Talk:Shotgun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Older comments

Areas where this article is still weak:

  • History of the shotgun
  • police/military use of shotguns (I don't think any armies use them, but don't some SWAT teams use them for urban assault)?
I seem to recall that the US Coast Guard uses them -do they have a naval use? --rmhermen
  • "sawnoff" shotguns?
Yes, the Columbine Massacre page linked to Sawed Off Shotguns - I redirected it to here, but there is nothing here on sawing them off!

--Robert Merkel


From http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/Pages/news_com_shot.html

29 May 2000: "Designated the M1014 Combat Shotgun, the M1014 is a gas operated, semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun designed and manufactured by Benelli for HK, Inc. It is being procured for issue to all of the Armed Services, including the US Coast Guard and Special Operations Command, to replace or augment the current inventory of pump-action shotguns."


This is a question. How many shots can be fired before reloading? Is this pumpaction? And was this possible in 1935

6 rounds, semiauto. I don't understand what you mean by that date. Any shotgun used by militaries would probably have a high ammo capacity.
Source: http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh19-e.htm
I think that would be 7 rounds before reloading. The link refers to 6 in the magazine, and there would be one in the chamber. And possibly an 8th round under the bolt atop the carrier. The trench shotguns and riot guns used in WWI had 6 round capability, and were pump action. John M. Browning created a semiautomatic shotgun for waterfowling in 1905 or so, but until the M1014, most military and police shotguns were pump action, because of that action's reliability. RPellessier
Quotes from "Give Us More Shotguns! American Trench Guns in the Great War", Bruce N. Canfield, American Rifleman, May 2004: "Circa 1900 ... the US Army purchased 200 Model 1897 slide action (pump)repeating shotguns in the Phillipines. ... total capacity of 6 rounds, 5 in the magazine, 1 in the chamber... 19196 (Winchester Model 97) guns were delivered to the Army during the First World War... 3500 (Remington Model 10) guns were delivered... Germans delivered a protest against the American use of shotguns..." RPellessier
(Shot Pattern description requested below was accomplished on 1/1/05) RPellessier
The article's "puff" that expands the shot pattern is not a good way to describe the development of the shot pattern. A description based on random flight or dispersion of the pellets in the airstream would be better. RPellessier
We have a pretty good article here, but it is probably in need of more organization and a rewrite. Shot is covered in multiple areas, for instance. The coverage is reasonably thorough. RPellessier
While investigating the properties of cubic shot, I found the following link. Musch of the specialty information appears to come directly from this page. RPellessier 18:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.hi-vel.com/Catalog__18/Specialized_Shotshell_Ammuniti/specialized_shotshell_ammuniti.html

I'd like to recommend moving all of the ammunition info to a different page, because of its great size. RPellessier 18:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like the barrel length section, but I would like to change the barrel lengths. See this reference to a popular competition shotgun: http://www.berettausa.com/product/product_competition_guns_main.htm It shows skeet barrels from 28 to 30 inches (26 inches was once popular). Sporting clays barrels are offered from 28 to 32 inches. Trap barrels run from 30 to 34 inches. RPellessier 19:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I'll do some more research and update that. The barrel lengths are not important so much as relative length vs. intended use. The issue of action type vs. barrel length is also worth discussing; pump and semi-auto shotguns add up to 6 inches of length vs. a break-open design. Since the barrel length issue is really an overall length issue (balance and inertia) that should be explicitly explained in the article, and barrel lengths given should note that they are for pump/auto shotguns, and break open designs will be about 4 inches longer. scot 19:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon's Breath, in action...

Was looking for info to verify USFS use of Dragon's Breath, and still couldn't find any, so I yanked it. I did find info on composition (at a DEA page containing myths about meth, of all things), and I found this interesting second hand account of one actually being used in an antipersonnel role:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-21141.html

Dunno how much stock to put in it, but the year later update makes me trust it a bit. It fit's what I'd expect of such a small amount (only an ounce or three of Zr powder would fit in the shell) of indendiary mix--big, bright flash, little damage. scot 22:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] .22 and other caliber shotshells

I'm going to list .22 caliber with the primary gauges, since there are true smoothbore shotguns made for it--Mossberg still makes them, and they even made special "Mo-Skeet-O" skeet (about 2" in diameter) for use with the .22 shotguns (whether or not you can still get the skeet, I don't know). The .22 smoothbore is also used as a "garden gun" since the small charge of light shot (#12) is sufficient for killing rat-sized pests without tearing up the plants. scot 14:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing--the 9mm Flobert rimfire is also a "real" shotgun shell, used in smoothbore arms, and Fiocchi still makes ammo for it (plastic or paper cased, not sure which) in #6 and #8 shot. See http://www.municion.org/cajas/9FlobertG.jpg and http://www.municion.org/8anular/caixa.jpg for pictures of brass and paper cased 9mm Flobert shotshells. scot 15:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Recoil, legal aspects

Two points that this article doesn't address:

  • While I'm not a regular hunter or anything, I have used both a shotgun (which I think was a 12 gauge) and a .22 rifle. I know that's a small-caliber rifle, but the recoil from the rifle was negligible whereas the recoil from the shotgun was enough to to nearly knock you backwards if you didn't brace yourself properly. I also noted that some of my father's friends who were duck hunters used to wear shoulder/underarm padding to protect against this recoil. The article doesn't really mention this strong recoil at all.
  • As I understand it, shotguns (particularly ones with limited magazine capacity like the under-and-over jobby my father owns) are one of the least restricted firearms in most jurisdictions worldwide. Is that indeed the case? --Robert Merkel 02:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The recoil from a shotgun can be significant--that's just a matter of physics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and the mass of the shot times its velocity will equal the mass of the shotgun times the velocity with which it recoils. A .410 will kick less than most centerfire rifles, since it throws a light load of shot, and the velocities in question (about 1200 fps for a standard shot load) are lower than most rifle rounds. Even in the larger gauges, there's a great difference. Olympic ruls allow, as I recall, only 3/4 ounce of shot, and, for example, the Federal round fires it at 1325 fps, which isn't much more potent than a .410 hunting round. A 12 gauge magnum round, on the other hand, can throw an ounce and a half at 1500 fps, and that will certainly recoil with some authority. The mass of the shotgun, the fit of the stock, and the recoil pad will all help reduce the felt recoil to managable levels. Most of the effects of recoil are psychological, however. For example, to move a 150 lb. person backwards at a rate of 1 fps, you'd have to launch 1 oz. at a velocity of 2400 fps (or 2 oz. at 1200 fps, etc.). This is something that only a 10 gauage magnum, or a big game express rifle is capable of, and even then, being accelerated to 1 fps is not enough to knock someone over. Now the 6 lb. shotgun, on the other hand, could easily exceed 15 fps of recoil velocity, and having a poorly shaped stock slap you in the cheekbone at that velocity will certainly hurt.
As far as legality goes, shotguns are probably the most allowed firearms due to the relative unsuitability for nefarious purposes. If ammunition capacity is limited, for example by banning magazine fed designs, and if ammunition is restricted to small shot sizes like bird shot, the shotgun is still suited for its traditional purpose of hunting flying game, or for farm pest control. Unless cut down severely, it's not concealable, and the light shot is lethal to humans only at very short ranges. While still having the potential to be used for criminal activity (the double barrelled sawed-off shotgun being a traditional gangster weapon) it's not a militarily significant threat like a rifle, nor as readily concealed for use in armed robbery or assassination. scot 14:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
legal discussion has no place in this article. if you want to start a "legal issues of shotguns" articles, instead start a "legal issues of guns" article. having a legal section in each gun page would be incredibly difficult to maintain and keep accurate. i "watch" most of the firearms articles, and it takes me at least a few hours a week just to make sure that everything is consistent and correct. a recent article i edited with some dubious legal issues is cannabis cultivation, which has its own Legal issues of cannabis page. guns are simply too broad a subject to have a fragmented discussion. note also removal of legal issues from the carbine page, which may be more appropriate to this discussion. Avriette 19:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree; while detailed discussion of the legalities of shotguns across 50 US states, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, and so on would be very difficult to maintain, but one sentence saying that "shotguns are amongst the most lightly regulated firearms in most jurisdictions because of their short range and low magazine capacity..." and referencing other articles for more extensive discussion is quite appropriate. --Robert Merkel 05:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

I think I've expanded the history section to a reasonable amount. Anywhere we can say it is weak? - --Primalchaos 16:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Links. I noticed sawed-off shotgun mentioned, and that article does exist, as do articles for riot shotgun and combat shotgun which you could work in (maybe move some of the military history to combat shotgun?). Other than that, it looked good at first glance. scot 19:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I went back and looked at the article as a whole, not just the last set of diffs, and I noticed that the links I mentioned were elsewhere in the article, but I think this article is long enough that the history section should re-link to riot shotgun and combat shotgun. scot 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is shockingly americo-entric, considering the very considerable contribution of Britain to the development weapon it would be better if someone bothered to recognise it.

I agree with the American-centric view (or rather I agree that is is), at least as far as the history section goes; everything else looks to be generic or (in the case of legal issues) coveres a number of English speaking countries. I suspect POV-ness of the history section is due to a lack of non-US contributors. If you can point out any references, or other sections you consider to be to narrow, I'm sure that someone will be happy to expand the article. I know the Brits make some nice doubles, but that's about the extent of my knowledge--do the police or military there use even use shotguns, or is that truly an American thing?. Also, don't let the British government hear you call it a "weapon", or you might find the history of the shotgun in the UK coming to a sudden end... scot 15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You're pretty much right, to be honest the history section was the only part that i really thought needed much work, with British gun control laws shotguns are really only used for hunting these days. My main concern was that the British played a large role in the developing the different technologies used, yet i didn't really see anything that referenced it. I'm new here so thanks for responding so quickly, I'll have a look and see what I can find. By the way i know what you mean about only really having heard about British doubles, but the point I was making was that until the turn of the century those were the most important and even after that British guns continued to be some of the best competition guns in the world.

Well, being the typical American, I'm much more familiar with pumps and semi-auto designs; this is mine. With a cheap foreign double going for US$500 or more, a US branded import running $700, and a good US made one like the Ruger going for over US$900, the average hunter is going to go for the $200 Mossberg, Remington, or Winchester pump. Add to the price the fact that US$50-150 gets you a new barrel to turn it into a riot gun, slug gun, turkey gun, upland bird gun, or waterfowl gun, and you just can't beat the basic pump for price and versatility. Granted, doubles are gaining ground here, but I think that's mostly due to sporting clays, which is designed to be shot with a double (different chokes in each barrel come in handy, and they clays are thrown in pairs). For the highest end guns, the Italian guns seem to get the most attention around here. I've seen some of the Perrazi models will set you back close to US$100,000--right up there with the Purdys--yet their low end guns are under US$5,000. scot 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This is one case where the American angle on the history is somewhat understandable. Every major development in shotguns since the 1870s has been the work of American companies or individuals (see John Browning), and it remains one of the most widespread firearms in that country despite no bans on other types of gun ownership. Also, as a police service weapon, it is not nearly as popular in Europe or Asia as in America. Also, in my initial research of the subject, a overwhelming majority of the historical incidents involving shotguns were based on America. They were the only ones to deploy them as a standard battlefield weapon in the 20th century in World War 1 and later with Marines in World War 2, they developed every action except the break-action, etc. etc. European incidents, where applicable, were also mentioned, such as the French Resistance and later French patrols in Vietnam. But there simply isn't as many of them.--Primalchaos 18:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is "choke" worthy of its own article?

The section on choke is pretty large, and could probably be expanded even more-- there's a lot of recent development in chokes, what with interchangable tubes, sporting clays, etc. I could see sections on patterning, rules of thumb on selecting choke (70-75% in 30" at the intended range seems to be a common one), plus there are non-shotgun related chokes, such as those on target grade .22 rimfire and air rifles. scot 01:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)






THIS IS GAY

[edit] Stuff

Thought I'd mention, in 1851 Joseph Lang made a break-open pinfire shotgun, first breechloader type in Britain. And I've seen pix of a 4-bbl shotgun. Trekphiler 10:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common uses: skeet, trap, etc.

Skeet and Trap are mentioned in the article but not in the common uses. I would bet a large majority of shells go to these sports. I can't think of anything to say other than they are used for skeet and trap. Someone involved in competition could do a much better job expanding the entry. Dimitrii 22:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Does anybody know if the shot Chenny used would realistically penetrate to Waddington's heart at 30 yards?

It's possible, but pretty unlikely, as it's only going to penetrate a couple of inches at that range. From what I gathered, however, he was hit in the face, neck, and chest, and the pellet that was causing problems was wandering through his circulatory system. It's possible that a pellet made it into a vein, and then worked its way down towards the heart (which would explain why they were having fits tracking it). scot 16:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not credible. The shot got there directly through the chest wall. To travel from a vein to where it was found is pure (and unlikely) spectulation.
There is no question that this is negligence. The duty of care is clear, "to ensure that the field of fire is clear before pulling the trigger."
Yes, that is true. However, Whittington was also negligent in that he approached the shooters through heavy brush, where he may not have been visible. Do you just wander past the shooting line when you're on a shooting range, without calling for a cease fire? It is, after all, the responsibility of all shooters to be sure of what's downrange, but would you bet your life on it? Or, if you're not a shooter, do you run right out in the street if you're at a crosswalk, or do you check traffic first? You do, as the pedestrian, have the right of way, after all, so you should be safe. However, I think any judge would agree that if someone entered the crosswalk without warning, the driver could not be found criminally responsible for an accident, even though the driver was technically at fault.
If the hunters had cleared the area earlier, they probably assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) that the area would remain clear. Cheney was cited (a warning, standard procedure since it was a new law) for lack of a proper tax stamp, but was not cited for the shooting incident. So while there was negligence involved (there is no such thing as shooting someone "accidentally") it was not a case of gross negligence, and the evidence suggests that fault rests on both parties. scot 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
More accidental than negligence, I would think. Quail fly very low to existing brush tops (often just above) when flushed. They also make a loud fluttering sound if in a large covey, making enough noise to mask easily the footsteps of someone 30 yards distant. If someone is coming up through heavy brush walking slowly, it would be impossible to see or hear him. Quails flying just over the brush would be visible, but the individual would not be. Then, BANG. At a distance of 30 yards, the shot would definitely drop into the upper part of the brush, where the poor fellow was approaching, and it would likely hit him in the face and upper chest, even with light bird 7.5 birdshot. The nature of hunting in such a thick cover prevents a shooter from ensuring that someone violating the line of fire would not be hit. Yaf 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you just speculating or do you have any evidence for this theory of the event? I've read nothing about Whittington being ahead of the shooting line. I have no doubt that this was unintentional -- though Cheney is known to have a temper :-)
The information I've seen stated that Whittington was in fact out of line at the time. See the shooting report here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0213061cheney2.html "Whittington downed a bird and went to retrieve it. While he was out of the hunting line another covey was flushed and Cheney swung on a bird and fired strking Whittington..." scot 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless good reason is given for this to continue to be in an article about shotguns and their workings, I'll be removing this entire section. We don't reference any other 'shotgun' incidents in the article except to demonstrate some sort of historical fact, and it is decidely un-encyclopedic. If you want, include a See Also.--Primalchaos 12:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Only for historical reference. The rationale being that this section in the shotgun article is focused on the shotgun gauge, the shot shell size, and the distance over which the shot was fired. Many articles on particular guns on Wikipedia include infamous uses of guns. See the Tec-9, etc. Also, articles on individuals often include such gun details, similarly, see Gavrilo Princip. It isn't often that a sitting VP shoots someone; it is only the second time in the history of the US. (Hamilton shooting Burr was the only other time, and we all know how that ended. And it wasn't a shotgun.) I think we should keep this trivia in the shotgun article, primarily to key an individual in, say a few years, that a shotgun was used in this incident. If they want more details, they can go read about it. That said, where's the link to the main discussion of this incident? That is missing. Yaf 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Then it should be a limited one sentence point with a link to the main article somewhere in the history section, not its own rather unnecessarily extensive paragraph. As it stands, this is editing by fad, not by importance. The only reason it is here is because it is all over the news right now.--Primalchaos 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The Burr thing was also a duel, and duels were a bit more legal back then than they are now. AllStarZ 16:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's not at all clear to me that a reference to the Chenet shooting incident should be here. It is extremely tangential to the topic of shotguns. Unless we put an accounting of the Cheney incident in hunting, quail, Texas, myocardial infarction, etc. as well, it doesn't belong here. Is it reasonable for an reader who wants info about the Cheney incident to come here? --Deville (Talk) 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable addition

"For instance, in the 2004-2005 North Carolina hunting season in the United States, a vast majority of fatal shooting incidents amongst hunters involved a shotgun. [1] In one notorious incident in 2006, Dick Cheney became the second sitting Vice President ever to shoot another person, during quail hunting incident in Texas when he shot another hunter with a 28-gauge shotgun."

According to the stats linked to, about 5-6 people are killed each year while hunting, and 3 of those are killed by falls from treestands. The bit about Cheney can probably go back in (it looked out of context without the prior statement) but the "vast majority" statement makes it seem as though hunting fatalities are common, when in fact they are not. An order of magnitude more people are killed each year bicycling (I don't have the stats handy, but if anything I'm understating that by an order of magnitude). scot 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with boh removals. As i said above, I think the Cheney stuff shouldn't be here at all. Also, it seems as though you are right, the content of the link is radically different from the claims in the text. This makes sense as well; I'd actually be surprised to find that shotguns were so prevalent in injuries and deaths, if anything, I'd think rifles caused many more casualties in hunting accidents. --Deville (Talk) 00:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Rifles are certainly more lethal; shotguns are pretty limited in effective range, although they are generally used in situations (moving targets) where it's a lot more likely to hit someone if you are not very careful about keeping your zones of fire well defined (which was how Whittington got hit, he walked out of the brush into the firing zone). However, the number of hunting fatalities is very small, so it's hard to make statistical statements about them--and since the stats included only one state, which may well have shotgun-only rules for deer hunting, that makes the stats even more suspect. I still find it sort of humerous that the most recent year had 6 fatalities, 3 of them due to falling from tree stands...maybe someone should tell Feinstein so she can start banning ladders... scot 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The Cheney addition should go, it was originally added to get rid of an entire separate section on the 'fad' incident. However, read the actual quote, which was quoted to show the commonality of shotguns barring any other real statistics on the subject, not to talk about hunting fatalities. Then again, given the phrasing that a simple statistic quote was attacked as "leftist propaganda" shows the mentality of those pushing for removal. It cited specifically "fatal shooting incidents" which the linked statistics do play out. If something a bit more less "controversial" can be shown that equally shows how common shotgun use is amongst hunters, that would be fine. As far as the accusation that I added government statistics as leftist propaganda, I consider that an insult to my academic integrity and highly inappropriate. I will place the hunting statistics back up unless some better information can be found to substantiate the claim that shotguns are the most common hunting weapons used in the States.--Primalchaos 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Using the term "vast" when referring to an total annual hunting fatality rate of about 6 for NC is very misleading, and the numbers involved in the statistics are so low that any generalities drawn from them are going to be highly suspect. Hunting with shotguns is also more prone to negligent shootings, because the targets are moving quickly, and over-eager hunters can swing past the line, or step out of line, or even (in one mentioned case) stand up in front of a shooter about to take a shot. Even though birdshot is very unlikely to cause a serious injury at a distance of more than a few dozen yards, a foot in front of the muzzle there's little difference between a load of birdshot and a slug. I think that what you need to do to determine relative popularity of shotguns vs. rifles in hunting is look at bird hunting participation, which generally requires a shotgun, vs. deer or varmint hunting, which is generally performed with a rifle. Since hunting almost always requires some form of license, this information is tracked; the difficult part is going to be the differences between states, as some may have lots of bird hunting and little varmint or larger game, while the opposite may be true in other states. scot 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
All that is intended here is to present evidence to the fact that the shotgun qualifies as being called 'ubiquitous' from a hunting standpoint, so we are presenting scholarly fact rather than just vague common knowledge. And the reason I'm using accident statistics is they are the only reliable stats on when and how hunting weapons are being used. I added a new clearer version of the same type of information that passes muster, lest I be guilty once again of "leftist propaganda".--Primalchaos 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I still question the validity of extrapolating usage based on injury stats; this article http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/10735/ covers hunting accidents by type, and the "mistaken for game" category, mainly rifles, outnumbered the "swinging on game" category, which is entirely shotgun. I'm looking for permit stats, which I think will provide the most reliable numbers. scot 03:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Not be contrary, but I find nothing in this article that defines the weapon type used solidly, and the source seems dubious at best compared to official government statistics. And most permits don't outline what type of weapon you plan to using - a deer hunting permit would allow someone to use a slug-firing shotgun as equally as a deer rifle, for instance. Now, I agree if we were trying to determine the exact percentage of shotguns compared to other types of guns for hunting, accident statistics would be inadequate. But for merely demonstrating that shotguns are extremely common, it is more than valid.--Primalchaos 13:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


To make sort of a meta-comment on this whole thread, let me first say that the article is better now than it was, because things are stated more explicitly. Second, I would like to point out that when one uses the term "vast majority", this does have a certain connotation. If one later finds out that the statistical universe we sampled from was three, then this leaves one with a bad feeling. Not saying anything was meant to deceive, but let's be careful to be as explicit about the data as possible, especially recalling Mark Twain's comment on statistics... ;) --Deville (Talk) 05:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ammunition

specialty shotgun amunition is covered best this, shotgun, article, also in shotgun shells also (badly) in the unnescssary 'category:shotgun shells' and even worse in list of shotgun cartridges

I suggest moving all that information into the 'shotgun shell' article. leaving a brief description in shotgun deleting 'category:shotgun shells', list of shotgun cartridges, and most sub articles

unless anyone has any significant objection I'll do it, soon. I'll keep the same format we allready have on this page, overall description of most common types, then, brief/general descriptions everything else.

Sounds good to me, though the category might be worth keeping if there are individual articles on specialized shells; if everything redirects back to shotgun or shotgun shell, then I'd say delete it. scot 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stabilize v. Stabilise, for quick reference

To quote from the Wikipedia manual of style:

"with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic."

[edit] "Doom weapons" category

There is no mention of Doom in the article, yet it is categorized in Doom weapons?

What's more, the only other weapons in this category are Chainsaw and the BFG. What the hell is going on? -125.236.44.44 02:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] shot type

I believe that lead shot is now outlawed for the hunting of birds, and possibly other creatures.

The ban on lead shot applies to waterfowl hunting only. Ducks and geese "eat" small pebbles, which are stored in their gizzard for help in digesting food. Since shot often lands in the shallow water and shore where the waterfowl get these pebbles, the shot is collected and stored in the birds' gizzards as well. Since food is constantly passing through the gizzard, and being ground with the shot, lead can enter the bloodstream fairly easily. Bismuth, steel, and tungsten based shot are all non-toxic, and do not cause the health issues that lead shot does. Lead shot can still be used for non-wetlands hunting; even if a bird is wounded and pellets stay in the body, that is not a significant source of lead poisoning. scot 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

not sure how to clean this up; I added a <ref> to the 'rock salt' incident, but the references section is formatted differently, at the moment I've just added the wiki <refences /> above the othe references, but this looks pretty ugly. help? --User24 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Riding shotgun"

Question maybe unrelated- why do people say 'shotgun' when they want the front passenger seat? (added by User:Play water polo, moved here by me scot 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

That's a reference to the fact that stagecoaches are commonly shown being guarded by a man with a shotgun riding next to the driver in Westerns. The term for this was "riding shotgun", and since the front passenger seat is the closest analog to sitting on the bench next to the stagecoach driver, that's the "shotgun seat". scot 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fully Automatic Shotguns

First, do they even exist in the first place? If so, do they have any real applicable use? If not, what kind of draw backs would come with its use that would dissuade people from useing it? Eny infomation you find about its production and design would help. 69.250.130.215 15:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To quote our article: "Some of the more interesting advances in shotgun technology include the versatile NeoStead 2000 and fully automatics such as the Pancor Jackhammer or Auto-Assault 12 . These combat shotguns, while popular in movies and computer games due to their exotic nature, have yet to make a noticeable impression in the real world."
There are plenty of drawbacks. Massive recoil and size. Limited usefulness and range. The list goes on. All automatic shotguns that have been developed are curiosities, not viable weapons systems.--Primal Chaos 16:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Bolt-action feature is described as being relatively rare, but a few lines lower, it's described as being common. twfeline 04:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

They were popular in Australia after the 1997 gun buybacks (which effectively banned pump-action and semi-auto shotguns for anyone who wasn't a farmer), but once people realised they generally only held three shots and had a slower average rate of fire than a double-barrel shotgun, their popularity dropped off. --Commander Zulu 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/o/Talk%7EShotgun_40cc.html"