So is there any real reason to use a shotgun over a modern tactical rifle in modern combat? And I'm including all forms of combat in this, from home defense to a full blown war zone.
I know shotguns still have their place in hunting and sport, and their fun as fuck to shoot, but in terms of fighting other humans they seem objectively inferior to an AR or AK. Less than a third as many rounds, heavy as fuck recoil, shorter range (I said shortER sperglords, I know they are still effective past video game distances,) louder, and unless you have the money to drop on a reliable auto you're stuck with a manual action. The only thing they have in their favor is raw power (but there's a reason we use intermediate calibers as the go-to nowadays), and spread.
50 states legal
>>28465441
Who the fuck uses a shotgun in modern combat anyway as a main service firearm?
>>28465441
Oh, and I forgot, slower to reload and heavier ammo.
>>28465451
Fair enough. Is there any reason other than legal restrictions?
>>28465461
In the military, not many. But I still see LEO using shotguns, and plenty of people still spout that shotguns are the best for home defense.
>>28465441
Besides the fact that you can stuff a shotgun shell with all kinds of evil and sadistic shit?
If you hit someone square in the chest with a 5.56 and they're wearing body armor, they might still be standing and shooting back.
With a shotgun shell, they'll still live but probably be flat on their ass even if they are protected and the spread means that more pellets or whatever have a higher chance of hitting unprotected areas.
and against unarmored targets there is no contest. A shotgun is one shot one kill. A 5.56 will kill too but maybe not as immediately.
>>28465503
Obviously a modern rifle is probably better in all situations because of followup shots but if you need to know that a motherfucker aint gonna move, there really isn't anything better than a 12 gauge(that's also practical)
>>28465503
But if power is so important then why is the entire world using assault rifles as their primary military arms instead of battle rifles?
>>28465441
No, there isn't. People who advocate that shotguns are good for home defense are misinformed or Fudds.
>>28465523
7.62 NATO is heavy
>>28465503
also, shotguns are great at getting through doors, hence the masterkey attachment
ammo carrying ability. a 5.56mm gives you 30 rounds in the mag, and carrying just one extra is another 30. For the military, that's invaluable, because when the majority of your shots are going towards suppressive fire, whether the round is 5.56, 7.62, .308, etc etc. it doesn't matter, but the 5.56 is way lighter and you can carry a lot more.
For home defense, there's always issues of overpenetration. a carbine round or rifle-calibre is more likely to go through walls, which is dangerous. Buckshot probably not as likely. Could be wrong, but that seems to be the case. But even for home defense, the right rounds in an assault rifle won't over-penetrate, and again, having 30 shots is better than having 8 shots, even if those 8 shots are 12 ga buckshot. Sure one shell has more "stopping power". But at close range, it's not like you don't still have to aim* (the mythical shotgun spread lie where people think shotguns spread 5ft radius groups at targets 10ft away). Furthermore, if you're concerned about stopping power against a home invader, you have 30 rounds of 5.56. That's plenty of stopping power. Sure on a round-per-round basis 12ga is probably "stronger". But for every 1 12ga shell you can put 3 5.56's into them.
*missing is a big problem. Even with LEO's, they miss a lot of their shots. I'd rather have 30 "good enough" shots over 8 "kill em dead" shots.
>>28465471
>Is there any reason other than legal restrictions?
More versatile. You got a dozen or so typical ammo types, you can fairly easily cook your own shots, and with sub-caliber inserts, you can shoot just about any cartridge out of 12ga shotgun.
And like said, a shotgun's one of those things nobody has tried to seriously ban yet at any place on earth.
Shotguns have more than one use, a modern rifle might get you more shots faster and farther but penetration typically sucks when your lets say breaching or shooting an enemy through furniture. The shot gun will also knock someone in there ass wether they want to go or not
>>28465441
>legality
>higher likelihood of overwhelmingly critical damage with the first shot
>extremely low cost
If I didn't live in a cuckstate I'd do an AR filled with soft-point .223 in two mags clamped together. Since I have legal constraints, pump shotgun is what rides next to the bed.
>>28465441
Shotguns are not as effective as modern carbines in combat, at any distance.
With that said, for civilian home defender, the cost of a GOOD modern carbine may be triple or even quadruple that of a good shotgun, and when you consider what a realistic HD engagement looks like - a lone psycho that might run down your gunbarrel, or a few burglars/strong arm robbers that will run once you open fire - you gain nothing significant with either platform. The shooting would likely last less than a second and occur at such close range that optics vs bead vs point vs aim becomes somewhat moot.
>>28465791
>lone psycho holding an innocent hostage
>lone psycho wearing body armor
>few burglars that decide to shoot back as a group or like above, have body armor, or even worse, both
AR will always be optimal, but only in worst cases. Then again, home defense is about preparing for worst case.
>>28465441
>CQB
>Breaching
>Versatility in shell types, including less lethal.
>Rifle and handgun rounds will do well enough, but a 12 gauge tends to be a pretty fast showstopper.
>>28465503
>A shotgun is one shot one kill
Having talked to people who have actually killed enemy combatants with Mossberg 500s, they are definitely not always one shot one kill. That's fucking absurd.
I'd like to divert from a shotgun specific thread for a second.
For HD, why a long gun at all? Seems more effective to have a handgun for the maneuverability.
>>28465480
>is there any real reason to use a shotgun over a modern tactical rifle in modern combat? And I'm including all forms of combat in this, from home defense to a full blown war zone.
>I know shotguns still have their place in hunting and sport, and their fun as fuck to shoot, but in terms of fighting other humans they seem objectively inferior to an AR or AK. Less than a third as many rounds, heavy as fuck recoil, shorter range (I said shortER sperglords, I know they are still effective past video game distances,) louder, and unless you have the money to drop on a reliable auto you're stuck with a manual action. The only thing the
tfw u work 4 the Governmenluminaty
lelelelele
nogunz here
Are they not even effective in close quarters? They're better than carbines any day of the week in doorkickers
>>28465915
Within its effective range?
Either they're dead of their arms and legs would be ripped into ribbons.
At that point, who fucking cares? There's a reason it's "enemy neutralized" in video games and shit.
If they're not fucking dead, they're still pretty neutral at that point.
>>28466103
they are equally effective as an equivalent length rifle in close quarters, and that rifle is more effective at more things in general (one simple example; higher capacity which translates to more followup shots, more margin of error, and essentially better chances you survive)
so yes; a baseball bat is better than nothing, a shotgun's better than the bat, and the rifle is better than the shotgun
>>28465441
Combat? Fuck no, rifle all the way.
Stuck out in the boonies waiting for the national guard to re-stabalize the city? Fuck yes, those doves aren't going to land on my dinner plate on their own.
Right, shotgun is ineffective. This is why every military on earth stocks them. Also why every country on earth uses them for hunting. OP, fucking kill yourself and take this gay ass thread with you.
>>28465471
>Is there any reason other than legal restrictions?
Yes, but they work around a lot of legal restrictions and enforcement.
They're also pretty fun, and if you have the disposable income for let's call it destructive testing you can do some stupidly fun shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZaK7D4XVo8
>>28466556
>destructive testing
Science, my trigga, let's call it science
>>28465791
I have 4 daughters. Taught them how to use a shotgun for home defense. No need to worry about marksmanship in a high stress moment. Point and blast. I like the shotguns loud blast for waking up the neighbors scaring all but the most determined intruders.
>>28465523
Are you serious?
>>28465523
range
>>28465461
we used shotgun to breach doors (locks/padlocks/engs)
>>28465832
>lone psycho holding an innocent hostage
While this is a popular scenario to bring up, I cannot recall ever hearing about this actually happening to a home owner (please correct me if I'm wrong). That said, at close ranges you can still take a head shot if you know your pattern and you can easily do a slug swap if you stored the gun on an empty chamber. At this point we're into some extreme hypotheticals.
>lone psycho wearing body armor
The same applies to a carbine. Hell, a plate carrier + insert is cheaper than good soft armor. The answer with both weapons is shot placement and continuing to fight until the threat is neutralized.
>few burglars that decide to shoot back as a group or like above, have body armor, or even worse, both
Well then you're fucked, and probably fucked no matter what weapon you have. I don't know what to say, it could happen but again I've never heard of a homeowner encountering a situation like this.
>hello fellow illiterate crackheads, let's forgo our habit for a fortnight so that we might acquire thousands of dollars in firearms, armor, and attend live fire courses in order to knock over that middle class white man who owns a TV we can sell for $25
Again I'm not trying to point out any kind of supremacy on the part of the shotgun. A carbine is objectively a better weapon, but a good one costs 3-4 times more naked without mags or optics, will have to be set up for close quarters shooting only (so if you're a target shooter that enjoys having a sweet vortex on their 20" AR, better get a whole second rifle for that) and will serve the exact same function in 99% of home defense situations. A $250 shotgun is ready to work right off the rack, put a weapon light on it and figure out a way to keep shells on the gun and you're golden. I'm approaching this question from the perspective of an average joe who wants a good firearm for protection, not a serious enthusiast who wants a rifle for every task.
>>28466710
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me or not.
>>28465523
almost useless after 300m
heavy ammo
same pentration
>>28466517
thats just an awful as an assumption to make. the military uses it, so its good? then why do so many militaries have completely different weapon systems, and why do private individuals choose to do anything but perfectly emulate the militaries current set up? because the military isnt YOU, and you both are doing different things. Secondly, the military has shotguns not for main day to day combat but for shit like, scaring birds away from runways or to give to non-vital personal, or to breach doors, not shoot other people generally. The military main sidearm, more or less is the Beretta. so its the best, right, any any other side arm is just a waste. right?
>>28466992
>>28465503
at close range against unarmored targets 9 pellets of .32 will cause more faster blood loss than a single bullet
>>28467016
Because like every single weapon ever designed or made it has its role (inb4 trash). You don't use a rifle for everything, you don't use a plane or a ship for everything, and you don't use a shotgun for everything. You use your tools in the correct manner and context, nowhere else.
>>28465762
>TFW i sleep less than three feet away from your fantasy every night
>>28466239
and the shotgun is better in front of a jury
>>28465441
my understanding is that it's just fuds and shills that advocate getting a shotgun for HD
SBR's have replaced most other guns in close quarters for a range of reasons
the reason you see LEO's using them is often because shotguns can fill specialist roles, namely breaching doors with wax slugs, but also damaging security cameras and lights, shooting out windows etc
I don't think the need arises often, but I think that's the answer
another notable advantage is the price
if you're arming men on a budget can't go past shotguns
if your op is less than lilly white, you can just destroy the guns afterwards
also a shotgun is ideal for non-lethal (or less than lethal if you are a faggot), if you need to stop a mob but don't want to bring all hell on yourself, rubber bullets might be a smart play
also if you NEED to take an armed target alive, you might have to put him/her down with rubber because there really arn't many other options
>>28465503
Nope. Shock is what makes people fall over when hit while wearing body armor. There's simply not enough force for rounds. You are retarded.
There's so many different loads for shotguns that your claim for one shot one kill is dubious.
Finally, even slugs can't get through soft armor or kevlar, and they sure as shit won't do squat versus a ceramic plate
>>28465624
Any projectile that can pass FBI standards for sufficent penetration through ballistic gelatin will go right through drywall, including buckshot.
An ar15 with heavy 75-77 grain ammunition is a far better choice than a shotgun
>>28465728
Another asshole who thinks the force of the round is what knocks someone over.
Shotguns ammunition, pellets amd slugs, are far worse than any rifle rounds. We have "barrier blind" rounds for 5.56 now that have similar terminal ballistics even after passing through cover
>>28465762
>overwhelming critical damge
Stop breathing
>>28466103
An ar15 carbine is significantly shorter than a shotgun. Unless you have a pistol grip shotgun, which is dumb, or a sbs, which is unlikely.
The shorter weapon is a better room clearer
>>28466517
We use them for opening doors only. If we shoot someone with our mossbergs, our rifle must be really fucked.
>>28466966
This is valid. The only thing is that inside 15 yards, you can point shoot with an ar15, and it doesn't matter what optic you got on there. How's you think soldiers cleared houses with acogs on their rifles in Afghanistan?
>>28467087
That's why we shoot with a rifle until the target goes down
>>28467128
And in this context, this purpose, the shotgun is not a people killer, which is what "combat" is about. It has a tactical application, but it is never a soldiers primary weapon.
>>28467163
>need
>NEED
AM I BEING INFRINGED?
>>28467222
kek
>>28465503
Shotgun pellets or even slugs wont knock anyone on their ass with body armor. Bruise, but thats about it.
5.56 will zip through body armor no problem up to Level IV, and then that just needs 2 shots to piece.
No reason to pick a shotgun over a 5.56 carbine. Especially when you can build a fucking good quality AR-15 for $500 or even less.
I say thiswith the 870 is my favorite firearm, but its no longer practical with the continuing rise of body armor use by less than savory characters.
>>28467325
>5.56 will zip through body armor no problem up to Level IV
No, level 3 will stop it unless it's AP. Inb4 that stupid ar500 trash that isn't actually level 3.
>>28467325
I don't think you're right about that AP ability of 5.56, but your conclusion is correct regardless
>>28465441
Shotguns, I feel, are best in civilian use. As >>28465451 stated, they're legal in all 50 states, they're very powerful, and extremely useful in close quarters (most civilian combat engagements). The latter two, in addition, apply for law enforcement.
>>28467419
what I think this anon meant to say was
"buckshot for dindu, slugs for feds"
>>28465441
>12-gauge shotgun
>The most violent firearm design available
>Shells of every category from beanbag to incendiary
>With a mixed bag of shells and one gun, you can hunt almost anything
>If tube fed, then THAT SMALL CAPACITY
The humble shotgun has its strong points, but as others have said, the rise of body armor has kind of fucked it out of being any sort of "ultimate" firearm.
Still fucking useful for the right people though.
>>28467454
Nice pic anon. Any more like that?
>>28467472
>>28465441
I keep my 500 next to my bed, not one of my 7 AR's because the shotgun is light and I can put it to my shoulder and shoot faster than an ar-15. Shotguns are point-and-shoot weapons, and while I am very good at instinctively firing my AR, im better with my shotgun, having used one since age 10. Plus if the cops take my gun because I killed someone, my $200 shotgun is gone, not my $1,800 AR.
Shotguns are easier to use and to be trained on than intermediate rifles. (at least for Americans) my little brothers, mom, and sister can all use a shotgun, but struggle a bit with an AR.
past those, I can't think of a reason to use a shotgun over an AR. The AR just has more firepower, and range.
>>28467382
>>28467401
Let me rephrase:
5.56 will zip through soft armor
5.56 will go through level III plates with enough shots. Could be 2-10 depend on bullet/velocity.
5.56 will break level IV plates with 1-2 shots
A shotgun otoh will be stopped by soft armor.
>>28467514
Thanks, something to look at I guess.
>>28467550
If it makes you feel better, I have three of them. Fun as hell to watch.
The Shotgun one gave me a greater appreciation for my 500.
>>28466966
My point is ARs are not "just as good", they gain a significant advantage in certain situations.
>lone psycho holding an innocent hostage
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/22/armed-beauty-queen-fatally-shoots-intruder-florida-home-invasion.html#ixzz1HNMtb5mq
It's DOABLE with a shotgun, but a pain in the ass compared to carbine.
>lone psycho wearing body armor
http://www.timesonline.com/news/expert-details-gun-evidence-in-police-killings/article_6ab1cf39-0603-518d-996e-9b257b303a16.html
>bruising underneath the vest, which doesn't happen with rifle plates and handguns
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/nation_world/article_d040f171-ddb5-5e7d-b5ae-dafcce048fd3.html
>unsure if soft or hard armor, I'll let it count as hard
http://www.northhollywoodshootout.com/lp-clothing.html
>Everyone should know this guy and his friend's escapades.
>>28467143
>implying I don't have one
>implying I don't just avoid using it for HD because it would put me in jail
>>28467184
>Area of 15 pellet #1 buck at final resting place in back of soft target
>1.13 inches square
>sectional area of .223 permanent cavity at bottom of wound track
>.0394 inches square if fragmentation avoided, much smaller if not
Bigger chunks of lead deeper into vital organs are more fail-safe than relying on uneven fragmentation. The shotgun will create more consistent tissue damage. Pic related. Sorry if I triggered your anti-fudd reflex.
>>28467547
>implying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt2Y1I4ZQ_A
Ceramics are tougher than most people give them credit for.
>>28466000
Proper home defense 101:
>Call 911, give all relevant information.
>If there are family/friends/pets in the house, grab your handgun and go get.
>After all loved ones are gathered/if there are no loved ones to gather, bunker down in your bedroom and point your long gun at the bedroom door.
>Wait for cops.
>>28466000
Handgun for moving around as needed. Long gun is for when you barricade yourself behind the bed pointing said gun at the bedroom door that Tyrese is trying to break down. Smart gun owners will have both to suit either situation as it comes up.
>>28467547
So much bad information, minus the zip through soft armor.
>>28466000
True, a handgun would be more maneuverable in tight corridors such as hallways, and easier to aim upwards/downwards on areas like staircases.
>>28467542
False
A red-dot 5.56 carbine is much easier to shoot than a 12 or 20 gauge period.
No matter how much practice you have on a scattergun, you will shoot a carbine better with all things being equal.
Plus the cost thing is retarded. My life and my families life is worth more than a new 6920.
>>28465684
>nobody has tried to seriously ban yet at any place on earth.
No pumps or semis in Australia m8y
>>28467633
These are all training issues, just because someone doesn't know how to use a long gun indoors doesn't mean it's not effective.
Would a handgun be easier? Sure, you're right, but a rifle or shotgun is going to offer far more in terms of hate you can put into your target, along with controllability.
>>28467684
>just because someone doesn't know how to use a long gun indoors doesn't mean it's not effective.
Yes it does.
>>28466103
Video games is not a good basis for real world combat efficiency.
>>28466443
>>28466517
>>28466556
I specifically said in OP I know they're stood good for hunting and fun, I am specifically talking about fighting humans.
>>28466739
Battle rifles have further range than assault rifles.
>>28466898
Again, I am just talking about their use against human targets.
>>28465624
This may seem odd, but handguns and shotguns both overpenetrate far more than 5.56mm carbines. The reason why is that their projectiles have far more mass, and are thus harder to bring to a stop. Meanwhile, the 5.56mm round, though with a much higher velocity, is far more easily acted upon by external forces due to its low mass, and will come to a stop much more quickly. Most often, it simply takes less panels of drywall to get it to fragment.
Basic Newton stuff here.
>>28467704
>every modern military is using ineffective tactics because im too stupid to learn
kay bud ;)
>>28467756
>But modern militaries do what I am talking about anon
No fucking shit, and they're fucking taught how to do it, aren't they? If you're talking about Joe Blow who just got an AR a week ago, but has been a shotgunner for ten years, I argue he should be using the shotgun until he knows what the fuck he's doing with the AR.
Retard.
>>28467782
Non native English speaker or autism? Because your response to what I said earlier denotes one of the two unless you admit to just being stupid.
I'm saying you need to learn to do it, I specifically said it's a training issue, just because you don't have the training doesn't mean the TACTIC is ineffective, and a rifle is far superior to a handgun in almost every way, so opting to never learn and sticking to a handgun is really stunting your ability to fight.
>>28467799
>Thread about shotguns
>Rifles vs handguns
Fuck you, I'm going to the bar.
>>28467816
>thread about shotguns vs rifles
>someone mentions handguns vs rifles
>i respond
>im in the wrong
Yeah, I'd leave too if I got nerd wrecked on 4chin.
>>28467016
We aren't issued sidearms anon...
>bad guy breaks into your door and rapes your mom
>you shoot him with a 5.56
>his armor breaks unleashing his true power
>he grabs your mom and flies into the sky
>cops will come in 15 minutes after you call them
>winged bad guy will take your mom away to his nest where he will use her as an incubation slave
Can you shoot an airborne target with a rifle?
No you cant. Birdshot with modified choke or don't even bother.
>>28468047
Checkmate Atheists.
>>28468047
...ok.
>>28467128
right, so we should take a look at WHY the military uses the shotgun, and where. as a main combat weapon?.....no....for a reason. a rifle does its job, and more. the scenarios they use shotguns tend to be for other purposes. shotguns are great at breaching doors and shit. is that ALL you plan to do during home defense and warzones, like op asked? probably not. when it comes to home defense and warzones in the military, they use rifles.
>>28467966
laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame. how the hell are you supposed to use your last stand perk without a side arm?
>>>28465441 (OP)
you're right- in combat, shotguns are pretty much useless besides things like the AA15 and the M1014, meant for filling a room with lead and vaporizing doors.
that said, they are still really goddamn good for home defense, because;
>most engagement ranges in a house or by your vehicle are well within shotgun range
>high power, stops pretty much anyone/anything. it might take 8 5.56 rounds to stop a crackhead, and maybe 2 #00 buck shells
>ease of use. if its the middle of the night and you were woken up by an invader, you want something easy and effective
>speaking on the previous point, it takes minimal to no training to use one. so if you aren't home and something happens, your wife/husband/whatever can still effectively defend themselves.
>pure intimidation factor. everyone knows the sound of a shotgun and what it will do.
now I'm not saying something like an AR isn't a good defense weapon, but a shotgun just seems a better all around basic thing to use
>>28466000
rifles and shotguns are much better at killing people than pistols
>>28468521
What a moron lol.
>>28469292
>.32acp GOAT
I think that this just proves that it doesn't really matter what the fuck you're shooting at people with in pistol calibres.
>>28467639
is there a second half to this? or did the guy just say "fuck it, not many people can own a cat C/D anyway"
>>28467454
>>28467514
I wish they sold posters of these. I'd buy the shit out of them
>>28469420
Wrong chart nigger.
>>28469607
Fucking image for ants...
>>28469607
Source?
>>28469638
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
>>28465441
As much as I love shotguns, in WAR they are a situational specialty weapon used more as a tool for breaching.
Your never going to see a full squad or platoon armed with nothing but shotguns.
Same could be said about pistol caliber SMG's as WW2 was the last conflict that had entire platoons armed with machine pistols as tactical formation, but then again, VIP escorts tend to use machine pistols, so you could see a squad armed with machine pistols, but thanks to the invention of 5.56x45 and 5.45x39 you can have short barreled assault rifles that fill the same roles and is more powerful at blowing through armor and cover and uses the same ammo as riflemen.
Shotguns shine in hunting birds but can be used to hunt larger animals and fight humans with slugs and buck shot at sub 50 meters.
Unless you live in a rural area and your on a budget and want the most utility out of your first long arm, a tactical shotgun can do it, but really for fighting and defense, rifles are superior.
>>28465441
Well, there's price, effectiveness, acceptability just about anywhere, venues to familarize yourself with the thing (sporting clays, trap, skeet skeet skeet), lack of required maintenance (I don't think I've had my 870 apart except to add the sidesaddle back in the 90's). I spent $150 on a used 18" Police magnum 870 with a Remington extension. That's a lot of gun for very little money.
>>28469631
.357 a best
Cost, cost of ammo, versatility. You can take birds, small game, deer and large game, and people all in one gun. Can also be used to enter hardpoints. Legal everywhere. They make fine HD weapons, regardless of what others say. People have been defending the homestead with them for centuries, and people aren't going to roll into your house with body armor and semiautomatic carbines.
