In the face of death, the occupiers show their true essence. They throw their helmets hysterically, fight back with automatic weapons, try to escape, but get what they deserve. A forest of EW antennas on the back of one of the occupiers did not help to escape from the "penal sanctions" of the soldiers of the "Rarog" Battalion of the 24th OMBr.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

I hate the "shotguns don't have range" thing. Sure, they're usually less than a rifle, but they're pretty accurate at long ranges, even when not using slugs. When you use slugs then they're competitive with a rifle with a lot more force.

Shotguns don't work like video games. They're not only useful for 2m or less. This article says about 70m for buckshot should be accurate, and 180m for some slugs, and most engagements are within 100m and a large majority within 200m.

For shotguns, it's all about selecting the right shell for the target. I wouldn't be that surprised if some militaries start equipping one person per element at least with a shotgun, and giving them a mix of something like birdshot for drones and slugs or buckshot for enemy combatants. It'd add some small amount of extra strain on logistics since they can't use the same ammo, but I could see it being incredibly useful.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

You are mistaking accuracy for lethal range. A lucky shot with buckshot could hit a human at 150m, but the shot will bounce right off their tshirt. A lucky shot with an infantry rifle could hit that human at 3km and kill them. Both of the above shots are luck - nobody can do that intentionally no matter how much training they have. Both of those are about as far as it is possible to reach with the respective gun (pointing up at a 45 degree angle)

If you want to talk about accuracy in the hands of someone well trained, your article is correct. This is well training - you won't get that much training during basic training. That same training on an infantry rifle would get 800m with confidence (but if you are going to train someone that well you give them a more powerful gun so they can get 2000m).

I agree video games get this wrong all the time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

For sure regular buckshot isn't what you'd want to use, but I don't know if there's a term for a custom shot designed to penetrate light armor on a person but still isn't a slug. Kevlarshot? Slugs are probably what would be used for anti-personnel though, for the reason you mentioned. Birdshot would still be useful for anti-drone though, since they need to be lightly armored to fly more easily. If you force them to armor it then that costs payload. It definitely seems like something that should be being considered in this conflict.

I know the US uses shotguns for breaching, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they also carried some Birdshot with them in the future. I don't know Ukraine already carries shotguns. I haven't seen any so I don't think they do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think you can custom design shot in a useful way. At least I can't think of any way to impart a spin on shot which is what you want to get range and accuracy. I'm also not sure if that would be a good idea - short range is often an advantage - if you miss you don't kill someone on your side you cannot see.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

I just meant fewer larger pellets, which will have more force per pellet and they'd also go straighter through momentum. There's also the option of flechette (little arrows), which I forgot about earlier. They're not super common, but they do exist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

But you shouldn't need a shotgun hit that would kill or incapacitate a human to take down a small plastic quadcopter drone.

The drone takedown range for a shotgun should be longer than against a human, but without data I couldn't say what that is.