma was observed during autopsy and related to chest cavity handgun bullet impacts.

A lot of the 20 plus year wound theories have gross inaccuracies, including hydrostatic shcok. However, just because ignorant non-scientists proferred explanation of theories that could not be scientifically supported does not mean the theories themselves are wrong, just their explanations thereof.

However, I do agree with you on the basic premise of BS related to hydrostatic shock and the other issues you called out with this one exception: When it comes to slugs with suficient volume and velocity, hydrostatic shock is one component of incapacitation of a living target that may have an effect whether it be primary, secondary or even tertiary.

Mark doesn't have MD after his name. He just figures out what everyone else can't for a living. His info is reputable based on education background and years of experience. Mark can explain more if he wants. It's not my place to say.

[Irving]

I thought that Cameron did a pretty good job specifying that everything he was talking about was in reference to small arms only.

[Great-Kazoo]

Mark doesn't have MD after his name. He just figures out what everyone else can't for a living. His info is reputable based on education background and years of experience. Mark can explain more if he wants. It's not my place to say.

Big + 1 on MarkCo

[Irving]

Oh man! I don't know how I missed Coloccw's last comment but it is a laugh riot.

[Bailey Guns]

There comes a time when, "operator" or not, some people just aren't worth dealing with IMO. I've reached it with him.