The Box O’ Truth Hurts – All Weapons Have Limits Inside the Home

Previously, I have penned numerous articles focusing on testing various firearms in use throughout a home. Most testing has been completed using drywall, but that is about as realistic as using ballistics gelatin – that testing simply fails to capture the complexity of most structures including pipes, wires, studs, furniture, etc. Other testing has been a bit more valid – but proves a later point here in a moment.

But, they all have one thing in common – we, as gun people, are principally arguing over the penetration difference between rounds of a single wall, at most two. The truth is (at least in my ever so humble opinion) is that this really does not matter as the practical effect of a round in a home is devastating if it misses. People are highly likely to be well within a wall or two of the engagement if on the same floor.

The Box o’ Truth has completed a similar drywall test, one that I find a good illustration of this point, as it uses only four pieces of drywall, therefore, removing the argument of how many drywall pieces a round will penetrate. Simply put, all rounds tested including mil-spec XM-193, soft point, buckshot,.30 carbine, etc all penetrated all the walls presented. Only a frangible round and birdshot, both of which are not considered “fight stoppers” had any reduced penetration.

The truth hurts – any round is dangerous inside a house. I say plan to hit the round you consider most effective and stop worrying about drywall penetration. Inside your house, it really won’t matter and the changes of anything hitting anything outside the home are astronomically low.

For The Box o’ Truth’s testing, see their article here. 



Nathan S.

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

Nathan can be reached at Nathan.S@TheFirearmBlog.com

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • Ehtacs

    FWIW Federal has frangible 27 pellet #4 buckshot which it sounds like would strike a good balance of not over-penetrating while making sure the target has a bad day.

    • int19h

      Any gel tests for that?

  • Vhyrus

    Carnik-Con actually did a test that showed that 5.7×28 will keyhole and wildly lose trajectory after hitting 2 walls making it possibly safer than any other rounds.

    • dhdoyle

      So you’re saying that the shooter has no idea where the round is going to go? You say that like it’s a good thing. If my family is instructed to get flat on the floor, I’d like some assurance that if I shoot chest-high, they won’t be accidentally hit.

      • valorius

        There are no such assurances with any spitzer shaped projectile.

      • Vhyrus

        In the test they keyholed down and sideways, so… yeah… you may not want to buy a P90 in your case.

      • BillyOblivion

        You’re assuming that in the dark, in the confusion, that they will remember their instructions, and that they are able to.

        Best option, know your target and don’t miss.

        Practice as much as practicable until you simply don’t miss at the ranges your house provides.

        The only way you get better is to do harder things.

        • dhdoyle

          Billy…
          Been training since 1992. You can never train enough to not miss. For example, have you practiced with your dominant hand tied to your waist and your weak hand covered with oil to simulate a GSW? How about shooting in total darkness to simulate your light dying?
          The point is that you can never practice enough to master all of the potential handicaps and complications that you may

      • iksnilol

        You have an approximate idea, besides, if it has tumbled and gone sideways, then it has lost the majority of energy. Much less dangerous to get hit with than with something that isn’t tumbling.

    • This is phenomenon I noticed with the SS198, which is FN’s 27gr aluminum/ hollow tip projectile designed for rapid tumbling.

      We were shooting an empty propane can with it at maybe 15 yards, and upon inspection, all 5 rounds had pierced the first side of the can, then made an large, oblong dent on the other side.

      Meanwhile, the SS197 40gr Vmax rounds, which are not designed for penetration, swiss cheesed the can through both sides. .22LR did the same.

      My conclusion was that the SS198 had begun to tumble through the length of the can and had struck the opposite wall sideways, preventing penetration due to the increase in surface area.

      So if your body is a temple, but you live in a crowded apartment complex, the P90 with SS198 could be a good choice.

      • Vizzini

        If your walls are made of empty propane tanks.

        • Justin Bailey

          Deep thoughts.

  • dhdoyle

    Finally! When LEOs have to shoot indoors, they don’t worry about wall penetration. They use the most effective ammunition they can buy. This is called a clue.

    • valorius

      They also have qualified immunity. We do not. Something to keep in mind.

      • trjnsd

        ! NOT TRUE. Police Officers etc are responsible for every bullet and where it ends. Many have been prosecuted for negligence. Fortunately, that is a rare occurrence. Many more have been injured trying to find an alternative to shooting a dangerous subject because shooting would cause danger to innocent persons.

        • valorius

          Cops have qualified immunity, it is 100% true.

          Look at the cops that sprayed a whole sidewalk down in NYC a few years ago- neither is in prison.

        • In a perfect world, that might be true, but in a perfect world we wouldn’t have to be shooting a bad guy in the first place. In actual practice it takes zero effort to find dozens of cases of scumbags in uniform blatantly getting away with murder and negligent homicide.

        • Ebby123

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d4ac822c0bb67f7ee448ef28a9ec9308d6982e3a0230f84cfa370e05e2fd813c.jpg

          You aren’t really serious, are you?
          I mean, you can’t be. We have google now – surely no one could be that laughably out of touch with reality.

        • iksnilol

          5-0 can basically do whatever they want and get scot free. I’ve seen it enough here in Norway.

  • lucusloc

    I disagree with the assessment that we should not be concerned with shot that could potentially leave our home, especially in urban and suburban environments. It may very well be that the chance of hitting anything important outside the home is extremely low, but the consequences of doing so are extremely high. Every wall that the round does not travel through reduces that risk (and let us not forget that exterior walls are built to different standards than interior walls). Choosing the most effective round that penetrates the least amount of building seems to be the most prudent choice.

    • Seriously, that’s the whole rationale of lightweight hollowpoint rifle bullets; they’ll go through a wall, sure– or a bad guy– but they’ll leave most of their energy in it and come out in pieces.

  • Dan

    How is birdshot at inside-the-house distances (less than 20 feet) not a fight stopper? Full disembowelment guaranteed with a torso shot inside 15 feet. And I mean full.

    • Dracon1201

      No, the pellets in birdshot do not have nearly enough power to do that or ensure deep penetration.

      • Dan

        Look at Gunblast’s debunking of this on youtube. Search “Shotgun Ammo for Home Defense – Gunblast”

        • Dan

          And not to be too argumentative, but a 1.25 oz load of shot and a 1.25 oz slug have the exact same energy if they are moving at the same velocity. Inside 15 feet, they will have about the same velocity. But the birdshot dumps all of its energy into the primary target very very quickly. Now lets assume your robber doesn’t get disemboweled because he dressed for the party. Even if the dude is wearing a kevlar vest, he is likely going to experience significant blunt force trauma. Like, break your sternum blunt force trauma. Your .45 and your .40 probably aren’t going to do that.

          • Raptor Fred

            Can’t wait for the major ammunition manufacturers to start making Tactical Bird shot, because of it’s blunt force disemboweling attributes.

          • Gary Kirk
          • Raptor Fred

            All your “Full Disembowelment” r belong to us.

          • MadMonkey

            Wow.

          • Stephen Shallberg

            If the spread of a load of birdshot stays within an inch and a quarter at 15 feet, then yes, the energy imparted might be comparable to a slug. But it doesn’t do that, it spreads out. The energy of a round of birdshot is imparted to each individual birdshot however, and each birdshot is subject to energy depleting forces, mainly air friction, from the moment each exits the barrel. A slug, even with the same overall weight, experiences friction forces on a much smaller surface area compared to numerous individual shot, and its mass, being contained in a much smaller volume, maintains momentum and thus energy, whereas birdshot does not.

            I’m sure no one wants to take a load of birdshot to the body however, and I think a case can be made for its use in home defense.

          • m-dasher

            dude….stop…..just please stop…..you sounds like a moron

          • Dan

            That’s convincing. Watch some tests. Also grammar check (sounds)

          • m-dasher

            “oh i see you misspelled a word, that there completely voids your argument”.

            if youve ever hunted, youd know birdshot doesnt even reliably take down birds……its sure as hell not going to stop a human

          • No one

            Ahahaha Yes, because vests that are rated to stop .44 Magnum and will stop Buckshot and even lead slugs = will fail and break your sternum due to birdshot!

            It’s a good thing modern body armor makers don’t test their vests against the effects of blunt force trauma and pitting before allowing them to be sold on the market or anything.

            …..Except for the part where they do.

            Get out of here already.

          • Dan

            I’ve shot vests in body armor tests with birdshot at 5 and 10 feet. The amount of deformation on the back of the vest (against the clay or wet newsprint torso) is frightening. There’s a baseball-sized permanent cavity/protrusion that matches one in your ribs. Lots of cases of cops dying or having cardiac arrest from a shot to the sternum while wearing a vest. And birdshot at home defense range does just that.

            Who says “get out of here already?” Were the kids mean to you?

          • lucusloc

            That is not how physics works. The sum total of energy stays the same, but the energy in the shot is distributed over every pellet. The energy delivery of each pellet, in this case, is too efficient, meaning that almost all of the energy is lost before deep penetration is achieved.

            The blunt force trauma will be minimal (a broken rib at best) due to newtons first law; anything that happens to the shootie must also happen to the shooter. The shooter has the benefit of multiple points of contact with the firearm, thus reducing he pressure of the energy entering their body, and the weight of the gun means the velocity of the impact is trivial. But with bird shot the shootie has the benefit of a much wider distribution of that energy compared to a slug (even a doubling of the contact pattern size will reduce the pressure by 4, significantly mitigating blunt force trauma), this means much better ability for the structure of the body to mitigate and distribute that energy delivery.

            The only real danger posed by birdshot to a human is trauma to soft tissue like the neck and gut, where the small pellets have enough energy to penetrate deeply by themselves (they penetrate very poorly in denser tissue like muscle). Considering there is almost nothing in the gut that is considered capable of a one shot stop you are hoping for a tiny individual bird shot pellet, which makes a positively trivial individual wound channel, to hit an artery in the neck to effect a quick stop. This may indeed be a damn near sure thing if you center the shot on the neck, but at across the room distances the pattern may not even reach the neck if you aim for center of mass.

            Now a solid hit of bird shot close range to the gut could very well cause a lethal wound, but that lethality will be mostly due to blood loss, not direct shock. That is far from an ideal stop in a defensive situation, as the bad guy could still cause grievous harm before they bled out.

            Check out the medical records for people shot with bird shot. Even in the lethal cases the death was almost never directly caused by the trauma induced shock. It was usually caused by blood loss. Only in rare cases where they were hit directly in the head, or had basically contact shot over a vital area did the shock itself cause near instant death.

            If you want effective terminal ballistics from shot, each pellet must deliver enough energy to penetrate to vitals individually. This means buck shot, typically number 4 or better, but 00 or 000 will better defeat obstacles such as heavy clothing and bone. Even high brass 6 or 7 shot does not deliver enough energy in individual pellets to reliably penetrate to vitals on a human with a center of mass shot.

            Bird shot is for birds, not self defense, and while I cannot control what choices you make (nor do I want to) I will absolutely point out that choosing to use it for a defensive is a horrible decision that could cost you dearly. I will not let this poor advise stand on an open forum where less knowledgeable people might be mislead by it.

        • Dracon1201

          I’ve watched it. I’ve also seen many people who were shot with birdshot who had very topical damage.

          • Dan

            Yes, and many people survived the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima. Your point is? (inside 15 feet it’s not easy to survive a direct hit to the torso from birdshot )

          • Dracon1201

            It’s definitely survivable. Look up birdshot wounds. They’re nasty looking, but most still survive. Again, you can’t refute the difference in power and killing potential between birdshot and other loads.

        • Vizzini

          Seen it. That was a pretty shoddy demonstration and the farthest thing from scientific.

      • gunsandrockets

        I don’t know about that. I’ve seen video of 12 inches of penetration of ballistic gel delivered from BB size bird-shot at 5 yards range.

        • CommonSense23

          There is literally a video of a female college shooting taking birdshot from less than 10ft who stays standing.

          • gunsandrockets

            So?

          • CommonSense23

            She lived. Had she wanted to fight she would have been capable of it. People aren’t ballistic gel. We are tougher.

          • I also have it on good authority that a sneering supervillain can shoot an old man right in the face with birdshot and the old guy will survive.

          • iksnilol

            I linked that video, be interesting to see how he’ll “disprove” it.

        • Raptor Fred
          • gunsandrockets

            Do you have any serious response to the actual evidence I provided?

          • ostiariusalpha

            Anecdote time. My father had two cousins, and one tried to murder the other with a shotgun loaded with birdshot. As the victim cousin recounted the event, the moment he saw his brother point the shotgun at him in anger, he charged him and tore the shotgun out of his hands. He hadn’t even realized that it had gone off and that he was wounded in the shoulder, neck, and face. He was able to get in a car, and stayed perfectly lucid as he was driven to the hospital. It turned out the pellets in his neck had come pretty close to punturing an artery, his ear was a mess, and he had a lot of facial surgery to remove the remaining shot.

          • gunsandrockets

            What size birdshot?

          • ostiariusalpha

            I didn’t think to as him at the time, and I doubt he even knew. His brother wasn’t there to ask, but no one was exactly regretting his absense.

          • gunsandrockets

            Sounds like luck more than ammunition type was at work.

          • ostiariusalpha

            It’s always luck. There’s just a lot more room for luck with the birdshots than with buckshot.

          • gunsandrockets

            depends depends depends Which birdshot? What range?

            Of course buckshot is superior to birdshot for SD purposes. But I can’t ignore the evidence of my eyes. Within 5 yards range BB shot looks perfectly adequate for SD purposes.

          • Raptor Fred

            No just meme and logic. Using birdshot even bb is ridiculous for self defense purposes. But you go ahead and be right.

          • gunsandrockets

            So to sum up your “logic”, I should believe you and not my own lying eyes?

          • Raptor Fred

            Don’t believe anything I say, get your ass in the field and go hunt some deer or Feral Hogs with a 12ga and some 2 3/4in 12 BB or what ever shot you presume to be efficient. You can prove to yourself the legitimacy of your assumption. Honestly if your love for small diameter no mass shot had any merit for anti personnel defensive usage. Would the market not be SATURATED with tailor made loading all with specific marketable catch phrase names? There are reasons things like this don’t exist. LOGIC being the determining factor.

          • gunsandrockets

            My love for no mass shot? Presume to be efficient? I never promoted BB shot as efficient, I only said it was more lethal than many people assume at extremely short ranges. I believe I used the term adequate.

            Why are you so worked up?

          • Dan

            Dude, we aren’t talking about hunting here. Shoot a deer or a hog from 5 feet with birdshot and it’ll go down.

            The whole point of this birdshot thing is lost on all the ballistic internets geniuses here: You are trading off some wounding capability for overpenetration avoidance. 338 Lapua is a proven manstopper, but you kill the kids next door after it goes through your target. Birdshot is not as effective beyond 25 feet. But inside that range it’s nasty, and it stops pretty well in sheetrock. Buckshot sails right through the bad guy and into the next room. It’s somewhere in the middle. You choose what you want. That’s the extent of it.

        • Dracon1201

          Ballistic gel isn’t a comparison to real world flesh and bone results. It’s a testing medium to compare to other ballistic tests. Even if it penetrates it won’t do the damage required to achieve the desired result. FBI requires 16″ for a reason.

          • gunsandrockets

            Are you seriously going to claim that any handgun bullet which doesn’t penetrate at least 16 inches of gel is inadequate for home defense?

          • Dracon1201

            I don’t claim that, the FBI does, they’d make it 12 inches if that reflected proportionately reliable penetration in a human target. Anything below that penetration use at your own risk, like usual it is all up to you.

          • gunsandrockets

            Riiight. Because shooting through car windshields happens so often in cases of home defense!

            http://www.brassfetcher.com/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol.html

          • iksnilol

            Car windows, walls, arms (you do know we like to put those in front of our chest and face)… yeah, I trust the federales on this one.

      • I wonder how difficult/feasible it would be to, say, wrap a plastic wad in a couple layers of electrical tape before handloading a shell; that would essentially turn it into a buckoff huge safety slug that would get a lot of initial penetration but quickly come apart and be no more dangerous than regular birdshot out the other side.

        Someone needs to put up a Youtube video, is what I’m saying.

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/63d2d5f347b05f743f4253870013440d80c57cb161315b3646344610b003843a.jpg

      Birdshot is NOT “Full disembowelment guaranteed”. Shotguns have a ton of power, but birdshot distributes that power over so many particles that none of them have enough energy to do meaningul damage, so then end up doing very little damage over a large area.

      • Don Ward

        Birdshot is fine for birds. Until you find yourself in the wrong neighborhood. http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbn2ouA2wU1rqgrb8o1_1280.png

      • birdshot sniper

        That’s a pattern from 25 or 30 feet, not the 10-15 feet that’s most likely in a home defense situation. I’m not taking that shot in my house, even with an AR. And in my state there’s a chance that you’d get prosecuted or sued for taking that 30-foot shot in the dark because there’s a good chance you couldn’t assess the intent of the burglar at that distance.

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          What’s the velocity loss from 5 feet to 25 feet? Use the 5ft velocity and the average weight per shot and calculate the kinetic energy per pellet. Then, compare that KE vs 9mm, 22lr, .223, 12 ga slugs, and KE/pellet of 00 buck.

          And don’t give me a line about “all of them together” BS, because if they are not mechanically attached, then they fly and interact with the environment (read: bad guys) as individuals, hence the photo above.

          And always have a light on any long gun you plan to use at night, because in the dark you aren’t likely to be able to determine anyone’s intent at any distance.

          • int19h

            With respect to “all of them together”, while it’s not a correct description, close up there will still be a partial effect, simply because the shot is still stacked up together in a column – and the pellets in the rear will ram into the pellets in the front, adding their KE.

            As far as actual penetration, gel tests show about 4-5 inches of penetration from 12ga birdshot close up. Of course, that’s 5 inches of gel, not 5 inches of clothing & body. So “full disembowelment” doesn’t sound realistic, but it’s not something that can just be shrugged off, either.

          • iksnilol

            People literally shrug of birdshot.

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            The pellets in the back will slam into the ones in front, true, but there’s nothing keeping those back pellets pushing the ones on front. What happens is they impact the pellets in front and bounce out to the side, taking a lot of KE with them. It’s as simple as that.

          • Justin Bailey

            This has been proven insignificant repeatedly.

    • m-dasher

      please stop getting you ballistics information from video games and internet lore……

      birdshot doesnt even take down birds at 20 feet……..its sure as hell not going to take down a full grown man.

      you ever hunt duck/ goose?…..ive seen 3″ #4 shot literally bounce off a ducks back…..

      shotguns are great…..but they are not nearly as powerful as people believe.

      • Dan

        At 20 feet you’ve seen a duck survive when the center of the cloud of bb’s hit the duck? Shoot howdy I bet you good ole boys need 10 gauges for those armored ducks where you live. I don’t want to question your shotsmanship here, but in my duck blind, we call that a miss. 20 feet? I’v seen shot bounce off ducks, too, But 50 feet out and beyond. Move along.

        • m-dasher

          i can already tell, youve spent all of 0 hrs in a duck blind…..

    • Phil Elliott

      A local Gunshop owner shot a Robber with a Hi-base duck load of # 4 shot, Robber turned as he was firing and the load caught him in the lower back, he survived. This was between 15 and 20 ft.

    • No one

      Penetrating maybe 2″ into actual flesh = “FULL DISEMBOWLMENT!” now?

      Birdshot has proven to be terrible time and time again, get out of here with this nonsense already.

    • iksnilol

      Recently there was an attempted school shooting. Guy shoots a lady at like 2-3 meters distance with birdshot. She barely registers getting hit, then just walks away.

  • USMC03Vet

    Since my neighbors are probably the most obnoxious things breathing, my home defense is AK47.

    • derpmaster

      Mine too. Unfortunately there’s no plausible self defense scenario where I would have to shoot straight down through the floor into their TV room.

    • valorius

      Up here in the mountains of Hawaii, my neighbors are cows.

      • My neighbors are all raccoons and possums, so I’m totally allowed to shoot them if they get unruly.

      • Big Daddy

        My neighbor is a cow but I don’t know her or her husband’s name.

        • valorius

          LMAO 😀

    • Klaus Von Schmitto

      I’m no lawyer but I’m pretty sure “He won’t be missed” is not a good defense strategy.

      • Sean

        In Texas perhaps.

  • Haulin’ Oats

    The solution here is one we all learned from the Big Bad Wolf: Drywall sucks. Build a home from better materials. AR500 anyone?

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      “Storm shelter? What would I need one of those for?”
      -me, from inside my AR500-walled house/bunker.

    • Shipping containers welded together with the hollows filled with aerated concrete, and the interior walls lined with fully stocked bookshelves– it’s the only way to be sure.

  • BillC

    Any round, out of a shotgun, rifle, or pistol, that is worth using on a person will “over-penetrate” on a miss. It amazes me that people just can’t seem to grasp this. Then again, people still defend using birdshot on people despite the evidence out there and assume that somebody intent on doing you harm will simply give up the fight when shot with birdshot. ‘Cause apparantly we can dictate how bad guys will respond in our scenarios.

    • CommonSense23

      Guess you have never used MK255.

      • milesfortis

        I have. I like it.
        Some of it followed me home when I retired.

        • CommonSense23

          Got some that mysteriously showed up unaccounted for myself.

          • milesfortis

            I’m not sure but I believe you’re not working at the Red Roof Inn, right?

        • BillC

          And all you have is a neat collector’s item, not an optimal civilian defensive bullet. There’s nothing optimal about it for CONUS use, or else we’d all be using it (nothing about its construction is secret or inherently special).
          It existed because it filled a role within constraints of rules, laws, and agreements that the US abides by for the military.

      • BillC

        RRLP is still a compromise. A huge one. The “limited penetration” part means for people too. It tends to fragment very early (about 7″ in calibrated ballistics gel for 50% of the fragments) and then those fragments begin to settle at only 12″, when the FBI standard recommended penetration depth is 12-18″, as in the whole bullet, not just 50% or less of the bullet in fragments. Using an obscure and unobtainium cartridge really doesn’t prove anything for the masses. It does what it is stated to do, but it is certainly not a magic bullet. For home use, I’ll still take a .223 64gr Speer GDSP in an AR with a red dot and light.

        There is a NAVSEA Crane power point, “5.56mm Reduced Ricochet Limited Penetration (RRLP), MK 255 Mod 0” floating around.

        • CommonSense23

          I’ve seen MK255 used on lots of flesh. It’s absolutely terrifying what it does to live tissue. I’ve yet to see anyone take more than a single round of it. The FBI standards are designed to ensure certain requirements for testing in gel. Live tissue is still the best medium for realistic assessment of a rounds capabilities in flesh.

          • BillC

            I will agree that live tissue is best.

      • BillC

        Follow-up thought, If I had access ONLY M855 or Mk255, and I was ONLY shooting at people indoors, then yes, Mk255 would rock. But outside of the Hague Convetion, in CIVILIAN use, there’s a plethora of superior rounds to use on fleshy targets.

    • iksnilol

      40 mm grenades don’t overpenetrate, sonny.

  • Scott Baird
    • Realist

      Johnny Dangerously!!!

  • gunsandrockets

    Sounds like an argument in favor of frangible ammo!

  • Raptor Fred
  • 8166PC1
  • Badwolf

    Of course I’m concerned about over penetration. But if there is an invader inside my home I would probably worry about that first.

  • Palmier

    luckily, over penetration as a danger is a myth concocted by an arab wanna be lawyer in order to sell books.

  • Mystick

    Short of some new technological wizardry, or a paradigm shift in building construction towards anti-ballistic materials and structures, “safe” bullets are a pipe dream. There will always be a fixed continuum between over-penetration and terminal characteristics – which determine the bullet’s “stopping power”.

    It boils down to the user practicing safe shooting, just like anywhere else, even in the heat of the moment when the tendency is to “rock and roll”. Know what’s behind your target and don’t take the shot if you don’t know.

  • It’ll get most of the way there if you cut the shell, at least inside rock throwin’ range.

    …Out of the box shells, though– nah.

  • jonjon7465

    Isnt each wall in a normal house two sheets of drywall? One on each side.

    • Justin Bailey

      You are correct more often than not.

  • Veteran for Trump

    I almost forgot, this site hates links, so Google this:
    mythbusters bullet penetration walls
    and check out the first 3 hits.

  • .45

    It is amazing how much we can beat this deceased equine. Just about anything, even the fancy and expensive frangible stuff out of the super perfect for home defense AR, capable of stopping a person will go through walls. Sorry, them is da facts. Get used to it.

  • ActionPhysicalMan

    Flimsy 2×4 and drywall construction homes are an attempt to gain size over all other considerations. It is a foolish compromise IMO. If you have the chance, build instead with concrete, rock, steel, dirt, etc.

    • rennsport4.4TV8

      Why do you need concrete or steel walls inside a house?

      • ActionPhysicalMan

        In my case, for fire, water, and insect resistance. After owning two standard construction homes, my wife and I are building with insulted concrete forms. Exterior (faux rock) and interior surfaces will be ferro-cement. We can clean the place with a fire hose if we wish. It will also be significantly more difficult to break into that the standard home. The ground floor will be a work shop and garage and have no windows. It is in a forest fire prone area – the Lava Mountain fire (cool name huh?) came close last year.

        • .45

          Do you have to insult the concrete forms? That seems kind of mean.

          • ActionPhysicalMan

            Damn, again. Could I have some bread sticks with my humiliation?

      • iksnilol

        Because concrete houses resist artillery fire better.

        Geez, are you silly or something.

    • n0truscotsman

      Good ol fashioned brick. If you can find a place anymore.

      Or a cave.

      • ActionPhysicalMan

        Caves are cool:-)

  • iksnilol

    Bullets go through stuff? Who’da thunk that?

  • iksnilol

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F_KuFzjOGA Linking this video again. She get’s shot at basically muzzle distance. Shrugs it off and hurriedly walks away.

  • Mikial

    Really well put, Nathan. All the hubbub about which round to use to prevent over penetration is just a lot of noise. Any round will go through the typical sheet rock walls of American houses. Just be cognizant of what’s downrange and shoot accordingly.