Another WSJ letter - AR15 vs. Shotgun

[red-beard]

In responding to a dunderhead in the letters section.

Regarding David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman's "Gun Control and the Constitution" (op-ed, Feb. 11): The argument that an individual needs a large capacity magazine for his weapon in order to defend his life and property from multiple attackers is fatuous, and I challenge the authors to point to a single instance when a law-abiding citizen, in protecting himself at home, fired more than 10 rounds. The "defender of his castle" would be better served in using a shotgun as opposed to indiscriminately spraying a large number of rounds which could endanger his family and neighbors.

I question the assertion by the gun lobby and its minions that most shooting-sports enthusiasts are opposed to any additional regulation of firearms. The thinking, responsible gun owner favors no-exception background checks and the passing of other regulations which would limit the ability of a deranged individual to repeat the tragedies of Newtown, Aurora and Tucson.

Allan R. Fisher

Earlysville, Va.

My Response:

Sirs,

In his letter published on February 20th, Mr. Fisher states that a person “would be better served in using a shotgun as opposed to indiscriminately spraying a large number of rounds which could endanger his family and neighbors”. Excuse me, but isn’t that precisely what a shotgun does?

A standard 12 gauge double-aught “00” shotgun shell contains up to eighteen 50 grain pellets. The most common AR15 bullet is 55 grains. So firing a shotgun is about equal to shooting an AR15 15-18 times! The recoil of an AR15 type rifle is low and allows many precise shots, as opposed to “blasting” a 12 gauge shotgun. I thought you were opposed to indiscriminate shooting.

Mr. Beard

[wdfifteen]

A basketball weight 650 grams, or 10031 grains. So, throwing a basketball at someone is the equivalent of shooting them 182 times with an AR 15, or blasting them 3611 times with 12 ga 00 buckshot. Clearly we should limit everyone to one basketball.

[pbs911]

Now your just making too much sense.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

A basketball weight 650 grams, or 10031 grains. So, throwing a basketball at someone is the equivalent of shooting them 182 times with an AR 15, or blasting them 3611 times with 12 ga 00 buckshot. Clearly we should limit everyone to one basketball.

Yeah, but how accurate are you with that basketball?

[Tobra]

Patrick, if you can throw anything faster than 1000 feet per second, I think the Yankees would be interested in talking to you.

[VaSteve]

If intruders come in multiples or don't retreat after the first shot, you live in a ****ty place or had it coming, no?

[ckelly78z]

I prefer my Remington 870 pump shotgun with 5 shots. If I were to shoot this gun at my barn from my house (175 ft away), no one would die today, but hopefully a few pellets would find their mark and convey the message i'm trying to send. Shooting towards my barn with an AR-15 would at the very least leave a series of holes in the siding and probably miss the robbers, and hit one of my horses, goats or chickens (none of which would be good).

Shooting a shotgun in my house as home protection would be a messy proposition from a construction point of view by leaving hunks of drywall/plasterboard/woodwork all over the place if I missed my target, but probably would be limited to inside damage only. Shooting an AR-15 in my home would leave less mess, but leave clean holes in the walls where the rounds exited and went searching for non-intended targets in my niegbors yard or the street.

[red-beard]

The point is that shooting a shotgun sends up to 18 separate projectiles out and many of those are NOT going to hit the target. By definition, it is not accurate, since it creates a pattern over a wide area. Shooting a single shotgun shell is equal to shooting half of a thirty round magazine.

Are you likey to hit a target with the shotgun? Yes. Are you also likely to send shot beyond the target? Definitely yes!

[Rick V]

Well hell I have both, I guess is someone breaks in here in the middle of the night it would all depend on my mood as to what I grab.














and here you had to add a basketball to the options list

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Shotgun Pattern Testing - FirearmsID.com

[ckelly78z]

Not very often do all the pellets hit the target when firing a shotgun.....I see your point, but will stick with my home protection plan for the above stated reasons.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Patrick, if you can throw anything faster than 1000 feet per second, I think the Yankees would be interested in talking to you.

You don't think velocity is part of the energy equation, do you? If that were true, Red Beard's statement, "So firing a shotgun is about equal to shooting an AR15 15-18 times!" would just be silly.

[JavaBrewer]

The better angle would be pointing out that a rifle shooting frangible .223 rounds presents far less danger to joining rooms and homes than a shotgun with 00 buckshot. The rifle is also easily handled and operated by women and tends to be more accurate.

[Jeff Higgins]

The real point the original letter writer is missing is that we are each entitled to our own choices, without the gubmint making those choices for us. The day we have to in any way "justify" which arms we own, to the very government we, the citizenry are armed as a means to help contain, we have lost the initiative. In other words, we are armed against the day we may have to unseat our government and take our country back - "a well regulated militia, being necessary for the keeping of a free state" - means just that. Our authority to arm ourselves originates with us, not our government, and ensures we will maintain authority over them. With that as a background, it's simply ludicrous to think the government can regulate the arms we own.

So, no, high capacity magazines are not for defending one's home. They are for defending one's country, against one's government. As such, we do not have to justify their ownership to that government. Pretty simple concept, once we sort out who is in charge of who, who has the real authority in this country. That would be us, not our government.

[Rick V]

Very well said Jeff

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

The real point the original letter writer is missing is that we are each entitled to our own choices, without the gubmint making those choices for us. The day we have to in any way "justify" which arms we own, to the very government we, the citizenry are armed as a means to help contain, we have lost the initiative. In other words, we are armed against the day we may have to unseat our government and take our country back - "a well regulated militia, being necessary for the keeping of a free state" - means just that. Our authority to arm ourselves originates with us, not our government, and ensures we will maintain authority over them. With that as a background, it's simply ludicrous to think the government can regulate the arms we own.

So, no, high capacity magazines are not for defending one's home. They are for defending one's country, against one's government. As such, we do not have to justify their ownership to that government. Pretty simple concept, once we sort out who is in charge of who, who has the real authority in this country. That would be us, not our government.

Well put Jeff, but that applies to the 1980s. Computer programmers and electrical engineers will be more important in overthrowing our government than guns will be, though they will play a role.

As an aside, I'm surprised preppers aren't more into solar and alternative, "personal" energy. No one's doing anything without electricity, and the Government and Corporations are in lockstep. Having a lot of guns ain't going to do much in the future.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

You don't think velocity is part of the energy equation, do you? If that were true, Red Beard's statement, "So firing a shotgun is about equal to shooting an AR15 15-18 times!" would just be silly.

That was my first thought, too. And the basketball comment was pure comedic gold!

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by JavaBrewer

The better angle would be pointing out that a rifle shooting frangible .223 rounds presents far less danger to joining rooms and homes than a shotgun with 00 buckshot. The rifle is also easily handled and operated by women and tends to be more accurate.

Very good point. I have .223 loads with 40 grain Hornady V-Max plastic tipped bullets doing about 3300 fps from my M700. Its big brother, my Ruger #1 in .220 Swift, shoots the 60 grain V-Max at over 3800 fps.

I like to use a big cardboard box as a "target stand", putting a big rock in the bottom to keep it in place. At very close range, neither of these loads exits the far side of the box. The bullets just vaporize and leave the inside of the far side peppered with metal fragments. Oh, sometimes the bigger pieces might make it through, but we are talking cardboard. I gotta think a plasterboard wall would stop them.

I honestly never thought of these rounds in those terms, probably since I don't own a suitable home defense weapon in either. That is a very, very good point, David, and one I've never seen enter the discussion. Hmmm...

[red-beard]

Please review the following article on rounds and penetration

.223 Drywall Penetration: Ammunition

Cartridge Conclusions
The biggest surprise of the entire test was how much differences in bullet construction affected the way .223 rounds behaved when passing through walls. If overpenetration must be minimized over all other concerns, something based around the V-Max bullet would be a good choice; however, both the Winchester and Fiocchi softpoints turned in very similar wall penetration, but published data for the Winchester suggests it does better in gel penetration than the V-Max loads. Given that the softpoint bullets were heavier and therefore more likely to reliably cycle a gas-operated action, some kind of softpoint would seem the ideal balance between terminal ballistics and minimizing overpenetration.

Bullet construction made a difference in penetration, but there was no significant difference in behavior between the two brands of softpoints tested beyond the fact that the Winchester's fragmentation was more consistent. This could just be a coincidence, though, so it would be educational to track down more varieties of softpoint ammo and see if the observed trend continues.

The amount of unsuspected and surprising behavior we saw with various rifle rounds left us eager to try out more types of ammunition just to see what unusual and surprising results will ensue. I'd love to see what happens with some Hornady TAP 110-grain .308 rounds, or perhaps some of the Wolf Military Classic 7.62x39mm rounds that are said to perform well in ballistic gel. What about the 5.45x39mm rounds currently available as surplus? Or FN's 5.7x28mm round? Truly, blowing gigantic holes in drywall with consequent awesome explosions of gypsum dust demands further study. For purely scientific purposes.

Moving away from rifle rounds takes us from fascinating discoveries into the realm of mythbusting. Handgun rounds, for instance, may penetrate less than rifle rounds--but only if the rifle rounds in question are full-power ball ammo. The relatively slow speed and heavy weight of handgun bullets make them a poor choice for limiting interior wall penetration, which is why professional door-kicker types have abandoned pistol-caliber submachineguns in favor of .223 carbines.

Shotguns may be the most powerful repeating shoulder-fired gun available, but when stoked with 00 buckshot they are certainly not a low-penetration option. In fact, the way the pellets spread out after passing through intermediate barriers makes the safety of anyone or anything within three rooms of a shotgun blast highly dubious.