Dear Jim,
I’m leery of the “House Gun” that you linked to. First, the flared muzzle of a blunderbuss was for ease in loading, especially with improvised pellets. It had little effect on accuracy.
As to the barrel on the house gun, I first notice it is mounted so the cone points slightly upward. This means it blocks any sights and will shoot high. Given that most people tend to shoot higher than they should at close range anyway, that’s a pending problem. Attempting to sight over the barrel will mean shooting low.
I don’t believe the spread will be as great as they suggest. While the muzzle does look intimidating, its main effect will be to waste most muzzle velocity in a large flash. As they specify that it will reduce velocity to avoid penetrating walls, that seems to be confirmed. The penetration tests at www.theboxotruth.com and others, as well as police testimony, suggest that full power buckshot is necessary to stop attackers–not bird shot, and not reduced power loads.
Also, in event of a hostage, a shotgun at close range can still effectively be aimed at the perpetrator and miss the victim…not with that thing.
At best, it looks interesting and intimidating. At worst, I see no real advantage, several flaws, and it might not be taken seriously as it doesn’t look like a weapon so much as a fire extinguisher bell.
Looking at their other products, they seem to be going for gimmick factor rather than practicality.
Of course, I may be wrong, but I’d like to see a test fire before I buy. – Michael Z. Williamson
Letter Re: The “House Gun” Pump Action Riotgun
