Quoted: Seriously though, Phoebus, Dusty and Hemi Cuda, you all have valid points and if the only consideration is terminal performance, you are right.....I agree  00B is better than 4B hands down.  But, based on my own experience and not technical reports about Jello shots, I wouldn't want to get hit by either.  The BG would be just as dead either way.

Your experience of shooting deer?

You guys crack me up when you deride "jello shots" and trump it with a controlled broadside shot at a game animal. First of all, the hunting scenario is not a valid comparison, as those broadside shots do not require much in the way of penetration.

Now on to the "jello shots." You do realize that even after 20-30 years of ballistic gelatin being used to model wound ballistics, it is still in use even today? You do realize that the people the US ARMY and the FBI trusts to study the terminal effectiveness of ammunition use it? You are aware that the performance of ammunition in living tissue has been correlated to ballistic gelatin after analysis of THOUSANDS of gunshot wounds, including Xray and MRI imaging?

But hey - you go ahead and use what you "feel" is best by making assumptions. Yes - #4 isn't "bad" in comparison to some other choices. Bullet performance isn't a black-and-white issue, but rather shades of gray. #1 buck - the recommended SD load for shotguns - may only be slightly better than #4, but when you have a choice, why not use the BEST load available? There will be that one scenario where #4 fails to do the job because it doesn't reach the vitals whereas #1 buck would. Do you want to be the guy that ends up dead because your assumptions were wrong?

Quoted: The best load available according to who's criteria?  You are judging based on your criteria, which you appear to believe is the only 'correct' one.  It would appear over penetration is lower on your criteria scale than mine.  Do you live with children in the house?  I myself have 3 children that all live in seperate bedrooms.

Well, then answer me this: Your shotgun is loaded with #4 buck, the bad guy is in front of your kid's bedroom. Do you shoot?

And yes - I have kids also...

If I ever truly had to defend my family, I would not have the luxury to stop and work out my bullet trajectory before sqeezing the trigger.  This means I would be relying completely on my selection of ammo to not go thru the wall and kill one of my kids.  Are you in the same situation?

That is one of the most foolish statements I have ever seen in this forum. The basic rules of gun safety still apply: Know your target and what's beyond. I would NEVER take a shot without first having thought about the consquences of where that bullet might end up.

Quoted: Quoted: Well, then answer me this: Your shotgun is loaded with #4 buck, the bad guy is in front of your kid's bedroom. Do you shoot? The answer is obvious, you wouldn't know until you were in that situation and had weighed all variables.  Again, you are thinking in absolutes, which is unrealistic. I would NEVER take a shot without first having thought about the consquences of where that bullet might end up. And I would contend that your statement is one of the most foolish things that I have ever read on this forum, because you presume that you would even know where your child was located behind that wall. Your presumption demonstrates that you have not thought this scenerio through very well.

I bow to your inscrutable logic. From now on, I'll load up a shotgun with #4 shot and blast my way around my house secure in the knowledge that the shot will stop the bad guy and not penetrate anywhere I don't want it to.

Quoted: Quoted: Well, then answer me this: Your shotgun is loaded with #4 buck, the bad guy is in front of your kid's bedroom. Do you shoot? The answer is obvious, you wouldn't know until you were in that situation and had weighed all variables.  Again, you are thinking in absolutes, which is unrealistic.

BS it's a straightforward question. The problem is you've obviously not received training nor thought about the potential for such a situation.  In such a situation there is NO TIME to think about what you are going to do - you have to execute your plan.

I do have a plan in that situation and I know what I'd do - just like I've done on the range.  How about you?

And I would contend that your statement is one of the most foolish things that I have ever read on this forum, because you presume that you would even know where your child was located behind that wall. Your presumption demonstrates that you have not thought this scenerio through very well.

Actually it shows he HAS thought it out and planned for it.

You don't know where your child is located.  You know where their bed might be - but is the kid in bed?  Have he or she gotten up and moved about based on the comotion in the hallway?  Are they reaching even know for the doorknob?

Does your planning account for that kind of scenario?  Mine sure as heck does and I've planned bullet paths such that they will pass over her head if I miss with my carbine.

It's all about thinking ahead and planning for worst case.

Quoted: Quoted: I bow to your inscrutable logic. From now on, I'll load up a shotgun with #4 shot and blast my way around my house secure in the knowledge that the shot will stop the bad guy and not penetrate anywhere I don't want it to. Was that the best you could come up with? The sad thing is, based on your previous posts, I wouldn't be surprised if you truly believed it.

First of all, YOU are the one who is making non-sensical claims that your choice of #4 shot apparently buys you this huge margin in not having to worry about overpenetration, hence my sarcasm about blasting my way around the house.

When talking about overpenetration, you are left with a choice of either using a bullet which doesn't have the potential to stop the bad guy, or one that penetrates X number of walls. Do you know what the difference in wallboard penetration between #1 and #4 buck is? Please provide links to the data. There must be a very tangible difference since you claim that "This means I would be relying completely on my selection of ammo to not go thru the wall and kill one of my kids." Based on that statement, I would assume you have data to back that up. Will #4 penetrate less? Probably, but my guess is not by much. At one point in time does that buy you enough peace of mind to take the shot, versus holding off in case someone ends up in the way of the bullet.

Now, I would like to know just WHERE you got you knowledge from that would lead you to conclude exactly those things which you have passed off as certain knowledge. Your "intuition" runs counter to anything else I have ever read on the subject, but what the heck do I know? I'm only the moderator.

You might, however, take the comments of some of these people at heart, who have a heck of a lot more knowledge than I do. I found their comments after only a few minutes of searching, and I'm sure I can come up with more statements which support my assertions. If you find counter-points which negate my claims, feel free to do so as I'd be happy to read them.

The first is a comment by Doctor Gary Roberts, who is the expert the US Army and the FBI go to when they want to know what works. He has plenty of exposure to real gunshot victims, so he knows that angle as well. From http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000215#000003:

"Officers have been killed by bullets which penetrated through a criminal. A case with which I am personally familiar occurred in October 1989, when a .38 SP 125 gr + P bullet went through a felon and killed a Philadelphia police officer. My wound ballistics mentor during my Residency training, Col. Martin Fackler, testified in this case; he documented the incident in: Fackler ML. "The Ideal Police Bullet" International Defense Review, Internal Security and CO IN Supplement. 11/90:45-46. There are a few other incidents of "overpenetration/underexpansion", but the documentation for the case above is in an open source and is easily available.

Far more common, however, are failures to stop a suspect because of underpenetration, poor bullet placement, and completely missing the target. Remember, the national average for officers actually hitting the suspect is only 10 to 17% of the shots they fire. First, get adequate training and achieve a proper warrior mindset, then get a reliable weapon system, finally worry about using ammunition which consistently penetrates at least 12 inches and reliably expands."

"As I mentioned above, underpenetration is a more significant problem. With shots to the center of mass, if the handgun bullet fails to have enough penetration to reach the large blood bearing vessels and organs in the torso, rapid physiological incapacitation is unlikely and your opponent may remain a lethal threat to you or the person(s) you are defending."

(I know he's talking about handgun bullets, but the same line of reasoning applies to ALL bullets)

Next is a comment by Dr. Williams, a longtime trauma surgeon who also posts on Tacticalforums.com:

"The issues of overpenetration leading to collateral damage should not be a factor in the defense of your home. It is your home. Take the time to predetermine defensive positions that will allow you to meet home invaders/burglars/whatever such that your lanes of fire are safe for your family and neighbors. Practice home defense scenarios with your family members (yeah, I know it sounds silly, but think about fire drills in schools, and consider that no child has died in a school fire in America in a looooooooong time, in large part due to having fire evacuation drills). If necessary, set up bullet-absorbing backstops behind your preferred lanes of fire. A bookshelf packed solid with back issues of National Geographic works well. "

Finally, I would like you to find someone knowledgeable who will share your ridicule of my previous statement:

Quoted: Quoted: I would NEVER take a shot without first having thought about the consquences of where that bullet might end up. And I would contend that your statement is one of the most foolish things that I have ever read on this forum, because you presume that you would even know where your child was located behind that wall. Your presumption demonstrates that you have not thought this scenerio through very well.