• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Combat Shotgun Thread

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
>" A combat shotgun is a shotgun that is intended for use in an offensive role, typically by a military force. The earliest shotguns specifically designed for combat were the trench guns or trench shotguns issued in World War I. While limited in range, the multiple projectiles typically used in a shotgun shell provide increased hit probability unmatched by other small arms.

History:

While the sporting shotgun traces its ancestry back to the fowling piece, which was a refinement of the smoothbore musket, the combat shotgun bears more kinship to the shorter blunderbuss. Invented in the 16th century by the Dutch, the blunderbuss was used through the 18th century in warfare by British, Austrian, and Prussian regiments, as well as in the American colonies. As use of the blunderbuss declined, the United States military began to load "buck and ball". Buck and ball was used extensively by Americans at the Battle of New Orleans in 1814 and was partially responsible for the disparate casualty rates between American and British forces. Many of the British wounded recovered quickly as they had been struck by the buckshot rather than the ball. Buck and ball had a greater chance of hitting the enemy but did not cause as severe wounds at longer ranges (although any wound was liable to take a soldier out of a particular fight). Fowling pieces were commonly used by militias, for example during the Texas Revolution. However buck and ball worked as well or better in standard or even rifled muskets. Buck and ball loads were used by both sides of the American Civil War, often by cavalry units.

The development of the repeating pump action shotguns in the 1890s led to their use by US Marines in the Philippines insurrections and by General "Black Jack" Pershing's pursuit of Pancho Villa, and "riot" shotguns quickly gained favor with civilian police units, but the modern concept of the combat shotgun was fully developed by the American Expeditionary Forces during World War I. The trench gun, as it was called, was a short-barreled pump action shotgun loaded with 6 rounds containing antimony hardened 00 buckshot, and equipped with a bayonet. The M1897 and M1912 also could be slam fired: the weapon having no trigger disconnector, shells could be fired one after the other simply by working the slide if the trigger was held down. When fighting within a trench, the shorter shotgun could be rapidly turned and fired in both directions along the trench axis. The shotguns proved effective enough at short combat ranges to elicit a diplomatic protest from the German government, claiming the shotguns caused excessive injury, and that any troops found in possession of them would be subject to execution. The US Government rejected the claims, and threatened reprisals in kind if any US troops were executed for possession of a shotgun, however there is no evidence that the Germans carried out their threat..."<

continue -> Combat shotgun: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

Note: The above link takes you to absoluteastronmy.com. Seem's to be a credible source where they actually did some research and a lot more credible than Wikipedia.
 
The AA12 - Shotgun for the military. ;)


aa-12-combat-shotgun-frag-12-automatic-0.jpg

 
Great for tunnels to.....but don't tell those terrorists. ;)
 
Ive got a Saiga-12, does that count as a combat shotgun? ;)
 
Well I own a Remington 870 shotgun, 18 1/2" cyl. barrel and a Winchester Mod. 1300 with a 18" cyl barrel. The Remington is my favorite, it just feels rugged and well balanced.

The Winchester 1300 is well balanced but it doesn't seem as rugged but it's considered the worlds fastest pump action shotgun, you can fire off four rounds in 1/2 of a second. That's more lead than any assault rifle or sub machingun can put down range. 36 .33 cal lead shot going down range in a 1/2 of a second.

In Nam the only shotguns I came across were the Winchester 1200 and an Ithaca, forget witch model.

I use to own a Mossberg Mod. 500, I didn't like it. It just didn't feel right in my hands like it wasn't well balanced.
 
I suppose so but isn't the barrel kind of long, like over 22 inches ?

Ive had mine sawed off to about 10.5 inches. :mrgreen:

Mine looks a lot like this:
 
Most have a pretty good wide pattern ?

Seems to hit targets up to 50 yards when I was at the outdoor range with no problem- I was using 00 buck, lighter rounds starts getting cycling problems with mine so I have to stick to high powered shells.
 
With the adoption of SMGs and select fire carbines the combat shotty has gone the way of the soup bowl steel pot.

It is tough to carry a decent combat load of ammo, pumps are not fun to stress reload, and the pellets lack penetration power compared to SMGs or carbines. In the post WWII era shotguns were played with due mostly to the difficulty troops had in getting a SMGs but shotguns were sold in the PX.

It probably has a special niche as a civilian's SMG as long as the penetration and reload issues are factored into tacti-cool use.
 
Yep, there ot is...THE combat shotgun.

Mornin Apdst. :2wave: Yeah, I don't think it can keep up with the AA12 at 250 rounds a minute. Which btw the AA12 and the different shells it can use. Isn't going to be mothballed.
 
With the adoption of SMGs and select fire carbines the combat shotty has gone the way of the soup bowl steel pot.

It is tough to carry a decent combat load of ammo, pumps are not fun to stress reload, and the pellets lack penetration power compared to SMGs or carbines. In the post WWII era shotguns were played with due mostly to the difficulty troops had in getting a SMGs but shotguns were sold in the PX.

It probably has a special niche as a civilian's SMG as long as the penetration and reload issues are factored into tacti-cool use.

Jihad Johnny doesn't wear body armor.

Anyone who thinks that the shotgun is obcelete as a close quarter weapon knows nothing about combat, nor weapons. The 97 Winchester was so effective during WW1, that the Germans tried to have it outlawed.
 
Mornin Apdst. :2wave: Yeah, I don't think it can keep up with the AA12 at 250 rounds a minute. Which btw the AA12 and the different shells it can use. Isn't going to be mothballed.

The Winchester Mod. 1300 is also illegal in Germany today.

 
Jihad Johnny doesn't wear body armor.

Anyone who thinks that the shotgun is obcelete as a close quarter weapon knows nothing about combat, nor weapons. The 97 Winchester was so effective during WW1, that the Germans tried to have it outlawed.
The shotgun does have a very vital role in CQB. It is just that it's role is breaching not as an offensive weapon. A shotgun just has way to many shortcomings vs a M4 or other carbine to use it as a weapon vs a breaching tool.
 
The shotgun does have a very vital role in CQB. It is just that it's role is breaching not as an offensive weapon. A shotgun just has way to many shortcomings vs a M4 or other carbine to use it as a weapon vs a breaching tool.

The Colt AR-15 has fewer shortcomings than a pump shotgun? Yeah...right!...lol!
 
The Colt AR-15 has fewer shortcomings than a pump shotgun? Yeah...right!...lol!

When it comes to fighting in an urban environment it sure does. To try and argue otherwise would show an utter and complete lack of knowledge on the topic. Tell me why do you think no modern military uses them over a carbine.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to fighting in an urban environment it sure as hell does. To try and argue otherwise would show an utter and complete lack of knowledge on the topic.

With stoppages the AR has, there's no way to vlaim it's a superior weapon to a shotgun. Anyone that says so has never been in the field with one. Does a shotgun have limitations versus a rifle? Sure it does, just like a rifle has limitations versus a shotgun. If I had to choose a weapon to go room to room with, I'll pick the shotgun. It's effectiveness in engagements measured in feet rather than yards has been a proven fact for a century now.
 
With stoppages the AR has, there's no way to vlaim it's a superior weapon to a shotgun. Anyone that says so has never been in the field with one. Does a shotgun have limitations versus a rifle? Sure it does, just like a rifle has limitations versus a shotgun. If I had to choose a weapon to go room to room with, I'll pick the shotgun. It's effectiveness in engagements measured in feet rather than yards has been a proven fact for a century now.

Stoppages with a M4 are very rare if you lube the weapon properly and use decent mags. I and many others have spent plenty of time in the field and feel exactly the same.

If there I know for a fact that there is only one individual in the room, he is not wearing body armor or hiding behind any type of barrier, there are no civilians in the room and some how we are transported from a place of complete safety to the breach point, and we will never have to flex to a different target, than and only then would I consider a shotgun over a m4. Seeing as how that is not reality ever I will stick with the M4.

I see you are ignoring answering why every other military uses a carbine over a shotgun.
I don't blame you.
 
Stoppages with a M4 are very rare if you lube the weapon properly and use decent mags. I and many others have spent plenty of time in the field and feel exactly the same.

If there I know for a fact that there is only one individual in the room, he is not wearing body armor or hiding behind any type of barrier, there are no civilians in the room and some how we are transported from a place of complete safety to the breach point, and we will never have to flex to a different target, than and only then would I consider a shotgun over a m4. Seeing as how that is not reality ever I will stick with the M4.

I hope you never end up in combat, because I fear for your survival.

I see you are ignoring answering why every other military uses a carbine over a shotgun.
I don't blame you.

The Army once ordered Spencer carbines modified to fire single shot only, too; as a rejection to all repeating rifles. Do you know why? Did you even know about that?

In the 30's the Army supported the tank destroyer doctrine and it turned out to be an operational mistake, along with the infantry tank doctrine.

My point being, that just because some pencil pusher in D.C. says it's a good idea, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Same goes for a bad idea.
 
I hope you never end up in combat, because I fear for your survival.



The Army once ordered Spencer carbines modified to fire single shot only, too; as a rejection to all repeating rifles. Do you know why? Did you even know about that?

In the 30's the Army supported the tank destroyer doctrine and it turned out to be an operational mistake, along with the infantry tank doctrine.

My point being, that just because some pencil pusher in D.C. says it's a good idea, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Same goes for a bad idea.

Been to combat multiple times along with many other Soldiers and Marines and guess what. The vast majority are satisfied with the M4. Doubt that would be the case if stoppages were common. Thanks for your concern though.

It's not just the pencil pushers in DC but every single modern military. Maybe all the other militaries are just wrong and you are right.
But than tell me this. If you are right and it is just the bean counters than tell me this. Why is it that the units in the US military that spend the most amount of time doing CQB and have dam near unlimited budgets only use shotguns for breaching and use carbines as the weapon of choice. Can't explain that can you.
Maybe you just know more than all of them.
 
Been to combat multiple times along with many other Soldiers and Marines and guess what. The vast majority are satisfied with the M4. Doubt that would be the case if stoppages were common. Thanks for your concern though.


They're satisfied with it, because it's their only choice and probably the only combat rifle they've ever been exposed to. Give you boys something like a G3, or a FAL and you'll be singing a different tune.

It's not just the pencil pushers in DC but every single modern military. Maybe all the other militaries are just wrong and you are right.
But than tell me this. If you are right and it is just the bean counters than tell me this. Why is it that the units in the US military that spend the most amount of time doing CQB and have dam near unlimited budgets only use shotguns for breaching and use carbines as the weapon of choice. Can't explain that can you.
Maybe you just know more than all of them.

1) They don't know any better, or,

2) The pencil pushers said, "this is your weapon...deal with it".

If I was leading a clearing team? At least one man would have a shotgun, if I had my way.

Open your mind, bro. Just because your team leader said it, doesn't make it the gospel.
 
Back
Top Bottom