Longest distance to master

That's definitely an area of personal preference. For me, as my regular range is 25 yards, that's what I shoot most of the time. If it were 50 yards, I would shoot at 50 at least a little every time I took a revolver with me. Though past 25 yards, it'd be strictly single action shooting for me.

The farther the distance the less merit I can see in it for any likely self defense scenario. But it make sense to me to be capable out to at least 25 yards. And if 100 yards was practical to practice at, I would do, to some degree. But that's where I'd stop.

Can you clarify what you mean by "mastery"?

I like to (try to) shoot at 100 yards occasionally, but it's just for fun. Actual accuracy training I do at 25 yards or less. If I ever have to aim at a person, they're not going to be all that far away. Now, if you're hunting deer with your .357, I guess you'd want to be able to get a decent hit at 50+ yards.

I said 25 yards.
Handguns IMHO are for defense.

If you hunt with it, then I guess more is better.

I don't think there's any "correction" to be offered - there are many plausible definitions of "mastery." I was just trying to understand the question.

There's certainly nothing bad that will happen if you get better at shooting at 50 yards.

I think 25 yards is a pretty good distance to be proficient at. I do shoot at 50 and 100 also but thats mostly just for fun an practice for hunting. I go by the old adage, aim small hit small, so I am typically practicing on small steel targets about 4-6 inches at ranges out to 25 yards.

25 yards for me, as that's the max distance at my range. Most of my practice is done at 10-15 yards.

Brett Byers AKA Slowdeal said:

Recent events have caused me to rethink the distance I currently practice with my
CCW. I usually practice at 10-15 yards from various angles offhand and weak side. What is the consensus for maximum range distance mastery. I talked with a retired LE firearms instructor and he recommended 50 yards. He said, " when we carried revolvers that was part of qualification".

Click to expand...

good question.
Keep in mind that LE are trained to confront/run towards a threat, something I don't think the average CCW needs to do.
Do you practice moving to cover?
It's a good place to lay in wait for a sniper/ambush type shot on the shooter.
A shot taken from cover when the shooter is faced away from you/clearing a jam/doing a mag change, with your shooting hand supported on a rest, is more likely to score a hit...and not draw return fire.
At extended distances, it might be something to consider.
jmo

Being very good at 25yds will make you a better shooter up close.
Shooting at a bad guy at that distance will probably require really good attorneys.

Using a 357, Ed McGivern estimated he had a better than 50% chance of scoring a hit on a man sized target before a practiced rifleman at 500 yards.

I am not fond of the 357 but was able to score 4/6 on a 5 gallon pail at 200, after a couple weeks practice. I was using a 25-5.

Kevin

I’ll leave “mastery” out of the equation since my idea of mastery is a level that few achieve in anything.

I say shoot your handgun from as far away as possible. It will improve every aspect of your fundamentals, and it’s great fun to hear the bang, silence, then a ding a moment later when you hit steel from long range. Most of my shooting is done between 25 and 75 yards, with some at 100+ on occasion.

If nothing else, it’s a bit more zen like than doing typical self defense drills. And that’s good for your head.

If I can hit a paper plate five out of five times, at 25 yards, freehand and pretty quick, I am happy.

That doesn't happen every time, either.

I think it helps, though.

My eyesight is waning and my hands are getting a bit shaky, but with my preferred centerfire handguns I can put five of five in the bullseye at seven yards, freehand and pretty quick... almost every time.

That's plenty good enough for SD, imho. I think that the longer-range practice helps.

I see no need to practice defense shooting at any thing over 25 yards. If there is a threat at over 25 yards, I'm heading in the opposite direction. I figure if for some reason I ever have to return fire at over 25 yards, then I'm still going to be better than my opponent unless he's using a long gun and in that case, I'm probably screwed anyway. I don't think it hurts on occasion to take your carry weapon and just shoot at some 50-75 yard targets if for nothing else to get a feel and realize that there is probably more drop that you imagined. There are very few of us shooters who are going to be very effective at the 75-100 yard range with the average carry gun. My rule is "The only disgrace in running from a fight is getting a late start!"

suggest you get confident shooting your pistol as far out as you can at a man-sized target. you never know when you will get stuck with that pistol in a rifle fight.

mastering your gun at 50 yards is a fine idea. that will make shots at 25 yards a piece-of-cake.

luck,

murf

I have an 8x10 and an 11x13 steel plate that I hang at the 40 yard mark. We shoot at them every range session regardless of gun. This includes my LCP, Airweight J frames, Shield, 2.5 inch 686 as well as the bigger guns. Can usually ring the steel with about every shot

Years ago when my eyes were good everything out of a revolver got tested @ 100yds. Chewed a lot of holes in these 100yd iron sight targets.


Now it's pretty much the 50ft line, still use the square targets.

Eddietruett said:

I see no need to practice defense shooting at any thing over 25 yards. If there is a threat at over 25 yards, I'm heading in the opposite direction. I figure if for some reason I ever have to return fire at over 25 yards, then I'm still going to be better than my opponent unless he's using a long gun and in that case, I'm probably screwed anyway."

Click to expand...

One scenario I practiced for was the Aurora "Batman" shooting. As I recall, the murderer entered the theatre at the screen, with a rifle and body armor.

Most theatres I've been in lately have exits close to ground level with most seating higher, away from the screen. In a big theatre, distance from the uppermost row of seats to the screen will exceed 25 yards.

If you run for the exits, the range decreases and the killer with a rifle can pick you off pretty easily. A better alternative would seem to be to stay concealed on the floor between rows, wait for help, and to return fire, if you can make the shot.

This kind of a scenario calls for accurate headshots, at distance. Slowfire. With an EDC. Lying on your side or on your knees. Possibly supported. In bad light. On a moving target. Kind of like a sadistic "H-O-R-S-E" bullseye shoot. That's a REAL challenge.

I found that my best portable, concealable tool for solving this kind of problem was a 4" 686, supported, firing single action. Pocket guns, stock tupperware triggers, coarse/three-dot sights, and DAO snubbies couldn't do the job in my hands. Somewhere I've got a 3x5 card with six holes in it, shot from 25 yards.

Also consider this: each shot needs to count, since a defender would have to shoot and scoot. A murderer would likely see your muzzle flash, and rifle bullets go right through plastic theatre seats.

Regardless of recent events, handguns are up close and personal defense weapons, not "try to be a hero with a headshot" weapons. Mastery at 10 yards will serve you very well in nearly any situation you are likely to encounter as a civilian. With likely being the key word there.

I'm not saying shooting at distance is ever bad, but in the limited time I get to practice I choose to stay within 10 yards with my CC handguns and sometimes extend that out to 15 with my full sized nightstand handguns. Now with a handgun I plan to hunt wild game with, that changes to 50 yards.

FEMA offers a free, online active shooter training course - I’ve taken multiple private and corporate versions of this same topic in the last few years as well, and the FEMA version is as well or better presented than most, with great relevant content.

Well worth the time.

Most of these discussions lose value by falling into various ridiculously low likelihood scenario, and the failing is the lack of realization that no single answer will solve every question. For example, the “cornered with a revolver at long range from an active shooter with a rifle, with minimal cover” scenario is a losing proposition. Period. There’s no magic pill to solve that situation given the tool at hand, and if you find yourself there, you’ll likely die. No item(s) which would be prudent to have with you on a daily basis can improve that probability.

It’s much like the common advise: “if you find yourself in your car during a tornado, go lay in the ditch.” In a losing situation, that’s not a good solution, but it’s A solution, and better than most, in most occurrences of that particular situation.

What can you do to ensure survival in a plane crash? Nothing. There are a few things you can do to improve your survivability, and, of course, some people might avoid flying altogether for fear of a crash, but by and large, if your plane goes down, you die. No tool you could carry or technique you could learn can change that. That’s an acceptable risk for millions of us.

Assaults, whether by an active shooter or a common car-jacker, are a losing proposition. You’re at a disadvantage when it starts, at MINIMUM for the reason the attacker knew before you. Prepared, planned, and practiced reactions improve your likelihood for survival, but sometimes you find yourself in a hole, and some holes really are too deep to dig out.

Mastery is an exceptional level of proficiency which isn’t realistically achieved, let alone sustained, by most people. Competence and mastery are very different.

In the context of the application of my defensive carry weapon, I rank the demand for proficiency in various skills using the same risk assessment matrix as I would any other process: compounding probability with severity to determine a rankable risk profile, and then train and practice towards the highest compound scores first, and less so down the list.

Unfortunately, the severity of any defensive situation is gravely extreme, but our compounding attribute of frequency/likelihood/probability would prove training and practice for a controlled and rapid drawstroke to deliver fire at short range, within or just outside of arms reach is most pertinent.

The magnifying factor for an active shooter situation, in terms of severity, will vary from one individual to the next. As an example - for my wife, the gravest severity scalar is her death or that of our son. There’s no greater loss opportunity - we’ve discussed and determined, in an active shooter situation, her priorities are such she would only be willing to put herself at risk for our son, no others. As such, her prepared, planned, and practiced strategy only considers that consequence profile. “Run, hide, fight” is most pertinent for her, and is unwavering. My personal consequence profile is larger, as I rank a higher value on the survival of others than myself, so my interest to first secure my family, then act to prevent further loss of life would put me at greater risk, and also require greater demand upon the skills pertinent to the scenario. Firing draws fire - my wife won’t accept the risk of drawing fire to herself or my son, whereas a failure to stop on a long distance shot which draws fire towards me might mean less firing at someone else, which is a prepared, planned, and practiced strategy with an accepted risk of an unfavorable consequence.

Could my wife need to send a shot 75yrds from her P320 subcompact to diffuse an active shooter situation? Highly, highly unlikely. In that unlikely event, is throwing that 75yrd shot likely to diffuse the situation? No. Is it likely to worsen the situation for her and others? Yes. So is that shot worth it? Not a chance. In the circumstance she were pinned down on the floor in a movie theatre with the assailant between her and the door, then consider the simple process: “run” - she can’t, so next, “hide” a laying on the floor between the rows is hiding. If the attacker is standing at the front, simply hiding there might be enough for them to lose interest and leave without drawing attention to herself by attempting a low probability engagement. If the shooter advances, such hiding fails and her semi-secure spot may be revealed, THEN “fight.”

Pouring gasoline on an uncontrolled and unwanted fire is very seldom the right answer.

Run, hide, fight.