Well, here is an interesting question.
I grew up in an era when the 12 gauge was the be-all and end-all of firearms to own. It was always the first gun a boy ever got, and the last gun that an old timer ever parted with.
In reality though, (aside from the ability to hit small game that is running or flying), is there anything the 12 gauge can do that a .223 carbine can't do (assuming use of the proper factory ammo)? And, isn't the .223 equal or better in far more applications?
I don't own a .223, but I'm beginning to think that other than putting an assailant termporarily down with a marginal shot (outside the torso) at under 25 yards, the 12 gauge may not have that much going for it anymore, particulary in view of the very heavy weight of the ammo and the heavy recoil factor.
Proponents of the 12 gauge always seem to point to the superiority of the heavy buckshot loads, but then quickly have to admit that they would never use them indoors for fear of wall penetration, and are back to the #6 shot shell. (I think that .223 ammo is available that would give minimal interior wall pentration.)
I suppose that with a switch-barrel arrrangement, and a good scope, a 12 gauge with a fully rifled barrel and proper slugs may be able to put deer down better at 125 yards or so, but that too seems like a pretty narrow item..
Maybe I need to re-frame the question: Aside from shooting at moving small game, and deer hunting past 125 yards, is the 12 gauge preferable as all-around firearm to a .223 carbine??
Any thoughts?
P.S.- This is not an "AR" discussion. Assume equally reliable shotguns and rifles.
Thanks, Mannyrock