At very short ranges, perhaps aboard ship maybe. The ammunition or the method of throwing the shot needs to change. We don't have a sufficient battery for Coil/Gauss shotguns so that leaves the ammo type that needs to change. Re-neck a .308 for delivering shot for instance. 20+1 with fast reload and 0 need for different web-gear beats having the feed the tube or having 2 magazines take up the size of a laptop on your person..
00 Buck. The best are Federal Flitecontrol and Hornady Critical Defense, however you must pattern a shotgun to each barrel since not all shotgun barrels are the same
Trailer-birdshot Apartment-birdshot/#4 buckshot/00 buckshot(if can’t find neither). House(suburbs)-#4 buckshot/00 buckshot. House(rural)-00 buckshot/1oz slug. Please take this all with a grain of salt. As well measure your living space within the home from the shortest distance to the longest distance. Test those distances at the gun range to test out the patterning of the shot. And yes birdshot is still lethal up close and the farthest at 5 yards. Hopefully this helped.
Rifles are more accurate and allow the shooter to be more precise in their shot placement, but juries are made up of people ignorant of firearms and how they're used. When it comes to legal matters, one advantage of the shotgun is unmatched wounding ability when used correctly (right ammo at the right range with the right choke). With a handgun or rifle, we train to shoot a burst of fire until the threat clearly stops (bad guy flees, drops his weapon, or clearly is no longer a danger, etc.) So that often plays out as half a second or a second of rapid firing, followed by an assessment. Now the prosecutor and the media are demanding to know why you shot the bad guy six times or more, as if you're an assassin who checked after every shot if your victim was still breathing and fired again until he wasn't. With a shotgun, we tend to only fire at the guy once or twice before he's clearly out of the fight. The jury that thinks you're a murderer for putting six .223 bullets into someone lunging at you may have no problem with you putting forty-one .24 caliber lead pellets (that's a single round of 12 gauge 3" #4 buckshot) into him because it's just one trigger pull. It makes you look restrained, like you used the minimum of force. You just fired a single shot and then it was over. To defeat the "this psycho just kept shooting again and again and that was an excessive use of force" argument, you'll have to bring in an expert on firearms tactics and training to teach the court that shooting until the threat stops is standard operating procedure. The fewer shots fired, the easier it is to legally justify a shooting, so a round that ends fights with fewer shots is legally useful. On the other hand, I would want to make a hostage-taker shot at a small target with a shotgun instead of a rifle. If the American public understood firearms use, they would often actually consider you more responsible for shooting someone six justified times with a rifle, since it's more accurate and less likely to miss and hit a bystander. But that's not how I've read it in the press. They use a high round count shooting to make the shooter look malicious and eager to kill. Reducing the number of shots takes away that argument and makes you look more sparing and discriminate in your shots, even if it means many more balls of lead flying through the air much less accurately and posing more of a danger to human life. "I was in fear for my life and fired just one shot when charged at me. I believed with justification that if he reached me I would die. I didn't have much time to aim, but I didn't miss and he fell over and died. I wasn't trying to kill, just trying to get him to stop and the only way I could save my life was to shoot him." I have great difficulty imagining someone standing after being hit center mass with three effective 12 gauge or even 20 gauge buckshot defensive rounds with good spread at normal velocity. The low round count looks restrained, even if the payload is anything but. It's a fact that a shotgun can, if used properly, take an unarmed person out of a fight with generally fewer shots than the handgun and intermediate rounds we usually compare it to. But these legal concerns and caring about presenting yourself in court are far less important than surviving the fight and using a justified level of force, so pick whatever weapon best enables you to live through the encounter with you well-being intact and no major damage to you life but a bad memory. Staying alive and free is what we should be primarily concerned about, and minor issues of appearance such as this should be of relatively remote concern although they might be a factor that tips the scales for some people when it comes to weapon selection. It's generally true that for dumb cultural reasons a person is less likely to be vilified for using a shotgun to defend himself rather than a modern black rifle. This is extremely unlikely to be a factor that determines someone's future, since a justified shooting is a justified shooting, but it is a fact of our society and could mean something if the justification of the shooting is unclear and especially one is tried by the court of public opinion.
@@USpatriot741776 I never said that. I said quantity of shots. That comes up all the time in justified shootings. The first shot is easier to justify than subsequent shots. Each shot has to be justified in the immediate moment, not based on what was happening a moment before, even just a second before. Defendants get excoriated for firing one too many shots. It can lead to a murder charge or other conviction. The aggressor can turn away or drop down and if another shot is fired at him it's often a crime. Sometimes it happens so fast the defendant didn't realize the threat had passed. A one-shot stop is not something we can rely on any firearm to provide, but it does look better than emptying a magazine into someone if it can't be demonstrated that they continued to advance against the defender. Plus, a one-shot stop from a handgun is usually psychological. The attacker is dissuaded, not physically incapacitated. When a shotgun turns a quarter of a human torso to mincemeat, it doesn't matter what the frame of mind of the person being shot is. It doesn't matter if they're so high they don't even notice they've been shot. They won't be able to continue to victimize anyone. They're done for the night, and probably forever. It wouldn't surprise me if prosecutors attacked someone as an overzealous aggressive defender, or even a wackjob looking to kill someone, for self-defense with a .44 Magnum or .50 BMG. But that's a rare situation, I'm not aware of a case like that, and it wasn't what I was talking about.
