Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!bacchus!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!jade!jkh From: jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) Newsgroups: mod.rec.guns Subject: Re: handgun advice solicited Message-ID: <3227@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Mon, 20-Apr-87 13:34:20 EST Article-I.D.: jade.3227 Posted: Mon Apr 20 13:34:20 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Apr-87 02:09:19 EST Organization: U.C. Berkeley Lines: 37 Approved: jkh@ucbjade Author: Eric Lund Article: 4:9 In-Reply-To: <2964@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Cc: Status: RO Ref. articles <2964@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> and <2597@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> >> >> I disagree with the advice to use such small shot. >> >Has anyone seen any real research on this subject? The "real research" that I've seen is in The Shotgun in Combat Tony Lesce Desert Publications Cornville, AZ 86325 ISBN 0-87947-430-0 (usually also available from Paladin Press) and in some forsaken U.S. Government publication. Trouble is, the scientists aren't shotgunners, and the shotgunners aren't scientists. The advantage of the above book is that it has 40 pages of BEEG PITCHURES. The arguments will still rage over how these photographs and drawings should be interpreted, but it's nice to have a small library of mantargets, wallboards, and cinderblocks that have been shot at with known loads at known ranges. Having just loaded up my derringer with 2 1/2" .410 shotshells using #9 shot, I found, much to my disconsternation, that a waterfilled plastic bottle will pick up only dings and some minor leaks at anything beyond a couple of feet. All that stuff that I've been reading about how quickly small shot disappates energy is even more true than I understood..... (Although we can argue that a plastic bottle has a tougher hide than anything that wants to bite me.) Eric (the DBA) Lund