The combat shotgun

[Kiwigrunt]

This video shows the new UK combat shotgun. I believe NZ has adopted a shorter barreled version of the same weapon. The US have had this weapon as a standard now for some years but they still don't seem to be used much at squad level.

What are your thoughts on replacing a rifleman's individual weapon with a hard-kicking short range shotgun? Personally I can't see much of an increase in capability beyond breaching doors and perhaps stopping vehicles with solid slug. I think if I was point man of a patrol I'd prefer an assault rifle any day.

Does a shotty really increase the chance of a hit because of the spread? The spread is not all that great so you still have to aim just the same. And there are already two short-barrelled Minimi's per section. A short burst at short range.....? Or a short burst with an IW (dare I suggest it)?

It's hard to argue the stopping power but that is probably more a discussion about 5.56. I'd hope that the introduction of a whole new weapon is not a round-about way of overcoming that.

[morealtitude]

I'd agree that a shottie doesn't appear to provide much advantage in infantry combat, with very specific exceptions. 'Spread' as you say is limited, and with spread, the stopping-power of a .12-guage discharge is going to be pretty limited beyond very close range, even if you manage to wing somebody. Given reduced stopping-power (except at ranges below ~30 feet) and vastly reduced range versus AR (esp 7.62mm variants) I wouldn't want a combat shotgun as my primary. The only real use I can see for it would be, as you say, for breaching, and possibly room clearance in CQC context, and I would see its value only as a secondary personal weapon. This is certainly not a solution to the 5.56mm debate.

[JMA]

This video What are your thoughts on replacing a rifleman's individual weapon with a hard-kicking short range shotgun? Personally I can't see much of an increase in capability beyond breaching doors and perhaps stopping vehicles with solid slug. I think if I was point man of a patrol I'd prefer an assault rifle any day.

As a young officer I carried a shotgun until I had a contact while on the move at last light. Fired the 7 rounds in about 3 secs then caught my finger while trying to reload. Luckily a cheap lesson learned.

Thereafter only allowed a shotgun as a second weapon and only for ambush ops where he would fire the seven shots then pick up his FN and take it further from there. (and a Claymore mine was better than 10 shotguns)

What ammo? Can't see any point in a solid slug. Otherwise LG, 00, SG?

In that video they talk about coming across enemy at close range in the corn fields. Are the TB such idiots that they will hide out in corn fields? Best way to clear cornfields is from the air looking down.

Seen that type of shotgun in photos of US Marines. What's their experience?

[SethB]

Shotgun slugs buzz through cars and other barriers very, very well. Other than that... They can be used to 100M or more with some degree of accuracy.

Buckshot at a short range will be so closely spaced that you'll need to sue the sights. Beyond optimum range it spreads out and you need to use slugs.

Properly shooting a shotgun requires a great deal of training. You have to be on top of ammunition management, able to switch munitions at will and you have to know how to use them in order to get full effect, such as being able to use richochets to get into dead space.

I don't claim to know how to use one. I had such a shotgun for a while and grew tired of the deficiencies when compared to an M4 copy.

[William F. Owen]

What are your thoughts on replacing a rifleman's individual weapon with a hard-kicking short range shotgun? Personally I can't see much of an increase in capability beyond breaching doors and perhaps stopping vehicles with solid slug. I think if I was point man of a patrol I'd prefer an assault rifle any day.

Concur. I played a lot with the UK issue Remington 870 "Wing master." Complete waste of time for anything other than breaching.

To agree with JMA, I would not want to blunder into a Talib in a corn field with just a shotgun. Anything you can do with it, you can do better with an L85 - IMO, but I'll defer to anyone with actual relevant experience.

[Chris jM]

This video shows the new UK combat shotgun. I believe NZ has adopted a shorter barreled version of the same weapon. The US have had this weapon as a standard now for some years but they still don't seem to be used much at squad level.

The NZDF has the Benelli M3A1 and, to my untrained eye, it looks like the Brits have the M3 of some description, too. We have two barrels in service as well, and the user can swap them as required.

They are intended to be used as a secondary wpn in all mid to high intensity tasks.

[Chris jM]

What ammo? Can't see any point in a solid slug. Otherwise LG, 00, SG?

In terms of lethal ammunition, your right in that their appears to be some obvious drawbacks to the buckshot/ slug type rounds.

There are, however, some pretty impressive rounds out there for the close-in infantry fight. A British firm produces the FRAG-12 which is a family of HE rounds. One is designed for stand-off breaching, one for anti-pers and one for armour penetration (I'd read this as more penetrating a barricade or engine block rather than the traditional blowing through an APC's side, though). I know the USMC trialled these a few years back; beyond that I don't know who is using them or where. The company claims all the FRAG-12 have a max range of 200m.

Link: http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/FRAG%2012.pdf

I mentioned the Less Lethal application of shotgun in this thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=10380), which died rather quickly. Of interest, though, is the XERP 12 ga round that can be fired from any std shotgun.

The Taser XREP 12ga shell: http://www.taser.com/pages/VideoDetails.aspx?videoid=97

[Polarbear1605]

I was a US Marine Security Force Combat Pistol and Shotgun instructor for a short while, many, many years ago. As officer I also made it a point to carry a shotgun when I was in combat. IMO the shotgun is an outstanding weapon, and at least one should be welcomed in each rifle squad. The variety of ammo is a major advantage. If you are going to carry one in combat you definitely need the slug rounds because sooner or later you will need to reach out and touch someone passed that 20 to 40 meters range. The good thing about the slug is it will drop anything it hits; even if it does not penetrate body armor and it is amazingly accurate. With a little practice the operator can quickly switch between 00 buck and slugs. The true tribute to the shotgun is the WWI trench shotgun. It had two primary purposes; first in the defense to prevent the trench from being overrun. The trench shotgun did not have a trigger disconnector allowing the weapon to be fired each time it was pumped. Six rounds of 00 buck (6x9 pellets) meant the weapons could quickly launch 54 32 cal rounds. I was surprised to see this scenario in the recent HBO series “Pacific” showing John Basilone’s heroics. Of course, trench clearing was the second purpose. Again very effective, in fact, it was so effective the Germans of WW1 tried to have it outlawed.

[Firn]

I was a US Marine Security Force Combat Pistol and Shotgun instructor for a short while, many, many years ago. As officer I also made it a point to carry a shotgun when I was in combat. IMO the shotgun is an outstanding weapon, and at least one should be welcomed in each rifle squad. The variety of ammo is a major advantage. If you are going to carry one in combat you definitely need the slug rounds because sooner or later you will need to reach out and touch someone passed that 20 to 40 meters range. The good thing about the slug is it will drop anything it hits; even if it does not penetrate body armor and it is amazingly accurate.

I have never wielded a combat shotgun, only the hunting variety. Anyway the Paradox gun , basically a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel which was only rifled close to the end of the barrel was considered by many experienced big game hunters of the British Empire to be with a soft, heavy lead slug a fantastic choice for pretty much any dangerous game bar the most thick-skinned of game (rhinos, elephants). A huge advantage of the slow but heavy slug was that it kept trucking even when it hit twigs and grass - not bad when shooting at a Tiger charging through the high grass. ( I personally never have used a slug on game, as it is strangly outlawed in my region to do so)

Weighing in the case of a 12-bore but 7 Ibs. or 7 1/2 Ibs., the Paradox shoots a heavy conical ball with extreme accuracy up to 100 yards or more, while when used with shot, it is as effective as a good shot gun. Its lightness, handiness ands power render it a most valuable weapon for tiger or bear shooting, as also for use upon deer in forested areas, and for running shots up to 100 yards or so, it is to be preferred to any rifle. (the .303 Lee was already in heavy military and hunting use)

That pretty much sums the power of a slug up.

With a little practice the operator can quickly switch between 00 buck and slugs. The true tribute to the shotgun is the WWI trench shotgun. It had two primary purposes; first in the defense to prevent the trench from being overrun. The trench shotgun did not have a trigger disconnector allowing the weapon to be fired each time it was pumped. Six rounds of 00 buck (6x9 pellets) meant the weapons could quickly launch 54 32 cal rounds. I was surprised to see this scenario in the recent HBO series “Pacific” showing John Basilone’s heroics. Of course, trench clearing was the second purpose. Again very effective, in fact, it was so effective the Germans of WW1 tried to have it outlawed.

The experienced hunter and possibly the main driving force behind the British sniping effort in WWI, MAJOR H. HESKETH-PRICHARD wrote the following in this regard:

I was always very much afraid all through the war that, having started poison gas, the Germans might start using shot guns loaded with buckshot for work between the trenches. Had they done so, patrolling would have become a horrible business ; but I suppose that they were restrained by the fact either that such weapons are not allowed by the Geneva Convention, or that the British Isles have such a supply of shot guns and cartridges that the advantage would not remain long upon their side. As it was, things were much more satisfactory, for there was plenty of excitement out in No Man's Land, what with machine-gun bullets and rifle fire, without the added horror of a charge of small shot in the face.

This was of course before the common soldier had access to assault rifles and machine pistols. In short I have no doubt in its power, I just wonder if it is worth the weight, especially that of the heavy ammunition. I guess it depends very much on the specific situations.


Firn

[qp4]

I'm not sure that anyone could seriously say that carrying a shotgun is a replacement for a rifle or carbine. The only time I've seen people toting shotguns as a primary weapon is because it just looks cooler, same as the one knee pad thing, and it's been on FOBs. My experience with the shotgun is purely as a breaching tool, and it stays backslung except to pop doors.

[Infanteer]

My guys loved carrying it for the LCF - we'd usually always have one strapped to a bag on patrol. More a tool than a weapon in our line of work, but the intimidation factor works well; I had guys bring them out to get some restless locals to calm down once....

[Rifleman]

FWIW, many cops are replacing shotguns with AR-15s whenever possible. More ammo before a reload, more ergonomic, better range, and much better for precision shooting, which is going to count for a lot in a situation like an active school shooter.

My 870 has been converted to a dedicated less lethal. It's loaded with drag stabilized bean bag rounds.

When the general consensus is that shotguns don't have as much police application as they used to I can't imagine how they could have much military application. As mentioned, the exception is breaching.

[Bob's World]

There is actually a dire need for non-lethal weapons in Afghanistan, and a 12-guage offers a good option for that.

Give a sentry 1-2 beanbag rounds followed by double ought, while a teammate covers with the M240. Way too many "warning shots" being used to blow Afghans off their motorcycles as they approach checkpoints, and way too many soldiers and lower level commanders taking heat for the same; with no real option for the soldier being offered other than "courageous restraint." Give the kid a real option, and he'll likely take it.

[SethB]

Mixing lethal and less lethal is usually considered to be risky. It goes back to ammunition management.

That is why you see 870s with orange stocks. They aren't ever loaded with lethal rounds, and when one cop hands the shotgun off to the next they unload, inspect and reload the weapon to ensure that no lethal rounds got mixed in.

[Bob's World]

Mixing lethal and less lethal is usually considered to be risky. It goes back to ammunition management.

That is why you see 870s with orange stocks. They aren't ever loaded with lethal rounds, and when one cop hands the shotgun off to the next they unload, inspect and reload the weapon to ensure that no lethal rounds got mixed in.

We all know the horror stories of going between Blank and Ball, and guys getting killed when a mag of ball goes in during a MILES engagement following a livefire.

Clearly it would have to be closely managed and supervised; with severe penalties for the jackass prankster who decides to shoot his buddy with a beanbag.

[Chris jM]

Mixing lethal and less lethal is usually considered to be risky. It goes back to ammunition management.

That is why you see 870s with orange stocks. They aren't ever loaded with lethal rounds, and when one cop hands the shotgun off to the next they unload, inspect and reload the weapon to ensure that no lethal rounds got mixed in.

This is something I'm working on (professionally) right now, and if anyone out there has any further info or 'I've done it this way and it worked well/OK/not at all' I'd really appreciate info here or via PM.

Also, any points on how you can/ have dealt with the different aiming points/ zeroing requirements for each ammo type would be excellent.

Back to the above comment, mixing rounds is very risky, agreed. There are ways around it - say, a separate person (commander, 2I/C?)carries the lethal rounds and only supplies them when required.

I think it's worth developing TTPs for mixed round loads, especially when you add breaching into the mix. Having someone be able to shoot a lock off and then be able to fire a bean-bag (or the 12ga Taser!!) if required is a good capability.

If anyone is interested, the British Army is fielding the Benelli M4. It's like the M3 but from what I have read is only semi-auto, making it unable to fire all less lethal types and most breaching types, which require the pump-action mode to cycle between rounds.

[Uboat509]

There is actually a dire need for non-lethal weapons in Afghanistan, and a 12-guage offers a good option for that.

Give a sentry 1-2 beanbag rounds followed by double ought, while a teammate covers with the M240. Way too many "warning shots" being used to blow Afghans off their motorcycles as they approach checkpoints, and way too many soldiers and lower level commanders taking heat for the same; with no real option for the soldier being offered other than "courageous restraint." Give the kid a real option, and he'll likely take it.

I disagree completely. Giving a soldier a less than lethal weapon as his primary and then double ought buck in a combat zone is a bad idea. Having a less than lethal option available is not necessarily a bad a idea but making it the primary puts that soldier in a very bad position. When you need the lethal option and all you have is been bags and double ought at a check point, your chain of command has failed you. Certainly we need to do out best, within reason, to make sure that we are killing the right people, but we are getting way too wrapped up in the little details and trying too hard to make this whole thing safe. Out military is NOT a police force and never will be, nor should we expect it to be. I seriously doubt that the difference between an acceptable outcome and a not so successful outcome is going to come down to a few guys on motorcyles getting killed because they fail to respond properly to a checkpoint.

[Kiwigrunt]

It looks to me like there needs to be a clear differentiation between lethal and less lethal.
I can see the sense in having ‘beenbag-shotties’ available as secondary weapons, in checkpoint type scenarios. That is very different from having a ‘combat shotgun’. Technically those concepts can of course be combined by mixing the different types of ammo. But from a doctrine and tactical perspective I can’t see it working. Do you give each section a combat shotgun just so they have a less than lethal capability when needed, and justify that as a reason to have a combat shotgun? (With all the inherent risks mentioned in above posts.) I should think that an arms room available less than lethal weapon (shotgun or otherwise) makes more sense. And I think the above mentioned idea of painting it orange is not silly either. And then the kid that Bob’s World mentions knows exactly what he/she is holding.

If it is decided that a combat shotgun is needed for door breaching etc, than I wonder if a different weapon should be issued for that purpose. And that could IMO be a very simple and short pump action like shown below. That could potentially be holstered.
If however HE shells like the Frag 12 that Chris alluded to become successful and desirable than this shortie would probably not suffice. But then I would see the shotgun more as a grenade launcher that can be used as a rifle/shotgun/doorbreacher. But would there be a need/justification for it with 40 mm already available? Would Frag 12 be just another reason/justification for having a shotgun?

[Chris jM]

ITechnically those concepts can of course be combined by mixing the different types of ammo. But from a doctrine and tactical perspective I can’t see it working. Do you give each section a combat shotgun just so they have a less than lethal capability when needed, and justify that as a reason to have a combat shotgun? (With all the inherent risks mentioned in above posts.)

It's not perfect, obviously, but I think it is a very worthwhile compromise.

The one weapon can provide lethal, less lethal and breaching effects when desired. You only need one weapon system, with all the benefits that come from rationalising supply and especially training requirements.

Risks are always present and they obviously need to be managed. The flexibility and utility the 12ga offers as a weapon system appears to be a great option. If it's only required as a less lethal option, then only deploy it with bean-bag rounds and your done. The ability to re-role it to assist in other mission types, though, give it a huge utility factor that the single-role equivalent wpns lack.

[slapout9]

In the 82nd we had Winchester M-1200's with a bayonet lug on it that we kept for Civil Disturbance/Riot Control training and it would certainly be good at that. In Police World I had the basic Remington 870 with slugs per department SOP. More accurate and they were considered pretty good man stoppers.

Having been shot at with a shotgun that had 00 buck in it. I can tell the Psychological/Intimidation factor is greater than the actual effect. The shot pattern does not spread out like you think it will, as has already been pointed out, which is why I am still here writing this. Had it been a slug things might have turned out different. The noise of the weapon also has an intimidating effect.

It would be a good CQC weapon for clearing rooms maybe, but in actual Combat I don't know if it would be worth the weight. It is good for Police work as has been mentioned but serious combat is a different matter IMO.