"Combat" distances in active shooter situations?

[Corpral_Agarn]

If there is a visible active shooter, at 100yds, I would take cover and take the shot. I shoot pistols out to 100yds all the time, have for years.
Just two weeks ago, I was hitting the 10" round steel plate my club has at 80yds with my Beretta Model 84F 380.
Now, a 380 isn't going to hit at 80yds like the hammer of Thor, but a bullet in the belly may slow him down a bit.
If you think 100yds is far, next time you are at the rifle range, look at the guys changing their targets...100yds isn't far at all.

I agree that 100yrds isn't that far and I believe that shooting that far under controlled conditions is very doable.

But when every body is running around, screaming, bleeding, the crack of gunfire, etc... I am not as sure that that distance of shot would be as doable.

Heck, I have completely missed a target at 15yrds in competitions before and that level of stress is nowhere near and active shooter scenario.

I would be interested in any combat reports of handgun shots being made that far successfully.

 

[RX-79G]

Going up against a rifle with a pistol at a hundred yards is bad tactics. Either close the distance utilizing cover, or run like mad making yourself a difficult target and leave the scene.

You need to maximize your advantages while minimizing his. Engaging at a hundred yards is the exact opposite of that.

At what range does a pistol have more advantage vs. a rifle?

My thought was that beyond a certain range a rifle shooter has to concentrate on aiming, and can miss a man sized target if they do not. Under a certain range the rifle allows very fast and accurate point shooting. That range is much greater than it is for a pistol.

Why would you want to close to rifle snap shooting range when you are still going to be in aimed fire range with your pistol? Wouldn't it be better to remain at aimed fire distances for both pistol and rifle?

 

[RX-79G]

At distance, the legal obligation would be to evade

Not with an active shooter.

 

[Old Guy]

Chucks Article was well done my only point in mentioning his article. You had to be there I suppose. Reference unable to press the trigger.
Have a nice productive day.

 

[strambo]

At what range does a pistol have more advantage vs. a rifle?

0-5yds, though I'd say it isn't so much the pistol has an advantage as you have negated the advantages of the rifle. This is a range at which a rifle is slower to swing and can be grabbed quickly. A pistol can be swung/pointed faster and also shot from a retention position. From ~5-25yds, I'd give a slight advantage to the rifle (talking high capacity semi-autos like an AR/Mini, not just any rifle) due to increased accuracy and terminal performance. However, a good pistol shooter is firmly within their envelope at this range so the rifle shooter needs to be on it. Beyond 25yds, advantage all rifle due to power and accuracy.

When I spoke of closing distance, I wasn't talking about charging across an open field or parking lot from 100yds. That is suicide. I'm talking about in a crowded and chaotic environment, hopefully with cover, get as close as you can as fast as you can w/o them seeing or being able to hit you. If you can't do that due to the environment, hunker down or evade, because trading shots pistol vs rifle at a distance es no bueno (unless they don't see you and you get a free shot or 2.)

I've spent an entire career in the Infantry so I certainly know how to fire and maneuver in open and urban environments and what the limitations and advantages are with carbines.

To take on a rifle at distance with a pistol, when they know you are there, they have to suck and you have to be very good....and not "I shoot at 100yds all the time on the range" good, but "I can make a 100yd pistol shot under life and death stress" good.

The people involved and their ability to make hits under stress are more important than the weapon. A good level-headed cop with a handgun vs. a teenage video game playing active shooter with an AR at 50-80 yds stands a very good chance. Same cop and distance vs. Vietnam or Iraq/A-stan combat vet...not so much.

 

[RX-79G]

One thing that factors into all of this is that we aren't talking about a one on one SD gunfight. We are talking about an active shooter randomly shooting at individuals in a crowd, and one of those individuals producing a handgun.

The shooter doesn't know that handgun exists until he sees or hears it, and is less likely to be shooting at people at longer ranges.


The suggestion seems to be that if I have a pistol and I am some distance from the shooter, I should give up my anonymity and distance from the worst of the bloodbath by doing something really conspicuous - being the only person moving toward the shooter.

I don't understand how drawing attention to myself, increasing the size MOA target I am and delaying firing is worth it, considering the stress I experience is only going to increase as I get closer, while the shooter's ability to both single me out and hit me increases.


And all this is being done for the theoretical advantage in hit accuracy? I don't follow that.

 

[Malamute]

I would be interested in any combat reports of handgun shots being made that far successfully.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/06/austin-cop-sure-shot-stopped-crazed-gunman.html

I added to my post #40, please take the time to return to that, a different thought pattern!

What is the source of what you added to post 40? Id like to see it, what you wrote doesn't look like Chucks writing that Ive seen. A direct link would be best.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/06/austin-cop-sure-shot-stopped-crazed-gunman.html

Now that IS interesting.

Thanks, Malamute.

 

[RX-79G]

Now that IS interesting.

Thanks, Malamute.

That's the same story that jdh shared in post #14.

 

[Malamute]

No thumbs up icon.


We need one here (not the one that is in the header instead of the message)


I mentioned it earlier also and mistakenly said San Antonio. Unless that was elsewhere,.....

 

[strambo]

RX-79G,

There can be no one best answer, it will all depend on the particulars of the exact situation and environment.

That said, I have stated multiple times if they are far away, don't know you are there, and you can have a free shot or 2, it makes sense to take it!

I think the harder choice is in the intermediate range (say 25-50) where rifle and pistol are both decent options. Do you engage the superior weapon from where you are at, or try to get real close w/o them seeing you and negate their superior weapon? If you miss or don't take them out...they now are shooting at you with more firepower (to punch through cover), more accuracy, and probably more capacity.

If you closed first (are able to do so without drawing attention to yourself), you could also engage H2H if the pistol bullets don't stop them. Now, if that isn't in your skillset, or at least a lot of CQC shooting training, I'd either take my free shots and beat feet, or just escape and be a good witness. I wouldn't expect a casual gun owner to aggressively maneuver on an active shooter, even if that tactic in theory might be best for that situation.

I can't speak for anyone else, but by close the distance if you can, I'm not talking about charging them in the open and drawing attention. I'm talking about using the environment and obstacles combined with individual movement techniques to close the distance under as much cover as available and w/o them seeing you. If that is not possible, well, then you either shoot from where you are at (better hit because if you are that exposed, now you are a sitting duck to their rifle), play dead, or try to escape.

 

[RX-79G]

Strambo,

I think that the specific tactic to be chosen in any given situation can't be predicted ahead of time.

Which has been my point all along - there is no wrong range to shoot. The tone of many of the posts I've responded to was that you should not fire at some particular range, which is ridiculous. You move, fire as necessary - there aren't any rules.


Would creeping up be a good tactic? Sure, but not solely because shooting a handgun at longer range is so difficult that it shouldn't be attempted. I would especially consider moving if the handgun I have is especially inaccurate AND low capacity. Otherwise, if I believe I have a 50% chance of hitting the shooter - even with a .25 - I'll fire from the protection of distance. That's why I greatly prefer handguns with great mechanical accuracy over features like firing speed or reloading ease.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

RX-79G,

There can be no one best answer, it will all depend on the particulars of the exact situation and environment.

That said, I have stated multiple times if they are far away, don't know you are there, and you can have a free shot or 2, it makes sense to take it!

I think the harder choice is in the intermediate range (say 25-50) where rifle and pistol are both decent options. Do you engage the superior weapon from where you are at, or try to get real close w/o them seeing you and negate their superior weapon? If you miss or don't take them out...they now are shooting at you with more firepower (to punch through cover), more accuracy, and probably more capacity.

If you closed first (are able to do so without drawing attention to yourself), you could also engage H2H if the pistol bullets don't stop them. Now, if that isn't in your skillset, or at least a lot of CQC shooting training, I'd either take my free shots and beat feet, or just escape and be a good witness. I wouldn't expect a casual gun owner to aggressively maneuver on an active shooter, even if that tactic in theory might be best for that situation.

I can't speak for anyone else, but by close the distance if you can, I'm not talking about charging them in the open and drawing attention. I'm talking about using the environment and obstacles combined with individual movement techniques to close the distance under as much cover as available and w/o them seeing you. If that is not possible, well, then you either shoot from where you are at (better hit because if you are that exposed, now you are a sitting duck to their rifle), play dead, or try to escape.

Since we are talking active shooters, Micahel Bane in his,podcasts has been describing in some of these horrific recent shootings ther are two individuals. One is racking shooting the innocents and the other shooter is acting as over watch to keep people for getting close to the shooter. May make getting in closer in with a pistol more difficult. Food for though. I think Gabe Suarez has also been discussing this active shooter topic in the past few months as well ,

 

[Varminterror]

Lots of posts, lots of thoughts. I didn't read every word of all 4 pages, so maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone else pull the common sense card.

Observe your surroundings wherever you visit to establish your own understanding of the ranges possible.

I'm not a professional Risk Manager (was certified as such at one point), nor do I work in Law Enforcement/Public Safety, but I do a lot of Risk Assessment work in my business, at various levels, including Failure Mode & Effect Analysis, Response planning, and Preventative Preparation & Planning. The foundation of these processes are the same whether you're developing an Active Shooter Response plan, planning emergency response routes, designing process safety control programs, or something as trivial as planning to build a new McDonald's restaurant. After doing it this long, I almost can't help myself - when I pull into a parking lot, I can't help but start compiling ranges, cover opportunities, blind spots, places where I'd feel vulnerable... I spend time working with folks from my handgun classes planning their home defense paradigms as well using these same processes - is your response to a bump in the night the same if it's a guy crawling through your basement window vs. kicking in your front door?

Proper Planning Prevents P!ss Poor Performance

When you pull in somewhere you often visit - take a second to read the lay of the land, note some approximate ranges, look for blind spots, cover spots, exits. When you're shopping somewhere, take note of the exits, take note of physical barriers - both for egress inhibitors as well as opportunistic cover. Take note of eye lines, traffic flow, bottlenecks, and dead-ends.

As odd as it might seem, Risk Assessors have to look at preventative planning in the same way a potential attacker would - go on google earth to review maps of these locations, search for mall maps to identify exit points and ranges. Worst thing that can happen when you find yourself in an Active Shooter situation is to need to LOOK for an escape, instead of knowing where to go.

In a situation where you only have a handgun and your attacker has a rifle, focus should be on escape and avoiding the opportunity to turn yourself into a target. Best way to avoid dying in a gun-fight is to avoid getting into one. Drawing a gun and firing at long range is a great way to draw fire. Unless you end it with that shot, or those few shots before his muzzle finds your direction, your day (and everyone around your position) is about to go from really bad, to really, really, really really F'ing bad if you miss or fail to stop the threat and you draw shots to yourself.

 

[RX-79G]

Super advice and all, but I think everyone is taking it for granted that if they could simply run away, they would.

In crowded places panic tends to cram the exits, preventing even a normal rate of egress.


If you think you can risk assess your way out of any danger, than you wouldn't feel the need to carry a gun, or think about this topic.

 

[Old Guy]

rx79g.

Super advice and all, but I think everyone is taking it for granted that if they could simply run away, they would.

In crowded places panic tends to cram the exits, preventing even a normal rate of egress.


If you think you can risk assess your way out of any danger, than you wouldn't feel the need to carry a gun, or think about this topic.

I am a bit old for running, certainly not leaving my wife doing that exiting stage left! So step to one side, keep out of the traffic flow, seeing no weapons or threats, leave my Glock 19 holstered, the responding LE are focused on weapons.

As I have a Blue Ant ear piece, top of the line communicating device, one touch open the ear piece. Say the word for Police (not that word) and 911 is on the line. A situation like this, a Supervisor would be on the phone right quick!

I want to be known as a non threat, and well covered description wise.
As for shooting a active shooter in the back? No problem. All's fair, in love and war.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Yes, most people will simply run away if they can, even if they have a gun. This is because they are not trained to deal with such situations. Keep in mind that most folks with CCWs are not great combat shooters. Most have never shot on the move or worked at shooting moving targets. Very few have any practice in the use of firing from and using cover. They don't shoot any further than what their CCW test requires. Only a small percentage of CCW people are going to be skilled and going to attempt to stop the shooter, very small, and even then the risk to them will be huge - (Google "Mark Wilson Tyler Courthouse" and "Byron Wilson Houston shooting").

 

[bearcreek]

This is because they are not trained to deal with such situations. Keep in mind that most folks with CCWs are not great combat shooters. Most have never shot on the move or worked at shooting moving targets. Very few have any practice in the use of firing from and using cover. They don't shoot any further than what their CCW test requires. Only a small percentage of CCW people are going to be skilled and going to attempt to stop the shooter, very small, and even then the risk to them will be huge

True. Almost the exact same thing can be said of a significant majority of police officers. Most are not great combat shooters and very rarely if ever work on shooting on the move or moving targets after academy. Very few work on shooting from or using cover. Many don't shoot beyond what their annual qualification requires, which is ridiculously easy, at least here in Ohio. Please understand I'm not suggesting that you're incorrect. You're 100% right. There are far too many people who carry a weapon daily, both civilians and police, who do not practice and get training nearly as much as they should. I would love to see the day when an active killer could confidently expect to be gunned down by a competent shooter within the first few steps of a shooting spree. I'm not naive enough to think it'll happen on a national level but it's a worthy goal anyway I think.