They always seeme to be using rifles and light machine guns but shotguns are very versatile and can fire buckshot for the spread and can fire slugs that can be just as if not more poweful than a standard 5.56mm rifle round. Also the U.S. has explosive buckshot as well
Posted in used shotguns
Why Weapons Aren't Enough to Keep Your Family Safe? Read More...
Which is the most effective home defense weapon for a home invasion:
Click Here
to learn about the pro's and con's of each as well as the biggest mistake all the "heavy artillery" guys make when choosing "terminator ammo"!
(Hint: It has nothing to do with "stopping power" but it's nearly as important to your family that you get this right! Not doing so could cost you a lifetime of grieving that no law-abiding family should suffer...EVER!) Read More...
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Lots of reasons..I’lll try to keep it short
Buckshot max effective range: roughly 30 yards…even slugs only get about 100-150 yards
.223 max effective range: around 500 yards depending on barrel length
Buckshot won’t penetrate body-armor—.223 will zip right through…not a very common problem; but still a problem
Round capacity: take a shotgun shell and 4 rounds of .223 and put them together..you got it !…you can carry 4 times the ammo..not to mention that you can’t carry and reload 210 12 gauge shells with ANY practicality…Could you imagine lugging 10 (20) round drum mags on your body for the new AA-12 auto shotgun ?–LOL–The .223 ?..just push a button and shove 30 more up the gut
Recoil: 12 gauge–roughly 20 ft lbs….223–roughly 3-4 ft lbs….you can’t engage multiple targets in a war scenario with any speed with a shotgun
The shotguns best uses in a military scenario are to blow doors off their hinges with slugs and lob those new explosive projectiles…The explosive rounds can be used like a super accurate hand-grenade to cause chaos in an enemy house / hut whatever..blow a door off from a distance if the mission calls for it…or to disable vehicle engines..stuff like that
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
too much collateral damage. Also the effective range is kinda limited.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Because the enemies usually don’t get close enough for a shotgun to be effective.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
I wonder how many people can hold onto a fully automatic 12 gauge.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
they are way too loud and have too much recoil and a very short range
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Because, as a general rule, the U.S. military doesn’t want to be in combat situations where shotguns would actually be effective. That is, shotguns are primarily effective at close range. By using rifles and light machine guns, they can stay at greater distances, where random chance interferes less and training (marksmanship, discipline, tactics, etc.) matter more. This keeps down U.S. casualties while still allowing the to control the battlefield. Shotguns are much better for a police force that expects to be conducting operations inside of narrow buildings and is more concerned with neutralizing individual (or small group) threats than controlling a battlefield.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Range, I’d bet. Ability to shoot a lot of rounds without having to stop to reload probably plays a factor.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Maybe they are costly and can’t be as modified. i mean you can throw a grenade launcher and a scope on it and turn it into a grenadier auto sniper assault rifle.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
They have a good use in Iraq…. blowing the locks off of doors. Other than that, they’re pretty useless. No range, can’t use a magazine (constant reloading) and other reasons everyone else has already mentioned.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
shotty rounds take up a lot of room
they have a short range, even for slugs
compared to a standard issue m-4, theres a lot of time inbetween rounds because of the kick. i can get off 2-3 rounds a second easily with an m-4 and have each one land within 3 inches of the others at 25M. cant do that with a shotgun. also slugs are a big round with not that high of a velocity, body armor will stop them. a .223 on the other hand will pass right through class IV body armor (we were bored and experamented a few times at the range).
size of the shotgun is another thing. m4′s are pretty small, if you want any kind of accuracy with a shotgun you’re looking at atleast a 20 inch barrel.
no real point for buckshot, people tend to spread out a little during a firefight.
this is REAL life, not COD4.
the ONLY use i’ve ever had for a shotgun down range is breaching a door.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Shotguns are issued and used for certain situations like close combat, door breaching etc. However, they do not have the range or accuracy of a rifle, nor the rate of fire as a rifle or machine gun and generally hold much less ammo, like 7 rounds at most. In a firefight you want distance, accuracy, and as many rounds down range as possible.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
They are. You typically don’t see them in infantry photo shoots because they are used for breaching doorways, indoor security, and as a vehicle defense side arm where targets would typically be engaged in 20 feet or less.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
The range of a shotgun is limited and only has an effective range of about 20 feet. As a Marine, I prefer the M16 (I know that will start an argument). In Vietnam, a few Marines were lucky enough to be issued a street sweeper, which is like a tommy gun (with a cylindrical magazine) that held 50 shotgun shells. Very often they would empty the buckshot and replace it with dimes (just like a roll of dimes). When they were forced to use their shotgun, it increased the effectiveness of the weapon, but each shell cost the Marine about $4.00. We always preferred to defend ourselves so well that the enemy couldn’t get close enough for us to use a shotgun. When out of ammo, the rifle is the best alternate weapon for close order fighting, especially when outfitted with a bayonet.
Flack jackets, body armor, and the armor on vehicles further reduce the effectiveness of a shotgun. I really prefer a sniper rifle with a scope that can pick off the enemy at 1500 meters – get him before he sees me.
In war, any functioning firearm is a welcome sight, so while I wouldn’t turn it down, there are many other better automatic weapons out there to use that will be more effective from greater distances.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Shotguns are used in combat to break down doors and things like that.
But you can’t kill a guy (or several guys) a couple hundred yards away with any precision, like you can with an accurate assault rifle.
One shot. One kill.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Although shotguns are, in fact, used by the military where close-range, high-impact is needed, there are usually better options.
In most situations, the military prefers to shoot from a distance with high accuracy. This provides safety for the service member, as well as reducing potential collateral damage. In an urban environment, such as when breaching a building, a shotgun may be more effective, but this is the exception rather than the rule – especially when non-combatants may be mixed in with enemy combatants.
The standard-issue Beretta 9mm semi-automatic fires faster, has a longer range, is more accurate, and carries more rounds (up to 15 as opposed to 7). Much more so for the M-16! Add in modifications, such as the M203 grenade launcher add-on or the compact CAR-15, the rifle has become much more versatile.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
they have a very limited range
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Range, accuracy, etc.
The U.S. military mostly uses very long range weapons and in the cases where they put the troops on the ground it’s mostly ranged sniper stuff picking off villagers/etc.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
umm a couple ppl in my platoon had shotguns and i’ve seen marines downrange with them aswell…. are you just assuming they aren’t "widely" used?
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
all americans are stupid and shot themselves also all the shotguns are taken by hillbillies