It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Shotguns in the battlefield...

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Taishyou
How far max do shotgun pellets normally fly, if fired horizontally?
And from what I understand, it's not that effective against good body armour
(links are dead but they might come back)
The little pellets cannot penetrate armour as well as a rifle round. Even though there are many of them, quantity doesn't help in punching through body armour if each individual pellet is weak

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Taishyou]

Not sure about this but. Even if the pellets are unable to penerate body amour, If close enough, the impact itself is deady for the human body.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But there is such thing call "Blunt Trama" right?

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 10:58 PM
Yeah, basically. A vest might keep a projectile from goign through you, but if it's soft (hell, even if it's hard) it's like taking a baseball bat to the chest. The blunt trauma can kill you...but I'd rather have the blunt trauma than the perforation.


posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:32 AM
Cool, thanks to everybody...

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 08:11 AM
I have a problem with the possible life threatening "blunt" trauma supposedly caused by buckshot to a vest. Never seen it or heard a credible source say that was a problem.

The problem is the whole equal and opposite reaction. I have never been knocked down shooting my 12ga, let alone suffered blunt trauma from it and I seldom am in a vest. (maybe some bruising though

Now that said I CAN believe blunt trauma from a SLUG to a vest with or without a trauma plate if it doesn't just go right through. This I have seen and it has to do with surface or frontal area of the slug vs butt of the shotgun. Buckshot has a much larger “virtual area” because of the spreading and less kinetic energy is carried to the target because of the spreading (as mentioned earlier).

Material properties of the slug can also make a huge difference. Take a soft lead slug vs a solid copper sabot. That sabot has a good likelihood of going clean through someone in a vest.

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:53 AM
Nice points... Thanks...

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:22 AM
If that's true, then cool...

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:41 AM
We used the shotgun on the SRT, and also at security sites where deep penetrating projectiles could be a bad thing to what we were sucuring.
We used Federal 00 buck.
I was U.S. Army, by the way. That was eons ago, and as far as I know, they've gone to light sabers.

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 11:53 AM
OK, good to hear something from somebody who's actually "been there"...

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:59 PM
Blunt trauma is over-rated. Jim Davis, founder and inventor of Second Chance soft body armor, used to regularly shoot himself in the chest with full power .44 Magnums....yes, while wearing his vests.

Later on,he began using a phone book under the vest to lessen the bruising.

He never had to visit the Hospital, nor was he ever knocked down, or knocked out of breath. While unnerving to watch him do this, he not only proved his vest design, but discounted many myths of being shot.

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 02:46 PM
My good friend is the USA national champion at combined 3-gun (rifle, pistol, shotgun) tactical shooting. He shoots a modified Benneli M1 Super-90. He can completely reload it within three seconds. He tells me the same as what's said here: slugs are reliable up to 100 yards.

Given my choices, however, I'd still take a rifle any day. Why would I want a shotgun on the battlefield? With a rifle, you can also shoot close range. I'd rather have a tiny bullet (.223) with small weight, not a heavy, wobbly shotgun slug. The .223 flies straight as an arrow and packs massive kinetic energy, well over 100 yards.

I think you'd only use shotguns if you preferred them or had to minimize damage to friendlies in other rooms like in house-to-house fighting.

[edit on 30-7-2005 by smallpeeps]

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:29 PM
Oh, I personally prefer the M-4 the most, with its occular aiming devices...

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:47 AM
Mine is a very modified mossberg 500. 3 seconds to reload can be is not on the extreme end of fast- maybe avg for that type of event. USA magazines makes a mod / speed loader to be able to insert 4 shells into the mag in less than a sec. Ganted since my gun holds 8, i have to do this twice when empty but since i rarely let the mag drop below 3 shells one speed loader at a time is all i really ever have to contend with and in a tactical situation never caught with my pants down and an empty gun. (bad juju)

Mossberg 500 with all mods ~ $500 usd; 100yrd group= 3.5 inches
Bernelli bare bones stock ~ $1400+ usd; 100yrd group~ 4+ inches

As nice as the Bernelli is, if i am spending the money give me 3 Mossbergs so i can share with friends and actually obtain parts in a crisis.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:03 AM
OK, so how long does it fire...?

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:24 AM
How long? sorry, i don't follow you there.

Maybe, you mean distance?? If that is the case i am very sure i could hit a man sized target at 150 yards with a slug. I wouldn't call that an extra ordinary shot either. I saw a good balistic table in one of the earlier posts about how far each type of "load" can carry but it all comes down to the shooter. With a typical rifle can an average soldier hit a man sized target at 150 yards? Numbers will vary on the soldiers service and natural talent but only 50% will hit anything further out.

compare ballistic energy of a 223 round with a 1oz slug at 100 yards- i think a shot gun still wins. ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7b05DBEC85-6646-458B-9839-9A298BA9EB1C%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1

(sorry about the long link i haven't figured out how to make them shorter yet)

223= 1070 ft lbs at 100yards
slug=2325 ft lbs at 100yards

clearly the shotgun is still more leathal than the standard issue military rifle at 100 yards by a factor of ~2.3 to 1 !!!!

i would not consider using either for a sniper weapon though
the 223 does not carry enough energy and i hugely affected by the wind
the shot gun is more difficult to keep on target

If you are after something farther out use a larger center fire cartridge- 308 is standard military issue but i do not care for it. 7mm Rem Mag is flatter shooting and maintains a lot more energy for that type of shooting.

Buckshot on the other hand and the type of barrel i use- maximum effective range maybe only 25 yards. A "full cylinder" choke on the gun (20 inch barrel) does not do much for keeping a shot pattern very tight. Heck just last week a measured pattern of 00 buck from 15 yards was ~24 inches. Spread nine pencil diameter holes throughout a 24 inch circle and there is a lot of open space in there. Much farther out and a whole man sized figure could be entirely missed even with perfect shot placement.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:31 PM
yeah, ok... I meant the range so you presumed quite well...

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:43 PM
I have heard that the extreme maximum range of a shotgun being 300yds, but that probably means thats how far the shot travels, but not with any accuracy or real force.

The International Association of Security and Investigative Regulators (whoever they are?) "Shotgun Fundamentals" lesson says the following

"Maximum effective range is approximately 25 yards using 00 Buck ammunition and the police-style shotgun with a barrel length of 18 - 22 inches."


As far as shotguns go, I always like the SPAS 15

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:33 PM
launchpad you are right about the Moss vs. the Bennelli. The B is way too difficult to tune anyway and not practical for mixed environments. They're actually more of a snobby, hunting type company and don't really care much for tactical applications. But dang if that ain't the Impala of auto shotguns. Personally I'll take a Rem 870 for cost vs. reliability.

For combat scenarios, trying to hit targets at-distance with a shotgun slug doesn't seem efficient to me. Grab a Winchester or something for gosh's sakes and make the shot a more accurate certainty. Better to hit your target with a .22 than to use some massive wobbly bullet that if it hits, will only cause as much trauma as a rifle round anyway.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:26 AM
For Figher Master FINs information and to anyone else interested

Finnish army uses several versions of Remington 870 (folding stock, solid stock, composite stocks) in all Military Police units and in some elements of FRDF (valmiusjoukot) and Guard Jaegers (kaartinjääkärit)

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 02:37 AM
How did you know about that, (what the Finnisha rmy uses)...
yeah, Finland has shotguns too, surprising isn't it...?

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:35 PM
In my experience, the combat shotgun can be used effectively in any area where the chance of meeting the enemy at close range is a real possibility. In the British Army, it's really only used in a jungle environment or in Recce (sorry, recon for the yanks). In this scenario, a well positioned OP will only be discovered if the enemy virtually stand on it. Then you need a weapon that will cause alot of damage quickly and at extreme close range.

In the jungle, average contact is initiated around the 5m mark, with victory going to whoever scores the first hit. Here, the wider spread of the shotgun increases the chance of a first-round kill. Therefore, the lead scout will carry a shotgun (Remington 870, folding stock for the Brits), often in conjunction with his '80.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in