My recent post on shotguns in the basic guns series drew a comment worth replying to. It already got a pretty good response but I'll take a shot at it also. Here it is, I will reply after each piece in italics.
"Let's see...
* Heavy, bulky ammo
How much ammo do you plan on carrying? For a normal home defense or siting on the porch after a Hurricane type scenario I'd be quite comfortable with what's in/ on the gun and 40-50 rounds which is not excessively heavy. True 150-250 rounds of buckshot or slugs would weight a lot but if you're trying to do that it's likely not a problem that can be solved with a shotgun anyway.
* Short range
Short range in comparison to what? [This is a systemic issue of the comment. Nothing is defined or compared to another alternative.] Figure buckshot is good to 30 meters or so which covers probably 90% of home defense type situations. Slugs out of a standard open cylinder barrel with a bead sight are good to about 100m (if the operator does his part) which probably covers 99.9% of civilian defensive situations.
* Ineffective against even the cheapest armor
So are all but a few oddball pistols but you don't see folks running away from 9mm, .357mag, .40 and .45. The comment to use slugs is valid. Then again rifle plates that stop everything up to 30'06 AP are common place and can be purchased for a few hundred dollars. So that thinking eliminates the advantage of .223, 7.62x39 and .308 also; you would really have to move to .338 Lapua or other anti materiel type rifle that will either blow through a plate or create so much energy it would do a person in through blunt force trauma. Honestly while Goblins wearing body armor is a valid worst case scenario for home defense the real odds of it happening are probably pretty low. If a round to the plate does not do somebody in (or you see vests) transition to 'hips and heads'. In plain English if you suspect folks might have vests shoot them in the hips and then in the face. Heck given the slim but reasonable likelihood that somebody has a vest these days starting with 'hips and heads' isn't a terrible idea.
* Crap sights
Honestly I have never really had an issue with the plain old single bead. Given the realistic ranges for employing a shotgun I find them sufficient. Rifle sights, ghost ring sights or a red dot are all better and valid options but they cost money.
* Crap accuracy
If a person cannot use a serviceable shotgun to accomplish realistic shotgun tasks the issue lie in the operator not the weapons system.
* Awkward, slow reloads
In comparison to a modern magazine fed weapon that holds 20-30+ rounds reloads are slow and awkward. On the other hand if we are comparing it to a bolt or lever action rifle I would call it a wash.
So why would I want to buy a shotgun again?"
Further commentary: The systemic problem with this comment is that it does not compare shotguns to another option by weak point or to propose another weapons system as an all around better option. Maybe I am being too hard on this but it has it's been pounded into my head that you bring up a problem AND A BETTER OPTION.
I am a pretty harsh critic of shotguns for home defense. This guy would take an AR/ AK/ Mini 14/ Whatever over a shotgun every day of the week and twice on Sunday. $1,500 Project AR with a $500 optic blows the old 870 out of the water in about every possible way. A Mercedes or Porche SUV blows my Asian SUV out of the water and $120 a bottle Scotch beats $18 a bottle stuff. The problem is that a comparison between them that does not consider economics is invalid.
At the time of this writing AR's run $1,200 for low end guns. AK's are running almost a grand for low end ones. A quality shotgun costs 1/4 to 1/3rd of either. Many people are priced out of modern defensive rifles these days but any semi functional adult can pull together $250-300ish to get a good pump shotgun. Also today they are still widely available both in stores and on the private market. Think I've beat the cost thing to death.
The other big benefit of a shotgun is versatility. A rifle can do some things better than a shotgun but there are many things a shotgun can do that a rifle fails completely at. As discussed before any sort of jack of all trades is not the master of any but in this scenario a gun that does a lot of things acceptably is very useful.
Instead of comparing a shotgun to rifles that cost 3-4x as much ones in the same range might be a more equitable comparison. We will get to rifles later but the playing field between bolt action deer rifles, lever guns and old milsurp Mosin Nagants and the shotgun is a whole lot more level. A reasonable person could choose to go rifle first then shotgun down the road but it's still important to compare apples to apples.
Considering this is the Basic Guns series and we are talking about affordable but still reliable guns that will fill a lot of roles I consider the shotgun worthwhile.
Thoughts?
"Let's see...
* Heavy, bulky ammo
How much ammo do you plan on carrying? For a normal home defense or siting on the porch after a Hurricane type scenario I'd be quite comfortable with what's in/ on the gun and 40-50 rounds which is not excessively heavy. True 150-250 rounds of buckshot or slugs would weight a lot but if you're trying to do that it's likely not a problem that can be solved with a shotgun anyway.
* Short range
Short range in comparison to what? [This is a systemic issue of the comment. Nothing is defined or compared to another alternative.] Figure buckshot is good to 30 meters or so which covers probably 90% of home defense type situations. Slugs out of a standard open cylinder barrel with a bead sight are good to about 100m (if the operator does his part) which probably covers 99.9% of civilian defensive situations.
* Ineffective against even the cheapest armor
So are all but a few oddball pistols but you don't see folks running away from 9mm, .357mag, .40 and .45. The comment to use slugs is valid. Then again rifle plates that stop everything up to 30'06 AP are common place and can be purchased for a few hundred dollars. So that thinking eliminates the advantage of .223, 7.62x39 and .308 also; you would really have to move to .338 Lapua or other anti materiel type rifle that will either blow through a plate or create so much energy it would do a person in through blunt force trauma. Honestly while Goblins wearing body armor is a valid worst case scenario for home defense the real odds of it happening are probably pretty low. If a round to the plate does not do somebody in (or you see vests) transition to 'hips and heads'. In plain English if you suspect folks might have vests shoot them in the hips and then in the face. Heck given the slim but reasonable likelihood that somebody has a vest these days starting with 'hips and heads' isn't a terrible idea.
* Crap sights
Honestly I have never really had an issue with the plain old single bead. Given the realistic ranges for employing a shotgun I find them sufficient. Rifle sights, ghost ring sights or a red dot are all better and valid options but they cost money.
* Crap accuracy
If a person cannot use a serviceable shotgun to accomplish realistic shotgun tasks the issue lie in the operator not the weapons system.
* Awkward, slow reloads
In comparison to a modern magazine fed weapon that holds 20-30+ rounds reloads are slow and awkward. On the other hand if we are comparing it to a bolt or lever action rifle I would call it a wash.
So why would I want to buy a shotgun again?"
Further commentary: The systemic problem with this comment is that it does not compare shotguns to another option by weak point or to propose another weapons system as an all around better option. Maybe I am being too hard on this but it has it's been pounded into my head that you bring up a problem AND A BETTER OPTION.
I am a pretty harsh critic of shotguns for home defense. This guy would take an AR/ AK/ Mini 14/ Whatever over a shotgun every day of the week and twice on Sunday. $1,500 Project AR with a $500 optic blows the old 870 out of the water in about every possible way. A Mercedes or Porche SUV blows my Asian SUV out of the water and $120 a bottle Scotch beats $18 a bottle stuff. The problem is that a comparison between them that does not consider economics is invalid.
At the time of this writing AR's run $1,200 for low end guns. AK's are running almost a grand for low end ones. A quality shotgun costs 1/4 to 1/3rd of either. Many people are priced out of modern defensive rifles these days but any semi functional adult can pull together $250-300ish to get a good pump shotgun. Also today they are still widely available both in stores and on the private market. Think I've beat the cost thing to death.
The other big benefit of a shotgun is versatility. A rifle can do some things better than a shotgun but there are many things a shotgun can do that a rifle fails completely at. As discussed before any sort of jack of all trades is not the master of any but in this scenario a gun that does a lot of things acceptably is very useful.
Instead of comparing a shotgun to rifles that cost 3-4x as much ones in the same range might be a more equitable comparison. We will get to rifles later but the playing field between bolt action deer rifles, lever guns and old milsurp Mosin Nagants and the shotgun is a whole lot more level. A reasonable person could choose to go rifle first then shotgun down the road but it's still important to compare apples to apples.
Considering this is the Basic Guns series and we are talking about affordable but still reliable guns that will fill a lot of roles I consider the shotgun worthwhile.
Thoughts?