Define "Good Enough"

[Blackhawk 6]

In terms of pure individual shooting performance (lets put safety and mindset issues aside for the moment), what is the minimum level of performance you would accept from yourself in order to carry a weapon defensively? To help put it in perspective, if you were unable to demonstrate this level of performance during one a practice session, you would have severe reservations about carrying your weapon in public. This is a self-imposed standard, not a legal one.

For Example: You are good enough if, from concealment, you can draw and fire two rounds in two seconds on an 8" target at 5 yards.

Feel free to include your standards for rifles and shotguns as well.

Edited: To clarify the original post.

 

[Arc-Lite]

I do not consider a minimum level to be acceptable for offense of defense, and doing it once, means you have shown it once only,and is not acceptable. offense and defense has one common thing, and that is responsibility. Arc-Lite

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Being as I don't get to shoot fresh human carcasses, what I would want demonstrated isn't possible for me to do. So I have to rely on statistics.

Otherwise, the caliber must be .380 or larger and reliable (pistol). Reliability is in function and performance. I have an AR15 in 5.56. The barrel is worn out and the slugs are not stable in flight, so it is out as it does not perform correctly.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Double-Naught Spy,
I am confused. Were you referring to weapon performance? I was referring to individual performance, not weapon performance. My apologies for not being clear.

Arc-lite,
I am not advocating accepting a minimum standard. I am curious as to what others define as the threshold between an acceptable level of performance and an unacceptable level of performance. Your point about isolated incidents with regard to performance is well-taken.

 

[GEM]

I'm taking the question as meaning personal rather than legal. Sort of like when will I give up driving a car?

I'll take a stab at it (if I can't carry a gun ). I imagine if I couldn't reliability hit within a B-27 at seven yards, then I might have doubts about myself.

However, given the proven deterrence value of a firearm, I would carry a revolver loaded with very load blanks to scare the crap out of an attacker - this is a mild joke.

I am torn about performance standards for carry in a legal sense as most standards may be problematic for older folks and the 2nd Amend. issue.

 

[ClarkEMyers]

Safe to use and works as intended - the gun or me

My first criterion might be called mindset - I won't carry mentally or emotionally impaired - that might mean not going out much if I'm fighting a cold.

For mechanical performance I demand:

first that the instrument do no unintended harm, no low number Springfield, Ross bolt, cracked locking block kind of issues. I don't want to be balancing risk/return up to the last minute.

second that the instrument be reliable - better an Astra or a Jr. Colt in .22 short than a pinned and recessed Magnum with a reworked action that only works intermittently with some Federal primers after multiple restrikes.

For the rest I'm not so much going to demand a level of performance - a par time on El Presidente or a classification level on the IDPA standard - useful as these things might be.

Rather I will adjust my mindset to my perceived current abilities - acknowledging that I just might bite off more than I can chew.

By analogy I drove nothing but a 4X4 (a real 4X4 with limited slip front and rear - some risk of slip and grip steering but I never had a problem with it) with good winter tires and chains as appropriate in the winter for many years - I seemed to do all right getting around. Then one winter I had to drive a Chevy Caprice a lot. I was worried that I would be a total disaster in the car. In the end it worked out just fine. I adjusted my mindset to react to a much lower threat level from the weather much more aggressively - notice that I mean by that I was much more careful, much more aware of my surroundings much more aware of where my momentum was taking me - kept my momentum up where I had no traction and planned my next turn well in advance - not that I challenged the weather but that I reacted much sooner in the Caprice than I would in a well set-up 4X4.

A lesson and reminder not to let a perfect gun (my preferred 9X23 say) go with me someplace I wouldn't go without it. Don't have to make an entry just because you have an entry gun when a phone call will get the message across.

 

[NMshooter]

My "maximum allowable engagement distance" is the distance at which I feel confident of keeping all my rounds in the target.

This depends on my current level of proficiency with a given firearm more than anything else. That means it changes, depending on how much practice I get with that firearm, and that I must constantly evaluate myself. Of course, I must also be honest with myself, or this is all meaningless.

Once upon a time I was willing to take head shots out to 15 yards. I do not currently maintain that level of proficiency.

If you are looking for numbers that may be applicable to people in general, I am not sure I can help. Acceptable levels of performance vary wildly, depending on the tactics used by the shooter. An example would be someone who only takes contact shots.

 

[P95Carry]

My main personal watchword is - ''familiarity'' and I rate that above pure accuracy competence (perceived!). Along with that of course is a reliability factor - that of course is gun for most part.

Thru familiarity (which predicates some measure of practice) is the ability to use a tool to best advantage and with maximum fluency. In the event I have to bring into play the ultimate sanction, I would hope that said fluency will be what enables me to stand a fighting chance ... better to get into play quickly and easily and get the shots off, than fumble and fiddle to then get into play with perhaps greater accuracy, too late ... debatable some might say. A combination of the two is, naturally, what we might all strive for.

I do occasionally change my carry piece - for one of many reasons - I will not however choose a piece with which I do not feel able to handle in ''auto'' mode ... and that is not meaning semi's - it means use thru muscle memory etc.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I'd have to say that if I couldn't safely hit a 9 or 10 ring with every shot at 7 meters in a rapid fire situation, I would reconsider carrying.
This is my threshold for minimum performance.
Otherwise, what am i doing? Do I need more practice? Do I need a better weapon? Do I need better ammo.

This may seem a strict standard, but gauging range performance against the backdrop of potentiality in a stressful situation, I believe, calls for a strict standard.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Ryder]

That's an interesting and fairly personal question.

I do have handguns which I will not carry since I don't shoot them often enough to know where they hit with confidence. Sorry but I don't put safety aside.

I tune myself to a specific handgun and load using either 50 meter 22 rifle bulls at 25 yards. I like that there are several on a sheet. Not many combinations hit to point of aim and I do need to be comfortable with my precision. I don't trust that I can pick up just any pistol and get a headshot at 25 yards. When I can't expect to do that it will not be an option. Speed is just not a priority for me on distance shots.

I practice speed at arm's length while stepping away using 8 inch pie plates or a silouhettes head. What I strive for is to get the first shot off before "the target" knows I am armed. I want it to be such a shock to "the target" that it won't realize what is happening until at least the next two rounds (and my first step back) have landed. How long is that? I don't know, no timer here, but I'm not worried it's too slow and even if it was there may be no choice but to give it your best try. These groups are well confined (large grapefruit) but tend to follow the first shot since I point shoot up that close. So what is my good enough? Missing my target isn't good enough. My biggest perceived problem in doing this is running the mag dry. It's too much fun and those darn paper targets are so hard to stop!

 

[The Rabbi]

Consistent and rapid hits on a 9" plate at a maximum of 20 feet. That is roughly the NRA standard, btw.

 

[Dave R]

Blackhawks's and Rabbi's standards for handguns are pretty similar, and that's about what I would feel comfortable with.

Rifle? For hunting purposes, I'm not happy with more than 4MOA from rested field positions. Maybe up to 8" at 100 yards from offhand positions.

For shotgun? 50% at trap or skeet should be enough for defensive use...

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually I would continue to carry as long as I could draw the gun, point it away from me and pull the trigger.

 

[Mute]

I have a couple of problems with this whole "good enough" idea.

1. That meeting a certain minimum performance capability is "good enough." You could easily find that to be false.

2. That if you cannot meet that minimum requirement, you shouldn't carry a gun. You should carry if you can prove yourself to be safe with a firearm and circumstances allow for it.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

That if you cannot meet that minimum requirement, you shouldn't carry a gun.

The question posed was what do you consider the minimum level of acceptable shooting performance in order to carry a gun. It is a self-imposed standard. Based on your response, I take it you do not have one. That is a valid answer to the question posed.

You should carry if you can prove yourself to be safe with a firearm and circumstances allow for it.

So I understand what you are saying, as long as you observe the four rules you can carry a gun; you would be comfortable carrying if you knew you could not hit a silhouette at 5 feet. I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I am interested in your opinion.

 

[RandyC]

As far as I can tell, good enough can only be determined after-the-fact, that is walking away from a shooting encounter with your body intact. Up to that point you can only practice to get better. Until that terrible time should occur , deciding you are good enough would IMO be dangerous.

 

[HankB]

"Good enough" means I know and can apply the proper manual of arms for my carry piece, I can carry and draw safely, i.e., I won't blow my foot off or simply drop the pistol when drawing from the holster, and I know when and where I can use the pistol.

Passing the TX CHL shooting test requires only a modest level of shooting at 3, 7, and 15 yards on a full size silhouette . . . a level based on average police qualification requirements. (IIRC, 180 out of 250 is "passing.")

From what I've seen, far too many police officers struggle to meet this definition of "good enough."

 

[Blackhawk 6]

HankB,

You raise an interesting point. Some people are quick to point out the lack of skill on the part of law enforcement or the military, yet when the opportunity arises to identify their personal, quantifiable standard the majority of responses become generic. Interesting....

Based on the responses so far, most people expect very little from themselves when they put a gun on. Not good. Not bad. Just surprising.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ambush??

Based on the responses so far, most people expect very little from themselves when they put a gun on. Not good. Not bad. Just surprising.

That was not the original question. The original question was what was the least we would be comfortable with. That is a far cry from what our actual expectations are.

 

[DT Guy]

I am 'comfortable' when I can raise a handgun suitable for defense (i.e., not my .22 target pistol) and fire one round without hesitation into a 6" circle at 20 yards-the maximum length of a potential engagement in my home.

Larry

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Rabbi,

No ambush. You are correct. I was wondering what the least anyone would be comfortable with was. But when the least you would be comfortable with is not dropping your gun when you draw, I find that surprising.

 

[The Rabbi]

But when the least you would be comfortable with is not dropping your gun when you draw, I find that surprising

Generally though I strive for a little more competance than that. Sometimes I even achieve it.

When I first went to IDPA I set two goals:
1) Not to kill or wound myself or anyone else.
2) Not to get disqualified.

Anything beyond those two I counted as a win. I did achieve my goals that time. I say, set low expectation and you wont be disappointed!

 

[strambo]

Some people are quick to point out the lack of skill on the part of law enforcement or the military, yet when the opportunity arises to identify their personal, quantifiable standard the majority of responses become generic. Interesting....

Not necessarily a double standard though. We, the taxpayers, pay our professional military and law enforcement to protect us, the citizenry, as a full time job. Personal protection is not a full time paid position...if someone else were paying for these posters to do nothing but actively protect themselves and family as a professional, I'd imagine they would have higher minimum standards.

 

[Model520Fan]

My "maximum allowable engagement distance" is the distance at which I feel confident of keeping all my rounds in the target.

This depends on my current level of proficiency with a given firearm more than anything else. That means it changes, depending on how much practice I get with that firearm, and that I must constantly evaluate myself. Of course, I must also be honest with myself, or this is all meaningless.

Once upon a time I was willing to take head shots out to 15 yards. I do not currently maintain that level of proficiency. . . .

I basically agree with this way of looking at the question, with a few more variables thrown in. First, I don't trust my target performance. Things happen differently in a kill-or-be-killed situation. Second, I would take a head shot at ANY distance if it were necessary to save a life and a miss didn't add to the danger. Some times misses are dangerous to bystanders, and occasionally you may know that they are not, or at least not even remotely approaching the danger you are trying to deal with.

As already noted, almost any deterioration of skills will still allow for carry - it is only the permissible engagement distance that MAY decrease, depending on the consequences of missing.

 

[Black Snowman]

I've been mulling this over for a while. I'd say as long as my judgement is sound I'd be comfortable carrying a gun. If possible I'll carry the gun I perform best with. Which right now would be My Remington 11-87 or my Bushmaster M17S from unsupported positions. That's a little large for concealment so my best pistol option right now is my CZ 85 Compact.

I'm not going to perform my best in these situations so holding myself to an artifical standard and expecing it to hold up under stress is unrealistic. I'll to what I can to improve my confidence. That includes carrying what I perform best with.

The best is all I can give. Only time can tell if it's "Good enough."