Do you know how his gun broke? That sounds more like poor quality or something than needing a long gun. If he had a j frame BUG would that have helped?
Looking for actual events where handgun wasn't enough.
- Thread starter Glamdring
- Start date
- Status
I think I read a story about that one somewhere, would you have a link or more info on when and where it happened?
If it is the one I'm thinking of he had like 3 or more long guns, he was basically doing NY reload of long guns instead of reloading.
GNLaFrance
Member.
Letting us know what you've already found on your own will help prevent duplication of effort.
I think handguns are more AVAILABLE 24/7 than a longgun. Long gun can't, realistically, be carried concealed. So if you get the more powerful long gun for home defense you will still need to get handgun for outside the home.
Do you mind posting link to the thread you mentioned?
I think the software matters more than the hardware, look at my signature line.
What I'm trying to get at is self defense and best way to allocate limited resources for hardware (guns, knifes, lights, pepperspray) and software (training, practice) to maximize survival.
The thread you mentioned, was the defender using cover, concealment, & lighting to his advantage? Or was he trying to maneuver against them?
I realize there are more people on this forum that are into guns because they like them, than there are that simply use them as tools. I am focused on self defense side of things.
I am trying to look at non LEO survival sort of they way Officer survival is done. But non LEO don't have exact same parameters, so I suspect some of the detailed answers should be different. LEO at least some times go towards trouble, so long arms really do clearly make sense.
I don't think I am being off the wall here, Jeff Cooper talked about the "Role of the Five" in one of his books.
GNLaFrance: I haven't found a case where it mattered thats why I posted here.
That case, if it was the one I read some years ago, was one where the gun shop owner engaged the badguys when he didn't need to IIRC. Note I'm not saying he did wrong, just that he had the choice not to engage.
He had time enough to grab 3 or more long guns from his house and engage bad guys that were going after unoccupied gunshop.
Or in other words with no gun at all he could have still evaded so, long guns might have won the fight, but it was a fight he could have avoided (ie tactics).
That case, if it was the one I read some years ago, was one where the gun shop owner engaged the badguys when he didn't need to IIRC. Note I'm not saying he did wrong, just that he had the choice not to engage.
He had time enough to grab 3 or more long guns from his house and engage bad guys that were going after unoccupied gunshop.
Or in other words with no gun at all he could have still evaded so, long guns might have won the fight, but it was a fight he could have avoided (ie tactics).
Hanzo581
Member
Look, everyone should just have one of these under their coat for CCW.
JohnBiltz
Member
But the question is not using the handgun because its all you have. The question seems to be advocating using it as a matter of preference because it enough. I carry a handgun. If I was using it I know I'll be wishing it was a long gun instead. Its what you have not what you want.
He basically evacuated his wife and kid to a safe closet with a cell phone placed himself between them and the intruders and yelled he had a gun and the police were called. At which point he started to take fire through the wall and had to maneuver. It was a pretty major fight from the account. He got one in the head with his first shot, moved and shot the second to the ground somewhere in there he was hit and was unaware of it until it was over. I don't have a link.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Hanzo, that would be unlawful for carry in SC. 
Things aren't all ways the same from place to place. 
Things aren't all ways the same from place to place. JohnBiltz
Member
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4158036#post4158036
Found it go down to post 93
Found it go down to post 93
Cosmoline
Member
It's certainly true that training and practice are universally a good idea. But with a single afternoon of basic instruction, a firearm newb can be nailing small cans at 50 yards with a rifle and doing some pretty fair shotgunning as well. In contrast, it takes a long, long time to get competent with a handgun. The platform is just much more difficult to control and aim accurately. When you compound the problems with 3 AM eyesight, bad lighting, moving targets and someone shooting back at you the short gun gets even more difficult to use.
DoubleTapDrew
Member
^ why I always teach new shooters on a .22lr rifle. They graduate to the .22lr handgun when they show they can be safe and accurate with the rifle. I like starting on a caliber that eliminates the recoil and noise issues to focus on fundamentals.
For Home, Office, or general Business location-routines, I would have to guess that one's ordinary elected CCW would be best.
Also, tight quarters or milling people pressing one or lcuttering the scene, would mitigate in favor of a Handgun over a long Arm.
Also, tight quarters or milling people pressing one or lcuttering the scene, would mitigate in favor of a Handgun over a long Arm.
JohnBiltz
Member
The difference between a shouldered M4 and a pistol held out at arms length is not that great and the rifle is going to be more stable. I come from a military background the number of times a pistol is going to be superior to a rifle is going to be small. CCW weapons are even worse. They are compromises even for pistols. There are reasons why all the big shoot outs where a couple of guys armed with long guns shot a bunch of FBI agents or cops armed with pistols. The rifle is a superior weapon.
Last edited:
Every now and then I run across this statement, the idea that rifles are easy to shoot and that handguns are difficult. It has never been clear to me what the problem is - yes, handguns have a shorter sight picture. That's why a snubbie is less accurate than a 6" revolver, which is less accurate than a long rifle.
All three weapons mentioned above can score hits on targets out to 100 yrds or even more, but in a real-world, practical setting, a cab driver wants a snubbie, and the rancher going after a pesky coyote wants a rifle. Each tool has a job.
And this is just my long way of getting around to the OP's question: Any event where a handgun wasn't enough was an event where it was the wrong tool for the job. However, there's also a gradient that runs from "wasn't enough" to "was just barely enough."
Remember that watch dealer who survived multiple robberies, killing a total of 8? He eventually had handguns stashed all over his workspace, so that he could just start grabbing guns and doing NY reloads all day long. Wouldn't he have been better served with a semiautomatic rifle? No, his application required typical response times around 1 second.
It might actually be interesting to ask about cases where a rifle or shotgun was "too much" gun.
Cosmoline
Member
Missing. That's the problem. And it happens a lot with handguns in all sorts of shootouts. Often there are MOSTLY misses. The best examples, though the OP has demanded they be excluded, come from encounters between handgun-armed LEO's and rifle-armed criminals. Even though well trained with the short guns, the LEO's stand little chance.
savetheclaypigeons
Member
Cosmoline nailed it. Missing is more likely with handguns than long guns, all else being equal. A long gun, properly held, has three point of contact. When I respond to a report of a citizen (homeowner/business owner) shooting at an intruder, they usually miss. Often, they miss the bad guy by several feet. IMHO, I think that many are point-shooting, not aiming, and are jerking triggers, Hollywood style.
While I can't prove anything, I'll bet that if more citizens were shooting long guns at bad guys, there would be fewer bad guys at the dawn of each day.
While I can't prove anything, I'll bet that if more citizens were shooting long guns at bad guys, there would be fewer bad guys at the dawn of each day.
Last edited:
Thanks for the link. I'm putting that one in the file. I think he did VERY well, I suspect he has practiced defensive type shooting a lot.
Last edited:
But if you want to be protected "on the street" you will need the handgun. Yes it is harder to do well with it, but odds are the handgun is what you will have. Probably a little handgun. That is why I am looking at this question.
I don't want people to have a false sense of security or skill because what they can do on the range with long gun or full size handgun when they CCW a j frame or LCP. If you only get 1 or two hours a month for practice shouldn't it be for that scandium j frame, so you can actually hit target at 5 feet with one hand? Or know you can't so you either practice/learn how to or get a gun that you can shoot well enough with?
Even serious gunny people tend to have the J frame or 380 with them when they need it, at least that has been what I have found from people I have interviewed that have been in shootings. Only people that even had full size handguns vs pocket gun when something happened were uniformed LEO/military, & one PI. Though that PI was entering an apartment with LEO so he was actively going towards danger, so he had P35 with him.
Last edited:
I feel like several people are misunderstanding what I am trying to figure out here. So perhaps I'm not being clear. So I will quote one of the people that got me thinking about this.
Read Jeff Cooper's "The Role Of the Five" in "To Ride, Shoot Straight, And Speak the Truth".
In my edition last page of that section, page 186, "The pistol is there, within reach, and that is rarely true of any long gun. Therefore, despite its relatively low power and the high degree of skill needed for its proper use, the pistol cannot be supplanted by anything else."
"There" was emphasized in the original by Cooper.
Read Jeff Cooper's "The Role Of the Five" in "To Ride, Shoot Straight, And Speak the Truth".
In my edition last page of that section, page 186, "The pistol is there, within reach, and that is rarely true of any long gun. Therefore, despite its relatively low power and the high degree of skill needed for its proper use, the pistol cannot be supplanted by anything else."
"There" was emphasized in the original by Cooper.
Yes indeed. Nothing new or controversial on that. The fictional Lucas McCain walked around "on the street" with a rifle all the time, but that just wouldn't be cool today.
I'm afraid I'm still not entirely clear on the reason.
Why would anyone have such a sense?
Decades ago, Henty M. Stebbins put together Pistols-a Modern Encyclopedia. My copy has returned to the earth.
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/5144437/used/Pistols%3B%20a%20modern%20encyclopedia
Massad Ayoob refers to it several times in his excellent new book, Massad Ayoob's Modern Handguns of the World.
http://www.amazon.com/Massad-Ayoobs-Greatest-Handguns-World/dp/1440208255/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285452964&sr=1-8
Something I remember from Stebbins' book was that it was sprinkled with verse, by whom I do not recall. Stebbins was an English teacher, IIRC.In one of the poems that extolled the practicality and portability of pistols, each of a couple or several stanzas ended with a phrase something like "and it can go where you can't with a rifle."
I think that's all that Col. Cooper was trying to convey.
Perhaps someone has access to the original poem and will provide it to us.
In any case, if a concealable handgun is all that one will be able to carry, I'm not clear about what a compendium of reports about the comparative ineffectiveness of handguns will provide in the way of value.
Not being critical here, I just don't yet see the point of the original request in this context.
"Looking for actual events where handgun wasn't enough."
Enough for what to stop the threat or kill it? If it's to kill, then I'd say that a high percentage of the time when people get shot in civilian confrontation, they survive. However, there is also a high percentage when the mere presence of a firearm is enough to put an end to civilian/goblin confrontation - that is, end the threat.
Enough for what to stop the threat or kill it? If it's to kill, then I'd say that a high percentage of the time when people get shot in civilian confrontation, they survive. However, there is also a high percentage when the mere presence of a firearm is enough to put an end to civilian/goblin confrontation - that is, end the threat.
Last edited:
First of all, you would need to have been found wanting in using a handgun, then transferring to the long gun, to fill the Posters scenario.
I carry a Glock19 with good sights (TruGlow) good ammo, WW 127g +P+ Ranger 9mm. I can shoot, and shoot a couple of hundred rounds a month.
IMHO you would need a bit of warning to get long gun up, so to speak, in the case of me being at home, and being so warned, AK with a live twenty round magazine up, it is in my hands in 3 minutes. Or slung. Same time.
If I am dressed and out, I am armed same in House, same now, track pants, and Glock 19 in pocket, why? Why not.
If you have to go ..... to get it, IE ten yds? it is to far away.
If you read the Watch chaps story he needed instruction first, he ended up, bang on. Kydex holster, spare Mag, Hi Capacity, gun and mag. Good belt, he could have been instructed in weapons/ammo/CCW use, he could have done so much better. Sooner.
The trouble is, the average NRA Instructor is not, and can not train Gun fighters.
And it is easy.
I carry a Glock19 with good sights (TruGlow) good ammo, WW 127g +P+ Ranger 9mm. I can shoot, and shoot a couple of hundred rounds a month.
IMHO you would need a bit of warning to get long gun up, so to speak, in the case of me being at home, and being so warned, AK with a live twenty round magazine up, it is in my hands in 3 minutes. Or slung. Same time.
If I am dressed and out, I am armed same in House, same now, track pants, and Glock 19 in pocket, why? Why not.
If you have to go ..... to get it, IE ten yds? it is to far away.
If you read the Watch chaps story he needed instruction first, he ended up, bang on. Kydex holster, spare Mag, Hi Capacity, gun and mag. Good belt, he could have been instructed in weapons/ammo/CCW use, he could have done so much better. Sooner.
The trouble is, the average NRA Instructor is not, and can not train Gun fighters.
And it is easy.
I dont understand the purpose of the question.
Basing anything on an individual story is just imo dumb.
I could show using that the Raven .25 is more powerful than the Glock .40S&W and a .22 is more effective than a .357magnum. I could show a Kel Tec .32 is less effective than a knife. I could show all kinds of things based on one or two incidents. None of that is enough to over-ride basic wisdom:Most armed citizens never use their guns. WHen they do whatever it is they are carrying will end the encounter. Rule #1 is have a gun.
Basing anything on an individual story is just imo dumb.
I could show using that the Raven .25 is more powerful than the Glock .40S&W and a .22 is more effective than a .357magnum. I could show a Kel Tec .32 is less effective than a knife. I could show all kinds of things based on one or two incidents. None of that is enough to over-ride basic wisdom:Most armed citizens never use their guns. WHen they do whatever it is they are carrying will end the encounter. Rule #1 is have a gun.
- Status