Not sure why we've drifted so far here... but I'll answer the question posed regarding my statement in the other thread:
This wasn't a fight, it was a game. If a carbine was the prefered weapon why not restrict the match to carbines? At 15 yards the pistol should do. Beyond 50 the carbine might be the better choice. I got the impression that some competitors might need the carbine because they're ability to hit where they needed to with a pistol was limited to 15 yards and backwards.
If true, that's sad performance.
Perhaps the Old Fuff is jesting or sidestepping the point in order to poke some fun at the newer generation of shootists?
The point of the seemingly misunderstood statement was not WHETHER someone could shoot a target at a certain distance with proficiency, with either a rifle or pistol, but rather -- when shooting for a combination of accuracy and speed on target (and transitions between targets) -- which platform allowed that shooter to do so with the most optimal balance of speed and accuracy.
I believe the Old Fuff would find the ability of many top-tier competitive shooters in the action games to shoot well at distance to take a back seat to very few of the great shootists of his acquaintance and experience. These are not folks who cannot get the job done with a pistol at greater than 15 yds.
The question being explored in that post was directly this: at what distance does the greater ease of practical accuracy with the carbine or rifle allow a shooter to make accurate shots more quickly on multiple targets than the same shooter could make with a handgun?
I've associates who's opinions I value greatly (JShirley for one) who assure me that, with proper training, a carbine will allow you to engage targets much faster, accurately, than with a handgun -- from distances of "long range" down to "bad-breath distance."
My own experiences and practice lead me to believe that the handgun may truly reign over the long gun -- because of speed of deployment and transition while making equally accurate shots -- at distances out to 15 yds, or maybe beyond.
In other words (whew!): Given an array of "threats" at distance 'A', and the task of landing two "A-zone" or "Down 0" hits on each, will a skilled shooter be able to do that faster with a pistol or with a carbine? If distance 'A' is 5 yds? If 'A' is 15 yds? If 'A' is 50 yds?
At some radius of distance from the shooter, I postulate there is a transition point where the handgun stops being faster at producing adequately accurate hits, and the ease of aiming of the carbine makes it faster. Others say the carbine simply is superior at all distances.
[Edit: FWIW, this comes into play in "non-game" discussions fairly often as well. In every discussion wherein someone seeks advice about what gun to keep stoked for home-defense, the majority opinion is that a long-gun is the obvious and only correct answer. I've stated that I shoot a handgun many hundreds of times more often in practice than I do a long-gun of any type, and that I believe (and can prove with a shot timer) that I am faster and more accurately on target with a handgun at all distances possible within or around my home -- and that I find it much easier to negotiate around obstacles and structures with a handgun. (Even though I am trained and practiced with rifles and shotguns under those conditions as well.) My comments are often pooh-poohed as unrealistic because the long gun is simply superior.]
