Birdshot For Home Defense--Yea or Nay?

Greg Ellifritz had a recent post on this topic entitled "Bird Shot, Binder Clips, and Bullshit." He relates that about a week ago, he had taught a shotgun class. During the class, a student missed the target (which was only 15 feet away) and hit a binder clip being used to hold the target into place. Greg took a picture of the binder clip, which displayed only a handful of dimples where it had been struck by the birdshot. Not a single pellet actually penetrated the thin metal of the binder clip, a fact that Greg shared (along with the photograph) on Facebook with the observation "This is not what you should be trusting for your family’s safety." He comments and the photo were also distributed on X.

    But apparently a lot of people took umbrage with his remark. Greg relates several of the comments he received that took him to task for comparing performance against a binder clip and performance against a human body. Some of the people who commented apparently believed that a human was as fragile (small?) as a bird and so bird shot would be equally effective against a human target. One comment appeared to acknowledge that small birdshot would not be effective but big bird shot (e.g., a turkey load) would work. 

    Greg goes on to note that he has a great deal of knowledge and practical experience with firearms and wounding, including both hunting and treating people or investigating crimes where people were shot with shotguns, so he knows a thing or two about the subject. Yet, he notes, "when I try to share that knowledge with the general public, I get shit upon from the anonymous population of uneducated internet trolls who gain self esteem from insulting other people." It is why, he adds, many experts just don't want to share their information on social media. Or, I would add, blogging. I've seen so many good firearms and self-defense blogs disappear or go inactive over the years....

    But back to the topic of bird shot for home defense, there are plenty of information and news reports involving shotguns and shootings, together with ballistic tests on dozens of YouTube channels, that it shouldn't even be an issue anymore. Birdshot is, shall we say, sub-optimal for defense against a human attacker.

    Probably one of the most famous accounts of someone being shot with birdshot was the 2006 incident where Vice President Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington in the face, neck and chest while quale hunting on a ranch in Texas. I recognize that the distances were greater than a typical home-defense scenario--estimated as between 30 and 40 yards--but nevertheless it was a direct hit from Cheney's shotgun. Keep in mind the time line here: Whittington was shot in the afternoon of Saturday, February 11, 2006--probably around 4:30 pm. Per the Wikipedia article, "Secret Service agents and medical aides, who were traveling with Cheney, came to Whittington's assistance and treated his birdshot wounds to his right cheek, neck, and chest. An ambulance standing nearby for the Vice President took Whittington to close by Kingsville before he was flown by helicopter to Corpus Christi Memorial Hospital in Corpus Christi."

    "Whittington was reported to be in stable condition at Corpus Christi Memorial Hospital," the article relates, "and had been moved from intensive care to a 'step-down unit' on Monday." Surgeons had decided to leave 30 pellets in his body rather than retrieve them. Thereafter (footnotes omitted):

    On February 14, 2006, at 6:30 a.m., Whittington suffered a minor heart attack and atrial fibrillation due to the shot pellets lodged in or near his heart, as well as a collapsed lung. He was immediately moved back to the intensive care unit. At about 9 a.m., Whittington underwent a cardiac catheterization test to detect blocked or leaky arteries. From the test, doctors found a single lead pellet.

    Hospital officials said Whittington was alert and stable and that he did not experience chest pain or other symptoms of a heart attack. Doctors reported signs of inflammation, and Whittington was treated with anti-inflammatory drugs.

    Whittington was subsequently discharged from the hospital on February 17, 2006. 

In short, Whittington--an elderly gentleman, rather than some street thug hopped up on drugs--was shot in the face, neck, and chest. There is no indication that he was immediately incapacitated. Certainly no one else involved--including the ranch owner or Cheney--seemed overly concerned following the shooting. Whittington was transferred to a hospital for surgery and, only 3 days after the incident, suffered a possible life-threatening issue. Six days after the incident, he was discharged from the hospital.

    So his injury was not completely insignificant, but neither was it as serious as if he had been shot multiple times in the face, neck and chest with a .22 pistol. 

    And that is the crux of the matter. As Greg pointed out in a prior article, "Don’t Use Bird Shot for Self Defense":

    People stop their attacks for a variety of reasons after they have been shot.  Some stop because of pain.  Others stop because of shock.  Still others are physically incapacitated by blood loss or organ damage.  We can’t rely on shock or pain to stop an attacker who is exceptionally motivated, mentally ill, drunk, or on drugs.  We must achieve physical incapacitation.  That happens either by hitting the brain or upper spinal cord (causing death or paralysis) or by doing enough damage to organs and blood vessels that the bad guy collapses from blood loss. 

 

    Birdshot doesn’t reliably penetrate deeply enough to hit those vital targets, especially if your target is wearing heavy clothing or behind a piece of cover.

Back in May 2019 I related my own experience with birdshot and penetration:

I happened to be shooting at some plastic milk jugs filled with water the other day with a shotgun. It was just for fun (kids and the young at heart enjoy seeing the spray as a jug explodes), so I was just using the standard practice/field loads. At about 15 yards, I was hitting the jug, but only a few pellets were even able to penetrate [the plastic wall of the jug], so I had to move closer (about 4 or 5 yards). At closer ranges, I got a satisfactory reaction from the jugs, but noted that most, if not all, of the pellets were caught in the water jug. So, still very poor penetration.

 But what about birdshot at short range? Won't it act like a big slug because the shot hasn't spread?

"Does 12ga birdshot behave just like a slug at close range?" by The Chopping Block. 

The answer is "no" because it still lacks penetration. See also "Does Birdshot Turn Into a Slug at Close Range?" by Home Defense Gun, which discusses the video, above, and delves into the issue more deeply. The author of the latter article observes:

    It should come as no surprise that birdshot does not behave exactly like a slug because, you know, it’s not a slug. The video above illustrates the fact that it doesn’t behave anything like a slug. Not even close. Not in any way. Penetration is still a fraction of the required 12” for defensive purposes. We have covered in other videos why that 12” standard is so important, but the Cliff’s Notes version is that people don’t hold still in a gunfight. It will be fast, dark, and close and your attacker will be desperately trying to stay alive, just as you are. He will be moving quickly and his arms will be in front of him holding a weapon. Your shots may impact his limbs before hitting his torso and/or may strike his torso at an oblique angle. You may even have to shoot through light obstacles such as furniture or drywall. Birdshot will not penetrate deeply enough to reliably reach vital organs in these less than optimal circumstances.

    Now, to be clear, no one has claimed that birdshot is not capable of killing. It is certainly dangerous, but it is not suitable for defense when other options are available. Not on a boat. Not with a goat. Not in a house. Okay, maybe with a mouse. But birdshot is totally unsuitable for defense against human beings under any circumstances. The smallest shot size that can reliably reach vital organs is #4 buck and that is only at close range and without barriers.

As I wrote in 2017, the reason is basic physics:

    There is a basic issue of physics involved. Assuming the same powder charge and same weight of shot, the sum of the kinetic energy or momentum of all the pellets in a buckshot load and a bird-shot load will be the same, but when looking at the individual pellets, the kinetic-energy and momentum of an individual bird pellet is much less than a single pellet of the buckshot. Since momentum is going to be one of the critical factors for penetration against an animal or human target (remembering that it has to penetrate skin, soft tissue, muscle, and bone--all of varying densities, elasticity, and other mechanical characteristics), a single light weight pellet of bird-shot lacks the momentum to provide the necessary penetration. Huntington's example is even more egregious because he was comparing a light game load (such as you might use for dove, quail or shooting clays) which lacks even the powder charge (and, therefore, combined kinetic energy) of the express loads used for buckshot. 

More:

• VIDEO: "Navy SEAL test Ballistics through Walls | Tactical Rifleman" (32 min.). Some of the testing involves bird shot. What you should note is that birdshot most likely will still be able to penetrate an interior wall (negating the reason most people choose birdshot over something more effective). See also, "Birdshot For Home Defense: Too Much, Too Little Or Just Right?" from Gun Digest which tested penetration through interior walls (assuming you miss your target) and found that not only would it penetrate the wall but would penetrate 1.5 to 4 inches (depending on distance) into ballistic gelatin behind the wall. So, not enough to stop a violent adult male, but probably enough to seriously injure a small kid or kill a baby or toddler.
• "Shotgun Ammo for Home Defense"--MDTS Training. Going over why birdshot is a poor choice.
• "Best Shotgun Shells For Home Defense"--Liberty Safe. Discussing the pros and cons of using birdshot included this summary:

This is a very divisive topic, with passionate arguments on both sides. However, most experts will advise you not to use birdshot but instead use buckshot or slug rounds for defensive purposes. Birdshot is designed for birds, which have much less dense bone structure and less muscle mass than human threats. They also don’t wear heavy clothing. In nearly every case, informed defensive instructors will advise students to use buckshot or slugs instead.

•  VIDEO: "Smyth Busters: Is Birdshot Ammo Good for Home Defense?"--Brownells (6 min.)
• "Using Birdshot For Self Defense"--AmmoMan. Key quote:

Simply put, birdshot is for the birds. The pellets from our test round only penetrated just over 6 inches into the gel. According to the FBI testing protocol, this is nowhere close to penetration needed to reach the vital areas of a human being. Will getting shot with a round of birdshot hurt? Yes. Will it physically stop an attacker? Probably not. 

I would also note that their test was using clear ballistic gel which is not as dense as the ballistic gel used by the FBI. So you can probably subtract an half inch or inch from the results.

• "Birdshot Vs Buckshot: Why Birdshot Is Never Better For Home Defense"--Guns.com. The author conducted some tests with birdshot and buckshot and concluded:

    The truth is birdshot is not a good performer against the human body. Can in incapacitate someone? Of course. So can a .22 Long Rifle, but that doesn’t make this round preferable to the proven defense calibers out there either. If you are worried about buckshot because of what it can do, then perhaps using a shotgun is not for you. I understand that many are intimidated by the recoil of buckshot and heavier loads and there is nothing wrong with admitting that. But what is not ok is using inferior loads to make up for it.

    Birdshot is for hunting birds and small game. As demonstrated, to use it in an enclosed area like a home is actually more of a risk to anyone in the home with you. If you are worried about people in the next room, then that makes shot placement all the more important. More important than this is knowing the target and what is beyond it. That is one of the basic rules of firearms safety and it can’t go out the window for personal defense.

To sum up, despite a few to the contrary, the conclusion from the articles and videos I read or watched is that while birdshot might be effective at relatively short ranges, it is generally considered too unreliable in being able to penetrate to sufficient depth to destroy a vital organ, particularly if the shot first has to go through heavy clothing or an appendage or other barrier. On the other hand, despite this being a reason commonly listed for picking birdshot for home defense, it still has sufficient power to go through an interior wall and injure a person behind that wall. So my vote would be "nay" for using birdshot for home defense.