SmythBusters: Buckshot vs. Birdshot Part 2
Synopsis
In this episode of SmythBusters, Steve and Caleb from Brownells return to the range to settle a long-running debate: Is birdshot a viable option for home defense? Through real-world testing at both long and short indoor engagement distances, they compare the performance of number 6 birdshot to buckshot using ballistic gel. The results are clear—birdshot consistently underperforms, while buckshot delivers reliable and decisive stopping power.
What You Will Learn
Viewers will learn how birdshot and buckshot behave at realistic home-defense ranges and why penetration and pellet performance matter in a defensive scenario.
Benefit
The benefit of watching this video is gaining practical, test-based insight into which shotgun ammunition you can actually count on in a life-threatening situation. If you’re serious about home defense, this myth-busting episode will help guide safer, smarter ammo choices.
Introduction
Steve and Caleb from Brownells return to the range for a third installment of their ongoing series exploring whether birdshot is a viable option for home defense. Viewers have asked about this before, so they’re taking a deeper look—this time with more testing and clear conclusions.
They begin by outlining a realistic scenario: If someone hears a bump in the night and responds with a shotgun loaded with birdshot, would it be effective across the longest possible engagement distance inside the home? Caleb uses his own home as a reference point, noting that if birdshot fails to perform at the farthest range within the house, it should not be relied on at all.
Birdshot at Long Distance
The team sets up a ballistic gel target at the longest reasonable distance inside a typical home. They use a Beretta 1301 Tactical shotgun with an 18.5-inch barrel and load it with high-brass number 6 birdshot—one of the most common shotgun loads.
The goal is to give birdshot the best chance to succeed. After firing the round into the gel block, they assess the performance.
Test Results and Penetration Analysis
Caleb manages a solid hit on the gel, but the results are underwhelming. While there is some penetration, it is not significant enough to reach vital organs or stop a threat effectively. They also point out that the gel block is not wearing any clothing, and in real-life scenarios, especially during colder months, people wear heavy garments that would reduce penetration even further.
To neutralize a threat with birdshot at this distance, you would have to aim for very specific areas like the eyes. This is clearly not reliable or practical for home defense.
Birdshot at Close Range
To give birdshot a second chance, they cut the distance in half and prepare for another shot. This new distance reflects a more likely close-quarters engagement. The same type of high-brass number 6 birdshot is used, and the same gel block is rotated to allow a fresh surface for comparison.
Caleb adjusts his shooting angle to account for the closer range and fires again.
Short Distance Results
At the shorter distance, birdshot performs noticeably better. There is more penetration and a higher number of pellets striking the target. However, even with the improved performance, Steve and Caleb agree that it still falls short of what would be expected or required in a true defensive situation.
They note that even mild barriers like clothing could reduce this performance significantly. Ultimately, the results are not confidence-inspiring when it comes to using birdshot to stop a real threat.
Buckshot Test at Close Range
Next, they move on to testing buckshot. While they have already demonstrated its effectiveness at long range in a previous video, this time they are shooting at the same 9-yard distance as the previous birdshot test for direct comparison.
Using a standard nine-pellet load of double-aught buckshot, Caleb takes the shot.
Buckshot Gel Performance
The results are clear and decisive. Eight out of nine pellets are captured in the gel, and one even splits the supporting board underneath. The penetration is deep, and the distribution is effective. The buckshot easily outperforms birdshot in terms of power, reach, and reliability.
Even a slightly lighter buckshot load, like single-aught, would still be more effective than number 6 birdshot. The team emphasizes that while some specialty loads like heavy turkey shot may perform better, this test focused on the most common birdshot round found in stores.
Final Thoughts and Recommendations
Steve and Caleb agree that birdshot is not an ideal choice for home defense. While it is better than nothing, it does not deliver the stopping power needed at realistic distances inside a home. For those concerned about overpenetration, they suggest considering handgun or pistol-caliber carbine options instead of relying on underpowered ammunition.
The test results reinforce what they’ve said before: number 6 birdshot, while common, is not suited for personal defense. The risk of it failing to stop a threat is too high given the better options available today.
Verdict: Birdshot vs Buckshot
The myth is officially busted. Birdshot is not as good as buckshot for home defense. The testing demonstrates that buckshot is clearly more effective across all engagement distances likely to be encountered inside a home.
If you have a different opinion or want to weigh in on the discussion, the comments are open. Thanks for watching, and stay tuned for more myth-busting with Steve and Caleb on the next episode of Smith Busters.
