Well, rifled slugs tend to be very, very effective in terms of terminal ballistics. You're dealing with a very large projectile that's moving at a respectable velocity. That's 2200 fpe+ from your average 12 gauge slug, which is very close to the same amount of energy developed by the 7.62x51mm NATO round. Only it's from a projectile that's more than twice the diameter and it tends to expand even more on contact (meaning that the slug can transfer a lot more of that energy into the target and disrupt a lot more tissue due to the greater surface area, compared to the 7.62x51mm).

Here's a wound profile from a 12 gauge rifled slug. That's a slug that's .692 caliber, expanding to 1.1 inches and penetrating to 14 inches. In other words, that's a 1.1" hole all the way through the average human thorax/abdomen. Very messy. The odds of a person surviving a solid hit aren't very good at all if they don't get immediate, professional medical attention.

The down side is that a projectile that's big and flat like that doesn't have very good aerodynamic properties, nor are they very good when it comes to body armor. Rifled slugs tend to drop like meteors. Even when sighted in at 50 meters, the average rifled slug will drop about 5 inches at 100 meters. That's pretty bad compared to a rifle. As far as accuracy goes, they're accurate enough within 50 meters or so. 4" is on the outside at that range these days, with 2.5-3" being more common. Beyond that, though, you're unlikely to hit close enough to where you want. You're looking at about a 12" group at 150 meters. With rifled slug barrels and sabot slugs, you're looking at about 4" at 100 meters on average. Better accuracy. The latest craze in the slug ammo biz is to put large caliber, heavy handgun bullets into sabotted shotgun loads (Winchester's Supreme Partition Gold, 385 grain JHP), which means even higher velocity (@1900 fps), more energy (@3000+ fpe), and effective range out to 150-200 meters. Much better accuracy. Still, compared to a good rifle, accuracy from any slug gun is not going to be great. Good enough in close, complete shite beyond a couple hundred meters.

The real downside is recoil. I've shot some 12 gauge 3" slugs from a Remington 870 and walked away beaten up enough to not want to do it again for a while (close to 40 fpe of recoil; about twice an average .30-06). I guess the plus side to that is if you hurt, what ever you hit is pretty much fucked.

Yep. That effect is well captured in the SR damage/armor system. The rules do not actually say, "If a bullet does serious damage to you, you have a hole in your body of X centimeters diameter."

Rather, wound levels are broad descriptions - a serious wound from a bullet against an unarmored opponent might be a hole in the thigh, while a serious wound against an armored opponent might be a bad hemotoma and splintered thigh bone.

IMG, I tend to figure light and moderate wounds against armored locations are non-penetrating injuries. Sure, vests prevent (pistol) bullet penetration easily, but those bullets HURT, and cracked ribs and bad bruising are not unknown even when RL armor vests stop bullets. For a beefy, low penetration attack like a shotgun slug, even serious wounds might be non-penetrating. The street doc might have to pick rib fragments out of a lung, but the slug stayed on the vest.

And it stays that way, even if you change the armor system so that there is indication of whether the projectile penetrated or not.

I didn't say I didn't believe in rifled slugs, I just hadn't seen any : P (hence, answering Lilt's question, are most slugs rifled.)

I fail to understand why anyone would want to rifle a shotgun (or why it's not technically a 'rifle' at that point). A shotgun is made to fire at close targets, rifling defeats the purpose. Am I missing something? Is it just for people who'd like to be able to be a good shotgunner and a poor rifleman, but don't like buying two types of ammunition?

Well, I admit an interest in both the ideal of a ~.75 caliber bullet and the word "shotgun," which is kewl.

A conventional rifle firing a 70ish caliber slug would probably amputate my shoulder with the recoil, while the lower velocity shotgun slugs would merely knock me on my bantamweight ass. And "rifle" doesn't sound as kewl as "shotgun."

But people who actually hunt and use rifles and shotguns and stuff might have more logical reasons than I.

I think that typically shotguns are cheaper than rifles. I may be wrong but that would make sense to me.

Ha! No offense but I shoot those one handed. I've been using the 3.5" 12 ga mags for various things since they were developed. If you think the 3" kicks I don't reccomend shooting the 3.5" for any reason.

We don't use slugs around here very often. But I think one of the main reasons behind the use of slugs is

1. Tactical plastiscity: err...some flexibility in tactical situations where the cop only has a shotgun and can't risk showering an area with buckshot.

2. Safety: A shotgun slug simply does not travel as far as a high powered rifle round. Rifle rounds can travel up to 3 miles. So in highly populated areas where hunting occurs, like back East, slugs are much more desirable, and most shots in hunting situations are from less than 100 yards anyway.

Emphasis mine. I find it a bit funny that this is addressed at Raygun.

That's true, to a certain extent. The difference in the amount of energy your body has to absorb is negligible (around 5 fpe), but an automatic action tends to spread that energy over a longer period of time, which tends to make a person feel like they're dealing with less recoil when it really is essentially the same. (The difference between recoil and felt recoil.) But when you're dealing with magnum slug loads, it really doesn't matter much. They hurt, no matter what kind of action you put them through. We used a Super X2 as well. In terms of recoil, I would rather use those loads through an automatic. In terms of feeding reliability with heavy loads like that, I'd rather use the pump.

Most body armor will soak buckshot relatively easily, without backface deformation beyond normal. More often than not, it's more like dealing with a bunch of .33" lead balls that deform easily and don't weigh a lot individually than it is dealing with a single large mass like a slug. NIJ IIA is classed to stop 12 gauge 00 buckshot within the backface deformation limit of 1.44 inches.

Slugs fall outside of most testing procedures, so they aren't usually covered in protection standards. I don't recall seeing any information on what kind of backface deformation slug loads tend to produce, but it does stand to reason that they would deliver a nasty bit of blunt trauma through most soft body armor.

Technically, it is a rifle. In common vernacular it's a slug gun. The reason they are termed differently is because you use shotgun ammunition in slug guns (gauges), rather than a conventional brass-cased rifle cartridge.

Why do people still hunt with blackpowder firearms? Because they like to. In fact, in terms of ballistics, the idea is basically the same. Big heavy bullet, relatively close range. When considering some of the more durable animals in the world (feral pigs, etc...), a big, heavy slug offers a distict advantage over conventional rifle bullets where terminal ballistics are concerned. Rifling the barrel allows you to get that big, heavy slug out further away, more accurately.

Well, CanvasBack is right in that shotguns are generally less expensive than rifles. With many kinds of shotguns, barrels are also interchangeable. You can buy one shotgun and get a rifled slug barrel with it and change it out whenever you want to. In fact, Remington makes a package expressly for that. The idea is that you have a shot barrel for bird hunting, and a slug barrel for big game hunting. One gun does it all. Slug guns aren't the best tools for most hunting situations, but they are tailor-made for a few. Particularly for hunting in brush, i.e. most rural areas in the north eastern United States.

Okay... May I ask why you would do such a thing? I guess without a stock getting jammed into your shoulder it might not actually hurt as much that way, but it can't do much good for accuracy. Never felt the need to try it, honestly. *shrug*

Neither do I, unless you have some masochistic need. Honestly, can you say that there's anything you need a 3.5" magnum for (especially a slug)? Something that a 3" wouldn't accomplish? I can't seem to find any use for them.

I just do it from time to time just for the hell of it. There really is no valid reason to shoot anything one handed except maybe a pistol. Just giving you a hard time omae.

As for 3.5", well I can let the public speak for itself. In terms of hunters, it's popularity has skyrocketed since it was developed. It has some good applications and there are a number of reasons why it's successful. As far as I know there is no or very few 3.5" slugs offered. The only benefit would be higher velocity which translates into higher KE.

1. It competes very well with the commercial 10 gauges out there. A 3.5 12 ga typically costs less than a 10 gauge.

2. Flexibility: There are a number of pump guns that can shoot any 12 gauge shot round, without any modificaitions. 2.75, 3, or 3.5". There are even semi-autos that can do the same. This is great for combo hunts involving species of varying body size or that calls for different power levels. Tactical applications for this would be using lock buster ammo as your first shot, the having 3" mag buckshot thereafter. *THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO SLUG ROUNDS* You can not fire slug rounds from anything other than a standard 2.75" shotgun, unless you have another barrel.

3. Hunting applications (specialized): late season geese that are call and decoy shy often linger just beyond the range of a 3" mag. 3.5" extends the range at which you can take them down in a humane/clean fashion. The extra shot and charge also makes sure they go down when you hit them. Nobody likes to see a bird with wings broken flopping around on the ground...

Same thing goes with turkeys...

I'm not advacating it as a replacement for skill or shot placement. But sometimes you need that little extra when the animal is hung up on the edge of your range. To ensure a more humane kill, I think it's a great application to certain situations.

Self Defense, there are not alot of companies offering 3.5" self defense ammo but for those of you who want that crack head to hit the tarmac and not get up, use some 00 buck 3.5" goose loads.

Also a note on recoil:
When your in a situation where your actually shooting at something other than a paper target, tin can, whatever, you usually have a high amount of adrenaline going and recoil at that point is essentially not a factor. At least not for me. I don't even notice or remember feeling recoil. So at least from a psycological perspective it's a non issue. If you watch tape of someone shooting in a stress situation then watch them shoot the same load in a casual situation, the reactions of the shooter are very different, but the techniques are exactly the same if they train/practice properly.

Yup, there doesn't seem to be any data floating around about what shotgun slugs actually penetrate and what the backface deformation is with the least body armor to stop it.

The NIJ standard as explained in NIJ Guide 100-98 only mentions that level III protects against 12 gauge rifled slug threats, which means that level III rigid armor has under the 1.44" deformation against those. It's possible that they might be stopped by some (or most) level IIIA soft armor, but the deformation would probably be quite a bit over what's allowed...

I understand that they're popular. Ammunition manufacturers obviously sell a lot of it. Maybe it's just where I hunt, maybe it's the kind of bird hunting I do (mostly upland, not much waterfowl, haven't been turkey hunting in years), but I've gone every year for the last three years of my life and have done perfectly fine with 2 3/4" loads. I understand the idea behind putting more lead (or whatever material) in the air, I just don't think it does much good. If you take it down with a 3.5" mag load, you're probably just as likely to hit it with a 2 3/4" about 98% of the time. *shrug*

The few waterfowl that I have taken (canadian geese, pintail, wood duck) have gone down cleanly from #6 to #BB steel shot, all from 2 3/4" loads.

Federal makes a 1 3/4 ounce rifled slug load in 3.5" magnum. The idea is the same as with any other 3.5" magnum load. Weight of the projectile is increased, rather than velocity. In this case, it's 765 grain slug @ 1200 fps = 2445 fpe, which is only marginally more energy (84 fpe) than Remington's 2 3/4" Slugger, 437 grains @ 1560 fps = 2361 fpe. More velocity mean a flatter trajectory, which in turn means you're more likely to hit what you're aiming at over a longer range. Of course, more slug generally means more tissue disruption, but when you're comparing these two loads, it hardly seems worth it. With the Remington load, from an 8-pound gun, you're going to deal with @ 26 fpe of recoil, whereas with the 3.5" in the same gun, you're going to have to suck down @ 42 fpe. I don't care who you are, if you miss the first shot, that extra 16 pounds is going to make a lot of difference in the speed at which you follow-up. As such, I can't think of a single circumstance in which it would be worth it to use the 3.5" magnum slug.

On the other hand, I'm sure one could handload a one-ounce slug in a 3.5" case and get quite a bit more velocity and energy.

That's true. Oddly enough, I have yet to run across a person who uses a 10 gauge shotgun and just about everyone up here hunts.

I guess my point is that that flexibility comes at a price. In my experience, you can do pretty much anything you need to (as far as hunting is concerned) with today's 2 3/4" loads. It is nice to have options, though.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Most shotguns these days have removable chokes, so if it's constriction you're talking about, simply installing a cylinder bore choke (or removing the choke entirely) takes care of that problem. I've fired both 2 3/4" and 3" rifled slug loads through an 18" Remington 870 (which has a 3" chamber). I didn't have any problems, other than my shoulder being unusually sore after a few of the 3" loads.

3.5" mag loads do nothing to extend range compared to other shot loads. In fact, most 3.5" magnum loads have a lower muzzle velocity than many 3" mag loads, and are often on par with 2 3/4" loads. All a 3.5" mag does is put more lead/steel in the air (usually about 1/4 of an ounce; in steel, that's about 73 #6 pellets, 47 #4, 31 #2, 17 #BB, etc...), which will open up your pattern marginally. Keep in mind that those extra pellets are stuck behind a longer shot column. The advantage you're getting is slightly bigger patterns at long range.

If it's more range you want for waterfowl hunting, you can compromise by going to larger shot (from #6 to #4, etc..., causing your pattern density to suffer), or you can go with Hevi-Shot or Tungsten-Iron load rather than steel and get much better performance without the extra recoil of a 3.5" magnum.

Bigger patterns make up for aiming errors. That's what they're there for. All else being equal, you're getting a bigger pattern, and if you're using large shot for large waterfowl, a very marginally bigger pattern at the expense of density. That's all. Velocity is basically the same, thus range is basically the same.

That is definitely true. That addresses felt recoil. The fact of the matter is that more recoil really does affect the speed and accuracy at which follow-up shots can be performed. That's why competition shooters go to extremes to minimize recoil with all types of firearms. When you're talking about a difference of nearly double the recoil with the bigger load, it makes a big difference in how fast you can follow up.

Another thing adrenaline does is mess with the ability to perceive time, which all kinds of fucks with a person's ability to shoot properly. True, training can fix that. But if you've got the training, I think the extra lead/steel is probably going to hurt (literally, whether you feel it at the time or not) more than it's going to help about 98% of the time. In my experience, most people depend on more lead/steel to make up for a lack of training. That may not be the case with you, but it's the case with most of the people I've seen with the big boom sticks, be it a shotgun or a rifle.

Far superior at what, though? Printing patterns on paper? Filling your bird with shot? Or actually putting a bird on your dinner table? I'm sure a given 3.5" mag will make nicer patterns than a given 2 3/4" load. But is it worth the extra cost and recoil? In my experience, it's not. That's all I'm saying.

I didn't mean to suggest that you are stupid. Not at all. In fact, you seem like a reasonable, rational person who is very knowledgeable about this stuff. Honestly, I don't have a lot of experience with waterfowl or turkey, which seem to be two types of game you are particular to. If 3.5" loads don't bother you and they put birds on your table, more power to you. All I'm saying is that the experience I have had gives me no reason to believe that 3.5" magnums offer any significant advantage over lighter loads. YMMV and all that. I usually hunt pheasant, grouse, partridge (hun)... upland birds that aren't particularly easy to get close to. I've likely missed more than I've hit. But in all cases, I think it was more my fault than the ammunition's. That includes the use of 3" and 3.5" loads.

Yeah, it does sound a bit like a litigation CYA. There aren't many companies that make 2 3/4" 12-gauge chambered barrels any more. If they're not 3.5", they're usually 3". (I have a Winchester 97 that is 2 3/4", but it's about 50 years old.) But there are plenty of 2 3/4" slug loads out there. *shrug*

That would not be good.