Pump action Double Barrel Shotguns....possible?

Do you think that Pump-up action Double Barrel Shotguns that we see in Quake 1/2/3, Doom 64(?) Turok 2/3, Chasm: The Rift, etc are even possible to build in reality?

EDIT : I retract my statement. BS is correct, it has two mag tubes over one barrel. Me = pwned.

Anyway, double barrels really wouldn't useful in pump-action, they are primarily used in 1) hunting and 2) home defense and two shots is more than sufficient.

That shotgun doesn't appear to have two barrels, only two magazine tubes. Read more carefully.

Naked Snake said:

It exists

Let me introduce you to the Neostead, a double-barrel pump-action 12 gauge shotgun. It holds 6 rounds in each barrel and is capable of firing the barrels independantly. You could load 6 slugs in the right and 6 buckshot in the left, or whatever the Hell you wanted.

I've got a few questions about that weapon

#1 What's the kick back on that thing. Something tells me it'd be pretty bad.

#2 Why hasn't this weapon been implemented into Doom wads? It seems like such a cool weapon!

Craigs said:

I've got a few questions about that weapon

#1 What's the kick back on that thing. Something tells me it'd be pretty bad.

#2 Why hasn't this weapon been implemented into Doom wads? It seems like such a cool weapon!

Most 12 gauges don't kick too bad for anybody over 16 (not always that old, but hey) because they have recoil buffers and the like. Ported barrels (usually a factory option) also reduces felt recoil.

Also, it depends on what ammunition you are using. For example, a regular shotgun shell will not recoil as much as a Magnum. My 20 gauge shotgun can chamber regular shells and Magnum shells, as can my .410 single shot. Also, slugs tend to have more kick than buckshot, generally.

On the far right are two types of 12 gauge shotgun shells, a 2.75 and a 3 inch Magnum.



The internal workings of a shotgun shell.

EDIT : for your personal amusement though, here's an SMG sized pump-action shotgun : http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh20-e.htm

Go to war with this street-sweeper, baby

This monster rocks the house, a fully-automatic 12 gauge, just like the one above, except more bad-ass looking.

A cheap-ass American auto-shotty

My shotgun, but in wood, 20 gauge

Remington 870, ultra reliable. My dad owns two, one in 20, one in 12 with a scope.

Last but not least, this shotgun was made to be mounted under the M-16 rifle / M4 carbine, but can also be used as a stand-alone weapon.

yes, its called 2 remingtons and some ducktape

There's no stopping a shotgun in close quarters. Why do you think the pointman and rear in a SWAT team carries a 12 gauge? Because a 12 gauge will knock an unarmored person down to the ground with no problem, even with a vest there's gonna be some internal bleeding due to the slug.

My step-cousin carried a Remington 870 on his shoulder with an M4 in his hands in Iraq. That's literally one of the very few things I know about his experience there and I'll know I will never know too much about it.

But in defending your home...if you actually had to use it, wouldn't there be all kinds of collateral damage? Well, I guess you could use slugs instead of buckshot...

My father has a side by side (Doom 2) style Shotgun. I can't imagine using that thing for self "defense". It's slow to reload and unwieldy. But I could see a pump action shotgun being effective.

Danarchy said:

But in defending your home...if you actually had to use it, wouldn't there be all kinds of collateral damage? Well, I guess you could use slugs instead of buckshot...

Actually, the buckshot and spray is what would make the gun effective. A slug is a hit or miss, buckshot will knock out anything in a wide area, so you don't have to be a good shot at close quarters.

Whoa, alot of misconceptions here.

Danarchy said:

But in defending your home...if you actually had to use it, wouldn't there be all kinds of collateral damage? Well, I guess you could use slugs instead of buckshot...

At hallway distances shot doesn't spread much more than a few inches. THe real problem with guns for defense is that they overpenetrate alot. Any firearm capable of reliably stopping an attacker can penetrate multiple sheetrock walls. A shotgun loaded with buckshot is one of the most effective tools, yet (somewhat) limits overpenetration. A load of buckshot will probably at least stay in your house, while a centerfire rifle bullet could easily enter your neighbor's.

Scuba Steve said:

My father has a side by side (Doom 2) style Shotgun. I can't imagine using that thing for self "defense". It's slow to reload and unwieldy. But I could see a pump action shotgun being effective.

http://www.stoegerindustries.com/firearms/coach.tpl

A break action can be shorter than a repeater with barrels of equivalent length because there is no mechanism behind the chambers.

Scuba Steve said:

Actually, the buckshot and spray is what would make the gun effective. A slug is a hit or miss, buckshot will knock out anything in a wide area, so you don't have to be a good shot at close quarters.

See #1

Naked Snake said:

Because a 12 gauge will knock an unarmored person down to the ground with no problem

If a shotgun had enough energy to knock a target down it would plant the shooter on their rear too. What a shotgun does have is the ability to make multiple small holes or one big one. A shot from a standard nine pellet 00 Buckshot load is like getting shot with a .38 special nine times. A slug is larger caliber than any modern elephant gun.

Isle said:

yes, its called 2 remingtons and some ducktape

People have actually done conversions by attaching two Remington 870s (a standard and a left hand version through the trigger group pins, along with a new stock and fore-end that attaches to both guns), but they are unweildly, unreliable, and impractical. A standard pump with an extended magazine is far more useful.

As an aside to those without much shotgun experience, unlike how they are often depicted in video games and movies double barrel shotguns DO NOT shoot both barrels at one. They are actually somewhat of a holdover from the muzzle-loader days where to get multiple shots from a gun you had to have multiple barrels.

Naked Snake said:

Shotgun information

I would just like to add a few points about recoil. First is that the sensation of recoil can be drastically reduced by adding a recoil pad to the butt of any gun (for the most part it is a factory standard option now). Secondly a semi-automatic will have less percieved recoil that a fixed breech gun because the operation of the action spreads out recoil energy over a longer period of time.

Now if you will excuse me I am going to my first gun show today.

Oh look a celebrate the 2nd amendment thread.

Scuba Steve said:
This isn't 1820, there isn't a thief looking to make off with your prized cow.

You don't need to go to 1820 to find rustlers in the country. And they'll even take your regular cow, horse, pig, or whatever, and not just the prize animal. Guns make more sense there, unlike in the city (unless you live in some sort of chaotic and violent ghetto, or something).

Well, the thing about the shotgun is that if you do manage to hit the target, you're probably going to do some serious damage, if not kill the poor bastard.

I'd run for my life if someone pointed one at me. Atleast with a pistol there's a chance you can still get away after getting shot, or even still fight if your adrenaline is still high enough. Can't do that if you're blasted with a shotty.

So yeah, I think a shotgun is pretty damn good for home defense.

Sorry, a bit offtopic, but is it reasonable (or even possible) to get non-lethal shotguns for home-defense, e.g. those riot-control guns with something like rubber batons; I don't want to kill anyone but a home-defense weapon like this would be beneficial.

Linguica said:

Sorry Scuba but a shotgun is widely considered to be the ultimate home defense weapon. Go back to your lolberal blue state Minnesota haven.

Yeah but think of the mess

Dittohead said:

Atleast with a pistol there's a chance you can still get away after getting shot, or even still fight if your adrenaline is still high enough.

I find that hard to believe... What about .454 raging bull or a .50 cal ae Desert Eagle? Call me crazy but something tells me that it'd take just one shot from either of these to knock someone down and keep them down.

...or at least take a limb off.

Dr. Zin said:

At hallway distances shot doesn't spread much more than a few inches.

The barrel choke changes the spread pattern too, yes? I know most modern shotguns have a tighter choke. That's why sawed off shotguns are notorious for having a greater spread, as when the barrel is sawed down, it usually removes the choke. It's still not like "OMG I can't hit anything over 5 feet!" like in videogames *cough*Doom3*cough*, but it is less accurate.

Craigs said:

I find that hard to believe... What about .454 raging bull or a .50 cal ae Desert Eagle? Call me crazy but something tells me that it'd take just one shot from either of these to knock someone down and keep them down.

As said before, if a gun is capable of knocking a human target down it would knock the shooter on their ass.

Also, most people don't have a real understanding of firearm mechanics and how a gun can kill. Essentially there are two ways a gunshot can kill:

A. Disruption of the central nervous system
B. Exsanguination (bleeding to death)

Unlike movies and video games a fatal wound does not equal instant death. I have read some accounts of people commiting suicide by shooting themselves in the head, and death is still not instant (I'll spare the gory details).

Anyway, the areas of the body most vulnerable are the head, neck, and chest. Even a solid hit to these areas is no guarantee that the subject will expire quickly. There is an account of a man taking a shotgun slug through his right nipple, and he was able to return to his apartment and phone 911, and he survived!

And for all the hype, the .454 Casull or .50 AE aren't even close to a mid to large bore shotgun or centerfire rifle.

Snarboo said:

The barrel choke changes the spread pattern too, yes? I know most modern shotguns have a tighter choke. That's why sawed off shotguns are notorious for having a greater spread, as when the barrel is sawed down, it usually removes the choke. It's still not like "OMG I can't hit anything over 5 feet!" like in videogames *cough*Doom3*cough*, but it is less accurate.

Acutually older shotguns tend to have tighter chokes. This is because:

A. Interchangeable chokes had not been invented yet, so people would rather buy too much choke than not enough. You can let a bird that kicks up next to you fly out thirty yards before shooting when you have a full, but trying to down a bird that flushes 45 yards out with an improved cylinder choke is pretty much luck.

B. Older shotgun shells were not the same quality as they are today. The advent of plastic wad has meant that a shotgun of a given choke patterns much tighter than with the old felt-wadded shells. Today a modified choke shoots about the same pattern as a full choke did fifty years ago.

Back on topic, a cylinder choke (the official term for not having any choke) should throw all of its shot into a circle 30 inches wide at 20 yards. Considering that a defensive shot within a home at 20 feet would be pretty long, you would probably have less than a 10" spread.

EDIT: I guess I should give some info about chokes to the uninitiated, so they understand what the hell we are talking about.

Choke is a way of controlling the spread of a shotgun. This is achieved by having the last few inches of the barrel marginally tighter (like .01 inches). This works much the same was as the nozzle does on a garden hose.

As said before, a cylinder bore is a gun with no choke. It is considered good out to 20 yards (i.e. it can put all of the pellets in a 30" circle at that distance). An Improved Cylinder (abbreviation IC) choke patterns at 30 yards. A Modified (MOD) choke is patterned at 40 yards and is considered the medium choke. A Full choke is patterned at 50 yards, and is about the tightest as most wingshooters will go. There are other chokes that exist between these four (and some chokes that are tighter than full), but these are the most common.

fraggle said:

Yeah but think of the mess

fraggle, you're well known for your lenient stance on crime. But suppose for a second that YOUR house was ransacked by thugs, YOUR family tied up in the basement, with socks in their mouths- you try to open the door, but there's too much blood on the knob-

Dr. Zin said:

As said before, if a gun is capable of knocking a human target down it would knock the shooter on their ass.

Call me crazy, but I think what Craigs means by "knock someone down and keep them down" is the ability kill or prevent an attacker form harming you, not literally knock them to the ground. The idea of an incapacitated person not being able to get up comes to mind.

Danarchy said:

But in defending your home...if you actually had to use it, wouldn't there be all kinds of collateral damage?

You have to take in mind, what would you rather have, a damaged wall, or a few bullets in your chest?

For most circumstances, any shotty is good into subduing (if not killing) any home attacker.

Mindless Rambler said:

Call me crazy, but I think what Craigs means by "knock someone down and keep them down" is the ability kill or prevent an attacker form harming you, not literally knock them to the ground. The idea of an incapacitated person not being able to get up comes to mind.

I think I answered that in the next few paragraphs, namely the fact that shot placement will trump power any day, and that even the most powerful pistols take second rank to centerfire rifles and shotguns.

Inferno said:

You have to take in mind, what would you rather have, a damaged wall, or a few bullets in your chest?

For most circumstances, any shotty is good into subduing (if not killing) any home attacker.

The problem is what is on the other side of the wall. Even in an otherwise justified shooting injuring an unconnected party will land you some serious jail time.

Very true. I guess it depends on the house's architecture and where the attacker and defening person are initiated. For example, if you spot the attack leaving the house, you probably wouldent have to worry about injuring anyone else in the house. Thats unless the attacker is in the process of kidnapping someone, then theres a problem.

DeumReaper said:

Sorry, a bit offtopic, but is it reasonable (or even possible) to get non-lethal shotguns for home-defense, e.g. those riot-control guns with something like rubber batons; I don't want to kill anyone but a home-defense weapon like this would be beneficial.

There's gotta be stores carrying shotgun shells that contain rubber pellets and less gunpowder. Tasers might work, assuming you're not going to miss on the first shot.

Inferno said:

Very true. I guess it depends on the house's architecture and where the attacker and defening person are initiated. For example, if you spot the attack leaving the house, you probably wouldent have to worry about injuring anyone else in the house. Thats unless the attacker is in the process of kidnapping someone, then theres a problem.

If the aggressor is retreating then you are going to get some murder charges.

GGG said:

There's gotta be stores carrying shotgun shells that contain rubber pellets and less gunpowder. Tasers might work, assuming you're not going to miss on the first shot.

Ah, missed this one.

All of those "non-lethal" projectiles can actually be quite deadly at close range. For example, rubber bullets and buckshot are actually meant to be bounced off the ground in front of the target. A direct hit with such a projectile can very easily kill someone.

Also using "non-lethal" weapons opensw you up to a whole nest of liability and other problems. Not to mention that "non-lethal" weapons are nowhere close to 100% effective.

Inferno said:
For example, if you spot the attack leaving the house, you probably wouldent have to worry about injuring anyone else in the house.

Or anyone, really, because generally you wouldn't want to shoot someone intent on leaving your house.

I think I'd rather have a magnum for home defense anyway. Then I could keep it under my bed or whatever more easily, among many other issues.

Danarchy said:

I think I'd rather have a magnum for home defense anyway. Then I could keep it under my bed or whatever more easily, among many other issues.

A magnum what?

Magnum P.I.

Dan wants to keep Tom Selleck in his bed at night.