Home defense shotgun opinions: Rem 870 or 887?

[frumpy]

My local gunsmith almost "lost" the remington line up because he refused to bring in the 887 after seeing/shooting it and fixing ones bought elsewhere. Needless to say he has an extremely good reputation.

I'd stick with the 870 or a Mossberg.

[John E]

Because I already have a .45 pistol and a katana next to the bed, I wanted to make it a trifecta!

To be honest the audible cycling of a 12ga shotgun is enough to make most intruders soil themselves and high tail it to the nearest exit. That is a great non-violent solution that comes as a bonus. Also with a mixture of slugs/buckshot/bird loads you can have round for any occasion whether it be penetrating a wall on purpose or making sure you do not if there are loved ones on the other side of said walls. I also like the fact that it takes two hands, it would be harder for someone to knock it away from me if they happen to get the jump on me.

There are exactly zero studies that prove that whole "racking one in the chamber will scare em off" theory. Nothing but anecdotal evidence. If you are bringing a shotgun into an encounter with a bad guy, it should already be loaded with one in the chamber in my opinion. Having said that, I'd get what I already got, a police model 870, parkerized finish, full wooden stock, sling, and some sort of hands free light attached. Mine is old school, (it's a retired LAPD police model with virtually zero usage) only holds 4 rounds in the magazine plus 1 in the chamber. Given the overwhelming odds of me ever actually needing it for home defense I feel pretty comfortable with 5 rounds of low recoil 00 buckshot. Most home defense shootings I've read about rarely involve more than a single round being fired and I'd rather have the lighter weight and better mobility that the stock gun gives me.

[frumpy]

Slightly off topic (and probably more so for the non-Americans since their laws seem to protect them more) but what about less lethal rounds with shotgun? Any opinions on them?

[ReconH3]

Since you brought up the non-American topic. In most European countries, you are not allowed to own a firearm for home defense. Only for sport and hunting. If you decide to use it as home defense, since it is illegal to do so, you will be treated as breaking the law. It doesn't matter what rounds you use in it. Just brandishing it, is an offense.


"Ex Umbris Venimus"

Sent from my iPhone

[frumpy]

In Canada there is a huge gray area on this subject. Personally I'd rather take the firearms charges (with less lethal ammo) than a murder charge. Either way, priority is protecting my family.

[Ray_G]

Slightly off topic (and probably more so for the non-Americans since their laws seem to protect them more) but what about less lethal rounds with shotgun? Any opinions on them?

I think your verbiage speaks volumes; less lethal vice the often inaccurately termed 'non-lethal'. At many home defense ranges a less lethal round may still very well be lethal. I personally look at it-from an individual perspective-as a mincing of the decision to use lethal force. If you're going to kill someone, be prepared to do it and do it well. Wounding, disabling, etc is not a good plan for an individual. From a police perspective, or from my perspective as part of the DoD, it's a different equation.

Then again we (Marine Corps) don't believe in warning shots either...the first warning shot is dropping someone.

[frumpy]

Combat and home defence are two completely different situations. In combat you have already been authorized the use of deadly force and it is essentially your mission. Home defence is a reactive situation with little time to determine the situation. As far the warning shot, it doesn't matter if you believe in them or not, depending on the situation and ROE's you MAY have to fire them or could face the consequences.

[Ray_G]

Combat and home defence are two completely different situations. In combat you have already been authorized the use of deadly force and it is essentially your mission. Home defence is a reactive situation with little time to determine the situation. As far the warning shot, it doesn't matter if you believe in them or not, depending on the situation and ROE's you MAY have to fire them or could face the consequences.

True, but doesn't really point toward less-lethal ammo being a good choice for HD. By employing a firearm in the defense of your home you have decided to employ lethal force; doing it with a bean bag round is doing it half-way and I don't see that fairing well in a courtroom. My point is if you have the fortitude to employ a weapon to defend yourself, your family, and your home-do it like you mean it instead of trying to employ something most people aren't trained to utilize.

With regard to ROEs that might be true for certain forces under certain commands, in the past decade with my experience it has never been mine. Escalation of force is one thing, warning shots are another. If the weapon is employed there is always the understanding that lethal forces is being employed. Maybe your experience is different, but mine in Afghanistan and Iraq was just that. I can't remember what Haiti was like...it was so benign as to be laughable after the past decade anyway.