From: pauly@netcom.com (Paul Yoshimune)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Shotgun amo sequence.other view.
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:05:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <01GQYAZ2TNFM90MX6Z@BrandonU.CA> hayes@brandonu.ca writes:
#Wish to register disagreement with Barry concerning size and type of load,
#particularly in view of his urban environment shooting parameters.  The 
#type of load suggested could/would readily penetrate gyprock, most siding, etc
#and raise potential danger to next door neighbor and her/his sleeping guard
#dog.  Suggest that 12 gauge loaded with #2 or #4 shot as anit-personnel round
#has in the environmental constraints of an indoor usage all the stopping
#potential appropriate to task being discussed.  Controllable discharge of
#20 gauge magnum using shot specified would meet most human target knock down
#capacities even remotely possible.  As well, lowers threat potential to that
#sleeping dog next door to much less than the near "anti-armor" capabilities
#Barry is suggesting.  Prefer # 2 or #4 because of superior pattern and more
#shot density. 

Well, in Mas Ayoob's Shoot to Live video, he talks about the role of the 
shotgun in home defense.  It seems that common perception is that the shotgun
is a great home defense weapon since the shot "won't penetrate you walls."
He flatly states this is completely false (although he used somewhat harsher
terms, if I quite recall).  Anyway, any load you use that you think will go
through a felon's heavy clothing will most definitely go through a wall.  His
opinion is that the shotgun should be used after you have your family in a
"safe room" with you, and use it to defend yourself should the felon try to
enter this room.  Here, he flatly states that try to clear a house, or collect
family, or any other sort of movement, with a shotgun is a disadvantage due to
the size and two-handed requirements.

#If you are in an semi-urban or rural situation Barry's remarks are pretty close
#to right on, though I would argue for a rifle over a shot gun. 
#Point I would make, according to an  RCMP (for your Southerners: Royal Canadian
#Mounter Police) most home defence shots are made at very close range.  3 - 8
#feet.  If that is the case, target acquisition comes from instinctive quick
#point and shoot, which means if you are ever faced with the situation, the
#amount of practice and target specification/acquisition practice you have
#behind you may make the difference between shoot/no shoot, hit/no hit,
#live/no live.

Again, I think the handgun would be a better option because it leaves you one
hand free to wield a flashlight/hold a banister/carry the kids/turn on the
lights/feel against a wall/etc.

Regarding the "point shooting" philosophy, I think most experts still agree
that even at close range, using your sights is the much better way to go, and
will invariably get you more accurate shots.  Under a stress situation where
you've got someone else in your house, who is possibly armed, I'm sure you'd
be quite surprised at how you might point shoot and jerk the trigger or
whatnot, and be quite capable or missing, even at close range.  Then again,
Ayoob says a "fair" sight picture is often all that is necessary/all there is
time for, in which you see the front sight, see the rear sight, they are 
more or less in alignment, pull the trigger.  This is supposedly much more
accurate than point shooting or shooting from the hip, but costs you pretty
much nothing in the way of time.

Again, I'm not an expert on such things, but these are the opinions of people
who are, and whose thoughts I think make a lot of sense...

-- 
DVC,
  Paul

Paul Yoshimune
pauly@netcom.com