Gah marshmallow! You’re a camper and the lowest form of life on the planet!
I suppose if you are facing crazed kill-at-any-cost invaders, or a zombie apocalypse, more lethal is always better. In that case, I’d go for slugs - even more deadly/higher stopping power than buckshot. (In a home invasion context the spread of shot will not be a factor - you are no more likely to hit with buckshot than slug).
In other situations, you may want to balance factors - like fear of shooting through walls to kill the very people you are protecting in the house - versus the instant lethality of the ammunition.
Fact is, someone getting hit by birdshot across a room is very unlikely to be troubling you further, as the pellets will not have time to spread. While gealtin-block tests demostrate that they will not penetrate a full foot of tissue (which is the test used, I believe, by the feds for acceptance as a tactical weapon), they will penetrate 3-9 inches (depending on size of shot and other factors) in which the tissue is totally destroyed - very nasty wounds indeed, with lots of stopping power. I find it very hard to believe that someone with a wound six inches deep in his guts, chest or face is going to be shooting back at you any time soon. More like rolling around on the floor suffering massive blood loss. They certainly aren’t going to be simply picking pellets out of their skin with an evil laugh, and carrying on with their home invasion plans.
Its a trade-off. Admittedly you lose some lethality, but you gain less likely chance of over-penetration hitting bystanders.
Here’s a question for everyone who voted for calling 911:
What do you really believe this will solve? How do you expect to make a phone call and have the police arrive in time, when the criminal is already inside your house? How do you respond to multiple court rulings that hold the police have no duty to respond to your call, nor are they are required to ensure your safety?
And most important, who do you believe is responsible for your security?
while calling 911 is usually prudent (and if you’re armed it’s probably not a bad idea to say so and hope that info gets through to the responding officers) but the rulings which say the police have no “duty to respond” is more for liability reasons. E.g. police response is a “best effort” situation and neither they nor the municipality/county/state can be sued because they couldn’t get there in time.
Number 3 skips across a plastic trash can, but makes a bunch of .32 sized holes through both sides of a metal trash can. What’s up with that?
To put it another way: hearing a shotgun being pumped is like a “MISSILE LOCK” warning. Having a big dog/s is like a line of signposts reading “MINES.”
I’d expect that merely hearing the cops are on their way would be enough in 95% of cases to cause crooks to flee the premises. Crooks are, in general, not going to linger if they know cops are coming, because they do not wish to be caught - they have no better idea than you as to when the cops will come. So it will often “solve” the very problem at hand - namely, being threatened by crooks.
Even assuming that you are faced with a crook determined to do you harm and the cops fail to show, it would be a useful back-up. If you go all Rambo on that crooks ass and beat him to death with your bedroom slippers and the family cat, the very fact that you called demonstrates that you reasonably thought your life was in danger and took steps short of beating the crook to death etc. which, if you are in a jurisdiction that cares about such matters, could be useful.
As for who is responsible - seems a meaningless question. Responsible how? Morally, legally, or as a matter of personal honour? I’d feel no dishonour in having cops arrest criminals. OTOH if necessary I’d fight, but I’m no Rambo.
It’s OK, in this scenario I’m a CT just guarding the bombsite. I hope the T doesn’t have flashbangs though.
And AWPs cost a lot in real life apparently. And you can’t jump around and no scope people from 500 feet away. A pity.
Why would you not already have a shell chambered? In the real world, the only time you pump a shotgun is after you’ve fired. In which case, the shot is much more intimidating than the racking noise.
I disagree. If you’re a novice gun user and some one is actually trying to break down your front door; aiming is going to be really difficult as you will most likely be shaking like a leaf (heh, user/post combo). A shot gun, as long as you fire in the general direction, you’re most like to put the hurt on some one.
As far as recoil goes, hell, my sister is barely 5’ and she doesn’t have any problems firing one off. (Besides, one only need one shot)
you left out the best choice, an AR15 ( which is not an assault rifle ) is the best choice.
less penetration then a lot of handguns, accurate, easier to operate under stress, less recoil
exactly, the famous sound you hear in movies is a hollywood device. If someone is breaking in my gun already has one in the chamber. I am not alerting him that I am about to shoot him, I am not is some lame movie written by a jerk with no firearms experience.
currently my home defense is a handgun, I would prefer an AR15 however. My handgun is always loaded / I carry 24/7
Recoil, sound etc.: I’ve never fired anything inside, but with a 12 gauge hearing protection is not necessary (always a good idea though). My CZ-82, which is one of the larger blowback pistols, makes your ears bleed. Imagine shooting something in an enclosed space. Granted, I don’t normally use buckshot or slugs.
The point about shotguns is: any spread in the shot will be very limited, so you can’t just point in the general direction and expect to hit someone. I didn’t have much searching success, but it can’t be more than a few inches at inside distances, 12 feet or whatever. However, the main advantage of shotguns is that the barrel is longer, and thus the sight picture is better. This means that the pistol cannot tolerate small deviations in the front sight position as well. A disadvantage is that many shotguns have crappy stock sights, e.g. Remington 870s come with fiber optic beads, and some are even less fancy. Rifles generally have better sights, but more penetration as noted.
Re: 911, I assume most people would do this (or your local equivalent, like the superior 912), but as I recall the poll wasn’t multiple choice.
Oh, and yeah, your shotgun should be cocked, your pistol slide racked. But if you still need that, this “app” can help (Android, I’m sure there’s an Apple i* version).
Shotgun spread is roughly 1 inch per yard.
if you keep a gun for self defense, go get a fancy electric ear muffs, you can hear better but it protects your hearing when shooting - I have peltor tactical classic, near my gun at night.
Yes.
I dress out at 110.
When I expected bad guys to come through the door, I bought and practiced with #3. It was not pleasant, and bruised my shoulder, my Wife asked about the bruise, 
but it produced a dinner plate bunch of .32 sized holes at twenty feet.
M wife knew a SCAdian who successfully used a bow to stop an intruder…
A cop asked him why he shot the guy. “What, I’m supposed to yell, ‘Don’t move, I’ve got you covered with my bow and arrow’?”
Because my way is funnier.
I think the generally accepted wording under those circumstances is “Halt, knave!”
This is why people who know little about a subject should refrain from commenting. Even with a cylinder bore, the spread at typical indoor engagement ranges will be a couple of inches, tops. If they’re far enough away where the shot spread means you only have to “point in their general direction,” then
- you might not actually hit them with any pellets, and
- you’re going to have a hard time explaining to the nice men with badges why you thought the other person was still a threat.