Sangiovese wrote:It is a thought provoking question, but I have a few issues with the author's analysis.
I should note, while I am the author of the linked-to article, the quoted section comes from Karl Rehn of
KR Training.
The original article on KR Training's website is linked to in my write-up.
Sangiovese wrote:
The biggest bone I have to pick is that in an effort to promote a rifle's superiority over a shotgun for home defense, the author poses the following question:
I ask the hunters how well they know their pattern size and relationship between point of aim and pattern distribution at 7 yards with their home defense load, then ask if they’d be willing to put one of their children downrange and shoot around the child to hit a paper “shoot” target simulating a bad guy that’s in their house near their child.
Of course no sane person would put their child downrange and shoot a paper target. Not with a shotgun. Not with a carbine. Not with a scoped rifle. Refusal to use your child as a "no shoot" target for a shotgun doesn't imply a shotgun's inferiority... it implies sanity
I realize that the author doesn't actually suggest doing that... but it is an example of intellectual dishonesty used to prove a point.
No one is actually asking anyone to put a child downrange.
The point of that line of reasoning (would you be willing to put your child downrange) is an attempt to get people to understand something about shotguns and patterning. Many people are unaware of their shotgun's pattern. If you have no idea if your equipment can perform as you expect, should you be using that equipment? perhaps should you get to know the limits and behaviors of your equipment? If your equipment doesn't perform as well as you need it to, maybe you need different equipment?
If your child was in a hostage situation and you had a rifle or a handgun, would you be willing to take the headshot on the VCA? Let's set skill aside and just look at equipment. If you don't know if your equipment can do that without harm to the child, would you take it?
Look at these shotgun ammo trials. If you were shooting Federal Premium Buckshot with the FLITECONTROL wad, you might feel comfortable taking a tight shot like a headshot anywhere out to 15 yards... but if you were using something like the Remington or Winchester buckshot that was used in those tests, no you probably wouldn't. But do you KNOW this? And do you know how your shot patterns with your particular load in your particular gun? Many people do NOT, and that's the point of the line of questioning -- to encourage people to get to know this, because what if you did find yourself in that situation... what are you going to do. But even with something like FLITECONTROL, some may not feel comfortable taking a tighter shot, so perhaps a rifle would be a better choice. This is knowledge and decisions that needs to be worked out beforehand.
Sangiovese wrote:Another example from the article was complaining about having to change ammo (between birdshot, buckshot, and slugs) as distance to the target changes. Really? To quote a favorite TV show character, "I don't think so, Tim!" Birdshot shouldn't be in the self defense conversation. Buckshot is viable for the ranges at which any self defense scenario inside the home will take take place, and slugs are good anywhere from the end of the barrel out to over 100 yards. So put slugs or buckshot in that bad boy and you're done. No need to change ammo on the fly and in the middle of a shootout as the author implies.
No, birdshot shouldn't be used in a self-defense context... but just look at this very discussion thread here and people are suggesting using it. No, we don't suggest birdshot at all and actively discourage the use of birdshot for self-defense (recommend: Federal Premimum low-recoil 00 Buck with FLITECONTROL, 8 or 9 pellet), but people bring birdshot up and it enters into the context of this conversation enough that it needs to be addressed. Because people do think about different ammo for different ranges, because that's part of what the shotgun, as a platform, provides.
If you don't feel a need to change ammo, then by all means don't. It is complicated, difficult, and slow to do changeovers.
Sangiovese wrote:
I read the article hoping to get some good perspective about the pros and cons of different weapon choices. I was really disappointed to see the author use such illogical arguments to make his point. A carbine might actually be the nest choice... but the author does a disservice by making up silly arguments against the shotgun to skew the discussion. It is a question worth asking. But I found no answers there.
I'm sorry you found such problems. Did you read the other 3 parts to my "On a home defense tool" series? Granted they still promote the use of something like an AR-15-patterned rifle, but maybe you'll find the data and reasoning there more to your liking. Or maybe not.
If you'd like, KR Training has a
Defensive Long Gun class coming up on September 29, 2012. A unique feature of this class is it's about the use of a long gun, rifle or shotgun, doesn't matter because most principles as it relates to (home) defensive context are the same. In running the long gun and watching others run their guns you're able to see what works, what doesn't work, the pros and cons of each platform. If you do decide to come out, please let me know and I'll be sure to be there so we can discuss things further. I find face-to-face discussions far more enjoyable and useful.
Since authoring this piece 3 years ago, I've changed my stance a little bit and softened up on the shotgun... and I think what helped there was discovery and adoption of ammo like the Federal FLITECONTROL. I actually like running my shotgun and a couple are part of my home defense setup... but my Aimpoint-topped AR-15 is as well, because the facts of the 2 platforms do not change, regardless of the line of reasoning used to present those facts.
