You say this, yet it is belied by actual testing. I'm not disputing that a meth'd out burglar can survive a few incorrectly-placed shots of any caliber (probably not BMG...), but that doesn't really prove one thing or another. Too many people in this type of discussion assume that birdshot at 20 meters = birdshot at 5 meters. That's largely true for 9mm, 5.56, 300BO, or even a slug. It's not remotely true for shot. Shattering the rib cage and embedding in the heart is going to stop a crack head.
But like you said:
Paul (RIP) also goes over using turkey loads in another video.
Again, making the determination that you'd rather have longer range, or a different weapon to wield, all valid decisions. But that's different than saying birdshot doesn't work very well.
It doesn't work as well, but it also is the only option that meaningfully reduces the chance of collateral damage from a stray shot, and effectively eliminates the possibility of shooting through the burglar/rapist and still poking a hole in a loved one.
That's probably going to be fine if you live in Texas. But you don't want this mindset in trial. If you've never been on the other end of a talented prosecutor, you might not appreciate how much of your own words will form the basis for your conviction. It's not a pleasant experience. And you won't find and attorney who would suggest you say that in trial. I'm going to requote you to hammer in the point:
To everyone else, don't ever say this. Ever. Repeat after me: I was trying to stop the threat. In the state of Texas you can use deadly force to stop someone from stealing your property, even if they are fleeing. Consider the jury sentiment in this scenario as opposed to shooting a 6"5' meth head with a history of rape convictions.
Were you trying to kill the 16 year old you pointed your gun at, or just protect your property?
Being prepared to kill is very different than trying to kill. Anyone planning to use a gun to defend themselves, their friends, or their property should be listening to guys like Andrew Branca to understand these distinctions. No matter how solid your case, your fate is in the hands of a government attorney and 12 Americans who were probably too dumb to get out of jury duty. Start thinking, acting, and preparing accordingly.
None of this means aim for their leg or any other such nonsense. But we don't live in the wild west anymore, and there are people who would rather you and your family be raped and killed than to have a "victim" of the system get shot to death in your home. Ignore this at your peril.
I'm not trying to be in SOCOM. I'm trying to defend my family and prevail at the inevitable criminal or civil trial. That's it. The ballistics are clear that in close quarters, birdshot will absolutely ruin a perp.
And finally, the benefit of bird shot is when you, the defender, decide that the concern for inadvertently penetrating a wall and killing a kid is sufficient to override the desire for military-level mortality rates or capacity. I do not consider the possibility of multiple hardened targets invading my home to be realistic enough to justify making my primary home defense weapon a rifle. The good news is that if I hear the thump and I see multiple intruders on the cameras, I can reach 6 inches to the left and suddenly .300BLK has entered the chat. Or just switch tubes to buckshot.
Great dialog, like I said I love hearing other people's calculus.