Shotguns vs rifles

[Bigghoss]

Right?

All that said if someone is going to have a single long gun, the end - A 12-gauge shotgun, with a 22” barrel and screw in chokes will kill anything commonly found in North America with proper ammo selection. Sure, you’ll only range out to 125-yards. But you’ll be able to get anything done from birds to buffalo.

You're not wrong. If I were only going to have one shotgun I'd have an 18" and a 26-28" vent rib barrel. Everyone's situation is different though so there's a lot of things to consider. I don't hunt at the moment so being able to take squirrels and birds isn't a huge deal to me. And anyone can still find a single shot 12 gauge for $100 or a decent pump for under $200 (I do it way too often) so it's almost not even an either/or for the vast majority of people.

I guess if you can only afford one gun then you can probably only afford a handgun or a shotgun, or maybe something like a used .30-30. A decent AR is probably just outside the budget, or if it's not I'd still rather have a couple less expensive guns that can cover a wider range of needs.

[mtnbkr]

I own both, but train and plan for the 12g to be the weapon of choice. Living in a typical NoVA townhouse (and in a very densely populated neighborhood), I don't have to plan for lengthy shots. Additionally, my lifestyle and career don't put me in contact with the sorts who do are inclined to present a persistent credible threat do me or my family. My likely threat is a robbery that takes place while we are home (or, more likely me since I work from home and will be here when most people are out at the office).

One element that hasn't come up yet is the legal or quasi-legal aspect of the selection. A shotgun is going to carry less negative perception in an HD shooting (thanks Uncle Joe!) and may be the *only* choice in a ban state. With the growing negative press around ARs, a shotgun will carry less of a legal and public perception burden.

Chris

[TCinVA]

Sometimes I ask guys if given this choice in choosing a weapon in a hypothetical home defense situation, which would you prefer: an AR with 6 rounds or a shotgun with 6 rounds. The question stimulates discussion.

I would never keep an AR with 6 rounds in it.

I keep a shotgun handy for defense inside the home and in most realistic self defense situations I could face I'd rather be armed with my Beretta 1301 than anything else I own.

I understand that another man's war stories are hearsay information. Vietnam veterans whose opinion that I trusted have told me incidents of the M16's failure to drop the enemy at close range unless being fired on full auto. The same guys also said that in most cases the round performed ok. But from Iraq and Afghanistan we have heard similar reports.
This ain't scientific by any means. Yet these war stories live in the back of my mind. That's why my mags are loaded with Doc's recommended ammo. So are my shotguns.

Everyone who trains to use a weapon like an AR15 for serious social purposes is trained to deliver multiple shots rapidly at close range. This is trained because it is necessary...you can expect to need multiple rounds in the vitals from a 5.56 to reliably stop a determined threat. I've asked everybody I know who has used a 5.56 weapon in combat or a gunfight if they fired a single shot into an adversary and the only ones who did engaged the threat with CNS hits. Everybody who engaged the upper thoracic fired multiple shots to make the bad guy go down.

Shotguns loaded with buckshot create significantly more tissue damage than any other weapon we have available. A lot of people on the interwebs get hot and bothered over 5.56 ammunition that fragments because they think that's desirable. They then attribute the benefits of that fragmentation to all 5.56 ammunition. In reality the ammunition that most police agencies use doesn't fragment. The ammo typically used for defense expands but stays intact to aid with reliable penetration.

The reason fragmentation is desirable is that flesh stretches.

If that flesh is challenged in multiple locations then that stretch potential is divided among them. In other words, if a tissue has 100 points of stretch capability and you challenge it at 10 distinct points that are relatively close to one another then those 100 points turn into 10 points at each location. This means that the flesh in question tears much more readily than it would if hit by a single projectile. This leads to more tissue damage and loss of blood.

Where people who misunderstand 5.56 loads hope their 55-62 grain projectile will fragment into tiny pieces to produce some of that extra damage, the person who fires a full ounce of buckshot gets it with every trigger pull. Buckshot is the most destructive munition you can lay on someone that is short of ordnance.

If someone delivers a good buckshot pattern to the upper thoracic it is highly likely that the person receiving that payload will collapse almost instantly. To quote Tom Givens, "Pop, flop."

That's why the shotgun is a useful weapon. It is the closest thing to an instant off-switch for criminal violence that is available to us.

[TCinVA]

At short distances, the mechanical offset of the front sight of an AR is a real thing. One of my guys commented that he was aiming pretty much between the suspect's eyes for a headshot and it ended up being a mouth shot. It blew out a lot of jaw, cheek and teeth but the suspect lived to see another day mainly due to the care rendered to him at the scene.

That is a significant factor in my preference for a shotgun. I've done a lot of carbine work over the years and judging that offset accurately at whatever distance you are forced to engage automatically without fail takes a lot more training than I'm doing with the weapon. I'm aware of a number of real world uses of the AR where even well-trained guys put the dot where they wanted the bullet to go under stress, neglecting to account for mechanical offset.

With a shotgun I just put the sight or the dot where I want the payload and it's problem solved.

[willie]

I learned about the off-set in an unsophisticated state training program. With an AR sighted in for 100 yards, the instructor demonstrated by firing at a target from 7 yards, then 15, 25, and 50.

[blues]

I learned about the off-set in an unsophisticated state training program. With an AR sighted in for 100 yards, the instructor demonstrated by firing at a target from 7 yards, then 15, 25, and 50.

I zeroed my AR for 100 yards, which should provide for a hold over of 2.5" or less out to 200 yards.

The short answer to the "At what distance do I zero?" question is, in my opinion, 100 yards (or meters). Here's why: The bullet should never rise above the LOS. This means the shooter does not need to use holdunder at any range, eliminating that factor and leaving only holdover as a matter of concern. The amount of holdover needed to meet the aforementioned level of accuracy is very small with a 100-yard zero—approximately 2.5 inches at 200 yards, .5 inch at 150 yards, and .75 inch at 50 yards. On most ARs using 55-grain or 62-grain ammunition, the bullet is generally never more than 3 inches below LOS until the target is beyond 210 yards. For most of us, this means that to hit a man in the chest out to 150 yards, we do not need to hold over. You can't get any simpler than that.

Source: https://www.shootingillustrated.com/...defense-ar-15/

[RevolverRob]

I zeroed my AR for 100 yards, which should provide for a hold over of 2.5" or less out to 200 yards.



Source: https://www.shootingillustrated.com/...defense-ar-15/

But the critical part is the paragraph above the one you cited.

I have to stress one factor that all AR owners must understand and accept: The effect of the height of the sights/optic above the bore of the AR-style carbine mandates using holdovers REGARDLESS OF ZERO. Most flattop ARs will have a sight height of between 2.5 and 3 inches (depending on the mount) if using an optical sight. If you mount an optic on the carrying handle, it will be even greater. This results in the shooter needing to apply holdover when engaging targets at close range, i.e. inside a house or other structure, at distances of one to 20 yards. This holdover increases as the distance to the target decreases. At 25 yards, the holdover is about 1.5 inches, incrementally increasing to the sight height at about 7 yards and closer. This means if you want to put a bullet into the eye/nose area of a person holding a knife to a loved one's throat at a distance of 4 yards, you need to put the red dot at the hairline, or roughly 2 to 3 inches above the eyebrows.

So regardless of zero, you're going to have sight offset with an AR. Like TC, I don't practice nearly as much with a rifle to have my close range offsets dialed in to my brain. This is one reason why I opt for a shotgun. I know with 8-pellet Crit Defense/Flite-Control buckshot, I can put every pellet of that load into the head of a target at any distance I'm likely to engage in.

___

For me I like the ability to remove meat and bone with buckshot or put big holes in things with slugs. I've seen too many one or two shot stops with a 12-gauge shotgun to ignore the anecdotal evidence. With even just "decent" shot placement using buckshot or slugs, they tend to result in lethal outcome for the recipient. If I had to get into a gunfight at parking-lot distances or shorter, a shotgun would be the tool I would bring to that one, particularly a semi-auto with a red-dot on top.

[blues]

Rob,

For my intended usage and range, I check zero with the Aimpoint H2 and confirm with the BUIS.

I don't have that issue with my 870 as it only has a Surefire light / forend, and Magpul stock along with the original bead sight. It is also good enough and accurate enough for its limited purposes and the ranges I am concerned about with my group of firearms.

YMMV. As long as you're comfortable with your choices, everybody's happy.

[Rex G]

Though having shot AR's for 38 years and having owned many, I am more comfortable with a shotgun for home defense. Comfort is subjective. The logic aspect is that my shotguns when mounted shoot where I look. Remingtons fit me well. And then there is a lifetime of experience with their pumps and semi auto's that applies. However, an AR is always available.

Sometimes I ask guys if given this choice in choosing a weapon in a hypothetical home defense situation, which would you prefer: an AR with 6 rounds or a shotgun with 6 rounds. The question stimulates discussion.

I understand that another man's war stories are hearsay information. Vietnam veterans whose opinion that I trusted have told me incidents of the M16's failure to drop the enemy at close range unless being fired on full auto. The same guys also said that in most cases the round performed ok. But from Iraq and Afghanistan we have heard similar reports.
This ain't scientific by any means. Yet these war stories live in the back of my mind. That's why my mags are loaded with Doc's recommended ammo. So are my shotguns.

I am more comfortable, personally, with a Benelli M2, loaded with six rounds, than an AR15, loaded with six rounds. I would probably be more comfortable, in most scenarios, with the Benelli, loaded with six rounds, even if the AR15 held a full magazine of ammo. I own two of each weapon, so this is not based upon mere guessing.

The ammunition factor is six of one, half-dozen of the other. Each will be better in some scenarios, and worse in some scenarios.

Manipulation of the safety is a reason I favor the shotgun. I have almost four decades’ experience with the cross-bolt type of safety, and was introduced to the AR15 safety/selector less than two decades ago. The AR15 selector training immediately clashed with my prior DA/SA pistol training, because the AR15 is ready for semi-auto fire when its DINGUS IS DOWN. (Don’t get caught with your dingus down! Well, unless, of course, it is an AR15, which is off-safe when its dingus is down.) I have to refresh my memory, on a regular basis, or that cognitive dissonance will kick-in, when I have an AR15 in my hands.

Height of line-of-sight over bore axis is a reason I would rather use a shotgun.

I might answer differently, if I were well-acquainted with another good autoloader rifle, having a safety system that I would find more comfortable.

I might answer differently, if I lived in a more wide-open area. SE Texas is the wet, green, vegetated side of the state.

Well, then, why do I have AR15 weapons? Well, the rifle was to keep my hand in the game, even though I had opted to stop toting a patrol rifle while on duty. (I have since retired.) The AR pistol was acquired as a rule-booker, for traveling in states that prohibit loaded long guns inside motor vehicles. In reality, it has not usurped the .357 Mag sixgun, in that role.

My reply, for this scenario, is Benelli-autoloader-specific. I no longer like the Remington 870. For 2+ decades, I never short-stroked a pump gun, but then, one day, it happened. Part of the problem was that my pumping-arm’s shoulder is not aging well, but I also developed what some call a “yip,” which is psychological, and took so very much training to get behind me. I then had a bad moment, during a felony stop, trying to properly cheek a Magpul stock, even though I had worked through that yip with the Magpul stock. I had been wanting to return to the Benelli, ever since the Comfort-Tech stock had become available, so I dumped the pump, and returned to Benelli.

[psalms144.1]

Inside a house, I've got no heart burn with whatever you want to use for your SD. A couple of totally random thoughts:

1. Size. Unless you're shooting a pistol grip only shotgun or shockwave type "firearm," the AR is going to be easier to manuever in close quarters. This is NOT an issue if your house is laid out in such a way that you "hard point" in your bedroom and let problems come to you, but, for the last 20 years, bedroom lay outs have separated me from my kids to an extent that, if there's a problem, I have to go to THEM, usually past one or more exterior doors. An AR or AR pistol is MUCH easier to do this with than my M2 with 18.5" barrel.

2. Patterning. Just like zeroing your AR (which I do at 50), you need to pattern that shotgun using your chosen HD ammo. I've seen folks shooting shotguns at 15 yards with buck shot and completely miss our extremely large qualification targets with one or more pellets. Conversely, I've seen folks who thought their shotguns were "room sweepers" shooting reduced recoil loads that were shocked to see a softball sized group at 10 yards - so, yeah, you do actually have to aim that thing...

3. Performance. I used to be a "my AR can do anythign my shotgun can do, only better" guy until I watched the video from the Navy Yard shooting, and got reacquainted with how devestating the 12 ga is to the human body. That doesn't mean the AR is a "poodle shooter," it just means if you want to stop the fight RIGHT NOW, inside typical room distances, I'd rather have my M2 in my hand than my AR.

All of these are one person's opinion, based on my training and experience. What's by my bed for HD? A light-equipped handgun and a handheld flashlight. Why? Because I can use the pistol MUCH more effectively one handed than either the M2 or AR, and I expect the chances of having both hands free in a worst nightmare scenario are unlikely. Plus - see #1 above - much easier to move with speed and violence of action FOR ME with a handgun than any long gun I own.