Non lethal self defense

BTW, if you need that Russian contraption to be "less less lethal" get close and aim for the face.
 
bullwinkle said:
The military evaluated flechette rounds extensively in the 1960s and found that they are not worth the trouble. Buckshot is equal or better in 90% of situations.

BTW, in my opinion shotguns are terrible combat weapons. There is a reason that not one single army in the world issues a shotgun as a standard infantry arm. You are better off with a mid-caliber carbine like an AR or AK.

I can enumerate the reasons if you really need me to.
Click to expand...


A group of US Marines in Iraq in 2005, armed with a combat shotgun, assualt rifle, and squad automatic weapon.


A Joint Service Combat Shotgun Program report on the lethality of shotguns in war states, in support of the use of the shotgun in warfare, "the probability of hitting a man-sized target with a shotgun was superior to that of all other weapons", and goes on to support this with statistics compiled by the British from the conflict in Borneo in the 1960s.
The buckshot typically used in a combat shotgun spreads out to a greater or lesser degree depending on the barrel choke, and can be effective at ranges as far as 70 m (75 yards). The delivery of the large number of projectiles simultaneously makes the shotgun the most effective short range weapon commonly used, with a hit probability 45% greater than a sub-machine gun (5 round burst), and twice as great as an assault rifle. While each pellet is only as effective as a small caliber handgun round, and offers very poor penetration against an armored target, the multiple projectiles increases the likelihood of one or more peripheral wounds.


A Mossberg 590 being used by a US Marine for door breaching in Karma, Iraq, in 2005


I will assure you that in a thick jungle the shotgun is a very effective, read deadly, close range weapon.
 
For some reason I thought shotguns were banned by treaty. Maybe that was just automatic shotguns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I never thought it could happen in my neighborhood but it did. I live in a nice area of town and a week before Christmas at 11:30 in the morning, 4 men pulled up across the street at my neighbor’s house. The man of the house was at work and his wife was home. One of the guys in the car went to the front door and rang the bell. She did not come to the door. At the same time two men went around to the back with a metal bar. As one of the men drew back to smash a back window they saw the women armed with a hand gun pointed at them. All three men ran to the car and raced off. Lucky she had been trained to protect herself.
 
dell30rb said:
For some reason I thought shotguns were banned by treaty. Maybe that was just automatic shotguns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Geneva Conventions restrictions? I don't think so but what a joke. As an example, in our Geneva Conventions training, we were instructed that machine guns of .50 caliber and greater were not to be used to engage troops, just equipment. But, it was noted that troops typically wear equipment, such as pistol belts, LCE straps, helmets, etc... and that's fair game.

By the way, the U.S. is a "Conditional Signatory" of the Geneva Conventions, which means that in principle we agree it's a good idea, but we do not accept it as law, nor have we adopted it as law. DOD policy is to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, but it's a policy action, not part of UCMJ itself.
 
Zeldman said:

A Mossberg 590 being used by a US Marine for door breaching in Karma, Iraq, in 2005


I will assure you that in a thick jungle the shotgun is a very effective, read deadly, close range weapon.
Click to expand...

That is not a 590. It's a 500. Really, really similar weapons, so please don't think I am being a pedantic prick, but I was in Iraq in 05. We had 500s. The difference is in the length of the magazine and bayonet lug on the 590. Super effective tool. Because it can be used for so much, I almost hate calling it a weapon (PLEASE don't flame me, I recognize that it is a weapon). I mean, sure, you can kill a human with it, but you can also kill a person with a shovel, you know? Shotguns are not banned by treaty.
 
IamNabil said:
That is not a 590. It's a 500. Really, really similar weapons, so please don't think I am being a pedantic prick, but I was in Iraq in 05. We had 500s. The difference is in the length of the magazine and bayonet lug on the 590. Super effective tool. Because it can be used for so much, I almost hate calling it a weapon (PLEASE don't flame me, I recognize that it is a weapon). I mean, sure, you can kill a human with it, but you can also kill a person with a shovel, you know? Shotguns are not banned by treaty.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the correction.
 
Zeldman said:

A group of US Marines in Iraq in 2005, armed with a combat shotgun, assualt rifle, and squad automatic weapon.


A Joint Service Combat Shotgun Program report on the lethality of shotguns in war states, in support of the use of the shotgun in warfare, "the probability of hitting a man-sized target with a shotgun was superior to that of all other weapons", and goes on to support this with statistics compiled by the British from the conflict in Borneo in the 1960s.
The buckshot typically used in a combat shotgun spreads out to a greater or lesser degree depending on the barrel choke, and can be effective at ranges as far as 70 m (75 yards). The delivery of the large number of projectiles simultaneously makes the shotgun the most effective short range weapon commonly used, with a hit probability 45% greater than a sub-machine gun (5 round burst), and twice as great as an assault rifle. While each pellet is only as effective as a small caliber handgun round, and offers very poor penetration against an armored target, the multiple projectiles increases the likelihood of one or more peripheral wounds.


A Mossberg 590 being used by a US Marine for door breaching in Karma, Iraq, in 2005


I will assure you that in a thick jungle the shotgun is a very effective, read deadly, close range weapon.
Click to expand...

Note I said STANDARD. They use them (rarely) in some cases. Nobody arms a whole infantry unit with them. Typically it's ONE guy, and it's used as a can opener for getting into buildings...just like in the pics you posted. Then he gets out of the way and lets the carbine guys go in.

Yes, you can hit stuff with shotguns. Unless your opponent is at 100 yards and armed with a rifle. Then you are pinned down until dead. You will get hits at 70 yards, you will rarely makes kills at that distance, especially against modern combatants wearing body armor. A level II soft vest will stop 100% of a shotgun round at ten feet, the same vest will not stop a 5.56mm round at 150 yards. You need rifle plates to stop even a weak AR round.
 
Last edited:
They are a standard armament. They are not the primary weapon of an infantry unit, but they are certainly standard. We did one shotgun, one SAW, one M-4 or M-16, and one 203 per fireteam. I also usually carried an M9, since I was usually the SAW gunner.
 
IamNabil said:
They are a standard armament. They are not the primary weapon of an infantry unit, but they are certainly standard. We did one shotgun, one SAW, one M-4 or M-16, and one 203 per fireteam. I also usually carried an M9, since I was usually the SAW gunner.
Click to expand...

And I'll bet the shotgun guy was only the first guy in line when there was a door that needed opening. Again, ONE guy, everybody else with rifle rounds.
 
Also very good for room clearing, but yes, a shotgun is also very good at opening a door. You are, I feel, minimizing the need to actually clear buildings. That shotgun was far, far more effective for room clearing than my 249. Don't get me wrong, I ****ing LOVED my 249, but it was a touch heavy to fire from the shoulder. I was at the back of the stack.
 
I was researching one of the shotguns my dad gave me, he had a sporting version but they made the same shotgun with a different barrel/furniture for the military.

Neat feature mentioned was that if you held the trigger down and worked the action(pump), it would automatically fire the next round as soon as chambered. Mine indeed does this... completely useless but lots of fun!
 
cowman said:
I was researching one of the shotguns my dad gave me, he had a sporting version but they made the same shotgun with a different barrel/furniture for the military.

Neat feature mentioned was that if you held the trigger down and worked the action(pump), it would automatically fire the next round as soon as chambered. Mine indeed does this... completely useless but lots of fun!
Click to expand...

Nice! I do not believe that the Mossberg 500 does that. What kind do you have?
 
IamNabil said:
Also very good for room clearing, but yes, a shotgun is also very good at opening a door. You are, I feel, minimizing the need to actually clear buildings. That shotgun was far, far more effective for room clearing than my 249. Don't get me wrong, I ****ing LOVED my 249, but it was a touch heavy to fire from the shoulder. I was at the back of the stack.
Click to expand...

We are not comparing to a 249, we are comparing to an AR or similar carbine.

Shotguns are worse than an AR or AK for clearing buildings. Reasons:

1) Horrendously slow follow-up shots. Bang...rack...bang. I can get off five rounds with a carbine before you can fire a single shotgun round, with better accuracy.

2) A shotgun is not easier to hit with at inside distances...the spread of a shotgun round at 20 feet is about two inches. The recoil, however is MUCH worse.

3) The energy of the two weapons is equivalent. A 00 Buck round is about 1500ft/lb of energy, an M855 AR round is about 1320ft/lb, and AK round is about 1450ft/lb. Because of the faster on-target shot speed of the carbine, I can put 3-5x more energy on target in the same time as a shotgun.

4) A shotgun holds 5-9 rounds. An AR holds 30. That means a MINIMUM of 3x more rounds and energy available for mayhem from the carbine. Shotguns make a lot of noise and smoke, but are not more powerful contrary to popular opinion.

5) If you have to reload a shotgun in combat, you are essentially out of the fight. I can reload an AR with 30 rounds before you can reload TWO rounds in the shotgun. So after the first reload, for every two rounds you can fire, I can fire 30 (all of which I can fire faster and more accurately than your two). That math is not in your favor.

6) Shotguns are heavy and unwieldy. The Mossberg is much longer than an M4, and harder to maneuver indoors, especially around corners. That's why when I was a cop I used to clear buildings with my pistol instead of the shotgun.

Indoors is the only place where a shotgun can even attempt to compete with an AR/AK carbine, and even in that scenario it's worse. It's fine for opening doors or skip firing into crowds for riot control.

With an M249 I'd want to be in the back of the stack too going indoors! :yes: Outside in the open, you'd be in front. :)
 
IamNabil said:
Nice! I do not believe that the Mossberg 500 does that. What kind do you have?
Click to expand...

Ithaca model 37 featherlight. It's my favorite shotgun and not just because it does that little party trick. It's light, the action is reliable and I can hit the little clay pigeons with it pretty well.
 
cowman said:
Ithaca model 37 featherlight. It's my favorite shotgun and not just because it does that little party trick. It's light, the action is reliable and I can hit the little clay pigeons with it pretty well.
Click to expand...

Ithaca Makes good guns...they used to make a 10ga pump called "The Roadblocker". It was pretty freakin' neat.
 
bullwinkle said:
We are not comparing to a 249, we are comparing to an AR or similar carbine.

Shotguns are worse than an AR or AK for clearing buildings. Reasons:

1) Horrendously slow follow-up shots. Bang...rack...bang. I can get off five rounds with a carbine before you can fire a single shotgun round, with better accuracy.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting that close quarters fighting doesn't work that way. Room clearing means that you are not firing at many targets. You are firing at few to none.
bullwinkle said:
2) A shotgun is not easier to hit with at inside distances...the spread of a shotgun round at 20 feet is about two inches. The recoil, however is MUCH worse.
Click to expand...
The recoil is not really relevant, since you are only engaging one or two targets.
bullwinkle said:
3) The energy of the two weapons is equivalent. A 00 Buck round is about 1500ft/lb of energy, an M855 AR round is about 1320ft/lb, and AK round is about 1450ft/lb. Because of the faster on-target shot speed of the carbine, I can put 3-5x more energy on target in the same time as a shotgun.
Click to expand...
This is inaccurate. 00 buck is 7 pellets impacting at once, at your two inch spread. It is a MUCH more powerful impact, although it has much less penetrating power.
bullwinkle said:
4) A shotgun holds 5-9 rounds. An AR holds 30. That means a MINIMUM of 3x more rounds and energy available for mayhem from the carbine. Shotguns make a lot of noise and smoke, but are not more powerful contrary to popular opinion.
Click to expand...
At close ranges, I would much prefer to be engaged by a 7.62 over 00 buck. Both will ring your bell, and neither will make it through plate, but the 00 buck will still break your ribs through a plate.
bullwinkle said:
5) If you have to reload a shotgun in combat, you are essentially out of the fight. I can reload an AR with 30 rounds before you can reload TWO rounds in the shotgun. So after the first reload, for every two rounds you can fire, I can fire 30 (all of which I can fire faster and more accurately than your two). That math is not in your favor.
Click to expand...
This is true, if I were alone.
bullwinkle said:
6) Shotguns are heavy and unwieldy. The Mossberg is much longer than an M4, and harder to maneuver indoors, especially around corners. That's why when I was a cop I used to clear buildings with my pistol instead of the shotgun.
Click to expand...
Shotguns are only heavy and unwieldy if you compare them to an M-4 or pistol. It was my alternate compared to a 249. It was light, and easy to throw around, provided good corner clearance, and was able to open doors.
bullwinkle said:
Indoors is the only place where a shotgun can even attempt to compete with an AR/AK carbine, and even in that scenario it's worse. It's fine for opening doors or skip firing into crowds for riot control.
Click to expand...

I think what is happening here is that we are arguing the difference between police use of the weapon, and military use of the weapon. I have never used a shotgun as a police officer, and in your use cases, I am pretty sure I have to differ to your judgment, since I have no idea. In military use, it is a great weapon, and has a ton of uses.
 
warthog1984 said:
Get yourself a large dog- that'll be a more effective deterrent than any "less lethal" gun. And it'll know who belongs and who doesn't.
Click to expand...

A friend had a dog that responded to hand signals. He and his family had a friend over for dinner and my friend got food on his arm and brushed it off with his hand. Brushing the arms happened to be the signal for the dog to attack. It jumped on the guest and tore his behind up. Not saying having a dog is a bad idea, just a crazy story. Carry on...
 
Last edited:
IamNabil said:
You are forgetting that close quarters fighting doesn't work that way. Room clearing means that you are not firing at many targets. You are firing at few to none.

The recoil is not really relevant, since you are only engaging one or two targets.

This is inaccurate. 00 buck is 7 pellets impacting at once, at your two inch spread. It is a MUCH more powerful impact, although it has much less penetrating power.

At close ranges, I would much prefer to be engaged by a 7.62 over 00 buck. Both will ring your bell, and neither will make it through plate, but the 00 buck will still break your ribs through a plate.

This is true, if I were alone.

Shotguns are only heavy and unwieldy if you compare them to an M-4 or pistol. It was my alternate compared to a 249. It was light, and easy to throw around, provided good corner clearance, and was able to open doors.


I think what is happening here is that we are arguing the difference between police use of the weapon, and military use of the weapon. I have never used a shotgun as a police officer, and in your use cases, I am pretty sure I have to differ to your judgment, since I have no idea. In military use, it is a great weapon, and has a ton of uses.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing the cop side, I'm specifically arguing the effectiveness side. You have not refuted a single point I made, other than "it's not relevant since you are only engaging one or two targets". Which is entirely true, until it's not. If you have to engage more (you never know until you actually open the door) or your first shot misses, you are in hot water.

You are arguing as if you will always have a team of riflemen to back you up, I am arguing from a 1v1 perspective. The guy with the shotgun is at a distinct disadvantage in that case.

Sure, if you have a team of riflemen and SAW gunners with you it probably doesn't matter that you have a shotgun -- they can do all the work for you and cover for the deficiencies of your weapon. If you and one friend with a carbine bust in on a room full of five guys, you kill one and your buddy kills four. I don't see how that argues for the effectiveness of the shotgun in clearing rooms.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I am here to talk about not guns and the coolest not gun I have read about.

I am sure there is some quote ready to go about how nonlethal weapons are a surefire way to get killed by the other guy's lethal one. Let's skip that. We have a spin zone for that. Please lets just talk about this thing. This awesome thing that the Russians have and I really want.

Right now if you break into my house, its going to be a barrage of kitchen knives or more likely me using my family as human shields while I run out the back screaming like a girl.

Check this out though:

Holds 4 shells, fires 5 different types of ammunition
1. Rubber Bullet
2. Flash-Bang Grenade
3. Self contained electric stun bullet (read that again. It sticks in them and shocks them. That's science right there. Russian effing science!!)
4. Signal flare
5. Tear Gas

Laser for aiming, computer chip so it knows what round to fire next and other scientific things. If I shoot one of the kids sneaking back into the house when they are teens, they are going to get jacked up but live to tell their friends how stupid they were.

And if someone did break in, Sending a barrage of Russian science at them is going to be better than screaming "Take what you want! You can have the children! Just don't hurt me! I'm very fragile!"

http://wasp.eu/index.php/en/osa-pb-4-2.html


wasplesslethal2.jpg



osa-889.jpg
Click to expand...


So let's presume you can load all five. I predict the results will be:

1. Irritate him.
2. Try to blind him, and really **** him off.
3. Stun him, and get him totally outraged.
4. Signal his buddies to help him.
5. Incapacitate yourself because you shot the tear gas into the wind.

Sounds fabulous. I'll take 9+1 rounds of .40 or 15+1 rounds of 9mm, thank you.
 
bullwinkle said:
I am not arguing the cop side, I'm specifically arguing the effectiveness side. You have not refuted a single point I made, other than "it's not relevant since you are only engaging one or two targets". Which is entirely true, until it's not. If you have to engage more (you never know until you actually open the door) or your first shot misses, you are in hot water.

You are arguing as if you will always have a team of riflemen to back you up, I am arguing from a 1v1 perspective. The guy with the shotgun is at a distinct disadvantage in that case.

Sure, if you have a team of riflemen and SAW gunners with you it probably doesn't matter that you have a shotgun -- they can do all the work for you and cover for the deficiencies of your weapon. If you and one friend with a carbine bust in on a room full of five guys, you kill one and your buddy kills four. I don't see how that argues for the effectiveness of the shotgun in clearing rooms.
Click to expand...
I refuted all but one of your points, but that is irrelevant. You miss my meaning. You are playing a theoretical game. I am telling you that I have, in real life, used it, in that environment. Your opinion is nice, and I am glad you have one. It makes you a unique snowflake. It doesn't make you right.
 
The main advantage of the shotgun is it has a large amount of energy transfer. You can pump several rounds of 5.56 in to somebody, but unless you get a head shot, it's going to take some time for them to become incapacitated and die. One frontal shot with a shotgun will incapacitate someone immediately.

I can't comment intelligently on the merits of a shotgun in room to room cleanup situation, as we didn't use shotguns in our urban clearing scenarios. We used MP5's. The theory is two or three whacks apiece from a 9mm SMG should give plenty of close in stopping power.
 
and....as soon as you kill em...your life will be forever changed.:nonod:
Sac Arrow said:
The main advantage of the shotgun is it has a large amount of energy transfer. You can pump several rounds of 5.56 in to somebody, but unless you get a head shot, it's going to take some time for them to become incapacitated and die. One frontal shot with a shotgun will incapacitate someone immediately.

I can't comment intelligently on the merits of a shotgun in room to room cleanup situation, as we didn't use shotguns in our urban clearing scenarios. We used MP5's. The theory is two or three whacks apiece from a 9mm SMG should give plenty of close in stopping power.
Click to expand...
 
If you want to get a shotgun I'd get a Remington Marine Magnum, great defense gun and great bush gun



I'd get the speed feed rear stock though, keep some bird shot and Orion 12G flares for bush ops

Or a benelli m9 auto shotgun if it's just for defense.

ANY defense shotgun should have a surefire light mount too

benelli_m4_1.jpg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
and....as soon as you kill em...your life will be forever changed.:nonod:
Click to expand...

The moment someone breaks into my home with ill intent they are already dead IMO, won't be loosing any sleep
 
James331 said:
If you want to get a shotgun I'd get a Remington Marine Magnum, great defense gun and great bush gun



I'd get the speed feed rear stock though, keep some bird shot and Orion 12G flares for bush ops

Or a benelli m9 auto shotgun if it's just for defense.

ANY defense shotgun should have a surefire light mount too

benelli_m4_1.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow. An automatic shotgun for defense? Are you expect a visit from a cartel? :yikes:
 
They are great, depending on your arm length and strength not having to pump the shotgun for a second round is nice for smaller framed people and women.
 
Have had more than one cop tell me that there is nothing more terrifying to a crook than the sound of a round being racked into a pump action shotgun.
 
IamNabil said:
I refuted all but one of your points, but that is irrelevant. You miss my meaning. You are playing a theoretical game. I am telling you that I have, in real life, used it, in that environment. Your opinion is nice, and I am glad you have one. It makes you a unique snowflake. It doesn't make you right.
Click to expand...

You are not the only one here with real world experience. :rolleyes:
 
Sac Arrow said:
The main advantage of the shotgun is it has a large amount of energy transfer. You can pump several rounds of 5.56 in to somebody, but unless you get a head shot, it's going to take some time for them to become incapacitated and die. One frontal shot with a shotgun will incapacitate someone immediately.

I can't comment intelligently on the merits of a shotgun in room to room cleanup situation, as we didn't use shotguns in our urban clearing scenarios. We used MP5's. The theory is two or three whacks apiece from a 9mm SMG should give plenty of close in stopping power.
Click to expand...

Not true. FBI statistics show over a 90% one shot stop rate for a single round of 5.56mm. That includes every shot in every location. For chest or head hits it is very close to 97%.

Again, the energy is almost identical between the two. There is a cult mentality about the shotgun because the recoil and large hole in the front makes it feel powerful.
 
Anyone who would use a 5.56/223 in a home defense situation, in most likely a stick and Sheetrock house, not too smart, also you better be sending quite a few rounds downrange weekly to keep up to snuff with that rifle.

The shotgun gives a little more margin for the dark room, seldome practice, scared girlfriend type, add to that picking a load that will transfer the required energy whilst not blowing through walls.
 
My home defense gun is a flashlight and a 1911. I may not hit center of mass every time, but a shot to the shoulder is going to make you think twice especially with 230 grain hollowpoints
 
nddons said:
So let's presume you can load all five. I predict the results will be:

1. Irritate him.
2. Try to blind him, and really **** him off.
3. Stun him, and get him totally outraged.
4. Signal his buddies to help him.
5. Incapacitate yourself because you shot the tear gas into the wind.

Sounds fabulous. I'll take 9+1 rounds of .40 or 15+1 rounds of 9mm, thank you.
Click to expand...

8+1 of .45 ACP works fine for me.

sferguson524 said:
My home defense gun is a flashlight and a 1911. I may not hit center of mass every time, but a shot to the shoulder is going to make you think twice especially with 230 grain hollowpoints
Click to expand...

The sound of the slide going home on a 1911 is unique. Just like the slide going home on a pump shotgun. But, my 1911 is easier to handle in close quarters. And my side of the bed is closer to the door than my wife's. I agree with your choice.
 
Ghery said:
8+1 of .45 ACP works fine for me.



The sound of the slide going home on a 1911 is unique. Just like the slide going home on a pump shotgun. But, my 1911 is easier to handle in close quarters. And my side of the bed is closer to the door than my wife's. I agree with your choice.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And there's the plus side of the bullet moving slowly enough as compared to a magnum round, or even a 9mm it will probably stay in the house if you miss.
 
James331 said:
Anyone who would use a 5.56/223 in a home defense situation, in most likely a stick and Sheetrock house, not too smart, also you better be sending quite a few rounds downrange weekly to keep up to snuff with that rifle.

The shotgun gives a little more margin for the dark room, seldome practice, scared girlfriend type, add to that picking a load that will transfer the required energy whilst not blowing through walls.
Click to expand...

5.56mm penetrates less through Sheetrock than 00 buck. The round explosively fragments and loses almost all of its energy in short order. 00 buck with go through 6-8 layers of Sheetrock, 5.56mm usually 3-4.

You need to practice of then with any self defense firearm. A shotgunner will almost always aim high without a lot of practice. The round is slow enough and the recoil impulse large enough that it he muzzle is rising before the round leaves the barrel. If you want to get a chest hit, you'd better be aiming at the belt buckle at room distances. Aim at the head and you will likely miss over the top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top