http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msawedoff.html in reference to this article I would like to point out that while shortening the length of a shotgun does make it easier to conceal there is another more interesting reason. A shotgun with a short barrel is much more lethal at short ranges. When a shotgun is fired the shot, small pellets for bird hunting, spreads out over distance. This can be a disadvantage when shooting birds because not enough pellets entering the bird will not be lethal and the wounded bird will escape. A long barrel will keep the shot pattern tight at long distances. If the prey is human at close range a tight pattern will be only slightly better than a large caliber pistol round. Shorten the barrel and at a distance of ten feet or so the pattern becomes much larger, say about a foot. Add to that a larger shot pellet, say what is referred to as “double ought” about 8 pellets per shell and you have a weapon that can blow a very large and very lethal hole in a man with one shot not even carefully aimed. This style of gun is banned because it has no other practical use than as a short range weapon of murder.
You’re right I have an old WWII army manual on improvised munitions that extols the virtue of shotgun shells in improvised directional anti personnel mines. The manual stresses the importance of short barrel tubes only a few inches longer than the shell to maximize pellet dispersion thereby increasing the short-range hit probability.
For the record:
Guns of this type are not banned per se. In fact, there is one being manufactured as we speak- the Serbu Super Shorty. This is classified as an AOW (Any Other Weapon) for various reasons by the BATFE and is transferred not by a $200 stamp but a $5 stamp. Naturally there is still a massive Byzantine bureaucracy that you have to work through, but once you check out it’s yours.
Sawed-off shotguns were the issue in the only Supreme Court case to deal directly with the Second Amendment as well: US v. Miller (1939). Unfortunately, the court stated (incorrectly) the following:
This ignored the fact that sawed-off shotguns and modifed weapons were in fact a common occurrence in the military at that time (and to a limited extent remains so today).
In any event, while that SCOTUS decision is the binding precedent, it is important to note that the judgment was a default one as neither Miller nor his attorneys appeared to argue before the court. It is on little things like this that the world turns.
Last, in United States v. Rock Island Armory (1991) a Circuit Court ruled that because the BATFE did not provide any means to register weapons in accordance with the NFA of 1934 and pay the tax (which was the raison d’etre for the law) one cannot be charged with manufacturing a machine gun because there is no way to legitimize it. Since sawed-off shotguns fall into the category of NFA weapons a case can be made that manufacturing them at home is legal as well, though I wouldn’t want to be the guinea pig in that case.
See how much fun firearms law is? There are all sorts of exceptions, caveats, arcane rulings, loopholes, and absurdities that it’s impossible to keep up with all of them. It makes for a really interesting experience owning and carrying one sometimes.
That is incorrect. We hashed it out a few days ago elsewhere on the boards with considerable disagreement, but I maintain that a sawed-off shotgun is an effective means of self-defense. The only way that you could possibly justify your assertion is by declaring any form of killing, even in the act of self-defense, murder, which is wholly inappropriate.
I agree with you that a sawn off shotgun can be an effective weapon for self defense, but I’m not impressed by the assertion that the spread is what makes it effective. If you’re shooting so far off the center of mass that you’d miss the target but for a spread of six inches, which is probably all you’d get in a distance equivalent to a typical room, you don’t shoot well enough to be trusted with a firearm, and should spend more time at the range. A sawn off shotgun also suffers from some severe recoil and muzzle flash issues as well. You’d better hit it the first time.
I’d recommend getting a handgun and some practice. Not for you Airman , but for amateurs that think a shotgun creates a “wall of death”.
Bill Door doesn’t have his location listed, but uses “sawn off”. Is there a minority use of this term in the US? I’d never seen “sawed off” until this Report, but I note that the OED says
Anyway, good answer to a rather neat question, Bricker.
How about a ‘Sod off!’ shotgun?
While I will agree that a Hollywood wall of death is unlikely in all but the most specific of conditions I must still disagree with your statement. Police officers are well trained in marksmanship at ranges of 7 yards or less “however, there seems to be a consensus among practitioners and researchers alike that police marksmanship in real-life (scene of a crime) situations is less than desirable, something along the order of one hit for every six shots this makes for a 17% accuracy rate. Morrison 2002 Police Firearms Training Survey: Preliminary Findings" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Anaheim, CA, (March)”. Paper targets don’t shoot back or move so under the stress of combat I’ll take one (or two) 6” balls of death over your ½ or1/3 of an inch ball every time. A shotgun’s main advantage is it’s shot dispersion, it makes it easier to hit moving targets or those in concealment , where quick shooting with no time for well-aimed shots is essential. As for recoil it is only a problem for rapid-fire weapons. I am assuming you mean the muzzle flash will blind me ,well all I can say is I’ll know when to blink will my target? (if you meant position disclosure I think the BOOM will take care of that) and who’s to say I wouldn’t have a pistol or another stubby in my other hand to produce cover fire while I reload my big stick.
Dr. James Wilson, who during several years in the navy did special research on ballistics and wounding characteristics of missiles, also disagrees with you: “The Winchester Model 97 pump action shotguns were used by American troops in short barrel form during World War I. A similar gun was used in World War II and in Vietnam for jungle fighting. Police have used this same riot gun-a 12gauge with a sawed-off (20-inch) barrel loaded with double 0 buckshot. The advantages of this gun as a close range weapon will be made clear later in this text.”
He later goes on to say.
“Obviously, range will be the main determinant of the actual target pattern using any given choke. Sawed-off shotguns or riot guns, such as those used by police and in Vietnam produce an even wider pattern than do cylinder bore weapons; the reason for this is that they are not designed for range but more for target coverage at close range.”
Dr. Wilson claims a greater dispersion pattern than cylinder bore so your 6” circle estimate might be wrong too. Needless to say the military and police see the advantage of target coverage (hence dispersion) in close combat situation. If they didn’t they would only issue handguns and training. The shotgun was the preferred american weapon in WWI trench warfare not a well-aimed pistol. It worked so well that the Germans officially protested it use.
You can buy an 18-inch barrel shotgun with pistol grip perfectly legally, makes a great home defense weapon. I can’t imagine why you would need a shorter one except to conceal under a coat.
Hey don’t get me wrong the weapon you describe is my house gun. The beauty of a shotgun is you can control your in home penetration with shot size. But if you need greater pattern dispersion in a shorter distance you shorten the barrel. Say you want a greater chance filling a doorway with 00 buck against multiple armed assailants. A 9” sawed off double barrel is going to do a better job than your 18” single. Sure you get 6 shots but how do you do under fire? In some situations you only get one shot so it better chew some meat and pattern dispersal increases that chance. All I’m saying is I think a hog leg is a fine how do you do to a constricted group and then you can fall back to your favorite backup piece.
Pellet Patterns Fired by Sawed-Off Shotguns ISSN: 0022-1198 abstract:
“To determine the effect of barrel length on pellet patterns fired by sawed-off shotguns, 00 buckshot, No. 2 shot, and No. 7½ birdshot cartridges were fired from 12-gage single-shot Harrington and Richardson shotguns with the barrel lengths progressively shortened to 152 mm (6 in.). The spread of the 00 buckshot pattern was found to increase as the barrel length of the firing weapon decreased. The spread of the pellet patterns increased or tended to remain constant as the barrel length decreased when other types of cartridges were fired from the shotguns; this depended on the brand of ammunition”
Commonwealth English uses “Sawn Off”, American English uses “Sawed Off”, according to the Wikipedia article. I’ve never heard anyone in Australia, NZ, or the UK refer to a “Sawed-off” shotgun, which tells me it’s an American term
You English fellers sure talk purty, saying “sawn off” makes me feel like a Squire or a Duke! Hell, my favorite coon dog thinks I’m taking on airs of grandeur 
Yup. I reckon I ain’t never heard it referred to nohow ‘cept as a “sawed-off shotgun.” Sometimes without even troublin’ with the apostrophe.
That particular manual got me grounded for an entire year when I was 13. I made homemade plastic explosive and blew up our aluminum shed.
Actually, I blew up the tree next to the shed. Said 'sploded tree then fell onto said shed.
The funny thing is up until the mid 1980’s you could buy just about any crazy ass manual the military had to offer regardless of your age. I bought all my official “manuals of death” in the late 1960’s at a local comic book store. One thing I learned is that the Federal warning you find on some household chemicals “Using this product in a manner inconsistent with it’s label is a BIG no no yada,yada” has to do with how energetic said chemicals can become with a little help.
Or sometimes a “sawed-up shotgun”. 
So why are only shotguns sawed/sawn off? Why not saw off a rifle?
Because you lose the rifling.
A rifle’s projectile is closely fitted to the barrel from which it is shot, and there are tiny grooves along the barrel that impart a spin to the projectile. This gives you long range and accuracy, because a projectile spinning in a direction orthogonal to its travel path has stabilty and won’t tumble in air.
That’s the value of a rifle. Long distance, accurate shooting.
A shotgun is intended for closer, spread-out dispersal of shot.
But how is that different from a pistol?
If that’s British Army rather than U.S., then one of my college chemistry profs helped write it.
Damn, that was a fun class. He’d do ‘demonstrations’ on Fridays sometimes. “Before I start, I need everyone to move to the back six rows of the lecture hall. Just to be safe.” “Oh, and after this next step, it would be best for everyone to exit as quickly as possible, in an orderly fashion, please. Unless you brought one of these.” (As he puts on a gas mask.) :eek:
A pistol has a shorter effective range than a rifle, in large part because the shorter barrel makes rifling less effective. Sawing off a rifle might basically turn it into a somewhat clumsier equivalent of a pistol in that regard – in either case, you’re trading range (rifle) for compactness (pistol, shorter-barrelled rifle).
A shotgun differs from either one in that it produces a dispersal of shot. A sawed-off shotgun produces a wider dispersal (shortening the effective range, but making it easier to hit something within that range).
Thus, sawing off a rifle produces one advantage (compactness) while sawing off a shotgun produces two (compactness and greater effectiveness at very short range). Ergo, why bother with the former?