I'm not sure I agree with his assessment. In this case, unless you're to take it that hitting someone with some buck is better than missing them with all of it. See my point?Originally Posted by GJM
In my, relatively uninformed opinion, the reason we shoot buckshot over slugs at close range has more to do with over-penetration than it does spread. Buckshot is extremely effective as close range, once it spreads out it becomes increasingly less effective, we know this, because physics. At <25 yards, a shotgun delivers, simultaneously, the equivalent of multiple handgun rounds into a moderate grouping size and as it delivers that energy it leaves it virtually entirely within a soft target.
In essence, I think of buckshot patterns like I do handgun groupings. I want ~2" group size at 25 yards with a handgun, when shooting, I'll accept 4-6" as "okay". Buckshot is the same way, you're delivering multiple handgun bullet sized projectiles simultaneously, I still want them to go where I want. Accurate is better, in the case of a shotgun with buckshot, to guarantee accurate, tighter patterns are generally better.
BUT - I could be wrong - I know Louis Awerbuck easily forgot more about shooting shotguns than I've ever known.
ETA: Thinking further. I suppose I can see the idea that its easier to hit a target with a fist than it is to hit it with a pebble. - But simultaneously, one must hit the target, right? And if the fist and pebble have the same mass and same energy which is more effective on target the fist or the pebble?
Fair enough.His comments had nothing to do with wounding people in Africa.
Reply With Quote
