The combat shotgun

[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.

[Bob's World]

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.

Insurgency may be warfare, but COIN is not. COIN is dealing with a civil emergency. Right now we are ordering our soldiers to apply courageous restraint, and to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. We have given them the orders, and have given them some suggestions cooked up at higher level hq as to how to implement those orders, but we have not given them new tools designed for what they were told to do.

Now, we too can debate the orders, but that will not change the orders or the fact that the soldiers need better tools to execute them.

All of those who insist on calling FID "COIN"; and those who insist on approaching COIN as warfare are, IMO, sadly off the mark. We are not a bunch of Colonial masters out to simply beat down the locals and keep our puppet governance in power, and keep the profits flowing; yet we continue to dig up the tactics of that era and discuss them as valid for the mission we face today. They aren't. And that is before you factor in the effects of the current advances in information technologies that render a whole other segment of oldschool COIN obsolete. Pop-Centric tactics are better, but they are tactics all the same and still require a strategy to shape their employment. Surging additional troops is good logistices, but also requires a strategy to drive the employment of those resources.

So, question is, if this operation was being conducted in Frankfurt (or London, or Kansas City?) instead of Kandahar would you want your soldiers to have effective non-lethal weapons? Is this somehow different because we are in someone elses country?

[Chris jM]

Insurgency may be warfare, but COIN is not. COIN is dealing with a civil emergency...yet we continue to dig up the tactics of that era and discuss them as valid for the mission we face today. They aren't.

Sir - So contemporary COIN is, for the military elements involved, a foreign civil enforcement mission?

That would then indicate that the force elements deployed are better off assuming civil LE TTPs and equipment/ capabilities.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, or argue for or against what you've said. Rather, this is a genuine question as it relates to how we train and deploy (esp with regards to less lethal means) as you see it.

[Rifleman]

So, question is, if this operation was being conducted in Frankfurt (or London, or Kansas City?) instead of Kandahar would you want your soldiers to have effective non-lethal weapons?

Bob,

If less lethal is needed, okay, but I believe it needs to be a dedicated less lethal gun. I side with those who are against using both less lethal and lethal ammo in the same gun at different times. And the accepeted term in cop circles is less lethal not non-lethal. A bean bag round to the head can kill.

[Ken White]

Insurgency may be warfare, but COIN is not. COIN is dealing with a civil emergency... but we have not given them new tools designed for what they were told to do.

Maybe we're using the wrong tools for the job.

I totally agree that 'COIN' is a civil emergency and not 'warfare -- thus war fighters are an inappropriate tool selection.

Now, we too can debate the orders, but that will not change the orders or the fact that the soldiers need better tools to execute them.

Why will that not change? Is that a lock? Should it be?

All of those who insist on calling FID "COIN"; and those who insist on approaching COIN as warfare are, IMO, sadly off the mark...

We can agree on that.

So, question is, if this operation was being conducted in Frankfurt (or London, or Kansas City?) instead of Kandahar would you want your soldiers to have effective non-lethal weapons? Is this somehow different because we are in someone elses country?

Uh, yes it is different. If the operation was being conducted in Frankfurt, London or K.C. we probably would avoid using the Army...

Back to the thread:

Uboat509 and Rifleman are both correct -- so are you -- there's a need for less than lethal; Most soldiers should NOT be issued such weapons; they should be clearly and colorfully identified as less than lethal and they should be dedicated to that purpose and used by specially trained guys or gals, probably MPs and never issued to combat infantry units. Ees not their yob...

Doing THAT would be an invitation to the problems you seek to avoid...

[Uboat509]

So, question is, if this operation was being conducted in Frankfurt (or London, or Kansas City?) instead of Kandahar would you want your soldiers to have effective non-lethal weapons? Is this somehow different because we are in someone elses country?

Not a bit. You can couch it in whatever language you like but the fact is there are a lot of people over there actively seeking to do our servicemembers harm. They are organized and they are not terribly constrained in how they do it. That sounds like war to me. In that situation I want our servicemembers in the best position to protect themselves, regardless of what race, creed, color, etc. the enemy is. And trying to label me a racist because I do not subscribe to your view of how we should best prosecute this war is, at best, insulting.