View Single Post
Old July 9th, 2012 #61
Mr A.Anderson
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481

Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
For the deterrent effect, i.e. a blinding wound, of blasting someone with #12 birdshot the .410 + short-barrel concept works well. Very well. In fact, the designers' original intent was that: One snapshot at a car-jacker's face and get the hell outta dodge.

Unfortunately the combination makes an ineffective killer. The ballistics suck.

The pellets must penetrate an attacker's body deeply enough to be able to pass through a vital cardiovascular structure to cause rapid fatal hemorrhage to quickly deprive the brain of oxygenated blood needed to maintain consciousness. And that, ever since the FBI's first wound-ballistics meeting in 1987, is mandated as a minimum of 12 inches of penetration in test-gelatin.

The .410 + short-barrel combination fails the test, and can't be relied upon for effective self-defense outside a very specific set of circumstances.
Originally Posted by OTPTT View Post
You're an idiot who apparently has no knowledge of firearms or the proper self-defense firearm loads.

No one is going to put #12 birdshot in a .45LC\.410 revolver for self-defense. Hunting small game, yes; self-defense, no. Don't confuse bird shot with buck shot.

Did you read the information on the Federal Premium .410 Handgun 4-Pellet 000 Buck 2-inch shells? I bought a box of these very shells yesterday for my 3" Taurus Judge. Here's the results this shell being fired into a 10x10x12-inch block of ballistic gel at a distance of 10 yards (30 feet) with a velocity of 1012 fps from a Taurus Judge with 3" barrel.

If you think the Taurus Judge or even the S&W Governor firing a .410 shotgun shell like the Federal 4-Pellet 000 Buck 2-inch shell are ineffective why not let me use you for a test subject and let's see if your hypothesis stands the test in the real world? I'll supply the ammo and testing range, you can wear your winter clothing but no Kevlar. Deal?

One thing I did see from those tests found here is that the Winchester PDX1 wasn't as effective as the Federal 4-Pellet 000 Buck 2-inch shells with the former only achieving about a 7.5 inch penetration. I'll be putting the Federal shells in the Judge now instead of the PDX1.

Of course the PDX1 has a velocity of only 750fps just a bit slower than a .45acp whereas the Federal shells show a velocity of 1200fps according to their respective boxes. With everything considered this is how I have my Judge loaded:

Chambers 1-5:
1. Winchester PDX1
2. Federal 4-Pellet 000 Buck
3. Winchester PDX1
4. Federal 4-Pellet 000 Buck
5. Federal 4-Pellet 000 Buck

The Judge is great for the nightstand at home or for any close combat situation when loaded above, or with all Federal 4-Pellet 000 buck shot. Within a 21 foot radius it's deadly.

It's not a revolver I'd carry though since I wouldn't want to hit an innocent bystander if I had to take down a violent, murdering bad guy. It also has only five chambers. For carry I prefer a .45acp auto loader with at least 41 rounds of ammunition. That translates to one in the chamber and a full magazine in the pistol with two spare magazines fully loaded.
OK - apples and oranges? The birdshot was for "deterrant" at close range, incapacitate, or as Roy said, ".....a blinding effect" in non-lethal. Roy also went on to say that the ballistics for such a load is complete trash for killing.

You jumped his shit - when all you really did was expand on why the ballistics for such a load is complete trash for killing, and said to use 000 buck shot for real self defense (lethal) in close quarters. Basically, you agreed with him, explained why, and called him and idiot in the process?


I've repeatedly heard the "bird shot" theory from liberal artards who are proponents for "non-lethal" self defense. Problem is - like you both said - it's non-lethal for the perp, but will probably end up getting you killed in the process.

Or am I totally missing something here?